Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Agriculture Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2213, the Agriculture supplemental bill, that the Senate proceed to its consideration, that the bill be read the third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. I further ask unanimous consent that S. 1246 be placed on the calendar and that the previously entered motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote on S. 1246 be in order.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am extremely disappointed that our Republican colleagues chose to work against us instead of with us to provide critical financial relief to help farmers and ranchers deal with the fourth year in a row of low prices. My colleagues' choice to filibuster the committee bill, which a majority of Senators supported, was a decision we could not afford. Unfortunately, it will cost farmers and ranchers across the country. For my State of South Dakota, that decision to filibuster will cost producers over $50 million in decreased assistance. But, South Dakota is not alone. Producers in each and every one of our states are being deprived of critical assistance because of the actions of my Republican colleagues. Why? Because the President and Senate Republicans drew an arbitrary and partisan $5.5 billion line in the sand. Even though the budget resolution authorizes the Senate Agriculture Committee to use $5.5 billion in fiscal year 2001 and $7.35 billion in fiscal year 2002 to provide economic assistance to producers, and even though it specifically allows the use of fiscal year 2002 funds to support the 2001 crop, the President insisted that we spend only $5.5 billion. His rationale ``The farm economy is improving, so farmers don't need any additional help.'' That is certainly not what I am hearing in South Dakota, and I know it is not what my colleagues on this side of aisle have heard in their states. Across the country, poor prices have hobbled producers for 4 years now. Major crop prices, despite showing slight improvement over last year's significantly depressed prices, remain at 10 to 25-year lows. Net farm income minus government payments for 1999 thru 2001 is the lowest since 1984. Input costs are at record levels, making it more expensive for producers to do their job than ever before. Despite all this, my Republican colleagues insisted on a bill that provides far less. Less for feed grain, wheat, and oilseed producers in my part of the country. Less for rice and cotton producers in the South. Less for specialty crop producers in the Northeast and Northwest. And when I say less, I not only mean less than what is in the Committee's package, but less than what is absolutely needed. Chairman Harkin worked hard to improve on the House-passed $5.5 billion package. His package provided the full level of last year's market loss assistance for producers of major crops. It provided significant funding for specialty crops. It provided a substantial commitment to agricultural conservation. Yet, my Republican colleagues filibustered. Why? Are they planning to go home and tell producers they fought long and hard to provide you with less? Now that we are forced to pass the House legislation, we have lost for too much of what is critically needed for program crops, specialty crops, and conservation. This is reckless, and it's wrong. America's farmers and ranchers deserve better, much better. So, I can't help but feel this country's farmers and ranchers got shortchanged. But what also troubles me is what the actions of my Republican colleagues over the past few days mean for the farm bill. Congress must come together quickly to write new farm policy this year so we don't have to keep coming back for more ad hoc emergency assistance, year after year. Congress must get passed its stubborn refusal to acknowledge the failures of current farm policy and work together to change it. We need policies that better address the interests of family farmers and ranchers. Farmers and ranchers must have an income safety net that can offset severe price fluctuations, and that can help manage uncertainties in the marketplace. Such policies are critical to long-term survival in an industry in which the majority of producers operate on margins of less than 5 percent. I believe there is a lot we can agree on. And by working together, I am certain there is a lot we can accomplish. I stand ready to work with my Republican colleagues. But, my colleagues must first choose to stand up for America's family farmers and ranchers. I am hopeful they will.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Access to Medical Treatment Act. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Harkin, Hatch, Inouye, Johnson, and Reid in this effort to increase individuals' freedom of choice in health care. Patient choice is a value often articulated in health care debates. Yet patients often do not have the right to choose potentially life- saving alternative treatments. I want to thank Berkley Bedell, who formerly represented the 6th District of Iowa, for making me aware of the importance of this issue and for assisting in the development of this bill. This has been a multi-year effort, and he has worked tirelessly on it. Berkley has experienced first-hand the life-saving potential of alternative treatments. His story convinced me that our health care system discourages the use of alternative medicine treatment and thereby restricts the right of patients to choose. American consumers have already voted for expanded access to alternative treatments with their feet and their wallets. A 1997 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, shows that 42 percent of Americans used some kind of alternative therapy, spending more than $27 billion that year. Americans made more visits to alternative practitioners than to primary care providers. According to a 1999 JAMA study, people sought complementary and alternative medicine not only because they were dissatisfied with conventional medicine but also because these therapies mirrored their own values, beliefs and philosophical orientation toward health and life. Alternative therapies are rapidly being incorporated into mainstream medical programs, practice and research. Indeed, at least 75 out of 117 U.S. medical schools offer elective courses in alternative medicine or include alternative medicine topics in required courses. A 1994 study in the Journal of Family Practice revealed that more than 60 percent of doctors from a wide range of specialties recommended alternative therapies to their patients at least once. The National Institutes of Health now has a Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine where research is underway to expand our knowledge of alternative therapies and their safe and effective use. Despite the growing demand for many types of alternative medicine, some therapies remain unavailable because they have not yet been approved by the FDA. My bill would increase access to treatments that would normally be regulated by the FDA, but have not yet undergone the expansive and lengthy process currently required to gain FDA approval. Given the popularity of alternative medicine among the American public and its growing acceptance among traditional medical practitioners, it would seem logical to remove some of the access barriers that consumers face when seeking certain alternative therapies. The Access to Medical Treatment Act supports patient choice while maintaining important patient safeguards. It asserts that individuals, especially those who face life-threatening afflictions for which conventional treatments have proven ineffective, should have the option of trying an alternative treatment. This is a choice rightly made by the consumer, and not dictated by the Federal Government. All treatments sanctioned by this Act must be prescribed by an authorized health care practitioner who has personally examined the patient. The practitioner must fully disclose all available information about the safety and effectiveness of any medical treatment, including questions that remain unanswered because the necessary research has not been conducted. The bill carefully restricts the ability of practitioners to advertise or market unapproved drugs or devices or to profit financially from prescribing alternative treatment. This provision was included to ensure that practitioners keep the best interests of patients in mind and to retain incentives for seeking FDA approval. If an individual or a company wants to earn a profit from a product, they would be wise to go through the standard FDA process. I want to be absolutely clear that this legislation will not dismantle the FDA, undermine its authority, or appreciably change current medical practices. It is not meant to attack the FDA or its approval process. It is meant to complement it. The FDA should, and would under this legislation, remain solely responsible for protecting the health of the Nation from unsafe and impure drugs. The heavy demands and requirements placed upon treatments before they gain FDA approval are important, and I firmly believe that treatments receiving the Federal Government's stamp of approval should be proven safe and effective. The bill protects patients by requiring practitioners to report any adverse reaction that could potentially have been caused by an unapproved drug or medical device. If an adverse reaction is reported, manufacture and distribution of the drug must cease pending an investigation. If it is determined that the adverse reaction was caused by the drug or medical device, as part of a total recall, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the manufacturer have the duty to inform all health care practitioners to whom the drug or medical device has been provided. This legislation will help build a knowledge base regarding alternative medicine treatments by requiring practitioners to report on effectiveness. This is critical because current information available about the effectiveness of many promising treatments is inadequate. The information generated through this Act will begin to reverse this information gap, as data are collected and analyzed by the Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health. The Access to Medical Treatment Act represents an honest attempt to focus serious attention on the value of alternative treatments and overcome current obstacles to their safe development and utilization. In essence, this legislation addresses the fundamental balance between two seemingly irreconcilable interests: the protection of patients from dangerous and ineffective treatments and the preservation of consumers' freedom to choose alternative therapies. The complexity of this policy challenge should not discourage us from seeking to solve it. I am convinced that the public good will be served by a serious attempt to reconcile these contradictory interests, and I am hopeful the discussion generated by this legislation will help point the way to its resolution.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from New York, Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Clinton, for their statements about Paul Carey. I also knew Paul and his work, both at the SEC and at the White House, and I join the Senators from New York in expressing condolences to his distinguished father, Governor Hugh Carey, and to the rest of Paul's family and many friends. He was a fine public servant and a fine man, and he will be sorely missed.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. This morning, the Senate will vote on cloture on the Agriculture supplemental authorization bill. We expect to complete action on the bill today. A reminder to all of my colleagues, all second-degree amendments to the bill must be filed before 10 o'clock. In addition, we expect to consider several Executive Calendar nominations today. I would like to begin the cloture vote in just a moment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Access to Medical Treatment Act. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Harkin, Hatch, Inouye, Johnson, and Reid in this effort to increase individuals' freedom of choice in health care. Patient choice is a value often articulated in health care debates. Yet patients often do not have the right to choose potentially life- saving alternative treatments. I want to thank Berkley Bedell, who formerly represented the 6th District of Iowa, for making me aware of the importance of this issue and for assisting in the development of this bill. This has been a multi-year effort, and he has worked tirelessly on it. Berkley has experienced first-hand the life-saving potential of alternative treatments. His story convinced me that our health care system discourages the use of alternative medicine treatment and thereby restricts the right of patients to choose. American consumers have already voted for expanded access to alternative treatments with their feet and their wallets. A 1997 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, shows that 42 percent of Americans used some kind of alternative therapy, spending more than $27 billion that year. Americans made more visits to alternative practitioners than to primary care providers. According to a 1999 JAMA study, people sought complementary and alternative medicine not only because they were dissatisfied with conventional medicine but also because these therapies mirrored their own values, beliefs and philosophical orientation toward health and life. Alternative therapies are rapidly being incorporated into mainstream medical programs, practice and research. Indeed, at least 75 out of 117 U.S. medical schools offer elective courses in alternative medicine or include alternative medicine topics in required courses. A 1994 study in the Journal of Family Practice revealed that more than 60 percent of doctors from a wide range of specialties recommended alternative therapies to their patients at least once. The National Institutes of Health now has a Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine where research is underway to expand our knowledge of alternative therapies and their safe and effective use. Despite the growing demand for many types of alternative medicine, some therapies remain unavailable because they have not yet been approved by the FDA. My bill would increase access to treatments that would normally be regulated by the FDA, but have not yet undergone the expansive and lengthy process currently required to gain FDA approval. Given the popularity of alternative medicine among the American public and its growing acceptance among traditional medical practitioners, it would seem logical to remove some of the access barriers that consumers face when seeking certain alternative therapies. The Access to Medical Treatment Act supports patient choice while maintaining important patient safeguards. It asserts that individuals, especially those who face life-threatening afflictions for which conventional treatments have proven ineffective, should have the option of trying an alternative treatment. This is a choice rightly made by the consumer, and not dictated by the Federal Government. All treatments sanctioned by this Act must be prescribed by an authorized health care practitioner who has personally examined the patient. The practitioner must fully disclose all available information about the safety and effectiveness of any medical treatment, including questions that remain unanswered because the necessary research has not been conducted. The bill carefully restricts the ability of practitioners to advertise or market unapproved drugs or devices or to profit financially from prescribing alternative treatment. This provision was included to ensure that practitioners keep the best interests of patients in mind and to retain incentives for seeking FDA approval. If an individual or a company wants to earn a profit from a product, they would be wise to go through the standard FDA process. I want to be absolutely clear that this legislation will not dismantle the FDA, undermine its authority, or appreciably change current medical practices. It is not meant to attack the FDA or its approval process. It is meant to complement it. The FDA should, and would under this legislation, remain solely responsible for protecting the health of the Nation from unsafe and impure drugs. The heavy demands and requirements placed upon treatments before they gain FDA approval are important, and I firmly believe that treatments receiving the Federal Government's stamp of approval should be proven safe and effective. The bill protects patients by requiring practitioners to report any adverse reaction that could potentially have been caused by an unapproved drug or medical device. If an adverse reaction is reported, manufacture and distribution of the drug must cease pending an investigation. If it is determined that the adverse reaction was caused by the drug or medical device, as part of a total recall, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the manufacturer have the duty to inform all health care practitioners to whom the drug or medical device has been provided. This legislation will help build a knowledge base regarding alternative medicine treatments by requiring practitioners to report on effectiveness. This is critical because current information available about the effectiveness of many promising treatments is inadequate. The information generated through this Act will begin to reverse this information gap, as data are collected and analyzed by the Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health. The Access to Medical Treatment Act represents an honest attempt to focus serious attention on the value of alternative treatments and overcome current obstacles to their safe development and utilization. In essence, this legislation addresses the fundamental balance between two seemingly irreconcilable interests: the protection of patients from dangerous and ineffective treatments and the preservation of consumers' freedom to choose alternative therapies. The complexity of this policy challenge should not discourage us from seeking to solve it. I am convinced that the public good will be served by a serious attempt to reconcile these contradictory interests, and I am hopeful the discussion generated by this legislation will help point the way to its resolution.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, let me congratulate the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, our chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for his eloquence and for his wisdom. I share his view on the propriety of the tax cut. I share his pride in the actions taken by the Appropriations Committee in this body over the last several weeks as we have attempted to make up for lost time on the appropriations process. We inherited a horrendous schedule. Slowly but surely we have been catching up. Were it not for his leadership and his absolute determination to get back on track, we could not have a full appreciation of how far we have come in the last couple of weeks. As he said, we have done it staying within the budget parameters outlined in the budget resolution. We have not broken the caps, once again demonstrating the fiscal discipline so critical when we began this process several months ago. We will continue our work when we return. I commend the Senator for his comments today, as well as for his work throughout the last several weeks in reaching this point.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment our two managers. We have come a long way, and, I understand we are not far off from the point where we can have final passage. The managers have done an outstanding job. My hope is that we could go back on Agriculture. I announce to my colleagues that we have two remaining pieces of business. We have, of course, the Agriculture bill, and we have nominations that I would like to be able to take up and complete. If there is any way we could finish it tonight, there would be no session tomorrow. I hope, perhaps, we can all work together to see if there might be a way to accomplish the rest of our work tonight. There is still plenty of time. Then we can go all make our plane reservations for tomorrow. I announce that if there is a way to do it, we sure would like to find a way. Again, let me compliment our colleagues for getting us to this point. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask for unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the Agriculture supplemental authorization bill occur at 9:30 on Friday, August 3, with the mandatory quorum waived; further, that Senators have until 10 a.m. to file second-degree amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I compliment the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his expeditious work on these nominations and so many others. We have broken some records. His work and determination demonstrate real fairness and ensure these people have the opportunity to serve at the earliest possible date. His willingness to do that and his desire to work with the leadership are very much appreciated. I want to commend him publicly for that.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I send a resolution to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, it is my honor to welcome Alfonso E. Lenhardt as Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. Senate. In 1789, when the office was first established, the challenges of the job were quite different than they are today. The Sergeant at Arms was given the responsibility for keeping a majority of members together long enough to organize and begin the business of government. Today, the job has grown, and so has the office. The Sergeant at Arms is now the chief protocol and law enforcement officer of the Senate, as well as the administrative manager for many Senate support services. The Sergeant at Arms oversees the largest staff and budget in the U.S. Senate. That expanded role demands expanded skills--in both law-enforcement and management. In every position he has held, Al Lenhardt has demonstrated those skills as well as a solemn commitment to public service. Al retired from the United States Army in 1997 as a Major General after over 31 years of domestic and international experience in national security and law enforcement programs. As Commanding General at the U.S. Army Recruiting Command in Ft. Knox, KY, he managed and directed over 13,000 people in over 1,800 separate locations. Before the recruiting command, Al served as the senior military police officer in the Army, overseeing all Army police operations and security matters worldwide and managing a budget of over $300 million. For the past four years, he has served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Council on Foundations, a non-profit membership association of foundations and corporate philanthropic organizations. Al Lenhardt is a versatile senior executive with the stature, the management experience and the law enforcement portfolio to make an outstanding Senate Sergeant at Arms. While Al Lenhardt may not be readily known to you because he has no prior connection to me or to the Senate, I think my colleagues will be impressed with the experience, the ability and the character of the man. In the 212 year history of the Senate, Al Lenhardt will become the 35th person to serve as Sergeant at Arms, and the first African American to hold this position. But more importantly, Al is clearly of the highest caliber and qualifications. The Senate will benefit greatly from his service and leadership. We all look forward to working with him in the months and years ahead. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action for debate.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the votes on these nominations, the Senate then resume consideration of the Agriculture supplemental bill.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to executive session to consider the nominations reported out earlier today by the Judiciary Committee: William Riley to be a Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, Sarah Hart to be the Director of the National Institute of Justice, and Robert Mueller to be the Director of the FBI. I ask unanimous consent that I can request the yeas and nays on each with one show of seconds, and that prior to the votes on these nominees, there be 10 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions, and that the Senate return to legislative session; and that the second and third votes in the series be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. DASCHLE. With that objection, it is likely the final vote on the nominations tonight will be the last vote, and we will then have the cloture vote tomorrow morning at 9:30. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if we can accommodate all Senators with that understanding, we will make that part of the request. If Senators wish to be heard on these nominations, I hope they will let us know. Shortly, we will propound that unanimous consent request.