Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 2 minutes of my leader time to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use a couple minutes of my leader time. I know we are out of time, and I don't want to take any time off the resolution. I know the distinguished Budget chair has made his arguments, and I think they merit some response. I will yield in a moment to the distinguished ranking member as well. Let me just make three points. First of all, the distinguished chair, the Senator from New Mexico, alluded to our budget proposal as one that seems to be outside the realm of the agreement we made last July. He also noted the Republican budget is in keeping with these same commitments. Let there be no mistake about this, the Democratic alternative adheres to the requirements. It keeps the agreement--agreed to and signed by Republicans and Democrats last July--intact. That is the whole premise upon which we based our alternative budget resolution. We recognize how important that agreement is. We recognize the importance of investments. But as I noted in my opening comments, there is a profound difference between the vision expressed in our resolution toward major investments in education, in child care, in those areas for which we believe it is essential this country continue to invest, and the Republican proposal which fails to invest in those areas. The second point: He sets up a false choice. He says he believes it is important for us to recognize the critical nature of using tobacco revenue to shore up the Medicare program. I agree with that. I too think there is an important need to invest in Medicare to ensure its solvency. However, it is a false choice to say this is the only option available to us as we pass tobacco legislation. Indeed, the Senate Commerce Committee itself takes issue with the statement just made by the distinguished Budget Committee chair. Yesterday, on a vote of 19 to 1, the Commerce Committee voted out its recommendations to the Senate with regard to tobacco legislation. They note it is important for us to take some of those revenues and dedicate them to reimbursing public health care programs in Medicare. However, they also say that, in addition to Medicare, it is critical we recognize the importance of prevention and cessation activities, efforts to stop teenage smoking, to support health-related research, to ensure tobacco farmers receive the resources they are going to need, to ensure that we deal with the tobacco-asbestos trust fund, to ensure that we deal with the problems in Medicaid, and to ensure that problems with black lung are addressed through these resources. In other words, the committee, in the 19-to-1 vote just yesterday, said we agree with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, but we think we ought to do more. We think that it is critical that we look at how we prevent teenage smokers from starting, how we assist tobacco farmers in during the transition, and how we deal with research in ways that are not adequately addressed in this budget. I think it is very critical to acknowledge that on an overwhelming basis many in Congress have already indicated their support for dedicating tobacco revenues to an array of different needs including Medicare. The bottom line is really very fundamental. We have to recognize that this is our one opportunity to state our priorities. Our priorities ought to be in education. Our priorities ought to be in child care. Our priorities ought to be in preventing teenage smoking. That is what our budget does. That is what our priorities are. And that is the difference in vision between Republican and Democratic budgets. I ask the ranking member if he has any need to express himself prior to the time I yield the floor?

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me commend the distinguished ranking member for his excellent statement. Mr. President, it is with some disappointment that Democrats offer any substitute at all. The times when we work best are the times when we can find agreement in the Budget Committee, as we did last year. We were disappointed that agreement could not be reached to everyone's satisfaction. So we find ourselves compelled to offer an alternative to the budget now being proposed by the majority. The distinguished ranking member has laid out very thoroughly some of the reasons why our resolution is superior and the reasons why Democrats feel compelled today to express our differences with our Republican colleagues about this budget. Our plan very simply does what the President of the United States said we should do in his State of the Union address a couple of months ago. We put Social Security first. We provide targeted tax cuts for working families. We make very important domestic investments so that working families across this country can experience the tremendous economic gain and economic vitality that this country has realized in the last several years. We stay within the spending ceilings established in last year's budget agreement. We maintain balance in 1999 and produce budget surpluses well into the next century. We are very proud of what we have been able to achieve thus far. It is on the basis of what we have achieved that we now propose a budget to build upon those achievements and allow this nation to be as successful in the future as we have in the past. Before I describe our fiscal priorities, let's take a brief look back at the past. In 1993, the budget deficit was a whopping $290 billion, the highest deficit our Nation had ever experienced. The deficit at that time was projected to grow to over $500 billion by the end of the decade. In 1993, the President presented an economic plan and the Democratic Congress--unfortunately, without the help of a single Republican vote--took action. Today, the results are very obvious. The 1993 plan produced the largest deficit reduction in our history. The plan produced the first unified balanced budget in 30 years. The plan created 15 million new jobs. The plan contributed to the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The plan put us on the road to the lowest core inflation rate since 1965. The plan has led to the fastest annual growth rate in real average hourly earnings since 1976. The results could not be more clear. Because we made the commitment in 1993, because we turned the economy around, because we were able to come to grips with the significant economic and fiscal problems that we were facing at that time and address them consequentially, we celebrate success in 1998. Now it is our responsibility to build upon that success. We would like to highlight the differences between our vision for the future and that of our Republican colleagues. The most visible and the most important of those differences relates to public education. Our budget contains a series of proposals that will provide our children with the educational opportunities they need to successfully confront the challenges of the 21st century. We provide tax credits for local districts that build and renovate public schools. We provide funds for local districts to hire an additional 100,000 teachers. This proposal will allow schools to reduce class size. For grades from 1 to 3, class size will be reduced from an average of 22 children down to 18. In addition, we provide opportunities for after-school learning programs. I will not elaborate on any of those proposals, because they have each been the subject of a targeted Democratic amendment already offered during this budget debate. The Republican budget freezes spending on the most important educational programs. It freezes spending on the new programs I have outlined as well as the programs already established to provide children the opportunity to grow and to learn. As a result, 450,000 children will be denied access to safe after-school learning centers if this Republican budget passes; 30,000 kids will be denied access to Head Start if this Republican budget passes; 6,500 middle schools will not have drug and violence prevention coordinators if this Republican budget passes. There is another important difference--and my colleague, the distinguished ranking member, noted the difference. Democrats have a fundamentally different approach to tackling the problem of teen smoking. On this issue there is a very clear difference between the Republican budget and our budget. Every American should carefully examine each side's approach to ending tobacco's insidious hold on young people in this country. Our proposal ends Joe Camel's reign over America's teenagers by fully funding the anti-youth-smoking initiatives, by providing tobacco-related medical research, by allowing smoking cessation programs, by ensuring public service advertising to counter the tobacco companies' targeting of our children today. The Republican budget does none of those, not one. There is no anti- youth-smoking initiative, there is no tobacco-related medical research, there are no smoking cessation programs, there is no public service advertising--there is none. It stacks the deck against meaningful tobacco reform and the effort to end teenage smoking. So we see a host of important initiatives in the Democratic plan-- investing in education, anti-teen smoking efforts, health care and an array of other proposals designed to build upon the success our plan has enjoyed over the last 5 years. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues have said no to virtually every single one--no to education, no to child care, no to comprehensive solutions to teen smoking. For all these reasons, I ask my colleagues to say no to the Republican budget and to say yes to the way we have proposed to build upon our success in the past, to say yes to the Democratic alternative. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I understand we have 1 minute in response. Let me just say, this is not in any way, shape or form an amendment designed to provide patients with more choice. This will leave seniors totally uncertain about what their Medicare will cover and let doctors determine the degree of Medicare coverage each beneficiary will have. That is what this is about: Jeopardizing patients' rights, putting them in a very uncertain set of circumstances, taking away the certainty and the confidence they have when they are in a doctor's office or in a hospital or in an operating room that Medicare will pay their bills. Let us not jeopardize those patients' rights or their confidence when they are sick that the Medicare Program is working for them.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I didn't want to object, and I was going to make that clarification following the conclusion of the request, but I would only add one clarification, which I know the majority leader will want to do, and that is to allow 1 minute prior to each vote in a stacked sequence, to be sure that we can explain the circumstances, as is normally our procedure in stacked votes. I know that colleagues on both sides of the aisle have requested that in the past. With that understanding and also with the understanding, of course, that Senator Moseley-Braun would then be recognized following this UC to offer her amendment, I think this is a good plan and I commend all of those involved, especially our Chair and ranking member. Obviously, we won't get done with this unless we can find a way in which to manage more efficiently the time remaining. This does it, and I appreciate the cooperation of Members on both sides.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today is the last day of Women's History Month.'' Throughout the month of March, we've paid tribute to the vision of women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott and Susan B. Anthony, the founders of the first Women's Rights Convention 150 years ago in Seneca Falls, New York. We've recognized the historic achievements and celebrated the legacies of Ameila Earhart, Marion Anderson, Eleanor Roosevelt, Dolores Huerta and hundreds of other American leaders. During Women's History Month, it is also appropriate that we pay tribute to the countless American women whose names and great works are known only to their families, neighbors and friends. These women may not grace the pages of history books, but their contributions as mothers, teachers, entrepreneurs, farmers, and scientists have shaped the direction and progress of this great country. In my own state of South Dakota, women of the plains have a long history of facing challenges with self-reliance and fortitude. Courageous women pioneers worked alongside fathers, husbands, and brothers to clear land, build homesteads, and establish schools, businesses and towns. In 1998, the women of South Dakota continue to build upon the legacy left by their foremothers of strong families and a better life for future generations. Sadly, we lost one such woman this year. But the spirit of Sister Maurice Crowley of Aberdeen, South Dakota will remain alive in the hearts of all who knew her. Her legacy of laughter, joy and a lifelong commitment to education continues on in those whose lives she touched. As one of her first grade students more than forty years ago, I am one of those people. Sister Crowley was an incredible human being blessed with great warmth, sharp wit and Irish charm. With characteristic humor Sister Maurice Crowley used to joke, God created Adam, stepped back, took a look, and said, ``I can do better than that.'' Man or woman, we all benefit when we pay respect and honor those who make a difference in others' lives. It is with great respect and admiration that I pay personal tribute to Sister Maurice Crowley during Women's History Month.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in introducing the Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1998. This legislation has been developed cooperatively with Democrats in the House and Senate to address a growing concern of the American public, the quality of care delivered by health plans and insurance companies. Today, three of every four working, insured Americans are in managed care plans, and far too many have experienced serious problems with their coverage. We all know someone with a horror story in that regard. Today, David Garvey of Illinois told us the tragic story of his wife, who had taken a ``dream'' vacation to Hawaii with a few of her friends. When she arrived in Hawaii, she noticed some bruises on her body. She went to a clinic and was quickly admitted to the hospital. She was diagnosed with aplastic anemia. Her doctor in Hawaii began a course of treatment, and said that she would likely need a bone marrow transplant to save her life. Several days into the treatment, her HMO called from Chicago and said she had to return to Chicago for the treatment and transplant. They insisted that she return, even over the strong objections of the doctor in Hawaii who said that she was not stable enough to travel and that her immune system could not fight infection. Mr. Garvey tried to talk to the decisionmakers in the plan, but they insisted that she return to Chicago or forego coverage. As the medical bills were adding up, Mrs. Garvey had no choice but to fly back to Chicago. During that flight, Mrs. Garvey had a stroke, and within days of her return, she developed a fungal infection. Ten days later, she died. Mr. President, I am outraged by what happened to the Garveys and believe we need legislation to protect patients against medically inappropriate decisions by health plans that too often put the financial bottom line before patients' health care needs. The bill I am introducing today would provide enforceable protections for millions of patients. It would ensure access to medically needed care, including coverage at emergency rooms. It would allow patients with serious conditions to see their specialist without asking permission each time and would allow women direct access to their ob/ gyn. The bill would allow patients denied benefits to appeal decisions both within the plan and to an independent, external reviewer. When a plan says no to a treatment that your doctor says you need, you should be able to appeal to an independent body that has no financial stake in the decision. This bill gives every patient that right and says the decision has to be made in a time frame that will not put the patient at risk. The Patients' Bill of Rights provides protection for the provider- patient relationship by banning gag clauses and limiting inappropriate financial incentives to deny care. It also would put a stop to arbitrary decisions by plans to limit care, such as decisions to discharge mastectomy patients from the hospital before it is medically appropriate. Finally, the bill would hold plans legally accountable for decisions to deny or delay care that result in harm to patients. Today, 125 million Americans who get their health care through their employer have little recourse if their plans' decisions harm them, even when the decisions lead to death. Doctors and hospitals are held accountable for their decisions, but health plans are not, and that is something that needs to change. The Patients' Bill of Rights is an important proposal that has the backing of the American Medical Association, Consumers Union, Families USA, the National Association of Children's Hospitals and numerous other organizations that advocate for quality patient care. I hope we can engage in productive debate on this issue in the coming months and pass legislation to improve the quality of health care for the American people.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in introducing the Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1998. This legislation has been developed cooperatively with Democrats in the House and Senate to address a growing concern of the American public, the quality of care delivered by health plans and insurance companies. Today, three of every four working, insured Americans are in managed care plans, and far too many have experienced serious problems with their coverage. We all know someone with a horror story in that regard. Today, David Garvey of Illinois told us the tragic story of his wife, who had taken a ``dream'' vacation to Hawaii with a few of her friends. When she arrived in Hawaii, she noticed some bruises on her body. She went to a clinic and was quickly admitted to the hospital. She was diagnosed with aplastic anemia. Her doctor in Hawaii began a course of treatment, and said that she would likely need a bone marrow transplant to save her life. Several days into the treatment, her HMO called from Chicago and said she had to return to Chicago for the treatment and transplant. They insisted that she return, even over the strong objections of the doctor in Hawaii who said that she was not stable enough to travel and that her immune system could not fight infection. Mr. Garvey tried to talk to the decisionmakers in the plan, but they insisted that she return to Chicago or forego coverage. As the medical bills were adding up, Mrs. Garvey had no choice but to fly back to Chicago. During that flight, Mrs. Garvey had a stroke, and within days of her return, she developed a fungal infection. Ten days later, she died. Mr. President, I am outraged by what happened to the Garveys and believe we need legislation to protect patients against medically inappropriate decisions by health plans that too often put the financial bottom line before patients' health care needs. The bill I am introducing today would provide enforceable protections for millions of patients. It would ensure access to medically needed care, including coverage at emergency rooms. It would allow patients with serious conditions to see their specialist without asking permission each time and would allow women direct access to their ob/ gyn. The bill would allow patients denied benefits to appeal decisions both within the plan and to an independent, external reviewer. When a plan says no to a treatment that your doctor says you need, you should be able to appeal to an independent body that has no financial stake in the decision. This bill gives every patient that right and says the decision has to be made in a time frame that will not put the patient at risk. The Patients' Bill of Rights provides protection for the provider- patient relationship by banning gag clauses and limiting inappropriate financial incentives to deny care. It also would put a stop to arbitrary decisions by plans to limit care, such as decisions to discharge mastectomy patients from the hospital before it is medically appropriate. Finally, the bill would hold plans legally accountable for decisions to deny or delay care that result in harm to patients. Today, 125 million Americans who get their health care through their employer have little recourse if their plans' decisions harm them, even when the decisions lead to death. Doctors and hospitals are held accountable for their decisions, but health plans are not, and that is something that needs to change. The Patients' Bill of Rights is an important proposal that has the backing of the American Medical Association, Consumers Union, Families USA, the National Association of Children's Hospitals and numerous other organizations that advocate for quality patient care. I hope we can engage in productive debate on this issue in the coming months and pass legislation to improve the quality of health care for the American people.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last night millions of people across the country sat in their living rooms and at friends' houses, transfixed to the television sets as the Kentucky Wildcats became the NCAA national basketball champions. One of our very own, an employee of the United States Senate, Mr. Donnee Gray, was at that game--not as a player or as a spectator, but as an official. Mr. Gray has worked in the Senate Library for 22 years, diligently helping Senate staffs with legislative and legal research. His expertise is well known and respected. For more than a decade, Mr. Gray also has been officiating basketball games at various levels of competition--from Olympic and international tournaments to NCAA Division I college games. During the past several years, Mr. Gray has been honored by the NCAA by being chosen to officiate the first round of the tournament. This year, Mr. Gray's involvement in March Madness began with the first round, continued in the Sweet Sixteen round and culminated last night in the final game. The NCAA's selection of Mr. Gray exemplifies his judgment and integrity, as well as his superior knowledge of the game and its rules. This really is a remarkable achievement by a remarkable and talented young man. We are proud of Mr. Gray and congratulate him on his selection as an official in the national championship NCAA basketball game. We also thank him for his outstanding work here in the United States Senate.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Would it be the majority leader's intention, therefore, to schedule votes on that first day, or would we begin the debate and have----

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, just for the record and for clarification, as I understand it, there is a need to clarify or to----

Mr. DASCHLE. The leader and I both have expressed ourselves on this bill so many times that I do not know that we need to elaborate anymore. I share the view just expressed by the majority leader that this is as good as it is going to get for both sides. We can continue to be paralyzed and in a standoff or we can find a way with which to cooperate and come to some conclusion. I have expressed myself about my disappointment in the way in which our colleagues have been constrained, but I also recognize that the majority leader, as he has noted, is giving us far more amendments than what the Republicans are proposing. And so I think, all things considered--I know my colleagues have expressed great personal concern about this approach, but I also know that if we are ever going to resolve this matter, this is as good as it is going to get. So I commend the leader for his diligence and commitment to resolving these matters. I have pledged to him my cooperation to see if we can get to this point. We have done so. I am relieved that at long last we may have a real opportunity, as he has noted, to talk about ways in which to address a national problem, a national challenge. This provides a panoply of different approaches and different ideas. We feel very strongly, very excited, about many of the ideas that we have to offer. We will have that chance under this agreement. So I certainly would not object, and I encourage my colleagues to accept it, deal with it, offer amendments, and let us get on with the debate.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am sorry, I think I indicated April 20; I may not have. In referring to the unanimous consent request, he cites the scheduled date for which there would be consideration of the bill as April 20. I am simply asking whether--on the first page of the unanimous consent agreement, on top, you note that we would begin the votes or begin the consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the majority leader's consideration. I ask the majority leader whether he anticipates we would have votes on Monday, April 20, given the fact that that would be our first day back.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in numerous ways, this nation demonstrates that our children are our most valuable investment and our most precious asset. We work to improve their education, to give them greater access to high quality health care, to minimize their exposure to tobacco and other addictive agents. We are driven to do all we can to help them realize their potential and achieve their personal and professional goals. In that context, it is inconsistent and shortsighted that, year after year, we pay little or no attention to a public health problem that is 100 percent preventable, yet affects more and more children each year, and that inalterably damages physical, mental and emotional processes critical to a child's ability to grow into an independent, fully functioning adult. The public health problem I am referring to is fetal alcohol syndrome. Fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) and the related condition, fetal alcohol effect (FAE), are lifelong conditions characterized by multiple physical, mental, and behavioral handicaps. FAS and FAE cross racial, ethnic and economic lines to affect families throughout the United States. Both conditions are 100 percent preventable--and 100 percent irreversible. In January of 1997, I introduced S.148, a bill to establish a program for the prevention of FAS and FAE. S.148 calls for the development of an interagency task force at the federal level to promote prevention and detection of FAS and FAE, as well as a grant program to help communities expand public awareness and prevention at the state and local levels. I introduced bills similar to S.148 in the 102nd, 103rd and 104th Congresses, but, as is too often the case, these measures were too modest in scope to compete against ``the issue of the moment.'' Seven years is a long time to push a bill, but I don't see this effort as a matter of choice so much as a matter of necessity. It is a crime to sit back while more and more women each year drink during pregnancy and more and more children each year are handicapped for life because of it. In fact, the more I have learned about these conditions and their impact on children and their families, the more apparent it is to me that, if we truly care about children, we must not only embrace the goals of S.148, we must go beyond them. Not only should we do all we can to protect more children from a life sentence of devastating handicaps, we should acknowledge that for many children, prevention comes too late. We must open our eyes to the fact that FAS and FAE children and their families often have nowhere to turn for information, guidance and the social services necessary to respond to their special needs.Up to 12,000 children with FAS are born each year in the United States. According to some estimates, the rate of FAE is 3 times that. The incidence of FAS is nearly double that of Down's syndrome and almost 5 times that of spinal bifida. The incidence of FAS may be as high as one per 100 in some Native American communities. FAS and FAE are characterized by a complicated and debilitating array of mental, physical, and behavioral problems. FAS is the leading cause of mental retardation, and, let me repeat, it is 100 percent preventable. But rather than setting our sites on decreasing the incidence of FAS and FAE, the nation is witnessing a rapid increase in its incidence. In 1995, the Centers for Disease Control reported a six-fold increase in the percentage of babies born with FAS over the preceding 15 years. Again according to the CDC, rates of alcohol use during pregnancy increased significantly between 1991 and 1995, especially the rates of ``frequent drinking.'' This trend defies the Surgeon General's warning against drinking while pregnant. It defies a strongly worded advisory issued in 1991 by the American Medical Association urging women to abstain from all alcohol during pregnancy. Clearly, we need to do more to discourage women from risking their children's future by drinking while pregnant. In addition to the tragic consequences for thousands of children and their families, these disturbing trends have immense implications from a fiscal perspective. The costs associated with caring for individuals with FAS and FAE are staggering. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the lifetime cost of treating an individual with FAS is almost $1.4 million. The total cost in terms of health care and social services to treat all Americans with FAS was estimated at $2.7 billion in 1995. This is an extraordinary and unnecessary expense. To the extent we can prevent FAS and FAE and help parents respond appropriately to the special needs of their children, we can reduce institutionalizations, incarcerations and the continual use of medical and mental health services that otherwise may be inevitable. It makes fiscal sense, but far more importantly, it is the humane thing to do. The bill I am introducing today will establish a national task force comprised of parents, educators, researchers and representatives from relevant federal, state and local agencies. That task force will take on a difficult and critically important task. It will be responsible for reporting to Congress on FAS and FAE--on the nature and scope of the problem, the current response at the federal, state and local levels, and on ways the federal government can help states and localities make further progress. In conjunction with the task force efforts, the Secretary would establish a competitive grants program. This program would provide the resources necessary to operationalize the task force recommendations. The concept of a national task force with membership from outside of, as well as within, the federal government make sense for FAS and FAE, because the true experts on these conditions are the parents and professionals who deal with the cause and effects of these conditions day in and day out. If we want to respond appropriately, parents, teachers, social workers, and researchers should have a place at the table. A national task force will also provide the opportunity for communities to share best practices, preventing states that are newer to this problem from having to ``reinvent the wheel.'' Mr. President, responding to the tragedy of alcohol-related birth defects is an urgent cause. I would like to thank the many concerned parents, researchers, educators, and federal agencies who helped develop this bill. Their input has produced what I believe is a solid response to the challenge and obligation before us. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in an effort that can save children from a legacy of unnecessary and overwhelming handicaps, and help those for whom prevention is too late to live independent, fulfilling lives. I believe that if they look at this issue closely, they will agree that it would be a crime to do any less. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in numerous ways, this nation demonstrates that our children are our most valuable investment and our most precious asset. We work to improve their education, to give them greater access to high quality health care, to minimize their exposure to tobacco and other addictive agents. We are driven to do all we can to help them realize their potential and achieve their personal and professional goals. In that context, it is inconsistent and shortsighted that, year after year, we pay little or no attention to a public health problem that is 100 percent preventable, yet affects more and more children each year, and that inalterably damages physical, mental and emotional processes critical to a child's ability to grow into an independent, fully functioning adult. The public health problem I am referring to is fetal alcohol syndrome. Fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) and the related condition, fetal alcohol effect (FAE), are lifelong conditions characterized by multiple physical, mental, and behavioral handicaps. FAS and FAE cross racial, ethnic and economic lines to affect families throughout the United States. Both conditions are 100 percent preventable--and 100 percent irreversible. In January of 1997, I introduced S.148, a bill to establish a program for the prevention of FAS and FAE. S.148 calls for the development of an interagency task force at the federal level to promote prevention and detection of FAS and FAE, as well as a grant program to help communities expand public awareness and prevention at the state and local levels. I introduced bills similar to S.148 in the 102nd, 103rd and 104th Congresses, but, as is too often the case, these measures were too modest in scope to compete against ``the issue of the moment.'' Seven years is a long time to push a bill, but I don't see this effort as a matter of choice so much as a matter of necessity. It is a crime to sit back while more and more women each year drink during pregnancy and more and more children each year are handicapped for life because of it. In fact, the more I have learned about these conditions and their impact on children and their families, the more apparent it is to me that, if we truly care about children, we must not only embrace the goals of S.148, we must go beyond them. Not only should we do all we can to protect more children from a life sentence of devastating handicaps, we should acknowledge that for many children, prevention comes too late. We must open our eyes to the fact that FAS and FAE children and their families often have nowhere to turn for information, guidance and the social services necessary to respond to their special needs.Up to 12,000 children with FAS are born each year in the United States. According to some estimates, the rate of FAE is 3 times that. The incidence of FAS is nearly double that of Down's syndrome and almost 5 times that of spinal bifida. The incidence of FAS may be as high as one per 100 in some Native American communities. FAS and FAE are characterized by a complicated and debilitating array of mental, physical, and behavioral problems. FAS is the leading cause of mental retardation, and, let me repeat, it is 100 percent preventable. But rather than setting our sites on decreasing the incidence of FAS and FAE, the nation is witnessing a rapid increase in its incidence. In 1995, the Centers for Disease Control reported a six-fold increase in the percentage of babies born with FAS over the preceding 15 years. Again according to the CDC, rates of alcohol use during pregnancy increased significantly between 1991 and 1995, especially the rates of ``frequent drinking.'' This trend defies the Surgeon General's warning against drinking while pregnant. It defies a strongly worded advisory issued in 1991 by the American Medical Association urging women to abstain from all alcohol during pregnancy. Clearly, we need to do more to discourage women from risking their children's future by drinking while pregnant. In addition to the tragic consequences for thousands of children and their families, these disturbing trends have immense implications from a fiscal perspective. The costs associated with caring for individuals with FAS and FAE are staggering. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the lifetime cost of treating an individual with FAS is almost $1.4 million. The total cost in terms of health care and social services to treat all Americans with FAS was estimated at $2.7 billion in 1995. This is an extraordinary and unnecessary expense. To the extent we can prevent FAS and FAE and help parents respond appropriately to the special needs of their children, we can reduce institutionalizations, incarcerations and the continual use of medical and mental health services that otherwise may be inevitable. It makes fiscal sense, but far more importantly, it is the humane thing to do. The bill I am introducing today will establish a national task force comprised of parents, educators, researchers and representatives from relevant federal, state and local agencies. That task force will take on a difficult and critically important task. It will be responsible for reporting to Congress on FAS and FAE--on the nature and scope of the problem, the current response at the federal, state and local levels, and on ways the federal government can help states and localities make further progress. In conjunction with the task force efforts, the Secretary would establish a competitive grants program. This program would provide the resources necessary to operationalize the task force recommendations. The concept of a national task force with membership from outside of, as well as within, the federal government make sense for FAS and FAE, because the true experts on these conditions are the parents and professionals who deal with the cause and effects of these conditions day in and day out. If we want to respond appropriately, parents, teachers, social workers, and researchers should have a place at the table. A national task force will also provide the opportunity for communities to share best practices, preventing states that are newer to this problem from having to ``reinvent the wheel.'' Mr. President, responding to the tragedy of alcohol-related birth defects is an urgent cause. I would like to thank the many concerned parents, researchers, educators, and federal agencies who helped develop this bill. Their input has produced what I believe is a solid response to the challenge and obligation before us. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in an effort that can save children from a legacy of unnecessary and overwhelming handicaps, and help those for whom prevention is too late to live independent, fulfilling lives. I believe that if they look at this issue closely, they will agree that it would be a crime to do any less. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, over the course of the last several months, I have come to the Senate floor 3 times now to discuss this nation's nuclear strategy and forces in the post-cold-war era. In each of those previous statements, I made the central point that I perceive a growing mismatch between our strategy and forces and the real world considerations they were designed to address. I also used these opportunities to indicate several practical steps I thought we could take immediately to correct this growing imbalance. I come to the floor today, not to amend my previous observations, but rather to provide new, more compelling evidence to buttress my earlier conclusions. Let me reiterate the context of this debate. First, despite the end of the cold war nearly 7 years ago, the United States and Russia together still field roughly 14,000 strategic nuclear weapons--each with a destructive power tens or hundreds of times greater than the nuclear devices that brought World War II to a close. The closest rival, friend or foe, has less than 500 strategic weapons. Second, both the United States and Russia continue to keep roughly 5,000 of their strategic nuclear weapons on a high level of alert, ready to be launched at a moment's notice. Third, the United States and Russia continue to adhere to an overall strategic concept known as mutual assured deterrence or MAD. In addition, each side follows operational concepts that permit the first use of nuclear weapons and allow for the launch of weapons after receiving warning of attack but before the incoming warheads detonate. This set of facts is disconcerting to say the least. It has led the National Academy of Sciences, in an excellent report entitled ``The Future of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy,'' to conclude that: The basic structure of plans for using nuclear weapons appears largely unchanged from the situation during the Cold War, with both sides apparently continuing to emphasize early and large counterforce strikes . . . As a result, the dangers of initiation of nuclear war by error or by accident remain unacceptably high. This same set of circumstances moved General Lee Butler, who just 4 years ago as a former commander of the Strategic Command was responsible for setting U.S. policy for deterring a nuclear war and, if deterrence failed, fighting such a war, to observe that, ``our present policies, plans and postures governing nuclear weapons make us prisoners still to an age of intolerable danger.'' Mr. President, I agree with the National Academy of Sciences and General Lee Butler. Our strategic nuclear forces are too large for the post-cold-war period, and our operational procedures carry an unacceptable level of risk. What are the practical ramifications of this assessment? I have concluded that the United States should seek an agreement to dramatically cut these forces and change the way they are operated. Mutually agreed upon and significant reductions in the numbers of strategic nuclear weapons are in the best interests of the United States. Mutually agreed upon changes in how we operate our forces and systems will increase trust and reduce pressure to launch nuclear weapons on a moment's notice. As I noted earlier, I have held these views for some time and have seen nothing to convince me otherwise. To the contrary, recent events have only served to strengthen my convictions. In particular, I am referring to an excellent two-part series from last week's Washington Post entitled, ``Shattered Shield: The Decline of Russia's Nuclear Forces,'' and a study released last Friday by the Congressional Budget Office. The main conclusion reached in the Washington Post series is that Russia's nuclear forces and its early warning and command and control systems suffer from a lack of resources that jeopardizes their very existence. According to these articles, knowledgeable experts in the United States and Russia have concluded that, ``regardless of whether the United States and Russia move ahead on bilateral arms-control treaties, a decade from now Russia's forces will be less than one-tenth the size they were at the peak of Soviet power.'' Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal is expected to decline from a cold war high of nearly 11,000 weapons in 1990 to a low of roughly 1,000 by 2007--less than 10 years from now. As evidence, experts point to growing number of Russia's nuclear-powered submarines piled up in port unfit for patrol, her strategic bombers incapable of combat, and a steady deterioration of her land-based missile force. In addition, they note that Russia is dedicating few resources to address this decline by developing new strategic systems. In short, Russia's strategic triad could cease to exist within the next 10 years. If forecasts about this decline are correct, as I and most experts believe, this turn of events presents an opportunity for U.S. and Russian policymakers to immediately push for much deeper joint reductions than currently contemplated under START II or even the START III framework. If the Russians are headed downward, now is the time to lock them in on significantly lower levels. If we fail to reach an agreement with the Russians on lower levels, future Russian governments will be free to act unencumbered by strict and verifiable limits. Fewer Russian nuclear weapons will reduce the threat this nation faces from intentional, accidental or unauthorized launch. Fewer U.S. nuclear weapons will still allow us to effectively deter any adversary and makes sense in the post-cold-war environment. In addition, this Post series highlighted a troubling development. Russia's systems designed to give it warning of an attack and command and control of its nuclear forces are facing the same precipitous decline as its nuclear forces for the same reason--lack of resources. Russia has lost access to many radar sites located on the territory of newly independent states while its system of satellites for detecting missile launches is slowly being depleted. According to one former Russian air defense officer, ``Russia is partially blind.'' And the situation is no better with respect to its command and control structure. About a year ago, then Defense Minister Igor Rodionov observed, ``no one today can guarantee the reliability of our control systems. . . . Russia might soon reach the threshold beyond which its rockets and nuclear systems cannot be controlled.'' These developments should not cause anyone in this country to rejoice. Russian problems with their early warning and command and control systems can very quickly become our problem. Russian inability to correctly assess whether a missile has been launched or to properly control all of its nuclear weapons puts our national security at risk. All of this is compounded by the fact that both sides continue to maintain excessively large numbers of nuclear weapons at excessively high levels of alert. It is in our interest to reduce Russia's dependence on these aging systems. This can best be done by changing the way the U.S. and Russia operate their forces. Each country should lower the number of weapons on hair-trigger alert, and the United States should consider sharing early warning intelligence with the Russians. A final piece of evidence to back up my conclusions surfaced late last week. The Congressional Budget Office, in a study carried out at my request, concluded that the Pentagon spends between $20 and $30 billion annually to maintain and operate our current level of nuclear weapons--roughly 7,000 deployed strategic weapons and between 500 and 1,000 tactical weapons. Moreover, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to reject the advice of many outside experts and prevent us from even reducing to the Senate-ratified START II level of 3,500 strategic weapons, CBO estimates this shortsightedness will cost the Pentagon nearly $1 billion a year in constant 1998 dollars. If the Pentagon is forced to stay at these excessive nuclear weapons levels, the Defense Department must dump a billion dollars a year on unneeded systems, thereby depriving much more worthy Defense Department programs of much needed resources. If the Pentagon were allowed to follow a more rational course, this funding could be used to enhance the housing of our military personnel, to improve their quality of life, to increase their readiness and to arm them with the most sophisticated conventional weaponry available. If we are forced to stay on our current track, we will do none of these. Incidentally, CBO noted that if we were to reduce down to the level the Russians are expected to reach shortly, roughly 1,000 strategic nuclear weapons, the savings could reach as high as $2.5 billion annually. In summary, Mr. President, I stand by the conclusions I stated in my previous statements on this subject. Our current strategic nuclear policy and force posture is outmoded and in need of major and immediate reassessment. The only change in the intervening period since my first address on this subject is the emergence of new information that has strengthened my case and heightened the sense of urgency on this issue. As the Washington Post series points out, we have an opportunity and a responsibility to act quickly to change both our policy and our forces. The decline in Russian nuclear forces provides an ideal opportunity for us to make significant progress on the arms reduction front. The deterioration of Russia's early warning and command and control systems compels us to seek ways to reduce the unnecessary level of risk brought about by how we operate our forces. Finally, CBO's study demonstrates there is a financial cost from inaction as well. Our current defense posture forces the Pentagon to divert billions of dollars of scarce resources from more needed and important defense programs. Mr. President, now is the time to step into the future. We must dramatically reduce the levels of nuclear weapons and the associated risk levels. If we act in this manner, we will greatly reduce the risks of nuclear war, enhance our conventional force capabilities, and improve our own national security. Mr. President, acknowledging the presence of the distinguished Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute of my leader time to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I may have to use a minute or two of leader time. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I see other colleagues seeking recognition. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Washington.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I share that point of view. Obviously, there are a lot of areas of agreement between Republicans and Democrats. There are many things with which there are disagreements. That is really the essence of this whole debate. Shouldn't we have an opportunity to talk about some of those disagreements? But I think the record is pretty clear. After all these days, we have been precluded from offering the first amendment to which there may be some disagreement. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?