Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would like to have 30 minutes to speak on this. I wasn't aware that there would be opposition.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I think I can do this in 30 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be calling up amendment No. 2128, and ask that it be modified with the language that is at the desk right now.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, these amendments deal with IMF. I ask unanimous consent that they now be laid aside.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send four amendments to the desk and ask that they be separately reported.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Alaska. Amendments Nos. 2125, 2126, 2127, and 2128 En Bloc

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if other colleagues want to speak on this amendment, I would be pleased to defer to them. If not, I want to go on and speak. Mr. President, I would like to bring us back to what I think is the central question before us, and this will be the vote. We passed the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. It was noncontroversial. We believed it was the right thing to do. What we said, the U.S. Senate, in our collective wisdom, Democrats and Republicans, was that it was simply wrong for an insurance company to deny someone coverage because of a preexisting condition. That was part of what we said with that vote. In addition, because the mental health parity amendment was passed, the law was passed as well, we said that we were going to at least take a giant step forward in ending some of the discrimination against people struggling with mental illness. We had a request, it was part of this supplemental, for some additional funding for HCFA to administer this law. That was noncontroversial until the Nickles amendment. The Nickles amendment eliminates that funding. Now my colleague from Oklahoma keeps talking about bureaucrats. Sometimes that gets to be a tiresome and tiring argument because sometimes it is not like ``bureaucrats'' with a sneer, it is women and men in public service with a very important mission, and the mission is to make sure that people in our country, families in our country, are not denied health care coverage because of discrimination by insurance companies, by health care plans. It is not ``bureaucrat'' with a sneer, it is men and women who are part of a mission to make sure that we do not just pass a law--we pass a law with great fanfare, and we say to families in the country: ``Listen. No longer will it be true that because your daughter is a diabetic and she has now graduated from college, and she is off your health insurance plan, she can't get coverage. No longer will it be true that because your husband had a bout with cancer when he was 55, now that his company has downsized and he is out of work, he won't be able to find any coverage at all. No longer will it be true that if you are suffering, struggling with mental illness, a company or a plan can say to you, `We are going to put a cap on an annual limit of how much coverage you can get, or a lifetime limit.' '' It won't be like someone who is struggling with a heart condition. It won't be like a diabetic. It won't be like someone struggling with another illness. We will put you in a whole other category, that is to say, second-class citizens. It doesn't matter that we have all this research talking about biochemical connection. It doesn't matter we are finally getting out of the dark age and getting beyond the stigma. We will make sure some of this discrimination ends. We said all of that. Now the rubber meets the road. That was noncontroversial, I think, before this amendment. A request by the administration for some additional funding for HCFA to make sure that this law of the land is implemented, that people are held accountable should be noncontroversial. It is like you give with one hand and you take away with another. Now, Pennsylvania, for example, has notified HCFA they are not going to comply with the mental health law. There are some 20 other States that are expected to miss the original deadline. That is just the tip of the iceberg. The truth of the matter, I say to my colleague, is that when States do a great job, insurance companies do a great job. We are pleased with that. But if you don't, the way the law of the land reads is that HCFA can come in and say, ``You have to; this is the law of the land. That is the legislation we passed.'' What we have here, just be clear about this, is an effort to gut this. My colleague from Oklahoma says you can hardly expect, if it is such a serious problem, you can hardly expect that an additional 60 people are going to solve it. You know what. I would rather err on the side of trying to make sure that we do everything we can as policymakers to make sure that these laws that have been passed, that have given people so much hope, given families so much hope, are implemented, enforced. Why in the world would we want to pass legislation that gives people hope and then dash that hope? I will go back to what I think is at stake, and then I will conclude. There are other colleagues on the floor. I think this is all about living up to a commitment. I think this is about living up to a kind of sacred contract we have with a lot of families in this country. I am proud of what we did with Kennedy-Kassebaum. Not to be a know-it-all, because certainly I am wrong more than I want to be, but I always thought there was going to be a problem with the premiums being jacked up, and in some States that is indeed the problem, where companies say, ``Fine, we will cover you--you had a bout with cancer--but we will charge you $15,000 a year.'' We have that problem out there. That is the problem. With the voice of the U.S. Senate that said to people in this country, ``We are going to try to give you some protection that you are not denied coverage because your loved one has Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or has struggled with cancer or diabetes,'' that was the right thing to do. On the mental health part, I conclude. That is why I am out here. I am sorry, I will err on the side of caution. To me, what that means is when I see that States aren't able to comply--not all the States are complying--and when I know what the law of the land says and I know what a difficult struggle it has been and I know that a lot of people have some hope that at least this ends part of the discrimination, when I hear we need some additional manpower and womanpower to enforce that law, I am not going to support an amendment that guts that. Now, I am quite sure that it will never be perfect. And I am quite sure that these ``bureaucrats'' may not be able to do it all. But you know what. Enforcement of legislation that we pass, it doesn't just sort of happen by accident. It is all about women and men who are involved in public service, who have certain jobs, and who carry out their responsibility. We need that enforcement power. This amendment guts it. I just want colleagues to understand what is at stake here. There is more at stake than just this specific amendment. I certainly agree with what the Senator from Massachusetts said about what our offices can expect because those of us, and I think probably all of us, Democrats and Republicans, I think we understand that part of our work is here, but every bit as important is our work back in our States. I find in Minnesota, I say to my colleague from Oklahoma--I can get a smile from him on this even though we are sort of in disagreement on most things-- we have a great political event, the Minnesota State Fair. Half the State's population, in 13 days, over 2 million people, come to the Minnesota State Fair. It is unbelievable. Everyone comes up to you. People are generally speaking nice, but they give you a piece of their mind if they don't agree with you. I have learned at the Minnesota State Fair there is hardly anybody talking to me about a lot of bills we deal with. The vast majority of people talk about a letter I responded to, a phone call that I received, or a specific problem that they had as a family that our office in Minnesota was able to help them out on. That means more to people than almost anything. I tell you something, that is what this is about. This is about making sure that we help a whole lot of families, families that have to deal with illnesses, and want to make sure they get coverage, families that are in pain and look for someone to help them, families that are struggling with physical illness and, yes, mental illness, that are looking for help and looking for support and looking for protection. There are a whole lot of families like that. There but for the grace of God go I. We should not vote for this amendment. This amendment should be soundly defeated, whatever the good intentions of my colleague from Oklahoma are. He always has good intentions, but in my humble opinion, he is profoundly wrong on this question. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, very briefly, a couple of things. First of all, the administration didn't need to mention specifically mental health parity, because this is the same staff. The 65 additional people, man- and women-power to enforce Kennedy- Kassebaum, it is the same staff that enforces the mental health parity. They don't need to list it. We all know it. It is the same staff. We need that staff. There are 30 States that are not in compliance. We have had to battle with companies over the 1 percent rule as well that we had, which said to a company: Look, if your costs go up more than 1 percent--we do not believe that will happen--you can opt out. We had a big battle on that. HCFA is very much a part of making a determination on that question as well. Ultimately this is a national law. Ultimately HCFA, indeed, has a very important role to play in monitoring this and in making sure that the law of the land is enforced. So I say to colleagues, this has everything in the world to do with the mental health parity bill that was passed. That is why I am out here on the floor. I am in complete support of the Kennedy-Kassebaum legislation. I agree with the Senator from Massachusetts, it needs to be strengthened. But right now what I am trying to do is fight to make sure that we do not turn the clock back half a century. It is time to make sure that States are brought into compliance, that the mental health parity legislation which was passed by this Senate means something in a concrete way for many families, millions of families all around the country. That is not going to happen if we turn around and gut the enforcement of this. So I just want colleagues to know, this has everything in the world to do with that mental health parity legislation and it has everything in the world to do with making sure that that law of the land really becomes the law of the land, because it is implemented, because it is enforced, and because it makes a positive difference for millions of families. This amendment takes us in exactly the opposite direction. I say to my colleague from Oklahoma, he is profoundly mistaken.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am sorry.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield just for a question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will my colleague yield for a question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me, first of all, just associate myself with the remarks of Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts. And let me talk specifically to my colleague, whom I have a lot of respect for even though we sometimes sharply disagree on issues. I am particularly concerned about the effect this has on the mental health parity law that we were able to pass. This was worked out. I was able to do it with Senator Domenici and other Senators as well. My understanding is that there are actually up to 30 States that have yet to comply with this. My concern is simple. We passed this legislation. I thought it was a real step forward. I think it is. When we passed this legislation, what we were trying to say--my colleague from New Mexico is here. He may add, and hopefully not detract from what I am saying. But I think what we were trying to say with this legislation is let's try to end some of this discrimination and let's try to make sure that people who are struggling with mental illness get treatment. We ought not to be denying treatment. We ought to, to the maximum extent possible, be treating this differently than any other kind of illness. We were able to at least make some progress when it comes to annual caps, and when it comes to lifetime caps, that was kind of a commitment we made. I say to my colleague from Oklahoma that this money--especially the $6 million that deals with the enforcement--is all about making sure that HCFA has the capacity that we as a Government have, the capacity to do some monitoring to make sure that as a matter of fact what the Senate passed and what Congress passed by way of mental health parity is implemented around the country. In a way, this is an emergency. You can't on the one hand raise people's hopes and say finally we are going to end some of this discrimination, finally you and your loved ones who have been affected by this illness are going to have the opportunity to get some treatment, and then turn around and basically gut the mental health parity provision. I say to colleagues that many Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, voted for this. I would make an appeal to you. When you come to the floor of the Senate, either to speak or to vote, please don't vote for an amendment which is going to gut part of the enforcement of this. We need to make sure that this is enforced around the country. We made some progress. It was a step forward. But we still have 30 States that aren't in compliance with the mental health parity legislation. This was legislation that commanded widespread support in the U.S. Senate. This was legislation by two authors--Senator Domenici and myself, a Republican and a Democrat. It would be cruel to pass that legislation and then turn around and deny HCFA--I am not as concerned about HCFA as I am the people who would be affected--with having the women power and man power to enforce this. We simply have to make sure that the health care plans and the insurance companies live up to the law. They are not going to do that if we pass a law and then we turn around and undercut the enforcement of this. I think that would be cruel. I think we ought not to do this. The intention of my colleague from Oklahoma is not to deny people good coverage. I know that. My colleague from Oklahoma is operating within a different framework. But, from all I have been able to glean from my understanding of what is at stake here, we have two things going on. We have the Kennedy-Kassebaum legislation, an important piece of legislation which basically said to people in the country: Look, you are not going to be denied coverage because you had a bout with cancer or because you are a diabetic or whatever the case might be. Now, as it turns out, we are having trouble around the country with this, because a lot of insurance companies are raising the rates so high that people cannot afford it anyway. But it was an important step forward. Now we have the situation where there is another part that I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues, which is the mental health parity part. We are not going to be able to have mental health parity, we are not going to be able to make sure there is some enforcement in the country, if we turn around and gut HCFA's capacity to do so. So I say to colleagues, please, when you come down here to speak or when you vote, do not vote for this amendment. Whatever the good intentions, the effects of this amendment will be cruel. The effects of this amendment are going to turn the clock backwards. This would be a huge mistake, and that is why I come to the floor to speak against this amendment and urge an overwhelmingly strong vote against this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to take 1 minute to thank my colleague from Connecticut for his remarks. I had a chance to meet with some educators from Bosnia and Herzegovina, who are actually in the gallery. The one thing they said to me is, ``Please support this peace process. There is so much appreciation for what America has done. Give us time. The world will be a much better place if you are willing to make this commitment.'' I wanted to associate myself with the eloquence of my colleague from Connecticut. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. If I could say, the understanding is I want a chance to speak before any vote on the IMF.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, but I would be pleased, when we go back in session tomorrow, to speak. So you can go ahead, as long as I have consent I will be able to speak for 10 minutes when we go back in.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to make sure that I have my time on the floor. I will be pleased to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me try one other unanimous consent. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes before the vote on the IMF amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I want him to have a chance to respond. I know he wants to. I would then ask unanimous consent after we have the debate on the cloture vote and the cloture vote that I be allowed to speak after that vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Ten minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator moves to table and we have the vote, I then be allowed to speak.

Mr. WELLSTONE. There are a number of amendments out here. I want to speak on another amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I actually would ask the Senator from Alaska, if he wants to respond, I would follow. I would be pleased to yield to the Senator from Alaska, but I would like to follow.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I want to be clear. Since the Senator from Alaska sort of set the terms and was gracious enough to let me speak, I wanted to stay on the floor because I wanted to respond to the Senator's very eloquent viewpoint. I have not tried to debate using his time. Later on I will come back to the debate. But I did not want to leave in the middle of the Senator's remarks because I respect what he is trying to do. I don't understand how someone so nice can be so wrong. But we will come back to the debate.