[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.

                          ____________________