[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 93 (Monday, June 28, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Page S7707]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ORDER OF BUSINESS

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture 
vote occur on the Kennedy health care bill at 12:15 p.m. on Tuesday and 
the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture 
vote on the Kennedy health care bill occur at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday and 
the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, there is one other option. If we do not get 
an agreement to handle it sometime tomorrow, we will, of course, handle 
it in the regular order on Wednesday, either 1 hour after we come in or 
sometime which the leaders will discuss. I have one more request.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour of debate 
on the pending amendment to be equally divided in the usual form and 
the vote occur on, or in relation to, the amendment at 11 a.m. on 
Tuesday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, will the majority leader be prepared to 
waive points of order on that particular amendment?
  Mr. LOTT. I do not believe I am able to do that, although I do not 
know of any reason that would be used.
  But I think at this point I would not be inclined to waive a point of 
order.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, until we have been able to clarify that, 
I will have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me explain briefly our situation.
  Early this year, the majority leader stated we would take up the 
Patients' Bill of Rights in June. We applauded that commitment. That is 
really what this fight is all about--maintaining the commitment that 
was made earlier.
  Democrats have been saying we will do everything humanly possible to 
ensure that the Senate engages in a full, meaningful debate on the 
central issues of managed care reform:
  Whether doctors or HMO bureaucrats determine what tests or treatments 
are medically necessary;
  Whether you or your child can see a qualified specialist;
  Whether patients have access to a timely, independent, external 
review to appeal HMO decisions to deny care;
  Whether HMOs should be held accountable for medical decisions to deny 
or delay care that injure or even kill patients;
  Whether an HMO bureaucrat, or your doctor, decides what prescription 
drugs you need;
  Whether you or your family member can participate in a clinical trial 
for a potentially life-saving new treatment;
  Whether all privately insured Americans deserve protection.
  The list goes on and on. Those are some of the issues, some of the 
questions.
  We have tried to reach an agreement with the majority to call up the 
bill separately. All we have asked is that we be guaranteed votes on 
those central issues. So far, the majority has refused.
  What we have done in the last few days is what we vowed we would have 
to do: We are offering our proposal as amendments on the floor, as is 
our right under the Senate rules.
  In my view, it is also our obligation to bring to the floor of the 
Senate the issues that matter most to the American people.
  While some have suggested there isn't time for this debate, others 
have stated quite clearly their real reason for refusing: They do not 
want to vote on these issues.
  Why don't they want to cast these votes? Because they are, frankly, 
on the wrong side of the issues. They do not want to have to defend 
their position.
  They said they want to get beyond the Feinstein amendment. They can. 
All they have to do is vote on it. The majority wants to accuse us of 
holding up the Senate, but nothing is stopping any member of the 
majority from moving to table the Feinstein amendment. They can do that 
tonight. We could have our vote and move on to another amendment. That 
is all that is required: Table the Feinstein amendment if you do not 
like it.
  But the majority appears not to want to table the amendment. They 
appear to be afraid to have that vote, afraid to let doctors make 
medical decisions, afraid to admit they are blocking that patient 
protection. I have never seen anything like the bob-and-weave tactics 
that have been employed to date to avoid this vote.
  So what are they afraid of? What is wrong with doctors making medical 
decisions? I believe this is gamesmanship at its worst.
  Last week we heard several Republican Senators talk about how good 
their Patients' Bill of Rights is. Then they voted to strip it from the 
floor.
  Now they are offering the Democratic bill--which they tabled just 
last week so they could avoid an up-or-down vote on the Feinstein 
amendment--so they can avoid a vote on whether or not to let doctors 
and other health care professionals determine what is medically 
necessary.
  Every day the majority makes these decisions, every day they avoid 
these tough votes, someone's child, someone's parent, someone's spouse 
is being denied medical care prescribed by a doctor because an 
insurance company accountant is saying it isn't really necessary or 
that it costs too much.
  Let me make one thing very clear. This dispute isn't about the 
Senate's time. In the time the majority has spent avoiding a single 
vote on medical necessity, we could have considered the entire 
Patients' Bill of Rights amendments. They have turned down every offer 
we have made to address this issue in an efficient manner. This dispute 
isn't about time, it is about actual votes on actual rights. We insist 
on having them--both the votes and the rights. Apparently our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle want neither.
  Up-or-down votes--isn't that what the Senate is here to do, to vote 
on the issues that matter the most? If and when the majority is willing 
to vote on these issues, the Senate can move on. But it is our belief 
that the Senate should not move on until it has dealt properly with one 
of the most important issues facing virtually every American--their 
health care.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

                          ____________________