[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.

                          ____________________