Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. As is the case with Senator Lott, my constituents have suffered because Superfund has been inappropriately directed at them. On this first anniversary of the introduction of S. 2180, it is an appropriate time for all Senators to commit to act on this issue.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am pleased to join majority leader in documenting that a compromise has been reached on the paper scrap issue. This compromise is especially important in light of the fact that during her recent testimony before the House Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, the EPA Administrator repeated her support for the recycling provision, a version of which collected 310 House cosponsors. The Administrator stated that should identical language to S. 2180 show up again this year, the administration ``would continue to support it.'' And, in answer to a question, Administrator Browner stated at the hearing that EPA would oppose an exemption for PCB-contaminated paper or materials in excess of 50 parts per million. This issue is important not only to EPA, but also the Department of Justice and the environmental community. For that reason, I am delighted that a compromise was found.

Mr. DASCHLE. The distinguished majority leader is correct in noting the attention of many bills directed at Superfund relief for recyclers in this session, the bipartisan interest in this subject, and the broad based, bicameral commitment directed to correcting these unintended consequences. The Superfund Litigation Reduction and Brownfields Cleanup Act of 1999 (S. 1105), introduced by Senators Baucus, Lautenberg, Lincoln, and me, contains a provision similar to the distinguished majority leader's and my bill, S. 2180, introduced in this body 1 year ago.

Mr. DASCHLE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I hoped to get over here prior to the time my colleagues left the floor, but let me compliment Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Boxer, Schumer, and others who participated in the colloquy this afternoon on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We are very hopeful that over the course of the next two weeks the Senate can reach an agreement on proceeding to the bill, the Patients' Bill of Rights. We will be more than happy to enter into negotiations with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle with one understanding, that we have the opportunity to offer amendments. In fact, we have suggested at least 20 amendments to ensure that we have a good debate. We don't want to have a sham debate on something of this import. On a bill that we will take up tomorrow, the State Department authorization bill, both sides have agreed to consider 52 amendments. We passed the Defense authorization bill a month ago, and we agreed to over 100 amendments. We have reached an agreement on virtually every bill that has come to the floor. In fact, the juvenile justice bill had 35 amendments with over 18 rollcall votes. But I think the key question is, if tomorrow we can agree, as Republicans and Democrats, to consider 52 amendments on a bill that has, frankly, very little relevance to the day-to-day lives of every American, as important as it is for other reasons, then, my goodness, it would seem to me we could agree to 20 amendments on the Patients' Bill of Rights. One of the amendments we feel very strongly about offering is an amendment to expand the scope of the bill. I just want to talk briefly about that before I move to another issue. Probably the single biggest difference--I won't say the only big difference, because there are many--but one of the most important differences between the Republican bill and the Democratic bill has to do with what we call scope. By scope, we simply mean who is covered. By everybody's recognition, the Republican bill covers 48 million Americans. Those 48 million Americans fall into one category: those employed by large businesses that are self-insured. Those are the only American people today who are covered under the Republican bill. I have a chart. This is so important. This chart says it so well. This chart shows what the Republican bill does not do, and why we feel so strongly about offering amendments. Mr. President, 48 million Americans are covered through a plan that self-funds insurance within the company. Here are all the people who are not covered; 75 million Americans are not covered who have individual insurance policies or an HMO that is purchased but not funded by their employer. In other words, if you are an employee of a company with self-funded insurance, you are covered. If you work for an employer who contracts with an insurance company or an HMO, you are not covered. There are only 48 million people in that category--those who work for a self-insured employer. There are 75 million Americans who are working for employers who purchase their insurance through separately-funded insurance companies and HMOs. There are another 23 million Americans who have their insurance through their jobs in State and local governments, and then there are 15 million Americans who have individual insurance plans. All of those people are not covered in the Republican plan. Two-thirds of all of those with health insurance are not covered. I do not know why they would not be covered under the Republican plan. I am sure our Republican colleagues have a good rationale for not including all of these people. I have heard them say they are covered in some of the State plans. That is the problem. What if you move from one State to another? The average American family now moves three times in the life of the family as children are growing up. What if you move? What if you get transferred? You may not be covered. How do you know? Are you going to call the State capital and find out? We say: Cover them all. Cover all 75 million Americans who are working for companies that have insurance coverage. Cover all State and local government employees. Cover all people who have individual policies and, yes, cover everybody who is working for a self-insured company. That is just one of the many differences--and we want to talk more about that in the future--but it is why we ought to have amendments. Some suggest let's just have an up-or-down vote on the Republican bill and an up-or-down vote on the Democratic bill. That will not cut it. We will not have an opportunity to talk about issues like this. I really hope we will have the opportunity to have that debate in the next 2 weeks. We will have the opportunity, because if we cannot get an agreement, we will be forced then to offer it as an amendment to another bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to briefly talk about another issue, because it is pending in the House at this time and I think it is very important to talk about the gun control issue. Last month, the day before the Senate voted to close the gun show loophole, a prominent Republican Senator made a prediction. He said it really did not matter how the Senate voted, because the House would water down any gun restrictions we pass. That is what was predicted. The gun lobby and its supporters in the House have now made good on that threat. But even though we were warned, we are still stunned that the power of one lobbyist organization can be so demonstrably effective as they appear to have been thus far. The gun lobby's approach to gun control in the Senate was a sham. It is a sham in the House. The first House Republican leadership announcement was that they would divide the juvenile bill into two separate bills: one focusing on youth crime and culture, the other on gun control. We all recognize what that announcement was. It was a move to dilute or even kill the modest gun control measures that had passed in the Senate just a few short weeks ago. Now the House Republican leadership has decided not to bring its sham bill to the floor of the House until 8 o'clock tonight, well after the evening news. I think we know why. The pro-gun forces clearly do not want the American public to know what is going to happen after 8 o'clock tonight. It may be after 8 o'clock tonight when the House begins its gun debate, but it is certainly high noon for those of us who care about this issue. It is time we find out who is going to win this showdown: the gun lobby or the American people. Littleton, CO, marked a turning point for most Americans, and now we will find out if it marked a turning point for the pro-gun forces on Capitol Hill--or if it is just business as usual. Are we going to make it harder for children and criminals to get guns--or easier? Is it as dramatic a moment, is it as clear a choice as many of us in the Senate believe it is? Today, we are warning those who are about to vote in the House: The gun lobby tried every excuse and half-measure they could come up with to defeat the modest restrictions in the Senate, and they failed. Why? Because we know what America wants. America wants to close the gun show loophole. Sham proposals that do not cover all gun shows and allow criminals to get guns are not enough. Weak measures that only allow 24--or even 72 hours--are not enough. Law enforcement must have up to three business days to complete background checks, when necessary, to make sure that guns do not end up in the hands of criminals. Nothing less is acceptable. The gun lobby says it is, but I guarantee that any family who has lost a child to gun violence will disagree. Listen to your conscience and your constituents, not to the extremist wing of the gun lobby. I come from gun country. Most South Dakotans feel pretty strongly about guns. They are part of our culture, our heritage. I have owned a gun since I was 8 years old. But even in South Dakota, the vast majority of people believe we need to do more to keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals. Tonight, the House of Representatives has a chance to build on the conscientious proposals that passed in the Senate. It is a narrow window of opportunity for Congress to act in a way that will make a real difference for our children and for our communities. Let us listen, let us stop the maneuvering, let us do something now. Tonight is the night. Mr. President, 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock, 1 o'clock, 3 o'clock, it does not matter. Do the right thing. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I don't know how much time is left in morning business, but I will use whatever leader time is required. I want to have the opportunity to respond to my good friend, the Senator from Wyoming, about some of the comments he made with regard to the Social Security lockbox and a couple of other issues he has mentioned. He mentioned Democrats' unwillingness to support the efforts to bring up the Social Security lockbox. Let me make sure that everyone understands we are very desirous of having the opportunity to have a good debate about the lockbox. It is particularly propitious that probably the master of Senate procedure is on the Senate floor, because I want to talk just a moment about the difference, which is more than just a semantical difference, between a cloture vote that is designed to stop amendments and a cloture vote that is designed to stop a debate, a filibuster. There is no filibuster going on here. A filibuster is actually designed to bring debate to a close. When 60 Senators have voted accordingly, we have time remaining and then, ultimately, there is a final vote. There is a big difference between bringing the debate to a close and offering cloture motions and proposing that the Senate preclude the opportunity for Senators to offer relevant amendments. That has been the case on the Social Security lockbox from the very beginning. For whatever reason, our Republican colleagues continue to believe that what the Senate needs is a rules committee. Every day in the House Rules Committee, decisions are made based upon the content of amendments, which amendments are appropriate and which amendments are not. The Rules Committee makes that decision, and then the rule is presented to the House Membership. They vote on whether they accept the rule or not. Based upon the content of those amendments, they make decisions as to whether or not there will be amendments to a certain bill. In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers chose not to allow the Senate to be bound by such constraints, that a Senator, with all of his power and authority and responsibility, ought to have the right to come to the floor and offer an amendment. But what our Republican colleagues continue to insist upon is that they act as an ad hoc rules committee. They want to see our amendments first. They want to approve our amendments first. And only then will they allow our amendments to be considered once they have been given their approval. I ran for the Senate in 1996 because I wanted to be able to be a Senator, not a House Member. I want to be a Senator, and I want all the responsibilities and privileges and rights accorded to me as a Senator from South Dakota. That means the ability to offer an amendment. On the lockbox, it is very simple. Whether you agree or not, we think the Medicare trust fund and the Social Security trust fund ought both to be locked up; we ought to treat them the same. We are dealing daily with the viability of the trust fund on Medicare, and if we can't ensure that viability of that trust fund, then I must say we haven't done our job. We are saying, as Democrats, give us the right to offer an amendment on Medicare. Let's lock up that lockbox as well, and let's have a good debate about whether that makes good public policy or not. That is the issue. The Republicans come to the floor; they file cloture to deny us the right to offer an amendment on Medicare--I must say also, to deny us the right to offer amendments that really mean lockbox when we say that is what we want. They have a provision in their bill. I must say, it is amusing to me, but it says it is a lockbox unless we say we are for reform, and in the name of reform we can unlock the box, including privatizing Social Security. They have that in their bill. They want to be able to privatize Social Security, and they want to be able to ensure that, even if they have now voted for a lockbox, in the name of reform they can unlock it just by saying: We want to offer a reform amendment, and we will so unlock the box. I am puzzled by the admonitions of our colleagues. I am sorry the Senator from Wyoming is no longer on the floor, because I really hope we can set the Record clear. Democrats want to vote on a lockbox. But we want that lockbox to mean something. We want it to include Medicare, and we want the right to offer amendments to do just that. That is what this debate is about. There is a difference on a cloture vote between ending a filibuster and denying Senators the right to offer amendments. We will continue to fight for our rights, regardless of the issue and regardless of how much concern it may bring to some of those on the other side who seem to be determined to lock us out. I know the distinguished Senator from West Virginia is here. He is anxious to begin the debate on a very important bill. I am hopeful we can pass this legislation today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, once again, the Senate has the opportunity to do something meaningful for the American people; that is, to protect and strengthen both Social Security and Medicare for generations to come. I fear we may lose that opportunity in just a few moments. Repeatedly, we have seen lost opportunities as we have debated this lockbox issue now for several months. Rather than allowing Senators to exercise their rights and offer amendments to improve a given piece of legislation, many of our Republican colleagues have opted for a take- it-or-leave-it approach. The losers in each instance are the American people. They know this behavior produces gridlock and partisanship and fails to address the problems and concerns faced by American families around the country. Yet, this is precisely the course the majority has chosen to follow on yesterday's so-called lockbox bill and again on today's version. In both instances, our Republican colleagues have resorted to procedural tactics to deny Senators the right to offer even a single amendment. The right to amend is a fundamental part of the legislative process and is particularly important given the nature of the bills before us yesterday and today. Both of these bills have flaws that, if addressed, could quickly lead to final passage of both. Neither the Abraham bill we considered yesterday, nor the House-passed bill we will soon be voting on, sets aside a single dollar for Medicare--not a dollar, not a dime. Nothing. Democrats believe we should protect and strengthen both Social Security and Medicare. Republicans--at least some of them--can't seem to bring themselves to do anything to address the Medicare issue. Given a choice between Medicare and tax cuts, or just tax cuts, our Republican colleagues are choosing just tax cuts every time. This position is particularly troubling given the state of Medicare's finances and the size of the projected on-budget, non-Social Security surpluses. According to OMB, we will have an on-budget surplus of $1.7 trillion over the next 15 years. According to Medicare's actuaries, the Medicare trust fund is likely to go bankrupt in 2015--at the very time when large numbers of the baby boomer generation reach retirement age. Large non-Social Security surpluses are within our reach while large problems are looming in Medicare. It seems only natural that we would try to set aside a portion of the $1.7 trillion in on-budget surpluses to help protect and reform Medicare. This is precisely the approach taken by Democrats in our alternative: pay down the debt and set aside resources for Social Security and Medicare as well. If you look at the comments made by Republicans last year, you would think that they would join us now in our pursuit to protect both of these important programs. Just last year on this floor, Republican after Republican took the opportunity to tell us about the importance of saving Medicare. Quoting one Republican Senator: What would we do if we had half a trillion dollars to spend? The obvious answer that cries out is Medicare. I think it is logical. People understand the President on ``save Social Security first,'' and I think they will understand ``save Medicare first.'' Medicare is in crisis. We want to save Medicare first. So says a Republican colleague just last year. These words, in various forms, were spoken by a number of our Republican colleagues. The only thing that has changed since then is the size of the non-Social Security surplus; it has grown considerably in the intervening period. Despite their words from last year and forecasts this year showing even larger surpluses--$1.7 trillion over the next 15 years--Republicans now resist setting aside a single dollar for Medicare. Equally disturbing about the so-called Social Security lockbox is that it does not even truly protect Social Security. Rather than lock away Social Security trust funds for Social Security benefits, the Republican bill allows Social Security funds to be tapped for anything they decide to call ``Social Security or Medicare reform.'' Be careful of that word ``reform'' because under their proposal Social Security trust funds could be spent to privatize the program or, believe it or not, even to fund tax cuts. Not surprisingly, given this gaping loophole, the Washington Post described the latest Republican lockbox proposal as follows: This is phony legislation . . . . its purpose is to protect the politicians, not the program; and most of it is merely a showy restatement of the status quo. This is legislation whose main intent is to deceive and whose main effects could well be harmful. So states the Washington Post. Given the Republicans' so-called Social Security lockbox doesn't really lock anything away, one could easily conclude that the Post's characterization of the lockbox as ``phony'' is, if anything, too generous. The lockbox proposal proposed by our colleagues on the Republican side is a collapsible box that could ultimately end the Social Security system as we know it today. Very clearly, Democrats have long supported the idea of protecting Social Security, and we stand ready to work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle today as well. But both the Senate and House bills need improvement. The Republicans have set up procedures to deny us the opportunity to make improvements. We are prepared to work with the majority when they decide to proceed in a bipartisan fashion and put good policy ahead of what they evidently perceive to be better politics. That time has not come today, and I ask my colleagues, for that reason, to oppose the cloture motion. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DASCHLE. We still have not seen the text of whatever it is we are supposed to be amending. The Senator from Oklahoma and I talked about that last week. He indicated it is going to be roughly the bill that passed out of the Labor Committee with some changes, as I understand it, but we have not seen the changes. I must say, it would not be in keeping with the traditions in the Senate that we need approval from the majority with regard to amendments before we can move to a bill. We are determined to be as cooperative as we can, but at the same time, we certainly do not seek our Republican colleagues' approval on a list of amendments. That should not be our requirement. We want to offer amendments that we expect to be debated and considered and hopefully voted on. As the Senator from Illinois has said, there are going to be tough votes on all sides on this issue, but they are issues that have to be addressed. If we are going to deal with a Republican bill that was passed out of the committee with an expectation that, obviously, that may be the bill that passes, we are going to have to try to amend it. We do not have any expectation necessarily that our bill can pass without some Republican support. We hope it will be, and we will work with our Republican colleagues to support the Democratic bill. But we have to have an opportunity to offer amendments, and we will protect our Senators' rights to offer those amendments, and hopefully we can work through this. We are prepared to come up with a reasonable list. I have suggested 20 amendments, which is probably a third of what our colleagues would like to offer on this side alone. But we will come up with a list. I certainly do not expect that we will need to seek approval, however, from our Republican colleagues before we offer them. I thank the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator for his leadership and comments he has made. Obviously, time is running out. We have 6 weeks left before the summer recess begins in August. We have a few weeks left in September and October, and then we are at the end of the session already. We have very little time to address an issue of this importance. That is why we have indicated we will find a way to ensure this issue is addressed in June. We cannot wait any longer. We waited last Congress. We waited and came up with as many different ways with which to approach this issue procedurally as we knew how. We failed to convince our Republican colleagues to join this side of the aisle in passing it last year. We will not fail this year. We will get this legislation passed. It has to happen this month. I thank the Senator for his leadership and for cooperating and making this a part of our schedule this afternoon.

Mr. DASCHLE. I congratulate the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from New York for beginning this colloquy this afternoon. Certainly, the Senator from Massachusetts is a leader on health issues. This is, without a doubt, the single most important health issue facing this Congress this year, next year, and for however long it takes to pass. Senator Kennedy's question is right on the mark: Why is it, with all of these groups that are urging the Senate to act, that are waiting for the Senate to act, that cannot understand why we have not acted, why is it we cannot schedule legislation this week to get this bill passed? If we can do Y2K, if we can do the array of other matters that have come before this Congress this year, for heaven's sake, why, with 115 million people already detrimentally affected, can't we do it this week? There isn't an answer to that question. I ask the Senator from Illinois if, from the experiences he has had in his own State, he has heard any other issue having the resonance, having the depth of feeling and meaning to the families of America that this issue does; whether or not he ever had the kind of experience I have had where people come up and volunteer that there is no more important question facing this Congress than this issue, and they want Members to solve it; has the Senator had a similar experience?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I had intended, at the request of the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, to object to the request earlier made by the Senator from Vermont having to do with the schedule tomorrow morning. It was the hope of the Senator from Wisconsin that he could have 30 minutes, prior to the time we begin at 10, for purposes of morning business. I would like to amend the request for that purpose and determine whether or not that could be accommodated.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in 1977, Candis Ray, who operated a tour business in Washington, brought an action against Senator Proxmire and Ellen Proxmire, the Senator's wife. The plaintiff claimed that Senator and Mrs. Proxmire had tortiously interfered with her business in order to favor Mrs. Proxmire's competing tour business. One of the plaintiff's claims was that Senator Proxmire had helped to arrange for Senate rooms for his wife's tours. In affirming the district court's dismissal of the complaint, the court of appeals observed that, to the extent that an issue had been raised about compliance with the Senate's rules on use of its facilities, ``[t]he judicial function is not implicated at all, for only in the Senate forum can observance of the rule be compelled.'' Ray v. Proxmire, 581 F.2d 998, 1002 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 933 (1978). In the two decades since that decision, Ms. Ray has launched a barrage of civil lawsuits, seeking to obtain damages in connection with this matter, against the Senate, individual Senators, and Senate employees, federal judges and government attorneys who have been involved in her prior lawsuits, and the President. In 1989, Ms. Ray sought to hold Senator Heflin, Sanford, Stennis, and Wallop, as well as an employee on Senator Sanford's staff and the Senate itself, accountable for the Senate's lack of favorable action on her complaints and petitions for financial payment. The Senate Legal Counsel obtained the dismissal of that action. The plaintiff has now filed her fifth lawsuit related to this matter, this time against Senator Lott and Senator Edwards, her home-state Senator. The lawsuit again seeks to hold the Senators responsible for the lack of favorable action on her demands for payment from the Senate. The resolution would authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to represent Senator Lott and Senator Edwards and to move to dismiss the complaint.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to say just a couple of words about the pending bill. I will use my leader time, because I know we are out of time under the unanimous consent agreement. Let me begin by saying I do not think there is disagreement at all among most of our colleagues about the importance of stopping frivolous Y2K lawsuits. We recognize that high technology is now the driving engine of our economy and will become an even more important part of our economy in the years ahead. We recognize that businesses need to focus on fixing the problem, not defending against lawsuits. So we want a bill. We hope to have a bill the President will sign. I am disappointed we are not there yet. The White House has made it very clear the pending bill will be vetoed even with the changes that have been made so far. So we have gridlock. We have gridlock in large measure because we have not been able to resolve the remaining differences on this important legislation. I think it is very important we balance the legitimate needs of industry to be protected from frivolous attacks and the rights of consumers. We differ on very critical legislative details that were the focus of a substitute Senator Kerry offered some time ago. We recognize that consumers and small businesses will face real problems. We need to protect their rights in court. That is one of our fundamental concerns about the passage of the current legislation. We want a bill. We do not want frivolous lawsuits. But we also want to ensure that people have some protection. Let me just give one example of what will happen if this bill is passed and signed into law. This is just one example. The pending bill only allows small businesses to recover economic losses for tangible property damage. That is a phrase we are going to hear a lot more in the future, ``tangible'' property damage. This does not include the loss of business information, such as that contained in computer databases. So such losses, including billing records or customer lists, property that is critical to a business owner but which is not tangible, is not covered under the bill we are passing. Amazingly, the pending bill would even protect defendants from liability for fraud or misrepresentation. If you are a small businessman watching C-SPAN right now, you are on Main Street and you are wondering what this bill is all about, under this bill, in those cases where you do not have a tangible property matter at stake, you have absolutely no protection. If you lose your database, if you lose that so-called nontangible property, you have no recourse. That is unacceptable. I know we are going to get all kinds of debate, and I will probably get calls this afternoon: Yes, we do. The fact is, we have had analysis after analysis. The bottom line is that there is no protection for intangible property. That is not protected. Defendants are even protected from liability for economic losses if they engaged in fraud or misrepresentation under the current legislation. Our alternative, by contrast, only protects responsible companies. The biggest difference between our approach and theirs is that we protect only companies that have acted responsibly. We require companies to demonstrate that they have taken steps to clear up the Y2K problems. For example, the pending bill provides blanket proportional liability. The Kerry amendment merely requires companies to have identified and warned potential victims of problems to get proportional liability. The pending bill caps punitive damages for small companies. Punitive damages punish egregious conduct. We provide no such protection for irresponsible behavior in the alternative we offer. The pending bill sets up roadblocks for consumers suffering from real Y2K-related problems. Our amendment lets them in the courthouse door to at least have the opportunity for redress their damages in a court of law. This area of law traditionally falls under State jurisdiction. But this legislation, the pending bill, preempts State law. We acknowledge the need to do so because of unique circumstances, but we also recognize the need to be careful. The pending bill virtually shifts all Y2K suits into Federal court. It makes it harder for consumers to bring a suit. It increases the strain on an already backlogged Federal court system. Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Judicial Conference oppose such federalization. Our bill places limits on class actions but does not federalize them. In some ways our bill is very similar. Our version addresses all the basic concerns raised by the high-tech industry. Our plan is identical to the pending bill in many ways. Both give defendants 60 days to fix a Y2K problem. Both allow either party to request alternative dispute resolution. Both require anyone seeking damages to have the opportunity to offer reasonable proof--including the nature and amount of the damages--before a class action suit could proceed. But while we recognize the need for a bill, we must carefully write it. Evidence is yet unclear as to the extent of this problem. Evidence is yet unclear about how much frivolous litigation will result from the Y2K bug. We should not grant sweeping legal immunity to those who have caused but not corrected problems. Those who have not tried to address problems deserve no special protection. Yet, this bill provides them that protection. Our approaches are identical in every important, necessary way. But they differ in critical ways for consumers and for our court system. Our approach is the only one the President will sign, so it is the only one that has hope of becoming law. The year 2000 is fast approaching. We cannot waste time debating a bill we know will be vetoed only to have to start all over again. It is senseless to do that. If enough of our colleagues vote against this legislation, it sends a message to fix it in conference. If conferees fail to fix it, I will make every effort to pass another bill that addresses the problem, that the President can sign. In fact, I will present again, as clearly as I can, an articulated, very understandable version of what the President will sign. I want to make it very clear what it is the President will sign and what he will not. We owe it to all of our colleagues to reiterate one more time just what it is that he finds so offensive about this. Let's go back one more time, because I think it is so incredible an issue. If you are affected tangibly, if your property is somehow tangibly affected, you have redress, you can be compensated for economic losses; but if your database, if your mailing list, or if anything else in the computer is adversely affected, is lost, is destroyed as a result of an advertent or inadvertent error on the part of technology--you lose everything--you have no recourse. You cannot recover economic losses that result. Is that really what we want to do? Do we want to destroy your opportunity for recourse when you have lost your database? When you have lost your mailing list? Do we really want that to be the law of the land overriding State law? That is exactly what we are voting on. The answer is, I will bet you this afternoon a majority of our colleagues are going to say: Yes, that is what I am voting on. I will support taking away the right of a small businessman to go to court if he has lost his database. I will support the right of an errant computer salesman or somebody else to take away a small business's opportunity to go to court. I do not believe we want to do that. That is why the President said he will veto this bill. We can do better than that. Nobody can plead ignorance. I am saying it this afternoon. I want everybody to understand it. Nobody can say, ``I didn't know that's what the bill did,'' because I am telling you right now, that is what it does. So before you vote, my colleagues, understand, ignorance is not bliss here. Ignorance is no excuse. When they come back and say, ``I didn't know,'' we can say, ``I told you before the vote.'' If you want to take away a small businessman's right to go to court because he has lost everything, you go ahead and vote for this bill. If you want a bill that works, work with us, work with the President; let's get one approved by the Senate he can sign. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Before we moved off this legislation, it was my intention to lay down an amendment. I don't need any time to talk about the amendment tonight but certainly prior to the time we have the cloture vote. Obviously, our desire is to offer some amendments to the bill. Because the bill is now the subject of the consideration of the Senate, it would be my desire at this point to lay down an amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, let me say the whole idea, obviously, behind this amendment or any other amendments would be simply to address what I think we all recognize is an important issue-- the Social Security lockbox. The only reason Democrats have been voting against cloture is simply because we have been ``locked out'' of our opportunity to offer amendments, such as an amendment which would provide for the Medicare lockbox as well as Social Security. I am disappointed in our inability to lay an amendment down tonight. I think we can accommodate our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We would agree to a limited number of amendments. I think we could dispose of this legislation with that kind of an agreement. I hope to talk with the majority leader at some point before the cloture vote to see if we can't find a way to have an agreement procedurally that would preclude the need for a cloture vote. I will not object to this request.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to say farewell to a wonderful group of young men and women who have served as Senate pages over the last five months, and thank them for the contributions they make to the day-to-day operations of the Senate. This particular group of pages has served with distinction and has done a marvelous job of balancing their responsibilities to their studies and to this body. Page life is not easy. I suspect few people understand the rigorous nature of the page's work. On a typical day, pages rise early and are in school by 6:15 a.m. After several hours in school each morning, pages then report to the Capitol to prepare the Senate Chamber for the day's session. Throughout the day, pages are called upon to perform a wide array of tasks--from obtaining copies of documents and reports for Senators to use during debate, to running errands between the Capitol and the Senate office buildings, to lending a hand at our weekly conference luncheons. Once we finish our business here for the day--no matter what time-- the pages return to the dorm and prepare for the next day's classes and Senate session and, we hope, get some much-needed sleep. Even with all of this, they continually discharge their tasks efficiently and cheerfully. Aside from their normal day-to-day duties, this class in particular has had some extraordinary experiences as they witnessed firsthand the democratic process with all of its strengths and its imperfections. On their first day as Senate pages, they were thrown into the middle of the impeachment debate. As their semester here progressed, they witnessed several historic debates such as whether to send our country's armed forces into an international conflict far from home. And they watched our country struggle through the aftermath of tragedies such as Littleton, Colorado and the Senate's efforts to pass meaningful gun control legislation. I hope every person in this page class gained some insight into the need for individuals to become involved in community and civic activities. By living and working together, they have gained knowledge about the political process that they could not obtain from a textbook alone. The future of our nation strongly depends on the generations who will follow us in this august body. I look forward to the possibility that one or more of this fine group of young people will return as a member of the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, with your permission, I would like to insert in the Record the names and states of each of the Senate pages to whom we are saying goodbye. They are: Derek Alsup, New Hampshire; Devin Barta, Wisconsin; Halicia Burns, Michigan; Richard Carroll, Delaware; Micah Cermele, Alabama; Cathryn Cone, Missouri; Clay Crockett, Michigan; Danielle Driscoll, California; Mark Hadley, Virginia; Patrick Hallahan, New Jersey; Jessica Lipschultz, Idaho; Jennifer Machacek, Iowa; Brendan McCann, Virginia; Mark Nexon, Vermont; Chandra Obie, Montana; Stephanie Stahl, South Dakota; Marian Thorpe, West Virginia; Stephanie Valencia, New Mexico; and George Vana IV, Vermont. I'm sure all my colleagues join me in thanking these fine young men and women, and wishing them well in the future.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. The deputy Democratic leader is right. There are absolutely as many references to that in the Record as any legislation I know of this year, especially from the other side. The Senator from Connecticut has been so diligent and so arduous in recognizing how important this bill is and urging us to move through this and get it done. He is on the floor. I am sure he would be more than happy to vote on final passage this afternoon, but that will not happen.

Mr. DASCHLE. Absolutely. We voted for a version the President can sign yesterday. He said he would sign it. I am very hopeful he will sign a bill. We can't go through the rest of this year without some resolution to this issue. But it is disappointing to me that we are not in a position to resolve this matter today, this afternoon, so that he can sign the bill. I yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. That was the whole reason we agreed to be as expeditious as possible. I am going to vote against final passage. I hope a number of my colleagues will join me in doing that. But that doesn't mean I do not want a bill. I have said repeatedly on the Senate floor I want a bill, but I want the right bill. The only way we are going to get to the right bill is to continue to work on it. We are not going to do that this afternoon. We are not going to do that tomorrow. We are not going to do that Monday. We are now going to have to wait until Tuesday. So that just delays for another week the prospects of meaningful compromise and meaningful resolution of the outstanding questions.

Mr. DASCHLE. We certainly do need to move forward on that. We have suggested 20 amendments on the Patients' Bill of Rights. Recognizing that there could be 60 or 70 amendments, given the way many Senators feel about that important piece of legislation, we have said not 60, not 50, not 40, but 20 amendments, and time limits on those amendments. The answer was, well, there may not be time to do 20 amendments. Here we are today. We were told that there wasn't time to do 15 amendments on this bill. I have to give great credit to our ranking member, the manager on our side. He could have filibustered this legislation. I know how he feels about it. He could have been out here making the Senate go through all the hoops. We have talked about this. In the interest of expediting the legislation, moving this through, the Senator graciously has acknowledged that there will be another day. We will work through this in conference. The Senator has said that more than anybody. Ironically, the one man who could have held this thing up for weeks, if not months, is sitting here ready to vote. It is really an irony, it seems to me, that in spite of all the attention about expediting this bill, in spite of all the pressure and all the effort made to express the urgency of getting this done, we sit here this afternoon, at 2 o'clock, waiting for final passage.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the agreement signed yesterday between NATO and Yugoslavia is hopeful news as we move toward our goals of ending the atrocities and genocide in Kosovo and bolstering stability in southeastern Europe. The vote by the UN Security Council today authorizing an international peacekeeping force in Kosovo is yet another hopeful sign. This agreement is a victory for freedom. It is a defeat for dictators around the world. NATO's resolve to halt and redress Milosevic's crimes against humanity sends an important message to world leaders who engage in ethnic cleansing and other atrocities. NATO's victory over Yugoslav aggression also sends a positive signal to the forces of democracy in the region. President Clinton deserves immense credit for his leadership throughout this 11-week military operation. When so many said it was impossible, he kept a 19-member NATO alliance intact. When so many said it would never work, he stuck to the air campaign that led that NATO alliance to victory. The President never wavered in his commitment to the alliance's goals of ending the atrocities in Kosovo, forcing the withdrawal of Serb forces from the region, and ensuring the safe return of Kosovar refugees to their homes. President Clinton's steadfast resolve, together with our NATO allies, forced President Milosevic to back down and accept NATO's conditions for a halt in the bombing campaign. It would appear that some of those who were most critical of the President's Kosovo policies were more concerned with waging a political assault than in stopping the Serbs' military assault on Kosovo. But now that the Serbs have conceded defeat, one can only hope that those who were so harshly critical of the President might concede they were mistaken. Our NATO allies also deserve great credit and much gratitude. They understood the long-term implications of failing to address the Yugoslav threat to Kosovo and to regional stability. They met the challenge head-on and showed that NATO remains the most formidable military alliance in the world. And the front-line states--Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, and Romania--were forced to experience firsthand the consequences of Milosevic's ethnic cleansing. They, and the Republic of Montenegro, should be commended for accepting hundreds of thousands of refugees and enduring the instability caused by the actions of the Yugoslav government. Of course, those truly on the front lines were our U.S. military forces who contributed so skillfully to the success of the air campaign. They deserve our full support and our thanks for carrying out their mission so bravely, and for achieving our military goals with virtually no casualties. It is now vitally important that the United States and our NATO allies remain vigilant to ensure that the Serbs live up to their agreement so that the Kosovars can return to their country and their homes, and rebuild their lives. They have a right to live in peace without fear of further atrocities. The agreement reached yesterday is cause for great hope that we can achieve those goals, and I want to again commend the President, our troops, NATO, and those front line countries who gave so much for the success and the victory that we celebrate today. I yield the floor.