T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 222, S. 1402.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of any available appropriations bills. It is hoped that the Senate can make significant progress on appropriations bills this week. Therefore, amendments and votes are expected throughout tomorrow's session of the Senate. As a reminder, cloture on the substitute amendment to the juvenile justice legislation was filed today. By previous consent, that cloture vote will occur on Wednesday at 9:45 a.m. Further, the Senate is expected to begin consideration of the reconciliation bill during Wednesday's session of the Senate.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time, and the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2280. I further ask consent that the Senate proceed to its consideration, all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text of S. 1393 be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill be read the third time, and passed. I finally ask that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record and S. 1393 be placed back on the calendar.

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 216, S. 1393.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 27. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday immediately following the prayer the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business for 30 minutes with Senators speaking for up to five minutes each, and that the time be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. GORTON. I also ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 162 submitted earlier today by Senators Lott and Daschle.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that four amendments at the desk to S. 1217 be agreed to, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the bill be read the third time, and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Frist and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be agreed to. The committee amendments were agreed to. Amendment No. 1349 (Purpose: To provide minor technical changes)

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 205, S. 296.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due for its second reading.

Mr. GORTON. I object to further proceedings on this bill at this time.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, education has been one of the predominant topics of discussion during the 106th Congress. As you know, I have been vocal in my support of returning decision-making authority to local educators who know best how to address the unique needs of students in their communities. For too long, the federal government has focused on bureaucrats and red tape rather than students and classrooms. In my travels to schools across Washington state, I have heard from educators who are concerned that this burden of federal regulations and paperwork is restricting their ability to instruct children in a common-sense manner. I have had the pleasure of discovering a program which has found a way to thrive in an area which is particularly burdened with federal mandates and red tape--special education. Accordingly, I am pleased to present an Innovation in Education Award to the Hi-Point program at Franklin Pierce High School in Tacoma, WA. I and many of my colleagues in the Senate have heard from constituents about the effects of unfunded mandates on local classrooms. In spite of the burden states and school districts face because of unfunded federal special education mandates, the Hi-Point program has found a way to maximize its staff and community support to create an exemplary program. The key to Hi-Point's success lies with dedicated individuals whose zeal for their job and passion for success are infectious to those around them. Transition Specialist Brian Redman has displayed the kind of compassion, understanding, and drive to see what students can become despite their limitations. In fact, Principal Rick Thompson refers to him as a ``magician.'' Brian has been a Special Educator for over twenty years and the Hi-Point program's success can be attributed directly to the expertise, patience, and skill with which he leads an amazing team of coworkers. This teamwork includes weekly meetings by the Student Services Team to communicate ``best practices,'' and to produce ideas to meet the evolving needs of the students. The team combines the knowledge of the school psychologist, teachers, and a business teacher to ensure maximum preparation for those higher- functioning students who may be able to join the workforce. An examination of the work done by the Hi-Point staff indicates the numerous tasks required by those involved in special education. Those duties include: budgets, transportation, medications, individual study needs, parent contacts, and cooperation with all school district officials. Hi-Point also utilizes a nurse, a speech therapist, an occupational therapist, and a physical therapist. While this combination of services is not unheard of in many schools across Washington state, and America, it is the creativity of the Hi-Point program in balancing the special needs of its student population with limited budgets, legal restrictions, and at times, intense demands from parents which make the success of Hi-Point all the more striking. Hi-Point programs, coordinated with community agencies, include: A Personal Learning Lab for special needs students in need of support in regular curriculum classes. Basic Skills courses for developmentally delayed students--to learn simple math, how to use a calculator, how to sign a check, and other such necessary tasks. Life Skills such as riding the bus, doing laundry, and cooking meals which are necessary to function in the community. Field Trips to the Zoo, Bowling Alley, and the Grocery Store. Work Crews for Landscape and House Cleaning. An Auto Detailing program to serve as a training ground for students while providing an economic service to the community. Clearly, Hi-Point is not only maximizing its resources to meet the needs of special needs students but is doing so in a creative manner which also maximizes the learning experience of students involved in the program. Too often the Federal Government has done more harm than good in efforts to reach into local classrooms. It is time we changed the focus of federal education programs back to students and learning and away from bureaucracy and process. The Hi-Point program is a shining example of the innovation that can be accomplished in spite of burdensome red tape. Imagine what educators like those at Hi-Point could accomplish without these unnecessary regulations--that is the true untapped resource in education today. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the outstanding work of the Hi-Point staff and in supporting the common-sense idea that educators like Rick Thompson and Brian Redman deserve more say in Federal Eduation programs than Washington, DC, bureaucrats.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as the Senate debates education issues and initiatives, too often we talk in the form of numbers and statistics rather than concrete examples of excellence or success in our schools. A 5th grade teacher in the town of East Wenatchee, Washington has come to my attention for her exemplary service to her school, Lee Elementary, and to her community. Her name is Raschelle Freeman and I am pleased to present her with my Innovation in Education award. Ms. Freeman's list of accomplishments is certainly impressive. This year she was chosen as the Washington state recipient of the prestigious Christa McAuliffe Fellowship. Last January she was one of 100 teachers nationwide to receive the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics Teaching. This national recognition reflects the respect and admiration of those who work with Ms. Freeman each day. The Assistant Superintendent of the Eastmont School District, Ms. Beverly Jagla, says Ms. Freeman is the ``most effective'' educator she has ever met--``She is energy personified.'' Ms. Jagla further emphasized Ms. Freeman's dedication as a member of the faculty team at Lee Elementary as well as her great skill at mathematics instruction; a talent so considerable that Ms. Freeman leads workshops for superintendents, administrators, principals, and other teachers around Washington state that emphasize ``best practices'' for successful math education. Lee Elementary's former Principal, Ms. Kathy West, noted that in her 22 years in education she has never encountered a teacher who excelled in every instructional area. For example, this past year Ms. Freeman's class put on a major theater production, complete with music and costumes, that was so impressive students from other schools were bused in to see a performance. Ms. West also noted that 12 hour days are the norm for Ms. Freeman as she juggles her many pursuits. In addition to the time spent educating her students and peers, Ms. Freeman spends countless hours writing grant applications to bring more money and resources to her school district. The final testament to Ms. Freeman's devotion is the choice she made with the $34,000 McAuliffe Award. The funds are intended to allow the recipient to take time away from teaching to further his or her own continuing education. Ms. Freeman, however, chose to give the money to her school's Science Math with Accountability and Responsible Technology (SMART) project. The SMART program integrates reading, technical writing, math, science, and technology into an innovative model that will be used to improve the learning of students throughout Lee Elementary. I have long been a supporter of greater flexibility for local educators. It is educators like Raschelle Freeman that demonstrate local communities really do know best. The Federal Government should provide more flexibility to promote the work of educators like Ms. Freeman. I am proud to present her with my Innovation in Education Award, and I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing her accomplishments.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a sense of the Senate amendment regarding the recent unilateral action of the EU effectively banning hushkitted and re-engineered aircraft from operating in European Union states. If this rule is implemented on May 1, 2000 it will have a discriminatory impact on U.S. carriers and equipment manufacturers, not to mention setting a bad precedent for action by countries or groups of countries outside of the established International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards-setting process. This legislation was adopted by the EU on April 29, 1999, but implementation was delayed until May 2000 to allow U.S. and EU representatives to work out the framework of a new, more stringent global aircraft noise standard within ICAO. The Federal Aviation Administration and the State Department have been in negotiations with the EU on the eventual withdraw of this unfair and discriminatory statute. Many of my colleagues have seen recent efforts by the European Union to gain the upper hand over the United States in matters of trade. Aviation has proven to be no different. And this is deeply troubling, because aviation is not only a primary source of a favorable balance of trade for the United States, but, because of its global reach, represents an area where international standards are crucial to facilitating that commerce among nations. Yet, as I stated earlier, the EU has acted to preempt U.S. air carriers and carriers from other parts of the world from serving points in Europe with certain hushkitted or re-engineered aircraft. This restriction applies even though those aircraft fully comply with Stage 3 international noise standards adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). This European regulation, although its implementation has been deferred until May 2000, has already created financial hardships for U.S. aerospace manufacturers and airlines. It must be withdrawn or we will see a continued impact on U.S. jobs and profits. Modifying the rule or deferring its implementation for an added period of time will not offer the relief needed by U.S. aviation interests--the financial markets simply do not respond favorably to uncertainty. The U.S. government has engaged in extensive discussions with the European Council for the past year, without achieving a commitment to a repeal of this rule, which I might add expressly protects European aviation interests. The time has come to achieve a timely resolution of this problem through action. The Sense of the Senate resolution I offer today cites the need for complying with international standards in the aviation arena and highlights the problems the rule is causing for U.S. manufacturers and operators. Failing an early commitment by the Europeans to withdraw this arbitrary and discriminatory rule, the resolution calls upon the Department of State to initiate an Article 84 proceeding before ICAO. It is my understanding that this type of proceeding is not a sanctions mechanism, but instead affords a process that provides an opportunity for the international aviation body to rule on whether this regulation complies with international aviation standards. This Sense of the Senate further calls upon other agencies of the executive branch to use the tools at their disposal as well to achieve the early repeal of this rule. There is a broader point to be made as well, which is that, without restoring credibility to the international aviation standards process, we can have little or no confidence about any future international standards adopted by the international aviation community through ICAO. That is a very dangerous precedent for the global aviation environment in the future.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, nothing could more dramatically illustrate the differences in general attitudes and attitudes towards health care between the Senator from Massachusetts and the Members on this side than his statement that his bill would be preferable to ours because it would only ``cost'' the American people $7 billion, while ours would ``cost'' the American people $13 billion. In fact, of course, overwhelmingly, the ``costs'' of his bill will be evidenced in higher taxes on the American people. His so-called ``costs'' of our bill are, in fact, the reduction of taxes on the American people so they can use their own money to take care of more of their own health care costs. But to the Senator from Massachusetts, it is the same thing--more taxes, not less taxes. We do not think that is the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. In addition, of course, he ignores entirely the costs imposed on the American people by paying higher health insurance premiums. Those presumably are irrelevant. But the subject before us primarily is lawsuits. There is widespread agreement in this body and across the United States that the medical malpractice system is simply broken, that it comes too late, that it costs so much, that less than half of the dollars that it costs ever get to victims and the rest is consumed by lawyers and by the administration of the system itself. The problem is, of course, we have never come up with a majority for a way in which to fix that medical malpractice system. But the proposition that it is broken is very widely held. It is into that broken system the Democrats' plan pours another element of our health care system and says: Oh, the system may be broken, but the only solution is to make it worse, is to make it more widespread. Pouring good wine into a broken bottle with what impact? Better health care? No. We know the medical malpractice system doesn't create more and better health care. More lawsuits? Clearly, yes. One aspect of that broken system, of course, is the costs go not into providing better health care for the people of the country but into the system itself. But the patients--ultimately, the people who buy insurance, the people who consume health care--pay the entire bill, including all of the bills for the lawyers. With what impact? Higher costs for everyone who is insured and therefore fewer insured. But I think that is perhaps the least of the vices of the Democratic proposal because it allows, under certain circumstances at least, the employer--the person who is providing health care to his or her or its employees--to be sued. As well, it will drive logical and thoughtful employers out of the business of providing insurance at all. And it will do that in a devastating degree. I suspect that perhaps half of the employers, when they find they are going to be sued, will simply say: We are not interested in any more lawsuits. Sure. We will give each of our employees more money for the cost of that health insurance in cash, and the employee can do what he or she wishes with it. Some will ignore the cost of health care insurance and will become self-insured--some very much to their pain. Others will attempt to buy individual policies, which will inevitably cost more and give them less than any kind of group policy does. So we will have less insurance under this set of circumstances in order to have more lawsuits. Let's go back to this whole idea of medical malpractice as a broken system. What we should be searching for is a better system, and the better system is exactly the plan that the Republican proposal has. It says instead of lawsuits after the harm has been done with the reward, if any, coming 3, 4, or 6 years later, we tell the potential patient who thinks his health care system has not done right by him that he has a right to get an answer promptly before the damage is done. This is the system we ought to expand to other health care systems. This is the system we are asked by the Supreme Court of the United States to apply to asbestos litigation--a unanimous Supreme Court of the United States. But instead, if the Senator from Massachusetts has his way, we will simply take a broken system and apply it in more areas than it applies to right now. That is a perverse answer to a very serious question. We will not treat the patients. They will treat the court system.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as a parent and grandparent, I know there is nothing as important as taking care of one's family, especially if a family member is sick. If your daughter gets hurt, you want her healed. If your dad is ill, you want him to get better. It's human nature. Our compassion and desire to help our loved ones is limitless. Caring for your family is as natural as breathing. That's why good medical care is so important to all Americans. Health care is about security, it's about peace of mind. It's very personal. It's about your doctor, your hospital, and your health care plan. It should not be about attorneys, paperwork, and the massive federal government. America is blessed with the best medical care in the world, but the quality of our health care will be jeopardized if we fail to prepare for the challenges of this rapidly developing field. As Congress takes a hard look at the health care system, we need to take a step back from the partisan bickering so often associated with the political system and instead do what's best for our families. So as this debate in Congress ensues, I will support proposals, from either party, that will make health care better. These are the principles I advocate: Ensuring that Americans have access to the highest quality health care available; Making sure that your medical decisions are made by a doctor; Access to healthcare that is affordable; and Creating opportunities for families that are now uninsured to buy health care coverage. Washington families from Poulsbo to Pullman should have access to the best available care when they need it. Congress should implement common sense consumer protections for patients not covered by existing state laws. Patients should be able to go to the nearest emergency room without worrying about whether that hospital is a part of his or her insurance plan's network. They should simply get the care they or their families need. Woman should also have direct access to their ob-gyn for their health care needs, and children need to be able to see pediatricians who specialize in children's health care. The patient-doctor relationship is unique and very personal. Patients should be able to choose their physician; under the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act, which I support, they can. Patients should also be confident they are receiving the highest quality health care. It is difficult to keep abreast of the new developments and treatments in the fast-changing world of modern medicine. We have learned more in the last five years about how to improve health care than we learned in the prior 25 years. We need to make sure that hard-working doctors have the tools and the best information they need to provide the best care. Should patients have recourse if they think their plan has been negligent or unfairly denied them treatment? Absolutely. We need to look at models that work during this debate, and adopt health care reforms that move the standard of patient care forward, not back. Some in Washington, DC want to complicate the health care equation. Instead of a quick resolution and access to care when patients need it, patients would have to wait years for the courts to resolve the issue. The problem with that philosophy is that lawsuits are after the fact-- the damage is already done. We should focus on quality health care and on treating patients, not spending all time in court. After all, you can't sue your way back to health. Who benefits if we have more lawsuits? Clearly not the patients. One GAO study from 1987 found that cases with merit below $50,000 were unlikely to be pursued by plaintiff's attorneys. And, the time to payoff--if any--takes on average 33 months to be resolved; and medical malpractice claimants only received 43 cents on the dollar. Their plan would allow employers to be sued. But, for many small businesses one lawsuit would put them out of business. In fact 57% of small businesses said they would drop health care coverage for their employees rather than risk a lawsuit that could put them out of business. That is not good for families. I believe there is a better way. Patients should be able to hold their health plans accountable. New internal and external appeals provisions give all patients in group health plans that ability. If a patient believes his plan wrongly denied coverage for a health care service he can access a timely internal review conducted by the plan. If he still disagrees with the plan's determination, a patient can ask for an independent review conducted by a doctor who is a specialist in the area of dispute. The decision of the external review is binding on the plan and the court is able to award monetary penalties if the plan does not comply. There are those in Washington, DC that would extend the arm of the federal government into your families' health insurance--requiring you to pay for benefits you may or may not need. The Congressional Budget Office concludes that the bill offered by the Democrats would cause premiums to rise by 6.1 percent, or $355 per family. Ultimately, increased costs mean more American families can't afford insurance. The Lewin Group estimates that for every 1 percent increase in premiums 300,000 people lose their insurance coverage. A 6.1 percent increase would put health care out of reach for 1.8 million more Americans. In Washington state it means as many as 50,000 more Washingtonians may be unable to afford health insurance. That's unconscionable. Instead, insurance coverage needs to be more accessible to American families. One way to do that is to allow full deductibility of health insurance costs for those who are self-employed--the same benefit many businesses receive. Employees who pay for their families' insurance premiums should also be allowed that same tax deduction. Medical Savings Accounts should be made more broadly available--37 percent of the people currently enrolled in the MSA pilot program were previously uninsured. Our mandate is clear: ``first do no harm.'' This time-tested creed of the medical profession applies to this debate. The challenge is to provide common sense improvements to the current system but not at the expense of increased costs, more uninsured families, fewer health care choices, and another layer of government bureaucracy between patients and their doctors. Let me add, Mr. President, that I think it is important that we have this debate. But, unfortunately, both parties are engaging in political gamesmanship and procedural antics on the Senate floor; each hoping to prove it is the champion of the health care issue. What's the end result? A debate--but, just a debate. That result--no real progress--seems to me the exact result that political Washington, DC is hoping for. Where there was a glimmer of bipartisanship--for example on amendments that would give patients access to clinical trials or end the practice of drive-thru mastectomies--politics reigned. In the meantime, there is a growing crisis in our rural areas as seniors continue to lose access and choice in their health care options. We know that as mandates pile up the cost of providing health care increases. Yet, the Administration's answer to Medicare has been across the board reductions in payments to hospitals and insurance plans. Just two weeks ago a number of plans decided they could no longer afford to do business in Eastern Washington. There is now only fee-for-service in most of Eastern Washington meaning seniors will end up paying more for fewer benefits. Earlier this week, I attended a hearing at which rural hospital administrators testified about the impact of Medicare changes on access to care for seniors in rural areas. As the Administration develops payment systems, and issues its regulations and guidance for Medicare, I continually hear from the medical community, particularly those in rural areas, that the payment reductions and increased paperwork burden are simply intolerable. If hospitals and doctors can no longer do business in rural areas it ultimately means that the quality of care for seniors and other families living in our rural communities is in jeopardy. We must work towards more choice, access and quality care for all Americans; for those who may be in group health plans, the subject of this current debate, but also for seniors and those Americans living in rural communities. Congress' focus should be to create new opportunities for covering the uninsured by enacting provisions to make health insurance more affordable and accessible. We should pass common sense patient protections for those who are currently unprotected by state laws and all patients should be able to hold their health plans accountable. After all, health care is about security, it's about peace of mind, it's about your doctor, and your hospital; but most importantly, its about your family.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.