Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask, please, unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know you regret that because you like debate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded so we can have a full-scale discussion on the Family Protection Act on the floor of the Senate as opposed to being gagged.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, even though I know Republicans don't want to debate this, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded so we can debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, so I can debate my colleague from Oklahoma and other Republicans, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from North Dakota and all Senators who believe we should honestly debate issues, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, so we can debate the Patients' Protection Act, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Since I hope we have debate, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as much as I like my colleague from Arkansas, I am going to put in this request. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am not going to take my time at this moment. Senator Kerrey will precede me.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank Senator Kerrey for talking about children and education. It is truly a good news/bad news story. The good news is we have heroes and heroines right in our own communities that, with these resources, can really give children a chance to develop their full potential. If there is anything we should do as a Senate, it is to make sure each child has that chance. The bad news is, I say to my colleague, in Minnesota so many students could be helped, but we don't have the resources. There are schools in Minnesota with up to a 65-student population that don't receive a cent because by the time it is allocated in the cities, the schools aren't eligible, and those kids don't receive the help. It is just as big an issue in rural areas.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct. This is really just harping on the complexity of it all is the ultimate simplification. We know what to do, and it has worked. We need to make more of a commitment. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my understanding is that we have not reached an agreement with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about how we can have a serious, substantive, and important debate about health care, about patient protection in our country. The latest proposal as I understand it from the Republicans basically would amount to Democrats having an opportunity to maybe introduce four amendments. That would be it. Again, I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as I said yesterday, to debate this. The evidence is irrefutable and irreducible: When it comes to who is covered, the Republican plan covers 48 million people, the Democratic plan covers 163 million people. That is a huge difference. Republicans argue that we rely on States for the coverage, once we deal with what is called the ERISA problem. Our argument is that a child, a family, regardless of where the child lives, where the family lives--be it Mississippi or Minnesota--ought to have some protection. People ought to have the right, or the assurance, that if their child has a serious illness, they will be able to have access to the best care. That assurance for a family should extend to all citizens in our country. It shouldn't be based upon what different States decide or where a family lives. I repeat, 163 million people with some protection versus 48 million people. It is no wonder my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to debate patient protection. In the Health Committee, where we wrote this bill, I had an amendment that dealt with the Republican ``gag'' clause. This amendment would prohibit retaliation by a health plan when a doctor advocates for a patient. There were two parts: First, it said that plans can't penalize doctors who advocate for patients during an appeal process; and, second, it protected licensed and certified health care professionals from retaliation if they reported some problems with the actual quality of care being provided in a hospital or by a plan. Presenting this information to a regulatory authority or private accreditation organization is called whistleblower protection. This amendment was defeated, I think, on an 10-8 vote. It is no wonder the Republicans in the Senate don't want to debate patient protection. The front page story today says doctors are going to unionize. The American Medical Association announces doctors are going to unionize. No wonder, when doctors don't have protection if they advocate for a patient during an appeal process, when one of these managed care plans, owned by one these insurance companies practicing bottom-line medicine, and the bottom line is the only line, and the plan decides the patient is not going to be able to see a pediatrician who specializes in oncology. If a child is ill with cancer and that family makes an appeal, if the doctor is there for that family and says, yes, that child needs to see this expert, there is no protection in the Republican plan. There is no whistleblower protection for doctors who say, I have to speak out, I have to say this plan, or this hospital, is not providing the kind of care that people deserve. I don't blame my Republican colleagues for not wanting to debate patient protection. This chart shows whether or not you will have guaranteed access to specialists. The Republican plan has a little bit of access; the Democrats' plan makes it clear that people will have access. When it gets to the question of who is going to define medical necessity--that is a critical issue--we make it clear that the provider defines medical necessity, not a 1-800 number you call where you have utilization review by people not necessarily qualified, working for insurance companies that are just trying to keep costs down. When it comes to the issue of choice of doctor, points-of-service option, being able to find a doctor outside your plan, and making sure your child who needs to see that doctor can see that doctor, we are clear: Families should have that option. The Republican plan doesn't support that. No wonder they don't want to debate. When it comes to whistleblower protection for providers who advocate for their patients to make sure they don't lose their jobs, the Republican plan doesn't provide the protection. The Democrat plan does. No wonder my colleagues don't want to debate. When it comes to the concerns and circumstances of women's lives vis- a-vis a health care system that has not been terribly sensitive and responsive to women, or with special emphasis on children and access to pediatric services, or making sure that people who struggle with mental health problems or substance abuse problems are not ``defined'' out and are not discriminated against, I don't see the protection in the Republican plan. We try to make sure there is that protection. These are two plans, two proposals, two pieces of legislation where the differences make a difference. I say one more time to my Republican colleagues, I have been trying to engage people in debate for 2 days. I will yield for any Senator who wants to debate, on my time, so I can ask questions. That is what we should be about. The Senate should be about deliberation and debate. It shouldn't be about delay and delay and delay and delay. It may be that we will not get the patient protection legislation on the floor today, Thursday, but we will get this legislation on the floor. We will continue to bring up these problems that the people we represent have with this health care system right now. We will continue as Senators to advocate for families, to advocate for consumers, to advocate for children, to advocate for women, to advocate for good health care for people. If I had my way, the Democratic Party would be out here on the floor also calling for universal health care coverage. We will get there. At the very minimum, let's make sure there is decent protection for consumers. I say to my colleagues, I have carefully examined your patient protection act. I think it is the insurance company protection act. We went through this in committee. We went through the debate in committee. I see a piece of legislation that pretends to provide protection for people, but once we have the debate and once we get into specifics, I think people in the country are going to be furious. They will say, don't present us with a piece of legislation with a great title and a great acronym that has no teeth in it, that has no enforcement in it, and that will not provide the protection we need. That is why the majority party, the Republican Party in the Senate, doesn't want to debate this. Republicans in the Senate right now--I hope this will change--do not want to have to come to the floor and debate amendments. They don't want to have to argue why they don't cover a third of the eligible people. They don't want to have to argue why they don't want to make sure families have access to specialized services. They don't want to argue why they don't want to provide doctors with whistleblower protection. They don't want to argue a whole lot of issues that deal with patient protection. When you want to debate is when you really believe you are right. When you want to debate is when you really think you have a piece of legislation that will lead to the improvement of lives of people. When you want to debate is when you have a piece of legislation that is consistent with the words you speak and you know you are not trying to fool anybody; you know it is authentic; you know it is real. When you don't want to debate, I say to my Republican colleagues, is when you have a whole set of propositions you cannot defend. When you don't want to debate is when you know in the light of day, with real debate, with people challenging you, you can't defend your proposal. When you don't want to debate is when you are worried you will get into trouble with the people in the country because you haven't done the job. That is what is going on. One final time, I come to the floor of the Senate to urge my Republican colleagues to be willing to debate this question. Let me make a connection to what Senator Kerrey said earlier, because it is so important to me. If there is anything we should be about as Senators, it should be about focusing on good education, opportunities for children, good health care for people, making sure families don't fall between the cracks. These are the issues that people talk about all the time in our States. That is what we ought to be focusing on right now. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 5 o'clock and that the time be equally divided.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Howard Kushlan, an intern in my office, be allowed to be on the floor for the duration of the day.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from West Virginia. Let me try to talk about this in a more blunt way, not in a bitter way, but let me be direct about it. I think it is just outrageous. Mr. President, you are a friend. I hate to have such angry words. But we should be debating. Personally, I wish we were talking about universal health care coverage. The insurance industry took it off the table. They dominate too much of this political process. I think Senator Feingold and I, before this debate is over, will come out and just talk about the contributions from all the different parties that are affected by this health care legislation. We should be talking about universal health care coverage. But we certainly also should be talking about patient protection. We have a system where the bottom line is becoming the only line. It is becoming the incorporated and industrialized system. The Republicans say they have a plan--the Republican ``patient protection plan''--which I think really is an insurance company protection plan. It covers about 48 million people. The people who aren't covered, because of the risk--they can't be covered, because they are in self-insured plans because of what the States do. Our plan covers 163 million people. No wonder my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to debate this. Second point: Who defines ``medical necessity''? Our plan makes it clear that the providers decide what the care should be for the consumer, for our children, for ourselves, for our loved ones. The Republican plan is not so clear on this question. No wonder my colleagues don't want to have any debate. Point of service option: I remember having an amendment in committee when we wrote this bill which at least would let people, if they are willing to pay a little more, be able to purchase care outside of the network, outside of the plan. If they need to go to see a specialist they hear about who would make such a difference and would give them the care they need, or for their loved one, we provide for that. The Republican plan--the insurance-company protection plan--doesn't. No wonder they don't want to debate this. Who does the review? When you want to make an appeal and you say you have been denied the access to the physician you need to see, or your family can't get the care they need, do you have an external review process? Is there an ombudsman program back in our States? Make it grass roots. Do not talk about centralized public policy. Make it happen back in our States. An ombudsman program with external review, somewhere consumers can say: I have been denied the care I need. The Republican insurance company protection plan doesn't provide for that. Our legislation does. We have a difference, America, between the two parties, that makes a difference in your lives. With all due respect, I understand why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to debate. The Senate is supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't get the right to tell us that we won't be able to bring amendments to the floor, we won't be able to have a full-scale discussion, and we won't be able to have a thorough debate. I can't wait for this debate. I introduced the patient protection bill 5 years ago, half a decade ago. This will be a great debate. I think the country will love this debate. The people in Minnesota and the people in our different States will say they are talking about a set of issues that are important to their lives. The pendulum has swung too far in the direction of the big insurance companies that own and control most of the managed care plans in our country. Consumers want to know where they fit in. Ordinary citizens want to know where they fit in. The caregivers, the doctors and the nurses, want to know where they fit in. When they went to nursing school and when they went to medical school, they thought they would be able to make the decisions and provide people with care. Now they find they can't even practice the kind of medicine that they imagined they would practice when they were in medical school. Demoralized caregivers are not good caregivers. We have demoralized doctors and nurses; we have consumers who are denied access to care they need; we have corporatized, bureacratized bottom-line medicine, dominated by the insurance industry in this country. We have a piece of legislation to at least provide patients with some protection and caregivers with some protection, and our Republican colleagues don't want to debate this. I am not surprised. I am not surprised. On the other hand, you can't have it all ways. We wrote this bill in the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee. We had a pretty good markup where we sat down, wrote the bill, and had pretty good debate. I was disappointed that a lot of important amendments protecting consumers were defeated on a straight party vote. Now it is time to bring this legislation to the floor. As a Senator from Minnesota, I say to Senator Daschle that I absolutely support what he is doing. I absolutely support what we are doing as Democrats. In fact, I am particularly proud right now to be a Democrat because I always feel a lot better when we are talking about issues that make a real difference to people's lives. As far as I can tell, most of the people in our country are still focused on how to earn a decent living, how to give their children the care they need and deserve, how to do good by our kids, to do good by our State and country, how to not fall through the cracks on decent health care coverage, how to make sure we have affordable, dignified, germane, good health care for our citizens. This doesn't even get us all the way there. It seems to me the Senate, by bringing this bill to the floor, by having the opportunity to offer amendments and having the debate, can do something very positive. We can do something to make an enormous difference in the lives of people we represent. The Democrats aren't going to let up. We are going to keep bringing our amendments to the floor. We are going to keep talking about health care policy. We are going to keep talking about consumer protection and patient protection. We are going to keep talking about how to make sure the people we represent get a fair shake in this health care system. We are going to keep saying that it is not our responsibility to be Senators representing the insurance companies; we are supposed to be representing the vast majority of people who live in our States. That is what we are going to do, as long as it takes. I am ready for this debate. I am ready. Let's start it now. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.