Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join today with Senator Moynihan and many of our colleagues in introducing the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 2000 (BBRA-2000). The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) made some justified changes in Medicare payment policy and contributed to our current budget surpluses. It also included important provisions to improve seniors' access to preventive benefits, and it created the Children's Health Insurance Program. These are important accomplishments. But some of the policies enacted in the BBA cut providers significantly more than expected. This has created severe problems for health care providers all over the country. Last year, we took steps to correct these problems. But we did not go far enough. When I met with hospital administrators in South Dakota earlier this summer, one told me that since the cuts from the BBA were implemented, his hospital has been just barely breaking even. Usually, that alone would be cause for concern. But then other hospital administrators told me they were jealous, because they are far from breaking even. In my state, the operating margins for hospitals with 50 or fewer beds were a relatively healthy 2 percent before the BBA. Last year, these small hospitals--which are so vital to their communities--had negative margins of 6 percent. Hospitals are not the only health care providers facing this problem. Home health agencies, nursing homes, hospices, and many other providers are all struggling to make ends meet in the face of deeper-than- expected cuts. The package of payment adjustments that Senate Democrats are introducing today will provide a much-needed boost to these providers-- totaling $80 billion over 10 years. This will ensure that Medicare beneficiaries continue to have access to the care that we have promised them. The bill has many provisions, but I would like to highlight a few. For hospitals, BBRA-2000 would restore the full inflation update. It would also improve payments for Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) and teaching hospitals, who provide essential care for some of the neediest patients. Our bill repeals the 15 percent cut in home health, and delays adding medical supplies to the home health prospective payment system (PPS). These fixes are essential to an industry that has seen an unprecedented drop in spending. For skilled nursing facilities we would restore the full inflation update, with an additional two percent increase in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. We would also delay therapy caps for two additional years so that beneficiaries do not face an arbitrary limit on the amount of care they can receive. Although the cost of providing care at the end of life has risen dramatically, the base for hospice payments has not been changed since 1989. The bill restores the full inflation update for hospice providers, and provides a ten percent upward adjustment in hospice base rates. We are committed to ensuring that appropriate payments are made to Medicare+Choice plans. BBRA-2000 increases the growth rate in payments to these plans and allows plans to move to a 50-50 national blend one year earlier. The bill also improves payment for ambulance providers, medical equipment suppliers, and dialysis facilities, who all provide important services to Medicare beneficiaries. We recognize the special circumstances of rural health care providers in our bill. The rural health provisions include increasing payments for small rural hospitals, rural home health agencies, and rural ambulance providers. There are other steps we need to take to improve beneficiaries' access to care. The bill we are introducing today includes a package of refinements to Medicare that directly help beneficiaries. For example, the bill will build on provisions in the BBA to lower beneficiary copayments and expand preventive benefits in Medicare. We also provide for increased access to health care through improvements to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. These include changes to the BBA, such as improving state processes for enrolling people who are eligible for Medicaid and CHIP. We also make changes to the health-related provisions of immigration and welfare reform legislation that passed in 1996. For example, the bill would extend assistance to people who leave welfare for work. Senate Democrats continue to believe that passage of an affordable, voluntary, meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit is of highest priority. This bill, the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 2000, is the next step in ensuring that beneficiaries have access to the care they need. I want to thank Senator Moynihan and his staff for their hard work putting this bill together. They have spent the last two months listening to health care providers, beneficiaries, community leaders, and members of our caucus. Through that listening process they have drafted a bill that addresses the needs of the many communities that are struggling to deal with the impact of the Balanced Budget Act. We know the problems providers are facing in health care. And we know how to fix many of them. The bill we are introducing today is a comprehensive plan to ensure the stability that health care providers need and that beneficiaries depend on. We must take this opportunity to act, before it is too late to save some of the providers who are so close to closing their doors.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, over the weekend we were saddened to learn of the death of Murray Zweben. Murray was chosen by the late Floyd Riddick to be his assistant in the Parliamentarian's office in 1965. He followed ``Doc'' Riddick in that post and became the Senate Parliamentarian in 1975. He served in that capacity for 6 years and left in 1981. The Senate recognized his exemplary service in 1983 by elevating him to parliamentarian emeritus. After he left the Senate, Murray worked in private law practice and played as much tennis as his schedule would permit. Those of us who knew Murray and his extraordinary ability to fly through the New York Times crossword puzzle, in ink no less, will miss him. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his wife Anne, and his children Suzanne, Lisa, Marc, John, and Harry.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, since the House vote, virtually every news account of this trade agreement has called its passage by the Senate all but certain. After months of such predictions, some people might conclude that the votes we are about to cast are a mere formality. They are not. We are making history here. The votes we cast today will have consequences. Those consequences will affect our economic interests, and our national security interests, for decades to come. In one sense, the question before us is simple: Should we grant China the same trading status as we grant nearly every other nation in the world? Behind that question, though, is a larger question. China is home to 1.2 billion people--one-fifth of the world's entire population. What kind of relationship do we want with China? Do we want a China in which American products can be distributed--and our beliefs can be disseminated? Or do we want a China that continues to erect barriers to American goods and American ideals? Which China is better for our future? That is the question at the heart of this debate. Someone who knew something about China answered that question this way. ``Taking the long view, we simply cannot afford to leave China forever outside the family of nations, there to nurture its fantasies, cherish its hates and threaten its neighbors.'' My friends, it was not President Clinton who said that. It was not Ambassador Barshefsky, or anyone from this Administration. Richard Nixon wrote that--in 1967. Five years later, of course, President Nixon made his historic journey to China, ending 20 years of stony silence between our two nations. History has shown the wisdom of that journey. Six years after President Nixon visited, China opened its economy--at least in part--to the outside world. Since then, China's economy has been transformed-- from a 100-percent state-owned economy to an economy in which the state accounts for less than one-third of China's output. Along with this economic change has come social and political change. China is now taking the first tentative steps toward democratic local elections. Private citizens are buying property. People are being given more freedom to choose their schools and careers. You can now find articles critical of the government in the Chinese press, and a wider selection of books in Chinese bookstores. Now, China is ready to open its door to the outside world even further. The question is: Are we going to walk through that door? Several people deserve special thanks for helping us reach this point. First among them is the President. One reason our Nation's economy is so strong today is because this President understands the New Economy. He understand that, to win in the New Economy, we need to maintain our fiscal discipline, invest in our future competitiveness and open up new markets for the products Americans produce. Under his leadership, we have negotiated more than 300 trade agreements with other nations. Among those agreements, none is more significant than this agreement with China. And none holds more potential promise for our future. I also want to acknowledge the President's team--particularly Charlene Barshefsky--for her extraordinary skill in negotiating this agreement. I also want to thank our colleagues in the House, Sandy Levin and Doug Bereuter, for their bipartisan efforts to further improve on the Administration's efforts. The Levin-Bereuter improvements--particularly the creation of the human rights commission--are thoughtful solutions to concerns some of my colleagues and I had about the original agreement. Representative Levin and I spoke frequently about those improvements during that process. I know I speak for many in this chamber when I say we appreciate the great care he took to make sure his improvements addressed our concerns, as well as the concerns of our House colleagues. Here in this chamber, I want to thank Senator Moynihan, our ranking member on the Finance Committee, for his tireless efforts to pass this agreement. His accomplishment is a fitting conclusion to an historic career. I also want to thank Senator Baucus, who is a real leader on trade issues; Chairman Roth, for his bipartisan leadership and determination to pass this agreement; and of course the Majority Leader, for his cooperation and leadership as well. Finally, I want to thank my colleagues who voted against sending this agreement back to the House. Their decision to focus on our trade relationship with China and leave other important questions about that relationship for later was not an easy decision to make. But it was necessary. I thank them for making it. We have heard many eloquent arguments for--and against--this bill. That's as it should be. Critical decisions require careful deliberation. No one who values the freedoms we enjoy as Americans can possibly condone what we have heard about human rights, workers' rights, and religious freedom in China. None of us approves of China's frequent hostility, in the past, to the rule of law. I certainly do not. I intend to vote for this agreement, however, not to reward China for its past, but to engage China and help it create a different future. In the 22 years since it re-opened its doors to outside investors, China's economy has grown at a rate of 10 percent a year. Still, China remains--by Western standards--a largely poor and underdeveloped nation. Reformers there understand that the only way China can build a modern economy is by becoming a full and accountable member of the international trade community. In exchange for the right to join the World Trade Organization, they have therefore committed--in this agreement--to make a number of extraordinary and fundamental changes. Under this bilateral agreement, China has agreed to cut tariffs on US exports drastically. Tariffs on agriculture products will be cut by more than half--from 31 percent to 14 percent Tariffs on industrial products will be cut by nearly two-thirds--from about 25 percent to 9 percent. And tariffs on American computers and other telecommunications products will be eliminated entirely. On our end, this agreement does not lower a single tariff or quota on Chinese goods exported to the U.S. Not one. China has also agreed to lower or eliminate a number of non-tariff barriers that now make doing business in China extremely difficult. Under this agreement, American businesses will be able--for the first time--to sell and distribute their own products in China. The Chinese government will no longer be the monolithic middle man in every business deal. In addition, American businesses will no longer be forced to include Chinese-made parts in products they sell in China. To appreciate the magnitude of these concessions, you need to understand the hold the Chinese government now has on China's economy and--by extension--its citizens. Today in China, the state decides what products may be imported, and by whom. The state decides who may distribute and sell products in China. State-owned banks decide who gets capital to invest. For the more than half of China's workers who are still employed by state-owned enterprises, the state decides how much they earn, whether they are promoted, even where they live. But the state's grip on its citizens' lives is starting to weaken and will weaken further with this agreement. Nicholas Lardy, a China scholar with the Brookings Institution, notes that ``the authoritarian basis of the Chinese regime is (already) . . . eroding. . . .'' By agreeing to let its citizens own their own businesses, and buy products and services directly from the outside world, the Chinese government is agreeing to further relax its authoritarian grip on its people. That is not just in the interests of Chinese reformers. It is in our interests as well. None of us can know, with absolute certainty, the effect these new economic freedoms will have on China. But I had an experience a few years ago that makes me think there is reason to be hopeful. I was with two other Senators on a bipartisan trip to the republics of the Former Yugoslavia. We were there to assess what progress was being made under the Dayton peace agreement, and what help the republics might need to rebuild politically and economically. One day, in Albania, I was talking to a man in his early 30's. As you know, until 1992, Albania was arguably the most closed society in the world. No one entered or left. And no new information was allowed in except what the government permitted. The man I talked with said that when he was a boy, if someone had a satellite dish, and they turned it to face the sea, to receive uncensored information from Italy, police would come and turn the dish around. That was for the first offense. If the police had to come a second time, they took you off to jail. Then the communications revolution occurred--the explosion of e-mail and Internet. Suddenly, the government couldn't just pull the plug, or turn the satellite dish around. Suddenly, Albania was connected to the rest of the world. Today, Albania is struggling to create a free society and a free economy. The man I spoke with told me he hopes the Albania of the future looks like America. Today, fewer than 2.5 percent of China's people own personal computers. And fewer than 1 million Chinese have access to the Internet. By the end of this year, there will be 10 million Internet users in China. By the end of next year, it's expected there will be 20 million. Recent attempts by China to police the Internet, and punish advocates of democratic reform, are troubling to all of us. They are also destined to fail. By eliminating all tariffs on information technology in China, liberalizing distribution, and allowing foreign investment in telecommunications services--the infrastructure of the Internet, this agreement will accelerate the telecommunications revolution in China. That is not just in the interest of Chinese reformers. It is in our interest as well. Some have expressed concerns about whether China will honor the commitments it makes in this agreement, and whether this agreement is enforceable. Their concerns are understandable. China has no history with the rule of law, as we know it. The important point is: by entering the WTO, China is agreeing--for the first time--to comply with the rules of the international trade community. It is agreeing to settle its trade disputes through the WTO, and to honor the WTO's decisions in those disputes. If it does not, it will face sanctions. This is a fundamental change. In previous disputes with China-- including our disagreements over intellectual property rights--we have had to fight alone. But there are 135 members in the WTO. Under this agreement, we will be able to work with those other nations, many of whom share our concerns. China's ability to pit its trading partners against each other will be greatly diminished. By agreeing to these terms, China is, in fact, agreeing to live by the rule of law. And while that agreement may be limited--for now--to trade issues, eventually it is likely to be extended to other areas as well-- including human rights. Rejecting this agreement, on the other hand, is likely to harm the cause of civil rights in China. Former President Jimmy Carter--one of the world's most respected human rights advocates--has said: ``There's no doubt in my mind that a negative vote on this issue in the Congress will be a serious setback and impediment for the democratization, freedom and human rights in China.'' Respected Chinese democracy advocate Martin Lee agrees. In a letter to President Clinton, Lee wrote that this agreement ``represents the best long-term hope for China to become a member in good-standing in the international community.'' Should the agreement fail, he added, `` we fear that . . . any hope for political and legal reform process would also recede.'' Clearly, it is in the interest of Chinese reformers to prevent such a failure. But it is in our interest as well. There is another reason this agreement is in our national interest, Mr. President. It will strengthen peace and stability throughout Asia-- particularly in Taiwan. Why? Because the more China trades, the more it has to lose from war. Taiwan's newly elected President, President Chen, supports China's entry into the WTO. By passing this agreement, we would put the United States Congress on record as saying: ``If China is admitted to the WTO, Taiwan must be permitted, too--without delay.'' China has already agreed, as part of this agreement, to accept that condition. As I said, Mr. President, under this agreement, China is lowering its tariffs; we are not lowering ours. China is reducing or eliminating its non-tariff barriers; we are not. There is another way to evaluate the benefits of this agreement. That is by comparing China's WTO commitments to those of another huge, largely poor and under-developed nation: India. India places a 40 percent tariff on US consumer goods. Under this agreement, China will lower its tariffs to 9 percent. India places a 30 percent tariff on agriculture products. Under this agreement, China will reduce its agriculture tariffs to an average of 14 percent. In addition, China will eliminate all agriculture subsidies to its farmers. That's something not even our closest ally, the European Union, has agreed to do. Four years ago, Congress re-wrote the rules that had governed farming in this country for 60 years. Supporters of the new rules said at the time that America's farmers didn't need a safety net any more because they would make so much money selling their products to new markets around the world. But that isn't what happened. Instead of prospering in this New Economy, over the last four years, family farmers and ranchers in South Dakota and across the country have suffered through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Obviously, the lack of new market opportunities isn't the only reason Farm Country is hurting, Mr. President. But opening new markets for American farm products is a necessary part of the solution to the farm crisis. It's time for this Congress to keep its commitment to family farmers and ranchers. It's time--at the very least--to provide access to the new markets we said would be available when the rules were re-written four years ago. The South Dakota Wheat Growers Association is right. ``We have everything to gain by approving PNTR with China, and nothing to lose.'' One lesson we have learned from past experience is that trade agreements must be specific. That is why this agreement is painstakingly detailed. Every commitment China is making is clearly spelled out, in black and white. We also know from past experience that no trade agreement--not even one with a nation as large as China--will solve all of our economic challenges. Even if we pass this agreement, we will still have a responsibility to fix our federal farm policy--so family farmers and ranchers can get a fair price for their products. We will still have a responsibility to make sure all American workers can learn the new skills required by this New Economy. And we will also still have a responsibility to monitor how this agreement is enforced. We have heard a great deal of concern during this debate--and rightly so--about how China limits the rights of its citizens to organize their fellow workers, or pray to their own God. Basic legal safeguards and due process in China are routinely ignored in the name of maintaining public order. News reports just before we started this debate told of Chinese being jailed because they practice their faith in ``non- official'' churches. Several key leaders of the China Democracy Party have been jailed because they advocated for democratic change. Workers rights are tightly restricted, and forced labor in prison facilities continues. Let me be very clear: No one should confuse endorsement of this trade agreement with endorsement of these and other assaults against basic human rights. Such practices are abhorrent and deeply troubling to Americans, and to freedom-loving people everywhere. As part of the Levin-Bereuter improvements, this agreement will create a high-level commission--modeled after the Helsinki Commission-- that will monitor human rights in China and report annually to Congress. We have a responsibility to support that commission. Finally, this agreement calls on Congress to help the Chinese people develop the institutions of a civil society that are needed to support fair and open trade. We have a responsibility to provide that assistance. This is a good agreement. But it is not a panacea. And it is not self-enforcing. If we want it to work, we have to keep working at it. In closing, there is another quote I would like to read from President Nixon. In a toast he made to China's leaders during his 1972 visit, he said, ``It is not our common beliefs that have brought us together here,'' he said, ``but our common interests and our common hopes, the interests that each of us has to maintain our independence and the security of our peoples, and the hope that each of us has to build a new world order in which nations and peoples with different systems and different values can live together in peace--respecting one another while disagreeing with one another, letting history, rather than the battlefield, be the judge of their individual ideas.'' We have made progress toward that goal over these last 28 years. This agreement will enable us to build on that progress. It is in China's interest. It is in our interest. It is in the world's best interest that we pass it. I urge you to support it. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today the Senate is passing S. 1608, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. This legislation will provide counties dependent upon the federal timber program with critically-needed funding to support education, road- building and other county programs. I want to commend Senator Wyden in particular for his leadership and hard work on this legislation. He tirelessly engaged in months of discussions with our Republican counterparts, the administration and fellow Democrats to develop a bipartisan, compromise piece of legislation that will provide stability to timber-dependent counties for years to come. Since early in the last century, counties with significant federal land-holdings have received 25 percent of the revenue earned from timber sales on those lands. Since federal lands cannot be taxed, these funds provide counties with a critical source of revenue to maintain schools and roads. Over the past decade, it has become clear that counties can no longer depend upon these funds. In many areas, the timber program has declined or ceased altogether, reducing revenue that counties depend up to make ends meet. As a result, many counties have had to cut educational programs for children significantly. While counties in the Black Hills of South Dakota continue to receive adequate funding under existing laws, recent challenges to the timber program in South Dakota and elsewhere have made it clear that we must have a safety net for all timber-dependent counties. No child's education should be dependent upon the federal timber program. S. 1608 severs that link by providing counties with the option of choosing a set payment based upon timber revenues they received in the past or continuing with the current formula. This choice will provide counties with the continuity and funding they need to provide a quality education for children in their schools. I'd like to take a few minutes to highlight some important provisions of this bill. Like any product of compromise, it is not perfect, and there are sections that I would like to see changed. Nonetheless, we cannot continue to sacrifice the education of schoolchildren while we debate this bill. We need to move forward. First, 85 percent of the funds made available by this bill go directly to counties to fund roads and schools. These funds are generally equivalent, or greater to, the amount of funding that counties receive today. Additionally, it gives counties a choice of how to spend the remaining 15 percent. Remaining funds can either be used by counties to fund projects on federal lands, as described in Title II, or to fund county projects described in Title III such as search and rescue programs. If neither of these two options is chosen, the fund are returned to the Treasury. While I am pleased that counties will have a choice of how to use the remaining 15 percent of funds, I have some reservations about the requirements on the use of Title III funds. Given the fact that these funds are used for programs normally carried out by counties, such as education and search and rescue operations, it would be preferable to leave these responsibilities in the hands of county commissioners who are elected to make these decisions. Therefore, if this issue is considered in the future, I hope that we can take another look at the process for approving Title III projects. Once again, I'd like to commend Senator Wyden, Senator Craig, Senator Baucus, Senator Bingaman, Senator Boxer and Senator Torricelli for their thoughtful consideration of this legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, earlier today the distinguished Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, came to the floor to respond to an article that appeared in the newspaper, USA Today. I want to take just a moment to respond to the article, as well as to some of his comments. He responded, I think, as I would if I had read the article. It is entitled, ``Senate Democratic Leader Plans Stalling Tactics,'' and makes reference to the fact that we are running out of time at the end of the year and it claims to know that I have a simple strategy for winning the final negotiations over spending bills--and I am now reading from the article: ``Stall until the Republicans have to cave in because they can't wait any longer to recess,'' and noted there are a lot more vulnerable Republican Senators than there are Democratic Senators. As often is the case--I don't blame this reporter, and I am not sure I know who the reporter is--I think that was taken from a comment that I made in my daily press conference, where I simply noted that those who were in the majority oftentimes are the ones who pay a higher price the longer we are in session, the closer we get to the election, noting that we have experienced that rude realization ourselves on at least two occasions, in 1980 and 1994, and that the longer one goes into the campaign season while we are still in session, the more it requires that Senators remain present here in Washington and not available for the demands of a rigorous campaign. That was all I said. I made no reference to our desire to stall anything. In fact, it is not. The reason I have come to the floor is to emphasize our strong hope that we do not see any stalling whatsoever; that we move on with the remaining appropriations bills. Eleven of them have yet to be signed into law. I note for the record that two have not even left subcommittee. The District of Columbia appropriations bill and the HUD-VA bill are still pending in the subcommittee. We finished our work on the energy and water appropriations bill this week. It would be my hope that we could go to the only other pending appropriations bill on the calendar, which is the Commerce-State- Justice bill, next week. I do not know that is the intention of the majority leader, but clearly it is a bill that must be considered and completed at the earliest possible date. Our hope is that as we work through these appropriations bills, we will have the opportunity to work through other pieces of unfinished business. We are hopeful we can make real progress, maybe as early as next week, on the minimum wage bill. Our hope is that we can finish our work next week on the legislation granting permanent normal trade relations to China. Our hope is that we can actually finish a Patients' Bill of Rights bill and maybe gun safety legislation. Our hope is that we can deal with the prescription drug benefit bill. There is an array of pieces of the unfinished agenda that we would love to be able to address--education issues having to do with reducing the number of students in every class, hiring teachers, afterschool programs, school construction. Those issues have to be addressed at some point. Whether it is authorizing or appropriating, we remain ready and willing to work with our colleagues to accomplish as much as possible. I do not know whether or not it is conducive to that goal not to have votes on Fridays or Mondays. It seems to me, with all the work that remains, Senators should be here casting their votes and participating fully in debates that will be required ultimately if we are going to complete our work on time. I come to the floor this afternoon only to clarify the record and ensure that if anybody has any doubt, let me address that doubt forthrightly. We want to finish our work. We want to work with our Republican colleagues. We have no desire to stall anything. Our hope is that we can finish on time and complete all 13 appropriations bills no later than the first of October. There is no need for a continuing resolution. We can complete our work in the next 3 weeks. That is our desire, and that certainly will be our intent as we make decisions with regard to what agreements we can reach on schedule, as well as on substance, in the coming days. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today the citizens of South Dakota are honoring the heroism of Herbert A. Littleton, a 20-year-old Marine Corps private who died while performing acts of gallantry that earned him the Congressional Medal of Honor. Private First Class Littleton enlisted in Black Hawk, South Dakota, and served as a radio operator during the Korean War with the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, Company C, 1st Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division (Reinforced). This is the same Marine division that turned the course of the Korean War with its successful landing behind enemy lines at Inchon, Korea, 50 years ago this month. Seven months after the Inchon landing, Private First Class Littleton's unit was in Chungchon, Korea. On the night of April 22, 1951, Private Littleton, a radio operator with an artillery forward observation team, was standing watch. Suddenly Company C's position came under attack from a well concealed and numerically superior enemy force. Private First Class Littleton quickly alerted his team and moved into position to begin calling down artillery fire on the hostile force. But as his comrades arrived to assist, an enemy hand grenade was thrown into their midst. Private First Class Littleton unhesitatingly hurled himself on the grenade, absorbing its full, shattering impact with his own body and saving the other members of his team from serious injury or death. Following Private First Class Littleton's heroic death, the President of the United States awarded him our nation's highest military award for bravery. The official citation says: ``His indomitable valor in the face of almost certain death reflects the highest credit upon Pfc. Littleton and the U.S. Naval Service. He gallantly gave his life for his country.'' Mr. President, today Governor Bill Janklow dedicated a granite memorial to Private First Class Littleton in Spearfish, South Dakota, near the town where this young man signed up to serve his country. This is a dignified and fitting tribute. But there is another memorial to Private First Class Littleton on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, where a small, impoverished colony has blossomed into the Republic of Korea: a peaceful, democratic society that ranks as one of the great economic success stories of the 20th Century. His sacrifice helped make all this possible. With this statement before the United States Senate, I join in saluting Private First Class Littleton. As we conduct the nation's affairs in this chamber of the United States Capitol, we would do well to remember Private First Class Littleton. In our every deed, let the members of this body bear in mind the lesson of courage, honor, and personal sacrifice offered to us by a 20-year-old man fighting for his country in the darkness, far from home.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, let me say for the record, the majority leader has, as he has indicated, offered the lockbox legislation on two separate occasions. I might remind my colleagues that on both occasions he filed cloture immediately, denying the minority any opportunity to offer amendments. I ask unanimous consent, and ask the majority leader's support, for an alternative approach which would be that we offer Medicare/Social Security lockbox amendments in addition to a prescription drug benefit amendment to be offered in the context of this lockbox. I make that request.

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me respond to the majority leader again to suggest, as I have on many occasions, that we can find a way, perhaps, to address this issue. We certainly have a lot of ideas. I do not want to preclude ideas articulated and offered by my colleagues. I would be more than happy to work with him. As he has indicated, there is a good deal of interest on Social Security and Medicare lockboxes and perhaps we can find a procedural way to address them even in the short time that remains in this session.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. That is our concern. If we are going to have a debate, we need to have a debate about these issues that afford Senators the right to offer amendments. But again, I reiterate my desire to discuss it with the majority leader. Mr. Domenici addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I may use part of my leader time if my comments go over the 5 minutes. I ask that that be recognized should it be required.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are about to vote on an amendment that is critical not only for an important region of our country, the upper Midwest, but really the whole country. How we decide the process by which we make critical decisions about the ecological and environmental balance that must be taken into account as we consider all of the challenges we face with regard to proper management is really what is at stake here. The Missouri River is one of the most important rivers of the country, but this could apply to the Mississippi River and to any one of a number of rivers throughout the country. Ultimately, it will be applied. You could say this is a very important precedent. A process has been created, enacted by this Congress, that allows very careful consideration of all the different factors that must be applied as we make decisions with regard to management of a river, of wetlands, of anything else. Basically what this amendment does is simply say, let that process go forward, without making any conclusion about what ultimately that process will lead to. If we ultimately decide that whatever process produced is wrong, we, as a Congress, have the opportunity to stop it. Why would we stop it midway? Why would we say today that we don't want that process to continue; we don't want it to reach its inevitable end with a product that we could look at for comment? That is the first point: a process is in place. The legislation currently within the energy and water bill stops that in its tracks. I don't have it in front of me, but the report language makes it very clear. Senator Bond and others may argue that, no, this process can continue, but the effect of this amendment stops it in its tracks. We will not have an opportunity to carefully consider all of the recommendations given the language that is currently incorporated in the bill. We must not stop a process that allows us a result upon which we will then pass judgment. The Missouri River is a very critical river. It is a multifaceted river that requires balance. The current management plan was written when the Presiding Officer and I, Senator Bond, and others were, at best, in our teens, if not in our early years of life. It was written in the 1950s and adopted in about 1960. It has been the plan for 40 years. What the Corps of Engineers is now saying, what Fish and Wildlife is now saying is that after 40 years, prior to the time the dams were constructed, it is time to renew that manual; let's find another; let's take another look at it to determine whether or not what worked in the 1950s and 1960s is something that will work today. Their feeling is that it will not, that we need to upgrade it; we need to refresh it; we need to renew it. Back when that manual was written, the anticipated amount of barge traffic was about 12 million tons. We never reached 12 million tons. We are down to about 1.5 million tons of barge traffic, totaling about $7 million. We are spending $8 million in barge subsidies to support a $7 million industry. At the same time, we have an $85 million recreation industry. We have an incredible $667 billion hydropower industry. We have industries that are held captive, in large measure, because of a manual written in 1960 that anticipated barge traffic that never developed. It is time to get real. It is time to allow the process to go forward. It is time to allow those agencies of the Federal Government, whose responsibility it is to manage this river, to do it without intervention. There will be plenty of time for us to take issue, to differ, to ultimately come to some other conclusion if that happens. But that is not now, especially given the recognition that the manual is out of date. The manual didn't produce the kind of result over four decades that was anticipated. Now it is time to change. That is all we are asking. Let the process go forward. The President has said that unless this change is made, this bill will be vetoed. We are nearing the end of the session. If we want to guarantee that this is going to be wrapped up in an omnibus bill with absolutely no real opportunity for the Senate to have its voice heard, then the time to change it, so it can be signed, is now--not 4 weeks from now. I am very hopeful my colleagues will understand the importance of this question, the importance of this amendment. I am hopeful that, on a bipartisan basis, we can say let us allow the Corps, Fish and Wildlife, and the biological experts to do their work. Then let us look at that work and make our evaluation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know I have a couple of minutes remaining in leader time. Let me respond. I understand it is 5 minutes. I will not use all of it because I know we are about ready to go to a vote. Let me just say that the distinguished senior Senator from Missouri knows what I know and what everyone should know prior to the time they are called upon to vote. First of all, it is not a plan until it is adopted as a plan. But the Bond language would stop the plan from even going forward before we have had a chance to analyze what effect it would have on floods. But the proposal, which is all it is at this point, says we will exempt those years when there is a prospect for flooding. We will exempt the master manual from being utilized and implemented if a flood is imminent. We lop off the flooded years and the drought years. This plan is to be used only in those times when there is normal rain flow. That is really what we are talking about here. But I go back to the point: Why stop this process from going forward before we know all the facts? Why stick our head in the sand before we really have the biological, ecological, and all of the managerial details? That is what the language does. That isn't the way we ought to proceed. There will be time for us to oppose, if that may be the case. But not now, not halfway through the process. Let's allow this process to continue. I yield the floor and the remainder of my time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use some leader time. I understand I have 8 minutes remaining. My colleagues can vote any way they wish, based upon the facts as presented. Let nobody be misled. This has nothing to do with flooding--nothing. This doesn't apply when there is flooding or when there are droughts. That is written right into the language of this new master manual proposal. It has nothing to do with flooding. This has to do with barge traffic. That is what this is about. It is about barge traffic. Now, the Senator from Missouri talks about the importance of competition. How much competition is there when you have three-tenths of 1 percent of all agricultural transportation related to barge traffic and 99 percent is rail and highway? Is that competition? My colleagues are appropriately trying to defend a dying industry in Missouri, and they are using flood concerns to protect them. This is not about floods. This is about protecting three-tenths of 1 percent of all transportation for agriculture in the entire region. That is what this is about. Nothing more and nothing less. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. DASCHLE

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 reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, this issue really has a very fundamental premise. The issue is: Can we use the best information available to us to manage the Missouri River, to manage it in a way that recognizes the sensitive balance that exists today--environmentally, industrially, agriculturally, recreationally? Can we take the best information we have available to us and put together the best management plan recognizing that balance? That is the essence of the question before us. My distinguished colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, has said: I don't want the Corps of Engineers to alter the manual that has been used now for more than 40 years. His view is that the manual that was written in the 1950s and adopted in approximately 1960 ought to be the manual that we use from here on out, and he wants to stop in its tracks any effort to consider whether or not the Missouri River management reflects today that sensitive balance. I think it is wrong to say to the Corps of Engineers--to say to any Federal agency--we don't want you to look at the facts. We don't want you to look at the information. We don't want you to take into account that delicate balance. We want you to blindly follow whatever decisions you made in 1960--I might add, before even all the dams on the Missouri River were built--and we want you to follow that verbatim. We can't afford to do that. The decisions that we make on the Missouri affect the decisions we make on the Mississippi and on virtually every other river in this country. For us to freeze in place whatever decisions may have been made decades ago, and say it must not change, is putting our head in the sand and, I must say, endangering the health and the very essence of the river for years, if not decades, to come. It was in 1804 that Meriwether Lewis and William Clark set out on their Corps of Discovery expedition to explore the Missouri River and search for a passage to the Pacific Ocean. Stephen Ambrose wrote an extraordinary book, ``Undaunted Courage,'' that I just reread over the summer. I must say, I do not know that there is a better book about what they found and the splendor that they discovered having traversed the entire Missouri River. Along this expedition, Lewis and Clark encountered a wild river, teeming with fish and wildlife, that rose every spring to carry the snowmelt from the Rocky Mountains and shrank back in the summer as part of the ancient and natural flow cycle. That is what the river did; that is what most rivers do. Since that historic trip, we have constructed six major dams and we have forever changed the flow and the character of that river. The last earthen dam was completed during the administration of John F. Kennedy. To manage the dams, the Corps produced, in 1960, as I noted a moment ago, a management plan, that we call the master manual. That manual caters primarily to barge traffic on the Missouri River at the expense, virtually, of everything else, at the expense of fish and wildlife, at the expense of agriculture, at the expense of recreation, at the expense of ecological considerations, at the expense of the environment, at the expense of people virtually north of the State of Missouri. What is amazing to me is that we do this with the recognition that the barge industry today is minuscule, valued at $7 million--that is million with an ``m''--and it transports less than 1 percent of all agricultural goods transported in the upper Midwest. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. This is the tip of the tail wagging the tail and the dog. The legs, the head, you name it, it is all wagging because of the tip of the tail. These charts reflect the current circumstances on the river. This is the barge traffic that was first projected. They thought, when they wrote the master manual, that about 12 million tons of traffic would be carried by barge on the river on an annual basis. That was the estimate when the manual was written in 1960. I was about 10 years old, I suppose, when that manual was written. The Corps, of course, did the best they could projecting what they thought would be the level of traffic, 12 million tons. But as oftentimes is the case, they made a mistake. It wasn't 12 million tons. By 1977, it was only 3 million tons. And guess what. Current traffic is not 12, it is not 3, it is 1.5. That is all the traffic there is, 1.5 million tons, representing three-tenths of 1 percent of all agricultural traffic. What is really amazing--as I said a moment ago, is that this is a classic example of the tip of the tail wagging the rest of the tail and all of the dog. Look who has sacrificed. Navigation provides roughly $7 million in benefits annually, compared to $85 million in recreational benefits. It compares to $415 million in flood control, $542 million in water supply projects and priorities of all kinds, and $677 million, two-thirds of $1 trillion, in hydropower. Yet we have written a manual, incredibly, that says we are going to let this minuscule $7 million industry dictate what is best for the 85, the 415, the 542, and the $677 million. Figure that out. Who in his right mind would say that somehow we ought to let that minuscule amount dictate what is best. Forget the ecological and environmental factors for a moment. I go back to my original point. Barge traffic today is three-tenths of 1 percent. If I had not magnified this slice, you couldn't even find it in this pie. Roughly 99.7 percent of all agriculture produced in the Upper Midwest doesn't go by barge. How does it go? It goes the way the rest of the country. It goes by rail and by truck. So why would we threaten to throw even more out of kilter the ecological priorities of the river by putting barge traffic first? Why would we endanger hydropower, water supply, flood control, and recreation? I cannot answer that question. But that is not even the question we are facing tonight. There are those on the other side who have said: We don't care what factors are out there. We don't care what percentage is barge traffic. We will not even let the Corps consider, even think about the possibility of changing the master manual, regardless of the facts. Don't confuse us with the facts. We are going to protect the barge industry, and it does not matter what the costs are. We will have to face extraordinarily problematic ramifications of this provision for all of these other very critical priorities, including the ecology of the river. Three endangered species are headed towards extinction: the piping plover, the least interior tern, and the pallid sturgeon. Two fish species are candidates for listing on the endangered species list. But that isn't the only thing this fight is about. What this fight is all about is whether or not we can recognize the delicate balance that exists today. This fight is not about endangered species. This fight is about an endangered river. This fight is about whether or not the health of the Missouri can be secured. That is what this fight is about. This fight is about restoring balance to management of the river. We will never go back to the days of Lewis and Clark, the pre-dam period. That will never happen. But there are things we can do through good management that will give us the opportunity to make the river as vibrant as it can be. But we cannot do it if the current provision in this bill stays intact and becomes law. Recognizing that, the question is whether or not we will let the Corps be the Corps, whether or not we will allow the Corps to go through the legal process involved in evaluating what is best for the river and change the management plan to reflect a more fair balance. That is all we are asking. Let us come up with a plan that allows us in the most complete way to analyze what is happening to the river, what is best for the river, what can be done in Montana and the Dakotas and Iowa and Missouri and all the way up and down the Missouri River to ensure that the health and vitality of that river can be sustained and even improved upon. That is what the Corps is trying to do. What the Corps is simply trying to do is to say, look, we can do a better job than we did in the 1950s and 1960s in managing this river. We can reflect the new balance, and the recognition must be made that things have changed dramatically since the fifties and sixties. We need to reflect that change in the master manual itself. Here is the process; the process is pretty simple. A preliminary draft of the EIS, environmental impact statement, was completed all the way back in 1998. Following that, there was a coordination and public comment period that lasted through January of 1999. That period allowed tribal and public officials to respond to the preliminary revised draft of the environmental statement. Then we went on to the fish and wildlife consultation and biological opinion phase, which some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to stop just recently. They wanted to kill that, to move it so we would not have the opportunity to consider very carefully what the scientists and biological experts have said about the quality of life on the Missouri today. They wanted to kill it. Thanks to the Director of the Corps, Joe Westphal, and others, we are now in a position to at least hear what the scientists have had to say, and we will have that report by November 1. Following that, there will be a revised draft of the environmental impact statement. They will take into account all of the comments made by those who are concerned on all sides. They will take into account this coordination and what comments public officials have made, in particular. They will then take into account fish and wildlife and biological opinions. When all of that has been gathered, we will then revise the draft and make available to the public a draft for additional comment for 6 months. We then see the final environmental impact statement after a 6- month tribal and public comment period. Washington will then review all of those comments. A record of decision will be made and the revise of the master manual will then be implemented. Those are all the steps. This is like a court of law. This is like any other legal process. There are a number of very important steps that we apply in all cases-- in all cases where difficult decisions involving critical public policy have to be made. We make these steps for a reason. We want public comment. We want scientific input, the best decisions from governmental leaders at all levels. We want to do that with the full involvement in a democracy of everyone who cares and everyone who has some responsibility. But here is what happens. Under the provision currently in the bill, there is a big red stop sign on this process. It says: You are not going to do any of this. We are going to stop you in your tracks. We are not going to let you go through that process. We are not going to allow public comment and the array of other opportunities for public involvement. We are not going to have that process. It is over. That is what this amendment says; that is what the provision in the bill says. So I have to say it is extraordinarily damaging to the river to have this attitude. It is such an important issue involving so many priorities--environmental, ecological, industrial, recreational, agricultural--because it is endangering the interests of our country in such a profound way on this river. This administration has said, without equivocation, it will be vetoed if this provision is still in the bill. That is how strongly the administration feels about it. It will be vetoed. So we can play this game as long as our colleagues wish to do so. But let's make one thing clear. This will not become law. This will not become law because it is just too important. I don't fully appreciate the reasons my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are opposed to even allowing the process to go forward, given what I have said is this multistep opportunity for careful consideration of all the options. But it goes down to, as I said in the beginning, a need on the part of some to protect this minuscule barge industry regardless of all of its ramifications on everything and everybody else. But as I understand it, there are those on the other side who are opposed because they understand that what has happened is that there has been some effort to find this new balance. This new balance is a recognition of all of the different factors that need to be calculated, in part, through the Fish and Wildlife Service and, in part, through the Corps of Engineers and, in part, through States' direct involvement. What has been proposed is that the Corps slightly revise its master manual to increase spring flows, known as a ``spring rise,'' once every 3 years--not every year, but once every 3 years they would increase the spring rise in an effort to attempt to bring back a natural flow, a natural rejuvenation of the river as we have understood it prior to the time the dams were built. They would reduce summer flows, known as a ``split season,'' every year. The spring rise and the split season roughly mimic the natural flow of the river, which increase in the spring due to snowmelt and sharply decline in the summer, beginning around July 1. It is as Lewis and Clark found it. We can't go back to Lewis and Clark. Nobody is suggesting that. What we are attempting to do, however, is to show once again that there is this balance, this need to recognize that if we are going to keep the river healthy, we have to allow it to do what it once did, prior to the time the dams were built. This is the flow pattern under which native species developed, which is absolutely critical to their very survival--not just the three endangered species, but all species on the river. The spring rise is needed to scour sandbars clean of vegetation so they can be used by endangered birds for nesting habitat. The spring rise also signals native fish species that it is time to spawn. This is the green light. They see these spring rises, and that triggers to the species that they can spawn. When they don't have that spring rise, the whole natural cycle is put out of whack. That is what has been happening year after year and decade after decade. The low summer flows, or split season, exposes the sandbars during the critical nesting time, so that the birds have sufficient room to nest and so that the nests don't get flooded. To prevent any potential downstream flooding, the Corps, Fish and Wildlife Service, and others, have already thought about addressing the concern of some downstream who are understandably concerned about flooding. They would simply eliminate this plan from implementation during the 10 percent highest flow years--eliminate it; it would not happen. Changes would not be implemented during the 25 percent lowest flow ``drought'' years. So this plan would not harm Mississippi River navigation. We have already conceded that. This is the balance. This is an effort to try to find middle ground. We are going to say we will lop off the top 10 percent and the top 25 percent; we will deal with those normal years in the middle. Once consultation between the Corps and Fish and Wildlife Service is completed, the Corps then still will take into account other suggestions made during the public comment period. There are so many beneficiaries of this plan. Naturally, the river itself is the biggest beneficiary. The river itself--not species on the river, not those living along the river, not the States upstream, but the river--will be the prime beneficiary of this effort. Why? For the reasons I have just stated-- because we want to find a way to bring balance back into the management. We want to find middle ground in an effort to recognize all uses on the river. Downstream farmers will benefit from better drainage from fields during the summertime. That is a given. The public will have greater opportunities to recreate up and down the river. Even the Mississippi barge industry will benefit from the changes that are being called on for the Missouri River. I wish to take a few minutes to talk briefly about each of those benefits. First, with regard to the river itself, the combination of the spring rise and flood season will help restore the health of the river and recover from the dangerous imbalance that we have with regard to all species on the river today. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service's draft opinion and the Corps of Engineers' revised draft environmental impact statement of 1998, high spring flows will signal native fish species to spawn, flush detrital food into the river, inundate side channels for young fish habitat, and build up the sandbars in the river channel for the tern and plover nesting habitat, and provide a greater area for the endangered birds to nest, as well as for all birds. The 600-page draft of the Fish and Wildlife Service opinion is based on hundreds of published peer review studies. The opinion itself was a peer review by a panel of experts who supported all of those conclusions. The fact is that whether or not we give the Missouri River the chance to survive, to flourish, to be healthy again depends in large measure on whether or not we as Senators will allow the Corps, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and all affected governmental authorities to recognize the importance of proper balance; to recognize that what we decided to do in 1960 does not now apply and should not be used to manage the river in the next century; to recognize that if we are going to take all of the economic and environmental concerns and put them in proper balance, we have to revise the manual. To say that the Corps will be prohibited from doing so is just bad, bad policy. We recognize that maybe the barge industry on the Missouri--not the Mississippi barge industry--will be hurt by this. But we recognize that this minuscule three-tenths of 1 percent should not dictate all of the other uses of this river, or any river. We shouldn't let the tip of the tail wag the tail and the dog. But that is what is happening today. That is what this legislation would do. That is why it is so important that we strike it when we have the vote. That is why I feel so strongly about this issue. There is one other factor as we look at the barge industry itself that is perplexing. Barge benefits on the river economically are about $7 million. The subsidies to the barge industry last year exceeded the total benefits of the industry itself. There is $8 million in subsidies to the barge industry even recognizing that the industry generated $7 million in benefits. Not only do we have managerial concerns, not only do we have concerns reflecting the life and health of one of the most important rivers in the United States of America, we ought to have taxpayer concerns. Why in Heaven's name are we subsidizing a $7 million barge industry with an $8 million subsidy? That one I don't understand. But that is why we are having this debate. I am very appreciative of the leadership shown by the senior Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, who has been the preeminent environmentalist and environmental leader, as ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. I am grateful for his presence on the floor, as well as my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Johnson, who has been an extraordinary advocate of the effort that we have made now for several months to ensure that the Missouri River has the future that it deserves. I yield the floor. I retain the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to use an amount of my leader time prior to the time we go to the energy and water bill to speak on an unrelated matter.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there is great concern about unattended legislation, legislation having to do with health care, education, meaningful gun safety, and minimum wage. There is no legitimate reason we could not have accomplished something on each of the issues I have mentioned and many more. There is no legitimate reason this Congress couldn't have passed a real Patients' Bill of Rights long before this. There is no good reason we couldn't have added a voluntary Medicare prescription drug benefit. There is no reason we couldn't have agreed by now to strengthen our children's schools. We have had many opportunities. There are those who say that passing bills is hard work. If you want to see real hard work, go to Murdo, South Dakota some day. Talk to Cathy Cheney and the five other members of her volunteer ambulance squad. They are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. When a call comes in--even if it's in the middle of the night--they drop whatever they're doing, leave their jobs and families, and go. Most times, they are not back for at least 3 hours. When they're not answering calls, they're studying for certification tests. And they don't get paid a dime for any of it. That is hard work, Mr. President. And it is not just South Dakotans who face challenges like this. Go to any community in any state in America, and you'll find people who are working hard--some of them are working two and three jobs--to make a decent life for themselves and their families, and to give something back to their communities. You will find older people who worked hard for 40 and 50 years, who are retired now. They are not asking us to do the impossible. They are not asking us to make unreasonable concessions. All they are asking is that we make a good-faith effort to solve the problems these families are dealing with today and who face the challenging months and years when they must examine, address, and answer problems in their own lives. When the 106th Congress began, many of us had great hopes about what we could accomplish. We had had budget surpluses 2 years in a row and were on our way to a third year--something that hadn't happened in 50 years. The economy was setting record after record. After years of having to downsize our dreams because of the deficit, Americans were finally in a position to start hoping again, and tackling some of the big challenges facing working families. Nearly 2 years later, almost none of those hopes has been met. As we near the end of this Congress, it appears increasingly likely that they will not be met. One reason for that is, frankly, our less than ambitious legislative schedule. If we adjourn, as planned, on October 6, the Senate will have been in session for a total of just 115 days this year. That is 115 out of 365. By any objective measure, that is not exactly breaking a sweat. In fact, it is the lightest Senate schedule since 1956. It is only 2 days more than the infamous do-nothing Congress of 1948. But the calendar is not the only reason we have achieved so little. A more significant, and troubling, reason for this Congress' inaction has been the absolute refusal by Republican leaders in both houses to pass the people's agenda. For 2 years, majority leaders in both houses have used their numerical advantage, and every parliamentary trick they could find, to prevent us from passing a real Patients' Bill of Rights. Despite the fact that there is an overwhelming majority in the Congress and an overwhelming majority of the American people who want campaign finance reform, Republican leaders in both Houses have prevented us from passing the McCain-Feingold bill. Despite pleas from the victims of the Columbine tragedy and more than a million moms who came to Washington to petition Congress, Republican leaders have repeatedly refused to pass reasonable gun safety measures. They oppose our plan for affordable prescription drug coverage. They oppose our plan to strengthen our children's schools by making classes smaller and schools safer and setting higher standards. For 2 years, they even opposed raising the minimum wage by $1 over 2 years. Now some of our Republican colleagues in the other body say they might be willing to do this but only if we include tens of billions of dollars worth of tax cuts for the wealthiest in the country. Why can't we just do the right thing? Why can't we just raise the minimum wage $1 an hour over 2 years without having to spend tens of billions of dollars on new tax breaks for people who need them the least? Instead of working to pass a people's agenda, our Republican colleagues have spent most of the last 2 years pursuing one goal: Cutting taxes the wrong way, creating huge new tax breaks at the expense of everything and everyone else. This week we will lose more time and more opportunities because they insist on trying to override the President's vetoes on their so-called marriage penalty and estate tax bills. Never mind that 60 percent of the cost of their marriage penalty has nothing to do with fixing the marriage penalty. Never mind their estate tax bill benefits only the wealthiest 2 percent of estates. Never mind that neither bill will help middle-class families. In fact, they will hurt ordinary Americans by eating up the expected surplus, money we need for other things. Our friends on the other side of the aisle clearly think their tax cuts are good politics. They just hope the American people accept their spin and don't check the facts. Despite the history of this Congress, my colleagues and I have not given up hope for its future. Five weeks is not a lot of time, but it is enough time. Even given the time we must spend on appropriations bills and the China trade legislation, there is still enough time for this Congress to solve some of the problems real people talk about and worry about outside of Washington. In 1948, Republicans held their Presidential nominating convention in Philadelphia. At that convention they endorsed a platform filled with all kinds of measures a Republican Congress had spent the previous 2 years blocking. Back then there was no September session of Congress. It went from the convention to the campaign trail. President Truman was so amazed by what he heard in Philadelphia, he ordered Congress back for a special session. He told Members: There is still time before the election. If you really believe what you say, pass your platform and I will sign it. Last month, our Republican friends held another nominating convention in Philadelphia, the first time they have been back since 1948. Once again, they claim to support all kinds of things Republicans in this Congress have spent the last 2 years fighting. We have a request for our friends across the aisle, right now, tonight. There are still 5 weeks left in this Congress. Let's use this time to do the things you said in Philadelphia you support. Let's pass a responsible budget that pays down the debt, protects Social Security and Medicare, and invests in America's future. Let's cut taxes for working families. Let's strengthen our children's schools and protect our children from gun violence. Let's raise the minimum wage $1 an hour over 2 years. Let's finally pass a prescription drug benefit and a real Patients' Bill of Rights. We were pleased by what we heard in Philadelphia about prescription drugs and a Patients' Bill of Rights. We are more pleased with the commercial running in Rhode Island. That commercial, paid for by the Republican Senate Committee, praised Senator Chafee for. . . . voting against his own party and for a real Patients' Bill of Rights . . . and a prescription-drug benefit that gives seniors the drugs they need at a price they can afford. Both of those plans referred to in that ad are our plans. We intend to give our colleagues a chance to make that record match the rhetoric before this Congress ends. We will start by offering the bipartisan Norwood-Dingell Patients' Bill of Rights the first chance we get. There is no reason the American people should have to wait until next Congress for a real Patients' Bill of Rights. It is time to stop stalling. It is time for an up-or-down vote in this Senate on the Dingell-Norwood Patients' Bill of Rights bill. We also intend to give our colleagues the chance to support a voluntary affordable prescription drug benefit. If they really believe in these things, they will have the opportunity to work with this side to pass them. Let's schedule the vote. We will support them, and the President will sign them. We spend far too much time in this Congress talking about things that don't matter for working families and avoiding the problems that do matter. The progress we had hoped to make at the beginning of this Congress is still within our reach. Let's not waste another day. Let's work hard in these next 5 weeks on the issues I have mentioned, into the night and through the weekends if we have to. Let's not give up until we have honestly said we have done what the American people sent us here to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I haven't had the opportunity yet today to welcome all of our colleagues back and to express my hope that we use this next period as productively and as successfully as we can. As have most of my colleagues, I had the opportunity to spend a good deal of time at home in South Dakota for the last 3 weeks. I especially want to commend the Forest Service for the extraordinary job they have done in fighting historically the most consequential fire we have had in the State now, with 85,000 acres of timberland burned. I am grateful for the response we have had from people all over the country. I especially thank the Forest Service, the Governor of the State of South Dakota, William Janklow, for the remarkable job he has done, the National Guard for their response, and the volunteer fire departments from all over the State of South Dakota and surrounding region. We are grateful for their extraordinary response, and we are grateful as well for the effort that has been made to contain the fire which is now 85-percent contained. I thank the volunteer ambulance personnel whom I met from all over the State. We are experiencing what many of our colleagues are experiencing with volunteer ambulance service. Many of them are on the verge of going out of business because of reimbursement schedules for Medicare and Medicaid. Without those, especially in rural areas, we are in a very serious set of circumstances involving the health and in many cases the lives of people who live in rural areas today. I thank those in schools all over South Dakota who opened their doors and their offices to me in Kadoka, White River, Lemmon, and most of our Indian reservations in Belle Fourche. I thank them. I thank those who especially were willing to meet with me on hospital reimbursement and appreciate very much their willingness to talk about how serious the circumstances were with regard to Medicare reimbursement for hospitals and clinics throughout our State. I must say, at virtually every one of our stops we had occasion to talk about the unfinished agenda here in the Senate. I want to talk just briefly about that prior to the time we turn to another important piece of legislation, the energy and water bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, our tribal colleges and universities have come to play a critically important role in educating Native Americans across the country. For more than 30 years, these institutions have proven instrumental in providing a quality education for those who had previously been failed by our mainstream educational system. Before the tribal college movement began, only six or seven out of 100 Native American students attended college. Of those few, only one or two would graduate with a degree. Since these institutions have curricula that is culturally relevant and is often focused on a tribe's particular philosophy, culture, language and economic needs, they have a high success rate in educating Native American people. As a result, I am happy to say that tribal college enrollment has increased 62 percent over the last six years. The results of a tribal college education are impressive. Recent studies show that 91 percent of 1998 tribal college and university graduates are working or pursuing additional education one year after graduating. Over the last ten years, the unemployment rate of recently polled tribal college graduates was 15 percent, compared to 55 percent on many reservations overall. While tribal colleges and universities have been highly successful in helping Native Americans obtain a higher education, many challenges remain to ensure the future success of these institutions. These schools rely heavily on federal resources to provide educational opportunities for all students. As a result, I strongly support efforts to provide additional funding to these colleges through the Interior, Agriculture and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bills. In addition to resource constraints, administrators have expressed a particular frustration over the difficulty they experience in attracting qualified individuals to teach at tribal colleges. Geographic isolation and low faculty salaries have made recruitment and retention particularly difficult for many of these schools. This problem is increasing as enrollment rises. That is why I am introducing the Tribal College or University Loan Forgiveness Act. This legislation will provide loan forgiveness to individuals who commit to teach for up to five years in one of the 32 tribal colleges nationwide. Individuals who have Perkins, Direct, or Guaranteed loans may qualify to receive up to $15,000 in loan forgiveness. This program will provide these schools extra help in attracting qualified teachers, and thus help ensure that deserving students receive a high quality education. This measure will benefit individual students and their communities. By providing greater opportunities for Native American students to develop skills and expertise, this bill will spur economic growth and help bring prosperity and self-sufficiency to communities that desperately need it. Native Americans and the tribal college system deserve nothing less. I believe our responsibility was probably best summed up by one of my state's greatest leaders, Sitting Bull. He once said, ``Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children.'' I am pleased that Senators Bingaman, Conrad, Baucus, Kerrey, Kohl, Akaka, Johnson, Reid, Kennedy, and Dodd are original cosponsors of this bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Tribal Colleges or University Loan Forgiveness Act be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. If I may regain the floor, that is the whole idea behind the sequencing arrangement we are working on today. I think we have made some real progress in ensuring that we are going to take this up in an orderly way.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, our tribal colleges and universities have come to play a critically important role in educating Native Americans across the country. For more than 30 years, these institutions have proven instrumental in providing a quality education for those who had previously been failed by our mainstream educational system. Before the tribal college movement began, only six or seven out of 100 Native American students attended college. Of those few, only one or two would graduate with a degree. Since these institutions have curricula that is culturally relevant and is often focused on a tribe's particular philosophy, culture, language and economic needs, they have a high success rate in educating Native American people. As a result, I am happy to say that tribal college enrollment has increased 62 percent over the last six years. The results of a tribal college education are impressive. Recent studies show that 91 percent of 1998 tribal college and university graduates are working or pursuing additional education one year after graduating. Over the last ten years, the unemployment rate of recently polled tribal college graduates was 15 percent, compared to 55 percent on many reservations overall. While tribal colleges and universities have been highly successful in helping Native Americans obtain a higher education, many challenges remain to ensure the future success of these institutions. These schools rely heavily on federal resources to provide educational opportunities for all students. As a result, I strongly support efforts to provide additional funding to these colleges through the Interior, Agriculture and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bills. In addition to resource constraints, administrators have expressed a particular frustration over the difficulty they experience in attracting qualified individuals to teach at tribal colleges. Geographic isolation and low faculty salaries have made recruitment and retention particularly difficult for many of these schools. This problem is increasing as enrollment rises. That is why I am introducing the Tribal College or University Loan Forgiveness Act. This legislation will provide loan forgiveness to individuals who commit to teach for up to five years in one of the 32 tribal colleges nationwide. Individuals who have Perkins, Direct, or Guaranteed loans may qualify to receive up to $15,000 in loan forgiveness. This program will provide these schools extra help in attracting qualified teachers, and thus help ensure that deserving students receive a high quality education. This measure will benefit individual students and their communities. By providing greater opportunities for Native American students to develop skills and expertise, this bill will spur economic growth and help bring prosperity and self-sufficiency to communities that desperately need it. Native Americans and the tribal college system deserve nothing less. I believe our responsibility was probably best summed up by one of my state's greatest leaders, Sitting Bull. He once said, ``Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children.'' I am pleased that Senators Bingaman, Conrad, Baucus, Kerrey, Kohl, Akaka, Johnson, Reid, Kennedy, and Dodd are original cosponsors of this bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Tribal Colleges or University Loan Forgiveness Act be printed in the Record following my remarks.