Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know we are about to come to a vote on this amendment. I begin simply by complimenting the sponsors of the amendment for what I know is a well-intended effort to address one of the most consequential of all the issues we must face. I certainly don't deny a very strong case can be made for following through with what is described as the intent of this amendment. I happen to come down on the other side, and I am going to try to explain the reasons why I believe this amendment ought to be defeated. But it is not without high regard for the sponsors, both Senator Gregg and Senator Leahy, and the effort they are making. Let me just say, as to the question of immunity, one thing that I think needs to be said is that there is no immunity in this bill, period. There is none. No one should be misled. There is no immunity in this legislation. There are ways with which we deal with the tobacco companies and their legal standing, but no one should say that the bill provides immunity for the tobacco companies. On the issue of immunity, I think the managers of the bill have made great progress over the course of the last week. Working with the administration, they have improved dramatically what was done initially in the Commerce Committee. What the Commerce Committee itself did, in my view, is raise serious concerns that I, frankly, felt had to be addressed if, indeed, we were going to resolve the overall issue of how we approach tobacco policy in the future. There were special protections for the tobacco industry that were written into the committee bill originally, which I believe were very, very seriously in error as a matter of public policy. For example, allowing parent companies of tobacco companies total immunity would have been wrong. To say that we are going to ban all claims based on addiction would have been wrong. To say that we were going to prevent State courts from hearing all claims would have been wrong. Mr. President, I want to make sure that all of our colleagues understand that every one of those special provisions has now been eliminated. All of those special provisions no longer exist. The managers' amendment, which is now part of the bill, has eliminated all of them. The only remaining provision is a cap on yearly payments, and that cap has been raised from $6.5 billion to $8 billion. So before any Senator is called upon to make their vote, I hope they understand that simple fact--perhaps I should say those simple facts. There is no immunity in this bill; there are no special protections, unlike what was reported out of the Commerce Committee. What is left is a cap that has been raised by $1.5 billion annually. Let me emphasize something else about that cap. The cap is available only to those companies that agree to additional advertising restrictions beyond what is contained in the FDA rule. They have to commit never to challenge the entire bill to be eligible to come under that cap. They can't advertise and they can't challenge the provisions of this legislation just to be eligible. And then there is one more thing. Everybody needs to understand that in order just to be able to do that, they have to pay out an upfront payment of $10 billion. So here is what we are offering the tobacco companies: You pay the country $10 billion; you agree to limit your advertising way beyond what the FDA rule will provide. You also agree not to challenge the provisions within this bill, and then we will fit you under an $8 billion liability cap. And only those companies which make those commitments are eligible. Only those companies that make those commitments will have State suits settled. Any company that says, ``Wait a minute, that is too high a price. You are asking me to limit my advertising way beyond what FDA is going to tell me. You are telling me that I have to accept every provision in this legislation. You are telling me I have to pay forth $10 billion, and if I don't do that, you are saying I still have to face all those court suits in the States''--well, companies that refuse to sign the provisions under this bill get absolutely nothing. So a tobacco company is faced with the prospect of coming under an $8 billion liability cap by agreeing to all these additional provisions or getting nothing, under this legislation. They will continue to face lawsuits in the States if they don't sign onto the provisions that we have laid out in this legislation. But it even gets more complicated for tobacco companies. We are not giving anything away by putting in an $8 billion cap. We are getting something we can't get through our own legislation. We can't legislate the advertising restrictions that go beyond the FDA rule without raising first amendment questions. And we could not prevent the tobacco industry from challenging other provisions of the bill. That is a problem. The cap is our way of addressing that particular, very serious problem. Let me remind my colleagues of what the tobacco companies have to do to come under that $8 billion yearly cap, beyond what I have already mentioned. Of course, I have mentioned the advertising restrictions. I have mentioned the upfront payment. I have mentioned that they have to agree not to challenge the terms of the legislation, not to challenge the FDA authority. They cannot challenge the look-back surcharges. That is, they can't challenge the provisions that hold them accountable for reducing youth and teenage smoking. They can't challenge those look- back provisions or any of the payments, for if they challenge any of that, it is all over and they are back right where they started. They fall outside the cap and they are subject to every single state lawsuit and the unlimited liability that they are facing right now. Let me also remind my colleagues that the tobacco companies will lose the protection of the cap if they fail to comply with any one of the terms--not all of them; all they have to do is miss on one of them. So, Mr. President, I don't know how you get any tougher than that. Even if the companies comply with all of those provisions, they could lose the cap for other reasons: If they miss the youth smoking targets by 20 percent or more, if they are caught smuggling or aiding and abetting smuggling, and if they fail to make an annual payment within the year that it is owed. All of those additional criteria are locked in with this bill. So I don't know, Mr. President. It sounds to me like that is about as tough as it gets. First of all, they have more restrictions than they have ever had in any other set of circumstances. They are required to pay more money. They are subject to discipline each and every year with regard to an array of very tight provisions. And what they get in return is an $8 billion cap on liability. Mr. President, I will oppose the Gregg amendment because I believe the managers' amendment approaches the issue in the right way. It gives protection only to those tobacco companies that go further than we legislate, that acknowledge the need to limit advertising in a way that we can't legislate in this bill. The other tobacco companies, those that do not sign up, will have no cap and will continue to fight it out in the courts in all of the States where these cases are being contested. I think we have to do all we can to reduce teen smoking. Additional advertising restrictions and a commitment made by tobacco companies not to challenge the law will increase our likelihood of success--not decrease it, increase it. Mr. President, for all those reasons, as well-intended as this amendment is, I hope my colleagues will think very carefully and very conscientiously about how important this question before the Senate truly is. We must do what we can to ensure passage of this legislation, to ensure that we stay tough on these companies, that we make them to do what we know they must do to reduce teen smoking, and to comply with the intent and the spirit of our objectives in this law. I yield the floor. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, earlier this year I introduced S. 1672, the Missouri River Erosion Control Act of 1998. It will create an important new program to provide homeowners on the Missouri River with the assistance they need to protect their homes from shoreline erosion. Today, my colleague Senator Johnson and I are introducing a second bill that I hope will help to preserve the character of the Missouri River for generations to come. Up and down the Missouri River, South Dakotans can tell you that the river is slowly changing as a result of the dams built under the authority of the Pick-Sloan Act. While the dams undoubtedly have made positive contributions to South Dakota by controlling floodwaters and making affordable electricity available to promote rural development, they also ended the Big Muddy's ability to carry a full sediment load for long distances. Sediments are now being deposited into shallow areas of the river, causing the water table to rise, flooding shoreline lands and worsening erosion. In addition, the sediment build-up has made navigation nearly impossible in some areas. These problems have grown particularly severe near the city of Springfield, where a delta is forming downstream from the confluence of the Missouri and Niobrara Rivers. In order to better understand the causes of the sediment build-up and to develop solutions to address it, I am introducing legislation today to direct the Corps of Engineers to conduct a study of the lower Missouri and Niobrara River watershed. It is my hope that this study will provide the blueprint necessary to alleviate the sediment build-up, reduce future sedimentation, and preserve the character of the rivers for years to come. I hope my colleagues will give this legislation their full support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the debate on tobacco legislation that we will begin again at 10 o'clock this morning is one of the most significant in which any of us will ever be involved. Smoking is, in the words of former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, ``the chief, single avoidable cause of death in our society, and the most important public health issue of our time.'' Every year, tobacco kills more than 400,000 Americans--accounting for more than one out of every five deaths in our country. Smoking kills more people than die from AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, murders, suicides and fires--combined. So often, when we hear that someone has died as a result of smoking, we think, ``That was their choice. They were adults.'' But chances are, they were not adults when they made the decision to pick up that first cigarette. Ninety percent of adult smokers started smoking at or before the age of 18--before they were even old enough to buy cigarettes legally. The average youth smoker starts smoking at 13, and is addicted by the time he or she is 14. One out of every three of those children will eventually die from smoking. It may take another 20 or 30--or even 50--years until that decision catches up with them. But the decision is made when they are children. That is what this debate is really about. Are we willing, as a nation, to protect our children from an epidemic that may eventually kill them? During the first half of this century, another epidemic threatened America's children: polio. Summer was a time of fear for American parents and their children. Parents kept their children out of swimming pools, movie theaters-- anywhere the virus might be spread. Still, thousands of children died every year from polio, and tens of thousands were crippled. The worst polio epidemic in U.S. history occurred in 1952, when nearly 60,000 new cases were reported. Back then, America marshaled all its resources and all its resolve and, in 1953, Jonas Salk discovered a vaccine. As a result, polio has all but vanished from this nation. We may not be able to eliminate all tobacco-related disease, as we eliminated polio. But we can dramatically reduce the number of people who pick up that first cigarette as teenagers and become addicted and eventually die from smoking. The bill that will be pending in just a few moments provides the comprehensive approach that is needed to do that. It is supported by a majority of this Senate--Democrats and Republicans--and by the President. More importantly, it is supported by the American people. cigarette companies target kids Smoking by teenagers is now at a 19-year high. Every day, 3,000 kids become regular smokers. That's more than a million kids a year. The increase in teen smoking is not an accident. It is the result of a deliberate and aggressive marketing campaign. Once-secret internal industry documents make it clear that the tobacco industry targets kids--and has for more than 25 years. The tobacco industry spends $13 million a day--$5 billion a year--on advertising. Many of their ads are specifically targeted to kids. A 1981 Philip Morris internal memo makes clear why. According to that memo, ``The overwhelming majority of smokers first begin to smoke while still in their teens . . . The smoking patterns of teenagers are particularly important to Philip Morris.'' A 1984 RJ Reynolds internal memo--written just before RJR launched its ``Joe Camel'' campaign--is even more blunt. ``If younger adults turn away from smoking,'' it says, ``the (tobacco) industry must decline, just as a population that does not give birth will eventually dwindle . . . Younger adult smokers are our only source of replacement smokers.'' ``Replacement smokers.'' That's how RJR sees children: as ``replacements'' for older smokers who quit--or die from tobacco- related disease. If we can keep kids from smoking when they're young, chances are they will never smoke. Tobacco companies know that. That's one reason they're spending $50 million to try to kill this bill. the tobacco industry is scared Another reason is because they don't want to be held accountable for the damage they knowingly caused in the past. The tobacco industry is being sued by states across the country. States are demanding to be reimbursed for billions of dollars they have already spent treating smoking-related illnesses. The cases aren't going well for the industry. In the last year alone, it has settled out of court with four states, rather than risk going into court and losing even more. The $6.6 billion the tobacco industry agreed to earlier this month to pay Minnesota is the third-largest court settlement in U.S. history. It is topped only by the $11.3 billion it agreed to pay Florida, and the $15.3 billion it will pay Texas. the truth about the tobacco bill The tobacco industry is scared. So they are spending $50 million to try to kill this bill. We have all heard their arguments. First, they are trying to convince the American people that the only reason Congress wants to pass a tobacco bill is to raise mountains of money. The truth is, 40 percent of the money that would be raised by this bill wouldn't go to the federal government at all. It would go to state taxpayers, to reimburse them for money they've already spent treating tobacco-related illnesses. The rest of the money would be used for three purpose: To support medical research on treating smoking-related illness and preventing smoking; to dramatically reduce teen smoking; and to help tobacco farmers make the transition to other crops. The industry's second argument is that this bill will create a black market for cigarettes. They point to the cigarette smuggling problems Canada experienced in the early 1990s when it raised tobacco prices. The reality is, our bill includes tough anti-smuggling, anti-black market provisions that Canada lacked. It is worth mentioning, I think, that a lobbyist who enlisted several law enforcement groups to warn that this bill could create a black market in cigarettes also has another employer: a leading tobacco company. The third argument the tobacco industry makes is that our bill would drive cigarette companies into bankruptcy. Mr. President, the tobacco industry makes $100 billion a year. Even if it made only $100 million a year, it still would not be in danger of bankruptcy because, under this bill, it is smokers--not tobacco companies--who pay. Finally, the tobacco industry wants people to believe that we're on a slippery slope; that today, tobacco is the whipping boy, but next it will be alcohol or some other product. This argument ignores one crucial distinction: tobacco is the only legal product sold in the United States that will kill you when used as intended. Mr. President, the companies that are making these claims are the same companies whose CEOs raised their hands and swore before Congress that cigarettes are not addictive. They were blowing smoke then, and they are blowing smoke now. As I said, this is a historic opportunity. If we fail to grasp it, our Nation will pay a terrible price. Unless we reverse current trends, 5 million children who are under the age of 18 today will die from smoking-related illnesses. Have you ever known anyone who has died from cancer or emphysema or some other tobacco-related disease? It's torture--on them, and for the people who love them. Unless we act now to reverse current trends, Americans will spend $1 trillion over the next 20 years--$1 trillion, a thousand-billion dollars--to treat smoking-related illnesses. This bill would raise $516 billion over 25 years, $516 billion over 25 years to save $1 trillion over 20 years--and 5 million children. Mr. President, that sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Several years ago, internal documents that the tobacco industry had for years kept secret--that the industry had for years denied even existed--began to trickle out. After a while, the trickle became a flood. As a result of these documents, we now know cigarette manufacturers have known for decades that tobacco is addictive. We now know that cigarettes kill people directly, and they are a contributing cause of illnesses from heart disease to sudden infant death syndrome. We now know that tobacco companies manipulate the level of nicotine in cigarettes to hook smokers. We now know that the industry aggressively targets children. We now know that the price of cigarettes influences kids' decision to smoke. We know that's true. But we also know it's not enough. The only way we are going to break the deadly cycle of teen smoking and addiction and death is with a comprehensive bill that includes price hikes, plus strong counter-advertising efforts and effective retail licensing, and sets goals for reducing teen smoking and sanctions against tobacco companies for failure to attain them. That is what this bill contains. If we can improve it, we should. And then we should pass this bill, and urge the House to pass it as well. Teen smoking is an epidemic. If this Congress can't protect children from a deadly health threat, what in the world can we do? In 1973, a senior RJ Reynolds employee wrote a memo entitled ``research planning memorandum on some thoughts about new brands of cigarettes for the youth market.'' In that memo, he argued--and I quote--``there is certainly nothing immoral or unethical about our company attempting to attract (teen) smokers to our products.'' Mr. President, most Americans disagree with that assertion. Most Americans believe that aggressively marketing to children a product you know could eventually kill them is both immoral and unethical. And, they believe it ought to be illegal. As the industry's own documents reveal, most adult smokers start smoking as teenagers. Victor Crawford was one of those kids. He started smoking when he was 13 years old. He died 50 years later, after the cancer that was caused by smoking had spread from his throat to his pelvis, lungs and liver. As a adult Victor Crawford served 16 years as a member of Maryland's House of Delegates and its state Senate. He was a colorful and effective politician. He was also a 2\1/ 2\ pack-a-day smoker. In 1986, Victor Crawford left politics and went to work in Maryland's state capital into the work of lobbying. One of his clients was the Tobacco Institute, the propaganda arm of the tobacco industry. The Tobacco Institute paid him $200 an hour to help kill whatever tobacco restrictions came before the Maryland General Assembly. Six years later, in 1992, he was diagnosed with throat cancer. His doctors told him he had three months to live. But, with the help of new and experimental treatments, he managed to hang on for three years. Victor Crawford used those last three years of his life to prevent other young people from making the same mistake he had made when he picked up that first cigarette at 13. A first reluctantly, then passionately, he spoke about the pain of his illness, and his remorse over having contributed, through his work, to the suffering of others. He described his former employers, the tobacco industry, as ``hard- nosed, brilliant and ruthless. I can also state without question,'' he said, ``that the profit motive is supreme, and that there is no avenue they will not explore and no means they will not use to that end.'' He told his story to state legislatures, on ``60 Minutes,'' in Ann Landers' column--wherever he thought it would get through. A year and a half before he died, he returned to the Maryland Statehouse--to the place where he had worked as a legislator and lobbyist. Only this time he as a witness, testifying in support of a law regulating public smoking. He wore a wig to hid the baldness caused by chemotherapy, and he was terribly gaunt. But everyone who heard him was deeply moved. Said on of his former colleagues after his testimony, ``Yours was the voice of truth.'' Mr. President, Victor Crawford's voice--and the voice of America's children--are calling to us today. They are asking us to protect them from addiction. They are asking us to protect them from painful and premature death. Are we listening? It is time for Congress to pass a national bill to reduce teen smoking and to tell the cigarette manufacturers, ``Our children are not `replacement smokers,' and you cannot prey on them anymore.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to salute an outstanding young woman who has been honored with the Girl Scout Gold Award by Girl Scouts of the Black Hills Council in Rapid City, SD. Kimberly Schubert of Rapid City was honored yesterday for earning the highest achievement award in U.S. Girl Scouting. The Girl Scout Award symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning and personal development. The award can be earned by girls ages 14-17, or in grades 9-12. Girl Scouts of the USA, an organization serving over 3 million girls, has awarded more than 20,000 Girl Scout Gold Awards to Senior Girl Scouts since the inception of the program in 1980. To receive the award, a Girl Scout must earn 4 interest projects patches, the Career Exploration pin, the Senior Girl Scout leadership award, and the Senior Girl Scout Challenge, as well as design and implement a Girl Scout Gold Award project. A plan for fulfilling these requirements is created by the Senior Girl Scout and is carried out through close cooperation between the girl and an adult Girl Scout volunteer. As a member of the Girl Scouts of the Black Hills Council, Kim Schubert began working toward the Gold Scout Award in 1996. She completed her project in the areas of sports and leadership, and she richly deserves the public recognition for this significant service to her community and her country.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am proud to announce to the Senate today the names of the two young men who have been selected to receive the 1998 American Automobile Association Lifesaving Medal. This award is the highest honor given to members of the school safety patrol. There are roughly 500,000 members of the school safety patrol in this country, helping over 50,000 schools. Every day, these young people ensure that their peers arrive safely at school in the morning, and back home in the afternoon. Most of the time, they accomplish their jobs uneventfully. But on occasion, these volunteers must make split- second decisions--placing themselves in harm's way to save the lives of others. This year's honorees exemplify this selflessness, and richly deserve recognition. The first AAA Lifesaving Medal recipient comes from Kensington, Maryland. On October 1, 1997, Rock View Elementary School Safety Patrol Joseph Coggeshall was preparing to end his shift at the busy intersection of Connecticut Avenue and Denfeld Road. Getting ready to go home himself, Joseph noticed one last group of children heading home. He decided to stay at his post a little longer. As they reached the intersection, two boys, ages 6 and 7, attempted to go around Joseph's outstretched arms and into traffic. Reacting quickly, Joseph grabbed both children, pulling them back onto the curb just before they would have entered into rush-hour traffic on a six- lane highway. Joseph probably saved those boys' lives. This year's second AAA Lifesaving Medal honoree comes from San Mateo, California. On January 5, 1998, St. Timothy School Safety Patrol Christopher Aquino stood his usual post at the north gate crosswalk. Close by, a father led his two young daughters, ages 3 and 6, toward the crosswalk. Spotting the family car parked across the street, the 3- year-old broke free from her father's hand, sprinted into the road and into the path of an oncoming truck. On instinct, and with no regard for his own safety, Christopher ran after her, grabbed her by the hand and returned her safely to her father. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senate, I wish to extend congratulations and thanks to these two young men. They are an asset to their communities, and their families, and neighbors should be very proud of their courage and dedication. I would also like to recognize the American Automobile Association for providing the supplies and training necessary to keep the safety patrol on duty nationwide. Since the 1920's, AAA clubs across the country have been sponsoring student safety patrols to guide and protect younger classmates against traffic accidents. Easily recognizable by their fluorescent orange safety belt and shoulder strap, safety patrol members represent the very best of their schools and communities. Experts credit school safety patrol programs with helping to lower the number of traffic accidents and fatalities involving young children. We owe AAA our gratitude for their tireless efforts to ensure that our Nation's children arrive to and from school safe and sound. And we owe our thanks to Joseph Coggeshall and Christopher Aquino for their selfless actions. The discipline and courage they displayed deserves the praise and recognition of their schools and their communities.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have not wanted to get into this until now, but I must say I applaud what the distinguished chairman has said in a couple of aspects. First of all, I think that it is true; up until now, there has been a good deal of effort on both sides to bring this bill to the floor. We wouldn't be here today were it not for the leadership of the Senator from Arizona and the tremendous work put forth by the Senator from South Carolina, as well as the Senator from Kentucky. It is the only way we got to this point. We got here because the ranking member and the chairman concluded that this bill needed to get to the floor, and we were under a timeframe within which to do that. That has now happened. It was only through that effort that we were able to get this far. And I think it is fair to say both sides have been working in good faith to bring us to this point. So there is really two questions here. No. 1, is it within the right of the majority leader to amend his legislation as he has proposed to do? And clearly he is within his rights to do that. The real question is, Is it in keeping with what we have established as the working order here? Are we in the same kind of partnership that we thought we had all the way through this process as we moved procedurally to the floor? The answer clearly is no; this was a surprise. Senator Hollings has been in the meetings discussing what would go in the managers' amendment until at least 4 o'clock this afternoon. Senator Hollings, the administration and others have signed off on every single piece of what was to go into the managers' amendment. I just left the floor to check with the administration to see if they knew that this was in the managers' amendment, and the answer was emphatically no. No one told them this was going to be included. No one gave them any indication. So clearly we start this debate with a very serious misunderstanding and a very serious violation of good faith. It is within the right of the majority to take steps of this kind, but, unfortunately, it comes at a price. That price is the cooperation needed to complete our work. The price is coming to terms with all the other procedural questions we have to face. How is it possible to get unanimous consent under these circumstances? How is it possible to get any understanding about the degree to which we can agree on amendments with this problem? So, Mr. President, we have compounded the problem this afternoon, unnecessarily it seems to me. The majority leader has a job to do. He has to make choices, and I understand that. But I hope as those choices are made, we clearly demonstrate the appreciation for the kind of communication that is going to be absolutely essential if we get anything done at all. I hope we can work through this. I hope before the night is out, or at the very latest tomorrow morning, we can resolve this matter, because if we are going to move forward adequately, successfully, it has to be resolved. I yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, might I inquire as to the nature of the proceedings of the Senate.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, first of all, let me compliment the distinguished manager of the bill and the ranking member for the level of debate that has already occurred on this important piece of legislation. I have extraordinary respect for both Senators and I appreciate the manner in which they have presented this critical matter to the U.S. Senate. In listening to the debate on S. 1873, I am struck by the appearance that rigid adherence to ideology seems to be trumping the sound judgment of this Nation's senior military leaders. The proponents of this latest attempt to deploy ballistic missile defenses at any cost have entitled this bill the American Missile Protection Act. But I think it is important that we be clear as to what this really legislation does. The only thing S. 1873 protects, is the opportunity for defense contractors to move far ahead of where we ought to be with regard to a commitment to develop and deploy national ballistic missile defenses. As stated by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in their letters opposing S. 1873, deployment of national missile defenses at this time is unnecessary, premature and could end our arms control efforts. S. 1873, in spite of my great admiration for its author and the manager of this bill, is the wrong bill at the wrong time, and I ask my colleagues, this morning to vote against cloture. S. 1873 would commit the United States to deploy national missile defenses based on a single criterion--technical feasibility. Quoting from the bill, the United States should ``deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective national missile defense system.'' In the eyes of the sponsors of this bill, the only standard that must be met in deciding whether to deploy defenses is that they be technologically possible. Mr. President, I cannot find a clear definition of effective defenses in S. 1873. And yet, many of the same people who demand that important domestic programs meet stringent standards before they can receive funding stay strangely silent when it comes to establishing even the most minimal performance requirements for ballistic missile defenses. This irony is not lost on just this Senator. In fact, the proponents' attitude is cavalier even by the standards of defense programs. Research by the Department of Defense shows that S. 1873 would make history. For the first time ever, we would be committing this nation to deploy a weapons system before it had even been developed, let alone thoroughly tested. We need look no further than today's Washington Post to see the folly of this approach. In a story entitled, ``Antimissile Test Yields 5th Failure In a Row,'' it is pointed out that the THAAD system, a high priority theater anti-missile defense effort, failed yet again and is now 0 for 5 in tests. Supporters of national defense may argue that the fifth consecutive failure of a theater missile defense system is not relevant to a debate on national missile defenses. However, as underscored in the Post article, ``the repeated inability to demonstrate that THAAD's interceptors can hit incoming warheads has implications beyond battlefield defense. The same hit-to-kill concept is at the core of the even more ambitious national antimissile system.'' Moreover, most experts believe that a rush to judgment on ballistic missile defenses will not necessarily lead to the deployment of the most effective system. According to General John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, if the decision is made to deploy a national missile defense system in the near term, then the system fielded would provide a very limited capability. If deploying a system in the near term can be avoided, the Defense Department can continue to enhance the technology base and the commensurate capability of the missile defense system that could be fielded on a later deployment schedule. Not a word in S. 1873, Mr. President, about the costs of this system. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that deployment of even a very limited system could cost tens of billions of dollars. Given that so much of the technology necessary remains unproven, history tells us the real cost could be much more. Despite the hefty price tag and the technological uncertainty, the proponents of this bill essentially say, ``costs be damned, full speed ahead''. Yet, when it comes to proven proposals to improve our nations' schools, increase the quality of health care, or enhance our environment, the first question out of the mouths of many of the proponents of S. 1873 is, ``how much does it cost?'' Not a sentence in this bill, Mr. President, about the need for this defense system or the threats it is designed to counter. According to the intelligence community, deployment of defenses is not justified by the rogue nation ballistic missile threat. In his Annual Report to the President and Congress, Secretary Cohen stated that, with one possible exception, ``no country will develop or otherwise acquire a ballistic missile in the next 15 years that could threaten the United States.'' The only possible exception is North Korea, a country that is on the verge of collapsing upon itself. Even here, the intelligence community rightly says the probability of North Korea acquiring such a missile by 2005 is, ``very low.'' Mr. President, S. 1873 says absolutely nothing about how a U.S. deployment of missile defenses would affect existing and future arms control treaties. It is clear from statements made by Russian President Yeltsin and other top officials that if the United States unilaterally abrogates the ABM Treaty, the Russians will effectively end a decades- long effort to reduce strategic nuclear weapons. They will back out of START I. They will not ratify START II. And they will not negotiate START III. In other words, unilateral U.S. deployment of missile defenses could end the prospect for reducing Russia's nuclear arsenal from its current level of about 9,000 weapons down to as few as 2,000. This is much too steep a price to pay for a course of action that is unproven, unaffordable, and unnecessary. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the procedure by which this bill is being brought to the floor. All too frequently these past few months, we have seen bills taken from the Republican agenda and immediately scheduled for floor time under parliamentary procedures that severely limit debate and the opportunity to offer amendments. When Democrats try to bring up issues important to all Americans-- reducing school class size and protecting patients from insurance company abuses--we are told there is no time or they resort to these same parliamentary tactics to stifle our efforts. The decision to bring up S. 1873 is only the latest manifestation of this practice. Just one day after refusing to set a date to take up patient protection legislation, we find the Senate has time to vote on a bill that should be known as ``Son of Star Wars.'' Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to reflect on the advice of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and vote against cloture on S. 1873. Let us think carefully and thoughtfully about its ramifications. Let us recognize the dangerous implications for arms control, for the federal budget, and, because of the necessity to choose priorities within this budget, for what it means to the Defense Department itself. This is the wrong bill at the wrong time, and I hope we will defeat cloture when the opportunity presents itself, in 10 minutes. Mr. President, I ask that my time be taken from my leader time, and not from the time accorded the debate on the motion.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his very good statement. He raises an interesting point that I failed to mention. Oftentimes, we talk about this as a matter simply of urgency and concern for victims. Indeed, that is the greatest concern--the degree to which victims come to us with stories that they believe call out for attention to this matter. But there are now over a hundred organizations--organizations of all kinds--our doctors, our nurses, an array of working organizations in this country, including education, you name it--organizations that have come forward to say that this isn't just a health issue, this is a worker issue, this is a quality of life issue. This is an array of organizations that rarely come together on any issue. Philosophically, they go from left to right. But the fact is, they care about this issue because they know how critical it is that we solve it this year. So, as the Senator said, this should not take very long. Indeed, it is important that we get on with moving this legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. DASCHLE. It is our desire to see if we can find a way to take up this legislation and pass it today. And if not today, at a time certain. If we cannot do it for some reason at 11 o'clock this morning, we are prepared to set a time--perhaps June 15--perhaps right after we get back from the Memorial Day recess. If we are doing the tobacco bill next week, and we have technology bills this week, 4 hours today seems to me to be a reasonable period of time to debate both of these bills and pass them. If we cannot do it today, I think it is incumbent upon the Senate to pass this legislation at a time certain--to agree to a debate at a time certain. I am sure that will happen.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Maryland is absolutely right. She said it very succinctly. That is, in essence, what this legislation will do. This isn't the broad array of health care reforms that we could be addressing. This very narrowly focuses on one of the biggest problems we have in health care delivery today. I appreciate very much her calling attention to that fact.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there is no one from the Republican side of the aisle on the floor at this moment, so I do not want to propound the request until someone is available. But I do want to put our colleagues on notice that I would like very much to be able to propound a unanimous consent request within the next few minutes that would do two things: First, it would ask that Senator D'Amato be recognized to offer a bill regarding inpatient hospital care for breast cancer with a time limit of 2 hours for debate on the bill, with no amendments or motions in order thereto, and that when all time is used or yielded back, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the D'Amato bill, and that immediately upon disposition of the D'Amato bill, the Senate then proceed to the immediate consideration of the Daschle-Kennedy Patient Protection Act with a time limit of 2 hours for debate, with no amendments or motions in order thereto, and that when all time is used or yielded back, the Senate proceed to vote on the passage of the bill with all time equally divided and controlled in the usual form, and that the above occur without intervening action or debate. I would ask that those bills begin to be considered at 11 o'clock. As I said, Mr. President, I will not ask unanimous consent at this time simply in deference to our colleagues. But let me again explain what it is we are attempting to do here. It is our hope this week, in a very limited timeframe, that we can pass two bills of great concern and importance to this country, first and foremost, a bill that many of us have cosponsored dealing with the need to protect patients in an array of different health circumstances that they face. More and more, the American people are saying they are victimized, not assisted, by HMOs. More and more, they are saying that managed care is not working as it is supposed to. More and more, they are saying that we are facing some critical decisions that we must make if we are going to ensure that managed care and HMOs work right. Day after day, our caucus has come to the Senate floor recognizing the importance of calling the attention of this country to victims of our current managed care system. These victims have lost their health, and in some cases, their lives as a result of very critical decisions being made erroneously by people sitting at computers instead of by doctors and nurses in the hospital rooms and clinics of this country. We have introduced legislation that would provide protections to patients. It recognizes that in this HMO, managed care environment we have to do a lot better job of focusing on patients, and not on bottom-line calculations that are oftentimes used regardless of patients needs. The Patient Protection Act is absolutely essential to that effort. We also recognize that there is a need, as part of the legislation, to deal with the problem of premature release of patients when they have mastectomies. Senator D'Amato and Senator Feinstein and others have made a real effort to highlight that particular problem. And we are very supportive of that effort. So we hope we can pass both bills. Let us pass the Patient Protection Act. Let us pass the Feinstein-D'Amato mastectomy bill. Let us do it en bloc. Let us do it: 2 hours and 2 hours. We are prepared to do it this morning. We can get on with that and also the array of other very important technological bills that we will be bringing up. I thank very much the Senator from Montana for affording me the opportunity to make my presentation. As I noted, just as soon as we find a Republican colleague on the floor I will pose this unanimous consent request.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, now that we do have a Republican colleague on the floor, let me propound the following unanimous consent request: I ask unanimous consent that at 11 o'clock on Tuesday, May 12, Senator D'Amato be recognized to offer a bill regarding inpatient hospital care for breast cancer, with a time limit of 2 hours for debate on the bill, with no amendments or motions in order thereto, that when all time is used or yielded back, the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, and immediately upon disposition of the D'Amato bill, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the Daschle-Kennedy Patients' Bill of Rights bill with a time limit of 2 hours for debate, with no amendments or motions in order thereto, and that when all time is used or yielded back, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, with all time equally divided and controlled in the usual form, and that the above occur without intervening action or debate.

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me just say I am very disappointed. We are not tying them together in any way other than by procedure. We are simply saying, let's debate the D'Amato bill for 2 hours, and then let's debate the Daschle-Kennedy bill for 2 hours. They both deal with protections for patients. They both deal with the need to confront the array of problems we are facing in managed care today. So I am very disappointed the majority has chosen to take this action, and I hope if we can't do it today, perhaps we can do it on the 15th. So let me ask unanimous consent that on a date no later than June 15, both bills be considered in the order that I have just described.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, did the Senator from New York object?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, let me just say how disappointed I am that the Senator from New York continues to persist in his erroneous conclusion that somehow these are melded together. I will put forward a new proposal for my colleague and friend from New York. I would propose that we take up the D'Amato bill today, that we debate it as he suggests so long as by June 15, or at any date in June that would be of his choosing, we can take up and debate the Patient Protection bill for whatever time it takes. If it is complex, let's debate it. If it ought to be amended, let's debate it. If the Senator from New York is prepared to give me that opportunity, to say in June we will take up patient protections with amendments, we will have the debate on his bill today and my bill in June. I would make that proposal to the Senator from New York, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Continuing to reserve the right to object, since my colleague from New York did now object to my counterproposal, I am flabbergasted. I am absolutely flabbergasted that the Senator from New York would say, since we have not seen action on our bill, we should take up his bill. And why are we taking up his bill under these circumstances? Because the Finance Committee has not acted. That is the reason. We are going to go around the Finance Committee to go straight to the floor, and he is saying we shouldn't go around the Labor Committee to go straight to the floor for the Patient Protection Act. So let there not be any confusion here as to what is going on. Everyone ought to know this. This is as glaring as the lights themselves. Our Republican colleagues, for whatever reason, are denying the opportunity to consider a Patient Protection Act, today, tomorrow or any other day. And they are hiding behind the mastectomy bill to do it. Well, let's not hide behind any legislation. Let's strip away all the rhetoric. They do not want to do it. They simply do not want to do it. I don't know why they don't want to do it, given that about 80 or 90 percent of the American people are demanding we do it, but they can explain it. No one should be misled here. The problem is not that we are combining the two bills. I have just released them. There isn't any connection anymore. We will take up the Feinstein-D'Amato bill today and take up the Patient Protection Act in the next couple of months. Just let us take it up. That is all we are asking. So, Mr. President, I am really astounded at that logic and that rationale. But I don't think anybody is misled here. They don't want to take up the patient protection legislation, and I am very disappointed, and I think the American people would be as well.