[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 133 (Monday, October 23, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10885-S10886]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         THE UNFINISHED AGENDA

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I listened to the Senator from Iowa, Mr. 
Harkin, a few moments ago, as he spoke about the unfinished agenda. I 
suppose every Congress finishes with a speech by 1 or 2 or 10 or 20 
Members of Congress talking about the unfinished agenda. But that 
unfinished agenda in this Congress is mighty long and also mighty 
important.
  The Senator from Iowa talks about the Patients' Bill of Rights, 
education issues such as the crumbling schools, smaller class sizes--a 
whole series of initiatives that we really should get to. The Senator 
just asked unanimous consent--I guess it was a nomination he was 
attempting to get to the floor of the Senate.
  I made this point last week to the consternation of a couple of my 
friends here in the Senate, but I think it is important to make it 
again. On September 22, a motion was brought to the floor of the 
Senate, a motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 2557. That is an 
energy bill. That motion to proceed has now been pending here in the 
Senate for a month and a day. On September 22 it was put on the floor, 
and it has been here for 1 month and 1 day. My feeling is that the 
motion to proceed is here--and we are not voting on it and we are not 
proceeding--it is here because it is a motion to block any other effort 
to bring up any other issues. We have a wide range of issues; I suppose 
some of them are being negotiated these days, but most of them will 
remain unfinished at the end of this session.
  The Senator from Iowa, who has a real passion to want to get certain 
things done, is unable on a Monday or Tuesday to come to the floor to 
say I want to offer a motion to proceed on his issue. Let's assume it 
is the minimum wage. He wants to test whether time has changed some 
minds on the minimum wage. He is unable to offer that. The Patients' 
Bill of Rights? He has been unable to offer that. Campaign finance 
reform? Unable to offer that. Why? Because there is a motion pending, 
and the motion pending is the motion to proceed to the consideration of 
S. 2557, a bill that I do not believe was ever intended to come to the 
floor. But the motion pending is a motion to block the efforts of 
others who might want to offer a motion here on the floor of the 
Senate. That is what I think is thwarting the interests of the Senator 
from Iowa.
  When he described the unfinished business, one might say: If it is 
unfinished, why don't you come down here and make a motion? The Senator 
cannot make a motion because that particular motion to proceed has been 
blocking anyone else from offering anything for a month and a day.
  The Senator did ask unanimous consent. Of course, unanimous consent 
never clears here. There is always an objection to unanimous consent to 
move to something. Then the question would be, Why couldn't he just 
make a motion? The answer is: You can not move to it because we have a 
blocking motion that has been here for a month and a day.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, I thank the Senator for 
pointing that out. I am as guilty as anyone--we get wrapped up in the 
language of the Senate, the language of legislation. I did not realize 
until now the Senator is making the point that the average person out 
there, maybe listening to what I said about the fact that we have not 
brought up or voted on a Patients' Bill of Rights or prescription drugs 
or Medicare or an increase in the minimum wage--we haven't brought any 
of those up--might say: Why don't you bring them up? The Senator has 
pointed it out--we cannot because we are blocked.

  Again I ask the Senator, to again clarify this one more time. This 
motion to proceed that has been here for a month and a day--is it the 
observation of the Senator that nothing has been done to move to that? 
We have not gone to that bill. It has just been sitting there. Does the 
Senator see any move on that side to go to S. 2557, whatever it is?
  Mr. DORGAN. I would say after a month now it is quite clear this 
motion to proceed is simply an effort to block the opportunity of 
others to offer amendments. People have a right to do

[[Page S10886]]

that in the Senate. But they should understand, as I said last week to 
some colleagues who were on the floor, one can chaff quite a bit at 
that kind of treatment because it means the passions that brought a 
number of them to the Senate to do certain things, come here and use 
all the energy you have to advance good public policy--those passions 
cannot exist in a circumstance where you are not able to offer motions 
even to pursue the kinds of things you think this country needs to be 
doing.
  We just saw the chart of the Senator. Some of them said we should 
probably increase the minimum wage a bit at the bottom. We have 3 
million workers working a full 40-hour week trying to raise the family 
on the minimum wage. They are at the bottom of the economic ladder. 
This Congress was real quick to say the folks at the top of the ladder, 
we need to give them a huge tax cut but not quite so quick to say let's 
help those at the bottom of the ladder.
  Some might say we had a vote on that. Yes, we had a vote on that a 
long time ago. Maybe we ought to have another vote and see whether 
there is now the will to proceed for some modest increase in the 
minimum wage. Can we have that vote? No, you cannot offer that nor can 
I. I offer that as an example.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, I was at a town meeting last 
week and had an interesting question posed to me by a man in the 
audience. He said, why don't you people there work more closely 
together? Why don't you get along a little bit better? Why is there all 
this bickering? Why can't you just work these things out?
  I thought about that. I responded to him and said, we would love to 
do that but in the legislative process, the way you work things out is, 
I have my position; you have your position. What we do is we send the 
bills to the committee; we bring them on the floor; we debate them--
full, open, public debate. We may offer amendments. Maybe I want to 
change it a little bit, maybe you want to change it a little bit. Then 
when that is all done, you vote and you let the chips fall where they 
will.
  That is the legislative process. That is what the people of this 
country deserve. I said to him: The way the rules are set up now in the 
Senate, I do not get to debate or vote or offer amendments that I think 
might improve a bill as I might want to improve it. I might lose, but 
that is all right. At least I have made my case. At least we have had a 
vote. At least my constituents will know where I stand and what I want 
to do. I may not succeed, but at least I made my case.
  The way the situation is on the Senate floor today, I cannot make 
that case. I cannot tell my constituents I have fought the fight for 
them because I have been blocked by the rules of the Senate. I say to 
my friend from North Dakota, it is grossly unfair. It is unfair to the 
people of this country to have this kind of blockage where we cannot 
offer amendments, debate, vote up or down, and move on with the 
business of this country.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will make one additional comment. A 
Patients' Bill of Rights is an awfully good example of where we are at 
the moment. A bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights passed the House of 
Representatives which does what ought to be done: It gives patients 
protections against some of the practices of HMOs that allow 
accountants to practice medicine rather than have the doctor and 
patient decide what is best. The fact is, there has been a change in 
the Senate. The House passed a bipartisan bill, a good bill, and the 
Senate passed a watered down bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator seeks 3 additional minutes. Is 
there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. A bipartisan bill passed the House. The Senate did not 
pass a bipartisan bill. It was a shell of a bill. Things have changed 
in the Senate, so if we had another vote on it, we would prevail. One 
Senator is gone; a new one is here. We would have a 50-50 tie. The Vice 
President would break the tie, and the Senate would pass the Patients' 
Bill of Rights. We are unable to get to the vote despite the fact, in 
my judgment, a majority of the Senate would now support a real 
Patients' Bill of Rights. We would then be in conference with the House 
having passed one. We would pass one, and the American people would 
have a real Patients' Bill of Rights.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is right.
  Mr. DORGAN. One other issue. I asked the majority leader a question 
about how the tax issues will come to the floor. It looks to me as if a 
menu of tax issues will come to this floor in the last hours put in a 
small business authorization bill. I believe the House has actually 
added other conferees to that conference who are not part of the Small 
Business Committee.
  A small business authorization bill will now be the carrier for all 
kinds of tax provisions in a conference report, and no Member of the 
Senate who cares about taxes and wants to have a role in that, perhaps 
offer an amendment, or have some discussion about what ought to be in 
or out, no Member of the Senate is going to have that opportunity. It 
is done in a conference by a few people in a bill that is totally 
unrelated.
  It will come in a conference report, and the result is none of us 
will have the opportunity to do much about it. The majority leader is a 
friend. I talked with him one day and said running this place is 
similar to that commercial on television where those leather-faced 
cowboys wearing chaps and buckskin vests, riding those big old horses, 
are herding cats, trying to run cats through the sagebrush, talking 
about what a tough job that is. I understand that. Running the House 
and the Senate probably is not much different.
  I do believe at some point we have to be in a situation in the Senate 
where we use the rules to allow everyone to have their day and everyone 
to have their say, and at the end of the day we vote. If you lose, you 
lose, but you need the opportunity to have the votes so the Senate can 
express its will on a series of important issues.
  Frankly, this blocking motion that has existed now for a month and a 
day that prevents the Senator from Iowa, me, or anyone else from 
offering, for example, the Patients' Bill of Rights on which we would 
now prevail, is what stands between the American people and a good 
Patients' Bill of Rights. The result is that men, women, and children 
will discover when they go to a doctor's office they will be told: Yes, 
you now have to fight your cancer, but you also have to fight your HMO 
to get payment for the treatment that you need from your oncologist.
  That is happening all too often. The legislation we aspire to pass 
evens up the score a bit. It says patients have rights and those rights 
cannot be abridged or abused. We can pass that in the Senate if someone 
will take that blocking motion off, and we will get one more vote on a 
Patients' Bill of Rights. This vote will be 51 for, with the Vice 
President voting for, and 50 against.
  I say to those who have this blocking motion, give us the opportunity 
this afternoon or tomorrow or Wednesday, and we will pass it and go to 
conference. It will take an hour in conference to resolve the House and 
Senate bills, and the American people will have a Patients' Bill of 
Rights.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________