Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the majority leader yield on that point for a question?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank all of the Senators involved in this. We have consulted with virtually every Member. While no one is ever completely satisfied with a complex agreement such as this, I think it gives us the best opportunity to address an important issue, bankruptcy, and to address some other issues about which both caucuses care a good deal. So I think this is a good agreement. I appreciate the work of the majority leader to get us to this point. I have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this legislation has been a long time coming. Many, including this Senator, consider it long overdue. It is historic in magnitude. It has been described, appropriately, as a new ``Constitution'' for financial services for the 21st Century. Because of its importance, it has been hard fought. But we can be proud of the final product. It will foster a continuation of the extraordinary economic growth this nation has seen in the last several years. Most importantly, it offers new opportunities and benefits for American consumers. It allows for ``one-stop shopping'' for an array of financial services. Americans will be able to conduct their banking, insurance and investment activities under one roof, with all the convenience that entails. By allowing a single company to offer an array of financial products, this bill will stimulate competition, leading to greater choices and reduced fees for consumers and businesses alike. New companies will create innovative new products for consumers. It is important to remember how far we have come to reach this historic moment. Congress has been trying to pass a bill along these lines for 20 years. We came extremely close in the last Congress, but it fell apart in its waning moments over disagreements about the Community Reinvestment Act. Again in this Congress, the bill saw some tough moments. In the Senate, it passed by party-line votes both in committee and on the floor. Because of the deep commitment of Democrats to enactment of this legislation, we did not give up. We introduced an alternative bill that could garner bipartisan support. And I am proud to say that this conference agreement embodies all of the principles that we advocated in our alternative bill. We do not need to surrender our beliefs to support of this bill, because it adopts our positions on every major issue. Best of all, these victories mean that the President can sign this bill into a law, so it can improve the delivery of financial services for many years to come. Our positions prevailed right down the line. Our position prevailed on banking and commerce: this bill strictly limits the ability of thrifts to affiliate with commercial companies, closing a loophole in current law. Our position prevailed on operating subsidiaries: the bill allows banks to choose whether to conduct new activities in either a financial subsidiary or an affiliate. They can choose whatever form best suits their customers' needs. Our position prevailed on consumer protections: the SEC retains the ability to protect consumers when banks sell securities products, which was a major concern of SEC Chairman Levitt. The agreement also preserves important state consumer protection laws governing insurance sales, and prohibits coercive sales practices. Our position prevailed on the Community Reinvestment Act: CRA is preserved under this bill. The agreement addresses our greatest concern by requiring that banks have a good track record on lending within their own communities before they can expand into newly authorized businesses. We can be proud of these achievements, and proud to support this bill. At the same time, we can be disappointed the bill does not go further to protect consumers' financial privacy. The bill does contains some important provisions requiring financial institutions to give customers notice about their privacy policies. But these companies retain extraordinary latitude in sharing a customer's most sensitive, personal information without the customer's consent and without even giving the customer the right to object. We have to do better. This issue is far from over, and we will have to revisit it next year. Despite these shortcomings, which also exist in current law, this legislation will benefit consumers, businesses and the economy, and deserves our support. Through this bill, Congress is finally reforming our outdated financial services laws to recognize new realities in the marketplace. I would like to commend our many colleagues, administration officials, and outside institutions that have worked so long and so hard to bring us to this point. We must especially recognize the leadership of the ranking member of the Banking Committee, Senator Sarbanes, for his dogged determination to ensure that this final product upheld the public's best interests. The Secretary of the Treasury, Larry Summers, and his predecessor, former Secretary Rubin, also played key roles in ensuring that this legislation protected the interests of American consumers. I must also commend the Chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Gramm, for his recognition of the need for compromise and bipartisanship in producing a bill that deserves the signature of the President of the United States. Mr. President, this legislation deserves the support of an overwhelming bipartisan majority of our colleagues, and I urge them to vote for it today.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I defer.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use leader time to say a few words about this bill and where we are. Mr. President, there is no one for whom I have greater respect for than the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska. But I must say, I question why we are here today voting on a bill that we know will be vetoed. If we are going to try to retain the positive environment to which the senior Senator has just alluded, I do not understand how it is positive to send a bill down to the President that we know will be vetoed, which will then require us to go right back to the negotiating table where we were yesterday. I do not understand that. I think a far better course is to defeat this bill, go back downstairs, negotiate seriously with the White House, and come together with Democrats to assure that we can pass a bill overwhelmingly. I do not recall whether I have ever voted against an Education appropriations bill. This may be unprecedented for many of us on this side of the aisle. As I understand it, the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee on Health and Human Services is going to vote against this bill. I am going to join him, and I am going to join with most Democrats, if not all Democrats, in our unanimous opposition to what the bill represents. That is unprecedented. We should not have to be here doing this today. If we are serious about doing something positive and bringing this whole effort to closure, I cannot imagine we could be doing anything more counterproductive than to send a bill down that we know is going to be vetoed. Why is it going to be vetoed? It is going to be vetoed because we violate the very contract that we all signed 1 year ago, a contract that Republicans and Democrats hailed at the time as a major departure when it comes to education. We recognized that, in as consequential a way as we know how to make at the Federal level, we are going to reduce class size, just as we said we were going to hire more policemen with the COPS Program a couple years before. We committed to hiring 100,000 new teachers and ensuring that across this country the message is: We hear you. We are going to reduce class size and make quality education the priority on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats. I think both parties took out ads right afterward saying what a major achievement it was. We were all excited about the fact that we did this for our kids, for education, and what a departure it represented from past practice. We did that 1 year ago. Here we are now with the very question: Should we extend what we hailed last year to be the kind of achievement that it was? A couple of days ago, a report came out which indicated that in those school districts where additional teachers had been hired, there was a clear and very extraordinary development: Class sizes were smaller, quality education was up, teachers were being hired, and this program was working. We had it in black and white--given to every Senator--it is working. So why now, with that clear evidence, with the bipartisan understanding that we had just a year ago that we were going to make this commitment all the way through to the end, hiring 100,000 new teachers, why now that would even be on the table is something I do not understand. Twenty-nine thousand teachers could be fired. But it is as a result of the fact that our Republican colleagues continue to refuse to extend and maintain the kind of program we all hailed last year that we are here with a threat of a veto. I do not care whether it is this week, next week, if we are into December, if it is the day before Christmas, if that issue has not been resolved satisfactorily, we are not going to leave. We can talk all we want to about a positive environment, but we are not going to have a positive environment conducive to resolving this matter until that issue is resolved satisfactorily. So there isn't much positive one can say about our dilemma on that issue. Another big dilemma is the extraordinary impact delaying funding will have on the NIH. Sixty percent of the research grant portfolio will be delayed until the last 2 days of this fiscal year--60 percent. Eight thousand new research grants will be delayed and grantees will be denied the opportunity to compete--8,000 grantees. This is probably going to have as Earth shaking an impact on NIH as anything since NIH was created. I do not know of anything that could have a more chilling effect on the way we provide funding for grants through NIH than what this budget proposes. We have heard from the institutions that conduct life-saving research. They say you can't stop and start research programs without irretrievable loss. I will bet you every Senator has been contacted by NIH expressing their concern and the concern of these researchers about the devastating impact this is going to have. But it is not just the NIH. The cut across the board alone will have a major impact. Five thousand fewer children are going to receive Head Start services; and 2,800 fewer children are going to receive child care assistance; 120,000 kids will be denied educational services. This cut across the board has nothing to do with ridding ourselves of waste. This goes to the muscle and the bone of programs that are very profoundly affecting our research, our education, our opportunities for safe neighborhoods, and the COPS Program. The array of things that will happen if this cut is enacted will be devastating. So I am hopeful that we will get serious and get real about creating the positive environment that will allow us to resolve these matters. We have to resolve the class size issue. We have to resolve the matter of offsets in a way that we can feel good about. I am hoping we are going to do it sooner rather than later--but we are going to do it. It is the choice of our colleagues. We will do it later, but we will all have to wait until those who continue to insist on this approach understand that it will never happen; the vetoes will keep coming; the opposition will be as strong and as united a week or 2 weeks from now as it is today. That is why I feel so strongly about the need to oppose this conference report. Let's go back downstairs and do it right. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have spoken many times to my colleagues in this body about the importance of agriculture in America. It is certainly one of the most valuable industries in my home state of South Dakota and is clearly essential to the economy and well-being of the entire United States. Undoubtedly, farming has always been a difficult job. But, consistent with the industrious spirit of America, there have always been dedicated young men and women who have been willing to face the challenge of growing the food for this country. And even during tough times, there have been young Americans who are willing to answer the call to one of the most noble vocations in our country--they want to be farmers. Last week, the Future Farmers of America hosted their seventy-second annual national convention in Lexington, Kentucky. Nearly 50,000 future farmers and their guests, including a number of young South Dakotans, gathered to exchange ideas, develop leadership skills and to have a frank discussion about the future of family farming. Mr. President, I'm proud to report that, of the hundreds of local FFA chapters from across the country, and of the thousands of participants nationwide, the Future Farmers of America chapter from Garretson, South Dakota was named National FFA Chapter of the Year. Chapter members Brian Cooper, Gary Kringen, Mitch Coburn, Amanda Dorman, and their adviser Ed Mueller have spent countless hours working on projects ranging from promoting economic development in rural communities to providing lessons in farm safety to elementary students. Their hard work and dedication to the future of agriculture is a heartening sign that there will be a future generation of farmers to work the land and raise the food for this great country. I want to offer my most sincere congratulations to the members of the Garretson chapter of the Future Farmers of America on receiving this great honor. These young people have earned the admiration and respect of their community and the entire state of South Dakota. Brian, Gary, Mitch, and Amanda remind us that outstanding young people are willing to commit themselves to farming--one of the most challenging, rewarding, and important careers they could choose.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, first, while I fully recognize the ability of the Senator from South Carolina to object to this amendment, it is certainly his right. I am disappointed. The majority leader has made, in my view, a major step forward in trying to resolve the impasse. I commend him and appreciate the direction he has now indicated he is prepared to go in an attempt to bring this matter to a close. The amendment, as the majority leader indicated, is one that includes amendments on both sides. We expressed last week our concern for two things: First, the array of relevant amendments that may not be germane. The majority leader's amendment includes all relevant amendments that, in many cases, if not all of them, are not germane. So unless we get an agreement to add these relevant amendments, we are precluded from doing so. There are some relevant amendments that still need to be offered that are not included in this package. By taking the tree down, those relevant amendments about which we have been very concerned are still pending and would not be offered if there were objections to offering them or if we were not able to bring them to closure. The second problem we had, of course, was with nonrelevant, nongermane amendments. In our discussions and negotiations, we have been able to accommodate that concern by working out an agreement on bankruptcy that I find to be very satisfactory that will allow us to take up nonrelevant, nongermane amendments. I intend to support cloture tomorrow, if that is the only way we can move this forward. I hope our colleagues will do so. It is no longer now a matter of protecting colleagues' rights. We are denied that right, not by the majority leader or by the parliamentary situation, but by individual Senators who are within their rights, of course, to object to proceeding on this bill. I want to get this legislation finished. I want to do all I can to protect Senators and their rights to offer amendments. Obviously, we will have to find other ways with which to do that. One way or the other, we are going to continue to work to see if we can resolve these difficulties. I appreciate very much the majority leader's effort to get us to this point.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation we have had on both sides of the aisle to get to this point. A number of Senators have expressed a desire to offer amendments and to change, in some way, the package as it has been presented and passed this morning. We will work with our colleagues to find ways in which to address many of these issues, whether it is in conference or on other vehicles. There are a number of issues I care about as well, and I share the concerns expressed to me by some of our colleagues. It is very important that before the end of the session we pass this legislation out and get to conference within a time where we might be able to move it further along. I strongly support the action the Senate has just taken. My only regret is that these matters aren't permanent law and that they require extension at all. There should come a time when we pass them permanently so we aren't required to come back year after year. Having said that, again, I appreciate the work of the majority leader. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Objection.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate very much the courtesy of the distinguished Senator from Illinois. I came to the floor to have a personal conversation with him on another matter. So I will yield the floor at this time to allow that opportunity, and appreciate, again, his courtesy.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Medicaid Eligibility Restoration Act of 1999, which fixes a major problem recently created in the health care safety net. My bill addresses a Medicaid eligibility problem--lack of access to health insurance during the first, and often costliest, month of disability--that was inadvertently caused by a change to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) policy in the 1996 welfare reform law. Let me explain how this Medicaid ``gap month'' problem was created. In 1996, the effective date of application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) was changed to the month following the date when an individual applies for SSI. Before the 1996 change, pro-rated payments began immediately. Since 1996, payments do not begin until the month following original application. This SSI payment change generated a small cost savings for the SSI program and ended the administrative burden of calculating partial month payments, but it also created a problem--a gap month--for Medicaid eligibility that is linked to SSI. For most SSI and Medicaid recipients, this change has resulted in one lost month of Medicaid eligibility, which is a hardship in itself. But those who suddenly become disabled or who are born with a disability face more dire consequences. Because of the 1996 change, they now lose health insurance coverage for what is often their costliest month--their first month of disability. This policy shift has left families with enormous medical bills and hospitals with uncompensated care. The Medicaid Eligibility Restoration Act would end this gap month in Medicaid coverage and would restore the pre-1996 Medicaid eligibility criteria. This issue first came to my attention when I received a letter from Randall Connelly of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. His wife, Susan, had recently given birth to premature twins. Tragically, the twins died a few days later. Despite the fact that Randy had a good job, with good health insurance, he still faced unaffordable out-of-pocket medical expenses. Because of the twins' low birth weight, both children were automatically eligible for SSI and Medicaid--or they would have been, if the twins had been born before enactment of the welfare reform law of 1996. In fact, the Connellys were ineligible for any help with their medical bills because of the small 1996 technical change in SSI payment policy. The unfortunate result was that the Connellys were left to cope not only with the loss of their newborn twins, but also with unaffordable hospital bills. Since my communication with the Connellys, I have heard from hospital administrators who have expressed concern on behalf of patients and families who have suddenly found themselves with nowhere to turn during their first weeks of extreme financial hardship and emotional trauma due to disability. Sioux Valley Hospital in Sioux Falls, SD, has reported that 28 newborns were affected during the past year in that one hospital alone. Hospital administrators report that: Delay in Medicaid coverage results in severe hardship for many families. . . . The normal stresses of dealing with a newborn with a serious disability are compounded by the extensive financial demands attendant to medical services provided for that child. I ask that a copy of Sioux Valley's letter of support for the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. That is how he has been quoted. That is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Nevada is correct. I think the words were, ``We want to see it wither on the vine.''

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his very important additional comments. We talk a lot about globalization, a globalized economy. We have a globalized diplomatic infrastructure today due to the fact the cold war ended. We have had a globalized environment from the very first day of creation. A globalized environment means that what happens in China, what happens in Asia, what happens in Europe, or Africa, or Latin America, has an effect on what happens here, and vice versa. The Senator from West Virginia makes a very important point. If we are, indeed, globalized, then it seems to me that we ought to share our technology with those countries that may be contributing both favorably and unfavorably to that globalized environment. We ought to provide leadership. They ought to recognize the importance of involvement. He has made that point for some time. I have heard some of his excellent speeches to that effect on the Senate floor. Let us hope we can continue to make progress, and let us hope that maybe this legislation will help us do so even more successfully. Again, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I may ask the majority leader, he is announcing there will not be any votes on Monday; is that correct?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I may further reserve the right to object--and I will not object, obviously--I wonder if the majority leader is able to tell me something at this time? I have given him a proposal on bankruptcy--we have cleared it on our side--having to do with the nonrelevant amendments and then the clarification of relevant amendments to the bankruptcy bill. Has the majority leader been able to determine whether that is acceptable and whether he has been able to clear it on his side?

Mr. DASCHLE. So the majority leader is saying there would be three Republican nonrelevant amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE. Has the Republican caucus made that decision as to what are the relevant amendments?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, assuming we then would be in a position to get agreement on moving to bankruptcy, would it be the intention of the majority leader to move to bankruptcy on Tuesday?

Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate the indulgence of the majority leader and his answers to my questions. I have one other question relating to the trade bills. Obviously, we have attempted to discuss how to proceed for some time. I have made an offer to the majority leader that he has been kind enough to consider; that is, he and I would table amendments that were not relevant to trade but certainly allow for at least a period of time so Senators can offer these amendments, with the idea that they will be debated and tabled shortly after the time they are offered, I am certainly prepared to renew that offer to the majority leader. As he knows, he has made the situation, again, one which would require a procedural vote on cloture rather than a substantive vote on cloture, thereby, again, undermining our ability to finish the bill. I wonder if the majority leader has given any more thought to this suggestion that he and I table these amendments and then move to final passage on trade, as I think we could have done even this week.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, just in further clarification, I am wondering--there are really two issues. The majority leader has appropriately articulated one of the concerns he has with regard to finishing the bill. Cloture will do that, if cloture is invoked. I am wondering if the majority leader would entertain tearing the tree down to allow Senators to offer amendments during the time the legislation is pending, thereby at least giving Senators the right to offer amendments, because he would still have the assurance, of course, that the bill--if cloture is invoked--would ripen and would ultimately terminate debate, but he then would cease to make the issue a procedural one. Then it would be one upon substance, which I think would be advantageous for both the majority leader and many of us who work with the administration to see this legislation pass.

Mr. DASCHLE. The majority leader points out a very important problem. If we invoke cloture, there are many important relevant amendments, that I think he and I would probably both support, that are not going to be in order on this legislation. I do not know how we are going to deal with that. I doubt he would be able to get unanimous consent to be able to offer it. I know amendments having to do with Africa, in particular, are in peril if cloture is invoked. So we have compounded the problem both from a relevancy point of view as well as from this procedural problem that we are attempting to work through. You asked the question, When would this occur? I guess I am thinking, under the current circumstances, there would not be any time for it to occur because the vote on cloture would occur as early as Tuesday because that is when the cloture motion ripens. I would be willing to work with the majority leader on an acceptable schedule for such amendments and the filing of cloture were he willing to work to accommodate at least some amendments and the opportunity to deal with this relevancy question that I think, regardless of the circumstances, he would deal with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.