Pregnancy and Trauma Care Access Protection Act of 2004-Motion to Proceed

PREGNANCY AND TRAUMA CARE ACCESS PROTECTION ACT OF 2004-MOTION TO PROCEED

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I think we are actually making progress. I am delighted to hear the Senator from Illinois agree with what it sounded like the minority leader stated earlier, that they have some problems with this bill as written, and they acknowledge the problem of medical liability crisis exists and suggest we ought to try to find some way to address that crisis which they concede is very real.

Senator Durbin said it is not the right approach. My question would be, Well, what is the right approach? Senator Daschle said there is no reason to differentiate between those who walk in the front door of a hospital and those who get emergency care. I will concede the good faith of that question. The problem is we offered that bill earlier and were unsuccessful in getting cloture so we could actually get to the merits of the bill and debate it. Of course, not until we get to that 60-vote hurdle where we can actually move the bill on to the floor can the bill be amended. Indeed, that is how the Senate does its work. But I wonder whether it is the intention of our friends on the other side of the aisle to have a good-faith debate about how to solve this problem.

For example, rather than take what I consider to be the constructive approach the Senator from Illinois and the Senate minority leader have taken to criticize the content of the bill but to acknowledge we have a problem so perhaps we can then get to a solution of that problem, the the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee called it a partisan approach and then criticized the Senate leadership. He said, In my 29 years here in the Senate I have never seen so little accomplished.

I think the reason why we are not accomplishing any reform or any real solution to what is a very real problem is because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply won't let us call the bill up, have a debate, consider amendments, and try to solve what is a very real crisis in this country.

Even though we are calling this a medical liability reform bill, this is not something we are doing out of the goodness of our hearts for the medical profession. While I respect members of the medical profession who dedicate their lives to curing illness and addressing medical needs, as well as health care providers who run hospitals and a whole host of other allied health care facilities, that is not what drives me to see the need for this bill. The reason I think this bill needs to be passed, or some version of it after amendment if the Senate reaches consensus on a solution to the problem, is because I know everyone within the sound of my voice and literally everyone across the country who is alive today will at some point in their lives be a patient. They will need access to good quality health care.

What is happening today in this country because of this medical liability crisis is denying patients-that is the American people-access to health care they need in order to lead a good quality of life and in order to enjoy life for themselves and their children and their other loved ones.

I want to comment briefly on a suggestion I have heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They said that with this particular solution-that is a cap of $250,000 on non-economic damages-people walk away with nothing when they go to court. The truth is, in California, which has a medical liability reform law very similar to what we are proposing here today, economic damages, including medical expenses, are compensated completely. Indeed, in December of 2002, in Alameda County, there was an $84 million award to a 5-year-old boy who has cerebral palsy and is a quadriplegic because of delayed treatment of jaundice after birth. That would only be possible because what is actually being compensated there is the very real economic loss suffered as a result of that horrendous injury, something we all regret.

The suggestion we are going to turn people out of court with nothing to show for it and we are not going to compensate people for their injuries received in the medical context caused by the fault of another is not true. I wonder how anyone can stand up and suggest we are somehow trying to deny people a remedy. That is certainly not the case.

We know this kind of law will have a positive impact. Even in the State of Texas, which I represent, where we passed not a $250,000 cap but indeed a higher cap on non-economic damages last September, we have seen one medical liability insurance company reduce its rates by 12 percent across the board, sort of a start. Another medical liability insurance carrier has cancelled an anticipated 19-percent increase. Obviously, we will see how this all plays out, but we already know it has a very real and positive impact as demonstrated by the evidence.

I see the Senator from Virginia and I want to make sure he has all the time he needs to speak. But I want to also comment on the effect of high medical liability insurance rates on the cost of health care and on the pressure being put on employers and others who provide health insurance to their employees to drop their employees from any sort of health coverage, exacerbating the crisis we have in this country of too many people who do not have access to health insurance and the fact we have many emergency rooms put on divert status with patients being redirected elsewhere in true emergencies because people who do not have health insurance have nowhere else to turn if they don't have money. They know they can be treated in an emergency room. They know they can't be turned away. But the fact is about 80 percent of the people who go to emergency rooms are being treated for medical conditions that could be treated in a clinic or a doctor's office much more cheaply, more humanely, and in a way that would help us address this crisis in access to good quality health care.

Finally, I know we have heard a lot of discussion on the floor of the Senate, as we should, about the concern of every person in this country who wants to work to find a good job so they can provide for themselves and their family. But the cost of health care in this country is killing our recovery. It is doing so from the standpoint of putting increased financial burdens on employers who want to provide health insurance to their employees but simply are not able to add new positions in their company because they know that in addition to salary they are going to have to pay benefits, including health care costs in many instances, and they are simply priced out of the market.

If our colleagues on the floor of the Senate want to do something about improving access to good quality health care, if they want to do something about the fact many people don't have health insurance and need health care coverage, if they want to do something about America's competitiveness in this global economy, and make sure we keep more jobs in this country rather than see them go to China, India, or anywhere else, they should vote to let this bill come forward and have a debate about what this bill ought to look like to address the medical liability crisis that even the Senator from Illinois and the minority leader admit we have in this country today.

I implore Members to reconsider their obstruction. By obstructing progress on this vote we are not solving any problems. People are maybe making political points, but it is hard to see what kind of political point you make by obstructing good, commonsense legislation like this. I implore them to reconsider their obstruction and ask that they vote for cloture so we can move on and begin to solve this very real problem on behalf of the American people.

I yield the floor.