Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. Mr. President, let me simply state that tying these two requests together-- and I appreciate the position of the Senate minority leader--is unacceptable for the majority. Therefore, I will object. We can have some discussion as to the merits of attempting to tie the two together. I know the minority leader has been speaking. I might even support the Patients' Bill of Rights, but to tie it together in this way is unacceptable. So I am forced to object.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, again let me say it is one thing to say they are not being tied together, but that is exactly what is taking place. Let me take the time to point out, if I might, that the legislation that has been crafted with the help and consultation of my colleague, Senator Feinstein from California, from the beginning is not controversial, absolutely not controversial and is necessary. To take a bill that is so straightforward and tie it up in procedural knots--and that is what is happening here--so that the women of America, because of these procedures today, are being denied health care that they need, reconstructive surgery, drive-by mastectomies, being put on the streets or being told we are not going to pay for more than 24 hours or 48 hours or whatever the policy limits may be, regardless of the medical necessity, we are not going to pay for reconstructive surgery because, as one plan said and a doctor told me, ``It doesn't serve a bodily function so therefore we don't have to have reconstructive surgery,'' is absolutely wrong. This is an issue that everyone can support and should support, and we should not tie it down with legislation by its very nature that is so comprehensive as the Patients' Bill of Rights that takes in a myriad of programs and projects, et cetera, many of them that have arguments on both sides. To say that we are going to give one 2 hours and the other 2 hours, which is so complex, is just absolutely using the procedure to stifle this straightforward bill which says we will give women the right without having to appeal to various boards, et cetera, to reconstructive surgery and to know that they are not going to be forced to leave a hospital before it is the right time to do so. That is what we are talking about here. So we are forced to object. I am sorry that the distinguished leader on the other side is using that as a cover for precluding--and by the way, we may have some Members on the Republican side, I might want to add, who will seek to amend this, who are out of line, I believe, and who will hide behind this and do not have the courage to come down here and to vote up or down. And I would like to see them offer amendments because I have had some colleagues--let's be very candid--to say, ``We are going to offer a killer amendment.'' Why? Let me give you the argument on the other side. ``We don't want mandates.'' Let me give you another one. One of my distinguished colleagues says, ``We shouldn't have legislation by body part.'' Well, it is too bad, he is right, that we would have to reach this time and this place that it demands that. How much longer should the women of America have to wait? How many years, how many months do we really tie it up? And let me say this to you: This Senator is going to go forward. I know that my colleagues on the Democrat side, and there are many of them, feel equally passionate, and we are going to go forward and we are going to have a vote on this amendment. It is a straightforward piece of legislation. I see my colleague, Senator Feinstein, is seeking to speak on this, and I am going to----

Mr. D'AMATO. I object.

Mr. D'AMATO. I call for regular order, Mr. President. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. I now call for regular order with respect to the continued time.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 249 regarding inpatient care for breast cancer, and there be 2 hours for debate equally divided with one relevant amendment in order to be offered by Senator D'Amato, and following the disposition of the amendment the bill be advanced to third reading and a vote occur on its passage, all without intervening action or debate. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. I understand that, and let me respond by saying that I wish I could and did have the authority to accept that because I would do it, because I think we should have a full debate and a full discussion on the Patients' Bill of Rights. And I think it will not be limited, should not be limited to 2 hours. I thank my colleague, the Senate minority leader, for recognizing the complexity of the bill that is, I don't know how many pages. It is voluminous. And it is important. Here it is. I don't know whether it has even had a hearing. It is 109 pages. It is controversial, to say the least. And there are many parts of this bill which I would be supporting. There is absolutely no doubt about it.

Mr. D'AMATO. However, we are linking the two together. By suggesting that in order to get this straightforward bill, this legislation that says no more drive-by mastectomies and that women will be guaranteed the right to have reconstructive surgery where there is a radical mastectomy, it is linking the two together. I think that is unfortunate. I might be willing to come and join my colleagues and battle for a date certain or to fight for hearings at least. I don't know whether we have had hearings. I don't think we have. I see Senator Kennedy here. But the point of the matter is that we are linking the two. We are saying we are not going to consider whether women should have that right. Where I don't believe there is one Senator here who feels they should not have, not one, why should we link the two, with one bill 109 pages, which 90 percent of the Members have not read, have not studied, have not gone through. Again, it is linkage, and therefore I am compelled to say that notwithstanding the good intents of my friend, it is linkage. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let's look at this in perspective. I have asked staff has there been a hearing with respect to S. 1890, a bill that is over 100 pages, the complexities of which, everyone has to admit, go well beyond a very straightforward, very limited bill which we believe guarantees women a right that I don't think there is one person here who could object to, and that is, length of stay should be determined by the medical necessity of the procedure; and, second, that reconstructive surgery should be a woman's right. She should not have to go to appeal to some board or some insurance plan because ERISA prevents States from having legislation that would order this. Let me say this. We have had a hearing on S. 249, and we have had two votes to attempt to get it. Senator Feinstein, myself, and others--and I might say our bill has broad, bipartisan support. There is not one Member on the Patients' Bill of Rights from the Republican Party. You can say that you are not linking, you can say you are not blocking, but that is exactly what has happened. The women of America are being denied a right to something that they should have--that we should enact into law, and we should be proud, and all 100 Senators should come down and vote for this and sponsor this--because we want the Patients' Bill of Rights to be heard at a particular time and we are linking the two. That is exactly what is happening. I could support various provisions in the Patients' Bill of Rights-- the clinical trials. I think we should have them. I want to support them. But to say that we should deny the women of America an opportunity to be heard on this and to have a vote on this is counterproductive; it is wrong. It is a shame that the Senate operates in this manner. But everyone has a right to be heard. Everyone has a right to make their objections. I think it is unfortunate. My friend and colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, has been waiting very patiently. If I might-- Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. I call for the regular order.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein.

Mr. D'AMATO. Regular order. I believe under the regular order I control up to an hour.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from California, for up to 10 minutes, for a question.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, my colleague from California has a question. I would like to yield for a question to the Senator from California. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. Would the Senator----

Mr. D'AMATO. That is correct. The Senator is correct. We introduced this on January 30, 1997.

Mr. D'AMATO. That is also correct. And the Senator testified--the Senator from California came and gave some very cohesive and forceful testimony as to the need for this legislation.

Mr. D'AMATO. Absolutely. The Senator is absolutely correct.

Mr. D'AMATO. That is absolutely correct.

Mr. D'AMATO. I did. I did. My colleague is right. We brought it to a vote.

Mr. D'AMATO. Absolutely true. Again, procedurally this is raised, just as an analogy, as is being done here--there they raised germaneness, and, unfortunately, they kept the women of America from having the opportunity to have this bill considered at that time. That is correct.

Mr. D'AMATO. Absolutely. It is a bipartisan effort. It has been that way. I applaud my colleague from California for her leadership in this matter. We have done this and conducted this in a manner that has sought to eliminate politics and think about the women of America and the families of America, because we are talking about a disease and procedures that are hurting, harming the families of America.

Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator from California is absolutely correct. Let me say that we worked long and hard on this. We have many of our colleagues who, because of their commitment to deal with this--it is tragic when it hits a family it has so much of an impact--said you have to have at least 48 hours. In other words, 72 hours. And we finally have been working with the people in the medical community, and I must say we built a consensus where we recognize that we should not put any time limitation whatsoever. If I might, Mr. President, we have the Senator from Montana who is waiting to make a statement. Might I propound a unanimous consent request that he be permitted to speak for up to 3 or 4 minutes as if in morning business, and that might we also have an additional 5 minutes then--we started late--so that he could make his statement, and then without my losing the right to continue and to hold the floor and continue our discussion with respect to this?

Mr. D'AMATO. That is why I asked for an additional 5 minutes.