Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. Under this new proposal, those who have already been given a judgment, have done everything within their power to resolve this matter using the current system, will be told that effort is now nullified and they will have to restart under this new system for whatever compensation they might be awarded. I would say again--I don't know if the Senator was in the Chamber when I illustrated or described one particular case, a case involving someone who had been exposed to asbestos for 15 years--under this bill, that person, who has lung cancer, who smoked, who was exposed to asbestos for 15 years, is entitled to as little as $25,000.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am pleased the majority leader came back to the floor to reiterate his desire to find a solution. It will take more than just reasserting over and over that we want to find that answer, that compromise, that legislative approach that will generate the kind of support in the Senate that is possible. It takes what he just said. It will take a willingness to meet, a willingness to work through these issues. That is my frustration. I truly believe the majority leader is sincere when he says he wants to find a way to solve the problem. What I don't feel has been done, except in the offices of the good Senator from Pennsylvania, is that concerted effort to try to address these issues in an inclusive way. That has been done, but it has been done in large measure by Senator Specter, not by the leadership. We are prepared today, tomorrow, tonight. We will be happy to meet, as I have offered to do on many occasions. The sooner we do it, the sooner that opportunity for resolution can be achieved. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. If the Senator is asking me a question, I respond by saying, absolutely. But let me give him one illustration of my skepticism about his question. There must have been now, as he said, 20--maybe more--staff meetings over the course of the last 6 or 8 months. As he and I discussed this matter and as our staffs discussed this matter, attention has turned to the compensation trust fund. We were absolutely startled, surprised, deeply troubled by this remarkable movement away from the trust fund number the committee had included: $153 billion. The pending bill has $109 billion. My staff and I have both asked staff of the majority leader on several occasions, Is there a way to find a reasonable number? We have been stonewalled every single time when that issue has been discussed. It has not been discussed. It is not even discussable on the other side. It does not do any good to sit and look across each other at the table if we cannot have a meaningful discussion about some of the differences we have. If all we do over the course of the next week is to say this is our number, with some expectation that maybe by saying it 100 times we will concede that then has to be the number, this will be one of the most fruitless experiences he and I will have had in our time in the Senate. So yes, there has to be a willingness to meet; but if those meetings have meaning, there also has to be willingness to negotiate. Frankly, we have not seen much of that except in the Specter meetings. Again, I am hopeful we can finally move off these hard positions and find some common ground. If that can be achieved, then, yes, I think this week could be a productive week.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I welcome back the distinguished assistant Republican leader and the Presiding Officer. I come to the floor today to say a few words about what I believe is one of the most difficult issues to talk about in the ongoing conflict in Iraq. My remarks will not address whether I support our troops in Iraq, because I do. All Americans, I believe, are awed by the courage and sacrifice of our troops in Iraq. My remarks will not address whether I am concerned about the administration's failure to honor its commitment to our troops that they would be required to serve no more than 365 days ``boots on the ground,'' because I am. My remarks will not address whether I believe it is essential that we win the fight to bring democracy, stay the course in Iraq until we see Iraq on the road to democracy, because I do. Instead, I rise for the sole purpose of acknowledging the terrible, growing toll this war is taking on some of America's finest citizens and their families. More than 700 American troops have died in the war, and this month, as we all know, has been the deadliest month for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. More than 100 Americans soldiers have been killed in Iraq since April 1. Twelve more brave soldiers lost their lives in Iraq this past weekend. I come to the floor to pay tribute to the sacrifice of these soldiers. They sacrificed everything because our Nation asked them to, and we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. I say to the grieving families of our fallen heroes: America is with you in sorrow, and we will not forget you or the loved ones you have lost. On Holy Thursday, April 8, on the western outskirts of Baghdad, on the road to Fallujah, Marine Lance Corporal Levi Angell died when the Humvee he was riding in was hit by a rocket propelled grenade. He was 20 years old. After learning of his son's death, Levi Angell's father stood outside the family's home in St. Louis, MN, clutching an 8-by-10- inch photo of his son close to his heart. ``This was my son,'' he told reporters. ``I am as proud as proud can be of that young man.'' He added, ``It's a sad, sad day. This is a sad, sad country right now.'' This is a sad, sad day in South Dakota, too. Last night, we learned that one of the 12 American soldiers killed in Iraq this past weekend was a member of the South Dakota National Guard. Army Specialist Dennis Morgan was the sixth South Dakota soldier to die in Iraq and the first member of the South Dakota National Guard killed in this war. A military spokesman said he was helping clear mines and explosives Saturday when a roadside bomb went off. He was 22 years old, and married. He joined the Guard immediately after graduating from high school in Winner, SD, class of 2000. He had been in the Middle East for just under 2 months. Today, South Dakotans are mourning Specialist Morgan's death, and praying that his family can find some comfort for their sorrow. We also pray for the safety of the soldiers who remain in Iraq. I want to say a few words about some of the other fallen American heroes who lost their lives in Iraq this month. Marine Private First Class Dustin Sekula, of Edinburg, TX, was killed by enemy fire in Fallujah on April 1. Private First Class Dustin Sekula graduated from high school last year and gave up a full college scholarship to join the Marines. The father of a high school friend told his hometown newspaper, ``He was worth his weight in gold. He would try to conquer anything they would throw at him.'' Twelve American soldiers died in Iraq on April 4, Palm Sunday. Eight of those soldiers died together in a battle with militia loyal to Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in Sadr City, a Shiite slum on the outskirts of Baghdad. The soldiers were part of a quick response team that rushed to rescue a platoon pinned down by gunfire in Sadr City. Seven of the eight were members of the Army's 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division. They had been in Iraq less than 3 weeks. They were: Specialist Casey Sheehan, 24, from Vacaville, CA; Specialist Dustin Hiller, 25, of Opelika, AL; Specialist Ahmed Cason, 24, of McCalla, AL; Corporal Forest Jostes, 22, of Albion, IL; Sergeant Yihjyn Chen, 31, from Saipan, Marianas Protectorate, who spoke five languages and became a U.S. citizen in the Army; and Private First Class Robert Arsiaga, and Specialist Israel Garza, two West Texans, both 25, both married, who became best friends at Fort Hood. At a memorial service in Baghdad for the fallen seven, their Battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel Gary Volesky, said, ``Uncommon valor was common that day.'' The eighth soldier killed in the firefight in Sadr City, Sergeant Michael Mitchell, 25, of Porterville, CA, was with the Army's 1st Armored Division. He had been in Baghdad for 11 months and had re- enlisted 3 months before he died. His father joined hundreds of other people marching in a peace rally in San Luis Obispo on the first anniversary of the war. Bill Mitchell told reporters, ``I said, `Bring my son home now.' I should have said, `Bring my son home alive.' '' Seven American soldiers died in Iraq on Monday, April 5, Passover. Among them was Army Sergeant Lee Todacheene, of Farmington, New Mexico, a member of the Army's 1st Infantry medic unit. He was killed instantly when mortar fire hit his guard post in Balad. Sergeant Todacheene was the nephew of Navajo Nation Vice President Frank Dayish Jr., through Dayish's wife, Virginia. He is the third Native American soldier to die in Iraq. Army Specialist Lori Piestawa, a member of the Hopi tribe killed last March, was the first woman killed in combat in the war. Sheldon Hawk Eagle, a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in South Dakota, died last November. Leaders of the Navajo Nation praised Todacheene as a ``Navajo warrior'' who ``went to war not to hurt, but to help.'' His younger brother, Rydell, said, ``He was proud to be in the U.S. Army and a medic. He was proud to be a Navajo. He believed he was doing some good in Iraq when everyone thought it was wrong. He was a quiet man. He was a strong man, a gentleman. He respected himself and everybody, He was generous and kind, and he loved his family above everything else.'' Tuesday, April 6, was one of the deadliest days of fighting in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. Thirteen Americans died in Iraq that day. Among them were two 18-year-old Marines, both killed by hostile fire in Fallujah. Marine Lance Corporal Anthony Roberts, of Bear, DE, was a member of the Air Force ROTC in high school. In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer, his former ROTC instructor recalled Lance Corporal Roberts as ``the rare recruit who seemed not to care about the steady employment, decent pay and educational benefits that the military offers. `He only talked about serving his country.' '' Marine Private First Class Ryan Jerback was from Oneida, WI. He was killed by hostile fire in Fallujah. His father told the Green Bay Press Gazette that his son told him, ``Dad, maybe I can go over there and make some change. Maybe I can do something with the people and show them that we're not animals here, you know?'' ``He gave everything he had,'' his father said, ``and it cost him his life.'' Six American soldiers died in Iraq on April 7. Among them was Army Staff Sergeant George Scott Rentschler, of Louisville, KY. He was checking on his platoon members, who were working at a checkpoint, when a rocket propelled grenade hit the side of a tank in which he was riding. Iraq was his second war. He had also served in Bosnia. His mother told the Louisville Gleaner, ``He always told me that the only way he would get hurt was if they took a rocket to the side of his tank. That's what happened.'' Staff Sergeant Rentschler had been scheduled to leave Iraq today. He was 31 years old. He leaves a wife and two sons, ages 12 and 5. Eight Americans died in Iraq on April 8, Holy Thursday. Marine Staff Sergeant William Harrell, 30, Placentia, CA, was one of them. He was killed by hostile fire in Fallujah. His widow, Kelli, told the Associated Press that when she broke the news to her 7-year-old son, he asked her, ``If (Daddy) just got shot, can't they help him?'' She replied, ``Daddy can't be helped right now. Daddy's with God.'' Thirteen American soldiers died on April 9, Good Friday. Among them was Army National Guard Specialist Michelle Witmer, of New Berlin, WI, who died when her Humvee was ambushed in Baghdad. Michelle's 24-year-old sister, Rachel, served in the same unit, the 32nd Military Police Company. Her twin sister, Charity, was sent to Iraq last year as a medic. The sisters and the rest of the Witmer family is agonizing now about whether they should rejoin their units in Iraq. Michelle Witmer was one of at least two women, and four National Guard members, killed this month in Iraq. Eight American soldiers died in Iraq on Easter Sunday, April 11. Army Sergeant Major Michael Stack and Marine Lance Corporal Torrey Gray were among them. Sergeant Major Stack, a Special Forces soldier, was 48, a father of six and grandfather of three. Lance Corporal Gray was 19; he was on his second tour in Iraq. They both died from hostile fire, in separate incidents, in Fallujah. As word of Lance Corporal Gray's death spread through his hometown of Patoka, IL, a small town about 60 miles east of St. Louis, village officials put up the ``Avenue of Flags,'' an observance usually reserved for national holidays. Army Specialist Richard Trevithick, of Gaines, MI, was one of two U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq on April 14. The 20-year-old combat engineer died when an improvised explosive device exploded near his Humvee in the city of Balad. The explosion caused massive damage to his chest and killed him instantly. He had been in Iraq 2 months. His father told the Associated Press, ``You hear it, you process it, you understand the words, but the impact doesn't hit you. You wake up in the morning thinking it was a mad dream, then realize it was not.'' As I said, I support our troops and what they are trying to accomplish in Iraq--under the most difficult of circumstances. The reality is that this war requires almost no sacrifice for the overwhelming number of Americans. Our lives are undisturbed. But the Americans I pay tribute to today sacrificed everything they had. They are heroes and an inspiration. May we never forget and may we always cherish their valor and their sacrifice.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, yesterday's New York Times Magazine contained a very insightful article written by our colleague from New York, Senator Clinton. This article, entitled ``Now Can We Talk About Health Care?,'' is truly a call to action. Senator Clinton could not be more right when she points out that if we were starting from scratch in designing a health care system, ``none of us, from dyed-in-the-wool liberals to rock-solid conservatives, would fashion the kind of health care system America has inherited.'' She pointedly asks why we should carry this flawed system and its problems into the future. It is a rhetorical question, of course, but the answer, unfortunately, is that we are doing just that. Last year, 43.6 million Americans were without health coverage--an increase of over 2 million from the year before. About 74,800 people in my State of South Dakota--12 percent of the population--are without health insurance. But statistics alone do not communicate the anguish felt by so many people in our country regarding an issue as personal as their health care. Senator Clinton correctly notes that things will only get worse. Her article explains that the very manner in which we finance care is ``so seriously flawed that if we fail to fix it, we face a fiscal disaster that will not only deny quality care to the uninsured and underinsured but also undermine the capacity of the system to care for even the well insured.'' This a sobering warning. It does not have to be this way. The United States is the only major industrialized nation that fails to provide guaranteed health care to all its citizens. And, in many countries--Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, and Sweden to name a few--they do it while spending less per capita than we do in the United States. Yet in each of those countries, citizens have greater life expectancies and lower rates of child mortality than we have in the United States. We must act. The nonpartisan Institute of Medicine recently recommended that by 2010, everyone in the United States should be insured. That is no small task, and it won't come free. But, as Senator Clinton points out, it will save us money in other ways. People will get the preventive care they need and deserve, and this will save us the cost of treating conditions and diseases that have progressed. And, certainly, it is a moral imperative when we are talking about people's health. We must invest in our public health infrastructure, in preventive care, and in covering the care people need. We can save money by increasing our reliance on information technology with appropriate privacy protections. And we can use every tool we have--including genetic testing--to prevent and contain disease. We can encourage these tests by enacting the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, a bipartisan bill that has already passed the Senate but awaits action in the House. We can reduce health disparities by passing the Healthcare Equality and Accountability Act, a bill I introduced with each of the House minority caucuses last year. And we can address the problem of the uninsured in a serious manner rather than proposing tax credits that will do little to help those most in need or pushing consumer- driven plans that shift cost and risk onto the individual. I commend Senator Clinton on her thoughtful article. It is something we all should read. Health care should not be a partisan issue. It is a necessity. Whether someone receives the health care they need should not depend on whether they are fortunate enough to access and afford adequate health insurance under our current system. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton's article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will use my leader time under the order of the day, and I would make a note I will designate Senator Kennedy to control the time once we move to the pension conference report.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Vermont for his statement on asbestos. I do not know of anybody in our caucus, perhaps in the Senate itself, who has done more and has been more engaged on this issue for a longer period of time than has Senator Leahy. We would do well to listen to his sage advice and his critique of the asbestos legislation that is now working its way on to the Senate calendar. As our Nation continues to grapple with the terrible consequences wrought by the use and distribution of asbestos, Senators from both sides of the aisle have been working diligently to negotiate a compromise. With each passing day, more victims face serious illness and even death, and more workers and companies face the threat of bankruptcy. Approximately 1.3 million Americans are still exposed to asbestos at work. Ten thousand Americans die from asbestos-related illnesses each year. That is more than from drownings and fires combined. In my home State of South Dakota, asbestos liability has been a major issue for businesses and individuals. In the cities of Aberdeen and Brookings, I have talked with the leadership team at 3M to discuss the impact this issue is having on their business. 3M employs 1,300 workers whose livelihoods are tied to the company's financial stability and strength. The corporation's management has told me how asbestos lawsuits have begun to overwhelm 3M, as over 300,000 suits have already been filed against their company, even though they were not in the business of producing or manufacturing asbestos. At the same time, there are many South Dakotans who have become sick or died because of their exposure to asbestos. For instance, Jack Archer from Sioux Falls was a career electrician for 47 years working on dams along the Missouri River, and in aluminum plants and paper mills. After a long day of work, he would often come home covered in asbestos, and would shake off the dust and change clothes away from his house so his children and wife, Maurine, would not be exposed. In January 2000 he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Jack had seen many of his co-workers and friends die from the disease, and knew the illness that awaited him. Once diagnosed, Jack's body deteriorated rapidly, and each day brought more pain than the last. He died in July 2002. His wife now tries to remember his vitality and zest for life, rather than the years when cancer got the better of him. Asbestos has created havoc all across the country, in homes and neighborhoods, mines and manufacturing plants, financial markets and board rooms. One study states that 300 companies were sued in the 1980s, while approximately 8,400 companies have been sued as of 2002. In addition, at least 70 companies have sought bankruptcy protection due to asbestos litigation. Clearly, a solution is needed. For years, I have expressed my strong desire and commitment to find one. As I have said repeatedly, there is a way for us to craft legislation that could enjoy the overwhelming support of the Senate, if we put partisan differences aside and develop a true compromise that adequately compensates victims and provides financial certainty to companies and insurers. Creating a national asbestos trust fund is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. There are a number of issues that all sides agree must be addressed: The creation of a no-fault administrative system; the equitable allocation of contributions; the establishment of reasonable medical standards; the resolution of pending claims and settlements; the creation of fair compensation values; and ensuring transparency of the system for both victims and corporate stakeholders. Last July, the Judiciary Committee narrowly reported out a bill that was opposed by the American Insurance Association and the AFL-CIO. Since that time, there has been much work invested to try to develop a compromise and bridge the differences between the stakeholders. However, while much progress has been made, there are still several vital issues that have yet to be resolved. During the committee markup, a compromise was reached on one of the major issues, medical criteria. Then, in the past few weeks, a compromise was reached on creation of the administrative structure within the Department of Labor. Yesterday, a new asbestos bill was introduced. This legislation incorporated some of the agreed upon compromises, and included some improvements. However, it also takes a step backward in other areas. The new legislation dramatically altered or dropped altogether several of the key committee-adopted amendments. For example, the new bill restricts the amendment that would have restored current legal rights to victims if the fund runs out of money, adding new obstacles to access to the courts. In addition, the new legislation failed to improve provisions that could limit recovery to only $25,000 for lung cancer patients who were exposed to asbestos at work for at least 15 years. That is in the bill. The so-called FAIR bill actually has a provision that says victims with asbestos-related lung cancer and 15 weighted years of asbestos exposure would receive only $25,000 in compensation. I literally cannot imagine how anybody could support legislation that says that is all they are entitled to. Fifteen years of weighted asbestos exposure, you have cancer, there is a connection, and your award under this bill is $25,000? Finally, it puts the overall funding at $109 billion. Some Republicans argue investment income would boost that up to $114 billion, but this is far from certain. Even $114 billion is grossly inadequate. Clearly, there are several fundamental areas that have not been resolved. These issues are not new. In fact, before, during, and after the committee markup, Democrats have raised some of these same concerns. For over 6 months we have been clear that $114 billion is insufficient. While we recognize that Republicans are reluctant to accept the committee-supported bill of $154 billion, we have expressed our willingness to work out a compromise. Time is short. The majority leader has stated his interest to bring the bill to the floor immediately following the April recess. We can and should develop a solution. But let me be clear: Securing a bipartisan compromise on asbestos is one of our top priorities. I stand ready and willing to work with my colleagues to address this important issue. But we will not support and we will do all we can to avoid passing legislation that is not fair, that does not address the problem, that will only compound the problems of those who are victims today. I continue to believe that if we work together, we can develop effective reform legislation to provide appropriate compensation to the victims of asbestos, while providing a measure of certainty and security to American industry. If, however, the Senate proceeds with legislation that does not reflect the middle ground, as I have said, we will have missed an opportunity to address this vital issue. I think we could all agree the stakes are too high to let it slip away. Madam President, how much of my leader time remains?

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I have another matter I would like to address in the time I have remaining of my leader time, if I could.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I recently learned the story of a young Indian girl from South Dakota. Last year, when she began to lose weight and feel stomach pains, she traveled to a nearby Indian Health Service clinic. She was diagnosed with heartburn, and since IHS clinics often don't have the resources to treat patients unless their lives are at immediate risk, she was told to go home. Over the course of the next several months, as her condition worsened, she returned to the clinic several times only to be turned away each time. Because she was never given a full checkup, the clinic failed to discover that her symptoms were not caused by heartburn but by stomach cancer. By the time her condition became critical, it was too late. Her cancer had spread, and there was nothing any doctor could do. Not long afterward, she died. Perhaps the saddest aspect of this story is that it is another example of what happens each and every day. For Native Americans and other minority communities across the country, the miracles of modern medicine--and sometimes even the most basic primary care--are beyond their reach. The disparities within our health care system have reached a crisis point, and the consequences for America's minority communities are staggering. The death rate for African American cancer patients is 30 percent higher than for whites. African Americans are also one-and-a-half times more likely to have coverage for an emergency room visit denied. Hispanic Americans are more than twice as likely as whites to die from diabetes. American Indiana are 670 percent more likely to die from alcoholism and 650 percent more likely to die from tuberculosis. This sad litany of statistics goes on and on and it tells a story of a health care system that, for a significant and growing portion of our Nation, is simply broken. This week is National Public Health Week. Appropriately, the American Public Health Association has chosen to focus the Nation's attention this week on the disparities in our health care system and how we can fix them. I am grateful for its efforts. America faces few more important or complex challenges than building a world-class health care system for everyone, regardless of race, income, or geography. There are no quick fixes. The factors that have led to this two-tiered health system are complex and interrelated. Minorities are far less likely to have health insurance or a family doctor, making regular preventive visits less likely. And many of those who do have insurance report having little or no choice in where they seek care. Minority communities are more frequently exposed to environmental risks, such as polluted industrial areas, cheap older housing with lead paint, or asbestos-laden water pipes. For Hispanics, Native Americans, and others who do not speak English as a first language, the lack of translators and bilingual doctors makes it more difficult to communicate with doctors and nurses. The American Indian community has been forced to cope with a system suffering from decades of neglect and underfunding of the Indian Health Service. The IHS has consistently grown at a far slower rate than the rest of the HHS budget, and at only a fraction of health care inflation. As a result, sick people are turned away every day from IHS hospitals and clinics in this country unless they are in immediate danger of losing their life or a limb. Life or limb isn't a figure of speech at IHS clinics. It's an actual standard of care. IHS's funding crisis is not just in clinical services. Prevention efforts, facilities, personnel, mental health care, substance abuse programs, and contract support costs are all drastically underfunded, too. I have said this on the floor many times. Our country spends an average of $5,100 for every man, woman, and child in America. In every Federal prison, we spend an average of $3,800 for every prisoner. On every Indian reservation, we will spend $1,900 total for every man, woman, and child, one half of what we spend for Federal prisoners. So it is no wonder that people die at a rate hundreds of times greater on the reservation than they do anywhere else. America is obligated, by law and by treaty, to provide free health care for American Indians--a commitment the U.S. Government made to the Indian people in exchange for their lands. America is not honoring that commitment. The White House's budget this year included only $2.1 billion for IHS clinical services. That is more than 60 percent below the bare minimum needed to provide basic health care for people already in the IHS system. The problems run still deeper. Even when both groups have roughly the same insurance coverage, the same income, the same age and the same health conditions, minorities receive less aggressive and less effective care than white Americans. The racial and ethnic disparities in our health care system are not merely a minority issue or a health care issue. The high incidence of diabetes, asthma and other diseases among minorities as a result of this health care gap costs our Nation billions of dollars every year. But most importantly it is a moral issue. A health care system that provides lesser treatment for minorities offends every American principle of justice and equality. We have been promised that we would address these issues at some point in the future, but we have seen no action whatsoever. We have attempted to pass the Healthcare Equality and Accountability Act of 2003, and no action has yet been taken. This legislation would reduce health disparities and improve the quality of care for racial and ethnic minorities. The bill would expand health coverage by expanding eligibility and streamlining enrollment in Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program; it would remove language and cultural barriers by providing additional funding for cultural and language services; it would offer incentives to improve health workforce diversity; it would offer new funding to State, local, and tribal initiatives that take innovative approaches to reducing the disparities; and it would increase minority health research and data collection. The bill would also strengthen and hold accountable the government institutions responsible for ensuring health care equity. And finally, the bill would provide adequate funding for the Indian Health Service-- so that we can finally reach some adequate funding level and stop the shameful underfunding of Indian health needs. This legislation would represent a strong first step, moving us closer to the goal of ensuring equal access to quality health care. Last year, the majority leader said: Inequity is a cancer that can no longer be allowed to fester in health care. I agree completely. We know what happens when cancer is allowed to spread. Too many Americans in minority communities have lost their lives because they are subjected to a two-tiered health care system that keeps them from getting the care they need. We cannot afford to wait any longer to confront the minority health gap in our country. Americans are asking for our leadership on a challenge that is quickly becoming a national emergency. We have an obligation to answer their call. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the conference report on the Pension bill is another example of a broken legislative process. We passed a good bill in the Senate. There was bipartisan cooperation. Two committees-- Chairs and Rankings--worked together in a constructive manner. This bill garnered overwhelming support here in the Senate, passing 86-9. On the Democratic side, there was concern about having this bill go to conference. Too often in the past several months, we have seen the will of the Senate disregarded by House Republican leaders eager to rewrite bills in conference. Our colleagues on the other side said no, that the Senate conferees would advance the Senate position on the main issue of disagreement on multi-employer plans. Under the Senate bill 100 percent of multi-employer plans were covered. The House had no provision to protect multi-employer plans. We expected some give and take, some compromise. And we reached a good faith agreement. The Senate bending over backward to accommodate the House, going from 100 percent coverage, down to 20 percent of multiemployer plans in the most dire circumstances. After an agreement was seemingly reached, the White House stepped in and told Republican conferees that they could not reach a compromise. They had to ignore what the Senate passed and fall in line. The result is the conference report before us which covers only a tiny fraction--3 percent--of multi-employer plans. This puts the secure retirements of nearly 10 million Americans at risk. We are talking about people working for small businesses. Three- quarters of the approximately 60,000-65,000 employers that participate in multiemployer plans have fewer than 100 employees. We are talking about hard working people bricklayers, carpenters, painters, janitors, hotel workers. In a multiemployer plan, a person gets to count all of the pension credit he earns working for any employer in the pension plan. Multiemployer plans are thus particularly important in industries like construction or hospitality where work can be short-term or seasonal. Multiemployer plans have traditionally been well-funded. Only 31 multiemployer plans have ever received financial assistance in the history of the PBGC multiemployer insurance program. And the PBGC multiemployer program had never experienced a deficit through 2002. Workers in multiemployer pension plans deserve the same relief we are giving to workers in single-employer plans. Like single employer plans, multiemployer plans have been hurt by three years of poor stock market performance. As many as 30 percent of multiemployer plans could face funding deficiencies in the next few years. Moreover, multiemployer plans are not subject to the Deficit Reduction Contribution (DRC) as single employers are. Instead, participating employers have to pay excise taxes--these excise taxes can place huge burdens on employers. Companies also have to pay the amount needed to make up the funding deficiency. Let's be clear--what the Republican majority is saying is that would prefer to impose tax increases on small businesses across the country instead of providing some reasonable period of pension relief. This is inexplicable. Many employers may not be able to make these payments. If they can't they will go bankrupt, and this will jeopardize the pensions of the workers who have earned pensions under their collective bargaining agreement. This legislation misses an important opportunity to help small businesses and millions of American workers. At the same time, there are many good provisions in this bill that we support. It would provide some protection for 35 million Americans covered by single-employer pensions. These are traditional pensions that provide monthly federally guaranteed checks earned after a lifetime of work. In combination with Social Security, these pensions provide a dignified retirement and most importantly, peace of mind. As a result of a combination of economic factors, pensions faced a ``perfect storm'' in recent years. The recession, a bear stock market, and a drop in interest rates, all put extraordinary pressure on pension funds. The airline industry has been especially hard hit in recent years as a result of fears caused by the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center and the SARS outbreak. The secure retirements of employees of the airline industry were at extreme risk if we did nothing. Congress needs to act to restore some stability to the defined benefit pension system. If we don't, jobs will be lost. We do not want to see deficit reduction pension obligations push companies into bankruptcy and push more workers onto the unemployment line. While the lack of protection for workers with multi-employer pensions and the implicit tax increase on small businesses make it impossible for me to support this bill, the good it will do for 35 million American workers, their employers, and the economy compel us not to stand in its way. But this legislation should be just the beginning of our work to defend the retirements of American workers. Democrats will be back to fight for those who have been left behind. We chose not to take out the wrong the Republicans have done to small businesses on those in who work for the airlines, the auto companies and other large employers. But we will be back to press this critical multiemployer issue. Ten million Americans are seeing their retirements put at risk and Congress has an opportunity to come to their aid. I regret that this legislation does not offer them any help, and I promise them that Democrats will not rest until they have the retirement security they have earned.

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I might just say for the Record that I have appreciated the opportunity to work through some of these nominations. This has been a matter of concern and interest to us for some time. This first installment accommodates some of our needs and I know some of the needs the White House has as well. I hope we can do more in the coming weeks. This is one indication that we are making some progress. I am pleased to note that we were able to do this prior to the recess. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, many Members have been troubled by the fact that we are, apparently, after all of the work we have made to get to a point where we have a finite list, more extensive perhaps than either of us would like on the FSC bill, we are actually not going to go to the FSC bill; we are going to the asbestos bill. As the majority leader knows from conversations I have had with him, it is unlikely this legislation will be able to move--not because we do not want to work on a bill that ultimately can become law to address the very legitimate concerns both of us have, all of us have with regard to asbestos, but as we have seen with malpractice, this is not the way to do it. One would think that perhaps this is just another effort politically that will not have any result legislatively. I am not ascribing motives, but I hope there could be a real bona fide effort to work through the issues prior to the time we force votes on the floor, especially when we have other legislation for which many of us have been working hard to move, including the FSC bill. Having said that, obviously, I am not in a position to stop the majority leader from moving as he has parliamentarily, and I will continue to express the hope that we can find some constructive solutions that reflect a real compromise as we address this very important issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished Senator from Florida. This will only take a moment, but I yield the floor to accommodate the majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to confirm what the majority leader has reported. I think we have made real progress. We are not quite there, but I think we will be there. I can say, with great pride and satisfaction, I appreciate very much the cooperation of virtually every member of our caucus. I thank them for that cooperation and would hope perhaps by sometime tomorrow morning we will be able to reach an agreement. I ask the majority leader if he anticipates any more rollcall votes tonight, given where we are with regard to the current schedule.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the morning business allotted to the Democratic side be divided 15 minutes for the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, first; and 15 minutes for the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, second.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor to respond, if I could, to the comments made by the distinguished majority leader. He made a very good statement about the importance of the FSC/ETI bill. I do not know whether there is unanimous support for FSC/ETI, but I do know there is strong support for it. It passed by a large margin out of the Finance Committee, and I think there is a great deal of interest in passing it on the Senate floor. So this is not a question whatsoever about support for the bill. We have been on the bill now for 7 days. This is the seventh day. We have actually had a vote on one amendment having to do with outsourcing--7 days, one vote. I am absolutely convinced if we had spent these 7 days working through the list of amendments--and I have the list in front of me--we would have finished this bill by now. In fact, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of amendments be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. I have indicated to Senator Frist that I feel strongly about the importance of working with him to try to finish deliberations on this bill. Instead, what we have gotten from some on the other side is just a lot of posturing. This was the original bill: 378 pages. Well, they denied the Democrats the opportunity to vote on one amendment and came back with the second version; this has 567 pages. They denied the opportunity, once again, to offer Democratic amendments, but now they have 969 pages of new amendments. So what they are telling us this morning is that this amendment is OK, but Senate Democrats cannot offer any of their amendments that are relevant, that are certainly appropriate, but that would fall under cloture today. I have urged my colleagues to reduce the number of amendments that they had intended to offer, and virtually every one of them has obliged. We started out with about 75 amendments. It came down to 40 amendments. Now it is down to around 25 amendments. If we had a finite list, I am sure we could work those down even more as we debated these amendments. So I am troubled and, frankly, somewhat frustrated. Senator Frist, since he has been majority leader, has had a very good managerial style, where he has come to the floor, he has allowed Democrats to offer their amendments, and we have worked through bill after bill, including a very complicated highway bill in a very short period of time. Well, this is not in keeping with that practice, and it is troubling to me. About a week ago, I also indicated we would be prepared to finish the welfare bill this week if we could work through the amendments, and that was not possible either. I hope people understand this has nothing to do with support of the bill. This has to do with support of having an opportunity to do what this Senate is supposedly known for, which is to have a vigorous debate in what is called the most deliberative body. Having one amendment in 7 days is not my idea of thoughtful deliberation. We have been hung up on procedure and hung up on issues that have nothing to do with the FSC/ ETI bill as it relates to stopping--I would say obstructing--Democrats from offering these amendments. I am hopeful that once we get beyond this cloture vote, we can lay the bill down and we can work through these amendments. I will work with the majority leader to ensure we have adequate cooperation on this side, as I have offered from the very beginning.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Finally, Mr. President, let me just add one other troubling aspect to this discussion this morning, and that is the pension bill. Our caucus will be discussing this matter this afternoon. I am hopeful we can find some way to address the issue of pensions in a meaningful way. I have indicated to Senator Frist how concerned we are with the way pensions have once again been addressed in conference. We used this conference as a test to see whether Senators, in a bipartisan way, can work together, but once again Democrats were locked out of the discussions in a way that brought about a very questionable result. The Senate voted 85 to 14 to support multiemployer and single- employer pension plans. We went to conference. We had a tentative agreement that at least 20 percent of the multiemployer pension plans would be addressed. We felt that was a sufficient effort to address some of the real plans in crisis. Unfortunately, the White House told the conferees that that was unacceptable to them and, without consultation and without any effort to resolve the matter in some form of bipartisan compromise, Democrats once again, as we saw last year with the Omnibus legislation, with the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and with other bills, got the same result. It is no wonder our colleagues are so reluctant to go to conference. Once again, as the pension bill proved, the conferences are not working as they should. It is for that reason many of us are very concerned about what now to do with the pension bill as it is presented. We will have a good discussion about that in caucus today and make some decision as we go forward. This is not the way conferences should work. It is deeply troubling to many of us that again we find ourselves in exactly the situation that I warned would cause further problems were it to happen again. It has. I regrettably feel as if conferences in the future are going to be very difficult, if not impossible. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the second issue, that I just mention briefly, has to do with the cloture vote on the medical malpractice issue that will come before the Senate this afternoon. This bill actually differentiates between those who walk in the front door of a hospital and those who get emergency care. We objected last time we voted on this because it differentiated between men and women. Men and women would be treated differently under the bill that cloture was voted on a few weeks ago. Now our Republican colleagues add to that people who walk into a hospital or are taken into a hospital via an emergency room. This draws a distinction that I think is inexplicable. If you are injured in an emergency room, under this legislation, you have virtually no legal recourse. If you are injured by walking through the front door of a hospital, you still have all the recourses that are allowed under Federal law. Drawing that distinction, to me, is not an improvement. That is not reform. Yet that is what some of our Republican colleagues have said. On more than one occasion, Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Dick Durbin have said they are prepared to work, in a bipartisan way, to allow us the opportunity to address meaningful malpractice reform, including the high cost of malpractice insurance. But that is what it is going to take. Having cloture votes on bills that draw a distinction between two circumstances that have nothing to do with punitive damages, or with economic damages for that matter, is something I think will get us nowhere. This vote, as all the other votes, will not be accepted. It again reminds us how important it is that we work together to find a real solution to malpractice, as Senators Graham and Durbin are doing.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if you could tell me when I have used 3 minutes, I would appreciate it. I want to leave some time for the distinguished manager of the bill.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this issue is very important. If we really want to help people move from welfare to work, we ought to increase the minimum wage. First, I wish to identify myself with the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and what he just said about the importance of the minimum wage issue, but I want to talk more to the procedural question. In 1995, when we debated welfare reform the first time, the Senate had 40 rollcall votes--40 rollcall votes. The next year when we dealt with it a second time, because the bill had been vetoed, the Senate had 30 rollcall votes, even under reconciliation. So we have had 70 rollcall votes in the consideration of this bill on two occasions in fewer than 10 years. We have had one vote--one vote--on this bill so far. It was a good vote. I am very appreciative of the commitment made on a bipartisan basis to childcare. But the real question is, Can you have the kind of debate that has been experienced in the past, that should be anticipated now with the benefit of one vote? I have offered the distinguished majority leader that we could work through the remaining amendments and finish this bill before we leave next week. I have offered that consistently through the last several days in the hope we could reach some agreement. I am very disappointed that we have not been able to find some way with which to resolve just the procedural differences. A vote on minimum wage, a vote on the unemployment compensation, a vote on relevant amendments to the welfare bill is not too much to ask and, indeed, that has been the practice of the Senate. We are willing to work. This is not a question about whether we support welfare reform. We will get an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote on welfare reform, as we should. This is not a question of whether we should have anything less than an opportunity to debate issues that are directly relevant to people's lives as they try to cope with the extraordinary financial pressures they feel trying to get off welfare. We are hopeful we can do that. We are hopeful we can work with our Republican colleagues and figure out ways to deal with these relevant amendments and these amendments about which our Democratic caucus feel very strongly. We will oppose cloture today but in no way, shape, or form is it an indication of our lack of willingness to work to finish the legislation itself. Give us a chance to do what we have done twice before on this bill. Give us a chance to vote on amendments that are critical to a good and full debate about the direction we ought to take with regard to this bill, and you will have closure on it at a time in the not too distant future. I hope my colleagues will work with us to make that happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.