Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, it is my understanding, therefore, with the majority leader's action, we have effectively moved off discussion of the Patients' Bill of Rights, which we had before us for a very brief period of time this afternoon, and that is the result of the majority leader's action.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I thank the leader. He is giving the assurance that there is a possibility, hopefully, or an inevitability, that we will consider this legislation. There ought to be negotiations between the leaders. But would it be fair to say that it is the intention of the leadership at this time that we would have an opportunity to debate the Republican proposal and the Democratic proposal on the Patients' Bill of Rights?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for at least the assurance that some progress will be made. There is at least a very strong sense among many of those most concerned about this legislation that this is a priority for families in this country, and that we have dealt with other legislation, such as the juvenile justice bill. We worked that process through without limitations and restrictions, in a responsible way. It is certainly the intention of Senator Daschle, and others who are cosponsoring this legislation, to do it in a likewise manner. There is the determination that we will have an opportunity to do so, and we will do that. We want to be able to work that out. I know the leader does. I know that is the way it should be worked out. I am hopeful we will have an opportunity to address this in the Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I object.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that the time which remains be divided between the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Minnesota, after my 15 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the good Presiding Officer adds up the times, does that take us to 1 o'clock?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my colleague on the other side. I have been asked by the Senator from Michigan for some time. What is the remaining time to be divided between the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Minnesota?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask to proceed for 15 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will address the Senate this morning on a subject which I believe needs attention in the Senate and also needs action by this body, and that issue is the legislation called the Patients' Bill of Rights. The Patients' Bill of Rights is legislation which has been before the Senate for some 2 years. It is a rather simple bill. It is understandable. It is a rather commonsense bill. That is, we are, with this legislation, going to give assurances to the American people when they purchase insurance, that the medical profession, the doctors and the patients themselves, are going to make decisions related to the health care which affects them, rather than the accountants or insurance agents. Basically, that is what this legislation is about. There are a number of guarantees and protections included in the Patients' Bill of Rights, which I have addressed on other occasions and which I, again, will mention this morning. Every day we fail to take action on this legislation, we see what has happened in this country over the last 2 years; the patients suffer, while our Republican leadership refuses to schedule this particular legislation. During the 2 years that we have been blocked, effectively, from a Patients' Bill of Rights, HMO abuses have caused some 33 million patients difficulty in getting specialty referrals, delayed needed medical care for some 33 million patients, forced some 23 million patients to change their doctors, forced 14 million patients to change medications, denied payments for emergency services to 11 million patients--those are patients who use the emergency room, who felt they had a medical emergency but were denied the coverage from their HMO and had to pay for it out of their own pocket--and caused unnecessary suffering and financial loss and frustration for millions more. Over these last days, as we did last year, we have pointed out not only numbers but also in real terms what is happening to families all across this country. For those supporting a Patients' Bill of Rights, which is the legislation introduced by Senator Daschle, he has stated-- and others who support it have stated--that we are ready, willing and able to enter into time agreements, but we want to have this measure scheduled. We ought to be able to permit the Senate to vote on these measures. They are enormously important, as we have been reminded in the past days by my colleagues and others. We spent 5 days on legislation protecting various computer companies in this country from the potential of a Y2K glitch. We believe that we would not even need that amount of time to debate legislation that will provide protections for families, for parents, for loved ones, for husbands and wives, and particularly for children. We make the case--I do today--that it is time for the Congress to act to protect the patients against the abuses of managed care. Patients and doctors should make the medical decisions, not the insurance company accountants. Too often, managed care is mismanaged care. Members of the Senate know it. Doctors, nurses and other health care professionals know it. The American people know it. It is time for the Republican leadership to stop protecting the insurance company profits and start protecting patients. I point out that we have more than 200 organizations that support our legislation. It isn't that we just want to advance some proposal that has been assembled by the members of our party; there are those in the other party, including Dr. Ganske, a doctor who is a Republican, and others who support our proposal. But more than 200 organizations representing the medical profession--the nurses, the doctors, the consumers, those who have studied this program--favor our proposal. There isn't one--not one--we are still waiting to hear just one medical professional group that supports the Republican proposal. We are prepared to debate. But the American people, and those who are involved in the health care delivery system, those who are involved in research, those who are involved in protecting children, those who are involved in protecting women, those who are involved in protecting the disabled, those who are at the cutting edge in advancing research, understand the importance of this debate, this discussion, and votes here in the Senate. We think it is time that we get to the business of the families of this country by moving ahead and starting to have this measure before us. We have reviewed the proposal made by the Republican leadership. We are now 2 weeks before the July break. We believe we can handle this legislation prior to that period of time. We want this matter scheduled. We want to be able to move toward this debate. I remember the comments that have been made in recent times by the Republican leadership: Well, we need to have a certain number of amendments. We can have two amendments, three amendments, four amendments, but we are not going to permit this matter to be brought before the Senate unless we have a prior agreement for three or four amendments. That was last year, and we are again being denied the opportunity to debate this legislation even though we had before the Senate, just a very few weeks ago, the juvenile justice bill. There was no limitation on the number of amendments at that time. We had many contested amendments during that debate on the issue of gun control. We had a series of amendments, but nonetheless we had action on that legislation. We debated it, and then we brought that measure to a close. We did it in the longstanding, 200-year tradition of the Senate. We believe that on a matter which is of fundamental importance and significance to families that we ought to follow that procedure and that we ought to move ahead on this legislation at this time. During the past year and a half, the Republican leadership has effectively used every trick in the book to delay or deny action on this issue. It is no secret what is going on. Stonewalling tactics have stalled consideration of this legislation for more than a year. It was just over a year ago, on June 18, 1998 that Senator Lott proposed to bring up the bill on terms that made a mockery of the legislative process. That proposal would have allowed the Senate to proceed to HMO reform but permitted the majority leader to pull the bill down at any time. The agreement also barred the Senate from considering any other health care legislation for the rest of the year. Do we understand--do the American people understand what was being proposed for debate in the consideration of a Patients' Bill of Rights? The majority leader said: Well, I'll bring it up, but I'll be able to pull it down if I want. And if we bring it up, we have to have the assurance that no other legislation dealing with health care would be permitted on the floor of the Senate. That was the proposal a year ago. Obviously, we were not willing to agree to that proposal because that was completely in conflict with the public's interest for debate and discussion about these matters. On June 23 of last year, 43 Democratic Members wrote to Senator Lott to urge that he allow a debate and votes on the merits of the Patients' Bill of Rights. We requested that the Senate address the issue before the August recess. The response, on June 24 of last year, almost a year ago, was that Senator Lott simply repeated his earlier unacceptable offer. Then on June 25 a year ago, Senator Daschle proposed an agreement in which Senator Lott would bring up the Republican bill by July 6 so that Senate Daschle could offer the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights, and the Senate could offer relevant amendments to HMO reform. The Democratic leader had indicated that every amendment would be relevant to the proposal, that there would be only relevant amendments to the Patients' Bill of Rights. Yes, that was rejected as well. The next day, on June 26, the majority leader offered a proposal, once again, that allowed him to withdraw the legislation at any time and bar consideration of any other health care legislation. That was on June 26. That is twice they did it almost a year ago, and we are no to a debate. It goes on. On July 15, 1998, he made another offer. This time he proposed an agreement that allowed for no amendments. He would bring up his bill, we could bring up ours, and that is it--all or nothing. The American people would be denied votes on key issues, denied key protections, too. On July 29 and on September 1, the Republican leader offered variations of the proposal. I could go on--and will--but it is just an indication of how long and how hard we have been trying to get this matter before the Senate in order to be able to try and vote on this. Many Members of this body say: Well, we know it is not being called up because of various interests and interest groups. But let me just remind the Senate what has happened. See if they are somewhat troubled by it when we talk about interest and interest groups. Not long ago, Mr. Gradison, who is the former head of the Health Insurance Association of America, was asked in an interview published in the Rocky Mountain News, to sum up the strategy of the special interests that are committed to blocking meaningful reform on the Patients' Bill of Rights. Acording to the article, Mr. Gradison replied, ``There's a lot to be said for `just say no.' '' The author of the article goes on to report: At a strategy session called by a top aide to Senator Don Nickles, Gradison advised Republicans to avoid taking public positions that could draw fire during the election campaign. Instead of participating in a productive debate on how best to assure that all patients have the protections currently afforded only to those fortunate enough to be in the best plans, such as Members of the United States Congress and the Senate, insurance companies and their allies in the business community have heeded the call of the Republican leadership. The leadership aide, acting on the behalf of Senator Lott, urged the industry in 1997 to get off their butts and get off their wallets and block reform. The Republican leadership directed these special interest friends to write the definitive paper trashing all these bills, and they have responded accordingly, pouring tens of millions of dollars into paid advertising, ginned-up studies, and lobbying campaign coffers of those who are willing to stand in the way of the much-needed change. Over $100 million has been spent in distortion and misrepresentation on this legislation, Mr. President. The interesting thing is, even with $100 million spent, if you take the various studies and reviews out there, not just the case studies which come to our offices every day, but any of the measurements that are being taken out there about people's concerns, you find that it really hasn't impacted families in this country. They know what is happening every single day, and they know the kinds of protections they need. They know the importance of this legislation. What are we basically talking about in terms of these commonsense rights? How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. These are the commonsense rights: The right to a specialist, if you have a condition serious enough to require specialty care--no parent should be told that his child, with a rare cancer, will be treated by an HMO adult oncologist when the physician lacks the expertise needed to save the child--the right to prescription medicines that your doctor knows best that you need; the right to go to the nearest emergency room without financial penalty; the right to participate in clinical trials--that is so important with the whole range of new breakthrough drugs--the right to continue care if you are in the middle of a course of treatment and your doctor is dropped from a network or your employer changes insurance plans; the right to a speedy and fair, truly independent appeal; and the right to hold your plan accountable in court. These protections and the others are simply common sense. We believe we ought to have an opportunity to debate those and to offer those measures in the Senate. I am very hopeful that we are going to be able to get this matter scheduled. It is a matter of enormous importance. We have seen reported out of our Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee legislation that has been favored by our Republican friends. Let's have that legislation before the Senate, with the time and opportunity to cover those matters, and let the Senate express its will. I am convinced that we will act to protect the families of America.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, three years ago, the entire Nation watched in horror and disbelief as an epidemic of church arsons gripped the South. The wave of arsons was primarily directed at African- American churches and it was a reminder of some of the darkest periods in our history--when African-Americans were the constant targets of violence by cowardly racists. In response to this epidemic, Congress, with overwhelming bipartisan support, passed the Church Arson Prevention Act. We recognized that all Americans--Democrats and Republicans, men and women, whites and nonwhites, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims--deserve to be free from these vicious hate crimes. Unfortunately, this kind of bigotry has raised its ugly head again, in the form of the despicable arson attacks on the synagogues in Sacramento, California last Friday. Houses of worship have a special place in our society, and when they are attacked, the devastation is far-reaching. The B'nai Israel synagogue is the oldest synagogue west of the Mississippi River. In the charred remains of its library were over 5,000 books, some hundreds of years old and many out of print. Since passage of the Church Arson Prevention Act in 1996, the FBI and ATF have documented over 600 cases of church arson. With the passage of that legislation, the Justice Department was given the tools it needs to apprehend and prosecute the individuals responsible for these deplorable acts, and to deal with such hate crimes more effectively. All of us look forward to swift action to bring those responsible for these shameful attacks to justice. Although the parishioners at B'nai Israel, Congregation Beth Shalom, and Knesset Israel Torah Center may have lost the use of their synagogues for a time, their spirit and strength in the face of their loss are an inspiration to the entire country. Congress needs to bring the same vigorous bipartisan attention to other kinds of hate crimes. Few crimes tear more deeply at the fabric of our society than hate crimes. These despicable acts injure the victim, the community, and the nation itself. We have acted to deal with arson attacks on places of worships, and we need to take similar action to deal with other hate crimes. We need to give the federal government more effective tools to investigate and prosecute these contemptible acts. In March, many of us joined in introducing S. 622, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999. This bill has the support of the Department of Justice, constitutional scholars, law enforcement officials, and many organizations with a long and distinguished history of involvement in combating hate crimes. The goal of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act is to provide federal investigators and prosecutors the tools they need to fight these senseless and violent acts. Congress' silence on this basic issue has been deafening, and it is unacceptable. We must stop acting like we don't care--that somehow this fundamental issue is just a state and local problem. It isn't. It's a national problem, and for too long, Congress has been AWOL. We must act, and we must act now, to make the federal government a full partner in the ongoing battle against hate crimes in all their ugly forms. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to take this opportunity to salute a group of special individuals who have been honored by the Boston Celtics as ``Heroes Among Us.'' These are people representing all walks of life who have helped others. They have demonstrated courage, they have made sacrifices, and they have achieved worthwhile goals. They have improved lives, and sometimes saved lives. Some have worked with the elderly and others the very young. Some have overcome personal handicaps, and all have inspired others. In doing so, they have tackled difficult issues and helped the entire community. These heroes are role models. We look up to them as examples of people who have made a difference. They are eminently deserving of the award bestowed upon them by the Boston Celtics. The ``Heroes Among Us'' Award was instituted by the Boston Celtics Charitable Foundation in 1997. Since then, 67 heroes, including educators, business executives, medical professionals, clergy and public servants, have been honored. During a special ceremony each home game on the Celtics legendary parquet floor at Boston Garden, the heroes were honored by players and fans at home games during the past two basketball seasons. The Boston Celtics have a longstanding tradition of giving back to their community. Throughout the years, the team has initiated or participated in many community outreach programs, through the non- profit work of the Boston Celtics Charitable Foundation and the Red Auerbach Youth Foundation. In 1996, the Celtics organization was awarded the Professional Team Community Award from the World Sport Humanitarian Hall of Fame, and was honored for having the most effective and innovative community relations program among all professional sports teams. The Boston Celtics' players, coaches, family and staff are committed to improving the lives of youth and families. Their philosophy--``The Celtics Standing Tall in Partnership with the Community''--is reflected year after year in the outstanding work they do to accomplish their mission, and I commend them for their brilliant achievements.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Basically, the self-funded plans are primarily the largest businesses. Looking at this another way, you will find that people left out of the Republican plan are schoolteachers, police officers, social workers, and small business men and women. How many small businesses have self-funded programs? Virtually none.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield, the proposal advanced by our Republican friends is so bad that you can't even appeal the rights it purports to guarantee. If, for example, you had a child whose doctor recommended a cancer specialist--a pediatric oncologist--and the HMO rejected it, by saying, ``No, we are not going to allow you to see that specialist, even if the doctor recommended it,'' and the parent said, ``Well, I want to appeal''; under the proposal reported out of the Labor Committee, that family has no right of appeal, because the right of appeal is defined to deal only with certain decisions and not with regard to individuals' access to specialists. So it effectively excludes from the appeal system a whole range of care and protection that it claims to provide. That is rather a technical aspect. That may take a little time to debate. We can certainly vote on that. But not only don't you get the specialist, you don't even have a right to appeal it even if the doctor says this is what your child needs. I can say, from a personal point of view, how important these provisions are. My son had cancer, osteosarcoma, and he was given little chance in terms of survival. They told him he needed a pediatric oncologist, and he was able to participate in a clinical trial that worked miracles for him and the other children who participated in it. Members of the Senate always have very good insurance. We can get into clinical trials, and we can have our specialists. It is always interesting to me that some Members can vote no on these protections when they have it themselves. Then some Members wonder why people are cynical about how they view Members of the Congress. As you well know, when you become a Member of the Senate, you fill out that little card so you can have the health care coverage that is available to Federal employees. You don't have to take it. But I bet there isn't a Member of the Senate who has refused it. Yet, they are prepared to deny Americans across the country the kind of protections we have, and that our families have. They don't want to debate this issue.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct. I mentioned a moment ago-- but it bears repeating--that we had the assurance by the majority leader on January 19 and January 27 that this would be a priority, and we expected the bill to come up in May. On March 18, we acted in our Health and Education Committee and reported out what I consider to be a ``Patients' Bill of Wrongs.'' It doesn't provide the protections American patients need. But we ought to have whatever is going to be used out here so we can debate it. The bill from our committee was just filed today. They have had half of March, all of April, May, and half of June--3 months. That gives an indication of what the attitude and atmosphere is here in terms of acting on something that is of central importance to protecting families across this country. And then, finally, as we heard today, it isn't just to the Senator from California, or from Illinois, or the Senator from Massachusetts, but they are saying no to the families in this country: No, you are not going to be able to have those protections considered. No, you are not going to be able to bring this up. We heard last year from those on the other side of the aisle that we are not going to let you decide what the agenda is going to be. All we are trying to do is the people's business. It is the business that has been supported by virtually every single major medical and patient organization. It is their business, and their treatment. It is each family's business. That is why I wonder whether the Senator from California, like myself, is troubled by the fact that we can't get this legislation up, why we get a refusal to consider this proposal. If I could ask the Senator, does the Senator remember that the Democratic leader indicated that, as far as speaking for the Democrats, we could go on sort of a dual track. If it was the judgment of the Republican leadership that we could do their agenda, I know I would be here through the afternoon tomorrow and through the afternoon on Saturday, or in the evenings, of course, next week. We could certainly get a debate and discussion on the various 20 or so amendments needed to pass a good bill. And I am wondering if the Senator from California or the Senator from Illinois remembers when that proposal was put forward. I have been here a number of times when we have followed that procedure.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct, according to this morning's edition of Congress Daily. The leader was here earlier this evening and has not refuted it. The Democratic leader has restated it. Here it is. He says, ``If they are still insisting on 20 amendments, the answer is no.'' Then he says, ``We don't have but 2 weeks before the Fourth of July.'' But, as I understand it, there are some 52 or 53 amendments that are now pending on the legislation we are calling up tomorrow, dealing with the State Department authorization. So 52 amendments are OK for the State Department authorization, but our 20 amendments are not OK for the Patients' Bill of Rights. Here they are, effectively, on this chart. There is no secret about what we are generally interested in addressing. There may be some changes in some of the language. I think one of the ones that might be missing is something on ``drive-through mastectomies,'' which is not spelled out here. But there is no secret here.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take just a few moments this evening to address the Senate on an issue which our leader, Senator Daschle, and others, have spoken to the Senate about in the period of these last few days. I would like to urge that the leadership here in the Senate set a firm time for the consideration of legislation, which I believe is of central concern to families all over this country, known as the Patients' Bill of Rights. We have taken advantage of the opportunity in the Senate to make a case for the consideration of this legislation. We are very mindful that there are appropriations bills that have to be addressed, but I think this is a matter which is of central importance and concern to all of the families of this country. It does seem to me that we ought to address this question and at least establish a timeframe for which the Senate could debate and finalize its actions on this legislation. I know there are probably Members wondering why there are several of us who are bringing this to the attention of the Senate again this evening. I would like to just review for the Senate membership what the timeframe has been in the consideration of this legislation since the introduction of the original Patients' Bill of Rights more than 2 years ago. When we introduced legislation in the Senate over 2 years ago, we thought we would have an opportunity to address it, at least in the final months or weeks of the last session. We were unable to do so. At the very end of the session, the majority leader, at that time, indicated this would be a priority item for the consideration of the Senate. I thought I would just review briefly tonight the key parts of this legislation and why so many of us are anxious that we have the assurance by the leadership that this matter will be considered by a date certain. If we secure a date, then members will know about it, and the American people will understand it. They will be able to focus on this extremely important health measure, which effectively, when all is said and done, will guarantee that medical decisions in this country are going to be made by the trained professionals and the patients they are treating and not be made by accountants in the various HMOs and insurance companies. When you get right down to it, that is what this legislation is all about. The Patients' Bill of Rights was introduced over 2 years ago. It was never scheduled in the last Congress, despite our repeated efforts to bring it before the Senate. This year's track record is equally troubling. On January 19, the majority leader said on the floor of the Senate that it was a priority. On January 27, in an address to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the majority leader announced that he expected the bill to come up in May. On March 18, our Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee passed a bill on a party-line vote, but a report has just filed today. We passed the legislation out of our committee on March 18. Now we have April 18, May 18, June 18 coming up tomorrow. On April 15, the majority leader issued a list of bills to be completed by Memorial Day. The Patients' Bill of Rights was not even on that list. On May 19, the majority leader told the National Journal that he hoped to bring up the bill in June, that he had ordered the Finance Committee to move its portions of the bill. But that committee has held 30 hearings this year, not one on the Patients' Bill of Rights, and no markup is scheduled. Then on May 27, just as the Memorial Day recess was starting, the majority leader said at a press conference that he hoped it could be brought up by the summer. So we have gone from an announcement in January that it is a priority to a possible scheduling in May, to a possible scheduling in June, and now it is something that might come up this summer. And just today, the Republican leader said flatly that if we asked for a reasonable number of amendments, the answer was no. That is a quote from the majority leader in today's publication of Congress Daily. We can say, well, what is this really all about? Why should we be giving this consideration? We had the opportunity in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to actually mark up a Patients' Bill of Rights in March of this year. It was reported out over the opposition of a number of us on some very important measures. I will review very quickly with the Members of the Senate in the time that I have tonight--how much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself the 3 minutes then. Mr. President, listed in this chart are the protections in the Patients' Bill of Rights. First of all, the legislation that we favor covers all 161 million Americans with private health insurance. Those on the other side, whose legislation primarily favors so-called self- funded programs, don't protect anyone in HMOs. But that's the issue here. HMOs are making decisions on the basis of the bottom line rather than the interests of the patients. We want to protect families. The Republican proposal doesn't even cover those individuals in HMOs, because HMOs are not self-funded. One amendment would allow the Senate to show whether we are really interested in providing protection for all Americans who need it or just for one-third? It seems to me that could be an issue that wouldn't take a great deal of time to be able to understand. We heard very considerable debate on complicated issues here this afternoon and were able to make resolutions of those measures. Certainly we ought to be able to make a decision on the floor of the Senate whether we are interested in covering all Americans or whether we are interested, as our friends are on the other side, in only covering about a third of those. So these issues on the chart are the principal differences between the Republican proposal and the Democratic bill. We would make sure we are going to cover all the patients. We would make sure that we are going to guarantee that all patients, including children, are able to get the specialists that are needed to deal with their needs. We are going to guarantee coverage for routine costs in certain clinical trials. I believe that the next century is going to be known as the century of life sciences. We are committed here, I believe, in the Senate to doubling the research budget in the NIH. Why? Because of the promises of breakthroughs in lifesaving drugs for cancer and Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's and other conditions. But to get these breakthrough drugs, you have to provide clinical trials. Clinical trials are a key element in terms of bringing the brilliance of our researchers from the laboratory to the bedside. We want to make sure that individuals who are afflicted with a disease for which traditional treatments offer very little hope for their survival have access to the breakthroughs that can be achieved by clinical trials. If the medical doctor that is treating that patient recommends a clinical trial, we are committed to making sure that clinical trial will be available for that mother, for that daughter, for that child, for whomever it might be in the family that can benefit from it. That is one of the very important aspects in this debate. It doesn't make a lot of sense on the one hand to be voting for billions of dollars to support research at the NIH to discover breakthrough therapies, but on the other hand not be able to use them. We want to make sure that there is going to be a law, a guarantee, that encourages access for certain patients. So, we will take the time in the Senate to go over a few of these issues each day and spell out exactly the kinds of protections that we think are needed in a real Patients' Bill of Rights. There are not a lot of them. When the minority leader indicated there would be probably 20 amendments or so needed on our side, it is no secret what many of those amendments would be. You can look right over this list and see the protections that are guaranteed in our Patients' Bill of Rights and the failings of the one that will be proposed by the opposition. The bottom line is that over 200 organizations in this country, made up of the best of the medical profession, the best doctors, the best nurses, the patients' organizations, working families and others, universally and uniformly support our proposal. And the other side does not have one, not one organization. There isn't a single medical organization in our country that supports their program. But 200 leading groups support ours. Not because it is Democrat or Republican. It is because ours protects patients.

Mr. KENNEDY. And farmers. These are the ones that aren't included in the majority's proposal. These are the ones that the statistics confirm what the Senator from Illinois has said. But when you look behind those statistics about who is covered and who isn't covered, you will find that it is the working families, the small business men and women, and the farmers and the workers who are the ones that aren't included. They certainly should be protected as well as everyone else. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friends and colleagues here from California and Illinois. I intend to use my 10 minutes. I will be glad to respond to questions, but I ask unanimous consent that following my time that the Senator from California be recognized for 10 minutes and the Senator from Illinois be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield.