Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today, with the distinguished Ranking Member of the Banking Committee, the senior Senator from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, we are introducing the ``Financial Services Act of 1999.'' We are joined by all Democratic members of the Banking Committee. The President has indicated through his Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, that he can support our approach and sign it into law. This bill makes a clear and unambiguous statement: we want financial services modernization enacted this year. This should not be a partisan issue. Our bill is based on last year's H.R. 10, which enjoyed wide bipartisan support. It was approved last year by the Senate Banking Committee by a vote of 16 to 2. Most Republicans supported it. It was supported by virtually every major financial services industry group. A similar bill was adopted by a bipartisan 51 to 8 vote this year in the House Banking Committee. Sadly, reform efforts suffered a major setback this year in the Senate Banking Committee when the majority forced through a bill on a party line vote of 11 to 9. Mr. President, financial services reform is now on two tracks toward reform. There is the veto track, and the Banking Committee bill is on it over the Community Reinvestment Act and other concerns. There is also the track toward enactment, which this bill and the House Banking bill are on. But it can't be ``take it or leave it'' on either side. We have agreed with the distinguished Majority Leader [Mr. Lott] to discuss this issue immediately after recess in an effort to find common ground. The choice is clear: it's either partisan brinksmanship--or bipartisan accomplishment. We reject the former and stand ready to deliver on the latter.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Leahy and Torricelli in introducing The Seniors Safety Act. All too often, seniors are primary targets for financial exploitation and subjected to neglect and physical abuse, and as our country's senior population continues to grow, the plague of crimes against the elderly has the potential to spiral out of control. The Seniors Safety Act combats this very serious issue by increasing penalties for crimes against seniors, improving law enforcement tools necessary to prevent telemarketing and healthcare fraud, safeguarding pension and benefit plans from fraud and bribery, and preventing nursing home abuse. Seniors are often targeted by criminals because of their lack of mobility, isolation, and dependence on others. The criminals targeting seniors should be subject to enhanced penalties, and we must develop new strategies to combat their crimes. The Seniors Safety Act requires the sentencing commission to review and consider amending sentencing guidelines to include age as one criterion for enhancing a sentence and enhances the penalty for fraudulent schemes that result in serious injury or death. In addition, the bill directs the Attorney General to conduct a comprehensive review of crimes against seniors in order to develop new ways to combat criminals who target older Americans. Federal investigators estimate that senior citizens constitute nearly 80 percent of telemarketing scam victims. In 1996, the AARP estimated that 14,000 companies nationwide were illegally defrauding citizens of their hard-earned money through telemarketing schemes. The fraud committed by only 300 telemarketers exposed by the FBI in 1995 resulted in an estimated $58 million loss from 52,000 seniors in just two years. The Seniors Safety Act puts in place important law enforcement tools needed to stop telemarketing fraud. The Act gives federal officials the ability to cut off a fraudulent telemarketer's telephone service. It also creates a hotline for victims of telemarketing fraud. Through the hotline, victims can register complaints against companies, can receive information regarding common fraudulent schemes and be referred to the appropriate enforcement agency. A database of complaints will be established so that victims can check for previous complaints against a particular company. Health care fraud also disproportionately harms older Americans. The Seniors Safety Act provides important new tools to law enforcement officials for use in health care fraud investigations. The bill authorizes the Attorney General to get injunctions to stop false claims and health care kickbacks and to issue administrative subpoenas for health care offenses. With court permission, the Attorney General would also be permitted to share grand jury information for use in civil investigations of health care fraud and abuse. In addition, the bill extends existing anti-fraud safeguards applicable to Medicare and Medicaid to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act. We must protect the economic security of our country's senior citizens by safeguarding pension and employee benefit plans from fraud and misuse. For this reason, an important provision of the Seniors Safety Act creates a new ``retirement fraud'' crime modeled on existing bank fraud and health care fraud statutes. The bill provides for civil penalties for commission of a retirement fraud crime, and increases the existing penalties for theft or embezzlement and bribery and graft with respect to the operation of an employee benefit plan. In 1997, the Department of Health and Human Services reported a 14 percent increase in nursing home abuse since 1994. Our society must provide a safe environment for older Americans who move into nursing homes. This bill will combat nursing home fraud and abuse by creating new federal and criminal penalties against persons or companies who willfully engage in a pattern of health and safety violations. The bill will also protect persons who report health and safety violations by allowing them to bring a civil cause of action for acts of retaliation against them. Finally, we must provide greater protections for senior crime victims. The Seniors Safety Act will do just that by requiring criminals to forfeit ill-gotten gains and property acquired by defrauding pension plans to the victims. The bill also prevents criminals from using the bankruptcy laws to avoid paying judgments by prohibiting judgments or settlements in Medicare or Medicaid fraud cases from being discharged in bankruptcy proceedings and allows False Claims Act actions to proceed despite concurrent bankruptcy proceedings. These and other provisions in The Seniors Safety Act will make a real difference--a positive difference--in protecting the senior citizens of this country. This comprehensive bill is a vital part of our ongoing effort to secure the safety of our families and our communities, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give it their full support.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, some people have mischaracterized the vote yesterday in favor of an amendment by the distinguished Senator from Missouri (Mr. Ashcroft) as a vote against the President's plan for investing a portion of the Social Security surplus in private equities. Such investments have been proposed by the President and many others as a way to boost the return on investment of the Social Security trust fund's reserves. Clearly, the amendment did not reflect the President's plan. Democrats and Republicans alike are opposed to direct investment by the federal government in private financial markets. That is why the President and other proponents of diversifying the investment of the trust fund have suggested that firewalls be constructed to insulate such investments from direct government control, or any interference by the federal government. As the Administration has made clear, such investments would be made by private-sector professional fund managers, overseen by a board with the independence of the Federal Reserve Board. The members of the board would not be able to pick and choose which stocks or industries to invest in, nor exercise the voting rights associated with those shares. Instead, investments would be limited by law to stock index funds broadly representative of the entire market. Many Senators, including me, drew a very significant distinction between the government investment and investment by non-governmental entity on behalf of the Social Security Administration. There's a big difference. Democrats and Republicans agreed that we cannot support direct government investment. But many of us believe we should have professional managers oversee a certain portion of the portfolio, which is something altogether different. This senator supports that idea, and many senators wanted to leave that option open so we could revisit it later on. The vote on the Ashcroft amendment was not a vote on the President's plan. I look forward to full consideration and debate of responsible proposals for investing a portion of the surplus in equities in order to increase the earnings on the reserves of the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Washington Center for Internships and Academic Seminars for its excellent work over the last 25 years. The Center, which was founded by William and Sheila Burke in 1975, is an independent, non- profit educational organization that has placed more than 24,000 students from over 750 colleges and universities in internships across the Washington, D.C. area. The Center plays a critical and formative role in teaching students the value of public service. The organization fosters an enduring civic awareness by placing students in internships and by holding academic seminars that introduce students to the exciting culture and history of our nation's capital. In addition to helping students experience the extraordinary educational opportunities that exist in the District of Columbia, The Center has made an invaluable contribution to public service by helping those of us in Congress to identify talented and energetic young men and women to assist in our work on behalf of the American public. I know that many of my colleagues share my deep appreciation for this extraordinary achievement, and join me in commending The Center for its pioneering efforts over the last quarter century to promote participatory learning in the nation's capitol. On this, The Center's 25th anniversary, it deserves the recognition and thanks of all of us who work in our nation's capitol and who have benefitted from The Center's important work. In conclusion, Mr. President, I wish the Washington Center continued success in fulfilling its vital mission to enhance the lives and learning of our nation's college students. This Center's work has immeasurably enriched the lives of students and the lives of those who have been fortunate enough to work with them, and I know it will continue to do so for many years to come.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank my friend from North Dakota for his leadership on this matter. Let me say, you can't say it better than what the ranking member of our committee, Senator Harkin, has just said. The fact is that you can look at virtually any commodity in agriculture today, and the situation continues to worsen. Whether it is in livestock or in grain, the commodity doesn't matter. The fact is, our circumstances are so dire that in spite of all the help we have attempted to provide through disaster assistance over the last 6 months, we are still going to lose millions of farmers and millions of rural Americans in the next couple of years. That is fact. All we are simply saying is this: If we are going to be of any assistance as we go through this extraordinary transition, we need to recreate the safety net that we once had. We need to recognize that farmers and ranchers cannot do it alone. We need to recognize that if there is going to be a surplus, one of the single best investments we can make is to ensure that those farmers and ranchers can survive with what meager tools they are going to have to manage their risks more effectively. That is what the Senator from North Dakota is saying. We are not going to specify and delineate each and every tool today. We will work that out. But we have got to set the parameters. We have got to send the message. We have to ensure that the priority is there. I have to say, Mr. President, this is a very important amendment. I applaud the Senator from North Dakota for his willingness to take the leadership in ensuring that we are at this point. I am hopeful that we can get a broad bipartisan consensus in passing it. It sends as clear a message as we can send out to agriculture across this country: We hear you. We are as concerned as you are, and we want to do something about it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help address the economic malaise that has gripped certain rural and remote areas of our country and the problems arising from the high cost of developing and maintaining infrastructure in remote communities. The legislation will provide grants to rural communities suffering from out-migration and low per-capita income and will help ensure that remote communities are not unfairly penalized by the high cost of services, such as water, waste water, fuel and utility services. I want to thank my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, for his work on this legislation. His contribution in addressing these problems is most welcome. Rural areas of our Nation continue to experience vast fluctuations in their economic well-being due to their dependence on worldwide agricultural markets. The link between global economic forces and local economic conditions is nowhere as pronounced as it is in rural America. And yet, rural communities are often those least capable of weathering the severe periodic downturns that occur in global markets. Statistics bear out these fluctuations in economic activity, but they fail to fully capture the human suffering that lies just beyond the numbers. Economic downturns lead to the migration away from farm- dependent, rural communities, further stifling economic opportunities for those left behind. The 1990 Census highlighted these migratory trends, and I anticipate that similar trends will be captured by the upcoming Census, as well. In short, the bandwagon of prosperity that has carried many Americans along through the past decade has left many rural areas standing by the wayside. If this trend continues, more and more young people will be forced to leave the towns they grew up in for opportunities in urban areas. In towns like Webster, Sisseton, and White River, South Dakota, we are seeing farm families broken up, populations decline, and main street businesses close their doors. While there is no doubt that economic growth in our urban areas has benefited our Nation, the disparity of economic development between our rural and urban areas cannot be ignored. If nothing is done to address the economic challenges facing these areas, we will jeopardize the future of rural America. That is why Senator Murkowski and I are introducing legislation to provide the Nation's rural areas with the resources necessary to make critical investments in their future and, by doing so, to create economic opportunities that will help them sustain a valuable and important way of life. While Federal agencies, such as the United States Department of Agriculture's Office of Rural Development and the Economic Development Administration, provide assistance for rural development purposes, there are no Federal programs that provide a steady source of funding for rural areas most affected by severe out- migration and low per-capita income. For these areas, the process of economic development is often most arduous. The Rural and Remote Community Fairness Act of 1999 will provide the basic, long-term assistance necessary to aid the coordinated efforts of local community leaders as they begin economic recovery efforts to ensure a bright future for rural America. Specifically, the Rural and Remote Community Fairness Act of 1999 will provide a minimum of $200,000 per year to counties and Indian tribes with (1) out-migration levels of one percent or more over a five-year period, (2) per-capita income levels that are below the national average, and (3) borders that are not adjacent to a metropolitan area. This legislation authorizes the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to set aside $50 million in Community Development Block Grant funding for this purpose. The money, which is already included in the agency's budget, will be allocated on a formula basis to rural counties and Indian tribes suffering from out- migration and low-per capita income levels. County and tribal governments will be able to use this federal funding to improve their industrial parks, purchase land for development, build affordable housing and create economic recovery strategies according to their needs. All of these important steps will help rural communities address their economic problems and plan for long-term growth and development. In addition to addressing the problems of out-migration from low per- capita income areas, this legislation also focuses on the unique problems associated with those communities located in areas with high energy costs. Specifically, the legislation sets aside $100,000,000 for weatherization efforts, the construction of cost-efficient power facilities and fuel storage facilities, energy management programs, water and waste water facilities, the acquisition or disposition of real property for rural and remote development activities, and for the implementation of a comprehensive rural and remote development plan. Mr. President, the Rural and Remote Community Fairness Act of 1999 holds great potential for revitalizing many of our nation's most neglected and vulnerable areas. I urge my colleagues to support its enactment this Congress.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 1999, which requires health insurance plans to provide coverage for a minimum hospital stay for mastectomies and lymph node dissections performed to treat breast cancer. This bill would prevent insurance companies and health maintenance organizations (HMOs) from forcing women to leave the hospital prematurely following a mastectomy or lymph node dissection or to have these treatments on an outpatient basis. Insurance company accountants should not make medical decisions without considering a doctor's judgments or a patient's needs. This legislation is part of my ongoing effort to protect patients and require that insurance companies deliver necessary, promised coverage. The Patients' Bill of Rights Act, S.6, also addresses these types of abuses, while providing a range of other important protections. The Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act would guarantee women at least 48 hours of inpatient care following a mastectomy and at least 24 hours following lymph node dissection. These standards were designed in consultation with surgeons who specialize in this area and reflect the minimum amount of inpatient care necessary following these procedures. Patients, in consultation with their physicians, would be able to leave the hospital earlier if their situation warrants. The bottom line is still that insurers should allow coverage for the time necessary to ensure a proper recovery. Over the last several years, the average length of hospitalization following a mastectomy has fallen from 4-6 to 2-3 days. Patients undergoing lymph node dissections in the past were hospitalized for 2-3 days. While some of the reductions in length of care may be the result of better medical practices, hospitalization is still critical for pain control, to manage fluid drainage, and to provide support and reassurance for women who have just undergone major surgery. Nevertheless, some patients have been told that their health maintenance organization (HMO) will cover their major surgery only on an outpatient basis. These determinations have been made on the basis of studies by their own actuarial consulting firms. However, both American College of Surgeons and the American Medical Association have concluded that inpatient stays are recommended in many cases. Women suffering from breast cancer deserve to know that their insurance will cover care based on their medical needs rather than the coverage recommendations made by HMO actuaries. My bill is a companion to H.R. 116, which was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman DeLauro. I would like to express appreciation to Congresswoman DeLauro, and to Senators Feinstein, Mikulski and Murray, for their tireless efforts on behalf of breast cancer patients. All have been invaluable leaders who have inspired and challenged us to address the very real need for breast cancer treatment reform. As we discuss the importance of ensuring quality care for breast cancer sufferers who have health insurance, it is also important to note that many women in the United States must fight this life- threatening disease without any health insurance at all. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) funds breast and cervical cancer screening-- in South Dakota, 1300 low-income women have been screened during the past 18 months--but there is no funding for actual treatment when that screening detects cancer. While the CDC effort is a critical part of the fight against cancer, it is ironic that those women who test positive for breast and cervical cancer may have no way to pay for the treatment they need. With one in eight women expected to develop breast cancer, it is increasingly likely that all of our families will be affected by this devastating disease in some way. In South Dakota, 500 women will be diagnosed with, and 100 will die of, breast cancer in the next 12 months. Let us take this small step to ensure the experience is not complicated by insecurity and confusion over health insurance coverage. Let us put critical health care decisions back in the hands of breast cancer patients and their physicians. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 1999, which requires health insurance plans to provide coverage for a minimum hospital stay for mastectomies and lymph node dissections performed to treat breast cancer. This bill would prevent insurance companies and health maintenance organizations (HMOs) from forcing women to leave the hospital prematurely following a mastectomy or lymph node dissection or to have these treatments on an outpatient basis. Insurance company accountants should not make medical decisions without considering a doctor's judgments or a patient's needs. This legislation is part of my ongoing effort to protect patients and require that insurance companies deliver necessary, promised coverage. The Patients' Bill of Rights Act, S.6, also addresses these types of abuses, while providing a range of other important protections. The Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act would guarantee women at least 48 hours of inpatient care following a mastectomy and at least 24 hours following lymph node dissection. These standards were designed in consultation with surgeons who specialize in this area and reflect the minimum amount of inpatient care necessary following these procedures. Patients, in consultation with their physicians, would be able to leave the hospital earlier if their situation warrants. The bottom line is still that insurers should allow coverage for the time necessary to ensure a proper recovery. Over the last several years, the average length of hospitalization following a mastectomy has fallen from 4-6 to 2-3 days. Patients undergoing lymph node dissections in the past were hospitalized for 2-3 days. While some of the reductions in length of care may be the result of better medical practices, hospitalization is still critical for pain control, to manage fluid drainage, and to provide support and reassurance for women who have just undergone major surgery. Nevertheless, some patients have been told that their health maintenance organization (HMO) will cover their major surgery only on an outpatient basis. These determinations have been made on the basis of studies by their own actuarial consulting firms. However, both American College of Surgeons and the American Medical Association have concluded that inpatient stays are recommended in many cases. Women suffering from breast cancer deserve to know that their insurance will cover care based on their medical needs rather than the coverage recommendations made by HMO actuaries. My bill is a companion to H.R. 116, which was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman DeLauro. I would like to express appreciation to Congresswoman DeLauro, and to Senators Feinstein, Mikulski and Murray, for their tireless efforts on behalf of breast cancer patients. All have been invaluable leaders who have inspired and challenged us to address the very real need for breast cancer treatment reform. As we discuss the importance of ensuring quality care for breast cancer sufferers who have health insurance, it is also important to note that many women in the United States must fight this life- threatening disease without any health insurance at all. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) funds breast and cervical cancer screening-- in South Dakota, 1300 low-income women have been screened during the past 18 months--but there is no funding for actual treatment when that screening detects cancer. While the CDC effort is a critical part of the fight against cancer, it is ironic that those women who test positive for breast and cervical cancer may have no way to pay for the treatment they need. With one in eight women expected to develop breast cancer, it is increasingly likely that all of our families will be affected by this devastating disease in some way. In South Dakota, 500 women will be diagnosed with, and 100 will die of, breast cancer in the next 12 months. Let us take this small step to ensure the experience is not complicated by insecurity and confusion over health insurance coverage. Let us put critical health care decisions back in the hands of breast cancer patients and their physicians. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the majority leader whether or not, given the fact it does not now appear that we will have votes on Monday and Senators will just be coming back, we could schedule the vote for 2:15, immediately following the caucus, so that we would have the opportunity to discuss this matter in caucus and decide what course of action we may take; 2:15, I think, would probably accommodate many Senators who might not otherwise have the opportunity.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have just noted that there are approximately 90 amendments. I agree with the characterization of the majority leader that we have the two finest managers the Senate could put forth as we work through this bill, and I am sure that they will cut through those amendments like a knife through hot butter. As eternal an optimist as I am, I am still not optimistic at this point that we can complete work on all 90 amendments prior to 11 o'clock, so I will object. I do ask for the cooperation of our colleagues in the hopes that we can finish this bill. Obviously, there is a great deal of work that yet needs to be done. If we work this afternoon and work hard, perhaps as early as this evening we might be able to finish, but let's give it our best effort and revisit the question of when we can go to final passage. So I object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not, I will just describe the list for our colleagues to indicate that there are approximately 45 Republican amendments and approximately 35 Democratic amendments on the list just submitted, but I do not object. I support the request made by the majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his eloquence, as well as the Senator from Nevada, whom I also heard. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for making the effort to allow us this opportunity on the floor this morning. Mr. President, last week, when Joe DiMaggio died, I heard many people say it is a shame how few heroes there are left among us. To anyone who believes that, I say: Meet my friend, Bob Kerrey. To me and to many others, he is a genuine American hero. As others have noted, on a moonless black night, 30 years ago this past Sunday, Lieutenant Kerrey, then a 25-year-old Navy SEAL commander, led his squad in a surprise attack on North Vietnamese Army guerillas on the island of Hon Tre. During the fierce firefight that broke out, an enemy grenade exploded on the ground beside him. The blast shattered his right leg below the knee, badly wounded his right hand, and pierced much of his body with shrapnel. Despite his massive injuries, Lieutenant Kerrey continued to direct his squad until the last man was safely evacuated. Days later, doctors were forced to amputate his injured leg just below the knee. Lieutenant Kerrey had been in Vietnam only 3 months. For his sacrifice, he was awarded the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, and the highest award our nation bestows for bravery, the Congressional Medal of Honor. But it is not only what others pinned over his heart that makes Bob Kerrey a hero. It is what is in his heart. Joseph Robert Kerrey returned from Vietnam angry and disillusioned. What he endured in Vietnam, and what he saw later at the Philadelphia Naval Hospital, where he spent nine months learning how to walk again, shook his faith--both in the war, and in the Government that had sent him there. It forced him to re-examine everything he had ever believed about his country. But slowly, out of his pain and anger and doubt, he began to acquire a new faith in this Nation. Years ago, when he was Governor of Nebraska, he described that faith to a reporter. He said, ``There are . . . people who like to say, `You know all these subsidy programs we've got? They make people lazy.' And I like to jump right in their face and say, that is an absolute lie.'' Government help ``didn't make me lazy. It made me grateful.'' Another time, he put it more simply. While government ``almost killed me'' in a war, he said, government also ``saved my life.'' It was the United States Government, he said, that fitted him with a prosthesis and taught him to walk again. It was the Government that paid for the countless operations he needed. Later, in 1973, it was the Government that helped him open his first restaurant with his brother- in-law. Two years later, when that restaurant was destroyed in a tornado, it was the Government--the people of the United States--that loaned them the money to rebuild. As Governor and, for the last 11 years, as a Member of the Senate, Bob Kerrey has fought to make sure Government works for all Americans. He has fought to make health care more affordable and accessible. He has fought to give entrepreneurs the chance to turn their good ideas into profitable businesses. He has fought to make sure this nation keeps its promises to veterans. He has also fought tirelessly to preserve family farms and rural communities. For several years now, I've had the good fortune to serve with Senator Kerrey on the Agriculture Committee. I know how deeply committed he is to restoring the agricultural economy. In 1994, he played a key role in preserving the Federal crop insurance program, and today, with the Presiding Officer he is one of the leaders in the effort to strengthen it again, so we reduce our over-reliance on disaster programs and make the system fairer and more predictable for producers. Senator Kerrey is continually looking for new ways to create new opportunities for American farmers. He is a strong supporter of ethanol, and of increased agricultural research. He is committed to preserving the integrity of the U.S. food supply, so that we continue to have the safest, most abundant, most economical food supply in the world. Like Senator Kerrey, I come from a state that is made up mostly of small towns and rural communities, so I am personally grateful to him for his efforts to help agricultural producers. I am also grateful for his insistence that rural America be treated fairly on a whole array of critical issues, from expanding the information superhighway, to improving our health care system, and strengthening the schools America's children attend, especially in rural areas. But Senator Kerrey's greatest contribution to this Senate, and to this Nation, may be that he is not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom. In 1994, almost single-handedly, he created and chaired the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. Conventional wisdom said, don't get involved with entitlements. You can't make anyone happy; you can only make enemies. But Bob Kerrey's personal experience told him that preserving Social Security and Medicare was worth taking a risks--risking some political capital. He has repeatedly opposed efforts to amend our Constitution to make flag-burning a crime. It is politically risky, even for a wounded war hero, to take such a position. But Senator Kerrey has taken that risk, time and time again, because--in his words: America is a beacon of hope for the people of this world who yearn for freedom from the despotism of ``repressive government.'' This hope is diluted when we advise others that we are frightened by flag burning. He is, at heart, a genuine patriot. He was born in Lincoln, Nebraska, one of 7 children. His father was a builder, his mother was a housewife. As a child, he suffered from such severe asthma that one of his teachers later said, when he breathed, he sometimes sounded like a fireplace bellows. Despite his asthma, he was on his high school basketball, football, golf and swim teams. Is anyone surprised? After high school, he went to the University of Nebraska, where he finished his 5-year pharmacy program in 4 years. His asthma likely would have given him a legitimate way to avoid military service, but he wasn't looking for a way out. Shortly after he graduated, he enlisted in the Navy as an officer candidate. The Navy was then just starting its elite SEALs program, the Navy's version of the Green Berets. Of the 5,000 men who applied for underwater demolition training with the SEALs, only 197 were selected, and only about 60 made it through the brutal training. His plan was to do his duty with the SEALs and return to Nebraska to work as a pharmacist. He made the SEALs, with asthma. Is anyone surprised? But then that all changed on that black night 30 years ago. When he finally got the chance to practice pharmacy after he had been put back together at the naval hospital, he discovered he could no longer stand for as long as the job required. Changing courses, he and his brother- in-law started a restaurant. Eventually they would own several restaurants and health clubs and employ more than 900 people. Is anyone surprised? In the beginning, they did everything themselves, from tending bar to flipping burgers to washing dishes. Is anyone surprised? He entered politics in 1982, beating an incumbent Republican Governor in a heavily Republican State. At the time, Nebraska was in the middle of a terrible budget and farm crisis. Over the next 4 years, he replaced the 3-percent deficit he inherited with a 7-percent surplus. Knowing Bob Kerrey, is anyone surprised? He never received lower than a 55-percent approval rating for the entire time he was Governor. In 1985, when he stunned Nebraskans by announcing that he would not seek a second term, he was at a 70-percent approval rating. After the Governor's office, he went briefly to Santa Barbara, CA, where he taught a college class on the Vietnam War with Walter Capps. In 1988, Nebraskans elected him to the U.S. Senate. In 1992, he ran for our party's Presidential nomination. He is a fierce defender of Nebraska's interests and a national leader as well. This Senate is enriched by the contributions of many heroes from different wars, Mr. President: Max Cleland, who lost an arm and both of his legs in Vietnam, holds a Silver Star. Chuck Hagel holds two Purple Hearts. Fritz Hollings holds a Bronze Star. Danny Inouye lost an arm in Italy in World War II. He was awarded a Purple Heart, a Bronze Star, and the Distinguished Service Cross. John Kerry holds the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, three Purple Hearts, the National Defense Service Medal, and two Presidential Unit Citations. John McCain spent 5\1/2\ years in hell as a POW. He holds a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, a Legion of Merit honor, a Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross. Bill Roth holds a Bronze Star. Ted Stevens was awarded two Distinguished Flying Crosses and two Air Medals in World War II. Many other Senators served with distinction as well in times of peace as well as in times of war. One Senator among us holds the Congressional Medal of Honor. To him, this Nation is indebted for all that he did to achieve it. I am reminded of a story Senator Kerrey has told many times about a conversation he had with his mother 30 years ago. Doctors at the Philadelphia Naval Hospital had just amputated his leg. When he awoke from surgery, his mother was standing at his bedside. ``How much is left?'' he asked her. His mother said, ``There's a lot left.'' As Senator Kerrey says, ``She wasn't talking about body parts. She was talking about here.'' She was talking about what is in his heart. For 30 years, Bob Kerrey has drawn on the courage and compassion of what is here--first to rebuild his own life, then to try to make a better life for people in Nebraska, and then for people all across this country. He is to me a genuine American hero, and he is my friend. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I anticipate that the amendments would all be offered.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to briefly thank those Senators on both sides of the aisle. This is a very important procedural agreement we have reached, after some deliberation and a great deal of willingness to cooperate on the part of many Senators. There were many, many Senators who had expressed the hope that they could offer their amendments; they were precluded from doing that. Frankly, I am disappointed that they were precluded. But I will say this: I am also grateful to the majority leader for agreeing to have up-or-down votes on the class size amendment, on the dropout amendment, on the social promotion amendment, on the amendment with regard to report cards, and on the amendments Senator Wellstone will be proposing on the accountability. This represents, I think, a compromise that we hoped we could reach. It represents an extraordinary amount of good-faith effort on both sides. I think the Senators from Oregon and Tennessee ought to be commended as well for their patience and tolerance in working with all of our colleagues in bringing us to this point. It goes without saying, the managers of the bill, the Senator from Vermont and the illustrious and extraordinary ranking member, Senator Kennedy, deserve a great deal of credit. We have come a long way. We have reached a point now where we are going to be able to finish this bill--a very good bill that deserves support. This also allows us to deal with the amendments that a number of Senators have been fighting to have votes on now for several days. I thank all Senators for their cooperation. Mr. President, there have been a number of questions about how we are going to be proceeding under the unanimous consent request. We consulted with the majority leader and with the manager of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that all but 1 hour of time allotted under the unanimous consent agreement be consumed today, allowing 1 hour under the arrangement anticipated by the unanimous consent agreement to be used tomorrow. I then ask unanimous consent that those who might wish to express themselves on the bill or on amendments be allowed as if in morning business to speak later on this evening.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I modify my request to clarify that it would be my expectation that all amendments would be offered, and that there would be a period of 1 hour simply to discuss and further consider these amendments tomorrow. I withdraw the request at this point, and I certainly defer to the managers to renew their request at such time as the majority leader clears the request. But I don't anticipate an objection. I appreciate the indulgence of both managers.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for making the offer that he has. He and I have been in discussions throughout the morning trying to find a way with which to resolve this impasse. I appreciate very much his willingness to have the up-or-down votes that we now have wanted for some time. We have 20 amendments that Senators want to offer. For the life of me, I don't understand. We had over 20 amendments offered, voted on, considered, and disposed of on the military bill a couple of weeks ago, and we resolved that bill within 3 or 4 days. We could have easily done that by now. I have offered to the majority leader the agreement that he has just articulated, with one minor change. We keep the time. We go to the time certain that the majority leader suggested in his unanimous consent request. But we would also accommodate four other amendments: Two offered by Senator Wellstone, an amendment offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, and the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota--all related to Ed-Flex, directly related to Ed-Flex, with the exception of Senator Dorgan's report card amendment. Those four amendments would not require any additional time beyond the 5 hours; that is, we divide up the time allotted to us in whatever amount is required for each amendment. But we would accommodate at least those three Senators who have waited patiently now for over a week to offer their amendments. So I hope the majority leader can modify his request with that simple outstanding caveat, that one additional change: No additional time, one additional change to accommodate three Senators who have waited patiently and who want to resolve this matter. I hope the majority leader will modify his request in that regard, and I ask unanimous consent to that effect.

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I bring to the attention of my colleagues an article that recently appeared in The Washington Post, ``Hearing Loss Touches a Younger Generation.'' This article raises important issues related to hearing loss and gives us practical advice for protecting our hearing. Hearing loss affects approximately 28 million Americans and is affecting more of us at younger ages. Hearing difficulties among those ages 45 to 64 increased 26 percent between 1971 and 1990, while those between ages 18 and 44 experienced a 17 percent increase. About one third of the cases of hearing loss are caused, at least in part, by extreme or consistent exposure to high decibel noises. While the Environmental Protection Agency has worked to decrease our exposure to loud noises at work, many Americans now face threats to optimal hearing during their leisure hours from loud music, lawn mowers and outdoor equipment, automobiles, airplanes and other sources. Too many Americans simply are not aware of the devastating impact loud sounds can have on their hearing. At the encouragement of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) is leading a collaborative effort with the National Institute on Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the National Institute on Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to help improve awareness about noise-induced hearing loss. It is my hope that this effort ultimately will help reverse the trend toward increasing noise-induced hearing loss. Health professionals, too, play an important role in the treatment and prevention of hearing loss. In particular, I'd like to highlight the important work of audiologists in successfully combating and treating hearing loss. Over the years I have been impressed by the cost-effective, quality care they provide, most notably demonstrated in the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system, which has allowed veterans direct access to audiologists since 1992. Through high standards of care by qualified health care professionals and through improved education about the dangers of hearing loss, I believe we can protect and improve the hearing of millions of Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the attached article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise to agree and disagree with the distinguished majority leader. Let me point out my area of agreement first. I believe it is important, as we begin our legislative session this year, that Senators be fully apprised of the schedule, and we understand that we have to be here on Fridays and on Mondays. I think the majority leader is absolutely right in expecting that we have votes on Friday mornings and Monday afternoons or Monday evenings. I hope Senators will accommodate that schedule with their own personal schedules, because that is the only way, as we get into more legislative work, that we will be able to accommodate all of our needs legislatively. I must say that I am in strong disagreement with the leader's decision to file cloture. We have a very important amendment that I was hoping we could offer even this morning, the class size amendment, the 100,000-teacher amendment offered by Senator Murray and Senator Kennedy, and a number of other Senators. That was not possible because of the decision made by the leader. What is perhaps most perplexing to me is, having filed cloture yesterday, that 17 Republican Senators filed cloture, then they voted against tabling a banking amendment to the education bill this morning. So we have an unusual set of circumstances where the very same Senators who signed a cloture motion yesterday, voted not to table an extraneous amendment having nothing to do with Ed-Flex today, the banking amendment. I must say it doesn't help us as our colleagues are attempting to work through this procedurally to understand what the nature of the strategy may be on the other side. It appears that what they are trying to do is simply deny the Democrats the right to offer our amendments. They will vote no on a Republican amendment--they will vote not to table; that is, a Republican amendment--having to do with banking, but then they will preclude Democrat Senators from offering legitimate, important amendments having to do with education, such as the class size amendment, and for having a debate on it. So I am perplexed by that. It sends the wrong message. We want to cooperate.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this is an important bill. Ed-Flex is a bill that, in my view, as I have said before, warrants a 100-to-nothing vote. We ought to give States more flexibility. But we also ought to recognize that if we are going to begin debate on education policy in the U.S. Senate, there are other issues that also merit consideration and opportunity for an up-or-down vote: Whether or not we have an afterschool program, whether or not we have an effort in this country to prevent dropouts, whether or not we consider 100,000 teachers and class size, whether or not we have school construction. All of those are legitimate education issues. So I will offer to my distinguished majority leader another effort at compromise. I will attempt to see if we might come down to five or six amendments and say: Look. We will agree to those five or six amendments; we will agree to time limits and up-or-down votes on those five or six amendments; and then let's move on. The majority leader was very generous, I thought, with what he said earlier to the Governors. As I understand it, the majority leader said, Let's go to the Senate; let's take a week; let's take 2 weeks, if necessary, but let's talk about education. Let's take 2 weeks if necessary. We haven't even taken a week yet. So I really appreciate the majority leader's interest in trying to find some way with which to resolve this impasse. I think he is understandably desirous of moving on to other things. We want to do that. We want to pass the Ed-Flex bill. We want to pass good education amendments. We want to resolve this matter. We want to find a way to do it in a bipartisan manner. And I am confident that if we continue to work at it that we will. So I will offer, again, to see if we might limit our amendments to maybe five or six with time limits and have up-or-down votes. I believe that is the best way to break through this. I am hopeful that we can get broad bipartisan agreement. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me thank you and members of the floor staff for your patience. I appreciate very much your indulgence of my need to come to the floor. I want to talk briefly about a very important development today.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for 24 years Justice Harry Blackmun gave voice on the highest court in this land to ordinary Americans. He gave voice--in his own words--to ``the little guy.'' Early this morning, that voice was silenced. Harry Blackmun died at the age of 90. He was an extraordinary man and a quintessential American. His tenure on the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court extended through the terms of nine Presidents. Years ago, Justice Blackmun predicted the first thing obituary writers would say of him today is that he was the man who wrote Roe v. Wade, and that clearly was the best known and most controversial decision in Justice Blackmun's career. But Harry Blackmun stood for much more than that. He was regarded by many as the Justice most insistent that the Court confront the reality of the problems it considered and the real-world consequences of those decisions. In a dissenting opinion, he once challenged what he called ``the comfortable perspective'' from which his fellow Justices ruled that a $40 fee did not limit a poor woman's right to choose. The reason he saw that matter differently from his fellow Justices was due--at least in part--to the fact that Harry Blackmun had been raised differently. He was born in Nashville in 1908 but grew up in St. Paul, MN. His father owned a hardware store and a grocery store. His family did not have a lot of money. When Harry Blackmun was 17 years old, he was chosen by the Harvard Club of Minnesota to receive a scholarship. At Harvard, he majored in mathematics. To cover living expenses, he worked as a janitor and a milkman, painted handball courts, and graded math papers. He considered seriously going to medical school but chose Harvard instead. He worked that same string of odd jobs to pay for his room and board all the way through law school. After law school, he spent 16 years in private law practice in St. Paul. In 1950, Harry Blackmun became the first resident counsel at the world-renowned Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. He later called this ``the happiest decade'' in his life, because it gave him ``a foot in both camps--law and medicine.'' A lifelong Republican, Justice Blackmun was nominated in November of 1959 by President Eisenhower to the U.S. Court of Appeals' Eighth Circuit. At the time, he was labeled a conservative. In April of 1970, he was nominated by President Nixon to the Supreme Court. He had been recommended to President Nixon by a man with whom he had been friends since they attended kindergarten together: Chief Justice Warren Burger. Justice Blackmun was, in fact, the third choice to fill the seat vacated by Abe Fortas. Typical of his self-effacing wit, he often referred to himself as ``Old No. 3.'' When the FBI conducted its prenomination investigation of Harry Blackmun, they turned up only one complaint: He works too hard. In his early days on the Court, Justice Blackmun tended to vote with his old friend, the Chief Justice. In fact, their records were so similar they were called by some ``the Minnesota Twins.'' As he began his second decade on the Court, Justice Blackmun found his own voice. He began to use that voice more frequently and more forcefully to speak for those he thought too often went unnoticed by the Court. He emerged as one of the Court's most courageous champions of individual liberty. His overriding concern was balancing and protecting the rights of individuals against the authority of the government. He was a staunch defender of free speech and what he called ``the most valued'' of all rights: the right to be left alone. He was criticized by some and praised by others for what many people perceived as a change in his political beliefs. He always insisted to friends that he had not moved to the left; rather the Court had moved to the right. ``I've been called liberal and conservative; labels are deceiving. I call them as I see them,'' he said. Roe v. Wade combined Justice Blackmun's two most enduring interests: the right to privacy, and the relationship between medical and legal issues. For weeks before writing the majority opinion, he immersed himself in historical and medical research at the Mayo Clinic. Over the years, he would receive 60,000 pieces of hate mail as a result of his decision. He read every one of them. Once when he was asked why, he replied, simply, ``I want to know what the people who wrote are thinking.'' He understood why Roe v. Wade produced such strong passions in people--because it had elicited strong feelings in him. In 1983, he gave a long interview to a reporter--something that remains nearly unprecedented for a Supreme Court Justice. In that interview, he recalled what it was like to write the opinion in that landmark case. I believe everything I said in the second paragraph of that opinion, where I agonized, initially not only for myself, but for the Court. Parenthetically, in doing so publicly, I disobeyed one suggestion Hugo Black made to me when I first came here. He said, ``Harry, never display agony in public, in an opinion. Never display agony. Never say `This is an agonizing, difficult decision.' Always write it as though it's clear as crystal.'' Justice Blackmun wrote an agonized opinion because for him--and, he understood, for most people--abortion is an agonizing decision. It was then, and it remains so today. I, for one, am grateful to Justice Blackmun that he did not try to minimize the difficulty of that decision. To do so would have been disrespectful, I believe, to the vast majority of Americans who are truly torn, intellectually and emotionally, by the question of abortion. In 1994, when Justice Blackmun announced his retirement, he told President Clinton, ``I'm indebted to the Nation . . . for putting up with the likes of me.'' Today, as we bid farewell to Harry Blackmun, it is we who are indebted to him. He was the champion of liberty, and ``we are not likely to see the likes of him'' for a long time. Our thoughts and prayers are with Justice Blackmun's friends and family, especially his wife and partner of 58 years, Dottie, and their three daughters, Nancy, Sally and Susan. Our Nation will miss Harry Blackmun.