Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair, and I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Montana.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I understand all time has expired on the pending amendment. I choose to use my leader time.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 1 additional minute.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to our ranking member, the distinguished Senator from Iowa.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their eloquent comments and the contributions they have made to this debate all afternoon. I will be very brief, because I know that Senators wish to express themselves on this amendment, and we will accommodate that. There are two points I want to make. The first is that since the Senate has attempted to address this problem in July, the situation has worsened immeasurably. To the extent that we can measure it, it is simply important for all of us to understand that prices have fallen dramatically just in the last 6 weeks. For July, corn prices have fallen 28 percent. For wheat, since July, prices have fallen an additional 20 percent. For soybeans, an additional 20 percent, and that is just since July. The bottom has fallen out of the market. The situation continues to worsen. Mr. President, we have no choice but to take as immediate an action, as comprehensive an action as we possibly can to address this problem. Very simply, the second point is to simply address one last time what it is we attempt to do. The Senator from Iowa ably, again, articulated why we need to increase the cap on the marketing loan. That is No. 1. No. 2, so farmers aren't forced to move their grain onto the market, we give them the opportunity to store their grain on an emergency basis. Let me remind my colleagues, we are only talking about a 1-year authorization, first for the loan rate, and second for the storage. Third, we provide indemnity losses. The Senator from Louisiana is right and the senior Senator from Louisiana has expressed his concern to me about how this problem is spreading. Louisiana is hit even harder now than they were last July. So the indemnity proposal is absolutely essential if we are going to address the multiplicity of problems we have in agriculture nationally. The fourth is that we go back to the issue that we discussed earlier on mandatory price reporting. If we are ever going to change the livestock situation, we must get rid of the secret deals. We must make sure that they--that is livestock producers--have the same opportunities for open and fair competition as others. Mandatory price reporting will do that. And then finally, we believe that we need to make consistent in agriculture what we have done in every other commodity and industry for as long as I know, and that is, simply label the products when they are imported. We do it for every other product. We ought to do it for the food we eat. Mr. President, basically that is what we are proposing today, to address this problem in as comprehensive a way, recognizing that in both livestock and grain we have a serious problem. We cannot wait any longer. This issue must be addressed. This amendment does it. I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the Senator an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be laid aside to accommodate the amendment to be offered by the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, in spite of the extraordinarily good name this bill has, I just inform the majority leader that we are still negotiating. We hope that we can come to some accommodation here. I would personally like to see this legislation pass, but we are not there yet. On behalf of colleagues on this side, I will object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of Valoris Carlson of Aberdeen, SD, and the handful of others like her whose lives have been terribly disrupted. This legislation will right a wrong that was not due to any error or deception on Valoris' part, but due to an administrative error by the Railroad Retirement Board [RRB]. In addition, the majority of the Board supports the amendment. In 1984 Valoris, as the divorced spouse of a deceased railroad employee, applied for a tier I survivor's annuity. The RRB failed to check if a lump sum withdrawal had previously been made on the account at the time of her former spouse's death--even though Valoris clearly stated on her application that there was a surviving widow. In fact, a lump sum payment had been made, but not identified. The RRB began paying Valoris $587 per month in 1984 and continued to pay her benefits for 11 years. In 1994 the RRB discovered that an error had been made over a decade ago. Subsequently, Valoris was told she was not eligible for the pension she was awarded in 1984. Had the RRB thoroughly reviewed their records, they would have seen that a lump-sum payment had been made on that account. Valoris, who was married for 26 years, lost her eligibility to the widow of the railroad worker who had been married to him for only 3 years. Valoris made an honest application for benefits. The RRB made an error, resulting in 11 years of ``overpayments'' to Valoris. These payments affected Valoris' planning for the future. Valoris planned her retirement on that modest sum of $587. Had she been told she was not eligible for benefits, she would have worked longer to build up her own Social Security benefits. Her railroad divorced widow's benefit has been her only steady income. She has picked up a few dollars here and there by renting out rooms in her home, but without her monthly benefit income, Valoris has had a terrible time struggling to make ends meet. The bill I am introducing today will address the errors made by the RRB that have disrupted the life of Valoris Carlson and others like her. The RRB advises that 15 other widows are similarly situated, and their pensions would also be restored by this bill. The bill, which was developed with technical assistance from the RRB, would allow the 16 women impacted by the RRB's administrative error to begin receiving their monthly benefits again. It requires them to repay the lump sum, but they are allowed to do so through a modest withholding from their monthly benefit. The RRB could waive the monthly withholding if it would cause excessive hardship for a widow. According to the RRB, the costs of this legislation would be negligible for scoring purposes. Mr. President, I will work to enact this legislation as quickly as possible to restore the benefits to those women who are now suffering as a result of the Government's mistakes. It has been four years since these women have lost their retirement income. There is no excuse for further delay in providing these Americans with benefits they were led to expect by the RRB. Mr. President, I ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Hispanic Heritage Month presents a unique opportunity to celebrate the history and achievements of nearly 30 million people of Hispanic descent living in the United States and Puerto Rico. Today, as we stand on the threshold of a new century, we look to the outstanding contributions of Hispanic Americans for inspiration and leadership. We should also acknowledge Puerto Rico's 100 years of Social, Political and Economic Union with the United States. I strongly support the right of self-determination for U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico. Citizens in Puerto Rico should have the opportunity to decide their political future, and have a right to political, social and economic equality. America has always drawn strength from the extraordinary diversity of its people. Throughout our nation's history, immigrants from around the world have been drawn to America's promise of hope, freedom, and opportunity. These newcomers have shared their cultural traditions and values, contributed to our nation's economy, strengthened our shared belief in democracy and helped create a more fair and just society. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed the ``United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act,'' H.R. 856. The Senate version, S. 472, provides a congressionally recognized framework for U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico to freely decide statehood, independence, or the continuance of the commonwealth under U.S. jurisdiction. Hispanic Heritage Month provides us with a unique opportunity to again raise the debate of the Puerto Rico plebiscite. I cannot think of a better time to push this issue forward. That is why I am joining today as a cosponsor of S. 472. This year, the Senate has an opportunity to grant the 3.8 million American citizens of Puerto Rico an opportunity to decide their own future. Such an election would be the first step in allowing these U.S. citizens an opportunity to exercise one of the most fundamental principles of a democracy--a government chosen by the people. In recognition of this historic opportunity, I am hopeful that my colleagues will join with me as cosponsors of S. 472, and that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will mark up the bill quickly.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of Valoris Carlson of Aberdeen, SD, and the handful of others like her whose lives have been terribly disrupted. This legislation will right a wrong that was not due to any error or deception on Valoris' part, but due to an administrative error by the Railroad Retirement Board [RRB]. In addition, the majority of the Board supports the amendment. In 1984 Valoris, as the divorced spouse of a deceased railroad employee, applied for a tier I survivor's annuity. The RRB failed to check if a lump sum withdrawal had previously been made on the account at the time of her former spouse's death--even though Valoris clearly stated on her application that there was a surviving widow. In fact, a lump sum payment had been made, but not identified. The RRB began paying Valoris $587 per month in 1984 and continued to pay her benefits for 11 years. In 1994 the RRB discovered that an error had been made over a decade ago. Subsequently, Valoris was told she was not eligible for the pension she was awarded in 1984. Had the RRB thoroughly reviewed their records, they would have seen that a lump-sum payment had been made on that account. Valoris, who was married for 26 years, lost her eligibility to the widow of the railroad worker who had been married to him for only 3 years. Valoris made an honest application for benefits. The RRB made an error, resulting in 11 years of ``overpayments'' to Valoris. These payments affected Valoris' planning for the future. Valoris planned her retirement on that modest sum of $587. Had she been told she was not eligible for benefits, she would have worked longer to build up her own Social Security benefits. Her railroad divorced widow's benefit has been her only steady income. She has picked up a few dollars here and there by renting out rooms in her home, but without her monthly benefit income, Valoris has had a terrible time struggling to make ends meet. The bill I am introducing today will address the errors made by the RRB that have disrupted the life of Valoris Carlson and others like her. The RRB advises that 15 other widows are similarly situated, and their pensions would also be restored by this bill. The bill, which was developed with technical assistance from the RRB, would allow the 16 women impacted by the RRB's administrative error to begin receiving their monthly benefits again. It requires them to repay the lump sum, but they are allowed to do so through a modest withholding from their monthly benefit. The RRB could waive the monthly withholding if it would cause excessive hardship for a widow. According to the RRB, the costs of this legislation would be negligible for scoring purposes. Mr. President, I will work to enact this legislation as quickly as possible to restore the benefits to those women who are now suffering as a result of the Government's mistakes. It has been four years since these women have lost their retirement income. There is no excuse for further delay in providing these Americans with benefits they were led to expect by the RRB. Mr. President, I ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the hour is again upon us, as it was last night. I suggested last night that we move to a second shift, that at approximately 7 o'clock every night we take up legislation our Republican colleagues say we don't have time for during the day. I am very disappointed, once again, that our Republican colleagues have objected to doing that. There is absolutely no reason why, with less than 6 weeks left in the session, we leave this Chamber at 10 minutes to 7. There is no reason for that. How many businesses would survive with an incredible amount of production in front of them if they were to say: We are going to take off work early, we are not going to work a second shift, we are not going to work as if we are in a state of emergency, we are going to treat the situation as business as usual? Mr. President, that is what we are doing with the schedule right now. It is remarkable to me that with little time left in the session, our Republican colleagues are content to go home and in a sense tell the American people: Look, we don't have time to consider your problems. We don't have time to consider the importance of HMO reform or to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights. We don't care; we are going home. Mr. President, that ought not be the message we send the American people. So that is why we have suggested working a second shift. That is why we have suggested coming to the Senate floor at this hour each evening to pick up where we left off the night before, to recognize that we will never be able to address this and other serious problems unless we are willing to stay here and do our work. We have worked hard to bring the Senate to the point of passing a meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights. More than 170 organizations wait for us to act tonight. Millions and millions of people who have high expectations about the possibility of realistically dealing with this problem wait for us to act tonight. I am disappointed, disappointed, No. 1, that our Republican colleagues again would rather go home than do their work, disappointed that legislation which has now passed in the House languishes in the Senate without any hope of passing unless we stay here tonight or tomorrow night or the next night. And I am disappointed by what it means in terms of the real prospects for accomplishment, the real prospects for getting something done, the real chance that we can leave and close down the 105th Congress feeling good about having addressed one of the most serious problems facing the American people today. There are too many insurance companies making decisions for doctors. There are too many women who are being turned out of hospitals too early. There are too many patients who are not being given the opportunity to choose their doctor. There are too many people whose doctors prescribe a medicine only to be overturned by an insurance company. Mr. President, it goes on and on. The problem we have is that unless we act, unless we are willing to do our work, unless we take this second shift, we will never have the opportunity to bring this important issue to closure. Obviously, there is one other way to do it, and that is to eat up the day throughout the day. We have already indicated that if we can't take a second shift approach, then we have no other recourse but to offer this legislation in the form of an amendment on any vehicle that comes along. Whatever bill may be pending, we will have no other option but to offer it as an amendment, and we will do that just as we have done it before. We will offer it on a bill that will require our colleagues to vote. So it is not a question of avoiding the vote. We will either do it in a constructive way on a second shift or we will do it in a confrontational way during the day on the first shift. But we are going to do it. We have said that in the remaining days of this session we must have a vote on minimum wage, we must have a vote on a Patients' Bill of Rights, we must have a vote on campaign finance reform, we must have a vote on pay equity, and we must have a vote on a series of amendments that will improve the crisis in agriculture today. Those are votes we must have, and we must find a way with which to accommodate each other's priorities to allow that to happen. Again, let me express my disappointment, my sorrow, my frustration at our Republican colleagues' unwillingness to cooperate with us.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his thoughtful comments and for his willingness to engage in this colloquy. I think the legislative history ought to demonstrate that there are those of us who truly want this issue resolved. We really are prepared to put in the time and effort to come to closure on what is the most important health question facing this Congress, and that is, how do we deal with the array of problems we are facing in managed care today. No one has put more time and effort and leadership into this question than the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I am grateful for the partnership and extraordinary effort he has demonstrated and put forth in bringing us to this point. Mr. President, unless there are further comments, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator has asked a couple of very good questions. The first question he asked is why we are quitting work at an hour that could easily accommodate debate on important issues? I think the answer is, we all appreciate a family-friendly environment. We all enjoy being able to go home to our families. By and large, in the last couple of years, we have been able to do that. We have had a family-friendly legislative session that has accommodated personal needs. I think that is understandable, and for the most part, I think I have supported it. I think there comes a time, though, when you get to this period at the end of the Congress--not the end of a session, we are talking about the end of a Congress. We have just a few weeks left, and our work has to take priority. As the Senator noted, usually Thursday nights have been nights where we work late. What we are suggesting is that we at least take Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights, for the balance of the time that remains in this session, and use that time productively. Let's take 3 or 4 hours and see what we can accomplish--particularly on something as important as the Patients' Bill of Rights. The second question is about the degree to which we want to be able to offer amendments. I heard the Senator so compellingly speak about other bills that have required hundreds of amendments, in some cases well over 100 amendments for bills of great import. We are not even asking for that, as the Senator has noted. I think his chart points that out. There are categories for which there are legitimate differences of opinion. We want to be able to offer amendments in those areas, to be able to have a good debate and discuss them. But to say you are going to be forced into this three-amendment limit with no ability to talk about all the very serious concerns is just unacceptable and does not do justice to the issue. They say we don't have time for a full debate. We have 3 hours of time. They say we have to limit ourselves to three amendments, even though other bills have taken 150 amendments--we have the time. We have the interest. What is holding them up? No one can really answer that for us. Obviously that is the perplexing question. The bill has passed in the House. Why not debate it here in the Senate as well?

Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate very much the question of the Senator from Massachusetts. The answer is, ``No.'' I know the Senator, who is a real student of history and has a wealth of experience, can go back to those occasions over many, many years when we have found nighttime debates to be the best debates because there are no interruptions. Why? Because Senators don't have to be in their offices with appointments and phone calls. They can be here on the Senate floor. If we are here, we get more interaction. There have been some extraordinary debates on the floor of the U.S. Senate after 7 o'clock at night. And the reason for that is because, oftentimes, we do not have so many other tugs and pulls on our schedules. So, first of all, the Senator is right when he comments about the historical precedent for this approach. Second, he is correct that not only is it a common Senate practice, but actually the quality of the debate oftentimes is enhanced. Third, unless we do it this way, I fear that we really are not going to have the opportunity to address the issues, as the Senator from Massachusetts has pointed out, that have the highest priority when you ask the American people what we should be addressing. So from the perspective of priority, from the perspective of quality, from the perspective of history, the Senator from Massachusetts is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its legislative business today, it then proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 505, H.R. 4250, the House-passed HMO reform bill, that only relevant amendments be in order, and that the bill become the pending business every day thereafter upon completion of legislative business.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think that a short explanation may be in order with regard to the objection I just made to the motion that has just been filed by the majority leader. Obviously, there are varied opinions about the nature of this legislation and its propriety and how we might pursue some resolution to the issue of individuals transported from one State to another. I think the fundamental question, once more, is simply procedural. Can we find a way to take into account legitimate concerns that should be raised under a debate of this nature? I believe that there are many relevant amendments that will be declared nongermane but that are certainly relevant to this very complex question. If a cloture motion on the bill were to be successful, it would preclude those amendments. It is for that reason that I objected. It is also worth noting that we are being asked to proceed to yet another bill that has had little debate at the same time we are being told that there is not enough time left in the session to debate HMO reform. That causes me concern as well. Perhaps we could explore the possibility of coming up with a definitive list on this legislation as we are attempting to do on bankruptcy. I don't know. But I do know this, that filing cloture prior to the time we had a debate, filing cloture prior to the time we have even considered whether that option is available to us, in my view, is premature, and for that reason I had to object. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the leader's comments earlier. I do believe that there is an opportunity here for us to come to some procedural conclusion on how we might address this bill. I think that Senators Grassley and Durbin have been working in good faith. I have had the opportunity to discuss this matter with Senator Kennedy. I personally don't believe the cloture motion is the most constructive approach, but I also recognize that the majority leader has noted that that could be vitiated were we to come to some agreement. I think it is a fair statement that if we are forced into a cloture motion, nothing will happen. If we can reach an agreement, there may be an opportunity for us to have a good debate and to have some votes on key amendments, both directly relevant to the bill and perhaps not as directly relevant, but certainly relevant to the American agenda. I am hopeful that we can accommodate the needs of Senators who have expressed an interest in amending this bill. I am confident that we can, and I hope this cloture motion will not be necessary.