Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to express a great deal of respect for my friend and colleague for his concern and interest in a great variety of different public policy issues, and also their ethical implications. He studies these issues. He is concerned about them. He brings them into the public debate and discussion. We always listen with great interest to his presentations on these matters because he has given this a great deal of thought. Even so, I must rise to oppose this amendment. I can understand the good Senator's frustration that we do not have a real opportunity to have the kind of debate on a freestanding bill that could give the Senate the benefit of a good discussion on this issue. Unfortunately, we are here at 20 minutes of 10. There are just a few of us here at this time, and we will only have a few minutes tomorrow to deal with an issue of enormous importance and consequence. Millions of American children are born with deadly diseases such as cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy that result from flaws in the DNA code. One of the most promising ways to cure these afflictions is to correct these DNA errors using gene therapy. If these flaws could be corrected before birth, millions of children could live their entire lives free of the debilitating symptoms of cruel genetic disorders. Yet the Brownback amendment would ban any attempt to cure children of deadly disorders such as cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy by correcting their DNA flaws before birth. It even goes so far as to imprison doctors who try to save their lives and relieve their suffering. The Brownback amendment is opposed by a wide range of organizations representing patients, doctors, scientists, and the biotechnology industry. They know this amendment would have a chilling effect on the biomedical research that gives hope to millions of Americans at risk for genetic diseases. The amendment is so broad that it will criminalize several promising areas of biomedical research, even including gene therapy in adults. This important, complex topic deserves a thoughtful and measured response, and not the indiscriminate prohibition that the Brownback amendment proposes. The American people do not support the sweeping prohibitions that the Brownback amendment would impose. A recent study funded by the NIH conducted by the University of Michigan found that 65 percent of the public opposed a ban on prenatal gene therapy, and only one in five of those support such a ban. There are great numbers of genetic diseases, and there are great numbers of inherited diseases. Those that come to mind quickly are cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy, Tay-Sachs, Cooley's disease, and many others in the cystic fibrosis area. It is basically an issue involving a single gene. That is also true in muscular dystrophy. Just think if we were able to get to the point where a parent would be able to see the alteration of that gene so that the child that was going to be born would be free from muscular dystrophy or from cystic fibrosis by altering the DNA. We can easily understand where the language that is included may not be the purpose of the Senator, but certainly the language I think is sufficiently vague as to prohibit some promising research. At this time, I think this is a matter of enormous importance. I don't think we really ought to be dealing with this issue on this bill. I can understand the Senator's frustration in not being able to have the debate in the Senate and to hear the different views on this issue. But I believe we ought to defeat the amendment for now, have additional review and study and hearings, and that we ought to then consider the various public policy issues and the ethical issues that surround it.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am prepared to yield back the time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, it is interesting to listen to my friend and colleague. The fact is, the last President, President Clinton, put those in through Executive orders to cover those because of the delay of the Republican leadership in letting us get through this bill over the last 5 years. So rather than wait and wait and wait, we had a Democratic President put them into effect. Now if a collective bargaining unit or contract expires on October 2, they go in prior to the time of the insurance coverage. They will go in months ahead of the insurance. If the contract expires on October 5, that goes in before July of the next year. So they get more protections than those being covered by the insurance. This is just a way of saying if the contracts are out there, we are going to respect the termination of those contracts, whether it is in the insurance or in collective bargaining. Evidently, the Senator wants to use this as a device to punish some of their enemies, the unions in this case, to try to use the legislative process to do so. I hope we will reject that.

Mr. KENNEDY. Then I ask for 4, 2 each side.

Mr. KENNEDY. I understand he was talking about teachers in Nevada; public employees is the example he gave. I find this enormously interesting because both Senators voted for the Collins amendment that excluded 139 million Americans. They only included 56 million. They were going to have the protections. The others were going to be dependent upon whether the States actually moved ahead and passed the various protections. One of the groups that was left out of the Collins amendment was public employees, such as firefighters, schoolteachers, and others. We resisted that. No one has fought harder to make sure we are going to have comprehensive coverage since day 1 of this program. Now we are being flyspecked because somehow there are some who, under certain circumstances, are going to come into these protections on a different calendar. Madam President, we have tried to include people who are going to have coverage from insurance. We are going to respect the contract. When those insurance contracts expire, whether it is in January, whether in July, the protections go into effect. The same is true of the collective bargaining agreement. We have done that in other times. It has worked, and worked effectively. As I say, I believe the consumers, as well as employers--the employers from whom we have heard, and we have had many examples--indicate they cannot wait to get these protections in place. It isn't that people will delay getting in; it will be because they want to get in and get in more quickly.

Mr. KENNEDY. I did not understand, did the Senator say that public employees were not covered? Does he understand that to be the case?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, how much time do I have?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the Senator ought to read page 174 because this language is very clear, precise, and exact. It does not permit what he just said it permitted, and that is the rollovers. It just does not permit it. The Senator can state it, and he can misrepresent it, which he just has, but it is not the fact. On line 5, it says: ``relating to the plan terminates,'' and that is when it ends. That is when it has to be implemented. This idea that it can roll over and over, for 10, 15 years, is not what the legislation says. The fact is, with insurance, many start in January, many others start in July. We have tried to say when that contract plan year, which is a term of art that refers to when that insurance transitions, we will implement it at that time, and the same should be true with the collective bargaining agreements. I would think the overwhelming majority of the workers and employers would be eager to get these protections. We are going to find out many will work out arrangements so they get the protections even earlier.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 5 minutes. Madam President, I direct my colleagues' attention to the lines 15 and 16 on page 173. They talk about ``for plan years.'' That is an art of words that applies to insurance companies, and it says, ``beginning on or after'' plan years. As we know, the insurance starts generally at the first of every year. So with regard to insurance companies, the Senator is completely wrong. This does not apply for insurance companies because there are existing contracts. We have heard a great deal in this debate about the sanctity of the HMO contract and how we are not going to permit--in terms of the standards for the treatment of patients--they are going to be tied completely to the contract. I don't know how many hours I listened to that. Now we see that we are respecting the contract in insurance and we expect the same--to respect the contract in terms of collective bargaining. It is simple as that. This is boilerplate, Madam President. We did this in the HIPAA program, and there was no row about it at that time. People understood. There was a normal transition, and we didn't have objections at that particular time. So that is what we have done here. There are existing contracts in insurance, and we take it to the next time when the insurance plans are going to be implemented. There are existing collective bargaining agreements. We are going to take it at the next time when they are going to be renegotiated because of the respect for the existing contracts. So what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, Madam President, particularly when we are listening to so much about the importance of contracts and that we ought not interfere with them, even if it is going to be as a matter of medical necessity, and that we are going to be bound by them because they are so important and sacred. There is a sanctity of the contracts. I listened to that for 5 hours, and now we find out in the final hours of this that, oh no, that is not true regarding collective bargaining. We are going to interfere with ongoing collective bargaining agreements. That just doesn't make sense. This is what we have done at other times. It says insurance, generally, at the start of a year--some are longer and they will be respected in that way just as we do regarding collective bargaining. I hope this amendment will not be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I am going to urge the Senate to accept the amendment tomorrow. I think we have had a good discussion about it. I hope that we will move ahead and accept it. I am prepared, when the Senators yield the time or use the time, to do that.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Ensign amendment we have just received. I have no objection to the earlier request. I am sure we will agree with this, but we would like for that, as far as it being locked in in terms of no second-degree amendments, just to have an opportunity to----

Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield back the time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take just a few moments of the Senate's time. The fact is, this provision, as stated on page 179, does not even go into effect until the year 2003. There is plenty of time for the Finance Committee to work it out if this isn't a satisfactory way of dealing with this issue. It is basically a bookkeeping issue. There is a judgment that is made by CBO that the value of a wage package is ``X,'' and if you are going to guarantee additional kinds of benefits in terms of health care, then the wages are going to go down, which is going to mean less money in terms of Social Security. This is actually a balance from the Budget Committee's point of view to make sure that the bookkeeping will be balanced. Tomorrow, we will hear from the chairman of the Budget Committee who will describe this and, at the appropriate time, make the point of order. I point out, though, it is my understanding that this has no impact or effect on the Customs Service. They will still receive the money. If they want to go through with their modernization, they will still be able to do that. But it basically ensures that this is going to conform to the budget consideration. That is the reason that this was put in there. There will be sufficient time for the Finance Committee to make any other kinds of adjustments and changes. To make it very clear, the resources that are collected in this are not to pay for the bill. It is basically a bookkeeping offset to what will be anticipated to be the shortfall in terms of the payments under the CBO estimate of the wage package because of the enhanced value, which I think ought to be encouraging for workers of their health benefits. So we will hear more from the Budget Committee tomorrow. At that time, the chairman of the Budget Committee will make a further comment, speaking for the Budget Committee. They are in support of our position.

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, I appreciate what the Senator from New Hampshire is attempting to do. We have every inclination to support that proposal up to this point, but we reserve possible second-degree amendments and a tabling motion. We do not intend at this time to exercise those until we see the amendments, but we are going to operate on a good faith measure. We are thankful for the leadership of the Senator from New Hampshire proceeding with those first two. There are some others we might be able to get a time agreement on, as well, if the Senator wants to mention them.

Mr. KENNEDY. On that there will be an objection to a time limit.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in just a few moments, I believe there will be a consent request by the minority floor leader to outline a series of amendments to consider and outline the order in which to take them up this evening, with disposition of those on the morrow. It is not the intention, as we have gone through amendments, to second degree them. We are not prepared to say that until we have an opportunity to see those amendments. We are trying to work through the amendments at the present time. I hope perhaps we can get started on the discussion, and then in a few moments time when we have a chance to see each of the amendments, we can come back with the leadership proposal for an agreement on time and order this evening.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, let me just mention what this amendment is all about. If an employer gives options to any employee, it can offer a program that is very inferior or it can provide a voucher that is inferior. You can't buy a good health insurance policy. If it offers those two options to any employee, and that employee denies it, then the employee who stays with that company is virtually excluded from bringing any action against the employer, no matter how involved the employer is in making medical decisions that can cause adverse reaction to that employee--either death or injury. That is a lousy choice. This is an option many companies will take. It will be at the expense of the employees. They can get two inferior options. If they reject it and stay with the company, they are excluded from the benefits and the protections of this bill. It is going to open up a great exclusion for millions of hard-working Americans and their families. It should be rejected.

Mr. KENNEDY. I have referred to that earlier, page 142, line 6. The coverage decision depends on a medically reviewable issue. On the matters dealing with the medically reviewable issue, the Supreme Court has indicated that it would be decided in the State courts. That is essentially what we have included in this language.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is wrong. That is taking it out of context. The fair way is to read the complete paragraph and go on to the next page.

Ted Kennedy

Speeches

Manage analytics