[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 29, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9211-S9212]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could, I ask Senator Bingaman to allow 
Senator Daschle and I to bring up an issue we have been wanting to do, 
and also say we are working with a number of Senators to see how we 
might deal with this, see if it can be handled without having to go to 
a recorded vote. We need a few more minutes. In the meantime, Senator 
Daschle and I would like to do an exchange here with regard to a 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. President, we need to try to clear up what we are going to do for 
the balance of the week. Senator Daschle and I have been working, back 
and forth, since the middle of June, trying to come to a unanimous 
consent agreement on how to handle the health care Patients' Bill of 
Rights issue. We have had a number of suggestions back and forth. We 
have not been able to come to agreement. There are ways that 
legislation could be brought to the floor anyway. But I am sure there 
would be objections if it were done in a way where there could not be 
amendments or, from this side, if there were unlimited amendments. But 
we need to try to see that there is one final opportunity for us to get 
a way to bring up the health care issue.
  I ask unanimous consent the majority leader, after notification of 
the Democratic leader, shall turn to S. 2330 regarding health care. I 
further ask, immediately upon its reporting, Senator Nickles be 
recognized to offer a substitute amendment making technical changes to 
the bill, and immediately following the reporting by the clerk, Senator 
Kennedy be recognized to offer his Patients' Bill of Rights amendment, 
with votes occurring on each amendment with all points of order having 
been waived.
  I further ask that three other amendments be in order on each side, 
for a total of six, to be offered by each leader or their designees, 
regarding health care. Following the conclusion of debate and following 
the votes with respect to the listed amendments, the bill be advanced 
to third reading and the Senate proceed to H.R. 4250, the House 
companion bill, all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of 
S. 2330, as amended, if amended, be inserted, and the Senate proceed to 
vote at no later than 3 p.m. on Friday, July 31.
  To sum up, what I am asking is we would have debate on the two 
underlying bills, six amendments, three on each side, and of course the 
votes that would be ordered as a result of that, and finish, then, by 3 
on Friday, the 31st. I think we could have a good debate, have some 
votes, and complete that debate.
  I further ask that following the vote, the Senate bill be returned to 
the calendar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the majority leader's 
request?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would certainly want to reiterate what 
the majority leader said at the beginning of his comments, which is 
that we have been negotiating now for some time in an effort to 
determine how we might bring to the floor the health care bills offered 
by the Republican caucus as well as the Democratic caucus. I see 
Senator Graham standing. There are other bills that may be contemplated 
in this debate as well.
  Our view is that it would be very difficult to have a debate of the 
importance of what we consider this to be, with the limit of amendments 
that the majority leader has proposed. We had 56 amendments on the 
Agriculture appropriations bill. We disposed of them. We had 82 
amendments on the Commerce-State-Justice bill. We disposed of them. I 
would not say, in either case, people felt that was too long a debate 
to have on an important bill like those two appropriations bills. We 
had 150 amendments on the Defense authorization bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader's request be 
modified to provide for relevant amendments--to limit it to relevant 
amendments. I think we can have a good debate. We are prepared to limit 
them to relevant amendments. I have asked my colleagues not to offer 
the Patients' Bill of Rights amendment to other bills because, in large 
measure, we have been working in good faith to try to see if we can 
accommodate a schedule that will allow us to bring it to the floor.
  Certainly, I think having an agreement that would allow a debate, 
limited to relevant amendments, would certainly take into account the 
concerns that many of our colleagues have raised about being too 
limited on a bill, and a debate that is as consequential as is this 
one. So I make that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader?
  Mr. LOTT. Would that be with the agreement that we finish it and have 
final passage on the two underlying bills by a time certain on Friday?
  Mr. DASCHLE. We would not know when we would finish. Obviously, we 
couldn't agree to a time limit on the bill because we really don't know 
how long the relevant amendments would take at this point.
  Mr. LOTT. That would be our concern, then. There would be no way of 
knowing how many amendments or how long it would go on.
  As the Senator knows, this year we have attempted some bills and we 
never could quite bring them to a conclusion. I really want to be able 
to get the Senate to actually vote on a bill that goes to conference. I 
believe Senator Daschle wants that, too. I am afraid, if we just go 
into it with relevant amendments with no limits--we only had 18 
amendments, as I recall, on the tobacco bill. We stayed on that for 4 
weeks. We only have 5 weeks and 2 days left, so I don't think we could 
do that.
  Let me say to Senator Graham, I know he and others are working on 
another bill. What we could do, we do have, under my proposal, three 
amendments on each side. We could make their substitute one of those 
three amendments. I presume that would be

[[Page S9212]]

what we would probably do on our side, if there is one that is 
developed as an alternative.  Alternatives would have an opportunity 
under that proposal.

  Since we couldn't get any kind of guarantee that we will get it to a 
conclusion, I have to object to the addition that Senator Daschle 
proposed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DASCHLE. In that case, I will have to object to the offer made by 
the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

                          ____________________