Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I wish to identify with the warm and generous remarks made by the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. I agree entirely with his comments and with the views he has expressed. I think he and I speak for our caucuses in our admiration collectively for the Senator from Alaska. We may not always agree, but there isn't anyone who cares more deeply about this institution, about his State, and represents himself more effectively on the Senate floor and with his colleagues than the Senator from Alaska. It is an honor for me to be one of those who have had the good fortune of working with him. I respect him immensely, and I, too, join in wishing him the happiest of birthdays. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Catherine knows exactly how old he is today.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Access to Medical Treatment Act. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Harkin, Reid, Inouye and Johnson in this effort to increase individuals' freedom of choice in health care. At the outset, I want to extend my thanks to my friend Berkley Bedell, who formerly represented the 6th District of Iowa, for first bringing this issue to my attention and for his assistance in developing this bill. Berkley Bedell has experienced first-hand the life-saving potential of alternative treatments. His story underscores the need for the legislation I am introducing today and the importance of a national debate on ways to promote consumer choice and expand access to promising new medical treatments. American consumers have already voted for expanded access to alternative treatments with their feet and their pocket-books. The Journal of the American Medical Association recently published a study by David Eisenberg and others that found that Americans spent nearly $27 billion on alternative therapies in 1997. Americans made more visits to alternative practitioners--a total of 629 million--than to primary care doctors. Expenditures for alternative medicine professional services increased 45.2 percent between 1990 and 1997 to $21.2 billion. Some type of alternative therapy is used by 46.3 percent of the American population. Alternative therapies are also being incorporated into mainstream medical programs and practice. The curriculum of at least 22 of the nation's 125 medical schools include courses on alternative medicine. The National Institutes of Health now has a Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine where work is underway to expand our knowledge of alternative therapies and their safe and effective use. Despite the growing reliance on many types of alternative medicine, other alternative therapies remain unavailable because they do not fit the categories already carved out by Congress for exemption from the requirement to gain FDA approval. My bill would increase access to treatments that would normally be regulated by the FDA, but have not yet undergone the expensive and lengthy process currently required to gain FDA approval. Given the popularity of alternative medicine among the American public and its growing acceptance among traditional medical practitioners, it would seem logical to remove some of the access barriers that consumers face when seeking certain alternative therapies. The time and expense currently required to gain FDA approval both discourages the exploration of innovative, life-saving treatments by individual practitioners, scientists and smaller companies and limits patient access to low-cost treatments. Mr. President, the Access to Medical Treatment Act proposes one way to expand freedom of choice for medical consumers under carefully controlled situations. It asserts that individuals--especially those who face life-threatening afflictions for which conventional treatments have proven ineffective--should have the option of trying an alternative treatment, so long as they have been fully informed of the nature of the treatment, potential side effects, and given any other information necessary to meet carefully-crafted informed consent requirements. This is a choice that is rightly made by the consumer, and not dictated by the Federal government. All treatments sanctioned by this Act must be prescribed by an authorized health care practitioner who has personally examined the patient. The practitioner must fully disclose all available information about the safety and effectiveness of any medical treatment, including questions that remain unanswered because the necessary research has not been conducted. Patients must be informed of any possible side effects or interactions with other drugs. The bill carefully restricts the ability of practitioners to advertise or market unapproved drugs or devices or to profit financially from prescribing alternative medicine. This provision was included to ensure that practitioners keep the best interests of patients in mind and to retain incentives for seeking FDA approval. If an individual or a company wants to earn a profit from a product, they would be wise to go through the standard FDA approval process. The bill protects patients by requiring practitioners to report any adverse reaction that could potentially have been caused by an unapproved drug or medical device. If an adverse reaction is reported, manufacture and distribution of the drug must cease pending a thorough investigation. If it is determined that the adverse reaction was caused by the drug or medical device, as a part of a total recall, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, along with the manufacturer, has the duty to inform all health care practitioners to whom the drug or device has been provided. This legislation will help build a knowledge base regarding alternative treatments by requiring practitioners to report on effectiveness. This is critical because current information available about the effectiveness of many promising treatments is inadequate. The information generated through this Act will begin to reverse this reality, particularly because information will be collected and analyzed by the Center for Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health. In essence, this legislation addresses the fundamental balance between two seemingly irreconcilable interests: the protection of patients from dangerous and ineffective treatments and the preservation of the consumers' freedom to choose alternative therapies. The complexity of this policy challenge should not discourage us from seeking to solve it. I am convinced that the public good will be served by a serious attempt to reconcile these contradictory interests, and I am hopeful the discussion generated by introduction of this legislation will help point the way to its resolution. Mr. President, this legislation represents an honest attempt to focus serious attention on the value of alternative treatments and overcome current obstacles to their safe development and utilization. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me say I agree wholeheartedly with the comments made by the majority leader. I don't know if there is a State right now that is hurting as badly as North Carolina. Senator Edwards has made that point over and over and over again to me, and I know that Senator Helms has worked with Senator Edwards to try to provide the most comprehensive response to the situation as we can. We have come a long way and made a great deal of progress in the legislation pending, the omnibus bill. As things happen when we work late into the night with a lot of different people working, there is always the possibility something will fall through the cracks. I truly believe that is what happened. I believe it was an honest mistake. As the majority leader has indicated, whether it is fixed tonight, whether it is fixed before the end of the session, or whether it is fixed immediately when we come back, I don't know how one can get a stronger commitment than the one given by the majority leader or the one I am prepared to give and the one I know the chairman will be prepared to give to accommodate North Carolina. I appreciate their willingness to work to do this. This should resolve this matter successfully once and for all, either tonight or at some point in the not too distant future. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Amendment No. 2762.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor for a moment to commend both Senator Grassley, the manager on the Republican side, and our very distinguished assistant Democratic leader. We started the consideration of this bill several days ago. As I understand it, 20 amendments were filed. We are now down to fewer than 10 amendments. As I understand it, there is a potential time agreement on virtually every amendment. Virtually every Senator has expressed their interest in bringing this bill to a conclusion and are prepared to accept time limits. I further understand the majority is giving some consideration now to going out early tonight after we have had a couple votes. I hope that isn't the case because I would like to see if we could finish this bill either tonight or tomorrow. There is no reason why we cannot finish it and move on to other matters. There are a number of other matters pending. So I speak for a lot of our colleagues in expressing our gratitude to the distinguished assistant Democratic leader for his effort yet again. He has done this on so many bills, but on this bill in particular he has really done an extraordinary job of not only working to accommodate Senators but also to manage the legislation on our side, along with Senators Leahy and Torricelli, and, of course, the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Grassley, for his work in working with Senators who wish to offer amendments. I know some of these amendments have been accepted, and some of these amendments will require rollcalls. The point is, let's get the work done. Let's finish either tonight or tomorrow, but let's finish the bill. There was a time when I feared we would not finish this legislation this year. Maybe that is the only silver lining for those of us who would like to bring this matter to closure: That we will have the opportunity to finish this legislation. Many members still have amendments. Some of these amendments that are yet to be offered may tell the story with regard to Democratic support. There are some good amendments that are still pending. Senator Kennedy has a very good amendment that needs to be addressed. I hope we can do that and move on the other Democratic amendments that I know Senator Schumer and others have indicated they are prepared to offer. So we are getting down now to the final few amendments. I hope we will just keep the heat on, and finish up this critical legislation many of us have worked so long and so hard to enact. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I want to be sure. Is it amendment No. 2761? Is that the Schumer amendment referred to by the Senator from Iowa?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the 40th year of broadcasting for radio station KJAM-FM, serving Madison, South Dakota and area communities. KJAM Radio first aired on December 3rd, 1959, and this December 3rd, the staff and friends of the radio station will be celebrating this remarkable feat in radio broadcasting with a well-deserved anniversary party. Small town, locally owned radio stations like KJAM are one of rural America's unique cultural contributions to our nation. They mirror the strong values of the small towns they serve. KJAM has served Madison well, and I would like to commend the employees and supporters of KJAM for their dedication over these 40 years in bringing to the area local and regional news, weather, and broadcasts of events for Dakota State University and area high schools. Beginning in January, KJAM will be managed by Three Eagles Communications, which I am sure will continue to enrich the lives of area residents with quality radio broadcasting. I know my colleagues will join me in honoring John and JoLynn Goeman, the owners of KJAM, who have given so much to the Madison community. John Goeman is the only employee who has been with the station since its inception, and I know his listeners will be sad to hear his last greeting to radio listeners with the ``First Edition'' of the day's news. We all owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the Goemans and KJAM for making such an invaluable contribution to Madison and the entire state of South Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I voted against the Hatch ``drug'' amendment. I voted against this amendment with some regret because I very much wanted to support one provision in this amendment--Senator Hatch's Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999. Senator Hatch's Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999 is a bipartisan bill that would go a long way toward attacking the proliferation of methamphetamine trafficking and abuse that particularly plagues the Midwest. I know my friend Senator Harkin and others have worked tirelessly with Senator Hatch to improve the bill and to ensure that prevention and treatment programs targeted at young people tempted by or addicted to methamphetamine are included in any solution to this problem. Because I feel strongly about this issue, I co-sponsored Senator Harkin's bill the ``Comprehensive Methamphetamine Abuse Reduction Act,'' and many of the provisions of Senator Harkin's bill are now included in this amendment. We have a serous problem in South Dakota with the production, trafficking and use of methamphetamine. I have met with many members of South Dakota's law enforcement community about this problem, and I know that cracking down on meth traffickers and users has become more and more difficult as this highly addictive drug has increased in popularity, particularly among our young people. The number of methamphetamine arrests, court cases, and confiscation of labs continues to escalate. In the Midwest alone, the number of clandestine methamphetamine labs confiscated and destroyed in 1998 was nearly triple the number confiscated and destroyed in 1997. It has become evident that methamphetamine is fast becoming the leading illegal drug in our region, and efforts to combat its spread are complicated by the fact that the drug does not discriminate. Its users range from teenage girls who use the drug to decrease their appetite in an effort to lose weight, to middle class men looking for a cheap high. This highly addictive drug can lead to devastating consequences for its users, and far too often methamphetamine use has been a major factor in a number of violent crime cases. In recent years, the Drug Enforcement Agency has registered an increase in the percentage of arrests due to methamphetamine in South Dakota from around 20% of the total arrest rate to 70%, and several high profile crimes, including murders, in South Dakota have been attributed to methamphetamine abuse. Though, we have taken some important steps to combat methamphetamine abuse in recent years, such as securing targeted funding to fight methamphetamine production and trafficking in South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri, I believe it is time to do more. Accordingly, I would have liked to support the provisions in this amendment that increase penalties for amphetamine manufacturing and trafficking and provide more money for law enforcement personnel to address the methamphetamine problem in high intensity drug trafficking areas. That is why I would have liked to support the provisions that provide needed funds for hiring and training law enforcement officers to combat methamphetamine trafficking and manufacture. And that is why I would have liked to support the provisions that would fund increased methamphetamine abuse research, grants to states and Indian tribes to expand treatment activities, and grants to schools and local communities for methamphetamine prevention activities. But unfortunately, I could not because the Republicans added, at the last minute, a poison pill provision aimed at weakening our public education system. The Hatch amendment includes a provision allowing school districts to use federal funds to provide vouchers to students who have been victims of violent crime on school grounds. This means that money that is supposed to be used to help public schools improve technology, to develop charter schools, or that has been set aside for special education students, could be used on vouchers for private schools. The amendment does nothing to make schools safer for children and will do nothing to increase student achievement. Let there be no mistake about what this amendment is trying to do. This is just a back-door attempt to take federal resources necessary to improve our public schools and squander them on vouchers to send a few children to private schools. While the proponents claim that parents could send their child to any school, this provision actually creates an incentive to send the child to private or parochial schools by disallowing transportation expenses for public school students, while allowing transportation expenses along with tuition and fees for private or religious schools. Federal resources should be invested in improving public schools for all children through higher standards, smaller classes, well-trained teachers, modern facilities, more after-school programs, and safe and secure classrooms. They should not be frittered away on ineffective and unproven programs to help just a few children. Mr. President, we all know that the education provisions in this amendment will necessitate that this amendment be dropped in conference. Thus, this is not a meaningful vote. I will continue to work to enact legislation to provide law enforcement officials the tools they need to combat the methamphetamine problem in this country. But I don't want to be part of an effort that may jeopardize the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999--a bill that is aimed, rightly, at reducing the abuses of the bankruptcy system. We should be focused on enacting meaningful bankruptcy reform, and not encumbering this bill with decisive partisan issues. We need to send a bankruptcy bill to the President which he can sign into law--this amendment, unfortunately, does not further that end.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure today to recognize the members of the Tatanka Hotshot Crew of the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota. This fall marks the end of the first fire season that this crew has been operational, and I am delighted to say that it has proven to be an outstanding success. Each year serious wildfires threaten national forests across the United States, burning thousands of acres of woodlands and endangering private property. Our first line of defense against these fires is the United States Forest Service, whose firefighters risk their lives in arduous, often isolated conditions to bring wildfires under control. The best of these teams are known as Hotshot crews--elite firefighters who are sent to the worst fires, to do the most difficult, dangerous work necessary to protect our forests and the homes of nearby residents. All around the country, these teams have been recognized for their skill and bravery. Last year, we created the first of these elite teams ever to be based in the Black Hills National Forest. It is called the Tatanka Hotshots, after the Lakota word for the bison that used to roam the Great Plains by the tens of thousands. The nearly two dozen members of this team, virtually all of whom are Native American, come from diverse backgrounds. Some came from South Dakota towns like Custer and Aberdeen. Some joined the Tatanka crew from other hotshot teams or elite smokejumping units. Others are veterans of the Gulf War. Still others are young individuals working their way through college. I am proud to say that after a year of intense training and working together, the Tatanka team quickly has become one of the most highly- regarded firefighting teams in the nation. In addition to work in the Black Hills, the Tatanka crew spent 71 days away on wildland fire assignments, accumulating 1,550 hours of work in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana and California. It conducted seven large firing/burnout operations, built miles of fireline, constructed helispots and medivac sites, and conducted large tree falling operations in steep, hazardous terrain. Other noteworthy accomplishments included backpacking 6,500 pounds of sandbags up Mount Rushmore to prepare for the July 4th fireworks display, tending the commemorative crosses at the 1994 South Canyon fire fatality sites in Colorado, and working in conjunction with the Tahoe Hotshots to rescue a pack horse which had fallen off a mountain trail in California. Over the course of the summer, the Tatanka crew earned its reputation as a team that could be depended upon to get its job done quickly and effectively. Based upon its outstanding performance ratings and the respect it earned from other highly regarded Hotshot crews, Forest Service officials expect the team to attain National Type 1 status--the highest rating a firefighting team can receive--before the 2000 fire season, a full year ahead of schedule. Mr. President, I am very proud of the accomplishments of this crew. Forest fires are dangerous and unpredictable, and fighting them is one of the most difficult, physically-exhausting jobs of which I know. Firefighters spend days deep in forests and far from possible help, digging fire lines and cutting trees to keep fires from spreading. In just one year, the Tatanka team has met these challenges head-on, and shown that it is equal to the toughest challenges our nation has to offer. I want to offer my congratulations to all of those who served on the team. I am sure that they will have an outstanding future.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor for just a moment to express my support for the Wellstone amendment, as well. I commend the distinguished senior Senator from Minnesota, as well as the Senator from Iowa, for their work and for the effort that this amendment represents. Basically, this amendment has a very simple purpose. It is simply to take a deep breath, take a close look, and to give careful thought to what is happening in agriculture today. We all espouse the free enterprise system. We all say that we are enthusiastic advocates of real competition, which is really the essence of the free enterprise system--competition. We all express our grave concern when we find circumstances within the economy that are not competitive. Yet, as we look at agriculture today, as we look at the tremendous economic power now represented in fewer and fewer companies, with more and more mergers underway almost weekly, one has to ask, how much is enough? When do we undermine the very tenets of free enterprise by continuing to look the other way when these mergers are announced? We see it especially in livestock. The latest announcement that Smithfield Corporation will be acquiring Murphy Farms illustrates the point. There are fewer buyers. There are fewer processors. There are fewer options. There are fewer and fewer competitors. Mr. President, when that happens, we reach a point where there is no competition. I am not one who is prepared today to say that there is collusion in the market, that there is something illegal going on in the market; but I am prepared to say today that what is happening in the market is not healthy for agriculture. What is happening in the market goes the wrong way from competition. What is happening in the market today precludes real opportunities for producers to be able to ensure a fair price, a real opportunity in the marketplace, a real sense of competition. I was just told again last week that in many places in South Dakota, a buyer will tell you that he will be in a location for one day for as little as one-half hour, and if you want to be able to sell your cattle to that buyer, you have to be there in that half hour's time, on that appointed day, or you don't sell cattle that week. I don't know how that is competition. I don't know how we can say today this is the free enterprise system that we all defend and espouse. What is free enterprise when you have one buyer and all these producers lined up to sell, almost supplicating themselves to that buyer? That isn't free enterprise. That isn't what we say agriculture is supposed to be. Most important, that isn't ever going to allow us the confidence that we need as we look to the future and encourage young people and encourage rural people to stay where they are. They need more confidence and more assurances than what we are giving them today. So this amendment is really pretty simple. It just says, let's take a deep breath, let's not do anymore until we have had a chance to analyze whether or not our fears are being realized, whether or not we really have any legitimate basis for concern, whether or not the situation is going from bad to worse. That is all we are saying. Once it happens, it can never be undone. I doubt very much that we will ever go back and say, OK, we are going to break up these companies, because that is the only way it is going to assure that we have the kind of competitive environment that we need. I don't think that is in the offing in the short term. So while we still have a chance to put everything on hold, to analyze whether or not this is good, why not simply say, let's take a deep breath. I personally don't believe that we ought to be content with just this. I really worry about whether or not vertical integration in agriculture ultimately is going to destroy the young family farmer, or the livestock producer. Once you have the processor in charge of every step from to table, then you really don't have competition. More and more, that seems to be the approach the large processors are taking-- get involved in production, get involved in transportation, get involved in wholesaling, get involved in retailing, get involved in every single aspect from top to bottom. I am concerned about vertical integration. It seems to me that when we made the decision to break up the old telephone company back in the early 1980's we created a competitive explosion the likes of which we never imagined, and from which we are still benefiting today. We see things that are happening today that make other countries' heads spin. We broke up a large company, and we made progress the likes of which we could have never have anticipated. I would love to see the kind of competition, the kind of excitement, the kind of enthusiasm in agriculture as we now see in telecommunications. Mr. President, I am hopeful that we will send the right message. I am hopeful that we can simply say, Look. At the very least, let's stop before we allow this to go any further for just a few months--18 months. Let's make some good decisions, and calculate whether or not this is good for the country and good for the agriculture industry. I think it is a good amendment. I support it. I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. It's my understanding that Senator Hatch supports your view of cloture on these nominations. Is that correct?

Mr. DASCHLE. It is also my understanding that the majority leader will work to clear the remaining judges left on the executive calendar this year, and if they can't be cleared, he will move to proceed to each of the remaining judicial nominees no later than March 15 of next year. Is that also correct?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it's my understanding that the majority leader has committed to proceeding to the nominations of Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon to the ninth circuit court of appeals no later than March 15, 2000. Is that correct?

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I appreciate the clarification. That was the understanding. So there is no confusion, we now have 4 hours of debate on the two amendments. I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor at this point to talk about the amendment offered on behalf of our colleagues, but really on behalf of the 11 million Americans who will benefit from this minimum wage once it is passed into law. I thank especially Senator Kennedy for his extraordinary leadership and persistence in making sure this issue was addressed prior to the end of the first session of this Congress. Were it not for his dedication and extraordinary efforts, we would not be here this afternoon. I also thank Senators Robb and Baucus for the leadership they have provided, and I thank many of our colleagues for their strong support for this legislation. We fought all year long to bring this amendment to the floor because low-income working families need and deserve a raise. The average American family now works an additional 265 hours a year just to maintain the same standard of living they had at the beginning of this decade. That is an additional 6 weeks a year. We believe it is time parents could be spending attending parent-teacher conferences or playing with their children or maybe just reading Harry Potter with them. It is time husbands and wives could be talking with each other. It is not enough just to talk about family values, we need to show by our actions that we value families. We need to raise the minimum wage, and we need to do it this year--now. I recently met a young father in South Dakota who told me that he and his wife eat only one meal a week together, and that is on Sundays after church. The rest of the week, his work schedule keeps him away from his family because he has more than one job. He is one of many workers in this Nation who are working three jobs, two of them at minimum wage, just to make ends meet. We can do better than that. In this economy, we must do better than that. We are in the longest, strongest period of economic recovery in our Nation's history. The stock market and worker productivity are both at record highs. It has been 3 years since the last time we increased the minimum wage, and if we do not pass another increase now, by the end of this month the purchasing power of the minimum wage will have fallen to the lowest point it has been in 40 years. The real value of the minimum wage is now at almost $2.50 below what it was in 1968--$2.50 an hour. We are proposing we raise the minimum wage, not by the $2.50 required to get back to the parity level of 1968, but $1 an hour over 2 years. That is as modest a proposal as anyone can propose. Under it, the minimum-wage worker who now works full time would earn only $12,792 a year, but it would be $2,000 more than he or she now earns. After doing all they could for as long as they could to block any increase in the minimum wage, now our Republican colleagues have their own proposal. They will raise the minimum wage, but they are saying to working families: ``We are not going to let you have it in 2 years. We know now you will only be making $12,792, but we want you to wait 3 years for your raise. But we are for family values, we are for helping people get ahead.'' They want to believe there is not a dime's worth of difference between their plan and our plan. That is not so. There are at least three major differences. First, this 3-year delay is going to cost a typical working family $1,200 over 3 years. That is what that delay costs. I know around here that does not sound like a lot of money, but to a family trying to scrape by on minimum wage, it is 10 percent of a year's income; $1,200 a year is 3 months' worth of rent. It is 4 months' worth of groceries; it is 6 months' worth of utilities; and it is 1 year in tuition and fees at a 2-year college. So there is a big difference. Do not let anybody say that simply waiting another year for that full dollar benefit is a minor matter. We are talking rent; we are talking utilities; we are talking groceries. It is whether or not in some cases families are going to have two or three meals a week together or whether that one meal on Sunday will have to do. The second difference between our proposal and the Republican proposal has to do with the tax cuts. We offer tax cuts. I really do not think there is any connection, frankly, between the minimum wage and the need for tax cuts. Each ought to be considered in their own right. I am troubled a little bit about this tendency to want to marry tax cuts into something that is important to do in its own right. But I do understand the importance of providing meaningful tax relief targeted to small businesses. I am for that. And our caucus, and I hope the Senate, is for that. We offer a tax cut package that will cost $28.5 billion over 10 years. But the tax breaks the Republican plan entails would cost $75 billion--over twice as much. It is not just the cost that worries me, it is the fact that the Republican tax cuts are not paid for. We have heard all of this railing about Social Security trust funds. But the Republicans do not seem to be too concerned about Social Security when it comes to this tax cut. While they pay for the first year, there is absolutely no money for the tax cuts the second through the 10th years. What that means is that it is going to have to come out of education, other priorities, or even Social Security. The third difference between our tax cuts and the Republicans' is this: Our tax cuts target small businesses and family farms. The Republican tax breaks overwhelmingly benefit those in the top end of the income strata. A minimum wage increase ought to be able to pass, as I said a moment ago, on its own merits. If we are going to include tax cuts, they ought to reduce the impact, as marginal as it is, of a minimum wage increase on the businesses that will be most affected by it. The Republican proposal fails this basic test of fairness, relevance, and fiscal responsibility. How would the Democratic tax cuts help small businesses and family farms? First, we lower the cost to small businesses of making investments by raising to $25,000 the amount of an investment a business can write off immediately. If you make a $25,000 investment, you can write it off in the first year and you do not have to wait. That is one way to help small businesses. They tell me time and again we have to encourage them to reinvest and to put more money back into their businesses. There is no better way to do that than to say: make an investment and you can expense it immediately. We do that. Second, we provide a tax cut of up to $4,000 to cover startup costs of adopting a pension plan so more small businesses can offer their workers pensions. This not only helps businesses, it helps the workers, and it helps businesses attract good workers and increases workers' retirement security. It is a win-win. In this day and age, what business people tell me all through South Dakota, as they are attempting to compete for a very limited workforce, is that there has to be an incentive to be able to recruit and then ultimately to retain good people. There is nothing more important in retaining good people than ensuring that in the long term they are not only going to have a good income but they are going to have a good retirement. This package does it. Third, we accelerate the full deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed. We have already provided full deductibility, and now we move it up. We more rapidly incorporate full deductibility, so that every small business can benefit in providing health insurance in those cases when they are self-employed. Fourth, our proposal raises the special estate tax exemption for family-owned small businesses and farms by $450,000. Fifth, we make it easier for farm cooperatives to raise capital. Finally, and very importantly, we provide tax relief to farmers who are experiencing losses during the current crisis. That is how our tax cuts help small businesses and family farms. But our proposal also contains tax cuts to help low-income workers. We extend the successful work opportunity and the welfare-to-work tax credits for 5 years. We increase tax incentives for entrepreneurs to invest in empowerment zones. First-round empowerment zones have shown that wage tax credits are a valuable economic development tool. Currently, there are no wage tax credits available for round 2 zones. By making these tax credits available, by building on what we know works, we can bring new jobs and opportunities to places such as the Pine Ridge Reservation empowerment zone in South Dakota and other communities that desperately need opportunities like it. We also include in our plan the President's new markets tax credit to help people in communities that have so far not shared in the country's record economic prosperity. The new markets tax credit will encourage private capital to flow into equity investments in businesses in these areas. Bipartisan support for this proposal is growing, and it is extremely fitting to include it in a proposal to raise the minimum wage. Our tax cut is smart; it is strategic; and I emphasize, it is paid for. I especially commend Senators Robb and Baucus for their efforts in helping to develop it. As members of the Senate Finance Committee, they have done an outstanding job of ensuring that as we look at the array of tax tools that would be helpful to workers and small businesses, we put the tightest, most targeted, most focused package together. And they have done it in this amendment. The third difference between our minimum wage plan and the one our colleagues are offering is simply this: The President will sign our plan. The Republican proposal is absolutely dead on arrival. Now, we know we will hear dire warnings from some of our colleagues on the other side. They will say raising the minimum wage will actually hurt low-income workers because employers will be forced to cut minimum-wage jobs. We now know that is nonsense. We have study after study that proves raising the minimum wage does not kill jobs at all. In fact, since the last time we raised the minimum wage--in 1996--American employers have created nearly 9 million new jobs. In my State, 17,000 new jobs have been created. The national unemployment rate has fallen from 5.2 percent to just over 4 percent--the lowest jobless rate in 30 years. Even the Wall Street Journal and Business Week now say the 1996 predictions about job losses were wrong. Another argument we will surely hear from our friends in the other party is that increasing the minimum wage has nothing to do with increasing family incomes. They will argue that most minimum-wage workers are teenagers who are working part time to pay for cars and CD players. Again, the facts show otherwise. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 70 percent of all minimum-wage workers are 20 years old or older; nearly 60 percent are women; and 40 percent are sole breadwinners in their families. Our economy is the strongest it has been in my lifetime. But behind the prosperity, there are still far too many families who are working too hard, too long, for too little pay. In South Dakota, while many families are moving ahead, too many others are being left behind, creating, in effect, two South Dakotas. On the surface, South Dakota is fortunate. Our unemployment rate is 2.6 percent, one of the lowest in the Nation. But in some of our counties, unemployment is as high as 7 percent. South Dakota is also the home to the poorest community in America, the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. There are good people--hard-working people--all across this country, who are struggling to make ends meet on minimum-wage jobs. They need a raise. And they are not alone. That is why religious leaders around the country today are urging us to raise the minimum wage. It is critical that we not miss this opportunity. A job isn't just a source of income; it ought to be a source of pride. The U.S. Catholic Conference tells us the minimum wage should reflect principles of human dignity and economic justice. Unfortunately, today's minimum wage does not do that. I want to read something that I think probably puts it in perspective quite well. This is a quote that is not one of mine, and not one of Senator Kennedy's. It is a quote made by former majority leader Bob Dole the last time the Congress voted to raise the minimum wage in 1996. Bob Dole said at the time: ``I never thought the Republican Party would stand for squeezing every nickel out of the minimum wage.'' He was right then. If he were on the floor today, he would be right now. If we don't pass a minimum wage increase by the end of next month, more inflation will have wiped out the entire increase he was referring to in 1996. We cannot allow that to happen. It is time we stopped squeezing every last nickel out of the minimum wage. It is time to raise the minimum wage the right way, $1 an hour over 2 years, with responsible targeted tax cuts to help small business owners and family farmers, not an unpaid-for tax windfall for all those who need it the least. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time I have just consumed be taken from my leader time for today.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I couldn't agree more with the distinguished Senator from Louisiana. This is an important issue. While we need to stay focused on the appropriations bill and on bankruptcy, she has been working on this matter for a long, long time and has made great progress. I share the view expressed by the majority leader that this is an issue that has great impact not only in her region of the country but in regions throughout the country. I hope we can resolve this satisfactorily and she can be satisfied with the final product. I will do all I can to work with the majority leader to see that happens in the remaining days of this session. I commend the majority leader for getting the Senate to this point. I think we are very close to reaching an agreement. As I understand, we have not yet had the opportunity to exchange amendments, but we will be doing that shortly. He and I have both worked with our colleagues to ensure we can work through this agreement. I think this is a win-win. I think it is an opportunity to finish an important piece of legislation, an opportunity to deal with some issues that both sides think are important. I think it is a very appropriate vehicle with which to get our work done. I am hopeful we will get total cooperation procedurally to allow the Senate the opportunity to finish this work. I am fully expecting before the end of the day we will have an agreement that will allow the Senate to go through the next couple of days in expectation of finishing this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not, Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, we have exchanged some of the amendments that have been referred to in this unanimous- consent request. There may be minor alterations in these two amendments that have been exchanged. We will not have any major changes in our amendments. And I assume that while there may be minor alterations, we do not anticipate any consequential alterations in the amendments to be offered by the Republicans. I ask the majority leader if that is his understanding relating to education and drugs.

Mr. DASCHLE. As I understand this agreement--I went through it in detail--it will allow relevant second degrees to relevant amendments.