Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 504, E. Douglas Hamilton, of Kentucky, to be U.S. Marshal, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I may ask the majority leader a question, the unanimous consent doesn't address this, but I assume the 4 hours tonight would be equally divided.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I, therefore, send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this weekend an estimated 750,000 mothers, fathers, and children united for the Million Mom March here in the District. These women and men took the first step toward ending the epidemic of gun violence in our country. Certainly, Congress needs to take the next step. It is intolerable that commonsense gun safety legislation is stalled in a conference committee that has not met since August 5 of 1999. Twelve kids die a day from gun violence and we do nothing. We have more safety regulations for toy guns than for real guns, and we do nothing. We have watched children shot in schools and day-care centers, but still we do nothing. Yesterday, the Democratic Policy Committee held a hearing with mothers from the Million Mom March. At the hearing, I heard stories that I must say will haunt me for a long time. I listened to a kindergarten schoolteacher talk about her horror when one of her seemingly innocent students, a kindergartner, brought a gun to school to kill a classmate. She remains afraid to teach and afraid for her students. I listened to the mother of an aspiring high school graduate who was gunned down in front of his girlfriend's home while unloading groceries. As she talked about her loss, and demanded Congress act, she said simply: I don't want this to happen to any other mother, father, sister or brother. I don't want anyone else to suffer like this. I listened to a mother whose oldest son was shot and killed by a neighbor in a sleepy town in California. She told us: I came to the District to protect my son, Brandon, from gun violence because he is the only child that I have left. I ask my colleagues, what else will it take for us to act to stem this domestic war of violence that is infecting every city and county in our beloved country? We cannot wait any longer for the juvenile justice conference to meet and act. I was disappointed by comments made by the National Rifle Association when asked whether all of this effort, 750,000 people coming to Washington as peacefully as any group I have ever seen come, organized in a respectful way, telling their stories, as tragic as they are, with the courage that I don't think I personally could muster, the personal stories of lost sons and daughters, mothers and fathers--the NRA was asked the question, Will this translate to political power? Their answer: It's one thing to say it. It's another thing to do it. They understand political power. They have it. But I do think that is changing. The landscape is changing, and it is changing dramatically. As a South Dakotan who has been raised with guns all my life, who is proud to be a hunter--I have many guns myself--I will say without equivocation that it, too, is even changing in my home State. Given the fact it has now been more than a year, given the fact that we have not yet acted, given the fact that we ought to respond to all those people who came to Washington with their courage and with what few pennies they had to pay for their trips, I ask unanimous consent that no rule XVI point of order lie against any gun-related amendment to the military construction appropriations. This would apply to Republican or Democratic amendments.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to table the point of order and ask for the yeas and nays. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the debt we owe to the men and women who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces is one that we will never be able to repay adequately. They sacrifice so much of themselves to defend our nation and its ideals, and ask for so little in return. Today, I would like to focus the Senate's attention on one such veteran, who entered the United States Marine Corps more than a quarter-century ago. Colonel Wayne Shaw, who was a Marine for over 28 years, retired recently and delivered a farewell address to his fellow officers at Quantico, Virginia. Colonel Shaw's address at Quantico was not your typical ``feel-good'' retirement speech. In it, he makes a number of observations about how the Marine Corps has changed in recent years--and how, in his view, many of those changes have weakened the Corps that, for the sake of our country and the world, needs to remain strong. Not a man to mince words, Colonel Shaw lists in his speech a number of concerns he has about the future of the Marine Corps. Colonel Shaw does not question the future of the Corps because of any disillusionment he may have about the institution. Rather, he questions the future of the Corps because of his love for and devotion to it. Colonel Shaw is certainly entitled--if anyone is--to critique the Marine Corps because of his unique commitment to this country for nearly three decades. I believe we owe it to Colonel Shaw and other veterans like him to pay heed to his words of warning and carefully consider his suggestions to sustain the integrity of the U.S. Marine Corps. I hope each and every member of this chamber will do so. I ask unanimous consent that Colonel Shaw's retirement address be printed into the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend our colleague, Senator Lautenberg, for his efforts. He has done the Senate a service and has called the Senate and the Nation's attention to the importance of the Million Mom March. I appreciate as well the participation and the leadership Senator Boxer is always able to provide for our caucus on so many issues before the Senate. They have articulated very ably and admirably for our caucus today in expressing to all of those coming from all parts of the country how important it is they express themselves, how important it is they exercise their constitutional opportunities in this great country, how important it is they send a message to the rest of the country, as well as to Members of the Congress, the critical nature of the need to address the gun issue in an effective way. That is all they are coming to express themselves on, and it is appropriate at this time, and given the tremendous message that numbers of women will send by their presence, that we acknowledge their presence and welcome them to this city; that we tell them we are listening; that we resolve to respond in as effective a way as we can. Again, I thank the senior Senator from New Jersey for his efforts, and the Senator from California for participating, for sending that message loudly and clearly and for doing all they can to recognize the importance of what will happen in Washington on Sunday. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know we are about to go out. Before we do, I wanted to call attention to the fact that I wish we could have taken up the ESEA bill again this afternoon. The fact is that we have amendments that could have been offered on either side. We have indicated a willingness to even offer time agreements on virtually all amendments. There are a number of amendments that are pending. We are told that we just do not have time on the schedule to revisit ESEA this week. I really question that. The fact is that we have been in morning business all afternoon. We are not going to be in session tomorrow. We will be in debate only scheduled on Monday for the military construction bill. We are not overworked here. It seems to me that on an issue as important as ESEA needs to be addressed. The fact is, it should have been reauthorized last year. It wasn't. It needs to be reauthorized this year. We have fewer than 40 legislative days left between now and the time that we are scheduled to adjourn. With appropriations bills, the China debate, and a number of other issues unfinished--bankruptcy we hope, and other issues--there is very little time. So it seems to me that we ought to be using what time we have available to us to our best advantage. Being in morning business for most of the day is not my concept of utilization of time in an appropriate way. Again, I express the regret that we haven't had more of a chance this week to deal with this very, very critical bill. The education bill ought to be finished. We worked on it in a very constructive way, I have felt. There has been progress--limited, but, nonetheless, progress. We could have had a lot more progress. There is no reason why we can't finish this bill. There is no reason why we couldn't have done another bloc of amendments today and some amendments tomorrow. In fact, I think maybe we could have finished the bill this week. That is now impossible. And there is no prospect of bringing the bill up at least for the foreseeable future, given what the majority leader has indicated is his intention with regard to appropriations bills. I am troubled and disappointed by that. I make note of that as we end the day today. Hopefully, we will have more productive weeks and more opportunities to debate this issue. But time is going by quickly. We don't have that much more time. I hope we can better use the time we have. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the majority leader for his statement and for the effort he has put forward in bringing us to this point. I agree with virtually every word he has just spoken about the importance of this matter and about the extraordinary influence it will have on trade policy to important parts of the world today. This is not only good trade policy, it is good economic policy, and it is good diplomatic policy. It is extremely important that people realize the diplomatic, economic, and trade ramifications of this legislation. I have watched with great admiration as this legislation has been produced. I must say it is one of the many reasons I have come to admire our ranking member on the Finance Committee and his extraordinary effort in getting us to this point. I don't know that I have talked to him about any matter as often as I have talked to him about this in recent months. This is one he has lived and breathed. We are very grateful to him for his leadership and for all of the work he did to get us to this point. I have already expressed myself in regard to the importance of the legislation and the extraordinary amount of effort that has gone into the work today. This would not have happened were it not for the involvement of a number of our colleagues. Its importance cannot be overemphasized. This is good for this country, and as I noted, it is important we recognize the new opportunities that it presents, not only for the Caribbean countries and Africa but for this country especially. I would be remiss if I were not to mention the tremendous leadership demonstrated by the distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. On every issue involving Central and Latin America, our caucus depends upon him to a remarkable degree. He is, without a doubt, our expert on South America, on Central America, and on international issues. I personally find myself required, in many cases, to turn to him as the person in whom I have the greatest trust and for whom I have the greatest admiration when it comes to his knowledge of these issues. I thank Senator Dodd for all of his efforts in getting us to this point. I also thank Senator Graham from Florida who has put a great deal of effort into the vote we were able to get this morning, and I am grateful to him. Finally, Senator Baucus also has worked diligently with all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and is also extraordinarily knowledgeable on trade matters. We have a number of our colleagues who, because they worked as hard as they did, because they showed the leadership they did, because they were as committed as they were to resolving outstanding differences and working through these many issues in a way that allowed us this success, we ought to pause and thank today. It is not often we see legislation, and trade legislation in particular, of this import with the kind of vote we just cast. It is a great day for this country. I again publicly express my appreciation for their diligence and for their work in getting us to this point.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with 34 of our Senate Democratic colleagues in introducing the Medicare Expansion for Needed Drugs Act, a bill to mend Medicare by adding a long overdue prescription drug benefit. I want to begin by thanking all the people who have brought us to this point. Senator Dorgan and many of our other colleagues have held numerous hearings in Washington, and around the country on the issue of Medicare prescription drug coverage. I thank my colleagues and all who came to the hearings. I know that they heard from people at those hearings they would not have otherwise heard from. The testimony they heard was virtually unanimous at each of these hearings, that Medicare must now, this year, be expanded to include necessary coverage. I also thank all of the seniors, pharmacists, doctors, and others who took the time to educate us on this important matter. Their wisdom has made this a better bill. In addition, I thank the President--for keeping the issue of Medicare prescription drugs on the national agenda, and for providing the framework for our proposal. I thank the many organizations representing seniors and consumers who told us about the terrible strain paying for prescription drugs places on seniors and their families. Most of all, I thank the many seniors from all across America who told us about their struggles to pay for prescription drugs. I want to share with you one example from my State. Fran Novotny is a 70-year-old retired nurse from Hill City, SD. She takes prescription medications every day to control diabetes, hypertension, and asthma. She has also had bypass surgery. Every month, she gets a Social Security check for $616. Every month, she spends about $550 on prescriptions. She has a small pension, but it doesn't add up to much. So she is quickly depleting her entire life savings. After it is gone, she has no idea how she will pay for her medications. Her story, and many others like it, are the reason we must move forward and enact a Medicare prescription drug benefit this year. We must make sure that Fran Novotny--and the millions of seniors like her--can afford their prescriptions--and their grocery bills and their rent and their clothing and their utility bills. The average Medicare beneficiary fills 18 prescriptions a year. Yet three-in-five Medicare beneficiaries lack decent, dependable coverage for prescription drugs. And more than one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries--more than 15 million seniors--have no prescription drug coverage at all. This is not a problem faced only by the poorest beneficiaries. More than half of all Medicare beneficiaries without coverage have incomes above 150 percent of poverty, That is why two-thirds of the Democratic caucus has joined in introducing this bill to make prescription drug coverage available and affordable to all Medicare beneficiaries. Our plan is universal. Every single Medicare beneficiary who wants the coverage has it under this bill. Second, our plan is voluntary. It is not a requirement that you sign up for this legislation. If you have a good plan, use it. If you have a good company, stay with it. If you have a plan that works for you, for whatever reason, this plan encourages you to stay right where you are. But if you do not have coverage, if you need coverage and cannot get it anywhere else, this bill will make it available to you for the first time. Every Medicare beneficiary can choose to participate, whether he or she is in traditional, fee-for-service Medicare or a Medicare Plus Choice plan. Retirees who already have private prescription drug coverage can keep it. It is up to them. We also provide incentives to employers to provide and maintain drug coverage. We do not want to see the people who are now providing it to their employees or retirees dropping these people once this plan becomes available, so we have encouraged, we have incentivized businesses to do that. Our plan provides meaningful coverage. Medicare would cover half of beneficiaries' discounted prescription drug bills, up to $5,000 a year. That means that Fran Novotny--who spends $550 a month on prescription drugs--would be able to save at least $275 a month. That $275 a month will make a real difference in her life. Our plan also provides catastrophic coverage for people who need to take very expensive drugs that can cost $5,000, or $10,000 a year, or more. It is our hope that after a Medicare beneficiary has paid the first $3,000 or $4,000 in catastrophic care costs, Medicare would pick up the balance. Our program is also affordable. Beneficiaries would pay premiums to cover about half the cost of the program. Medicare would contribute the other half. Seniors with incomes between 135 percent and 150 percent of poverty would receive assistance with their premiums. Those with incomes below 135 percent of poverty would receive assistance with premiums and copays. Our plan would give seniors bargaining power that they just don't have today. The problem today isn't just that seniors end up paying out-of-pocket expenses for their prescriptions, they also pay a lot more for those out-of-pocket costs. On average, seniors pay twice as much for their medications as big insurance companies and HMOs do today. The fact that seniors face the highest prices at the drugstore is, frankly, wrong. Our plan gives seniors the bargaining power that comes with numbers. Another thing our plan does--which is very important to many of us in rural areas--is to include special protections to make sure that Medicare beneficiaries who live in rural communities have the same affordable, timely access to prescription drugs as everyone else. It gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to offer pharmacists incentives to cover rural communities and other hard- to-serve areas. Every American should be able to get affordable prescription drugs--when they need them--whether they live in a big city or a small town. Our plan mirrors the best practices used in the private sector. For beneficiaries in traditional Medicare, prescription drug coverage would be delivered by private entities that negotiate prices with drug manufacturers. This is the same mechanism used by private insurers. Beneficiaries in Medicare Plus Choice plans would get their prescription drug coverage through their Plus Choice plan. Finally, the bill recognizes that we need to shift the focus of Medicare from simply treating illness, to keeping beneficiaries well. While prescription drug coverage is an important first step in this effort, there are likely other changes we should make. So this bill sets up a process for Congress to consider further benefit changes--to enhance prevention--on an expedited basis. I want to thank Senator Graham for his leadership on this important issue. On the issue of broader Medicare reform, I would like to see prescription drugs pass as part of a larger package of reforms and modernizations, and I believe this bill and its benefit is consistent with such efforts. I'm also pleased to report that our bill is supported by an array of important groups: The National Council of Senior Citizens; the Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare; National Council on the Aging; the Older Women's League; the AFL-CIO; The National Community Pharmacists Association; Families USA; Consumers Union; the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations; the Association for Homes and Services for the Aging; the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging; and AARP. We hope we will have support from our Republican colleagues, too. Prescription drug coverage for all seniors is an issue on which we cannot afford to procrastinate. The cost of delay is too great--in lost opportunities, lost health, and lost lives. In 1965, when Medicare was created, it didn't include prescription drug coverage. Neither did most private insurance plans. Today, virtually all private health plans offer some sort of prescription drug coverage--but not Medicare. It is time--it is past time--to close this gap. Prescription drugs are an integral part of medicine today. They ought to be an integral part of Medicare. Period. Now--before the Baby Boomers retire, and the problems are still manageable--is the time to strengthen Medicare. Now, while our economy is strong, and we have a surplus, is the time to add a universal, voluntary, and affordable prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at this point the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with 34 of our Senate Democratic colleagues in introducing the Medicare Expansion for Needed Drugs Act, a bill to mend Medicare by adding a long overdue prescription drug benefit. I want to begin by thanking all the people who have brought us to this point. Senator Dorgan and many of our other colleagues have held numerous hearings in Washington, and around the country on the issue of Medicare prescription drug coverage. I thank my colleagues and all who came to the hearings. I know that they heard from people at those hearings they would not have otherwise heard from. The testimony they heard was virtually unanimous at each of these hearings, that Medicare must now, this year, be expanded to include necessary coverage. I also thank all of the seniors, pharmacists, doctors, and others who took the time to educate us on this important matter. Their wisdom has made this a better bill. In addition, I thank the President--for keeping the issue of Medicare prescription drugs on the national agenda, and for providing the framework for our proposal. I thank the many organizations representing seniors and consumers who told us about the terrible strain paying for prescription drugs places on seniors and their families. Most of all, I thank the many seniors from all across America who told us about their struggles to pay for prescription drugs. I want to share with you one example from my State. Fran Novotny is a 70-year-old retired nurse from Hill City, SD. She takes prescription medications every day to control diabetes, hypertension, and asthma. She has also had bypass surgery. Every month, she gets a Social Security check for $616. Every month, she spends about $550 on prescriptions. She has a small pension, but it doesn't add up to much. So she is quickly depleting her entire life savings. After it is gone, she has no idea how she will pay for her medications. Her story, and many others like it, are the reason we must move forward and enact a Medicare prescription drug benefit this year. We must make sure that Fran Novotny--and the millions of seniors like her--can afford their prescriptions--and their grocery bills and their rent and their clothing and their utility bills. The average Medicare beneficiary fills 18 prescriptions a year. Yet three-in-five Medicare beneficiaries lack decent, dependable coverage for prescription drugs. And more than one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries--more than 15 million seniors--have no prescription drug coverage at all. This is not a problem faced only by the poorest beneficiaries. More than half of all Medicare beneficiaries without coverage have incomes above 150 percent of poverty, That is why two-thirds of the Democratic caucus has joined in introducing this bill to make prescription drug coverage available and affordable to all Medicare beneficiaries. Our plan is universal. Every single Medicare beneficiary who wants the coverage has it under this bill. Second, our plan is voluntary. It is not a requirement that you sign up for this legislation. If you have a good plan, use it. If you have a good company, stay with it. If you have a plan that works for you, for whatever reason, this plan encourages you to stay right where you are. But if you do not have coverage, if you need coverage and cannot get it anywhere else, this bill will make it available to you for the first time. Every Medicare beneficiary can choose to participate, whether he or she is in traditional, fee-for-service Medicare or a Medicare Plus Choice plan. Retirees who already have private prescription drug coverage can keep it. It is up to them. We also provide incentives to employers to provide and maintain drug coverage. We do not want to see the people who are now providing it to their employees or retirees dropping these people once this plan becomes available, so we have encouraged, we have incentivized businesses to do that. Our plan provides meaningful coverage. Medicare would cover half of beneficiaries' discounted prescription drug bills, up to $5,000 a year. That means that Fran Novotny--who spends $550 a month on prescription drugs--would be able to save at least $275 a month. That $275 a month will make a real difference in her life. Our plan also provides catastrophic coverage for people who need to take very expensive drugs that can cost $5,000, or $10,000 a year, or more. It is our hope that after a Medicare beneficiary has paid the first $3,000 or $4,000 in catastrophic care costs, Medicare would pick up the balance. Our program is also affordable. Beneficiaries would pay premiums to cover about half the cost of the program. Medicare would contribute the other half. Seniors with incomes between 135 percent and 150 percent of poverty would receive assistance with their premiums. Those with incomes below 135 percent of poverty would receive assistance with premiums and copays. Our plan would give seniors bargaining power that they just don't have today. The problem today isn't just that seniors end up paying out-of-pocket expenses for their prescriptions, they also pay a lot more for those out-of-pocket costs. On average, seniors pay twice as much for their medications as big insurance companies and HMOs do today. The fact that seniors face the highest prices at the drugstore is, frankly, wrong. Our plan gives seniors the bargaining power that comes with numbers. Another thing our plan does--which is very important to many of us in rural areas--is to include special protections to make sure that Medicare beneficiaries who live in rural communities have the same affordable, timely access to prescription drugs as everyone else. It gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to offer pharmacists incentives to cover rural communities and other hard- to-serve areas. Every American should be able to get affordable prescription drugs--when they need them--whether they live in a big city or a small town. Our plan mirrors the best practices used in the private sector. For beneficiaries in traditional Medicare, prescription drug coverage would be delivered by private entities that negotiate prices with drug manufacturers. This is the same mechanism used by private insurers. Beneficiaries in Medicare Plus Choice plans would get their prescription drug coverage through their Plus Choice plan. Finally, the bill recognizes that we need to shift the focus of Medicare from simply treating illness, to keeping beneficiaries well. While prescription drug coverage is an important first step in this effort, there are likely other changes we should make. So this bill sets up a process for Congress to consider further benefit changes--to enhance prevention--on an expedited basis. I want to thank Senator Graham for his leadership on this important issue. On the issue of broader Medicare reform, I would like to see prescription drugs pass as part of a larger package of reforms and modernizations, and I believe this bill and its benefit is consistent with such efforts. I'm also pleased to report that our bill is supported by an array of important groups: The National Council of Senior Citizens; the Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare; National Council on the Aging; the Older Women's League; the AFL-CIO; The National Community Pharmacists Association; Families USA; Consumers Union; the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations; the Association for Homes and Services for the Aging; the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging; and AARP. We hope we will have support from our Republican colleagues, too. Prescription drug coverage for all seniors is an issue on which we cannot afford to procrastinate. The cost of delay is too great--in lost opportunities, lost health, and lost lives. In 1965, when Medicare was created, it didn't include prescription drug coverage. Neither did most private insurance plans. Today, virtually all private health plans offer some sort of prescription drug coverage--but not Medicare. It is time--it is past time--to close this gap. Prescription drugs are an integral part of medicine today. They ought to be an integral part of Medicare. Period. Now--before the Baby Boomers retire, and the problems are still manageable--is the time to strengthen Medicare. Now, while our economy is strong, and we have a surplus, is the time to add a universal, voluntary, and affordable prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at this point the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, ten years ago I joined with two distinguished colleagues, then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and Senator Tom Harkin, to introduce the reformulated gasoline (RFG) provision of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The RFG provision, with its minimum oxygen standard, was adopted in the Senate by the overwhelming vote of 69 to 30 and eventually signed into law by President George Bush. I am proud to say that this program has resulted in substantial improvement in air quality around the country. It also has stimulated increased production and use of renewable ethanol and other oxygenates needed to meet the minimum oxygen standard. Unfortunately, an unanticipated development involving the petroleum- based oxygenate MTBE requires us to re-examine the many benefits of the RFG program. The detection of MTBE in ground water around the country has generated considerable debate in recent months over how to deal with this fuel additive and the oxygen requirement of the reformulated gasoline program. The resolution of this debate will have significant consequences for the environment, for farmers and for the rural economy. The pace of activity to resolve the MTBE issue is accelerating rapidly. Battlelines are being drawn as the state of California and its allies focus on scrapping the oxygen requirement. It is clear that Congress and/or the Clinton administration will respond to the MTBE problem. My focus is on ensuring that that response not only serves the environment, but also retains a prominent place for ethanol--a place that assures long-term, predictable growth of the industry. I believe a comprehensive legislative solution is necessary in this case--one that recognizes and preserves the important air quality benefits of the RFG program, protects water supplies and leads the nation away from greater dependence on imported oil. I have worked for the last year with the ethanol industry, Republican and Democratic colleagues in the Senate, the Governor's Ethanol Coalition, environmental organizations and the administration in search of a solution that gives states the tools they need to address MTBE contamination, ensures the future growth of domestic renewable fuels, and prevents supply shortages and price spikes in the nation's fuels supply. This process has led me to two basic conclusions. First, the MTBE crisis has left the RFG oxygen requirement vulnerable to legislative attack. Those who doubt this conclusion should reflect on the following facts. California refiners have shown that clean-burning gasoline can be produced without oxygen. EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel has recommended that the oxygen requirement be repealed. The RFG oxygen requirement is opposed by a diverse coalition that includes the American Lung Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the New England States Coordinated Air Use Management agency, the State of California and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Second, support for the oxygen requirement will weaken over time. Improvements in auto emissions control technology will cause the air quality benefits of oxygen in gasoline to decline and the justification for the RFG oxygen requirement to diminish. As one of the original authors of the reformulated gasoline provisions of the Clean Air Act, I feel something of a proprietary interest in the oxygen requirement. As a legislator, I recognize that circumstances change, and obstinacy should not be allowed to become a barrier to the achievement of important policy goals. Ethanol advocates face a choice between defending the oxygen requirement in the near term, realizing that its days ultimately are numbered, or using the current MTBE debate to guarantee the future growth of the ethanol industry based on important public policy goals, such as energy security, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and domestic economic growth. In my judgment, providing states with the flexibility to waive the RFG oxygen requirement is a fair tradeoff for the establishment of a renewable fuels standard. It represents the most effective way to achieve the environmental and economic goals of governors and consumers, while putting the ethanol industry on a steady growth path well into the future and promoting ethanol production in new regions of the nation. Therefore, today, with Senator Richard Lugar, I am introducing the Renewable Fuels Act of 2000. Under our legislation, EPA is directed to reduce the use of MTBE to safe levels, and states can obtain waivers from the RFG oxygen requirement and further regulate MTBE if they desire. This will allow the nation to deal with the MTBE contamination issue responsibly and avoid gasoline supply disruptions. The bill also includes provisions protecting the air quality gains that have resulted from the use of oxygenated fuels. To protect market opportunities for renewable fuels, the bill establishes a renewable fuels standard for the nation's gasoline, which begins in 2000 at 1.3 percent--roughly where renewable fuels production stands today--and gradually increases over the next decade to 3.3 percent of the nation's gasoline in 2010. Considering the fact that overall gasoline use is expected to increase over the next decade, this standard will more than triple ethanol use over that period. In meeting that requirement, our legislation stipulates that a gallon of biomass ethanol counts as much as 1.5 gallons of starch-based ethanol, thereby providing a strong incentive for the development of biomass-based ethanol plans throughout the country. It also established a renewable fuels standard for diesel fuels to promote the use of biodiesel. These renewable fuels standards can be met through nationwide credit trading, to allow for the most economomical use of ethanol and biodiesel. For those who are concerned about the potential impact of a drought or other natural disaster on the ability of the renewable fuels industry to supply this market, the legislation allows the EPA Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to waive the renewable requirement in any given year upon determination that there is indequate domestic supply or distribution capacity, or that the requirement would severely harm the economic or environment of a State, a region, or the United States. I also intend to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to establish a strategic corn reserve as a complement to the renewable fuel standard. A properly managed strategic corn reserve could serve as the equivalent of the strategic petroleum reserve and ensure stable feedstocks for domestic ethanol producers in the event of weather induced supply interruptions. Taxpayers would benefit as farmers could receive fair market prices, thereby reducing the need for emergency assistance each year. It is important to recognize that under Senator Lugar's and my approach, the oxygen requirement is not waived entirely. States can decide for themselves whether to apply for a waiver from the RFG oxygen requirement. We fully expect that RFG programs that currently are using ethanol and have not experienced MTBE contamination, such as Chicago and Milwaukee, will stay in the program. Moreover, the bill allows any governor to apply to EPA to opt into the RFG program, thus expanding its air quality benefits to new regions of the country. Those areas that remain in the program or opt into it, and use ethanol, will generate credits that can be sold to other regions of the country. Finally, the bill prevents adverse effects on states' highway trust fund tax allocations, with ``hold harmless'' language ensuring that states reporting Federal excise tax receipts on gasoline are not penalized for their ethanol blend sales. Again, my goal in introducing this legislation is both to support states that want to get MTBE out of gasoline and to ensure that this effort does not adversely affect ethanol production. It is also to put into place a program that will grow the ethanol industry steadily over the next decade, thereby assuring the market stability necessary to attract investment in the construction of new plants and significantly increasing the market for corn and biomass. This approach not only will get MTBE out of groundwater; it will do so without backsliding on the air quality improvements generated by the RFG program while increasing corn demand by 600 million bushels per year. Mr. President, since first floating this concept in May of last year, I have heard from numerous stakeholders in this complex debate. The legislative concept that Senator Lugar and I unveil today has been endorsed by diverse interests ranging from the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to the 24-state Governors' Ethanol Coalition, to the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) to Mr. Leo Leibowitz, chairman of Getty Petroleum. I believe that we have struck a delicate balance between the interests of farmers, consumers, state regulatory officials, refiners and those concerned about the environment. This plan is a worthy successor to the original 1990 RFG provision, preserving all of the good things it has achieved and rectifying those elements that need fixing. I look forward to working with Senators Smith and Baucus, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, to enact legislation resolving the MTBE issue. I hope that other colleagues will join Senator Lugar and me in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, ten years ago I joined with two distinguished colleagues, then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole and Senator Tom Harkin, to introduce the reformulated gasoline (RFG) provision of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The RFG provision, with its minimum oxygen standard, was adopted in the Senate by the overwhelming vote of 69 to 30 and eventually signed into law by President George Bush. I am proud to say that this program has resulted in substantial improvement in air quality around the country. It also has stimulated increased production and use of renewable ethanol and other oxygenates needed to meet the minimum oxygen standard. Unfortunately, an unanticipated development involving the petroleum- based oxygenate MTBE requires us to re-examine the many benefits of the RFG program. The detection of MTBE in ground water around the country has generated considerable debate in recent months over how to deal with this fuel additive and the oxygen requirement of the reformulated gasoline program. The resolution of this debate will have significant consequences for the environment, for farmers and for the rural economy. The pace of activity to resolve the MTBE issue is accelerating rapidly. Battlelines are being drawn as the state of California and its allies focus on scrapping the oxygen requirement. It is clear that Congress and/or the Clinton administration will respond to the MTBE problem. My focus is on ensuring that that response not only serves the environment, but also retains a prominent place for ethanol--a place that assures long-term, predictable growth of the industry. I believe a comprehensive legislative solution is necessary in this case--one that recognizes and preserves the important air quality benefits of the RFG program, protects water supplies and leads the nation away from greater dependence on imported oil. I have worked for the last year with the ethanol industry, Republican and Democratic colleagues in the Senate, the Governor's Ethanol Coalition, environmental organizations and the administration in search of a solution that gives states the tools they need to address MTBE contamination, ensures the future growth of domestic renewable fuels, and prevents supply shortages and price spikes in the nation's fuels supply. This process has led me to two basic conclusions. First, the MTBE crisis has left the RFG oxygen requirement vulnerable to legislative attack. Those who doubt this conclusion should reflect on the following facts. California refiners have shown that clean-burning gasoline can be produced without oxygen. EPA's Blue Ribbon Panel has recommended that the oxygen requirement be repealed. The RFG oxygen requirement is opposed by a diverse coalition that includes the American Lung Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the New England States Coordinated Air Use Management agency, the State of California and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Second, support for the oxygen requirement will weaken over time. Improvements in auto emissions control technology will cause the air quality benefits of oxygen in gasoline to decline and the justification for the RFG oxygen requirement to diminish. As one of the original authors of the reformulated gasoline provisions of the Clean Air Act, I feel something of a proprietary interest in the oxygen requirement. As a legislator, I recognize that circumstances change, and obstinacy should not be allowed to become a barrier to the achievement of important policy goals. Ethanol advocates face a choice between defending the oxygen requirement in the near term, realizing that its days ultimately are numbered, or using the current MTBE debate to guarantee the future growth of the ethanol industry based on important public policy goals, such as energy security, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and domestic economic growth. In my judgment, providing states with the flexibility to waive the RFG oxygen requirement is a fair tradeoff for the establishment of a renewable fuels standard. It represents the most effective way to achieve the environmental and economic goals of governors and consumers, while putting the ethanol industry on a steady growth path well into the future and promoting ethanol production in new regions of the nation. Therefore, today, with Senator Richard Lugar, I am introducing the Renewable Fuels Act of 2000. Under our legislation, EPA is directed to reduce the use of MTBE to safe levels, and states can obtain waivers from the RFG oxygen requirement and further regulate MTBE if they desire. This will allow the nation to deal with the MTBE contamination issue responsibly and avoid gasoline supply disruptions. The bill also includes provisions protecting the air quality gains that have resulted from the use of oxygenated fuels. To protect market opportunities for renewable fuels, the bill establishes a renewable fuels standard for the nation's gasoline, which begins in 2000 at 1.3 percent--roughly where renewable fuels production stands today--and gradually increases over the next decade to 3.3 percent of the nation's gasoline in 2010. Considering the fact that overall gasoline use is expected to increase over the next decade, this standard will more than triple ethanol use over that period. In meeting that requirement, our legislation stipulates that a gallon of biomass ethanol counts as much as 1.5 gallons of starch-based ethanol, thereby providing a strong incentive for the development of biomass-based ethanol plans throughout the country. It also established a renewable fuels standard for diesel fuels to promote the use of biodiesel. These renewable fuels standards can be met through nationwide credit trading, to allow for the most economomical use of ethanol and biodiesel. For those who are concerned about the potential impact of a drought or other natural disaster on the ability of the renewable fuels industry to supply this market, the legislation allows the EPA Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to waive the renewable requirement in any given year upon determination that there is indequate domestic supply or distribution capacity, or that the requirement would severely harm the economic or environment of a State, a region, or the United States. I also intend to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to establish a strategic corn reserve as a complement to the renewable fuel standard. A properly managed strategic corn reserve could serve as the equivalent of the strategic petroleum reserve and ensure stable feedstocks for domestic ethanol producers in the event of weather induced supply interruptions. Taxpayers would benefit as farmers could receive fair market prices, thereby reducing the need for emergency assistance each year. It is important to recognize that under Senator Lugar's and my approach, the oxygen requirement is not waived entirely. States can decide for themselves whether to apply for a waiver from the RFG oxygen requirement. We fully expect that RFG programs that currently are using ethanol and have not experienced MTBE contamination, such as Chicago and Milwaukee, will stay in the program. Moreover, the bill allows any governor to apply to EPA to opt into the RFG program, thus expanding its air quality benefits to new regions of the country. Those areas that remain in the program or opt into it, and use ethanol, will generate credits that can be sold to other regions of the country. Finally, the bill prevents adverse effects on states' highway trust fund tax allocations, with ``hold harmless'' language ensuring that states reporting Federal excise tax receipts on gasoline are not penalized for their ethanol blend sales. Again, my goal in introducing this legislation is both to support states that want to get MTBE out of gasoline and to ensure that this effort does not adversely affect ethanol production. It is also to put into place a program that will grow the ethanol industry steadily over the next decade, thereby assuring the market stability necessary to attract investment in the construction of new plants and significantly increasing the market for corn and biomass. This approach not only will get MTBE out of groundwater; it will do so without backsliding on the air quality improvements generated by the RFG program while increasing corn demand by 600 million bushels per year. Mr. President, since first floating this concept in May of last year, I have heard from numerous stakeholders in this complex debate. The legislative concept that Senator Lugar and I unveil today has been endorsed by diverse interests ranging from the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to the 24-state Governors' Ethanol Coalition, to the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) to Mr. Leo Leibowitz, chairman of Getty Petroleum. I believe that we have struck a delicate balance between the interests of farmers, consumers, state regulatory officials, refiners and those concerned about the environment. This plan is a worthy successor to the original 1990 RFG provision, preserving all of the good things it has achieved and rectifying those elements that need fixing. I look forward to working with Senators Smith and Baucus, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, to enact legislation resolving the MTBE issue. I hope that other colleagues will join Senator Lugar and me in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will not ask for time. As the majority leader has indicated, this does not in any way reflect what we have attempted to do beyond this agreement. We have some amendments on either side. Senator Dodd has a very important afterschool amendment that will come shortly after this lineup. We also have Senator Bingaman, dealing with accountability; Senator Harkin on construction; Senator Mikulski on digital divide; and Senator Dodd's amendment will likely come up after this agreement. I know there are Senators on the other side who will be in the mix as well. No one should think this limits their ability to be heard and to offer their amendments. I appreciate very much the cooperation of everybody. I will not object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank my colleague from Washington for her leadership on this issue, and particularly on the issue of class size, and all of the work that she has done to get us to this point. Mr. President, I will use whatever additional time I need out of my leader allotment to finish my remarks. Let me begin by complimenting the distinguished chairman and manager on the other side for the manner in which he has closed the debate. There is no one who has worked on a more bipartisan basis on so many issues than has he. I respect him and appreciate the tone that he has set, once again, in calling for bipartisanship. I guess the irony is that we find ourselves, in spite of his desire for bipartisanship, at a point where we have very little of it. I am as disappointed as he is that in committee, after more than a year's worth of work, the document the committee had been using, the work they had been constructing was shelved in favor of a very partisan approach to the Federal role in education for the next 6 years through ESEA. I know, I am sure--I do not know--I am sure that he shares my disappointment that the kind of bipartisan tradition we have had in drafting this legislation over 35 years was not represented in the final vote during the markup of the ESEA in committee. So his call for bipartisanship, I know, on his part is genuine. I am disappointed it was not reflected in the actions taken by the committee. I am disappointed that it does not reflect our current status on the Senate floor. As a result, I am really disappointed that we are relegated now to offering a Democratic substitute, when we could have worked on a bipartisan bill that would have allowed both parties to claim achievement and some success, and the confidence that we are doing the right thing in addressing education at the Federal level. I thank all of my colleagues for the extraordinary effort they have made to bring us to this point within my caucus. I have mentioned Senator Murray. I thank, first and foremost, Senator Kennedy, for all the work he has done as our ranking member. I thank Senator Dodd and all of the members of the HELP Committee. But I must say, all of our colleagues--Senator Lieberman, and others--have joined with us in an effort to make this the very best proposal we could make. I believe we have achieved that. I believe there is a lot more we can do. But given our circumstances, given where we are, I believe this represents the finest opportunity that we will be able to construct to ensure that for the next 6 years, during this ESEA authorization, we build upon the things that have worked, change the things that have not. We as we acknowledge the report card that still stands in the back of this Chamber--the report card by the American Society of Civil Engineers issued just a little more than a year ago--as we look at our infrastructure, in all of its different facets, as we determine what is working and what is not, we can say, with some authority and with some absolute certainty that too many of our schools are failing when it comes to the infrastructure. We are getting poor results. We are not doing what we should in large measure because we have not made the commitment in infrastructure that we must make in education. So they gave schools an F. So we are faced with that reality, that we can do a better job. We are faced really with two choices. One choice is to say: Let's take those tools. Let's assure that those things we know are working can be built upon, and that we can provide the kind of leadership and be the catalyst we know we can be in improving teacher quality, in improving accountability, in reducing class size, in ensuring there is more technology in all schools, and to make sure there is more parental involvement--taking all of those things that school boards and parents and teachers and school officials tell us we have to do a better job on. We can work to improve those specific areas with the knowledge it is going to take resources. We can do that. That is what the Democratic substitute does do. On the other hand, we can do what we attempted to do back in 1981, in the name of flexibility, in the name of local control. Ironically, we created a blank-check approach that, I believe, has been an abysmal failure--a failure in terms of the kind of commitment to that approach, represented in real dollars, now cut by more than half since the legislation was passed, an approach that probably is far more bureaucratic, when you think about it. We go from the people administering the program at the Federal level through the people administering the program at the State level, to the people administering the program at the city or school district level, to the people administering the program in the schools themselves. That is the Republican approach. That is the blank check. If that isn't bureaucratic, I don't know what is. What we say is, if you really want local control, if you want to ensure that the maximum number of dollars get right into the school, bypass all of that and you will directly affect the school and provide the resources. That is what we say you should do. That is what our substitute does. That is real local control. That is providing the resources in the place where it can do the most good, without all of the bureaucratic hurdles, without all of the money going from here to the State capital, to the county, to the city, to the school district, to the school. We should not have to do that. So I find a real irony in this local control argument used by some on the other side. I will say that I am hopeful, in spite of the history over the last several days--a somewhat partisan approach to this debate--we can actually reach some sort of a bipartisan consensus before the end of the debate. I am hopeful, as the chairman has indicated, that there is yet some opportunity for us to reach across the aisle. This is our best hope in doing that. We know all of the things that we are suggesting have enjoyed bipartisan support in the past. These have not been partisan issues. There is no reason why now it must be. So we offer this amendment in good faith, hoping that our Republican colleagues will join us in building on the success of the past and ensuring that we really have local control, in recognizing the educational tools that can be of extraordinary benefit to students and teachers all over this country. That is what this amendment is about, and I urge its adoption. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Gorton amendment be laid aside, and that I be permitted to call up my amendment, which is at the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have not had the opportunity to participate in this debate over the last couple of days. This is the first chance I have had. I would like to make a statement, and at the end of my statement I will be introducing the Democratic substitute which, under the agreed-upon order, will be the second amendment to be considered during the debate on this legislation. I think, as everyone has already noted, this is an important debate for a lot of reasons. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is truly the blueprint that guides all Federal education policy from prekindergarten through high school. So this is the big one. This is the one that really counts when it comes to the Federal policy framework under which we will work for the next 6 years. Every 5 or 6 years, Congress has the responsibility to do what we are doing now, to decide what is working, to fix what is not. In the past, this debate on ESEA has always been vigorous, but it has always been bipartisan. In the end, the votes have always been bipartisan. Unfortunately, that is not the way things have shaped up so far this year. Two months ago, Republican leaders in the Senate stunned us by announcing that they were abandoning efforts to develop the bipartisan approach we have used now for 35 years. Instead, they put forward legislation so sharply partisan that even the Republican chair voted ``present'' on two major Republican amendments in committee. The truth is, this bill does not redefine the Federal role in education, it abandons it. It essentially repeals the role of the Federal Government in education. Instead of targeting Federal education dollars where they can do the most good, the bill takes money from Federal education programs and puts it in block grants. All the Federal Government would do is sign blank checks. Governors and State legislators would decide how the money is spent. Block grants eliminate any guarantee the funds will be spent where they are most needed or on reforms that are most effective. Our Republican colleagues claim to hold States accountable for the results. They require states to have a plan in this legislation, but in that plan the State sets their own performance goals and the goals be based on State averages. If children from well-off families made all the gains, that would be good enough. This bill does nothing to make sure the children in disadvantaged communities have access to good teachers and strong academic programs. If States fail to achieve their goals, nothing happens for 5 years. After 5 years, the only penalty for failure to comply is that a State cannot participate in the block grant program for the next year. It is also ironic that they are claiming to ``do something new.'' What new suggestion they are proposing is to take the block grant idea that goes all the way back, at least to 1981, to repeat it again now in the year 2000. That is their new idea. They take an idea that was proposed and passed in 1981, to convert several Federal education programs into a block grant, and to do now what we did then. It is important, as my Democratic colleagues have noted, to look at what has happened to that new idea back in 1981. Since then, the funding for that new idea, funding for that blank check, that block grant, has been cut in half, largely because it is difficult to advocate for a blank check. Republicans have made clear their highest priority is enacting huge tax cuts. Those irresponsible policies would leave absolutely no room for critical investments in education. So this cutting in half of the blank check might fit that scenario. Perhaps we should not be so surprised at their interest in creating new education block grants. This new, revolutionary reform idea of the year 2000, similar to the one in 1981 might be the design: Let's create a block grant, let's sign a blank check, let's cut that blank check in half in 20 years, and let's provide more in tax cuts. What we need is a bipartisan commitment to maintain the national commitment to education and invest in solutions that we know work. One of our great leaders in South Dakota history has been the Indian leader Sitting Bull. More than a century ago, he actually came to Washington and noted in a speech to policymakers at the time that if we put our minds together and see what life can make for our children, we will all be the beneficiaries. Today, we make that same request of all of our colleagues. For the sake of our children, let's put aside these extraordinary partisan differences, put our minds together, and see what we can do for our children's future. That, in essence, is what Democrats are providing with this comprehensive plan to improve America's public schools. Our entire caucus has worked hard on this plan. I am very gratified that our entire caucus supports it. Our plan is a substitute for the Republican block grant proposal that is now on the Senate floor. It actually includes many pieces of the bipartisan plan our Republican colleagues abandoned in March. It is not a blank check. It sets high standards for students and teachers. It gives communities the resources and tools to meet those standards. It holds them accountable for results. It targets Federal education dollars where they will do the most good. We do this by helping communities reduce class size, by recruiting and training qualified teachers, by helping to rebuild and replace overcrowded and crumbling schools and helping close the digital divide so all children can compete in the new economy, and by strengthening parents' involvement in their children's education, through report cards and other information, so they can hold schools accountable. It also helps create opportunities for safe before- and afterschool programs where children can receive responsible adult supervision. It is troubling to many of us that every afternoon in America, 5 million kids go home after school to empty houses while their parents sit at work and worry about their safety. Our Democratic colleagues believe we can do better than that. Improving public education must be our top priority. State and local governments clearly have the responsibility for funding and running our Nation's public school programs. Federal programs should be the catalyst for change. We need to focus our efforts on fundamental changes that work to make sure every child has the opportunity to learn. We took important steps in 1994 by requiring States to set high standards for learning and to assess student performance, and we are starting already to see some results in some areas, as some of my colleagues have noted. Student performance is rising in reading, math, and science. Why? Because we took action in 1994. SAT scores are rising. Why? Because we took action in 1994. Why? Because the Federal Government created the incentives. Why? Because we have been the catalyst to move these programs in the right direction. More students are taking rigorous courses and doing better in them. The percentage of students taking biology, chemistry, and physics has doubled. Why? Because we took action in 1994. Why? Because the Federal Government has been directly involved, not in decisionmaking but in incentivizing. More students are passing AP exams. Fewer students are dropping out. Why? Because we took action. What we are saying now is that it is time for us to continue to build on those success stories at the national level that worked then, that are working now, and that provide us with the opportunity to do even more. There is much more to do. Not all schools and not all students are reaching their potential. The achievement gap between rich and poor, between whites and minorities, is unacceptable. Students from disadvantaged communities have significantly less access today to technology. We cannot afford to leave any child behind, and we have to do better. Schools face many challenges that must be addressed if all students are challenged to achieve high standards. School enrollments are at record levels and continuing to rise. A large part of the teaching corps is getting ready to retire. Diversity is increasing, bringing new languages and cultures into the classroom. Family structures are changing. More women are in the workplace creating the need for quality afterschool and summer school activities. We are learning how important good development in early childhood is in determining success in school. The importance of higher education has never been greater. Our public schools need to make sure that all students are prepared to continue to learn in college or in technical training or on the job. These are national changes, and the Federal Government, as we have been, must be a partner in addressing them. My State of South Dakota has many small rural school districts. These schools face a particular set of challenges and limited resources to address them. Many have a hard time attracting qualified teachers, and teachers often have to teach more than one subject. Course offerings may be limited. Because students can come from long distances, many rural schools have high transportation costs. In many rural communities, the tax base is actually shrinking. The crisis in the farm economy is making it difficult to modernize schools and meet all of these student needs. Federal resources are important for these schools, but they do not even get enough funding to make effective programs in the first place. The Democratic alternative includes a provision to provide supplemental payments to qualifying rural schools that they can use to hire and train teachers, reduce class size, improve school safety, and upgrade technology. For more than 50 years, and going all the way back prior to that period 50 years ago when the first baby boomers were born, our parents committed themselves to the most ambitious school construction program in our Nation's history. They had just fought the Second World War, and they could have said: We have sacrificed enough for a while. We fought the war; we won the war. Now it is somebody else's responsibility. Instead, they said: We love this country; we love our children; we want them to have at least as good a life as we have had, and we are willing to work to give them that chance. Most of us who now serve in Congress attended those schools. We have benefited greatly from the decisions and sacrifices they made. The question facing us now is pretty simple, but awfully important: Are we willing to give our own children, are we willing to give our own grandchildren, the same chance we were given? Are we willing to work with each other, with parents, teachers, and community and business leaders to strengthen our schools? Or are we going to turn our backs? The answer to that question is going to be decided in part by the decisions we make over the next several days on the education bill and, frankly, on this amendment. If one visits London, they will see the work of Christopher Wren everywhere. He was the 17th century architect whose work defines London's skyline today. He built 51 churches. He built palaces, hospitals, and libraries. His most famous work, of course, is St. Paul's Cathedral. If one goes to the crypt at St. Paul's and looks hard, he will see a small black stone marking the architect's final resting place. It is written in Latin. It simply says: If you seek his monument, look around. The blueprint we are drafting today is like a cathedral. It is like a blueprint that will help shape our children's education and, thus, their future. If we do it well, it will inspire them to find the best in themselves. The monuments we are creating are for our children, and we need to ask ourselves what will our monuments say about us and what we value. Twelve years ago, America's Governors were able to do just that. All 50 Governors, Republicans and Democrats, agreed on eight national goals: No. 1, all children will start school ready to learn. No. 2, graduation rates will increase by 90 percent. No. 3, all children will demonstrate competency in challenging subject matter. No. 4, teachers will have access to programs to improve their professional skills. No. 5, U.S. students will be first in the world in math and science achievement. No. 6, every American adult will be literate. No. 7, every school will be disciplined, safe, and drug free. And finally, No. 8, every school will promote parental involvement and participation. In a few weeks, the children who were in the first grade when those goals were written will graduate from high school. Children grow up quickly. Instead of abandoning our Federal commitment to education, we need to work together to build that monument so one day we, too, can say: If you want to see what this great country did on education, look around. If you want to see how good we are, go into the schools where eight goals were pronounced and now are reality. If you want to see whether or not we as Senators have succeeded and achieved our goals representing the great legacy left to us by others, look around. Let us do this right. Let us pass good comprehensive elementary and secondary education today so that we can provide the kind of incentive, the kind of commitment, the kind of investments, the kind of direct, responsible approach that is so warranted if, indeed, we say that our children are important and our future is really what it is all about. Amendment No. 3111

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am not sure what the time allocation is, but I will use my leader time to make a few remarks, if I may. Mr. President, every day--until very recently--if you looked toward the west entrance to the Senate floor, as my colleague from Nevada has just noted, chances are, you would see Mike Epstein--with that wonderful, warm smile--Senator Wellstone's learned and much-loved legislative director. Today, however, as so many of my colleagues have already noted, Mike is not with us. He is at home resting, because he is very, very sick. His absence from this floor, from this Senate he loves so well, is conspicuous. It is being felt in the hearts of every member of the Senate community. Indeed, it is being felt in the very heart of this institution itself. For Mike Epstein is actually an institution within an institution. He is a Senate staffer of the old school. He came to the Senate in 1971--before virtually every member of the Senate staff, and before all but seven sitting Senators. That is not the kind of thing Mike would ever tell you. As a staffer of the old school, he isn't given to boasting or self-promotion. Then again, he doesn't have to: his experience and his ability speak for themselves. During Mike's tenure here, he has served on the staffs, as I am sure my colleagues have already noted, of some of our most distinguished Senators to serve in my lifetime, including Senator Robert C. Byrd, Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Paul Sarbanes, and now--for the last 9 years--our dear, dear Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Paul Wellstone. He also served as a member of the staffs of the Committees on Foreign Relations, Ethics, Labor and Human Resources, and Judiciary. He first came to Washington in 1962 as a young attorney working at the Department of Justice for Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. Along the way he picked up a library full of knowledge, and a mind full of wisdom. He became--at the elbow of the master, Senator Robert C. Byrd--an expert in Senate history, rules, and parliamentary procedure. He also became a friend, teacher, and mentor to generations of Senate staff. And he became a valued and trusted counselor to the Senators for whom he worked, and for many others--this Senator included. What a career. What a remarkable achievement. But then again, what a remarkable man. What is perhaps most remarkable about Mike is his passion. Even though all those years of public service tends to wear someone down, Mike is still fiercely, proudly committed to the ideals of a progressive agenda, much like his boss, Senator Wellstone. But ``boss'' is the wrong term to use in describing the relationship between Mike and Paul. They are more like family. In fact, Mike says Paul is like a brother to him. I know Paul feels exactly the same way about Mike. Before joining Paul's staff in 1991, Mike told a friend that his dream job would be to work as Senator Paul Wellstone's legislative director. That dream came true for Mike, and he and Paul have been inseparable ever since. So, Mr. President, on behalf of the Democratic Conference, the Democratic staff, and frankly, the entire Democratic Party, not to mention our Senate community, I thank my friend, Paul Wellstone for being here today and for telling this Senate how much Mike Epstein means to this institution and to all of us. Most of all, I want to express our heartfelt gratitude to our gallant, courageous colleague, Mike Epstein, for his friendship--and for his inspired service to the Senate and to the Nation. Mike, we are keeping you and your family very much in our thoughts and in our prayers. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I regret that this vote had to have been taken. I have made it clear from the very beginning that my hope is we can find some way to compromise. We have thought we have already compromised extensively. We have limited the number of amendments. We have limited the time on those amendments. We are now even prepared to allow second degrees so long as we get a vote. That is the regular order. We believe, as strongly as we want to resolve the marriage tax penalty, that having the opportunity to offer a better alternative is something that is so fundamental to the rights of every Democratic Senator. This vote we took had nothing to do with the marriage tax penalty. It had everything to do with a Senator's right to offer an amendment that would improve a marriage tax penalty bill. I am hopeful we can have some resolution on this matter at some point in the not- too-distant future. I will tell our colleagues in the majority that this vote will not change. This vote will stay at 45 for whatever length of time it takes. So there will not be any diminution or any erosion in the strength of feeling we have about our right to offer amendments. I am hopeful with that realization we can reach some compromise. Mr. President, I yield 2 hours to the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia under the cloture to be used as he deems appropriate during the debate on the marriage tax penalty.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield from my leader time 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Montana and 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.