Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to S. Res. 120, the organizing resolution submitted earlier today by myself and Senator Lott.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that three letters with reference to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, the resolution we have just adopted is one that provides for the reorganization of the U.S. Senate. This is a unique time of transition for the Senate, and I understand that it is a difficult time for many of my Republican colleagues. If there is one thing that supercedes the status of any Senator or any party, it is our desire to do the work we were sent here to do. That, of course, requires getting the Senate organized to do it. By passing this resolution, our colleagues can retake their rightful places on committees, committees can take action on legislation, and importantly, we can move forward with Presidential nominations. This organizing resolution is the result of thorough bipartisan negotiations over the last several weeks. Many people deserve credit. First and foremost, I thank Senator Lott. Senator Lott and I have been through many challenges together. Each of those challenges has strengthened our friendship, and our working relationship, and this is no exception. I also thank Senators McConnell, Domenici, Gramm, Hatch, and Specter. Their good faith in the negotiating process, and their patience as the process played out, were instrumental in helping us reach this point. This resolution provides for a one-seat margin on Senate committees, which is consistent with Senate precedent. It clarifies that--subject to the standing rules of the Senate--the agreements on funding and space that were made between chairmen and ranking members early in this Congress will remain in effect for the duration of this Congress. This resolution also makes it clear that all of these provisions will sunset if the ratio in the Senate changes during this Congress. I especially commend Senator Leahy. Senator Leahy, in his typically fair and wise way, played a critical role in solving the most difficult questions we faced in these negotiations: those involving Supreme Court and other Presidential nominees. Together, he and Senator Hatch were able to find a truly constructive solution to the way in which we handle ``blue slips,'' and the way in which we consider nominees to the Supreme Court. On the subject of blue slips, Senators Leahy and Hatch have agreed that these forms--traditionally sent to home-state Senators to ask their views on nominees to be U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Marshals, and federal judges--will now be treated as public information. I share their belief that this new policy of openness will benefit not only the Judiciary Committee, but the Senate as a whole. I also share their hope that this policy will continue in the future, regardless of which party is in the majority. In the course of our negotiations, a number of our Republican colleagues also raised concerns about how Democrats would deal with potential Supreme Court nominations, should that need arise. A second letter to which Senators Leahy and Hatch agreed says clearly that all nominees to the Supreme Court will receive full and fair consideration. This is the same position I stated publicly many times during our negotiations, and I intend to see that the Senate lives up to this commitment. It has been the traditional practice of the Judiciary Committee to report Supreme Court nominees to the Senate floor once the committee has completed its consideration. This has been true even for a number of nominees that were defeated in the Judiciary Committee. Now, Senators Leahy and Hatch have put in writing their intention that consideration of Supreme Court nominees will follow the practices and precedents of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate. In reaching this agreement, we have avoided an unwise and unwarranted change to the Standing Rules of the Senate and a sweeping revision to the Senate's constitutional responsibility to review Supreme Court nominees. In sum, this is a good, balanced, resolution--one that will enable us to run this Senate in a spirit of fairness. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison explained that the Constitution's Framers considered the Senate to be the great ``anchor'' of the Government. For 212 years, that anchor has held steady. The Senate has withstood Civil War and constitutional crises. In each generation, it has been buffeted by the winds and tides of political and social change. Today I believe we are proving that this great anchor of democracy can withstand the forces of unprecedented internal changes as well. I am confident that this resolution is the right way to keep the Senate working. I am appreciative of the support given by all our colleagues today as we now adopt it. If I may, I will say one other thing about this particular resolution. There is a member of my staff whose name is Mark Childress; our colleagues know him. I am indebted to him for many reasons, as I am to all of my staff. But no one deserves more credit and more praise for the job done in reaching this successful conclusion than Mark Childress. Publicly, I acknowledge his contribution, his incredible work and effort. I thank him from the bottom of my heart for what he has done to make this possible.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, let me just say this before I make my final comments. Senator Kennedy is on the floor and I want to acknowledge, as I did just now upstairs and as I did a couple of weeks ago as we completed our work on the education bill, a historic and landmark piece of legislation, how grateful I am, once again, to the senior Senator from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Health, Education, and Labor Committee. I have said privately and publicly that I believe he is one of the most historic figures our Chamber has ever had the pleasure of witnessing. We saw, again, the leadership and the remarkable ability that he has to legislate over the course of the last couple of weeks. I didn't think that what he had to endure in the education bill could have been any harder. In many respects, I think the last 2 weeks were harder. It was harder reaching a consensus. We had very difficult and contentious issues to confront, amendments to consider. In all of it, he, once again, took his responsibilities as we would expect of him-- with fairness, with courtesy, and with a display of empathy for all Members, the likes of which you just do not see on the Senate floor. So on behalf of all of our caucus, I daresay on behalf of the Senate, I thank Senator Kennedy, our chairman, for the work he has done. I also acknowledge and thank our colleague from North Carolina, Senator John Edwards. Senator Edwards has done a remarkable job. In a very short period of time, he has demonstrated his capabilities for senatorial leadership. He came to the Senate without the experience of public service, but in a very brief period of time he has demonstrated his enormous ability to adjust and adapt to Senate ways. He has become a true leader. I am grateful to him for his extraordinary contribution to this bill. Let me also thank Senator John McCain. This bill is truly bipartisan in many ways, but it is personified in that bipartisanship with the role played by Senator McCain, not unlike other bills in which he has participated. I will mention especially the campaign finance reform bill. Senator McCain has been the key in bringing about the bipartisan consensus that we reached again today. On a vote of 59-36, we showed the bipartisanship that can be displayed even as we take on these contentious and difficult issues. That would not have been possible were it not for his effort. Let me thank, as well, Senator Judd Gregg and many of our colleagues on the Republican side for their participation. They fought a hard fight; they made a good case; they argued their amendments extremely well; and they were prepared to bring this debate to closure tonight. I am grateful to them for their willingness to do so. Finally, I thank Senator Harry Reid. He wasn't officially a part of the committee, but Senator Reid has made a contribution once again to this bill, as he has on so many other bills, that cannot be replicated. This would not have happened were it not for his remarkable--and I would say incredible--efforts on the Senate floor each and every day. He is a dear friend. He is someone unlike anyone I think we have seen in recent times. He cares deeply for this body and has worked diligently to bring about a successful conclusion to this bill. We thank him. Having thanked our colleagues, let me also thank our staff --our floor staff, my personal staff, the leadership staff, the staff of the committee. Were it not for them, we simply could not have done our work. I am extraordinarily grateful to them as well.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 123, submitted earlier today by Senators Kerry and Bond.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, on Monday, July 9, the Senate will convene at 12 noon. We will convene at that time for a period for morning business until 1 p.m. At 1 p.m., the Senate will begin consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill under a previous order which calls for all listed amendments to be offered on Monday prior to 6 p.m. There will be no rollcall votes on Monday, July 9, and there will be no rollcall votes before 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, July 10.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1052, as passed by the Senate, be printed.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 176, following the conclusion of the remarks of Senator Kennedy.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 12 noon, Monday, July 9. I further ask consent that on Monday, July 9, immediately following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there be a period for morning business until 1 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin, or his designee, from 12 to 12:30 p.m.; Senator Thomas, or his designee, 12:30 p.m. to 1 p.m.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I offer a unanimous consent request that the Senate complete its work on the Patient Protection Act by 6 o'clock tonight, and we have final passage by 6 o'clock tonight. If we can agree to that right now, I will move to the supplemental at 12 o'clock this afternoon.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I remind my dear friend and colleague, the Senator from Alaska, in 1999, we took up the Patients' Bill of Rights under a unanimous consent request and passed it in 4 days, with 17 amendments. Now we are told we can't do it in 2 weeks. While we may differ on whether the supplemental is more or less important than the Patients' Bill of Rights, I would hope we could all agree that completing action before we leave on a supplemental dealing with the safety of our troops is a top priority. The Pentagon places an extraordinary priority on this legislation--so much so that the Commander in Chief called me to ask that it be done this week. Certainly we can agree it is more important than fishing or any other kinds of vacation we could be taking next week. While there may be some differences on other issues, I would think there would be unanimity that getting the supplemental done is more important than taking a vacation. So that is what the issue is. We are not going to take a vacation until we have completed action on the supplemental. We are not going to leave until this is done. This is something that not only has been requested by the Pentagon but by the Commander in Chief as well; I would hope if the President makes additional calls, he will call the House and say: Don't leave until we get this done. You have heard the Pentagon. Don't leave until this is done. Vacations are secondary to work. We have to get it done. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I announce to our colleagues that this will be the last vote of the evening. We will begin voting tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock on a series of votes on amendments that will be offered this evening. There is one more vote, but after that there will be no more notes. Amendment No. 844

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will use my leader time and not take any time off the agreed-upon time allocated for the amendment. Madam President, I would just say on the amendment, there is nothing in there that would limit the lawyers' fees for the insurance industry. Those are unlimited. While they limit the legal fees for lawyers defending patients, there is nothing to limit the legal fees for lawyers defending HMOs and insurance companies. I find that quite ironic. Supplemental Appropriations Madam President, I want to propound a unanimous consent request. I will not do that at this time because I have been talking with the distinguished Republican leader. But I want to propound a request, as I had indicated I would, to lock in the debate for the supplemental. There are a number of amendments that have been suggested. I know the unanimous consent agreement has been cleared on our side now for I think 3 days. We have been unable to get consent from our Republican colleagues for the last 3 days. Now I am told they may object to even going to the supplemental, at least initially. If that happens, of course, I will be forced to file a motion to proceed. But I think it is important. There was a story in the Washington Times dated June 26, and I think for the Record it would be helpful if I just read it because I think it does capture the urgency with which we address the supplemental. So I will take just a moment to read it: The U.S. military would be forced to curtail or cancel training exercises, facility repairs and equipment maintenance if Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle holds up a pending emergency budget until late July, according to Pentagon projections. The Pentagon provided a list of hardships at the request of Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott. He used the list yesterday to criticize Mr. Daschle for threatening to delay action on a $6.5 billion supplemental budget bill until the Senate completes work on a contentious patients' bill of rights. That delay would push approval of the fiscal 2001 defense legislation until late July or beyond. ``If we don't get this bill completed by . . . mid-July, we're going to have canceling of base-property maintenance, [and] holding some of our deployed units where they are overseas until the end of the fiscal year,'' said Mr. Lott. ``So we're really pushing the envelope when it comes to the needs of our military personnel in health as well as in steaming hours.'' Picking his first confrontation with Democrats since they took control of the Senate, Mr. Lott also accused Mr. Daschle of sacrificing the nation's urgent energy needs in order to push through the health care bill. . . . Nearly all the budget bill's funding goes for replenishing military training accounts depleted by peacekeeping missions in the Balkans and elsewhere. Without emergency funding soon, the military will be forced to: Curtail all nonessential operations such as pilot training, steaming hours, fleet exercises, and air combat training maneuvers. The Air Force and Navy would ground some pilots and aircraft. Perhaps hold deployed units overseas until the new fiscal year begins October 1. Cancel training for units getting ready to deploy for peacekeeping duties. Stop or slow down maintenance of equipment at large regional depots. ``This will lead to the loss of jobs for many Americans,'' Mr. Lott's office said. The Joint Chiefs of Staff originally wanted about $9 billion in [requests]. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd came to me a couple of weeks ago and asked for a special exemption from the understanding we have been working under here in the Senate that no official action can take place on any legislation until we have broken the impasse on the organizing resolution and assigned each committee its full complement of members. I, of course, agreed, in the interest of urgency, to allow the Appropriations Committee to work its will and to finish this supplemental, which is what it did. I applaud both of them for taking the action they did. The House, of course, has now acted. Now it is up to us. A couple of days ago the President called me and said: Above all, I hope that you will pass the supplemental before you leave. I gave the President my personal assurance that we would pass the supplemental here in the Senate before we leave. Now I am told that there are some who would prefer to take vacation rather than finish the work. Madam President, we can't do that. We can't take vacation until the work is done. We can't take vacation until the Patient Protection Act is done. We can't take vacation until the supplemental is done. We can't take vacation until the organizing resolution is done. It is as simple as that. I will propound a unanimous consent request at a later time because I know Senator Stevens wanted to come to the floor. We have been working through this. As I say, I thought we had an agreement. In fact, I was told we were able to propound the request an hour or so ago. Unfortunately, that report apparently was in error. I am going to do what we have to do, in part because as Senator Lott has said so clearly--and forcefully--the alternative to not acting is to risk what the Washington Times has reported, to wreak havoc with the military, to keep them from getting their job done, to actually endanger our military personnel in some ways. We are not going to be accused of endangering the military. We have to do what the President, the Commander in Chief, requested. That is what we are doing here. We will offer the unanimous consent request to proceed. If that fails, I will file a cloture motion on the motion to proceed, and when it ripens we will have the vote. But we will have the vote.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. As I understand it, this bill was not subject to amendment in the House. It passed overwhelmingly in a very short period of time. I don't know why we would have to elongate or unnecessarily prolong the debate on this side. Whatever length of time may be required to consider this bill, we will do that. All I am saying is that we have to do it before we leave. I see both the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and the distinguished Republican leader are on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, may proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 76, S. 1077, the supplemental appropriations bill and that the bill be considered under the following limitations: That only first-degree amendments in order other than a managers' amendment be the following list which is at the desk--I won't read the list at this point--that any listed first-degree amendment be subject to relevant second-degree amendments, that any time limitation for debate on a first-degree amendment be specified in this agreement; then any second-degree amendment to that amendment be accorded the same time limit; that upon disposition of the above amendments, the bill be advanced to third reading; the Senate then proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 77, H.R. 2216; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1077, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be advanced to third reading, and the Senate then vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1077 be returned to the calendar.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I have offered this to our Republican colleagues now for several days. I have said, give me a definitive list that will allow us to finish our work on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We will proceed immediately to the supplemental, finish it, and then return to the Patients' Bill of Rights with the understanding that we will complete work on that as well. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues have been unable to do that. My offer still stands. Give me a definitive list that we can complete before we leave, and I will go immediately to the supplemental. I have offered it privately to Senator Lott. I have offered it to our other colleagues. That offer still stands. Until we get that assurance, I will object.

Mr. DASCHLE. I have not seen it.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I join with several important leaders of the Senate's National Guard Caucus to introduce S. 1119, which we believe will one day result in improved health care for Guard and Reserve members and their families. It is appropriate that we introduce this now, during a week in which Senate floor debate has focused almost exclusively on health care, with several lively discussions about the importance of expanding health coverage to the uninsured. Unfortunately, Guard members and leaders in South Dakota tell me that many of the uninsured serve in the National Guard. Many of them work for small businesses that cannot afford to offer health insurance to their employees. Some of them have insurance for themselves, but cannot afford to insure their dependents. Meanwhile, this Nation is utilizing the Guard more heavily than at any other time in our Nation's history. During the Cold War, a Guard member might serve and retire without ever being called to active duty. Staring with the Persian Gulf War and continuing to this day in Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq, reservists are serving alongside the active duty military during deployments that can last 6 months or more. Each of these deployments strains the Guard member's employer, who temporarily gives up a valued employee. And it strains individual soldiers and their families, even if they have health insurance, because employer-provided coverage often lapses during periods of active duty. The premise of our bill is that health coverage can help the Guard attract and retain top-flight personnel and also improve readiness; that it can help service members and their families, especially in coping with mobilization; and that it can relieve some of the burdens faced today by National Guard employers, particularly small businesses. This bill lays the groundwork for a solution. S. 1119 would authorize a study by a non-government research center to explore the extent of the problem and recommend at least three cost-effective solutions, including the possibility of opening the TRICARE program or the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program to reservists and their families. The study would look at disruptions to health coverage caused by mobilizations and analyze the likely impact of enhanced health care on recruitment and retention. We have developed this bill in consultation with the Military Coalition and several of its members. I appreciate their concern for this problem and their work to help develop a solution. In this regard, I would particularly like to acknowledge the role of the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, the Reserve Officers Association, the National Guard Association of the United States, and the Retired Officers Association. I hope and believe that today's bill introduction can be an important step toward providing adequate health care for members of the South Dakota National Guard and other reservists around the Nation, who do so much on behalf of their communities, their States, and this Nation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I join with several important leaders of the Senate's National Guard Caucus to introduce S. 1119, which we believe will one day result in improved health care for Guard and Reserve members and their families. It is appropriate that we introduce this now, during a week in which Senate floor debate has focused almost exclusively on health care, with several lively discussions about the importance of expanding health coverage to the uninsured. Unfortunately, Guard members and leaders in South Dakota tell me that many of the uninsured serve in the National Guard. Many of them work for small businesses that cannot afford to offer health insurance to their employees. Some of them have insurance for themselves, but cannot afford to insure their dependents. Meanwhile, this Nation is utilizing the Guard more heavily than at any other time in our Nation's history. During the Cold War, a Guard member might serve and retire without ever being called to active duty. Staring with the Persian Gulf War and continuing to this day in Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq, reservists are serving alongside the active duty military during deployments that can last 6 months or more. Each of these deployments strains the Guard member's employer, who temporarily gives up a valued employee. And it strains individual soldiers and their families, even if they have health insurance, because employer-provided coverage often lapses during periods of active duty. The premise of our bill is that health coverage can help the Guard attract and retain top-flight personnel and also improve readiness; that it can help service members and their families, especially in coping with mobilization; and that it can relieve some of the burdens faced today by National Guard employers, particularly small businesses. This bill lays the groundwork for a solution. S. 1119 would authorize a study by a non-government research center to explore the extent of the problem and recommend at least three cost-effective solutions, including the possibility of opening the TRICARE program or the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program to reservists and their families. The study would look at disruptions to health coverage caused by mobilizations and analyze the likely impact of enhanced health care on recruitment and retention. We have developed this bill in consultation with the Military Coalition and several of its members. I appreciate their concern for this problem and their work to help develop a solution. In this regard, I would particularly like to acknowledge the role of the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, the Reserve Officers Association, the National Guard Association of the United States, and the Retired Officers Association. I hope and believe that today's bill introduction can be an important step toward providing adequate health care for members of the South Dakota National Guard and other reservists around the Nation, who do so much on behalf of their communities, their States, and this Nation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding. I reply that it would be my intention to complete the supplemental prior to the time we leave. I do not think we ought to leave Washington prior to the time the supplemental has been satisfactorily disposed of. I do not think we ought to take vacation until this legislation has been completed. I have indicated, just now, to Senator Lott that if we could reach some agreement--a finite list of amendments remaining on this bill, with an understanding of how long these amendments would require for debate--that I may be willing to enter into something I was not prepared to do earlier, which is to move to the supplemental prior to the time we complete our work on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We will complete our work on the Patients' Bill of Rights this week, and we will finish the supplemental this week, and the organizing resolution this week --or before we leave, whatever time it takes. I hope our House colleagues will choose not to leave town until the conference has been completed and until we have been able to deal with the conference as well. It should not take long in conference. But clearly that work must be done. As I say, if we could reach that agreement with regard to a finite list, I would be prepared then to find a way with which to schedule and then perhaps take up a unanimous consent agreement that would allow us to consider the supplemental over a designated period of time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, will the chairman yield?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, just to clarify, I would be happy to enter into a unanimous consent agreement that would limit the number of amendments and provide for an understanding about how the supplemental would be addressed. But, of course, we cannot schedule the supplemental until we have completed our work on the Patients' Bill of Rights. I know the senior Senator from West Virginia understood that.