Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, if my colleague would modify his request and ask for an additional 10 minutes on each side, there would be no objection.

Mr. NICKLES. My colleague would be asking for an additional 10 minutes on each side?

Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, and I probably will not, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. This Senator has no objection to the request. I was going to suggest that we give an additional 15 minutes on both sides.

Mr. NICKLES. If I might engage my colleague from Nevada, are there additional Senators requesting time on his side?

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator repeat the request?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I have a couple comments. Again, we are trying to come up with an arrangement. I think all my colleagues are aware of the fact that we have been negotiating on this most of the day. Hopefully, we will come up with an arrangement that is mutually satisfactory to all participants in the debate. I will respond to a couple of the comments, because maybe they haven't been responded to adequately. There has been a lot of discussion about the Republican package doesn't do this or the Democrat package does so many wonderful things. The Democrat package before the Senate increases health care costs dramatically. I stated, maybe 2 years ago: When the Senate considers legislation, we should make sure we do no harm. By doing no harm, I stated two or three propositions. One, we should not increase health care costs; that makes health care unaffordable for a lot of Americans. Unfortunately, the package proposed by my colleagues on the Democrat side--the Kennedy bill--increases health care costs 4.8 percent, according to the CBO, over and above the inflation that is already estimated for this next year, estimated to be about 8 percent. If you add 5 percent on top of 8 percent, that is a 13-percent increase in health care costs. The result is, probably a million and a half Americans will lose their health care if we pass the Democrat package. I have heard a lot of my colleagues say: We need to pass the Kennedy bill; it is going to do all these wonderful things, because we are going to protect, we have a prudent layperson. It is just a great idea. We have emergency care. It is a wonderful idea. We are going to guarantee everybody all this assortment of benefits. We are going to mandate all kinds of little coverages that all sound very good. But they do have a cost. If we make insurance unaffordable and move a million and a half people from the insured category to the uninsured category, I think we are making a mistake; I think we are making a serious mistake. There are some costs involved, and there is a little difference in philosophy. Some of our colleagues said the Republican package doesn't cover this or doesn't do this, doesn't do that. What we don't try to do is rewrite health care insurance, which is basically a State-controlled initiative. We don't have the philosophy that Washington, DC, knows best. There is a difference in philosophy. The Kennedy bill says: States, we don't care what you are doing. We know what is best. We have a package, an emergency care package, that you have to have ER services under the following scenarios. We don't care what you are doing, States. I just looked at a note. Forty States have emergency care mandates. The Kennedy bill says: We don't care what you are doing, States. Here is what we say, because we know what is best. I wonder if the State of Massachusetts has it. The State of Washington has it. I heard my colleague from Washington, Senator Murray, talk about emergency care. The State of Washington has emergency care mandates in their health care packages for State- regulated health care plans. I heard the Senator from Washington talk about ``prudent layperson.'' The State of Washington has a prudent layperson mandate. Maybe that is not adequate. Maybe somebody in the State legislature in the State of Washington said: We need to strengthen this; we need improvement. There is a difference of philosophy. We, on our side, are saying we shouldn't try to rewrite health care plans all across America. We don't believe in national health insurance, that the Government in Washington, DC, is the source of all wisdom, has all knowledge, can do all things exactly right, and we should supersede the governments of every State. We don't have that philosophy. There is a difference of philosophy. The Kennedy bill says: States, you have emergency room provisions. We do not think they are adequate. We know what is best. Then the health care plans say: Wait a minute, we have been regulated since our inception by the States, as far as insurance regulation. Now we have the Federal regulation. Whom should we follow? They are different. Who is right? Do we just take the more stringent proposal, or are we now going to have HCFA regulate not only Medicare and Medicaid, but are we now going to have HCFA regulating private insurance? I do not think we should. I will tell my colleagues, HCFA has done a crummy job in regulating Medicare. HCFA has not complied with the mandates we gave them in 1997 for giving information to Medicare recipients on Medicare options. They haven't done that yet. They haven't notified most seniors of options that are available to them that this Congress passed and this President signed. They haven't notified people of their options. They have done a crummy job of complying with the regulations that they have now. They haven't even complied with--some of the States--the so-called Kennedy- Kassebaum legislation that passed a few years ago. There are some States, including the State of Massachusetts, which don't even comply with the Kennedy-Kassebaum kid care formulations. HCFA is supposed to take that over. They haven't done it. My point is, people who have the philosophy, wait a minute, we need to have this long list of mandates, we are going to say it, and we are going to regulate it and dictate it from Washington, DC, I just happen to disagree with. It may be a very laudable effort. Some of the horror stories that were mentioned--this person didn't get care, and it is terrible--are tough stories. But we have to ask ourselves, is the right solution a Federal mandate? Is the Federal mandate listing here of what every health care plan in America has to comply with, dictated by Washington, DC, dictated by my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, is that the right solution? I don't think so. Is there a cost associated with that? Yes, there is. I mention that to my colleagues and to others who are interested in the debate. We will have this debate. I think there will be an agreement reached that we will take this up on July 11, and we will have open availability for individuals to offer amendments with second-degree amendments, and hopefully a conclusion to this process. I did want to respond to say that this idea of somebody finding a horror story or finding an example of a problem and coming up with the solution, or the fix being ``Washington, DC, knows best,'' I don't necessarily agree with. I do think we can make some improvements. I do hope, ultimately, we will have bipartisan support for what I believe is a very good package. I am not saying it is perfect. It may be amended. It may be improved. I hope we will come up with a bipartisan package. We do have internal/external appeals which are very important and, I think, could make a positive contribution towards solving some of the problems many of the individuals have addressed earlier today. I yield the floor. Mr. EDWARDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. That is correct.

Mr. NICKLES. Correct. Absolutely.

Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to respond. It is our intention that the ag bill will not be the vehicle for the Patients' Bill of Rights or any amendments related to it. The unanimous consent request we are proposing or negotiating would bring up the Patients' Bill of Rights when we return from the Fourth of July break, with the bill to be brought up on, I believe, July 11, to be completed by July 15. So no amendments relating to the Patients' Bill of Rights will be offered on the ag appropriations bill.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of all colleagues, we are still in the process of negotiating a time agreement on proceeding. We are not quite there. We are getting closer. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for 30 minutes to be equally divided.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Drinking Water be granted permission to conduct a hearing on the recovery of salmon Wednesday, June 23, 1:30 p.m., hearing room (SD-406).

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs would like to request unanimous consent to hold a markup on pending legislation. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, June 23, 1999, at 2 p.m., in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet for a hearing re Religious Liberty, during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 23, 1999, at 11 a.m., in SD-226.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 23, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the Report of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. The hearing will be held in room 485, Russell Senate Building.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``ESEA: Title VI'' during the session of the Senate on Wedkesday, June 23, 1999, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be permitted to meet on Wednesday, June 23, 1999, at 10 a.m. for a hearing on the Interagency Inspectors General Report on the Export-Control Process for Dual-Use and Munitions List Commodities.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 23, 1999, at 4 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, June 23, 1999, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 23, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. on pending committee business.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 23, 1999, to conduct a hearing on ``Export Administration Act Reauthorization: Government Views.''

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 23, 1999, at 11 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 23, for purposes of conducting a Forests and Public Land Management Subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:15 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 503, the Spanish Peaks Wilderness Act of 1999; S. 953, the Terry Peaks Land Conveyance Act of 1999; S. 977, the Miwaleta Park Expansion Act; S. 1088, the Arizona National Forest Improvement Act of 1999; and H.R. 15 and S. 848, the Otay Mountain Wilderness Act of 1999.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Wednesday, June 23, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. in open session, to receive testimony on recommendations to reorganize Department of Energy national security programs in response to espionage threats.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am happy to respond. Our colleagues from California may want to join our bill; we have doctors make the decisions. To answer the Senator's question, we are negotiating in good faith. We are getting closer, I believe, to coming to an agreement that would have consideration of the Patients' Bill of Rights be the pending business when we return from the Fourth of July break. Hopefully, we will have that resolved in the not-too-distant future.