Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in just over 100 days, the American people will make an historic and fateful decision. They will decide whether we stay the course we are on or move our country in a new and better direction. As I have traveled around South Dakota and the Nation, I have heard a lot about the hopes and dreams Americans have for their families. I have listened to ranchers and farmers, teachers and mothers, police officers and firefighters. I am always humbled by the honesty of their message. Families in South Dakota and across our Nation aren't asking for special deals or special advantage. All they want is a fair opportunity on a level playing field. They want to know that there is only one set of rules, and that the game isn't rigged against them. Most of all, they want to know that as we make decisions affecting the future of our country, our first priority is doing right by America. If a policy isn't going to make us stronger and safer, if it is not going to expand opportunity and put common sense ahead of ideology, then it is not doing right by America. Doing right by America rejects the defeatist view that we have enough money to rebuild Iraq, but not enough resources to take care of America. At its heart, doing right by America means fulfilling our moral responsibility--together--to create a better future for our children and grandchildren. It is a simple value that Americans have always lived by, but it has been pushed aside these last 4 years. Boardroom priorities have crowded out kitchen-table needs, and special interests--like Enron, Halliburton, and the giant oil companies--have undermined our common purpose. Years of progress in spreading opportunity for regular Americans has been turned on its head. We are all proud that America is a place of great wealth and success. But the genius of America has never been just the ability of the rich to get richer. The true genius of America has always been the promise that all Americans who work hard and play by the rules will have the opportunity to succeed. The promise of opportunity is what inspired my grandparents, and tens of millions of other immigrants, to start a new life here. And nearly every day, I hear a new story that reminds me that my most important responsibility is defending the opportunity of regular Americans to build a better life for themselves and their children. Middle-class families deserve an opportunity to compete for good jobs that reward work. They deserve an opportunity to send their children to good schools, and then on to good colleges and universities, without busting the family budget. They deserve an opportunity to purchase health insurance at a reasonable price so they can see a doctor--one they choose--when they are sick or injured, and so they can fill a prescription if their doctor writes one. They deserve the opportunity to be safe--safe in their communities and safe in their homes. And, after a lifetime of hard work and years of paying into Social Security, they deserve the opportunity to retire with dignity and security. That is not a lot to ask. But in some ways, it is everything. Widening the circle of opportunity and prosperity--year after year, decade after decade--is what makes America great. It is our heritage, and it must be our legacy. But today, those with power often seem to have lost sight of this fundamental value and the difference between right and wrong. We saw that a few months ago, when a major telecommunications company gave one of its executives a severance package worth more than $8 million. This executive had worked there for only 7 months, and he was leaving because he hadn't done his job well. As the company handed the failed executive his $8 million check, it handed out something else to 12,000 of its rank-and-file workers: pink slips. That is not doing right. Around that same time, a man I have known for years called my office. His name is Brad Besler. He is 47 and a fourth-generation rancher in western South Dakota. He and his wife, Fern, have five children--four have graduated from college, and the youngest is still in grade school. Brad called my office because South Dakota is entering its fifth straight year of drought and he is worried. Two years ago, the drought was so bad, and trying to survive it was so stressful, that he suffered a stroke that left him blind in one eye. A few months ago, he had another stroke. If the drought is anywhere near as bad this year, he says he will have to sell his entire herd of cattle--the only income his family has. If that happens, he will have to drop his family's health insurance, which runs $896 a month. He is trying desperately to avoid that because--with a blind eye, a bad back, and a history of strokes--he knows that if he loses his coverage, it will be next to impossible for him to ever get health insurance again. Listening to Brad Besler, two things strike you. The first is his incredible courage and willingness to work hard to support his family. The second is that Brad's government seems to have forgotten about him. We are not doing right by Brad Besler. And in my view, we are not doing right by America when we hand over millions to a lucky few who already have so much, while ignoring the real needs of those who are working so hard and so honestly. But that is exactly what is happening in America today. There is an ever growing list of government policies that reward wealth, not work. That is not an accident; it is a conscious choice. With Republicans in control of the entire Federal Government, it often seems as if their leaders are trying to narrow the circle of opportunity and prosperity in America. And they have put the needs of middle-class families on the back burner. We see that even as the economy slowly improves. Corporations reap most of the benefits, while regular workers continue to struggle. In fact, during this recovery, corporations have gotten twice their normal share of the increase in national income, while workers have received their lowest share in over 50 years. As the chief economist at Merrill Lynch observed: ``We've had a redistribution of income to the corporate sector.'' Or as Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest men in America, put it: ``If there's class warfare going on, my class is winning.'' That isn't good for most American families, and it isn't doing right by America. We can do better, and we have done better. During the Clinton administration, America created 21 million new private-sector jobs. Now, just 4 years later, the Bush administration is on track to have the worst job-creation record since the Great Depression. During the first 2\1/2\ years of the Bush administration, we lost over 3 million private-sector jobs. And although the economy has finally started to recover some jobs in recent months, the new jobs pay, on average, 13 percent less than the jobs they are replacing. As a result, too many average families are losing ground, even as they work harder and harder. And to make matters worse, the Bush administration continues to demand that millions of employees lose their right to overtime pay. Since President Bush took office, real weekly earnings for average Americans have not grown at all--but their expenses have soared. Gas prices have gone up 23 percent; college tuition has gone up 28 percent; and health care premiums have gone up 36 percent. And while the middle class is getting squeezed, huge corporations are growing rich. While consumers are struggling with record gas prices, Chevron-Texaco is reporting record profits. While family incomes have stagnated, overall corporate profits have risen by more than 50 percent. A generation ago, the average American CEO made about 50 times more than the average worker. Now, thanks to bad policies and even worse values, the average CEO makes 300 times more than the average worker. That is just not right. And unless we change course, it is going to get worse. Instead of fighting to keep good jobs here, Republican leaders in Washington are using tax breaks to reward companies for shipping jobs overseas. Businesses are walking jobs out of the country, and the government is holding the door for them. A few months ago, President Bush's top economic adviser told us that sending jobs overseas ``is probably a plus for the economy, in the long run. The President believes this.'' The President also seems to believe it is okay to send millions of dollars in unemployment pay to former Iraqi soldiers, while denying help to American workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas. That is doing wrong by America. As the election nears, the President's economic team has been grasping for ways to make a bad economy sound good. To deal with the loss of more than 2 million manufacturing jobs, they floated the idea of redefining ``manufacturing jobs'' to include fast-food workers preparing Big Macs and Whoppers. Manufacturing once meant building cars or fabricating steel for good wages. Now the Bush administration says it might mean putting a burger on a bun for minimum wage. That is not being straight with America. And we are not doing right by America by running up trillions in new debt and pretending it is not a problem. During the Clinton administration, we turned huge deficits into record surpluses. Now, just 4 years later, $5 trillion of expected surpluses have turned into $3 trillion of new debt. As a result, we are giving our children something they don't want and don't deserve: a $25,000 birth tax. That is the share of our national debt owed by every child in America. My two grandchildren both inherited that debt the moment they were born. It wasn't long ago that Republicans came to Washington promising fiscal discipline. Instead of keeping that promise, they have taken us on a 4-year fiscal binge that has squandered record budget surpluses and created record budget deficits. In 2000, Republican leaders, including President Bush, promised that ``[t]he Social Security surplus is off-limits, off budget, and will not be touched.'' Four years later, they have already raided $500 billion from Social Security to pay for tax cuts, and they are planning to take another $2.4 trillion--$2.4 trillion--over the next 10 years. That is your money. It comes out of your paycheck. It is supposed to be there when you retire. It is not supposed to be used to pay for tax breaks for millionaire CEOs or to reward companies for shipping American jobs overseas. Looting Social Security is not doing right by American workers and retirees, and we can't let it happen. The Bush administration is draining trillions from Social Security, borrowing hundreds of billions from China and Japan to pay our debts, sending billions of dollars to Iraq for roads and schools, and then planning on cutting billions here at home for education, environmental protection, medical research, Head Start, and nutrition programs for pregnant women and children. The administration even wants to cut $1 billion from homeland security at the very time it is warning of likely new terrorist attacks. That is not doing right by America, and it doesn't make any sense. But this administration is making a habit of decisions that don't make much sense. A couple of months ago, the Secretary of Health and Human Services defended the administration's plan to provide health care to all Iraqis, but not to all Americans. He said, ``Even if you don't have health insurance in America, you get taken care of. That could be defined as universal coverage.'' Try telling that to the nearly 44 million Americans who are uninsured--4 million more than when George Bush took office--and the millions more who are under-insured. Try telling that to the millions of families who, year after year, are watching out-of-control health insurance premiums bust the family budget. Or try telling that to the Lakota woman in South Dakota whose sister died a few months ago from a stomach cancer that went undetected because the Indian Health Service didn't have money to refer her to a specialist. In America today, seniors can't afford the medicine they need and have discovered that last year's Medicare law is a sham that provides billions to insurance and drug companies. Many veterans can't use the VA health system anymore because of arbitrary, budget-driven barriers to care. And 32,000 National Guard members and reservists who are serving in Iraq will lose their health coverage when they come home because the Bush administration refuses to extend their coverage. These aren't unintended consequences. They are clear choices. When record debt makes it difficult to repair our crumbling roads and bridges, fund our children's schools, support our police and firefighters, and honor our commitment to America's veterans, that is the result of bad choices. When American soldiers are sent into combat without armor in their protective vests, when they are losing limbs and sacrificing their lives because there aren't enough armored cars, when health services are being cut for veterans, and when the Bush administration says that there isn't enough money to let reservists and Guard members buy into the military health system, that is the result of bad choices. These choices don't do right by America, and we need to change them. There is something else we need to change. In the last 4 years, we have seen more and more secrecy and less and less accountability in the Bush administration. During the past few years, a small group of courageous individuals has stepped forward and said things this administration didn't want to hear and didn't want anyone else to know. In every case, their patriotism, honesty, or competence was attacked. Senator John McCain found that out. So did the President's former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. And so did Medicare actuary Richard Foster, former Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki, and former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke. When Ambassador Joe Wilson told the truth about the administration's misleading claims about Iraq's nuclear weapon capability, some Government officials retaliated by disclosing that his wife was a deep- cover CIA agent. For nothing more than political gain, they were willing to endanger the life of one of the people who protect our national security. That is not doing right by America. Those aren't our morals, and they aren't our values. In the America I know, moms and dads sit at the kitchen table every month and balance the family checkbook. When the car breaks down or there are unexpected doctor visits, there is a pinch. They don't expect the Government to bail them out when that happens, but they want a fair shake. They want their Government to focus on jobs and health care and education, and they don't want their Government to take their Social Security money to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and big corporations. They want their Government to do right by them, and they have a right to expect that. But when they see oil industry interests coming before their interests, HMO profits coming before the health of seniors, and special deals for Halliburton coming before the safety of their sons and daughters in Iraq, they know their Government isn't doing right by America. I am as frustrated as they are about these choices, but I am not discouraged about our ability to fix things. We can and we will. We can get America back on track by doing right by America. Doing right by America means putting our common interests ahead of the special interests. It means paying as much attention to middle America as we are paying to the Middle East. And it means bringing common sense back to Government. We should be thinking not just about the people who own Wal-Mart, but about the millions of Americans who work and shop there. We should be changing tax polices so corporations have an incentive to keep jobs here at home, not ship them overseas, and we should aggressively enforce our trade laws to protect workers from unfair competition. We should be improving roads and bridges and creating millions of jobs along the way, and investing in education, training, and technological innovation so workers who have lost jobs can find new ones, and workers who have jobs can get better ones. And if we are truly going to do right by American workers, it is long past time that we increase the minimum wage, and it is absolutely essential that we stop the Bush administration from following through with its plan to strip millions of workers of their right to overtime pay. Doing right by America means honestly confronting the health care crisis in our country, not pretending that it doesn't exist. As a first step, we should provide every American with the opportunity to choose from the same health care options, at the same price, as Members of Congress have. If it is good enough for those of us in Government, it ought to be an option for every American who needs health insurance. Doing right by America means an honest prescription drug policy that doesn't funnel billions of dollars in windfalls to drug companies and HMOs, but instead offers seniors the medications they need at a fair price--without the mind-boggling complexity of the Bush administration's drug plan. It means properly funding our children's schools and giving every American family a guarantee: If your sons and daughters work hard in school and get good grades, they will have a first-rate and affordable college education waiting for them the day they graduate from high school. And it means putting our Nation on the road to energy independence. The next generation should be able to look forward to a future that is not put at risk by unrestrained pollution and a dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Finally, doing right by America means being honest about performance, both at home and abroad. It is not pessimistic to acknowledge the problems workers have endured over the past 4 years; it is pessimistic to think that we can't do better. And it doesn't endanger our troops to ask questions that might save their lives. If we are going to do right by them, we have to stand up for them, even if that means asking tough questions about the administration and its policies. And when our troops return home, we have to make sure they receive the medical attention they earned. We owe them more than empty promises. We will have a clear choice in November. We can continue on the course we are on, where special interests come before common interests, where boardroom issues come before kitchen-table issues, and where opportunity is reserved for a small, members-only club. Or we can choose a new and better direction. Doing right By America means that our values guide our policies. Our strength comes from opportunity and responsibility--and a commitment to making sure that our middle-class has a fair chance. It means fixing health care, creating good jobs again, and making education affordable. Mr. President, we can do this, and we should do it together. Doing right by America shouldn't be an idea we just talk about, it should be the value that guides all our decisions in Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask that 10 minutes of the time that I consumed be applied against the Democratic morning business time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Correct.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Recently, the Majority Leader pulled the class-action reform legislation from consideration after the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the bill. We all know he would have had the votes for cloture if he had not played games with the amendment process. Instead, he proposed allowing Democrats only five non-germane amendments and insisted that he choose which amendments could be offered. He insisted that under no circumstances could we offer a bipartisan bill to legalize the safe importation of lower-priced prescription drugs from Canada and other industrialized countries. The Majority Leader no doubt feared that the re-importation legislation would pass as a result of the broad bipartisan support it enjoys. But the drug industry didn't want lower prices, and we were prevented from offering our amendment. The re-importation bill is just one of many health measures currently pending in Congress that would help Americans who are struggling with the high costs of care, drugs, and insurance. These bills have broad support--some even have Republican lead sponsors--and we should be considering them here in the Senate. In fact, it is our obligation to do so. Yet most of these bills continue to languish in committee while the majority plays procedural games with the amendment process and spends countless hours on bills and measures that the Majority Leader knows do not have the votes to pass. In response, over the past week, we have begun the process of putting these measures on the calendar. We are doing so to highlight that these critical bills are available for consideration on the Senate floor, and to show how important it is to pass them and send them to the President for his signature as soon as possible. Today, I would like to discuss a measure I first introduced on the day the conference report to the Medicare bill passed the Senate. This proposal was included in a broader piece of legislation that we introduced that day in response to the conference report, and, on December 9, I introduced it as a stand-alone measure. It is a very simple bill. It would strike the prohibition contained in last year's Medicare legislation that prohibits the government from using the power of 41 million beneficiaries to negotiate lower drug prices for seniors. Senators on both sides of the aisle have expressed support for striking that provision. Senators who supported the conference report have joined with those who opposed it, such as myself, in cosponsoring my bill. That's because it just makes sense. The new Medicare law does almost nothing to rein in skyrocketing prescription drug costs. In fact, it actually prohibits Medicare from using its bargaining power to negotiate lower prices. We have seen the VA's success at negotiating lower prices. Similarly, we should use the power of Medicare's beneficiary population to obtain lower prices for seniors and people with disabilities. Rather than fragmenting the population to dilute our ability to negotiate lower costs, we have an obligation--both to Medicare beneficiaries and to American taxpayers-- to secure the lowest possible prices. That's what my bill would do. It's time for the Senate to side with seniors and taxpayers over the drug industry. It's time for the Senate to pass this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Recently, the Majority Leader pulled the class-action reform legislation from consideration after the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the bill. We all know he would have had the votes for cloture if he had not played games with the amendment process. Instead, he proposed allowing Democrats only five non-germane amendments and insisted that he choose which amendments could be offered. He insisted that under no circumstances could we offer a bipartisan bill to legalize the safe importation of lower-priced prescription drugs from Canada and other industrialized countries. The Majority Leader no doubt feared that the re-importation legislation would pass as a result of the broad bipartisan support it enjoys. But the drug industry didn't want lower prices, and we were prevented from offering our amendment. The re-importation bill is just one of many health measures currently pending in Congress that would help Americans who are struggling with the high costs of care, drugs, and insurance. These bills have broad support--some even have Republican lead sponsors--and we should be considering them here in the Senate. In fact, it is our obligation to do so. Yet most of these bills continue to languish in committee while the majority plays procedural games with the amendment process and spends countless hours on bills and measures that the Majority Leader knows do not have the votes to pass. In response, over the past week, we have begun the process of putting these measures on the calendar. We are doing so to highlight that these critical bills are available for consideration on the Senate floor, and to show how important it is to pass them and send them to the President for his signature as soon as possible. Today, I would like to discuss a measure I first introduced on the day the conference report to the Medicare bill passed the Senate. This proposal was included in a broader piece of legislation that we introduced that day in response to the conference report, and, on December 9, I introduced it as a stand-alone measure. It is a very simple bill. It would strike the prohibition contained in last year's Medicare legislation that prohibits the government from using the power of 41 million beneficiaries to negotiate lower drug prices for seniors. Senators on both sides of the aisle have expressed support for striking that provision. Senators who supported the conference report have joined with those who opposed it, such as myself, in cosponsoring my bill. That's because it just makes sense. The new Medicare law does almost nothing to rein in skyrocketing prescription drug costs. In fact, it actually prohibits Medicare from using its bargaining power to negotiate lower prices. We have seen the VA's success at negotiating lower prices. Similarly, we should use the power of Medicare's beneficiary population to obtain lower prices for seniors and people with disabilities. Rather than fragmenting the population to dilute our ability to negotiate lower costs, we have an obligation--both to Medicare beneficiaries and to American taxpayers-- to secure the lowest possible prices. That's what my bill would do. It's time for the Senate to side with seniors and taxpayers over the drug industry. It's time for the Senate to pass this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Democratic half hour be allocated in the following manner: Senator Schumer, 15 minutes; Senator Harkin, 10 minutes; and Senator Reid, 5 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time so as not to take any of the Democratic time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me respond briefly, if I may, to the Senator from Idaho. I have respect for him and for much of the work we have done together over the years on many issues, including forest health. But I must say I strongly disagree with his characterization of this particular judicial nominating debate. Over the history of our 220 years, the Senate has seen fit on countless occasions to require either a threshold cloture vote or, before we had cloture, some resolution to controversial matters involving extended debate. Before we had cloture, there was no way to resolve it. A Senator could see fit to talk about an issue or a nominee for days, weeks, months, and there was no way to resolve it. There were many occasions during the 20th century when this was exactly the case. That evolved, of course, with the implementation of cloture and the use of cloture over the course of the last 100 years. So now we have a rule of the Senate that says on those issues that are controversial, a supermajority is required. I think for the Senator from Idaho to make the point that there is no vote is just wrong. The vote occurs at 2:15. If the supermajority will move to proceed on this very controversial nominee, you go to the second phase of consideration. But that is what the Senate rules require. I must say that is a far better approach than what we faced during the Clinton administration, when more than 60 nominees never got a committee vote. We go back to the old days of the 20th century during the Clinton years when you didn't even have an opportunity for cloture because the Judiciary Committee refused to act on over 60 nominees. So this is an improvement, to say the least, over that. As to the qualifications of Bill Myers, I will simply say the ABA does not share the view of the Senator from Idaho with regard to his qualifications. It is very rare for the ABA not to categorize a nominee as qualified--extremely rare. They have not done so in the case of Bill Myers. ``Partially qualified,'' but do we really want a ``partially qualified'' nominee to serve on the circuit court of our land? It is rare--in fact, it is unprecedented--for the Native-American community in the United States to take a position on a judge. They have never done so. The Native-American community in South Dakota and North Dakota, in all Western States around the country, has come together with one voice to say this man ought not be a circuit court judge-- unheard of. We have never seen that before. We have never seen the National Wildlife Foundation take a position on a judge, but they, too, have said please do not confirm this nominee. Why? Because of what limited record he had with regard to judicial issues. He virtually has none as Solicitor. There is no real court experience, with a couple of exceptions. So you have somebody with at least, arguably, some ethical questions that have not been addressed; you have major communities such as the Native-American community in our country in an unprecedented statement in opposition; you have the ABA that has said they are reluctant to support this nominee because he is only ``partially qualified.'' So, Mr. President, clearly it is those and many other factors that led every single Democrat, in a rare demonstration of opposition in the committee, to oppose this nomination. We have now approved, I believe it is 196 nominations--198 nominations. That is a record that surpasses Bill Clinton, the first President Bush, and Ronald Reagan. This President's three predecessors have not had a record of confirmation equal to his. I must say it is interesting, and I would note, that my colleague from Idaho, who just abhorred this current circumstance regarding cloture on a nominee, voted against cloture, voted to sustain the extended debate, ironically, in the circumstances involving another Ninth Circuit nominee, Richard Paez. They voted to continue the debate, not to vote for cloture, not to terminate the debate, not to move to that second phase. So I would certainly ask the distinguished Senator at some point for his explanation as to why it was appropriate to extend debate in that case but not in this case.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 60 years ago Franklin Roosevelt gave one of the most memorable State of the Union speeches in our history. As he spoke, Germany occupied all of Europe. Americans were dying in battle abroad and sacrificing for the war effort at home. Total victory was uncertain. But that did not diminish President Roosevelt's optimism and vision. In his address, he said the Nation had accepted a Second Bill of Rights that, he said, would create ``a new basis of security'' for all. In this Second Bill of Rights, President Roosevelt cited the right to a decent home, a good education, and dependable health care; the right to fair prices for farmers and free competition for business; and the right to be free of the fears of hardship caused by old age. But first, and most fundamental, he called for the right to work for a fair wage. Our country should be proud of the extraordinary progress we have made in many of these areas. Together we have made our country better, stronger, and more secure. There is, though, more work to be done, and today I want to focus on President Roosevelt's call for a fair wage. No value is more fundamental to the American character than the value of work. No ideal is shared so widely or cherished so deeply. No principle binds us more closely to the generations of Americans who built up our country, and the millions of new Americans who came to our shores to join in the effort. And no conviction so unites the conservative and liberal traditions of our Nation. Ronald Reagan once said that: People in America value family, work, and neighborhood. These are the things we have in common socially and politically. When it comes to the bottom line, all of us are striving for the same thing--a strong and healthy America and a fair shake for working people. There is a fundamental American truth in those words--working people deserve a fair shake. It has always been the promise of our country, and as we debate legislation here in the Senate, we should do all we can to give life to that promise. We should make certain that no American who works full-time lives in poverty. Unfortunately, the gap between promise and reality is widening. Among full-time, year-round workers, poverty has doubled since the late 1970's to 2.6 million workers. All told, the working poor are raising 9 million American children. Moreover, as recent work by the Family Economic Self-Sufficiency project shows, the level of income it now takes just to pay the basic bills is far above what we consider to be the poverty line. No working American wants a handout. These families are playing by the rules. But as hard as they work, they cannot escape the grip of poverty. A few weeks ago a Sioux Falls family sent me a letter. The father works 56 hours a week as a skilled welder. His wife is a substitute teacher who only works part-time so she can care for her son, who suffers from autism and diabetes. They live in a 20-year-old mobile home that has sinking floors and a leaking ceiling. They wrote: We are facing possible foreclosure. Lights, heat, phone, etc. are all 60 plus days past due and on the verge of disconnection. . . . Medical bills have been turned over to a collection agency. Their final question was: ``Now what?'' They feel trapped. Since they can't afford insurance, their son's medical bills have erased their savings and destroyed their credit. Without good credit, interest payments eat up much of their income. And without affordable child care, the family's mom can't shift to full- time work, which could help lift them out of poverty. They are working as hard as they can and want to work even harder. But that doesn't seem to be enough. They are farther away from President Roosevelt's vision today than when they first wrote to me. It's in our national interest not to look away from this difficult problem, but to face it squarely and honestly. If the people who work hard don't get a fair shake, then our Nation risks losing an essential value that has contributed to America's excellence and ongoing success. We cannot let that happen. We should not kid ourselves and pretend this is an easy problem. It is not. It is enormously complicated. But there are things we can and must do. First, it is important that American business leaders live up to their responsibility as good corporate citizens and share the benefits of increased productivity with their workers, not just their shareholders. The Chief Economist at Merrill Lynch recently noted that there's been a notable ``redistribution of income to the corporate sector.'' While salaries have remained flat over the past 4 years, corporate profits now occupy a greater share of our GDP than at any point since tracking began nearly 60 years ago. We are moving in the wrong direction, and leaders in the private sector have a responsibility to help us move back in the right direction. Here in Congress, we also have a responsibility to address the problems confronting the working poor, and we should start by requiring a long overdue increase in the minimum wage. Today, the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour is worth $3 less than it was in 1968. Americans who work at the minimum wage for 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, still fall $5,000 short of the poverty line. That means, as the Sioux Falls family knows, that adequate housing, enough food to eat, health insurance, and college funds are the stuff of fantasy, not reality. In the time we have left this year, we should increase the minimum wage to $7. That won't solve all our problems, but it is a beginning. We should also revisit the Earned Income Tax Credit. It was created 20 years ago as an incentive to help working families lift themselves out of poverty through hard work. President Reagan called it the ``best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.'' I agree. Now we need to expand it, so that every American child grows up seeing that work is rewarded and respected. We should also make sure all families receive their fair share of the child tax credit. Extending the credit to all working families would restore a basic level of fairness and offer millions of working families the same child tax credit given to those higher up the income ladder. We must also acknowledge that despite the many benefits of globalization, it has placed downward pressure on low income wages. We won't make progress if our wages fall faster than the prices for the products we need. ``What do the American people want more than anything else?'' President Roosevelt asked in 1944. This was his answer: To my mind, they want two things: work, with all the moral and spiritual values that go with it; and with work, a reasonable measure of security. . . . Work and security. These are more than words. They are more than facts. They are the spiritual values, the true goal toward which our efforts should lead. That was the challenge 60 years ago, and it remains a central challenge today. It is, as President Roosevelt said, ``our duty.'' I hope we can all join together to make that vision a reality for millions of hard-working and honest Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, over the course of the last several weeks, many of us have come to the floor to talk about the question raised by our former President, Ronald Reagan, back in the 1980 Presidential campaign. His question at that time, which we are told was paraphrased from a question posed by Franklin Roosevelt in 1934, was: ``Are you better off than you were four years ago?'' Unfortunately, in 2004, the answer to that question is all too clear for most middle-class Americans. Four years ago, our economy was booming. The stock market had reached record heights. Twenty-two million jobs had been created in 8 years. We built a record Federal surplus. And millions of American families enjoyed newfound prosperity and felt the optimism of even better times ahead. Four years later, we have lost nearly 2 million private sector jobs, the stock market has dropped, record surpluses have turned to record deficits, and middle-class families are truly being squeezed. This chart tells the story. Since President Bush came to office, wages have been stagnant. Average weekly earnings have not increased in the last 4 years, but the costs facing Americans have skyrocketed. Gas prices have increased 23 percent; college tuition has gone up 28 percent; and family health care premiums, as we can see from the chart, have actually increased 36 percent. All that has come out of average weekly earnings, which have been stagnant. This is not what was predicted. This certainly is not what the White House said would happen under its economic policies. In his annual economic report released in February, the President predicted the economy would create 3.8 million jobs in 2004. As of today, we are still 2.5 million jobs short of that goal. Even more troubling, the jobs being created today pay less than the jobs we have lost. And even Americans who have been fortunate enough to keep their jobs have failed to see the pay raises they need and they deserve. Just this morning we received confirmation from the Department of Labor that working Americans are still being squeezed by this economy. In fact, the new numbers indicate the squeeze is actually getting worse. According to the Labor Department, real earnings in June fell $2.16, the second largest monthly drop in 14 years. The Labor Department report also reveals what has happened over the past year. As this chart shows, the real earnings of our working people over this last year have actually decreased by 1.4 percent. They have less purchasing power today than they did in June 2003. But a typical commodity, a grocery that most families buy every week, milk, has gone up 30 percent. All this money is coming out of weekly earnings. As people across the country know, gas prices have also risen dramatically. There was an article on the front page of the Wall Street Journal about this development. It concluded that at current prices, the average driver will pay nearly $300 more for gasoline this year than last year. And the story only gets worse when it comes to prescription drugs. According to a recent report by the AARP, drug companies raised their prices for the top 200 brand-name drugs at nearly three times the rate of inflation in the first 3 months of 2004. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think these increases are less important to American families than the rise of gross domestic product, GDP. But Americans don't live on GDP, they live on earnings. That is what they use to pay for milk, gas, medicine, health insurance, and tuition. They live on earnings, and those earnings clearly are not keeping up with the costs they are facing today. Remarkably, the administration's response to this problem has been to further undermine wages by limiting overtime rights. This week, an independent study showed that the White House's new overtime regulation, which goes into effect next month, will strip 6 million workers of their right to overtime. That is unacceptable. Democrats continue to fight at every opportunity to reverse the administration's misguided policy. Middle-class Americans are being squeezed, and the last thing they need is for their Government to make it worse. What Congress should do is raise the minimum wage. It has been 8 years since we last voted to raise it. In that time it has become nearly impossible for minimum wage workers to make ends meet, especially when they are trying to raise a family. In my home State of South Dakota, a worker earning the minimum wage has to work 82 hours a week to afford rent for a two-bedroom apartment. And that is without taking into account other family costs, such as clothing, groceries, and health care. Of course, not everyone in America is feeling the pinch. As this chart shows, while workers continue to struggle, our big corporations are thriving. In just the past year, corporate profits have risen 30 percent. The White House likes to talk about how we are now in an economic recovery. That is true for corporate America. But American workers are being left behind. As the New York Times recently reported, take-home pay, as a share of the economy, is at its lowest level since the Government started keeping track in 1929. Economic policies that lead to these kinds of results don't do right by middle-class families, and they don't do right by America. The good news is, we can do right by America. We proved during the Clinton administration that we can create millions of jobs, raise wages, and increase the quality of life for families all through the country. We did right by America then, and we can do it again. With the help of the American people, and with some resolve by this body, we will do it again. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, farming, ranching, and agriculture and agri-related businesses continue to play a vital role in our economy. Food and fiber jobs account for 16 percent of our total workforce. Agriculture makes up 12 percent of our gross domestic product, and 9 percent of our trade exports. In fact, we have a $10 billion positive balance on agricultural trade, in sharp contrast to our overall $490 billion trade deficit. In many States, like my home State of South Dakota, agriculture is the number one industry. Communities rely heavily upon the agricultural economy. Many rely almost solely upon it. That is why, as the national spotlight focuses on rural America, it is so important to ask: Are we doing right by rural America? Are we doing all we can to ensure that the deep heritage in our Nation's rural way of life remains not only viable, but strong and vibrant? Unfortunately, over the past 4 years, our Government has not done right by rural America. It has not provided the fair policies that our family farmers, ranchers, and rural business people deserve. And while I am sure rural residents appreciate the attention their communities have received this campaign season, short snippets on the evening news do not do justice to the serious challenges they are facing. Per capita income for rural residents is less than 70 percent of that for urban residents, and rural workers are roughly twice as likely as urban workers to earn only the minimum wage. Rural workers also have higher rates of underemployment, and they have less prospects for improving their employment situation in the future. Ninety-five percent of the poorest counties in the country are located in rural areas--95 percent. The poverty rates in many parts of rural America are worse than in countries we often consider to be ``developing.'' Of the many intractable pockets of poverty in rural America, several are on Native American reservations. One of those pockets is on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in my home State of South Dakota. President Clinton called Pine Ridge, ``Ground Zero of poverty.'' Places like Pine Ridge have a severe lack of basic infrastructure, of roads and bridges; of water and waste systems; of housing and public utilities, all of which lead to a lack of opportunity for businesses and job creation. I have said it before, and will say it again: This is a quiet national crisis that we must address. Today, I would like to talk about just a few of the specific issues confronting rural America, and how we can do better. At this time last year, Mother nature was a little kinder than the previous year to farmers and ranchers across much of the Nation, including the Great Plains and much of the Midwest. Producers took time to rebuild cattle herds and grow new crops lost by the historic drought of 2002. That drought, by the way, was the worst drought since the Dust Bowl days of 1936. It was a horrible and devastating drought that cried out for Federal assistance, but rural America received very little help from the Bush administration. Unfortunately, this year, farmers and ranchers are dealing with new weather-related natural disasters. We have pockets of drought in South Dakota. There has been extreme flooding in many areas--including South Dakota and our northern neighbor, North Dakota. In April, even before we knew that many areas of my State would be impacted by weather-related disaster this year, I wrote to President Bush and urged him to change his long-standing opposition to supplemental disaster aid for farmers and ranchers. The national policies regarding weather-related natural disasters are--by any legitimate standard--failing to address the concerns of farmers and ranchers. That is why dozens of national farm, ranch, and rural-related organizations supported my disaster amendment in 2002. I had hoped the President would take a fresh look at what could be done to put in place some more adequate, and permanent, disaster- related assistance policies. I suggested that he establish an inter- agency working group to provide a legislative proposal that the administration would send to Capitol Hill. Many of us pledged to work, in a bipartisan fashion, to move such a thoughtful package forward. I wanted to see if there was a way to work with the President to ensure that farmers and ranchers are treated more like victims of other natural disasters, such as tornadoes or hurricanes. I was hopeful the President would respond favorably to my request by working in a bipartisan fashion to craft thoughtful disaster assistance that more adequately provides what is needed in rural States. In mid-July, I received a response to my letter. I can't express how disappointed I was that the letter made no mention whatsoever--none-- about my request for a legislative proposal. In essence, the letter was a mere regurgitation of the insufficient steps that the Agriculture Department had taken under existing authorities. I am sorry to report that as long as the Bush administration is around, it appears that we will be at a stalemate on disaster assistance. I believe if we want to do right by America, we must fulfill our obligations as Federal officials and respond to the legitimate disaster-related needs of all Americans. The Bush administration doesn't agree. They oppose disaster aid, pure and simple. That is unfortunate. We have also spoken many times on the floor about the need to move energy policy forward. Doing right by America means taking care of our people here at home, and that means investing in renewable fuels such as ethanol, wind, and biomass. There is overwhelming support for the renewable fuels standard which would double the use of ethanol over the next 10 years. The RFS would increase corn prices by as much as 50 cents per bushel, create 214,000 new jobs throughout the economy, and reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil supplies, saving the country at least $4 billion annually in imported oil. Unfortunately, the RFS has been held hostage by a select group of House leaders who are insisting on special interest protection for groundwater polluters. The President has been unwilling to tell these House leaders to back off, and as a result, this important bipartisan ethanol legislation has been stalled in Congress for over 7 months. It is time for the President to show some leadership and choose rural communities and American consumers over special interests. In American today, meatpackers control roughly 80 percent of the beef market. They have been establishing what many consider a dangerous monopoly, allowing them to manipulate markets. But the Bush administration has opposed doing anything about what many think are glaring problems with concentration in the meatpacking industry. For example, instead of helping our farmers and ranchers, the administration opposed the ban on packer ownership that the Senate approved as part of the 2002 farm bill. They insisted that the provision be removed from the bill, essentially holding the farm bill hostage until the provision was removed. But that is not all. As we are now seeing through the Australia Free Trade Agreement, the administration has decided to promote international trade policies that will penalize our independent beef producers. Cattle prices have dropped $30 and $40 per hundredweight in the last year, and the Bush administration proposes a trade agreement that will, over time, depress our cattle and beef markets and increase unfair competition. Coupled with the issues of concentration and discriminatory trade agreements is the ongoing concern about how the Bush administration has addressed Canadian border issues in the wake of the mad cow scare. Last August, the Secretary of Agriculture announced a lifting of the ban on certain Canadian beef products but said that before anything further was done, there would be a public rulemaking. That did not happen. Only as a result of a lawsuit--yes, there had to be a lawsuit--USDA was forced to reverse their policies, policies that appear to have benefited the Canadians and select meatpackers who had private knowledge about special permits granted under reduced food safety standards. All the while, the American public was kept in the dark. That may sound unbelievable to some. And I don't claim to know all of the facts, which is why several of us asked for an oversight hearing on the matter and for the Department's Inspector General to conduct a thorough investigation. I am pleased that the IG has agreed to look into the matter. Trust in government is very important. I am hopeful that the investigation, and an oversight hearing, will shed some light on what happened at USDA, and pave the way for more effective and transparent policymaking under this administration's watch. I don't think anyone would dispute that we are not doing right by rural America when we hide things and provide special treatment for large corporations. One thing we can do here in the Congress to help ranchers is to take up my bill to reinstate the date adopted in the 2002 farm bill for implementation of country-of- origin labeling. I have asked the majority leader to allow us to consider this legislation, but as I have mentioned, there appears to be another agenda at work in the Senate. To refresh memories on the labeling law, which we call ``COOL,'' the purpose of the provision was simply to allow for certain fruits, meats, and vegetables to be labeled with their country of origin. it was a way to add value to our domestic products by offering American consumers and others around the world a choice about the food they feed their families. Polls show that Americans, in particular, want to ``Buy American.'' But when it comes to food, they don't have that choice. Labels tell us where the clothes we put on our bodies come from, but not where the food we put in our bodies comes from. To fix this discrepancy, Congress passed COOL in 2002, despite the Bush administration's opposition--opposition that reflected the position of the large meatpackers who said they didn't want the labels because it might add a few pennies to the cost of doing business. Never mind that consumers say, by a large majority, that they are willing to pay a few cents more to have this information. Notwithstanding Congress's clear decision to implement labeling, the administration and the meatpackers wouldn't give up. In the middle of the night in January, in a meeting that was closed to Democrats, Bush administration officials and the majority leadership added a small provision to the Omnibus Appropriations bill to delay the labeling law until 2006--essentially paving the way to killing this important consumer information tool. People ask me all the time, Why do you object to going to conference? Why can't you go to conference on these bills and allow the process to work? I have to say that it is exactly situations like this that demonstrate how things don't work in Congress sometimes. That is why, once again, the agreement that we reached last night on the so-called FSC bill was critical in ensuring adequate confidence and participation on the part of Democrats as we go into yet another very important conference. Are we doing right by America when we allow the Bush administration and a few in leadership to override the clear majority of the House and Senate? After all, both the House and Senate passed COOL with bipartisan votes. Are we doing right by America when we allow these sorts of back-room deals? We are not--clearly. Another topic I want to discuss for just a minute is conservation. I believe that we have the best farmers in the world. I also believe that farmers are the true American conservationists. They work the land they love and they take care of the land. They are the best stewards that we could hope for. But, as a Nation, we value conservation to such an extent--and this is a testament to the character of the American people--we value conservation to such an extent that we have supported programs to encourage farmers and ranchers and rural residents to do even more than they already do to protect wetlands and to preserve grassland and other natural areas. Programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program, the new Grasslands Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and the Conservation Security Program championed by Senator Harkin all reflect a tremendous and important commitment to conservation. In fact, I have said that the 2002 farm bill was the ``greenest'' farm bill ever. Many of us remain extremely proud of those efforts. But administration officials found a way to reallocate critical conservation funds away from many of these important programs. They have, by their actions, failed to allow government to follow through on the promises we made to the American people in 2002. The Bush administration's approach doesn't recognize the important weight that Americans place on conservation--on protecting our natural resources. It is also out of step with what Congress and the American people want and expect from a farm bill that was supported by a wide bipartisan majority only 2 short years ago. These are only a few examples of the deficient rural policies that fail to address the very troubling figures I discussed earlier. If we ask, Are we doing right by rural America? The answer is clearly no. In the future, I will discuss other issues that impact rural America. But on these critical issues--disaster aid; energy policy; livestock, trade and conservation issues--on all of these matters, the answer is that we need a change. The Bush administration is not doing right by American farmers, ranchers, rural residents, or the communities in which they live. We can, and we should, do better. And I am optimistic about the future of rural America because I believe we will do better. In the coming months, rural America will get a chance to learn more about those who have a positive vision for the future; those who understand that rural residents should not be taken for granted; and those who know that they have an obligation to provide serious leadership and strive to make progress. Together, I am confident we will make that progress. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time and not have that time counted against the Democratic time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for several years, those in tobacco country have been working to enact a program to transition tobacco farmers out of the current tobacco quota program. At the same time, many of us have been working to give the Food and Drug Administration regulatory authority over tobacco. Today we have the opportunity to pass legislation that does both. In the finest tradition of the U.S. Senate, this amendment embodies compromise that represents a careful balance of often disparate and competing interests. While no member got everything they wanted, each participant has won important victories that made this proposal stronger. Senators from tobacco areas have been pushing for a tobacco buyout, to transition tobacco farmers from the antiquated quota system. Being from a rural State, I understand the economic engine that agriculture provides rural America. And, I appreciate the struggles that tobacco farmers have faced in recent years. The tobacco buyout included in this amendment provides tobacco farmers and quota holders important economic assistance as they transition from the current tobacco quota program to the free market. The buyout has several features that are superior to the House-passed buyout bill. First, the buyout is paid for through assessments on the tobacco manufacturers instead of by the taxpayers. Second, the legislation limits the production of tobacco to traditional growing areas. This ensures that tobacco farmers who choose to continue growing tobacco do not have to unfairly compete with startup tobacco production in other parts of the country. Third, this legislation provides impacted states with economic development grants to help diversify tobacco dependent economies. On the Democratic side, both Senator Edwards and Senator Hollings have been working tirelessly on tobacco for several years. And, Erskine Bowles has personally called scores of my colleagues to let them know how important a buyout is, and how important it was to get this done. In large part, his efforts to educate members about the effects the quota cuts have on farmers and communities helped ensure passage of the buyout today. His advocacy also helped ensure an additional $50 million in economic support for North Carolina was included in the bill. Many of us also feel very strongly that we need to provide FDA with authority to regulate tobacco. Each year, I am visited by South Dakota youth advocates who volunteer their free time to discourage tobacco use by their peers. They are some of the most impressive young people you could hope to meet. And their cause couldn't be more important. In the United States, over four million high school students are current or past smokers--29 percent. Thirty-three percent of South Dakota high school students smoke. In South Dakota alone, 5,100 kids try cigarettes for the first time each year. Of those, 2,300 South Dakotans under the age of 18 become regular, daily smokers each year. These numbers are alarming because it is truly a matter of life and death. Four-hundred thousand people die each year from their own cigarette smoking. Forty thousand die because other people smoke. In South Dakota, 900 children have lost at least one parent to a smoking-caused death. And, in addition to the human cost, there are significant financial costs. The total public and private health care expenditures caused by smoking in this country total over $75 billion each year. Medicare alone has over $20 billion each year in smoking-related expenditures. Today, we are considering legislation to address this critical public health need. I thank Senators DeWine and Kennedy for their hard work on this issue. The bipartisan bill we have before us would give the FDA the authority to restrict tobacco advertising, particularly advertising that targets children. Under this bill, the FDA could prevent tobacco sales to children and limit cigarette sales to face-to-face transactions in which age can be verified. The bill calls for stronger warnings on packaging and allows the FDA to prevent cigarette manufacturers from misrepresenting the facts. It would also allow the FDA to reduce or remove hazardous ingredients from cigarettes, when feasible, in order to help those who are addicted. The FDA authorities provided by this amendment are critical to reducing smoking, particularly among our children. And the provision to assist tobacco farmers are critical to remedy a growing problem. This bipartisan amendment represents a true compromise and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Australia is a very important ally and trading partner. As we all know, Australia joined the U.S. in our military efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This support is vital, and it is appreciated. While it is important to continue our cooperative relations, I am extremely concerned about the negative impact the free trade agreement could have on my State of South Dakota and the rest of rural America, particularly on the agricultural sector of our economy. For many months, I urged our negotiators to exclude beef and cattle from the agreement. I am disappointed that they have not only rejected this suggestion, but have proposed that we allow the Australians additional access to our beef markets. The FTA would establish an 18-year phase-in of increased Australian access to American markets. While 18 years may seem like a long time to some people, I know many ranchers in South Dakota to whom it will not seem so long when the phase-in starts and depresses our beef and cattle markets. Both beef and cattle are very sensitive sectors, and they have become even more so with the recent mad cow disease scare. Beef and cattle are more sensitively traded items because they are both perishable and have cyclical market dynamics--leaving beef and cattle off the table seemed to make a lot of sense. The administration refused and included beef provisions in the agreement. To add insult to injury to ranchers in South Dakota and across the country, the administration ignored an amendment on the beef safeguards in the agreement that Senator Conrad offered in the Finance Committee. The administration's actions were wrong on process and wrong on substance, in my view. The Congress delegates substantial constitutional authority through the fast-track procedures. It retains, however, an informal ability to recommend changes to the implementing legislation of trade agreements. Senator Conrad had a very simple amendment. He said if the administration was going to waive critical safeguards for ranchers, then the Senate Finance and the Ways and Means Committee must concur. This was well in the bounds of the agreement and supported by a majority of the members of the Finance Committee. The committee then went through the contorted exercise of voting the agreement down to make it easier for the administration to ignore the Conrad amendment, which they did. This action makes it more clear that this agreement is not good for the ranchers in South Dakota, and that is the main reason why I oppose it. Additionally, the U.S. dairy industry should not be faced with added unfair competition by allowing the Australians increased access to our dairy markets. Dairy producers from around the Nation have expressed this concern to me. The increased access to our U.S. dairy markets is particularly troubling for South Dakota, as we have been working aggressively to expand our dairy operations. I am also concerned about the current U.S. tariffs on wool that our negotiators have agreed should be gradually eliminated over 4 years. We have a small, but important, wool industry in South Dakota, and anyone familiar with lamb and wool knows that it is a very import-sensitive industry. Most producers have struggled over the last decade to simply stay in business. While it is only indirectly related to the FTA, I also want the record to reflect my continuing concern about the treatment of some contracts awarded to Australia under the Iraq Oil-for-Food Program. I know that several of my colleagues, including Senator Graham of South Carolina, are reviewing contracts under the Oil-for-Food Program, and I hope that their inquiry will include a review of the wheat contracts awarded under that program. To that end, my recent exchange of letters with Agriculture Secretary Veneman specifically reference contracts awarded to Australian producers since the liberation of Iraq, and press reports indicate that the specifics of these contracts--in particular the price of wheat-- were the same as those negotiated under the Oil-for-Food Program during Saddam's regime. According to her letter to me, Secretary Veneman has had USDA personnel review these contracts and has assured me that she is certain that no preferential treatment was granted to Australian producers at the risk of American producers. I hope that is the case, but to ensure that it is the case, I am urging Secretary Veneman to provide all the research and analysis her staff did to Senator Graham for his Oil-for- Food investigation and to Paul Voelker who is undertaking an investigation on behalf of UN Secretary General Annan. In addition, the patent provisions in this agreement raise troubling implications. Many of us in Congress--on both sides of the aisle--have been working to legalize the safe importation of lower-cost prescription drugs from Canada and other industrialized countries. It is no secret that the administration has opposed our efforts. And what I see in this agreement relating to patents may be of concern in how it affects drug importation. Simply put, the administration should not use trade agreements as a back-door way to impede the safe importation of FDA-approved drugs at lower prices. The administration needs to make clear that this agreement does not do just that. I am also concerned about other provisions in this agreement relating to pharmaceuticals and how they may impact other program, such as Medicaid, and whether the agreement may impede our ability to alter or improve the deeply flawed Medicare drug benefit enacted last year. Finally, let me reiterate that, in my judgment, the Australia FTA goes too far and treats our farmers and ranchers unfairly. Not only am I dissatisfied with both the treatment of our agriculture sector in the agreement, but I also have concerns about the process executed to implement our negotiated terms. It is extremely important that we have a level playing field on which American producers can compete. Given a fair chance, American producers are among the world's finest. But the deck must not be stacked against them. I have concluded that this FTA is not in the interests of South Dakota. Regrettably, I must oppose it.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, later this month, our country will bid farewell to a good friend. Chen Chien-jen--known to all of us as C.J. Chen--first came to Washington 33 years ago and has spent over 20 years here working to promote a better relationship between the United States and Taiwan. As he retires and returns home, C.J. will leave the people of Taiwan a legacy of a strong relationship with the United States and deep support from the American people. C.J. has strived to represent the people of Taiwan in the foreign service for 37 years, 20 of which have been spent here in Washington. He began his exemplary service in the United States in 1971 as Third Secretary in the Embassy of the Republic of China, and remained in Washington after 1979, working with Congress to draft the critical Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. From 1983 to 1989, he served as deputy representative of the Coordination Council for North American Affairs, Taiwan's diplomatic mission to the United States. And for the last 4 years, he has admirably headed the current mission, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office. C.J.'s leadership as Taiwan's chief diplomat to the United States has been remarkable. During his 4 years as representative, he has helped elevate the United States-Taiwan relationship to unprecedented strength. He has championed the passage of critical legislation by Congress, and he has worked with Congress and the White House to cement the United States commitment to strengthen Taiwan's self-defense. At the same time, he has educated his own leadership and people about the United States, our people, and our policies. But for me, and for many of us in Washington, C.J. Chen will be missed not only as an outstanding diplomat, but as a close personal friend. During his time in Washington, I have had the opportunity to get to know C.J. and his wife, Yolanda Ho, very well, and I will miss them. While C.J. will no longer serve his people in an official capacity, I know that he will continue to contribute to building United States- Taiwan relations. I wish C.J. and Yolanda a long and happy retirement, and hope they will often return to visit their friends here in the United States.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. If I may ask the acting majority leader a question, there was some lack of clarity with regard to the schedule. It appears as if the next order of business will be the Australian free trade agreement. Is it the expectation of the majority that we would take up the Australian free trade agreement this afternoon?

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the acting majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time and reserve the time left under morning business for my colleagues.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this morning we were again reminded of how much remains to be done in addressing the health care crisis in America. Today's paper has this headline: ``Medicare Law Is Seen Leading to Cuts in Drug Benefits for Retirees.'' According to the article, the government is now estimating that 3.8 million retirees who currently receive prescription drug benefits through their employers will see their coverage reduced or eliminated as a result of the Republican drug law passed last fall. That is simply unacceptable, and it is only one of the many problems we are facing when it comes to health care. Over the past several years, the cost of health insurance has skyrocketed, and millions more Americans have found themselves uninsured. A while back, I held a ``living room meeting'' on health care costs in Sioux Falls. An older, married couple came to that meeting. He's a veteran, 68 years old, with diabetes and congenital heart failure. She's 62, with cerebral palsy. Last year, shortly after the husband retired, this couple learned that the wife's bladder cancer had come back. This couple pays $418 a month in health insurance premiums through COBRA, plus another $400 a month for prescriptions, and more on top of that in co-pays for doctor visits. Soon, their COBRA eligibility will expire. The husband is on a waiting list--a waiting list--to see a VA doctor. But they don't know how they will pay for the wife's health care after they lose their current insurance coverage. Individual coverage for a 62-year-old woman with cerebral palsy and cancer would be prohibitively expensive--if they could get it at all. So, after nearly 20 years of marriage, this couple is contemplating divorce as the only option for getting essential health care for the wife. If this Senate wants to protect American families, let's discuss what we can do to make health care more affordable and accessible so that spouses don't have to consider divorcing each other in order to get essential health care. Forty-four million Americans were uninsured in 2002--the most recent year for which figures are available. That's 2.4 million more Americans without health insurance than the year before--the largest 1-year increase in a decade. Eight-and-a-half-million of those 44 million Americans are children. Sixteen million are women, many in their child- bearing years. As shocking as those figures are, they tell only half the story-- literally. A new study conducted for Families USA, using census data, shows that almost 82 million Americans--one in three Americans younger than 65--were uninsured at some point in the last two years. Two thirds were uninsured for at least six months. Half were uninsured for 9 months or longer. Who are these people? They're working people, mostly. Eighty percent of uninsured Americans live in families in which at least one adult works. But their employers don't offer health insurance, or their pay is so low they can't afford to buy it. A growing number are middle class. One in four had family incomes between $55,000 and $75,000. In South Dakota, more than 27 percent of people younger than 65 were uninsured for at least some part of the last 2 years. That's 180,000 people living with the fear that they are just one serious illness or accident away from financial disaster. In 14 States, according to the Families USA study, more than one- third of all people younger than 65 were uninsured for at least part of the last two years. One in three people. The State with the highest percentage of uninsured was Texas: 43.4 percent. We have the highest per capita health care spending of any nation on Earth. Yet, in comparison with other developed, high-income nations, the United States consistently scores at or near the bottom on infant mortality, life expectancy, and the proportion of the population with health insurance. We hear a lot today about who is more optimistic about America's economy and our future. I believe it is pessimistic to look at the state of health care in America today and conclude that we really can't do much better. I believe it is pessimistic to watch the cost of health care increase sharply every year; to watch the number of uninsured Americans grow every year; and to watch more businesses be forced to reduce or eliminate employee and retiree health benefits every year-- year after year--and conclude there isn't really much of anything we can do about it. And I believe it is deeply irresponsible for this Senate to spend almost no time on serious discussions of responsible proposals to address this crisis. People all across America are looking to us for help on health care. Lowell and Pauline Larson are two of those people. I've known the Larsons for years. Lowell is 68, almost 69. Pauline turned 64 on the Fourth of July. They live in Chester, SD. Lowell Larson has worked hard all his life. He started work in a furniture mill in Sioux Falls just out of high school and stayed there for 20 years before he finally got the chance--about 30 years ago--to do what he'd wanted all his life: own his own farm. It's a small farm--160 acres. The Larsons raised corn and beans and kept a few cows. It's hard work. I don't think Mr. Larson would mind me telling you, he and Pauline don't have much money. Small family farmers don't make much money. Some years, if the weather's bad, or the market is weak, they don't make any money. What Lowell Larson does have, in abundance, is a strong sense of personal and family responsibility. It's part of the South Dakota ethic. It's what we're taught, and what we teach our children: If someone you love needs help, you help them. And if you owe someone money, you do everything you can to pay them. When Lowell Larson was a young man, his mother had a stroke. He postponed marriage and spent 20 years caring for her. After his mother died, Lowell met Pauline. At 45, he finally married. A few years later, Pauline began having trouble walking, and she was diagnosed with MS. Over the next few years, she progressed from a cane to a wheelchair. In early November 2002, Pauline had a serious stroke. She spent a few weeks in the hospital, followed by a few months in a nursing home. Then she had to have her gall bladder removed--more time in the hospital. In less than 2 years, the Larsons ended up with $40,000 in medical bills from Pauline's stroke and surgery. On top of that, they spend more than $200 a month on muscle relaxants and other medications Pauline needs for her MS. The Larsons used to have private health insurance. But it got so expensive, they gave it up about 5 years ago. ``We didn't know she was going to have a stroke,'' Lowell says. Today, Lowell Larson gets Medicare. Pauline has a very bare-bones health policy that pays $75 a day for hospital care and $50 a day for nursing home care--nothing else. Last year, the Larsons held a sale. They sold many of their personal possessions and much of their farm equipment to raise money to pay their medical bills. The sale brought in about $30,000. Lowell Larson talked with doctors and hospitals and got them to forgive another few thousand dollars of their debt. Lowell Larson brought Pauline home from the nursing home about 18 months ago because they couldn't afford the $4,000 a month it cost and because they were both too lonely living apart. These days, Pauline spends most of her time in a hospital bed set up in their home. She has difficulty speaking. She also has trouble using her right arm, which makes it hard for her to feed herself. It can wear you down, living with the fear that your family is just one more medical emergency away from financial disaster. Lowell Larson says, ``A lot of mornings, I wake up around 4:30 or 5 o'clock and I just start worrying about things.'' The Larsons are counting the days until Pauline turns 65 and can get Medicare. Since President Bush took office, family health care premiums have increased by more than $2,700 a year. The average cost for a family health plan is now $9,000 a year. Workers pay about $2,400 of that amount out of their own pockets. That's just for premiums. It doesn't include copayments and deductibles. And these are the people in the best situations; they have access to group plans through their employers. This is just one more example of how the middle class is being squeezed in America. Families are paying more for skimpier coverage every year. Unless we act, the number of families without health insurance will continue to grow. And the consequences of un-insurance are staggering. People without insurance use one-third less health care. They skip preventive care and regular check-ups. They don't fill prescriptions. They postpone surgeries if they can. They live with pain. When they get sick, they crowd emergency rooms where the care they get is often too little, and too late. In a new survey by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, two-thirds of ER doctors said the uninsured patients they see are sicker than those with insurance, and nearly all--94 percent--said it was harder to schedule needed followup care with uninsured patients. People without insurance pay more for health care. Hospitals routinely charge uninsured patients up to four times as much as patients with insurance for the same services. Too often, people who are already battling illness find themselves having to fight off aggressive debt collectors, too. And 18,000 Americans die prematurely every year because they do not have health insurance. Forty-nine people every day. Our economy also suffers. The Institute of Medicine estimates that lack of health insurance costs America between $65 billion and $130 billion a year in lost productivity and other costs. Democrats have been leading the fight for universal health coverage in America for decades. We want to work with our Republican colleagues to reduce the number of uninsured Americans and make health care more affordable and accessible. But the few proposals offered so far by the President and congressional Republicans will not work. Independent studies of these proposals show that they would do little to address soaring health care costs and the growing insurance gap, and, in some cases, they would actually make matters worse. There are better ideas. Democrats have proposed that, within 2 years, all Americans have access to affordable health care that is as good as the health care members of Congress have--at the same rates, or lower. We ask our Republican colleagues to work with us to make that a reality. In addition, we should adequately fund the Children's Health Insurance Program. We should also adequately fund the VA and the Indian Health Service--we must keep our promises to America's veterans and honor our treaty obligations to American Indians. We can reduce the cost of prescription drugs--one of the driving forces behind medical inflation--by letting Medicare negotiate the best prices for American seniors, and by allowing Americans to re-import safe prescription drugs from Canada and other industrialized nations. I introduced a bill recently that could significantly reduce the number of uninsured Americans and help small business owners create new jobs at the same time. The Small Business Health Tax Credit--S. 2245-- would provide small businesses with tax credits to cover up to 50 percent of the cost of their employees' health insurance. These health care tax credits would help businesses save money, which means they will have more money to invest in new equipment, hire new workers, and give their employees raises. If our Republican colleagues have additional ideas that will actually reduce the cost of health care and increase the number of Americans with insurance, we welcome the chance to work with them on those ideas as well. What we cannot do is to continue to ignore this urgent problem. Lowell and Pauline Larson sold much of what they owned to pay their medical bills because they take their responsibilities seriously. It's time for this Senate to take seriously its responsibility--to find solutions to reduce the cost of health care and the number of Americans without health insurance. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, as so many of my colleagues have stated on the floor over the course of the last couple of days, marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. That is what the vast majority of Americans believe. It is what South Dakotans believe. It is what I believe. In South Dakota, we have never had a same-sex marriage, and won't have any. It is prohibited by South Dakota law, as it is now in 38 other States. There is no confusion. There is no ambiguity. As others have noted, in 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act. It defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It protects States from any actions taken by another State that could in any way undermine the law of their State. What is overlooked by many is that it has never been challenged in court successfully--not once. It is the law of the land. It has been now for 8 years, and it has not once been challenged successfully. The question then is, Is there some urgent need now, absent even one successful challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, for us to amend the U.S. Constitution? We have differences of opinion about the legal necessity, but there can be no difference of opinion with regard to how extraordinary a step that is. In 217 years, we have amended that sacred document only 17 times, although there have been 11,000 separate attempts. Madam President, 11,000 amendments have been offered; and 67 amendments are pending right now here in the 108th Congress to amend the Constitution of the United States. Given all the facts, given the reality of the constitutional strength of the Defense of Marriage Act, the answer to the question, Is it now time to amend the Constitution, is no. This fundamental responsibility lies with the States. It has for two centuries. Now, some of our Republican colleagues wish to usurp the 200-year-old power of the States to create their own laws, including those in South Dakota. Last night, the distinguished Senator from Arizona came to the Senate floor and talked about that very issue. Here is what he said: The constitutional amendment we are debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the States a fundamental authority they have always possessed, and imposes a Federal remedy for a problem that most States do not believe confronts them, and which they feel capable of resolving should it confront them . . . according to local standards and customs. Madam President, he is right. We are sworn, every time we are elected, to protect, uphold, and defend the Constitution. It is the backbone of our Republic. That means insulating it at times like this from political condition or motivation. It means amending it only after careful and exhaustive deliberation, not 2 days on this Senate floor with an amendment that did not even come through the Judiciary Committee. That is our solemn responsibility. We have not met that test today, not by a mile. Senator McCain is right. We should oppose this amendment today. I yield the floor and yield back all of the Democratic time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the majority leader in announcing this agreement tonight. This has not been easy for anybody involved in these discussions. We are now prepared to proceed with, I think, a very good understanding about how we as Members of the Senate will present ourselves in the conference. I am very confident that we can reach a successful conclusion.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Majority Leader for his leadership. I have discussed this with my colleagues and can commit wholeheartedly to the good faith process you have proposed. Our side understands that changes will have to be made to S. 1637; but, as they are made, these changes will be the result of the mutual agreement of the lead Senate conferees, as well as the Majority Leader and the Democratic Leader, acting in good faith. By moving S. 1637 through the Senate, Senators Grassley and Baucus have already demonstrated that they can make that process work. If the process should break down due to disagreements over either corporate tax policy or extraneous provisions, then we understand that such a conference report will not be brought to the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the majority leader's work in reaching the agreement and the good faith that I believe we need to demonstrate on a bipartisan basis to move forward. This accommodates the concerns on both sides. We have made some real progress. We have a lot of work to do. There are a lot of differences with the House. But I am confident that Democrats and Republicans are now in a position to work very closely together to come up with the best result. There are no predetermined conclusions as to what the result may be, but we do this with a full appreciation of the need to work together to accomplish what is clearly a real opportunity to move forward on a jobs bill, on legislation that I believe is a must-pass piece of legislation prior to the time we adjourn for the year. I yield the floor.