Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we will not object to the rollcall vote as proposed in the motion offered by the majority leader. Let me just say, after consultation with a number of my colleagues, I think it is clear that many of us yesterday voted on the motion to proceed with an expectation we would be able to go to the bill. I voted that way and encouraged my Democratic colleagues to vote that way, even though, as the leader indicated, because of unrelated questions, not related to education, more related to judicial nominations, some of our colleagues understandably voted in frustration about their inability to move through the judicial process and the confirmation of judges as was expressed by my colleagues yesterday. Our desire, our hope, is that we can move ahead with this bill. Our hope is that we can offer amendments. As I have noted, we would be willing to take time agreements on most, if not all, of them. I would be willing to work into an agreement with the leader on that matter on these amendments. Unfortunately, we will not have that opportunity if we go to the NATO resolution. So while we will certainly comply with the vote and have the vote at this moment, it is not my desire to support it and I would hope my Democratic colleagues would not either. I yield the floor, and I thank the majority leader for his consideration.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me, if I could, respond briefly to a couple of points made by the majority leader. First of all, I have no reservations about his desire to double-track this legislation. Obviously, I think double-tracking makes sense. But he should not live under any misconception that somehow that is going to accelerate consideration of the education debate. We will have our day. We will have our opportunity to offer these amendments. Those amendments only have to be filed if cloture is invoked. And I hope my Democratic colleagues and many Republican colleagues understand the importance of having a good debate. Whether it is this week or next week or some other week, we are going to have that debate. We will have these amendments offered. We will have them considered. We are going to have it out. We will have a good discussion, as we should, in the Senate. This is not the House of Representatives. We are not working under closed rules and all of the constraints under which the House has continued to perform its duties. That is the beauty of this body. And we are going to see that respect for the rules of the institution is upheld. It is certainly the majority leader's right in that regard. I wasn't suggesting, in an earlier point I made about the number of days we spent on cloning, that we should not spend them. I of days we spent on cloning, that we should not spend them. I just felt that it might be a little more productive to spend them in committee, where this belonged, rather than to rush to the floor with a solution before we had an opportunity to think through what the solution might be. So I thought it really was wasted time. I may be the only one in that regard. But eventually we will come back with something that makes sense. This didn't make sense. And I am hopeful that ultimately we will come to a solution. But we did spend 4 days. That was the point. We spent 4 days on something thrown together to respond, in my view, very haphazardly to a very serious problem. If we can spend 4 days on that, it would seem to me we can spend a good while talking very constructively about one of the most important issues facing this country and our agenda in the Senate. So I have no objection. I appreciate very much the opportunity to express myself. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

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

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. DASCHLE. I thank the President. Mr. President, I was in my office occupied on a satellite communication. I apologize for not being able to come to the floor until this moment. But I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee for his efforts and for articulating the position of the Democratic caucus in this regard. Mr. President, education is probably the most important issue we will address this year, particularly with regard to the array of budgetary questions that we face and we are anxious to get to the bill to begin this debate. We don't expect that we are going to address every aspect of the education agenda with regard to this bill. But certainly when you have a tax vehicle and an education bill married, as this legislation represents, it affords us a real opportunity to talk about the array of challenges we face in this country, both from a tax as well as from an educational point of view. What we are simply asking for is a fair and open debate, giving the minority the opportunity to talk and to offer amendments that are not only germane but relevant. Unfortunately, our rules here in the Senate constrain us with regard to what has been offered. There is a big difference between a germane amendment and a relevant amendment. Democrats have an array of amendments dealing with education that are relevant, but under the very narrow definition of germaneness they are not germane to this bill. I have talked about this matter with the distinguished majority leader on a number of occasions. The offer that was given to us last night was the offer of a couple of amendments, or one substitute; we were to be satisfied with the ability to offer a couple of amendments. Mr. President, we have a larger number than a couple of amendments that we think ought to be warranted in this debate, that we think ought to be debated and that we think ought to be resolved in some way. So I, frankly, am not able to agree to a couple of amendments, or one substitute. We ought to have a good discussion. If we can spend 5 days on the Reagan Airport, and 4 days on a cloning resolution, my heavens, we ought to be able to spend 4 or 5 days on an issue of great importance to tens, if not hundreds, of millions of Americans today. So this is really our opportunity to do so. I am very disappointed that we would begin a debate with a cloture motion, begin the debate by saying, ``Nope. We are going to stick to germaneness here,'' and try to eliminate the opportunity to offer good amendments relevant to education simply because we have to get on to other things. I want to finish the NATO debate as well. I want to be able to get all of this work done, and I pledge my cooperation with the leader, but I hope that the cooperation would go both ways. Cooperation certainly involves giving Senators an opportunity to have a good debate. In some cases we might even be willing to agree to a time limit on these amendments. We don't need all day to talk about some of them. But we certainly need the opportunity. So I hope we can work this out. Until that time, certainly Democrats will not be in a position to support cloture. I look forward to talking more about that with the leader at the end of this colloquy. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues in introducing the Medicare Early Access Act. The bill offers new coverage options for a population that faces significant problems finding affordable insurance, individuals between age 55 and 65, the age at which they become eligible for Medicare. It is not easy to be without health insurance between the ages of 55 and 65. You are twice as likely as someone just 10 years younger to experience heart disease, cancer, or other significant health problems. And it is not easy to find health insurance when you're between 55 and 65. Prices for coverage often are unaffordable. For those with serious health problems, finding coverage can be impossible. There are 2.9 million individuals ages 55 to 65 without health insurance. Some individuals in this age group lose their employer-based health insurance when their spouse becomes eligible for Medicare. Many lose their coverage because their company downsizes or their plant closes. Still, others lose insurance when promised retiree health coverage is dropped unexpectedly. A little over 3 years ago, 1,200 former employees of the John Morrell meatpacking plant in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, received letters in the mail telling them their retiree health benefits would be canceled in a matter of weeks. These were men and women who had worked for 20, 30, even 40 years at the Morrell plant. The company did not give them retiree health benefits out of the goodness of their hearts. The Morrell workers earned those benefits. They took smaller pay increases and made other sacrifices while they were still working so they could have some measure of security when they retired. The letters telling the Morrell retirees that their former company was canceling their health benefits was just the first of many shocks. An additional shock came when those Morrell employees under 65 were forced to buy exorbitant private health insurance--an extremely difficult purchase on a retiree's pension. To address these concerns, I introduced legislation, S. 1307, the Retiree Health Benefits Protection act of 1997. S. 1307 would require companies to keep the promises they make to their retirees and their families. I am pleased that the President, Senator Moynihan, and Representative Stark have incorporated a key piece of that bill in the Medicare Early Access Act. This provision would allow retirees between ages 55 and 65 to buy into their former employer's health plan if the employer cancels or substantially reduces promised benefits. Retirees and their spouses would remain eligible until they turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare. The Medicare Early Access Act includes two additional important provisions for individuals ages 55 to 65. First, it would allow people between the ages of 62 and 65 who do not have access to group coverage to buy into the Medicare program. Second, it would offer access to Medicare for workers between the ages of 55 and 65, and their spouses, when their employer downsizes or their plant shuts down. Some have questioned whether this program will hurt the current Medicare program. Let me emphasize that the proposal will pay for itself. All workers and retirees who buy into Medicare under our plan would pay premiums out of their own pockets. Any additional costs would be paid through savings from Medicare anti-fraud and abuse measures. Because the bill is self-financing, it does not in any way threaten Medicare's solvency or its future. It is responsible proposal that pays for itself. Mr. President, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who could benefit from this bill. It is my hope that we can engage in productive debate over the next few weeks and find a way to fill these gaps in health insurance coverage, instead of making excuses about why we are waiting to help these individuals.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join with the majority leader and with all of my colleagues in reflecting upon this moment and in joining with him in offering our gratitude and our congratulations to this American hero. It may have been 25 years, and with years memories fade, but no one should ever forget the commitment made by John McCain and people like him on behalf of their country. They and their families can never forget the pain, the sacrifice, the commitment. Someone once said that democracy is something one either has to fight for or work at. John McCain has done both--fighting for democracy, as none of us could ever appreciate, and working at democracy as he does with us each and every day. There are thousands and thousands of people who have made a similar commitment, and were they here, I know that we would articulate in much the same sincere fashion our expression of gratitude to them. So, in some ways, John McCain not only represents his own experience, but that of all those he served with so valiantly during the Vietnam war. I join with my colleague Trent Lott, the majority leader, in recognizing that there are things that never go away: the importance of commitment, the recognition of the need for sacrifice, the continued need to work at and fight for democracy in this and in other countries. A resolution of this nature is certainly fitting, and on behalf of all of our colleagues, I hope we can say with unanimity, ``Thank you, thank you, John McCain.''

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues in introducing the Medicare Early Access Act. The bill offers new coverage options for a population that faces significant problems finding affordable insurance, individuals between age 55 and 65, the age at which they become eligible for Medicare. It is not easy to be without health insurance between the ages of 55 and 65. You are twice as likely as someone just 10 years younger to experience heart disease, cancer, or other significant health problems. And it is not easy to find health insurance when you're between 55 and 65. Prices for coverage often are unaffordable. For those with serious health problems, finding coverage can be impossible. There are 2.9 million individuals ages 55 to 65 without health insurance. Some individuals in this age group lose their employer-based health insurance when their spouse becomes eligible for Medicare. Many lose their coverage because their company downsizes or their plant closes. Still, others lose insurance when promised retiree health coverage is dropped unexpectedly. A little over 3 years ago, 1,200 former employees of the John Morrell meatpacking plant in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, received letters in the mail telling them their retiree health benefits would be canceled in a matter of weeks. These were men and women who had worked for 20, 30, even 40 years at the Morrell plant. The company did not give them retiree health benefits out of the goodness of their hearts. The Morrell workers earned those benefits. They took smaller pay increases and made other sacrifices while they were still working so they could have some measure of security when they retired. The letters telling the Morrell retirees that their former company was canceling their health benefits was just the first of many shocks. An additional shock came when those Morrell employees under 65 were forced to buy exorbitant private health insurance--an extremely difficult purchase on a retiree's pension. To address these concerns, I introduced legislation, S. 1307, the Retiree Health Benefits Protection act of 1997. S. 1307 would require companies to keep the promises they make to their retirees and their families. I am pleased that the President, Senator Moynihan, and Representative Stark have incorporated a key piece of that bill in the Medicare Early Access Act. This provision would allow retirees between ages 55 and 65 to buy into their former employer's health plan if the employer cancels or substantially reduces promised benefits. Retirees and their spouses would remain eligible until they turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare. The Medicare Early Access Act includes two additional important provisions for individuals ages 55 to 65. First, it would allow people between the ages of 62 and 65 who do not have access to group coverage to buy into the Medicare program. Second, it would offer access to Medicare for workers between the ages of 55 and 65, and their spouses, when their employer downsizes or their plant shuts down. Some have questioned whether this program will hurt the current Medicare program. Let me emphasize that the proposal will pay for itself. All workers and retirees who buy into Medicare under our plan would pay premiums out of their own pockets. Any additional costs would be paid through savings from Medicare anti-fraud and abuse measures. Because the bill is self-financing, it does not in any way threaten Medicare's solvency or its future. It is responsible proposal that pays for itself. Mr. President, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who could benefit from this bill. It is my hope that we can engage in productive debate over the next few weeks and find a way to fill these gaps in health insurance coverage, instead of making excuses about why we are waiting to help these individuals.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, in wishing a happy 95th birthday to former Senator and Ambassador Mike Mansfield. If historians were to accept nominations for individuals who are living embodiments of 20th century history, I would nominate Mike Mansfield to be our Democratic representative. Ambassador Mansfield's life has framed some of the great events of this century, from his service as a 14-year-old sailor in the U.S. Navy in World War I, to his role as an architect of modern American policy toward Japan as long-time U.S. Ambassador. Along the way, Mike Mansfield shaped history in both ordinary and extraordinary ways: as a miner and mining engineer, as a professor of history and political science, and as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate from Montana, including a remarkable 16-year tenure as Senate Majority Leader. As you know, Mr. President, Mike Mansfield's majestic portrait now presides over a room that bears his name just off the Senate floor. To Senators, staff, and visitors, it is a reminder of a Senate giant who was a quiet rock of integrity and perseverance. I am honored and grateful that we have the opportunity today to thank this living reminder of America's greatness and its goodness. Happy birthday, Ambassador Mansfield, and best wishes for many more years of good health and happiness. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to call to the Senate's attention an impressive milestone that a member of this body will reach this weekend. On Saturday the senior Senator from Kentucky, my friend and Democratic Whip, Wendell Ford, will have served the state of Kentucky in the Senate for the 8,478th day. He will become the longest- serving Senator in Kentucky history. While I suspect that Senator Ford might be more concerned this weekend about how his beloved Kentucky Wildcats will fare in the NCAA basketball tournament than about achieving any personal record, I hope he will allow me a few minutes to recognize this tremendous achievement. It gives me great personal satisfaction to see Senator Ford cap his distinguished Senate career by reaching this milestone. It is also appropriate that Senator Ford does so by surpassing the length of service of another great Senator from Kentucky, the former Democratic Leader and then Vice President of the United States, Alben Barkley. Wendell Ford began his Senate service back in December 1974. In 23- plus years, he has made his mark in the Senate in an extraordinary number of ways: as a tenacious fighter for the people of Kentucky, as a skilled parliamentarian and orator, as a leader and faithful soldier of his party, and as a genuinely warm, funny, and down-to-earth human being. Perhaps the Almanac of American Politics best described his political tenacity when it said that Senator Ford's ``fierce determination to champion Kentuckians' interests seems rooted in a sense that they are little guys who are victims or targets of big selfish guys elsewhere-- that they are as humble as Ford's own economic background.'' Indeed, anyone who has engaged Senator Ford in the legislative arena knows that he is deeply rooted in the Kentucky soil from which he sprang. He has been a thoroughly tireless defender of Kentucky's working families, from 60,000 tobacco growers on small farms across the state to the coal miners in Appalachia's hills and hollows. Wendell Ford surely deserves one of the highest compliments one can give a Senator: that he has never forgotten where he came from. Though I can think of no one more tenacious in defense of his constituents, I can also think of no Senator more loyal to his party, 2 traits that are sometimes difficult to reconcile. Wendell Ford has served his party in a variety of ways: as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee; as chairman and ranking member of the Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation; and, since 1991, assistant Senate Democratic Leader and Whip. His friendship and counsel to me during my tenure as Senate Democratic leader have been invaluable. I could not imagine learning the many facets of this job without Senator Ford at my side. Wendell Ford represents the best of the Senate's old school. He is someone who reveres the traditions and rules that are the foundation of the Senate. He is also someone who values the courtesy, humor, and personal bonds that give the Senate its life and its sense of common purpose. Mr. President, the state of Kentucky has sent a number of talented men to this chamber. Men like Albert ``Happy'' Chandler, Earle C. Clements, John Sherman Cooper, and certainly the legendary Henry Clay come to mind. It is a high honor that Wendell Ford stands next to these great Kentuckians in service to their state. But it is perhaps most appropriate that Senator Ford surpassed the tenure of former Senator Alben Barkley. Like Senator Ford, Alben Barkley had roots in the soil, born on a small tobacco farm in Kentucky. Like Senator Ford, Alben Barkley served his state and country in a range of positions, from county judge, to Congressman, Senator, then Vice President of the United States. And like Senator Ford, he was in the Senate leadership in both the Majority and Minority, serving as Leader in both capacities. Tested by the loss of the Senate majority in the mid-l940s, Senator Barkley turned adversity to his advantage. In 1948, a poll of journalists in Colliers magazine recognized Minority Leader Barkley as the most effective member of the Senate. This was remarkable, since 10 years earlier, a similar poll had left him completely off the list of the 10 most effective members even though he was Majority Leader. In recognition of his effectiveness, one journalist commented that ``under conditions that would have caused a less determined man to walk out and rest, he continued to work for his country through his party.'' Another said that ``by his wisdom, humor, and moderation, plus his devotion to the system, he has strengthened the concept of party responsibility.'' More appropriate words could not be spoken about Senator Ford, either. We can only hope that Senator Ford may also look to one other example set by Alben Barkley. Senator Barkley became Vice President Barkley in 1948. He served in that capacity for 1 term. Not content to accept a permanent retirement after leaving the Vice Presidency, however, Barkley ran again for the Senate in 1954 and won, returning to his beloved Senate. Maybe Senator Ford will keep that in the back of his mind. But taking Senator Ford at his word--that he will be leaving the Senate for good at the end of this year--his staff and I have tried to settle on a fitting tribute to the longest-serving Senator in Kentucky history. A tribute that will symbolize for every Kentuckian the enduring commitment to their well being that Wendell Ford has shown. Today I am introducing a bill to name the school under construction in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, the ``Wendell H. Ford Education Center.'' The Wendell H. Ford Education Center will assume its name the day Senator Ford leaves the Senate. I hope the students who enter its halls will fully appreciate the contributions of Wendell H. Ford and the remarkable way in which he has led his colleagues, his State, and his country in the difficult challenges we have faced in the past 25 years. Like many in Kentucky, many in this chamber are familiar with one of Senator Ford's trademark greetings, ``How are all you lucky people doing?'' This is sometimes abbreviated to simply, ``Hey, Lucky!'' Truly, all of us who have served with Senator Ford have been extremely lucky. He will be missed by a lot of people around here when he retires at the end of this Congress. But today, we all should all take a moment to congratulate and thank Senator Wendell Ford on his record-breaking service to the people of Kentucky, the United States Senate, and the country. 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, I would like to call to the Senate's attention an impressive milestone that a member of this body will reach this weekend. On Saturday the senior Senator from Kentucky, my friend and Democratic Whip, Wendell Ford, will have served the state of Kentucky in the Senate for the 8,478th day. He will become the longest- serving Senator in Kentucky history. While I suspect that Senator Ford might be more concerned this weekend about how his beloved Kentucky Wildcats will fare in the NCAA basketball tournament than about achieving any personal record, I hope he will allow me a few minutes to recognize this tremendous achievement. It gives me great personal satisfaction to see Senator Ford cap his distinguished Senate career by reaching this milestone. It is also appropriate that Senator Ford does so by surpassing the length of service of another great Senator from Kentucky, the former Democratic Leader and then Vice President of the United States, Alben Barkley. Wendell Ford began his Senate service back in December 1974. In 23- plus years, he has made his mark in the Senate in an extraordinary number of ways: as a tenacious fighter for the people of Kentucky, as a skilled parliamentarian and orator, as a leader and faithful soldier of his party, and as a genuinely warm, funny, and down-to-earth human being. Perhaps the Almanac of American Politics best described his political tenacity when it said that Senator Ford's ``fierce determination to champion Kentuckians' interests seems rooted in a sense that they are little guys who are victims or targets of big selfish guys elsewhere-- that they are as humble as Ford's own economic background.'' Indeed, anyone who has engaged Senator Ford in the legislative arena knows that he is deeply rooted in the Kentucky soil from which he sprang. He has been a thoroughly tireless defender of Kentucky's working families, from 60,000 tobacco growers on small farms across the state to the coal miners in Appalachia's hills and hollows. Wendell Ford surely deserves one of the highest compliments one can give a Senator: that he has never forgotten where he came from. Though I can think of no one more tenacious in defense of his constituents, I can also think of no Senator more loyal to his party, 2 traits that are sometimes difficult to reconcile. Wendell Ford has served his party in a variety of ways: as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee; as chairman and ranking member of the Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation; and, since 1991, assistant Senate Democratic Leader and Whip. His friendship and counsel to me during my tenure as Senate Democratic leader have been invaluable. I could not imagine learning the many facets of this job without Senator Ford at my side. Wendell Ford represents the best of the Senate's old school. He is someone who reveres the traditions and rules that are the foundation of the Senate. He is also someone who values the courtesy, humor, and personal bonds that give the Senate its life and its sense of common purpose. Mr. President, the state of Kentucky has sent a number of talented men to this chamber. Men like Albert ``Happy'' Chandler, Earle C. Clements, John Sherman Cooper, and certainly the legendary Henry Clay come to mind. It is a high honor that Wendell Ford stands next to these great Kentuckians in service to their state. But it is perhaps most appropriate that Senator Ford surpassed the tenure of former Senator Alben Barkley. Like Senator Ford, Alben Barkley had roots in the soil, born on a small tobacco farm in Kentucky. Like Senator Ford, Alben Barkley served his state and country in a range of positions, from county judge, to Congressman, Senator, then Vice President of the United States. And like Senator Ford, he was in the Senate leadership in both the Majority and Minority, serving as Leader in both capacities. Tested by the loss of the Senate majority in the mid-l940s, Senator Barkley turned adversity to his advantage. In 1948, a poll of journalists in Colliers magazine recognized Minority Leader Barkley as the most effective member of the Senate. This was remarkable, since 10 years earlier, a similar poll had left him completely off the list of the 10 most effective members even though he was Majority Leader. In recognition of his effectiveness, one journalist commented that ``under conditions that would have caused a less determined man to walk out and rest, he continued to work for his country through his party.'' Another said that ``by his wisdom, humor, and moderation, plus his devotion to the system, he has strengthened the concept of party responsibility.'' More appropriate words could not be spoken about Senator Ford, either. We can only hope that Senator Ford may also look to one other example set by Alben Barkley. Senator Barkley became Vice President Barkley in 1948. He served in that capacity for 1 term. Not content to accept a permanent retirement after leaving the Vice Presidency, however, Barkley ran again for the Senate in 1954 and won, returning to his beloved Senate. Maybe Senator Ford will keep that in the back of his mind. But taking Senator Ford at his word--that he will be leaving the Senate for good at the end of this year--his staff and I have tried to settle on a fitting tribute to the longest-serving Senator in Kentucky history. A tribute that will symbolize for every Kentuckian the enduring commitment to their well being that Wendell Ford has shown. Today I am introducing a bill to name the school under construction in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, the ``Wendell H. Ford Education Center.'' The Wendell H. Ford Education Center will assume its name the day Senator Ford leaves the Senate. I hope the students who enter its halls will fully appreciate the contributions of Wendell H. Ford and the remarkable way in which he has led his colleagues, his State, and his country in the difficult challenges we have faced in the past 25 years. Like many in Kentucky, many in this chamber are familiar with one of Senator Ford's trademark greetings, ``How are all you lucky people doing?'' This is sometimes abbreviated to simply, ``Hey, Lucky!'' Truly, all of us who have served with Senator Ford have been extremely lucky. He will be missed by a lot of people around here when he retires at the end of this Congress. But today, we all should all take a moment to congratulate and thank Senator Wendell Ford on his record-breaking service to the people of Kentucky, the United States Senate, and the country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, lately we have watched, marveled at and cherished several monumental athletic achievements. A young woman from Idaho, Picabo Street, abbreviates knee surgery recovery to win the gold medal in the Super-G at the Olympic Games in Nagano. John Elway, a 14-year veteran and one of the NFL's premier quarterbacks, leads the underdog Denver Broncos to a victory in Super Bowl XXXII. And, just last weekend, ``The Great One,'' Wayne Gretzky of the New York Rangers, makes history by becoming the first professional hockey player to score 1,000 goals. Mr. President, in keeping with the competitive spirit and standard of excellence embodied in such athletic feats, I want to acknowledge another noteworthy sporting accomplishment. A little more than a week ago, on March 1, the Senate pages trounced the House pages, 70 to 35, in the Congress Bowl--a knock-down, drag- out, 8 against 8 battle to the finish. Before a standing room only crowd, the competition was fierce and the play physical in the inaugural meeting of these arch rivals. And, like Picabo Street, John Elway and Wayne Gretsky before them, the Senate athletes demonstrated superior determination, teamwork and skill in cruising to victory. Congratulations to all who participated in the Congress Bowl-- especially the Senate page team of Colin Davis, Ben Dow, Dan Teague, Sina Nazemi, Bird Bourne, Sean Boyle, Mitch Witherspoon, Brad Wolters and Nick Messina who brought home the win in what promises to be a new and spirited long-term rivalry. (The remarks of Mr. Daschle pertaining to the introduction of S. 1756 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate owes a great debt of gratitude to the Committee on Environment and Public Works, its Chairman (Mr. Chafee) and Ranking Member (Mr. Baucus) for developing an excellent legislative package to reauthorize the Federal surface transportation programs. Among the many visionary provisions in this bill, the Committee included a provision in S. 1173 that requires the United States Department of Transportation to carry out a bridge research grant program to demonstrate the application of innovative materials in the construction of bridges. The State of South Dakota is on the cutting edge of efforts to develop innovative materials for use in bridge construction. Polymer Bridge Systems, Inc., of Mitchell, South Dakota, has developed a very impressive technology that makes it possible to construct items like bridges and utility poles out of composite plastics. Its products use a relatively inexpensive bamboo core for strength. Advanced composites show great promise in reducing costs of bridges and speeding their construction, particularly in rural areas such as those found in our states. This Senator has seen samples of this innovative product. It has won wide national recognition ahead of others developed by large corporations we are all familiar with. In fact, the South Dakota Department of Transportation is installing a model bridge developed by Polymer Bridge Systems, Inc., at a weigh station in the state. This product shows great economic development potential, as they intend to manufacture it in the State. Mr. President, I would inquire of the distinguished ranking member (Mr. Baucus), if advanced composites are the type of material the Committee on Environment and Public Works intended to be researched under this new grant program?

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank my colleagues, and look forward to working with them on this and other important initiatives to improve our nation's transportation system.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I share the view expressed just now by the majority leader. Certainly, our chairs and ranking members have done an outstanding job. I especially want to commend the dean of the Senate, our former majority leader, Robert Byrd, and his colleague, Phil Gramm, and others who had so much to do with making this possible. This has been an effort that will have extraordinary consequences for years to come, both in terms of infrastructure and an array of different questions that we have to address. This has been an issue that Senator Byrd has instructed and educated the Senate about for many, many months. It was his leadership and diligence, along with Senator Chafee and Baucus and Senator Warner and so many others, that brought us to the successful conclusion that we have now achieved. I commend them. I thank them. And I hope we can use this as a real model for other pieces of legislation that may come before the Senate this year. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Congress last year approved a $2.3 billion tax program primarily to finance capital improvements for Amtrak. This amendment applies to that legislation, which was part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Under the able and distinguished leadership of the Chairman of the Finance Committee [Mr. Roth] and the Ranking Member [Mr. Moynihan], the law wisely set aside 1 percent of the total tax benefit for each state with no Amtrak service, which amounts to $23 million. The 6 states currently lacking Amtrak service are South Dakota, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Maine, Alaska and Hawaii. However, the law limited the use of those funds by non-Amtrak states to inter-city passenger rail or bus service capital improvements and maintenance, or the purchase of inter-city passenger rail services from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. This formulation presented real problems for states like South Dakota, Wyoming, Hawaii and some of the other non-Amtrak states that have no passenger rail service and only limited inter-city bus service. Due to these limitations, this otherwise valuable funding would not significantly benefit our states, nor could they wisely invest funds in such service. Our amendment would expand the eligible uses of funding provided to non-Amtrak states under this provision to include the expenditure of such funds for transit, rail and highway safety, state-owned rail lines, small rural air service facilities, and passenger ferryboat service. These modes of transportation provide a similar function in our states to the role played by Amtrak in the states it serves. None of these funds come from any other states, nor does our amendment authorize any additional funds for our states. It is completely budget-neutral. Rather, it simply expands the eligible uses of the funds that our states are already scheduled to receive by law. Mr. President, let me explain the types of programs our states could use these funds for under our amendment. First, it allows use of our funds for rural and public transportation projects that are eligible for funding under Sections 5309, discretionary transit-urban areas, 5310, transit capital for the elderly and handicapped, and 5311, rural transit capital and operations. Rural public transportation, a portion of which is inter- city in nature in transporting elderly and disabled from small towns to larger cities for medical care, shopping and other purposes, as well as providing local nutritional needs and mobility, is extremely important and needed in South Dakota in order to deal with the vast aging population in a sparsely populated area. During FY 1996 in my state, rural public transportation operators provided 1,114,672 rides and traveled 2,102,414 miles transporting the elderly and disabled of which over 50% of the rides were for medical, employment and nutritional needs. However, only about two-thirds of the state currently has access to limited public transportation, and over half of the existing transit vehicles in the providers' fleets are older than 7 years or have over 100,000 miles. Therefore this funding would address significant public transit needs. Second, it allows use of our funds for rail/highway crossing safety projects that are eligible for funding under Section 130 of Title 23. Only 219 out of 2025 of South Dakota's rail/highway crossings are signalized, and there is a tremendous unmet need to improve the safety of rail/highway crossings in the state. Third, it provides for capital expenditures for state-owned rail lines. This is extremely important for states like South Dakota, which made a major investment and currently owns many of the rail lines operating in the state in order to provide a core rail transportation system to benefit the state's agricultural economy. This is a very narrow class of operations. This special one time credit would be utilized only to upgrade state-owned railroads. In cases where states own railroad facilities, they were purchased by the state only as a last resort. The state took extraordinary measure to preserve a core level of rail transportation to protect the public interest and support the state's economy. South Dakota owns 635 miles of active trackage that was purchased from the bankrupt Milwaukee Railroad in the 1980's. The primary operation on this line is performed under an operating agreement between the South Dakota and the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad. Much of the state-owned rail line has been in place since it was originally constructed, and much of it is in sub-standard condition or is too lightweight to efficiently handle current railroad car weights. This funding would allow the state to upgrade its rail line to enhance movement of agriculture and natural resource products. Fourth, it expands the eligible use of the funds to hazard elimination safety projects that are eligible for funding under Section 152 of Title 23. This funding would be used to implement safety improvements at locations on public roads where there is a documented high accident frequency. Projects eligible under this program include installation of traffic signals, traffic control signs, or guardrails; reconstruction of intersections, construction of turning lanes, climbing lanes, or passing lanes; flattening slopes, removing sharp curves, and other appropriate safety measures. This would reduce the potential for traffic accidents and save lives. Finally, at the request of my distinguished colleague from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], the amendment permits use of the funds for passenger ferryboat service within any non-Amtrak state. This makes perfect sense for states like Hawaii and Alaska that rely on ferryboat service in the same fashion that other states rely on Amtrak service. Mr. President, I thank the able Ranking Member on the Committee on Environment and Public Works [Mr. Baucus] for his assistance in moving this amendment, and the assistance of the distinguished Chairman [Mr. Chafee] for expediting its consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE. Given the clear benefits of the ethanol tax incentive and the fact that it does not affect federal investments in transportation projects, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment and helping to ensure that America has the tools to meet its energy, environmental and economic goals long into the future.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in support of the Women's Health Research and Prevention Amendments of 1998, a bill that responds to a fundamental weakness in our health care system: the relative paucity of research devoted to women's health issues. As we learn about the unique health care needs of women, we have an historic opportunity to redress the unjustified disparity in the level of effort and resources invested in women's health. This measure extends several targeted initiatives of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), including research on osteoporosis; breast, cervical and ovarian cancer; and heart disease as it affects women. This research is clearly needed. While heart disease is the leading cause of death among women, there is inadequate understanding of how heart disease manifests in our female population. Indeed, a recent study showed that 2 out of 3 doctors were not aware that the risk factors for heart disease are different for women than they are for men, and 9 out of 10 did not know the symptoms vary according to gender. Like cardiovascular research, efforts to understand and treat osteoporosis are critically important. More than 28 million Americans, 80 percent of whom are women, suffer from or are at-risk for osteoporosis. Half of all women age 50 or over will suffer a bone fracture due to osteoporosis. Research into the causes, treatment and prevention of osteoporosis is a smart public health investment. An equally strong case can be made for the other NIH research initiatives extended by this bill. Whether the focus is breast cancer, a disease which takes the lives of 44,000 women each year, or ovarian cancer, which currently has a tragically low survival rate, the research priorities identified for inclusion in this bill represent some of the most important initiatives of any kind that we, as a nation, can undertake. The bill also extends key women's health initiatives at the Centers for Disease Control: One that I believe is particularly important is the CDC National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection program. Over 1.5 million screening tests have been provided by the program, which began its seventh year in 1998. As a result, more than 23,000 women were able to fight back against an otherwise silent killer. The CDC early detection program is now operational in all 50 states. More than 100 women are screened in my own state each month. Another very important program reauthorized by this bill is CDC's Community Programs on Domestic Violence initiative. Domestic violence is a threat to women, to children and to the family unit. It is shockingly prevalent and tragically under-reported. Studies indicate that one-quarter of all women in the United States experience domestic violence at some point in their life, and that 92 percent of them do not discuss these incidents with their physician. We need to recognize the problem for what it is--a crime, a killer, and a public health threat--and fight it with every tool we have at our disposal. Through the CDC program, non-profit organizations apply for resources to combat domestic violence in communities throughout the country. Local efforts to increase public awareness, dispel the myth that domestic violence is a private family matter, and help women and children who fall victim can, case-by-case, make a tremendous difference in the lives of millions of present and potential victims. This bill continues the effort to bridge the gender gap in the quality of research, data, and care. It asserts the fact that women have unique health care needs and addresses areas of particular importance to women's health. It also affirms the value of health research generally and recognizes the important role research plays in both improving health outcomes and decreasing health costs for many diseases. I am proud to be part of this effort.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in support of the Women's Health Research and Prevention Amendments of 1998, a bill that responds to a fundamental weakness in our health care system: the relative paucity of research devoted to women's health issues. As we learn about the unique health care needs of women, we have an historic opportunity to redress the unjustified disparity in the level of effort and resources invested in women's health. This measure extends several targeted initiatives of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), including research on osteoporosis; breast, cervical and ovarian cancer; and heart disease as it affects women. This research is clearly needed. While heart disease is the leading cause of death among women, there is inadequate understanding of how heart disease manifests in our female population. Indeed, a recent study showed that 2 out of 3 doctors were not aware that the risk factors for heart disease are different for women than they are for men, and 9 out of 10 did not know the symptoms vary according to gender. Like cardiovascular research, efforts to understand and treat osteoporosis are critically important. More than 28 million Americans, 80 percent of whom are women, suffer from or are at-risk for osteoporosis. Half of all women age 50 or over will suffer a bone fracture due to osteoporosis. Research into the causes, treatment and prevention of osteoporosis is a smart public health investment. An equally strong case can be made for the other NIH research initiatives extended by this bill. Whether the focus is breast cancer, a disease which takes the lives of 44,000 women each year, or ovarian cancer, which currently has a tragically low survival rate, the research priorities identified for inclusion in this bill represent some of the most important initiatives of any kind that we, as a nation, can undertake. The bill also extends key women's health initiatives at the Centers for Disease Control: One that I believe is particularly important is the CDC National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection program. Over 1.5 million screening tests have been provided by the program, which began its seventh year in 1998. As a result, more than 23,000 women were able to fight back against an otherwise silent killer. The CDC early detection program is now operational in all 50 states. More than 100 women are screened in my own state each month. Another very important program reauthorized by this bill is CDC's Community Programs on Domestic Violence initiative. Domestic violence is a threat to women, to children and to the family unit. It is shockingly prevalent and tragically under-reported. Studies indicate that one-quarter of all women in the United States experience domestic violence at some point in their life, and that 92 percent of them do not discuss these incidents with their physician. We need to recognize the problem for what it is--a crime, a killer, and a public health threat--and fight it with every tool we have at our disposal. Through the CDC program, non-profit organizations apply for resources to combat domestic violence in communities throughout the country. Local efforts to increase public awareness, dispel the myth that domestic violence is a private family matter, and help women and children who fall victim can, case-by-case, make a tremendous difference in the lives of millions of present and potential victims. This bill continues the effort to bridge the gender gap in the quality of research, data, and care. It asserts the fact that women have unique health care needs and addresses areas of particular importance to women's health. It also affirms the value of health research generally and recognizes the important role research plays in both improving health outcomes and decreasing health costs for many diseases. I am proud to be part of this effort.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do so to comment on a couple matters raised by the distinguished majority leader. First of all, he noted we have spent at least 3 weeks on this bill already, 2 last fall and 1 last week. He also noted that this has been a productive week, and I share that view; it has been productive. I will encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of cloture Monday night simply because we have to come to closure. There are a lot of good amendments to be offered yet. We will have that debate, but we can do that under the strictures which cloture provides, and I am very supportive of resolving the outstanding questions so we can move on. I also compliment, as the majority leader did, our two managers. They have done an outstanding job, to date, in working with Members on both sides. I hope that we can continue to be responsive to the concerns, both with the schedule as well as with the legislation. I am sure that will be the case. Finally, I thank all of those who voted in favor of tabling the previous amendment. I commend the leadership on both sides who took the active interest in enlightening us all about the importance of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. I appreciate very much the overwhelming vote we just had and, hopefully, at long last, it will put this issue to rest. Again, Mr. President, I share the sentiment expressed by the leader. This is the time to move this legislation forward. This cloture vote will allow us to do that. I am hopeful that we can have a good debate on other amendments on Monday and have that vote Monday night so we can complete our work sometime by the middle of next week. I have no objection.