[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 118 (Wednesday, September 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10099-S10101]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 4250
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its legislative business today, it then proceed to the
consideration of Calendar No. 505, H.R. 4250, the House-passed HMO
reform bill, that only relevant amendments be in order, and that the
bill become the pending business every day thereafter upon completion
of legislative business.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the hour is again upon us, as it was last
night. I suggested last night that we move to a second shift, that at
approximately 7 o'clock every night we take up legislation our
Republican colleagues say we don't have time for during the day.
I am very disappointed, once again, that our Republican colleagues
have objected to doing that. There is absolutely no reason why, with
less than 6 weeks left in the session, we leave this Chamber at 10
minutes to 7. There is no reason for that. How many businesses would
survive with an incredible amount of production in front of them if
they were to say: We are going to take off work early, we are not going
to work a second shift, we are not going to work as if we are in a
state of emergency, we are going to treat the situation as business as
usual?
Mr. President, that is what we are doing with the schedule right now.
It is remarkable to me that with little time left in the session, our
Republican colleagues are content to go home and in a sense tell the
American people: Look, we don't have time to consider your problems. We
don't have time to consider the importance of HMO reform or to pass a
Patients' Bill of Rights. We don't care; we are going home.
Mr. President, that ought not be the message we send the American
people. So that is why we have suggested working a second shift. That
is why we have suggested coming to the Senate floor at this hour each
evening to pick up where we left off the night before, to recognize
that we will never be able to address this and other serious problems
unless we are willing to stay here and do our work. We have worked hard
to bring the Senate to the point of passing a meaningful Patients' Bill
of Rights. More than 170 organizations wait for us to act tonight.
Millions and millions of people who have high expectations about the
possibility of realistically dealing with this problem wait for us to
act tonight.
I am disappointed, disappointed, No. 1, that our Republican
colleagues again would rather go home than do their work, disappointed
that legislation which has now passed in the House languishes in the
Senate without any hope of passing unless we stay here tonight or
tomorrow night or the next night. And I am disappointed by what it
means in terms of the real prospects for accomplishment, the real
prospects for getting something done, the real chance that we can leave
and close down the 105th Congress feeling good about having addressed
one of the most serious problems facing the American people today.
There are too many insurance companies making decisions for doctors.
There are too many women who are being turned out of hospitals too
early. There are too many patients who are not being given the
opportunity to choose their doctor. There are too many people whose
doctors prescribe a medicine only to be overturned by an insurance
company.
Mr. President, it goes on and on. The problem we have is that unless
we act, unless we are willing to do our work, unless we take this
second shift, we will never have the opportunity to bring this
important issue to closure.
Obviously, there is one other way to do it, and that is to eat up the
day throughout the day. We have already indicated that if we can't take
a second shift approach, then we have no other recourse but to offer
this legislation in the form of an amendment on any vehicle that comes
along. Whatever bill may be pending, we will have no other option but
to offer it as an amendment, and we will do that just as we have done
it before. We will offer it on a bill that will require our colleagues
to vote.
So it is not a question of avoiding the vote. We will either do it in
a constructive way on a second shift or we will do it in a
confrontational way during the day on the first shift. But we are going
to do it. We have said that in the remaining days of this session we
must have a vote on minimum wage, we must have a vote on a Patients'
Bill of Rights, we must have a vote on campaign finance reform, we must
have a vote on pay equity, and we must have a vote on a series of
amendments that will improve the crisis in agriculture today. Those are
votes we must have, and we must find a way with which to accommodate
each other's priorities to allow that to happen.
Again, let me express my disappointment, my sorrow, my frustration at
our Republican colleagues' unwillingness to cooperate with us.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. As the Senator has pointed out, it is 7 o'clock this
evening. We had last evening, we will have tomorrow evening. There is
no reason we can't go from 7 to 10 or 10:30. The Senator remembers the
times where we have had these double sessions. They are not a very
unusual process and procedure. I will include in the Record tomorrow
the instances when we have had these, generally at the end of sessions,
but they have been a two-track process by which we deal with certain
measures during the day and others during the course of the evening.
Does the Senator agree with me, for example, on the Patients' Bill of
Rights that if we took Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday evenings and
did it from 7 to 10, 10:30 probably this week, three different
evenings, there would be a good opportunity where we could probably
finish that legislation, or perhaps take one or more evenings of next
week to address the issues which the Senator has talked about. We could
have a good debate on the question of minimum wage--whether it has been
inflationary, whether there has been loss of employment, the impact on
small employment, the various kinds of arguments that have been made--
and we would be able to dispose of that in a fair and reasonable time,
as well as the agriculture and farm issues, pay equity, and other
issues?
Does the Senator believe, if we knew now that we were going to do
this, the membership would become engaged in this legislation,
particularly if we had notice that we were going to consider various
legislation with due notice, in 2 or 3 nights we would consider X
legislation, which is sort of a time-honored way that we have proceeded
here? Is that the kind of arrangement that the Senator is looking for
so that the membership would have notice of the legislation and we
could have that kind of debate during the course of the evenings? Does
the Senator think there is any other business that is more important
for us to be involved in at this time than those issues which people
have expressed an interest and concern about such as the Patients' Bill
of Rights issue?
Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate very much the question of the Senator from
Massachusetts. The answer is, ``No.''
I know the Senator, who is a real student of history and has a wealth
of experience, can go back to those occasions over many, many years
when we have found nighttime debates to be the best debates because
there are no interruptions. Why? Because Senators don't have to be in
their offices with appointments and phone calls. They can be here on
the Senate floor. If we are here, we get more interaction.
There have been some extraordinary debates on the floor of the U.S.
Senate after 7 o'clock at night. And the reason for that is because,
oftentimes, we do
[[Page S10100]]
not have so many other tugs and pulls on our schedules.
So, first of all, the Senator is right when he comments about the
historical precedent for this approach. Second, he is correct that not
only is it a common Senate practice, but actually the quality of the
debate oftentimes is enhanced. Third, unless we do it this way, I fear
that we really are not going to have the opportunity to address the
issues, as the Senator from Massachusetts has pointed out, that have
the highest priority when you ask the American people what we should be
addressing.
So from the perspective of priority, from the perspective of quality,
from the perspective of history, the Senator from Massachusetts is
correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. Would he not agree with me that we
have a general understanding that Thursday nights are the late night in
the Senate? We do that with the idea that we hope we can finish various
measures that may go on over to Friday out of consideration to some of
those Senators who live in different parts, some distance away from the
Nation's Capital, to try at least to accommodate some of their
interests.
So the idea that we have a night session is not really unique or
special. Members are here during the period of the week. They are on
notice now. We have just come back from a good break in the period of
August, but we have a limited time that is available. I must say, I
fail to find an adequate response by the Republican leadership to the
Senator's eminently fair and reasonable proposal. It would seem to me
we ought to at least try it for a week, try it for a week or two and
find out how we are proceeding. We could consider the Patients' Bill of
Rights, for example, a measure of enormous importance to the millions
of families in this country. We have been denied that opportunity to
have the debate. We have always been told we cannot have that debate
because we are not going to take up a lot of the Senate's time.
The way I understand the leader's proposal is we might be able to do
that in the evening time until we reach a conclusion on that so we
would not interfere with the appropriations legislation.
What is possibly the justification not to do it? Are we saying our
own personal requirements are of greater importance than trying to deal
with the business of America's families--whether they are in South
Dakota or in Massachusetts--who are very, very much affected by what we
fail to do here in reaching some resolution on the Patients' Bill of
Rights?
I do not know whether the leader had an opportunity to see the list
of the various parts of the Patients' Bill of Rights bill that I had on
the floor a short time ago, but I know the Senator is very familiar
with them. Doesn't he agree that probably 17 or 18 topic areas are
about it with regard to the Patients' Bill of Rights, and probably even
some of those areas could be accommodated by individual Members on both
sides who are really interested in trying to reach a resolution? We
could deal with these other measures--whether women are going to be in
clinical trials; whether we are going to have appeals procedures;
whether we are going to have gag rules--and the various other
protections the Senator mentioned earlier.
Doesn't the Senator feel we could work that through in a reasonable
period of time if we involved the Senate in debate during these weekday
nights?
Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator has asked a couple of very good questions.
The first question he asked is why we are quitting work at an hour that
could easily accommodate debate on important issues? I think the answer
is, we all appreciate a family-friendly environment. We all enjoy being
able to go home to our families. By and large, in the last couple of
years, we have been able to do that. We have had a family-friendly
legislative session that has accommodated personal needs. I think that
is understandable, and for the most part, I think I have supported it.
I think there comes a time, though, when you get to this period at
the end of the Congress--not the end of a session, we are talking about
the end of a Congress. We have just a few weeks left, and our work has
to take priority.
As the Senator noted, usually Thursday nights have been nights where
we work late. What we are suggesting is that we at least take Tuesday,
Wednesday and Thursday nights, for the balance of the time that remains
in this session, and use that time productively. Let's take 3 or 4
hours and see what we can accomplish--particularly on something as
important as the Patients' Bill of Rights.
The second question is about the degree to which we want to be able
to offer amendments. I heard the Senator so compellingly speak about
other bills that have required hundreds of amendments, in some cases
well over 100 amendments for bills of great import. We are not even
asking for that, as the Senator has noted. I think his chart points
that out.
There are categories for which there are legitimate differences of
opinion. We want to be able to offer amendments in those areas, to be
able to have a good debate and discuss them. But to say you are going
to be forced into this three-amendment limit with no ability to talk
about all the very serious concerns is just unacceptable and does not
do justice to the issue. They say we don't have time for a full debate.
We have 3 hours of time. They say we have to limit ourselves to three
amendments, even though other bills have taken 150 amendments--we have
the time. We have the interest. What is holding them up? No one can
really answer that for us. Obviously that is the perplexing question.
The bill has passed in the House. Why not debate it here in the Senate
as well?
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the leader for, again, his leadership in this
important area. Next time there is objection to the proposal--the
Republican leadership says we can't afford the time for this; we can't
afford the time to debate it-- it is going to ring very hollow after we
have seen the very reasonable request of the leader to debate those
issues this evening. The Senator from South Dakota has introduced the
legislation. He is here tonight to debate it, and I welcome the chance
to join with him in debating that. We are here ready to go on this
legislation. We could do it this evening or any night this week. It is
not satisfactory enough for the American people, just to say, as the
Republican leadership has, ``No, we are not going to do this, and we
are going to refuse to permit this debate and discussion.'' That is not
really in the great traditions of this body. This body was supposed to
deal with the public interest, the unfinished agenda.
There is nothing more important than protecting American families
from decisions being made by insurance companies rather than health
professionals. There is nothing more important, in terms of the health
care of these families, before the Senate this year. I think it is
grossly unfair.
So I commend, again, the leader for bringing this up. I know the
leader will bring up the amendment. Then we will hear from the other
side, ``Oh, my goodness, we can't do that; we can't do this. It's
impossible to do it.'' We could have done it this evening; probably
last night and the other nights this week. I certainly join in
supporting his efforts to insist that we are going to debate these, and
we are going to reach resolution on these matters before we conclude.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his
thoughtful comments and for his willingness to engage in this colloquy.
I think the legislative history ought to demonstrate that there are
those of us who truly want this issue resolved. We really are prepared
to put in the time and effort to come to closure on what is the most
important health question facing this Congress, and that is, how do we
deal with the array of problems we are facing in managed care today.
No one has put more time and effort and leadership into this question
than the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I am grateful for
the partnership and extraordinary effort he has demonstrated and put
forth in bringing us to this point.
Mr. President, unless there are further comments, I yield the floor,
and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page S10101]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________