[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 59 (Tuesday, May 12, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4643-S4644]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--S. 249
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 249 regarding
inpatient care for breast cancer, and there be 2 hours for debate
equally divided with one relevant amendment in order to be offered by
Senator D'Amato, and following the disposition of the amendment the
bill be advanced to third reading and a vote occur on its passage, all
without intervening action or debate.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, let me just say how
disappointed I am that the Senator from New York continues to persist
in his erroneous conclusion that somehow these are melded together. I
will put forward a new proposal for my colleague and friend from New
York. I would propose that we take up the D'Amato bill today, that we
debate it as he suggests so long as by June 15, or at any date in June
that would be of his choosing, we can take up and debate the Patient
Protection bill for whatever time it takes. If it is complex, let's
debate it. If it ought to be amended, let's debate it. If the Senator
from New York is prepared to give me that opportunity, to say in June
we will take up patient protections with amendments, we will have the
debate on his bill today and my bill in June. I would make that
proposal to the Senator from New York, reserving the right to object.
Mr. D'AMATO. I understand that, and let me respond by saying that I
wish I could and did have the authority to accept that because I would
do it, because I think we should have a full debate and a full
discussion on the Patients' Bill of Rights. And I think it will not be
limited, should not be limited to 2 hours. I thank my colleague, the
Senate minority leader, for recognizing the complexity of the bill that
is, I don't know how many pages. It is voluminous. And it is important.
Here it is. I don't know whether it has even had a hearing. It is 109
pages. It is controversial, to say the least. And there are many parts
of this bill which I would be supporting. There is absolutely no doubt
about it.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. D'AMATO. However, we are linking the two together. By suggesting
that in order to get this straightforward bill, this legislation that
says no more drive-by mastectomies and that women will be guaranteed
the right to have reconstructive surgery where there is a radical
mastectomy, it is linking the two together. I think that is
unfortunate. I might be willing to come and join my colleagues and
battle for a date certain or to fight for hearings at least. I don't
know whether we have had hearings. I don't think we have. I see Senator
Kennedy here.
But the point of the matter is that we are linking the two. We are
saying we are not going to consider whether women should have that
right. Where I don't believe there is one Senator here who feels they
should not have, not one, why should we link the two, with one bill 109
pages, which 90 percent of the Members have not read, have not studied,
have not gone through. Again, it is linkage, and therefore I am
compelled to say that notwithstanding the good intents of my friend, it
is linkage.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DASCHLE. Continuing to reserve the right to object, since my
colleague from New York did now object to my counterproposal, I am
flabbergasted. I am absolutely flabbergasted that the Senator from New
York would say, since we have not seen action on our bill, we should
take up his bill. And why are we taking up his bill under these
circumstances? Because the Finance Committee has not acted. That is the
reason. We are going to go around the Finance Committee to go straight
to the floor, and he is saying we shouldn't go around the Labor
Committee to go straight to the floor for the Patient Protection Act.
So let there not be any confusion here as to what is going on.
Everyone ought to know this. This is as glaring as the lights
themselves. Our Republican colleagues, for whatever reason, are denying
the opportunity to consider a Patient Protection Act, today, tomorrow
or any other day. And they are hiding behind the mastectomy bill to do
it.
Well, let's not hide behind any legislation. Let's strip away all the
rhetoric. They do not want to do it. They simply do not want to do it.
I don't know why they don't want to do it, given that about 80 or 90
percent of the American people are demanding we do it, but they can
explain it.
No one should be misled here. The problem is not that we are
combining the two bills. I have just released them. There isn't any
connection anymore. We will take up the Feinstein-D'Amato bill today
and take up the Patient Protection Act in the next couple of months.
Just let us take it up. That is all we are asking.
So, Mr. President, I am really astounded at that logic and that
rationale. But I don't think anybody is misled here. They don't want to
take up the patient protection legislation, and I am very disappointed,
and I think the American people would be as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let's look at this in perspective. I have
asked staff has there been a hearing with respect to S. 1890, a bill
that is over 100 pages, the complexities of which, everyone has to
admit, go well beyond a very straightforward, very limited bill which
we believe guarantees women a right that I don't think there is one
person here who could object to, and that is, length of stay should be
determined by the medical necessity of the procedure; and, second, that
reconstructive surgery should be a woman's right. She should not have
to go to appeal to some board or some insurance plan because ERISA
prevents States from having legislation that would order this.
Let me say this. We have had a hearing on S. 249, and we have had two
votes to attempt to get it. Senator Feinstein, myself, and others--and
I might say our bill has broad, bipartisan support. There is not one
Member on the Patients' Bill of Rights from the Republican Party. You
can say that you are not linking, you can say you are not blocking, but
that is exactly what has happened. The women of America are being
denied a right to something that they should have--that we should enact
into law, and we should be proud, and all 100 Senators should come down
and vote for this and sponsor this--because we want the Patients' Bill
of Rights to be heard at a particular time and we are linking the two.
That is exactly what is happening.
I could support various provisions in the Patients' Bill of Rights--
the clinical trials. I think we should have them. I want to support
them. But to say that we should deny the women of America an
opportunity to be heard on this and to have a vote on this is
counterproductive; it is wrong. It is a shame that the Senate operates
in this manner.
But everyone has a right to be heard. Everyone has a right to make
their objections. I think it is unfortunate. My friend and colleague
from California, Senator Feinstein, has been waiting very patiently. If
I might--
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think the unanimous-consent request is
still pending. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, let me just say the
Senator from New York has said on several occasions now that this has
not been the subject of any hearings. The Labor Committee has dealt
with this issue at more than seven hearings, hearings that have brought
people in from around the country, talking about this particular
problem and about how serious it is. There has been one meeting in the
subcommittee of the Finance Committee on his bill.
So let's talk about hearings. Let's talk about the array of people
who have come forth and said, ``Why are you waiting? Why aren't you
moving ahead with this legislation?'' I don't have an answer to that.
Our caucus is attempting to promote the opportunity for all people to
be heard on this issue.
The Senator from New York also made mention of the fact that his bill
deals with mastectomy, and it is a very
[[Page S4644]]
important contribution. I applaud Senator Feinstein and others for
making the effort, as they have, to get to this point. But his
legislation is very, very narrowly focused.
He said he supports clinical trials. We want to give him the
opportunity to vote for it. He says he supports access to specialists.
We want to give him the opportunity to vote for it. He wants to protect
the information, the records of patients. Let's give him and others a
chance to vote for it. That is what our bill does. It goes way beyond
simply the right, that a woman surely should have, to be more confident
about her ability to get the proper treatment when in a situation as
sensitive as a mastectomy. But let's provide them the protection
through clinical trials. Let's ensure that they can see necessary
specialists. Let's ensure that their records are going to be protected.
Let's do it all. Let's not do half a job, let's do the whole job. That
is what we are talking about here.
So I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. D'AMATO. I call for the regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York has the floor.
____________________