Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Fine.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have consulted with the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, on this next unanimous consent request. I know Members will be interested in this. I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on passage of S. 1344, as amended, at 8:20 this evening, with the Lott substitute and amendment No. 1232 having been agreed to and notwithstanding paragraph 4 of rule XII and the consent agreement of June 29, 1999. I further ask that the time between now and 8:20 be equally divided between the two leaders, or their designees.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, that having been agreed to, the final vote will occur at 8:20, with the time equally divided between now and then. So Senators who want to participate should be prepared to be here to be involved in the debate. Those who want to get supper at this point, now is the time to do it. Having said that, I want to go ahead and make my statement on this substitute package at this time. Then I will yield to the assistant majority leader, Senator Nickles, who will divide the balance of our time between Members on our side of the aisle who wish to speak on the final package. I think we have had a really good debate on this issue. We have been on it 4 full days now, into the night on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and now Thursday. There have been a number of amendments offered. Some of them have passed and some have failed. But I think it has been handled quite well on both sides of the aisle. I believe we are now ready to finish the debate and get to final action on this legislation. I thank the floor managers for the good work they have done. Senator Nickles and Senator Jeffords on our side have been ably assisted by a number of our colleagues who have spent long hours on the floor, including Senators Frist, Collins, and a number of others. Senator Reid has done an excellent job as the whip on the Democratic side of the aisle, working with Senator Nickles on behalf of the leaders to make sure time has been handled properly, and working out the charts on what amendments would be offered when, which has proven not to be an easy task, but one they have done a great job on. Of course, I have enjoyed the exchanges that involved Senator Kennedy and sometimes Senator Gramm. It has been interesting, and I guess we can say elucidating in some respects. I also thank the task force on our side that has worked for a year and a half on this issue to make sure we were ready to go with an alternative, or to go with a solution to the problems we found in this area. They have done excellent work. Again, this task force was chaired by Senator Nickles. Other members were Senators Roth, Gramm, Collins, Frist, Gregg, Santorum, Sessions, Enzi, and Hagel. There has been a lot of great work by those members of the task force and members of the Health Committee who spent a lot of time and participated in the debate that has gone forward. I have really learned to appreciate the statement I heard on the floor earlier, that with Dr. Frist, you really don't need a second opinion. He has done a great job. Sometimes it has been hard to understand for those of us who have not been in the medical profession. I appreciate that. I think it is time we moved forward. We have done good work. Let's report out this legislation and go to conference and let's get a result. There are certain things patients do need in America. Consumers do need some guarantees. I could go through a list of areas where there are problems, and I am going to go over the solutions we have here. I think the worst thing we can do now is to not wrap this up with a concluding favorable vote. Now, there are some who will say the President will veto this bill. When we passed the missile defense bill, the word was: I will veto it. But we worked it out and he signed it. It was the same thing on education flexibility. The word was, you have language in here on the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act and we thought we should meet our commitment there before we spent money on a lot of other programs. In the end, we worked out the disagreements and the President signed education flexibility. Today, for the first time in history, enrolling, signing of a bill was done by Senator Thurmond and by the Speaker, and it was sent by Internet to the White House--the Y2K liability bill. It came out of committee on a partisan vote, but some Democrats worked with all of the Republicans and we got a bill through the Senate. It took us three tries. We were told the President would veto this bill, but he is going to sign the bill. The point is, to the President and to those of you who haven't supported the Republican position on this Patients' Bill of Rights Plus, work with us. If you want to get something done, let's make it happen. If you want an issue, you have got enough votes, you will have issues; so will we. And then what? Is America going to be better off? No. Let's get results. We have done that in the past on other issues related to health. So I challenge our Democratic friends to join us in this effort. This is the main event. We have gone through a number of votes and we have had our debate on these amendments. But now we are dealing with a comprehensive package that the task force has developed on the Republican side of the aisle, and it will strengthen the rights of patients and improve the way HMOs work, without wrecking the American health care system. The American people don't want the Federal Government to take over health care. They don't want that. They don't want bureaucrats making the decisions, and they don't want it being determined by a bunch of lawsuits. But they do want some action to clarify and solve some of the problems we have. Make no mistake about it, the version of this bill that we have offered is far superior to the Democratic bill, which I believe contains a lot of bad policy. It is dangerous in many respects: dangerous because, under the guise of humanitarian concerns, it would drive into the ranks of the uninsured some 1.8 million Americans; dangerous because, under its compassionate rhetoric, it would threaten the ability of most small businesses to provide health insurance to their employees; dangerous because it would place the scalpels of litigation into the hands of the trial lawyers and virtually invite them to carve up the Nation's health care system. I don't believe the American people want that. The system is not perfect. HMOs are not perfect, although the quality of their care, as every other consumer product, can vary tremendously from one group to another, from one region to another. In my own State of Mississippi, we only have about 5 percent of our health care that is provided by managed care organizations--5 percent. So we have a very different view and set of concerns than do some of the other States where there is a lot more activity in this area. If there is one thing we have learned from the downfall of the Clinton health package in 1994, it is this: The American people don't want the Government to control health care. They do want solutions, though, to some of the real problems that exist, such as portability, which we did deal with. They want us to recognize the problems where they really exist, but they don't want political grandstanding in Washington to imperil the highest quality health care in the world. I heard it said yesterday on the floor, ``Health care in America is in real trouble.'' There are concerns about the evolution that is occurring. But health care in America is still the best that the minds of men have conceived. My mother is alive today because of medical procedures. She is on her third pacemaker. She is doing fine. If her knees would hold up, she would still be out looking for a date. And the pharmaceuticals and the medicines they make are miracle drugs. We should not kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Can we improve it? Can we work with all those involved in the system to make it better. We can do that. That is what we are doing today. I hate to think where we would be if the Congress, 20 or 30 years ago, had attempted to micromanage health care the way this Democratic legislation attempts to do now. I wonder if we would, today, have the non-invasive surgery, the miracle drugs, the sophisticated diagnostics that we all take for granted. If the Government moved in and said we are going to start dictating this and say what you can do, what you can't do, and when you can do it, we would have a loss of that entrepreneurial, dramatic innovation and spirit that we have had in health care in America today. The Congress should not imperil the continuing transformation of American medicine. Will it be different in 10 years? You bet it will. So will life in America. It is happening so fast that it is breathtaking. It is not our job to control or dictate that transformation. Our job is to find ways for more Americans to have broader access to those innovations in health care. That is precisely the point of our Republican Patients' Bill of Rights Plus. We want to give more clout to health care consumers while, equally important, making it easier for families to get insurance. They will have a choice. They decide for themselves how they are going to get this care. All the consumer rights in the world don't matter an aspirin if you aren't able to become a consumer. That's why our Republican bill creates new opportunities for uninsured Americans to buy into the health care system. For starters, our bill makes all Americans eligible for medical savings accounts, not just the 50,000 currently allowed in a pilot program. Give people that option to get into a medical savings account and to make the choice as to how they will use it. And give them the reward. If they don't have to spend it, they get to keep it. What a great American idea. We offer full deductibility for health care costs. That alone will make insurance more affordable for 16 million Americans. That is the way to go. We should make it deductible--not just for the self-employed, although we ought to do that, but for all of them. That would solve the problem of a lot of these small business men and women who can't afford to provide the coverage for their employees. Let them deduct the cost when they choose what they want. We provide full deductibility for self-employed persons, so these 3.3 million hard-working people, and their families will have the same tax break that big business has. At least 132,000 households will be able to afford health coverage with this provision for the first time. At every point, our approach is to expand access to health care. That is our greatest contrast with the other package that has been offered by Senator Kennedy and Senator Daschle. It is worth repeating. If we went with their proposal, it would result in the loss of insurance for an estimated 2 million people. That is far too heavy a price to pay for some of the things we have argued about this week. This bill, the substitute amendment I am offering, is the main event of the debate of health care this week. For the 48 million Americans whose health care plans are not protected by existing State regulations--that is a critical point--it will provide these things. I want to emphasize that. The bill we are about to vote on will provide these things: Guaranteed access to emergency room care; Direct access to OB/GYN without prior authorization; Direct access to pediatrician without prior authorization; Better continuity of care if your doctor leaves a health plan; Guaranteed access to specialists; Improved access to medications; Protection of decisionmaking by doctors and patients; And, very importantly, our bill provides a way to get a review. Dr. Frist talked a lot about that. If the doctor makes a recommendation, and he and the patient disagrees with what the managed care organization says, they will have a chance to have a review internally, and then one externally with expedited procedures. And, at that point, there is still the opportunity for lawsuits. If they don't comply with the result, there will be penalties for noncompliance. Again, instead of getting a lawsuit--which may be nice when it is finally concluded for your heirs--you will get action. You will get a decision through an appeals process. That is the way to go. I am not critical of lawsuits because I have a problem with lawyers. I am one. I was on both sides of this issue for plaintiffs and defendants when I practiced law. I was a public defender in my home county. I understand there is a necessity and a time for lawsuits. But I don't think it should be the first resort. It should be the last resort. See if you can work it out. See if you can design an appeals process that will get you to a conclusion and that will get results, rather than a lawsuit that may be great for the deceased person's beneficiaries. We believe patients should have a timely and cost-free appeals procedure to contest any denial of coverage. We believe patients should not suffer discrimination based on genetic testing. Our bill forbids it. We believe government should facilitate breakthroughs in medicine and help providers gain access to them. Our bill does that, too. What we do not do is put American health care in the hands and in the pockets of the trial lawyers. Senator Jeffords has said it best: ``You can't sue your way to better health care.'' In that regard, the Democratic bill that has been before us this week reminds me of the old days of medicine. Well, we will bleed the patients. And, believe me, I think that is what would happen if we went with what they have proposed. It would be bled with Federal-level bureaucrats. They would be bled in the courts. That is not the answer. I think that is a bad idea. There is a better way--a way that protects the rights of patients without imperiling the Nation's health care system; a way that opens the door to medical care; that gets more people covered by the insurance of their choice; a way that educates consumers so that they, rather than the government bureaucrats, can make their own informed choices. That is the sum and substance of our Patients' Bill of Rights Plus. It is ``plus,'' because it is a bill of rights, but also it provides some tax opportunities through the medical savings accounts and the deductibility. I thank many Senators who have worked on this issue on both sides of the aisle. I think we all know a little more about this subject than we did, and maybe more than we ever wanted to know. I have every expectation that it will win the Senate's approval and find favor in the House of Representatives. I am optimistic, as I always am, that we can get a result. If we make up our minds to do that, we will. This bill addresses the real problems many Americans face with the delivery of health care. It expands access to health insurance and makes it more affordable. It bans genetic discrimination in health care, expands research, and educates the consumers. In short, it is the right thing to do, and this is the right time to do it. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LOTT. We have to object to that.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays on the pending amendment No. 1251, as amended.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately proceed to a period of morning business until 10 a.m. I see Senator Grams is here for some remarks after my opening statement. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus, and a number of amendments will be offered, I am sure, throughout the day. Debate will resume on the pending Dodd amendment regarding coverage of clinical trials. As we go forward today, I remind Senators that we will continue to have what I am sure everybody will agree has been a good debate. I assume there will be several amendments offered today, and so there will be votes, I hope, even this morning or early afternoon and then throughout the rest of the afternoon. By previous consent, the Senate will complete action, I remind Senators, on the pending bill during tomorrow's session of the Senate. We may go into the evening, but it will be a normal evening. We have tried to make sure we had full time allocated for this debate and amendments. We agreed in the beginning that we would at least have normal days or more. Actually, so far, on Monday we spent 6 hours 17 minutes on this bill. The average Mondays are 4 hours 46 minutes. On Tuesday we spent 7 hours 5 minutes. The average Tuesdays are 7 hours and 30 minutes. The average Wednesdays are usually around 9 hours 39 minutes. So we are going to stay right on track. I encourage my colleagues to make their best case, offer their amendments, make their speeches, but at the end of this week I hope we will come to a conclusion that will produce a bill which will address the important areas of patients' rights, consumer rights, protections they need, the right to access of documents, the rights that they should have to care, including emergency instances, but there has to be a prudent standard; there has to be some common sense applied to all of this. I would also say at this point how proud I have been of the only doctor we have in the Senate. I think we are really blessed and privileged to have Dr. Bill Frist here. Not only is he an outstanding human being but, unlike a lot of us, he knows what he is talking about. Having been a highly acclaimed heart surgeon, having a family that has been involved in hospital care, he has an extent of knowledge when it comes to clinical tests or how patients are treated, what procedures are necessary, most of us just do not have. So it has been a real pleasure to watch him at work over the past few days. The Senate may consider any available appropriations bills when we complete the Patients' Bill of Rights. I remind Senators we are scheduled to have a vote on the Abraham-Domenici Social Security lockbox on Friday. There have been indications that the President supports a lockbox concept. I asked him in our meeting on Monday: Mr. President, what is your plan? Do you support the House version, which is a real lockbox? The Senate version is really tight because it bases the lockbox on the declining debt that would result from locking the Social Security funds up and not allowing them to be spent for anything but Social Security. Or the House version, which is a more procedural effort to keep these funds from being spent, requiring a supermajority vote, for instance, in the Senate of 60 votes in order to spend that money for anything but Social Security, which I think it should not be. Or is there some compromise version? Senator Daschle and I have communicated on that a couple times over the past 2 days. We hope that maybe we can come to some agreement and get this Social Security lockbox done, set those moneys aside so that we can move on and deal with other issues such as Medicare reform and returning some of the tax overpayment to working American families. So after the Patients' Bill of Rights, we do have the vote scheduled on Friday on the lockbox for Social Security, and then we are looking at other appropriations bills that we could go to Friday or early next week or the intelligence authorization bill. We will confer with leadership on both sides before that announcement is made. With that, I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor so that Senator Grams can make his statement.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that remaining votes in this series be limited to 10 minutes in length. I urge Senators to stay in the Senate Chamber or not to go any farther than the cloakrooms so we can actually hold these next three votes to 10 minutes. Please do so. Senator Daschle and I intend to cut off the vote after about 10 or 11 minutes. Please stay in the Chamber.

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1233, As Amended

Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I pay tribute to The University of Mississippi's 1999 Outstanding Teacher of the Year, Dr. Mary E. Stuckey. Each year my alma mater The University of Mississippi, known as Ole Miss, recognizes excellence in the classroom with the Elsie M. Hood Outstanding Teacher Award during its Honors Day Convocation. Nominations for this honor are accepted from students, alumni, and faculty. A committee of former recipients then selects the faculty member who best demonstrates enthusiasm and engages students intellectually. Dr. Mary E. Stuckey is an Associate Professor of Political Science. An 11-year veteran of the Ole Miss Political Science Department, Dr. Stuckey's teaching interests include the Presidency and political communications as well as American Indian politics. Her research focuses on Presidential rhetoric, media coverage of the President, and institutional aspects of Presidential communication. Dr. Stuckey is also working on several projects regarding depictions of American Indians in the media and in national politics. In addition to these areas of interest, she also teaches in the McDonnell-Barksdale Honors College. Dr. Stuckey's research has earned her several prestigious grants. These include the President Gerald R. Ford Library, the C-SPAN in the Classroom Faculty Development, a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship, and the Canadian Studies Faculty Research. She has also published several studies such as ``The President as Interpreter-in- Chief'' and ``Strategic Failures in the Modern Presidency.'' A native of southern California, Dr. Stuckey earned a bachelor's degree in political science from the University of California at Davis. She then completed her graduate studies at the University of Notre Dame and joined the Ole Miss faculty in 1987. Now, Mr. President, let me tell you that Dr. Stuckey and I probably will not agree on much when it comes to political issues. But three members of my current staff, Steven Wall, Beth Miller, and Brian Wilson, tell me she is outstanding in the classroom. They all agree that she is an equal opportunity challenger, regardless of political views, when it comes to the study of politics. She requires her students to use logic rather than emotions when advocating any viewpoint. Dr. Stuckey does not penalize her students when they don't share her views; rather she rewards academic scholarship. The study of political science is essential to any society. And I believe it is even more incumbent on us, as Americans, to do so. Thomas Jefferson once said, ``Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight.'' He was right. Universities are an important institution to help instill in each generation an appreciation for the unique and honorable character required for our democratic republic. Americans want to learn from their past mistakes so they can strive to build a better society for their children and grandchildren. Dedicated and inspiring teachers, such as Dr. Mary E. Stuckey, this year's Elsie M. Hood Award recipient, are key to ensuring that our next generation of political leaders will have the necessary knowledge and character to make America strong.

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know there may be some wrap-up statements. I commend the managers of the Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill. They have worked together very well today. They have been able to complete a bill in 1 day that ordinarily takes days, or as much as a week. I commend them for that.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Nelson Rhone who will be retiring from the Senate on July 7, 1999. Nelson began his Senate career December 21, 1964, as a laborer with Sergeant at Arms' custodial service operation. During his tenure with the Sergeant at Arms office, Nelson also worked in the Legislative Garage as a garage attendant and driver. In 1988, Nelso was promoted to Labor Foreman in the Sergeant at Arms' Environmental Service operation. That account of his career here does not adequately convey the affection and respect he has earned at all levels of this institution. He is one of those rare individuals who, by virtue of both his tenure and his character, come to represent all that is best in the Senate of the United States. In describing him, the word that immediately comes to mind is ``gentleman.'' These days, that can seem like a quaint or old-fashioned term, but it is the most accurate compliment for someone like Nelson, who, by personal example, has set a standard for others to follow. It is an understatement to say that we will miss him. He is a gem. Now, after nearly 35 years of devoted service to the Senate, he is retiring to spend more time with his wife, Mary Jane, and his family. Nelson is an avid bowler and enjoys traveling. He and Mary Jane look forward to having the time to travel and spend more time with their friends and family. Nelson has been a dedicated and valuable member of the Senate community, and I know all members join with me in wishing him many years of health and happiness.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. This letter stated ``dredging, desnagging, and spoil disposition carried out in connection with channel improvement and maintenance represent an ongoing threat to these sturgeon species.'' Again this proves dredging will be stopped, and the FWS will not hold true to its oral promises here in Washington. During this time frame a lawsuit has also been pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, styled Alabama Sturgeon. et al. v. Bruce Babbitt, as Secretary of the Interior, et al. Two months ago, on April 26, 1999, the court issued an Order noting the parties were engaged in ``settlement negotiations'' which were likely to lead to dismissal of the lawsuit. Four days later, on April 30, 1999, for some unknown reason the court issued the Order proposing to dismiss the lawsuit upon the payment of $20,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to the plaintiffs by the government. Neither the Court Order nor the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal and Notice of a Compromise Settlement of Attorney's fees and Costs makes any attempt to justify the rationale for this result. For some reason the Justice Department apparently decided to simply make a gift of $20,000 to the lawyers in this case. This Administration has not only given away $20,000 to these lawyers to sweep this lawsuit under the rug, it also stole more than $400,000 designated for sturgeon restoration. I am disappointed by these actions. It is my firm belief that Alabama's Federal partner is not motivated by a desire to restore the sturgeon. Clearly, making a decision to list the Alabama Sturgeon as an endangered species, while having no new scientific information must be based in politics--not science. Why an adversarial approach? The solution to this politically driven problem is simple. Let Alabama finish its 5-year program. The Fish and Wildlife Service action is wrong for Alabama . . . wrong for Mississippi . . . wrong for America. We all must continue to press forward in this fight to do the right thing for the Alabama Sturgeon in spite of these actions by FWS.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk to the pending amendment.

Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, under the previous order, this cloture vote will occur on Friday, July 16, at 10:30 a.m. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived. And I ask consent the bill be placed back on the calendar.

Mr. LOTT. Let me emphasize to all Senators to double-check and recheck their calendars--there will be a vote on Friday morning, the 16th, at 10:30--so that everybody will know they will be expected to be present and voting at that time. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to vote on the Conference Report on H.R. 775, the Y2K Act, I want to praise the bipartisan efforts of so many Senate and House Members who have worked diligently to construct an effective, fair bill that will address the important issue of liability as it relates to the possible Year 2000-- or Y2K--computer problems. This has been a group effort, teaming members on both sides of the aisle with the private sector. The coalition of high technology businesses, large businesses, small businesses, and others provided the initiative and momentum that pushed this bill across the finish line. This bill is constructive, positive legislation. It allows companies in the information technology industry to focus their limited resources on solving Y2K related problems in computer software by preventing frivolous litigation. Litigation which would divert those limited resources away from solving Y2K programming deficiencies. Mr. President, so many Senators and their staffs have worked to insure the success of this legislation, even when faced with difficult hurdles and odds. The efforts of Senator McCain, Senator Wyden, Senator Gorton, Senator Bennett, Senator Dodd, Senator Hatch, Sentor Feinstein and others, along with the efforts of the House sponsors and conferees, have brought us to this point. Mr. President, I am pleased that the House has passed this important bill today by a vote of 404-24. With only 183 days left until the globe turns the page on the calendar to a new century and a new millennium, I urge my colleagues to vote for this important bill. I am confident that this Conference Report will pass the Senate by a wide margin, just as in the House, and I urge the President to sign this bill into law when he receives it.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think it is important now we give Members some indication of what the schedule looks like. Senator Daschle and I have been talking about how we can move forward. I believe we have two amendments that have to be dealt with, with the possibility of votes, at least two votes at 7:30, in order to finish the Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill. I think there will probably just be one amendment vote and final passage, although there is another amendment that has to be disposed of in that time. At that point, our plan is to go to the District of Columbia appropriations bill. Work is being done on that now. Senator Daschle and I are ready to announce right now that if we can get that done tonight at a reasonable hour, we will not have any votes on Friday. If we have difficulty, if we can't get it done tonight, then we will be in with votes tomorrow. We probably are going to have to be in tomorrow anyway. Senator Daschle and I had already planned on being here. We want company. We are still working on nominations tonight, and we might have some we will try to get cleared tomorrow. Basically, I am saying that if we could get this D.C. appropriations bill completed, then we would not have recorded votes tomorrow. It behooves us all. We are in a good mode now. We are making progress. I urge those who are involved in the D.C. appropriations bill to work aggressively so we can complete this at a reasonable hour tonight. Otherwise, we will see you in the morning at 9:30.