Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chairman again for his leadership and for his interest in this important issue. I look forward to working with him on this new technology in the months to come. the economic development administration of the department of commerce

Mr. SESSIONS. While they have some experience in coordinating programs within the interagency arena, their primary experience has been in the area of grant formulation and execution. no one on the OSLDPS staff currently has any experience in executing a training program this large.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Gregg and his staff for their tireless efforts on this legislation. I believe this legislation contains some important steps in a number of areas, including law enforcement. At this time, I would like to engage the Chairman in a discussion with regard to a new technology developed by Capstone Technologies, a company located in my state of Alabama. I think it is essential that we explore new areas of technology that can increase the effectiveness of law enforcement.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes. Placing one organization in charge of all DoJ training has several advantages: It centralizes all training and course development, curriculum standardization, assessment and instructor certification in one organization; It provides more effective oversight of training and related programs; Eliminates course overlap and course redundancy; It facilitates coordination of training issues in the interagency community; and It provides a single point of contact ``one stop shopping'' for state and local responders for all training issues.

Mr. SESSIONS. Dual-hatting the Director of the CDP as the OSLDPS Director of Training will eliminate the need for a large training coordination and oversight function/staff in Washington, DC.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for participating in this colloquy and for his support on this issue. I, too, look forward to working with my friend from New Hampshire and other colleagues on this important issue. the repeal of section 110 of the 1996 immigration law

Mr. SESSIONS. Consolidation of all training at the CDP is important because it will provide a single authoritative source for training and related technical assistance and information. To this end, I am convinced that the National Guard should establish its central distance learning facility at Fort McClellan to leverage these training requirements for the 11 million First Responders in America.

Mr. SESSIONS. OSLDPS approach to responder training is somewhat fragmented. The CDP currently oversees most DoJ training. However, in October, 2000, DoD will transfer responsibility for its Nunn-Lugar City Training program to DoJ. Current plans are to manage this new program out of OSLDPS in Washington, DC office. Consolidation of all DoJ training at the CDP would centralize all training in one organization providing a more effective, efficient use of resources.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes. Stakeholders have repeatedly stated the need for a single authoritarian point of contact for training information. Also the June 2, 1999 Report to Congress specifically recognized the requirement: ``A centrally coordinated and standardized national training program is needed to ensure an effective, integrated response and to minimize redundancy in training programs.''

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire in a brief colloquy to discuss the merits of consolidating training for our Nation's First Responders. Would the Senator agree consolidation of all Department of Justice first responder training under the Center for domestic Preparedness at Fort McClellan, Alabama would significantly improve the quality and level of first responder domestic preparedness training?

Mr. SESSIONS. Of the original 120 cities scheduled to receive training, only 25 will be completely finished by October 2000. Approximately 65 cities will be in some phase of training. This is a very large and complex training program requiring extensive coordination and attention to detail.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a few thoughts about space, the vision that is needed to take us there, and to say a few words of appreciation on the anniversary of one of the greatest accomplishments in world history. First, I recognize and thank all the people--scientists, flight operations experts, administrators, maintenance experts, astronauts, and every other member of the NASA team and Apollo program--who worked so hard to make the successful launch and mission of Saturn V to the moon a reality and victory for America. When President Kennedy announced his intentions to devote the resources and support to NASA that would be necessary to accomplish the monumental task of landing men on the surface of the moon, our space program was born. Up until that magnificent moment when Neil Armstrong let everyone watching and listening know that the ``Eagle had Landed'' and for many years afterward, our space program flourished and steamed ahead making great strides in nearly every area of space exploration. Unfortunately, in recent years, while marked by continuing and important scientific medical research and several noteworthy events, our space program has become stagnant in comparison to the growing and vibrant NASA of the past. I am one member of Congress who feels very strongly that too much remains to be learned and explored for our space program to remain in neutral any longer. Mr. President, on the anniversary of one of our greatest accomplishments, we have slipped dangerously close to the edge. If we do not act, we may lose one or more of the most historically significant pieces of our space program in existence. I am proud to say that one of the last three of these great artifacts remaining from the Apollo Project--the Saturn V rocket--stands on the grounds of the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama. But the fact remains that this rocket is in need of restoration and protection. I join my colleague and fellow Alabamian, Senator Shelby, as an original cosponsor of the resolution that has been introduced which calls upon the Congress to provide federal assistance to fund the much-needed restoration and protection projects for the Saturn V rocket at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center. This funding will enable this great monument to our space program to live on as an enduring symbol of America's greatness both here on earth and beyond. I call on my colleagues in Congress to lend the assistance that is needed to protect the great history of our space program. Mr. President, as I stated earlier, I am one member of Congress who believes that NASA embodies many of the most important qualities of our nation. We are a nation of explorers and inventors--proud, hardworking and brave. Our legacy as a nation is one of unmatched proportion. We must do our part to continue to build upon the past for the benefit of our future generations. Mr. President, safe, reliable, low-cost transportation has been the key to the development of frontiers from the dawn of time. Ocean-going vessels enabled the discovery of the New World and initiated global commerce. The stagecoach transported early settlers and cargo across the untamed American West, and the transcontinental railway opened up this new frontier to vast numbers of settlers. Today, modern airways are a critical element of international commerce. Transportation has made it possible to explore and develop the frontiers that emerged throughout history. Thirty years ago it was a Saturn V rocket carrying three men to the moon. And now, transportation is again the driver as we boldly prepare to explore deeper and develop the largest frontier of all - the frontier of space. As a nation of explorers, I would like to think that we see the opportunities for scientific research and new space industries as limitless in scope and benefit to mankind. Consider the possibilities: Manufacturing medicines that are far superior to drugs made on Earth. Even today the work that is being lead by NASA and its Marshall Space Flight Center, in particular, in Microgravity Research is paying tremendous dividends. Already this research is saving lives. The research that will be conducted on the International Space Station will take us even farther. Consider the possibility of Mining resources from orbiting bodies, or servicing large communications and remote sensing platforms in low earth orbit without bringing them back to Earth. Consider: Generating cheap, clean power from the Sun, or exploring new worlds and safely, routinely and affordably transporting passengers to and from space. It all sounds like science fiction today and it is because the current high cost of space transportation has locked the door to these opportunities. I believe that NASA is ready to start turning science fiction into science reality--to unlock the door to a new frontier of opportunity. The problem is this, space launch is not fully and completely reliable as we want it to be and its costs have been very expensive. Current launch costs consume valuable NASA resources and limit the ability to achieve its science and exploration goals. Only the highest priority science payloads are being launched and human exploration is on hold until we can solve this problem of launch costs. Launch costs have also slowed the commercial development of space. While the U.S. space program faces new challenges to its decades long, global leadership position, the U.S. commercial space launch industry has dwindled from complete market dominance in the mid-1970's to only 30% on a greatly expanded worldwide market today. The United States has lost 70% of market share to the Russians, to the French, and to the Chinese. Several factors including foreign government subsidization and the constant optimization of 30 year old technology by foreign firms are at the heart of a problem this Congress ought to solve--now! While improvement and evolution of existing systems and technologies are necessary in the face of ever increasing competition abroad, it will take a revolution to open the space frontier and enable the development of space. Our investments in launch technology have been sporadic over the years, resulting in high costs and small, incremental improvements in launch safety and capability. Today, many entrepreneurs realize the significance of the expanding commercial space marketplace, but are left to solve the hard problem of access to low Earth orbit with just their innovative spirit and today's technology. We have had a rash of failures of expendable launch vehicles recently; 6 of the last 8 launches have been failures. Still, NASA continues to fly the Space Shuttle safely. But that safety record comes at a high cost to the people at United Space Alliance, NASA Kennedy, Marshall, and Johnson Space Flight Center (JSC). Space launch is expensive because of complex systems that require extensive checkout and human intervention. Small margins result in high maintenance and replacement. Flight hardware reuse is limited. Launch facilities and range safety operations are out of date. Achieving simplicity and robust performance has never been achieved in space launch. NASA has taken the brute force approach to beating Earth's gravity by expending hardware during ascent; or they have shaved weight and squeezed the last fraction of a percent of performance from the propulsion systems--gaining performance at the expense of simplicity and robustness. I have talked to the people at NASA Marshall. They have lived with the Shuttle propulsion systems and they have a lot of ideas that will make the next generation 100 times safer and 10 times cheaper than today; and their ideas don't stop there! They believe that, in 25 years, they can develop the technology that will improve safety over 10,000 times and reduce cost by 100 times that of the current Shuttles. I believe that the people at Marshall Space Flight Center, in cooperation with Stennis Space Center and the Glenn Research Center as well as other NASA scientists, can revolutionize space propulsion in the next 25 years. NASA administrator Dan Goldin shares this same view. They believe that they can combine simplicity and with a robust capability that will increase reliability 100 fold while multiple abort options and safe crew escape systems will provide passenger safety equivalent to today's aircraft. They believe that they can develop the technology that will result in what they are calling ``a beautiful machine,'' safe and reliable first, then affordable. This marriage of simplicity and performance can only be obtained through major breakthroughs in space transportation technology at the basic component and system level. Mr. President, it is a top priority of NASA to develop innovative space transportation technologies for commerce, civil space travel and the defense of the nation. This is not a might do task, but a must do task if this nation is to once again lead the way in space exploration. Unlike the prior generation, our generation has not invested in a future of space exploration. Let's step back in time about 50 years. America and Russia were on separate paths to launch a satellite into orbit around the Earth. The Space Age had begun. In a laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania stood the world's first general purpose computer--the ENIAC. Spanning 150 feet and weighing 30 tons, ENIAC's twenty banks of flashing lights indicated the results of fourteen ten- digit multiplication processes in one second. It was one hundred times faster than a mechanical calculator, enabled by 18,000 water-cooled vacuum tubes. Tubes blew and were replaced several times an hour, but they ushered in the electronic age. Only 7 years after the invention of the transistor, the first silicon-based transistorized computer was developed. Four years later a practical integrated circuit was the genesis for printing conducting channels directly on silicon surfaces. Less than twenty-five years after the development of ENIAC, Intel introduced the first microprocessor, using 2,300 transistors on a 108 Kilo Hertz silicon chip. The U.S., at that time, was just beginning the development of the Space Shuttle. In the 28 years since, the number of transistors on a single chip has increased from 2,300 to 7.5 million and the number of instructions per second has increased more than 3,000 times. The processor capacity has increased at a rate of a factor of two every 18 to 24 months and the cost per kilobyte of computer memory has decreased by a factor of 640,000. Today over 44% of U.S. homes have a personal computer. The Space Shuttle is still the workhorse for human space flight and remains the only reusable launch system. Today it is impossible to think of a world without computers or to imagine that the ideas we developed and that we take for granted might have been strenuously resisted in the past. And while it seems barely credible today that scientists, engineers, and businessmen five decades ago didn't initially grasp the implication of this new technology--this has been the case more often than not throughout history. Now let's look forward in time. Imagine a world where traveling to an orbiting space production facility is as common as making a business trip on a commercial airliner? Does this seem plausible? How probable did personal palmtop computers seem fifty years ago? Technology was the engine that enabled these breakthroughs--technology will enable safe, reliable, affordable access to space over the next twenty-five years. I believe that we will see major steps toward this goal in the next 5 to 10 years if we invest now. Over the next decade, NASA intends to increase safety by a hundred fold while reducing cost tenfold. Safety will be defined as the probability of a catastrophic failure once out of every 1,000,000 flights. This dramatic leap will come by departing from a past emphasis on cost and performance to a focused new paradigm of safety and reliability, which in turn, will drive down costs. Improvements in safety will require future space transportation systems to assure crew safety from pre-launch to landing. To accomplish this, launch systems must be inherently reliable, functionally redundant wherever practical and designed to minimize or eliminate catastrophic failure modes. Next generation systems will have the ability to complete their missions with at least one engine failure from liftoff. Designs will minimize the opportunity for human error in test, checkout and operations. By incorporating a crew escape capability for all flights and reducing the number of launch elements, NASA will be able to meet their safety goals. In this time-frame, launch costs will fall from current levels of $10,000 to $1,000 per pound to low earth orbit. In order to achieve this ambitious cost goal, today's multi-stage, partial and fully expendable rockets must be replaced by single stage, fully reusable systems. A single stage to orbit Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) can eliminate assembly and checkout costs currently associated with the large number of complex interfaces on today's Space Shuttle. Full reusability will eliminate the need to throw away expensive hardware and reduce the need for ongoing production, but a key technology will be the manufacturing technology to build large, very lightweight, composite propellant tanks and structures. The expertise that will make these lightweight structures possible is the current Shuttle tank production facility at Michoud, Louisiana. Systems in 10 years will have to accommodate hundreds of missions per year and will be commercially certified for hundreds of flights. This level of cost reduction has the potential to enable new, nontraditional uses of space. Taking this vital first step is comparable to the first 25 years in the development of the microprocessor when computer processors went from millions of dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Over the next 25 years more dramatic improvements will be enabled by an all flight crew escape system and horizontal takeoff, which allows the vehicle to abort its takeoff after reaching maximum power--much like an aircraft. Costs will fall to $100 per pound for low earth orbit missions. This low price per flight will create a 15-fold increase in the size of the current projected space launch market. This larger market will, in-turn, enable this system to be developed independent of U.S. Government financial support. The number of flights per year will jump to over 2,000, which will require certification for thousands of flights. Future generations of space travel will be almost as routine as commercial air travel today. The passenger risk will be reduced to 1 fatality per 2,000,000 flights at a cost of $10 per pound to orbit. Crew escape will be eliminated as system reliability matures. In forty years, true Spaceliners will be capable of satisfying a market demand over 10,000 missions per year--acheiving near airline-like life certification. Doubling and tripling the structural margin will require us to move beyond traditional rocket engine cycles to a combined air-breathing rocket cycle. These new propulsion systems could allow space vehicles to takeoff horizontally like an airplane. These air-breathing vehicles will provide greater opportunities to return to earth from orbit--a key requirement for routine commercial package delivery and military priorities. The technologies required for these systems will truly marry the best of the aeronautics and space communities. The large increase in flights per year will demand that current operations and maintenance procedures be revolutionized. Unlike the current shuttle, which requires over 5 months to process with several thousand personnel, the next generation of systems will be turned around in one week with less than one hundred personnel. In contrast to the rigorous tear-downs and inspections required for the Space Shuttle's subsystems, the next generation vehicle's on-board health monitoring systems will tell the ground crews which systems need replacement before landing. Due to modern computer and display technologies, the number of personnel required on launch day will be reduced from 170 to about 10. An automated mission planning system will enable changes in payload and weather to be factored in less than twenty-four hours. The payload will be processed off-line and integrated into the vehicle the day prior to launch. Range safety will be accomplished using the Global Positioning System, reducing the number of personnel to a handful. Upon landing, the vehicle will, various ways, automatically restore itself, requiring minimal human intervention. In twenty-five years, vehicles will be re-flown within one day and in forty years, within several hours with crews numbering less than ten. Fully automated ground processing systems will require only a handful of personnel to launch the vehicle. Due to the increased intelligence of on-board systems, only cursory walk-around inspections will be required between flights. Payloads will be fully containerized and loaded hours before flight. Range safety will be replaced by Aerospace Traffic Control Centers scattered around the globe, passively monitoring the multiple flights using commercial broadcast towers. Today we've imagined our boundless future of space exploration on safe, affordable space transportation. But, stop to think what our future will be if we don't develop the fundamental technological building blocks. To realize these ambitious goals, we must provide consistent funding for our technology programs over the next several decades. What will inspire the next generation of Americans? We must not kill the spirit of the Lewis and Clark's among us. Our next great adventure is the exploration and development of space! If we continue to cut corners on our financial commitment without conquering this tremendous challenge of making space travel safe and affordable for ordinary people, we will stunt the pioneer spirit that brands us all as Americans. NASA has accepted the responsibility for pushing technology because this is vitally important for our nation. The nation must focus resources on accelerated technology development if we are to remain the worldwide technology leader. We will drive the technology breakthroughs necessary to sustain and enhance U.S. military capabilities. Our Nation's defense in very dynamic times must rely on cutting-edge space launch technologies to protect our borders. But low-cost space transportation is not just about surviving. It is about thriving economically. Our wildest dreams of doing business on the space frontier surely don't even begin to skim the surface of the incredible economic opportunities waiting beyond the horizon. Today, the X-33 and X-34 programs are making significant strides, taking us towards these goals and will provide us with new benchmarks in how to develop and operate modern reusable launch systems. Today, I want to salute NASA's goals and dreams. They are the same ones that took Apollo 11 to the Moon 30 years ago. They should be ours as well; to develop and demonstrate in flight the required technologies to win the promise of flights to low earth orbit for $100 per pound, with a 10,000 times increase over today's safety levels. Mr. President, I also want to endorse NASA's approach of ``build a little, test a little, fly a little'' by performing rigorous ground testing. I believe it is imperative to move forward with our X-34 sized flight demonstrations within the next 5 years. We are at a defining moment in the development of space. The key is making space transportation affordable for ordinary people. Through innovative technology development, NASA will lead our nation as we unlock the door to the final frontier. I call on all my colleagues, and indeed the citizens of our great land, to give them our support. Let us return to a time when we made our dreams a reality--let us return to being a nation of explorers.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 1 minute.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, S. 25, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, offers a unique opportunity for the entire nation to enjoy the tangible benefits of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas production. It redirects a portion of royalties from Outer Continental Shelf production directly back to States and local communities for environmental and conservation programs. The effect of this bill will be to provide States and local communities funding to expand and maintain parks and to enhance hunting, fishing and other outdoor recreational activities. In addition, this bill would redirect a portion of Outer Continental Shelf Royalties back to the States which have endured the risks of production through the bill's Coastal Impact Assistance program. This program will provide dedicated funding to coastal States for air quality, water quality and to mitigate the environmental effects of Outer Continental Shelf infrastructure developments. Alabama might use these funds to help ensure water quality in Mobile Bay, part of the National Estuary Program, and for the preservation and restoration of oyster beds and other sensitive environments areas along our coast. States may choose to establish a protected trust fund, as Alabama has with existing state royalties, in order to use the revenues in perpetuity for environmental and conservation purposes. Alabama is one of only six States with active Outer Continental Shelf natural gas production off its shore and onshore infrastructure to refine and transport those resources. Alabama ranks ninth in the country for natural gas production and produced over 430 billion cubic feet of natural gas in 1994. There are four onshore refineries and numerous natural gas pipelines to process Outer Continental Shelf natural gas. The State has made a significant investment in providing the land and infrastructure to handle this production, yet has not been able to enjoy any direct royalty benefits from Outer Continental Shelf production. This bill takes a step towards ensuring Alabama and the entire nation receive at least a part of the direct benefits of Outer Continental Shelf production. I commend the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, and the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, for their tremendous leadership on this issue and look forward to the passage of this bill soon. I express my appreciation to Senators Murkowski and Landrieu for working on this legislation. I have worked with them from the beginning. It has good potential to allow States to retain some of the oil and gas money for remediating environmental damage from production and for improving their environmental quality in general. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. I will delay my general remarks.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SESSIONS. In the State of Alabama, and in most States, I think, the smaller companies use traditional plans that are subject to State regulations, I think our primary focus in this body has been to deal with those plans that are not regulated.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will delay my overall remarks on this matter to deal precisely with some of the examples that have been cited. There are a number of provisions in the law that allow the containment of lawsuits. Workman's comp--if a person is injured on the job, there are very limited matters for which they can sue. They do not have to prove negligence. They get compensation. They have a lot of advantages. They also are not able to sue their employer under those circumstances. Federal employees, including Senators, are not able to sue. But let me say this, first and foremost, this is not a step backwards. Right now we have this limitation on lawsuits--not a banning of lawsuits, but a limitation on lawsuits under Federal law. This legislation will increase significantly the power of individual patients to protect their rights against HMOs. It does change existing law. It does move the bar much lower for patients, in a way that makes sense, that keeps costs to a minimum, but improves their access. Now we talk about offering a 2- or 4-year lawsuit in exchange for the plan we have proposed that would allow immediate access to a panel of medical experts to review your claim. Let me mention some of the special cases that were discussed previously. There was a case in which the HMO had denied therapy. Under our bill, you would have the existing rights we have today to go to court, but in addition to that, you would have an internal review process by the insurance provider. In addition to that, you would be able to have an independent external review of your claim that this therapy is needed. It would require, and provide for, a person with expertise in that medical specialty who is independent of the plan. That is a major step forward for the rights of patients. We do not need to foster a jackpot justice mentality when we can get prompt, professional care. With regard to the Jimmy Evans situation, what will our bill do for that? Obviously, this matter has been discussed over and over again. It hurts me to see the emotional arguments made that ignore what this bill provides. This bill says you could use a ``prudent layperson'' standard on emergency care. That means, if you believe your child needs to stop at the first hospital, you can stop there. A prudent layperson means the parent, using normal good judgment, is allowed to use that judgment about where to go in an emergency. With regard to problem of cleft palate and medical necessity--we have, and have provided for, new requirements on HMOs. Ultimately, there would be an independent, medical expert to review that claim. Surgery for cleft palate is not going to be denied. That is pure scare tactics, and it is offensive to me to suggest that. You can still go to court, at any rate, for the cost of the benefit denied and still get coverage for the medical care you need. So I would say that really is discouraging. With regard to the fundamentals of the appeals process, you do have to have a decisionmaking process in any complex contractual relationship. How are we going to do it? There is a clear choice. As a matter of fact, many have already discussed this. Friends on the other side of the aisle have said from the beginning that the biggest difference between our parties bills is the question of how to handle the liability issue. They want to add new lawsuits not provided for under current law to allow increased lawsuits. We want to increase the ability of patients to get prompt, cost-free, independent medical reviews for benefits denied when they need it. I have heard doctors express to me they do not like dealing with bureaucrats when they need to talk about what kind of treatment their patient needs. They are frustrated about that. So this bill says: That is not good enough, HMO; if you cannot respond promptly to a physician's request that the patient receive a certain type of treatment, you are going to have to provide an independent, external expert, with a specialty related to that patient's particular medical problem, who can make a decision that is binding on the HMOs but not on the patient. Let me emphasize, it is binding on the HMO. If that expert says this treatment is needed, then it must be provided immediately. I think these are the protections we want to provide. This appeals process is a good plan. Basically, if a patient is denied a benefit, he or she can call the HMO for an internal review. If that is not satisfactory, he or she can demand an external review by an independent medical expert. Even after that, they still maintain the right to sue--a right which exists today. I think this is a very good policy. As a matter of fact, the Senator from Massachusetts who was here in 1973 pointed out the obvious when he supported the establishment of HMOs. He said in his remarks on the Senate floor at that time these words: Medical malpractice litigation has become an onerous and protracted means to resolve medical malpractice disputes. The costs are escalating with less of the medical insurance premium dollar going to compensate the injured party. The delays in resolving such disputes average up to 4\1/2\ years from filing of a lawsuit. Litigation has failed to provide an efficient means to achieve a fair result for all concerned. And I say amen to Senator Kennedy. He was correct about that. This is not working. It is not the way we can assure prompt care and responses to patients, doctors and injured parties when they need help. Senator Kennedy went on to say: Litigation of medical malpractice claims have not been an effective method to monitor quality health care standards. I agree with that also. I believe the plan proposed by the Republicans provides for a prompt, professional, low-cost, independent determination of disputes. Make no mistake about it, lawsuits are expensive. It takes 25 months--4 years, as Senator Kennedy says--to bring one to a conclusion. Lawyers charge $200 plus an hour. The plaintiffs' lawyers charge a 40- to 50-percent contingent fee. That means if the plaintiff receives $100,000, the lawyer gets $50,000. If the plaintiff gets $1 million, the lawyer gets $500,000. The lawyers have junior partner lawyers, paralegals, law clerks, and secretaries who work with them. They take deposition after deposition after deposition. Medical experts are called. Testimonies, reports, and legal research have to be prepared. Court appearances, pretrial hearings, discovery conferences have to be arranged and briefs have to be filed. There is a burden on the courts when you have lawsuits. We pay the judges salaries. The more these cases are given to them to handle, the more judges we need to handle them. The judge has law clerks. Federal judges have at least two law clerks each, bailiffs, U.S. marshals, and court clerks to handle the cases--all of whom are paid for by the taxpayers. This does not include jurors and witnesses. Let's not forget the cost of the courtroom. Go to your courthouse and find out how much a courtroom costs to build. Figure it out on a weekly basis. These cases go on for 1 year, 2 years, or even 4 years before they ever reach a conclusion. That is not the way to help patients who need help. Some will win millions of dollars and some will win nothing. I will tell you what else will happen. It will be routine for plaintiff lawyers, to sue a doctor or hospital--which they can already do, make no mistake. Currently, if a physician treats you improperly or the hospital commits an act of negligence or a willful act of wrongdoing, you can sue them. Now we are questioning whether you can sue the insurance company for these kinds of problems. We have made progress in allowing a good review, a tough new review process. The Kennedy plan is fatally flawed. We must not allow his plan to happen. President Clinton's own hand-picked 34-member Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry refused to put liability reform or the Democratic liability plan in their bill when they did their report for the President. They did that for a reason. They considered the issue and decided it was not wise. Meanwhile, for some reason the President and the Democratic Members have changed their minds. I suspect they have talked with their trial lawyer friends in the meantime and have been convinced they ought to go along with this new proposal. It is not just the President's own review commission that has rejected liability expansion and more lawsuits, but major newspapers in this country as well. The Los Angeles Times: Bad medicine for both employees and employers driving up premiums. The New York Times: Jury awards in State courts for malpractice are----

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. SESSIONS. The New York Times: Jury awards in State courts for malpractice are notoriously capricious and do more to reward lawyers than patients. The Washington Post: The threat of litigation is the wrong way to enforce rational decisionmaking. This is a terrible idea. It is the wrong direction to go. It will add expense throughout the system and will not benefit patients by getting them care when they need it. This bill, as proposed, which I support, will do that. It will give patients immediate relief and expert evaluation of their claims. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee, Dr. Bill Frist, for his leadership and effort in this bill to craft a responsible and effective piece of legislation that will increase protections substantially for consumers' medical care and do so in a way that enhances the quality of that care. Dr. Frist is an extraordinary physician. He has given his life to medicine. He was the first person to do a lung transplant in the State of Tennessee--not an inconsiderable event. The thought of that is beyond my comprehension. And he has certainly provided great leadership here. One of the concerns I have heard a lot about from my doctors and dentists in the State of Alabama is that closed plans prevent patients from having any opportunity to go outside that plan to seek another physician, if that is whom they choose. As a Republican, and as an American, I believe in achieving freedom as much as we possibly can and giving people choices. So we have sought to listen to those physicians and dentists, to try to understand what they are saying and try to provide that kind of option for Americans. I am glad Dr. Frist and the leadership on this side have concurred that we can take a major step forward, that we can say that every American in one of these self-insured plans--not regulated by the State--can have the option to choose a plan that allows them to go outside that plan if they want to pay the extra expense to go to a doctor who may charge more. They would pay the difference for that extra privilege. I think that is good policy. It promotes freedom, and in this day of computers and high technology, it is not impossible to maintain the different accounting procedures that may be necessary to handle a different offering in that regard. So I am excited about this step. We already have a provision in our bill that is similar to this amendment, but it doesn't provide a guarantee it in the way this one would. After talking to physicians, dentists, and small business groups, we have decided to maintain an exemption from this provision for businesses with 50-employee or less. Small businesses may be unduly burdened administratively as it may be more difficult and time-consuming for them to process claims. Furthermore, we have discovered that fewer than 4 percent of people covered under our bill are employed by these small businesses. So, Mr. President, I am delighted to see this occur. I believe it will have broad-based support. The cost is negligible --almost none-- because if the person chooses the point of service option, they would pay the additional cost for it. I want to mention something and clarify an issue. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners testified on our bill and has written the Senate, a letter in March of this year, in which they state unequivocally that: It is our belief that States should and will continue efforts to develop creative, flexible market-sensitive protections for health consumers in fully-insured plans, and Congress should focus attention on those consumers who have no protections in self-funded ERISA plans. The States have already adopted statutory and regulatory protections for consumers and fully-insured plans and have tailored these protections to meet their State's consumer health care marketplace. Many States are supplementing their existing protections during the current legislative session [right now], based upon particular circumstances within their States. We do not want States to be preempted by congressional or administrative actions. What we are primarily concerned with regarding this piece of legislation is Federal ERISA plans, which States cannot regulate. That is why we are here. We are going to leave the other plans to the States who are already regulating them. I see my time has expired. I will again express my delight that we are able now to say that the individuals who come in will be able to receive point-of-service option.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct. But we know, for example, in Alabama, only 4 percent of the self-insured plans would fall under that group because most of the self-insured plans are for the larger businesses. We have also found that, in Alabama, for example, 75 to 80 percent of the state-regulated plans already offer point-of-service choice now. So it is not as critical as it might appear. We don't want to see the trend go the other way. It could turn the other way. Physicians are afraid that HMOs will build up walls and block out physicians and choice in the future. So they want this protection. I think it is legitimate, and I think the Senator favors that.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes. Actually, 4 percent less than 100.

Mr. SESSIONS. Only four percent under our bill will not be guaranteed that protection, but many are already providing it. Furthermore, 75 to 80 percent of plans regulated by the state of Alabama plans do offer it.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I do not. I expect to follow the Senator from New Hampshire. I do not seek the floor now.