Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to use just a few minutes of my leader time, if I can. I know we are on the D.C. appropriations bill, and there is a Mack amendment pending. But until we get back to it, I would like to just take a couple of minutes. I do not know whether we will have the opportunity again today to talk about campaign finance reform. I certainly hope so. But on the possibility that we will not have that opportunity, I wanted to reiterate an offer that I have made publicly and I would like to do it for the Record, if I can. Obviously, we are in a situation now where the tree has been filled, and there are no opportunities to offer amendments. I am disappointed we are in that set of circumstances because, clearly, with campaign finance reform, as important as it is, with Senators waiting to have the opportunity to offer amendments, we are being denied that right. I hope that at some point we could clear the tree and allow Senators the opportunity to offer amendments. That is what a good debate is all about. It is not how long you spend on any given issue as much as it is, during whatever time you spend on the issue, whether or not you have had a good chance for debate. I must say I think the debate has been very good with regard to Senators coming to the floor to express themselves on an array of positions, and I respect Senators on both sides of the aisle who made the effort to come to the floor and express themselves as clearly as they can. My hope is that we can get back to this issue and have the opportunity, therefore, to offer amendments. The offer I made--and I will personally make this same offer to the majority leader--is that we take the Lott amendment and separate it. Democrats would be prepared, just as soon as we finish campaign finance reform, to allow this bill to be debated without filibuster, to allow the bill to be voted upon up or down. Obviously, we have amendments because in our view, whatever treatment we accord labor, we ought to accord corporations and other organizations that may have membership requirements. We do that, and we can have a good debate about that. To add an extraneous amendment onto this bill, and therefore not only preclude Senators from offering the amendments that they had hoped they could but to preclude us from even getting a vote on campaign finance reform makes it a poison pill and nothing more. If we are interested in debating the issue about whether or not organizations ought to refund part of their membership fees, that is one question. We should have a good debate about it. We should have an opportunity to discuss it. And we are prepared to allow a final vote on that issue if we can get agreement on this proposal. If, on the other hand, we are simply using this as a guise, as a way in which to prevent Senators, perhaps the vast majority of Senators, from having a vote on campaign finance reform, from offering amendments, then it is nothing more than that. So I hope we can work through this. I hope we can find a way to resolve this impasse. But certainly that would be one way to do it. Let us take the Lott amendment. Let us set it aside. Let us have a good debate. Let us schedule a time when amendments could be offered. Senators will not filibuster the motion to proceed, nor the bill itself. I am hopeful we can work through that and at some point, as I have indicated, I will discuss this matter at greater length with the majority leader. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the concerns my colleagues have expressed for the future of the children of Washington, DC. The conditions in many of the schools are truly deplorable, and the performance levels of the children show that there are many problems that need to be addressed. I do not, however, share their faith in vouchers as a solution. Although the sponsors have worked to address some of the problems with past voucher proposals, I see four serious flaws with this particular approach. First, this proposal ignores 97 percent of all children in the D.C. schools. There are 78,000 children in the D.C. public schools. Approximately 50,000 of them are from low-income families. Under this proposal, only 2,000 children--less than 3 percent of all children in D.C. schools--would receive vouchers. If helping children leave the public school system and go to private school really is the only way to get a good education--and I will outline in a moment why I do not believe it is--what message would we be sending to the children who would not get vouchers? Are we telling them that they're not important? Are we telling them that we're giving up on them? I think we ought to tell them that they're all important, that we cannot afford to leave one of them behind. We need solutions that help all children, not just a few who happen to be lucky enough to win a lottery. The second flaw I see with this proposal is that there is little proof that vouchers work. I certainly do not believe, as some of the proponents have claimed, that those who are left behind are helped in any way by the divisions that will be created within communities or by the loss of active parents to the public school system. But there is also little evidence that vouchers have helped the children who receive them in Milwaukee and Cleveland. The research is contradictory, but careful examination of the data seems to show that improvements in children's academic achievement has almost everything to do with family background, and almost nothing to do with vouchers. A third problem with this proposal is that, in the end, it's not parents who choose, it's private schools. My colleagues say they want to give parents more choices, and I am sympathetic to that argument. But, who is really doing the choosing? The answer: private schools will choose. As the article in this morning's Washington Post points out, very few of the secular private schools in this area charge a tuition at or below the level of the vouchers and many of these do not have places for additional students. The better the school, the more likely they are to turn students away. The proposal does not require private schools to accept children with disabilities or children with limited English proficiency. So, parents of these children are likely to find they have few choices available to them. Finding schools to accept children has been a problem in cities with voucher programs. In Cleveland, for example, nearly half of the public school students who received vouchers could not find a private school that would accept them. No choice was available for those students or their parents. Finally, Mr. President, I would point out that the public is opposed to vouchers. All parents want their children to be able to go to the best schools possible. But, when people understand how voucher programs work, they reject them. District voters rejected vouchers by an 8-to-1 margin in 1981. More recent voucher initiatives in California, Oregon and Washington State were rejected by more than 2-to-1. Who does support vouchers? Among the biggest proponents are people who want to dismantle public schools, especially the radical religious right. In his book, America Can Be Saved, Jerry Falwell writes: One day, I hope in the next 10 years, I trust that we will have more Christian day schools than there are public schools. I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be! Mr. President, make no mistake about this. I support religious schools. I am a product of a Catholic school education. My parents had that choice, and I believe every parent should have that choice. But, I do not believe taxpayers should be forced to subsidize that choice. Our forefathers wisely understood that there should be a constitutional separation between church and state. There are other ways to expand parents' choices without violating the Constitution. We should increase parents' ability to choose which public schools their children attend within a district, among districts and even statewide. We should increase the number of magnet and theme schools within the public school system such as math and science academies that have been developed in some communities. We should establish more charter public schools, where motivated administrators and teachers work with innovative programs in exchange for more flexibility. Mr. President, it is pessimistic and callous to settle for helping less than 3 children in 100. We can do better. We know what works in education. We know that children need good teachers, high standards and reliable measurements to tell us whether they are achieving those standards, safe classrooms, and the active involvement of parents in the schools. There are public schools all across the country doing an outstanding job of educating children. They are laboratories of reform and excellence. We ought to support these schools and help other public schools reach their level, not give up on the principle of providing a good public education to all children. Sharing information about local school reforms that work, incidentally, is one of the functions performed by the Department of Education--which many voucher supporters would abolish. The American people are not willing to abandon public schools. Polls show that 71 percent of Americans believe we should revitalize public schools, not abandon them. They believe we should educate all children, not just a few. When Americans have had the chance to vote for vouchers, they have voted against them overwhelmingly. In summary, this voucher amendment would: ignore the needs of 97 percent of D.C. school children; make D.C. children guinea pigs for unproven theory; give choice to private schools, not parents; and drain needed energy and resources away from efforts to revitalize our public schools. There are better ways to improve our students' academic performance. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and work with me to enact real and meaningful strategies that help all of our children, not just a few.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, this Congress has spent many, many months and millions and millions of dollars to investigate perceived abuses in the 1996 election. There have been cries of outrage and shock. The American people are deeply cynical about whether Congress will ever pass campaign finance reform because they believe politicians' self-interests will, once again, override public good. If after all the hearings, all the press releases, all the statements, we do absolutely nothing, that cynicism is justified. The American people are not dumb. They know the system is broken. They know we now have an opportunity to fix it, but they do not think we will. But we can use this opportunity, the next several days, to prove them too pessimistic. We need a sincere bipartisan effort to clean up our own house. So, Madam President, this is a defining moment. People who think they can kill this effort with political gamesmanship--without anyone noticing--are wrong. If we squander this opportunity, it will not go unnoticed. Today, we begin one of the most important debates that we will have in this Congress. We have sought this opportunity for almost a year. I appreciate the majority leader has now agreed to this debate. I hope his colleagues will not act to block meaningful reform now that we have the opportunity to deal with it. This is not only an easier way to resolve this issue, it is by far a better way. The American people have a right to hear full and open debate. And we have an opportunity and a responsibility to conduct it. I appreciate, too, President Clinton's determination to see that we have a good debate and his willingness to take the extraordinary step-- and I hope that it will not be necessary--of calling a special session of Congress to make sure that there is sufficient time for a thorough debate. It has been a generation since the last campaign finance reform laws were signed. Today, those laws are practically useless. Some have been circumvented by new loopholes. Senator Lott has noted all of the attention to abuse and the fact that we have so many laws on the books today. The fact is that many of those laws are unenforceable because they have been poorly drafted, because they intentionally, in many cases, created loopholes, because they are ambiguous, because we do not have the teeth in the Federal Election Commission system to deal with it. Just today in the Wall Street Journal there is an article that the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, Haley Barbour, is now being investigated by a grand jury for fundraising infractions he may or may not have committed as chairman over the last couple of years. So, Madam President, this is not a Republican problem or a Democratic problem. This is an American problem, an American problem evidenced by grand jury investigations, by special counsel investigations, by congressional investigations. The investigations go on and on. And if we do not deal with it, the cynicism will rise, the participation in democracy will fall, and we will all be the victims. So, Madam President, we have an opportunity today to build on the history. In 1971 and in 1974, Democratic Congresses enacted major reforms that we thought would address many of these problems. We limited the amount of money in politics and required candidates to disclose where they got their money. But, unfortunately, many of those reforms, as we all well know, were thrown out by the controversial decision of the Supreme Court in 1976, Buckley versus Valeo. For the last 21 years, since that decision, Democrats have tried to overcome obstacles put in place by that ruling. We have tried to find ways to address the complexities, the problems, the shortcomings of that decision. It was 10 years ago, at the opening of the 100th Congress, that then- majority leader Robert C. Byrd introduced a bill to limit spending and reduce special interest influence. We had to fight through eight cloture votes, eight filibusters, in order to get the opportunity to finally vote on the issue. Democratic sponsors modified the bill to meet Republican objections. But in the end, Republicans continued to oppose the bill, and ultimately it died. It was 8 years ago in the Democratic-led 101st Congress, both the House and the Senate passed campaign finance reform bills. President Bush threatened to veto the bill because it contained voluntary spending limits, effectively killing the bill. Six years ago, in the 102d Congress, also a Democratic-led Congress, again the House and Senate passed campaign finance reform bills. And at that time the President--President Bush --vetoed the bill, with the backing of nearly every congressional Republican. In the 103d Congress, we passed campaign finance reform with 95 percent of the Democrats in the Senate and 91 percent of the Democrats in the House voting for reform; 95 percent in the Senate, 91 percent in the House, voting for the reform. Yet, Republicans filibustered the move to take the bill to conference. Senator McConnell has boasted of that filibuster that ``My party did the slaying then.'' The 104th Congress, supposedly the ``reform Congress,'' also presented opportunities for campaign reform. It appeared reform might actually happen when President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich shook hands in Vermont and pledged to create a commission on campaign financing. But the commission never materialized. Then, Senators McCain and Feingold introduced their bipartisan reform plan. Again, reform seemed within reach. And 46 of 47 Senate Democrats voted for McCain-Feingold. Republicans in the Senate filibustered the measure. Meanwhile, Republicans in the House introduced a bill that would have allowed a family of four to contribute $12.4 million in Federal elections--125 times more than the current allowed amount. We did not get anywhere in that Congress either. That brings us to this Congress, the 105th. In his State of the Union Address in January, President Clinton made it very clear the importance that he put on the priority that Democrats have reiterated throughout this year, that we pass campaign finance reform. He called upon us to do it by July 4. During the balanced budget negotiations in February, the President and Democrats in Congress asked our Republican colleagues to make campaign finance reform one of the top priority issues on which a bipartisan task force could be established. They refused to do so. In the House, Republicans have voted five times in this Congress against bringing campaign finance reform to the floor. Here in the Senate, we actually have had one vote on campaign finance reform. That was a vote this past March to kill a constitutional amendment that would have allowed reasonable limits on campaign spending. The problem is very simple, Madam President. The problem is the amount of money, the decades of delay. In the two decades since Buckley versus Valeo, since the Congress passed the only real campaign reform laws on the books today, the amount of money in politics has skyrocketed. It is no accident, no coincidence, that voter turnout and public confidence in this institution has plummeted. Even Nero would have put down his fiddle before now. But we just keep on playing, while spending on political campaigns spins out of control. That is the fundamental problem. We all know that. We hear talk in this debate about hard money and soft money, this money and that money. That isn't the core problem. The core problem is that there is too much money, period. Too much money. Total congressional campaign spending has exploded in the last 20 years. We spent $115 million on Federal campaigns in the 1975-76 election cycle. Ten years later, in the 1985-86, we spent $450 million. In the last cycle, 1995-96, Madam President, we spent $765 million on Federal campaigns. Each election cycle shatters another spending record; 1996 was no exception. Spending in Federal campaigns increased 73 percent over the previous Presidential cycle; 73 percent in four years. To put that in perspective, during the same period, wages rose 13 percent, college tuition rose 17 percent, but Federal campaign spending rose 73 percent. The average cost of winning a Senate seat in 1996 was $4.5 million. To raise that much money, a Senator has to raise $14,000 a week, every week, for 6 years. I am currently--I am sure the majority leader is, too--seeking candidates to run for the U.S. Senate. I wish I could give you some indication of how difficult it is to tell a candidate, ``I want you to run. I want you to seek one of the highest offices in the land. But to do that, you're going to have to somehow raise $4.5 million between now and next November. I know you don't have those kinds of personal resources. And I don't know how you'll raise the money. But never mind, you can do it. And I promise that you will never be indebted to any contributor. I promise that, regardless of how much you spend, you'll never have one of those contributors come back and ask you for something.'' Madam President, the system is broken. That experience is repeated over and over and over again. How many more times will we have to tell someone who may consider running for the U.S. Senate, ``You can't afford it. This is now a club for millionaires. You either have lots of money, or you're indebted to somebody for the rest of your life.'' But that is the choice. That should not be the American way. That should not be allowed to happen to the political system we have believed for all these years. The average cost of winning a House seat in 1996 was $660,000. To raise that much money, Members in the House had to raise $6,000 a week, every week, for 2 years. It is demeaning. It is distracting. It takes us away from what we should be doing. It used to be you worked the fundraisers around the Senate schedule. Now we work the Senate schedule around the fundraisers. What I am describing now, Madam President, is a problem. We have not even reached the crisis stage yet. But we projected, given current rates of political inflation, what the typical Senate race will cost in our lifetime, 28 years from now, the year 2025. In the year 2025, if nothing changes, a typical Senate race will cost $145 million per candidate--per candidate. Are you going to tell your son or your daughter you want them to get into political life? Are you going to tell your son or your daughter that somehow in their lifetime, if they want to seek higher office, that they have to spend $145 million of their own money, or raise that much from other people? I do not even think Jay Rockefeller could afford that. The effect of the money, Madam President, is quite clear. Beyond the sheer amount of money is the effect the money has. At the very least, in the eyes of most Americans, the current system makes Congress appear to be for sale to the highest bidder. A recent Harris Poll shows that 85 percent of the people in this country already think that special interests have more influence than the voters. Eighty-five percent think if you are going to come up against a special interest, Congress is going to listen to the special interest first. Three-quarters of Congress think that we are largely owned by special interests today. Democracy cannot survive long in such a deeply cynical atmosphere, Madam President. We cannot survive that. It is no secret why voters are not going to the polls anymore. They do not think it makes any difference. ``What difference does it make as long as the special interests have the power, between the elections, to decide what we do?'' So, Madam President, if we do nothing at all, problems are going to worsen. The recent explosion in the so-called ``independent expenditure ads'' is just another illustration, another example of what we are facing. It is a particularly virulent form of political advertising. In my view, independent expenditures are the ``crack cocaine'' of negative ads. They are potent, they are deadly, and they are going to kill the system. They are not tied publicly to any candidate--no reporting, no accountability. We do not even know who is running the ads half the time. In the last election cycle, Republicans spent $10 million on independent expenditures; Democrats spent $1.5 million. But those figures are nothing compared to what we are going to see in this cycle. Independent expenditure ads push candidates to the margins. Candidates become bit players in their own races. The debate is defined by whoever has the most money. That is ultimately who dominates the media. We used to interrupt programs for ads. These days, we interrupt the political ads for programs. The solution? Well, we have been grappling with that question for a long time. There are those who look at all of this and contend that nothing is wrong, that this is America, this is free speech. What is wrong with the system? You ought to be able to go out and raise $145 million if you want to be a U.S. Senator. The majority leader just said last March, ``The system is not broken.'' Madam President, the majority leader, for whom I have great respect, in my view is wrong. We believe the system is badly broken, and so do the American people. Ninety-two percent think we spend too much money on politics today. Almost 9 in 10, 89 percent want fundamental change in our system. I have great respect for the sponsors of the legislation. Senators McCain and Feingold have spent a tremendous amount of their time, at the expense of other issues, to fashion a bipartisan piece of legislation that will allow us to move ahead--not solve all the problems--but move the ball ahead. It is not a perfect solution. It doesn't include the most critical component of reform, in my view, which is overall spending limits. But it gets us off dead center. If it doesn't address central problems, it does address several of the major problems we have in our system today. It bans soft money and regulates independent expenditures. It provides better disclosure, so people have a good idea of who is giving how much to what candidate and why. It limits the ability of the super-rich to buy political office. Forty-six of forty-seven Senate Democrats already voted for the McCain-Feingold bill last year. Now, earlier this month, all 45 Democrats in the Senate signed a letter reiterating their support for the legislation. Even after the bill was changed, Democrats would say we still support the McCain- Feingold bill unanimously. Every single man and woman in the U.S. Senate Democratic caucus would walk to the floor this afternoon and vote for it. We are pleased that four brave Republicans have said they, too, will now support this effort. We only need one more Republican vote. I believe in the end we will have that vote and more. The McCain-Feingold bill is the least we should do. Democrats will offer amendments to strengthen it. If we were in the majority, we would fight to cap spending. The Buckley versus Valeo decision was only 5-4, and 126 legal scholars have said spending limits are constitutional. But we don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. We hope those who disagree with us will resist the temptation to kill this chance with poison pills. Our goal should be reform, not revenge. If one side or the other tries to use this debate to settle political scores or punish enemies, we will fail. We are confronted with a systemic problem and we need a systemic solution. Madam President, as I said at the beginning, we spent a lot of time and a lot of money investigating abuses in past election cycles. We have all put out our press releases, expressed our indignation, our shock, and now the American people are waiting. They wonder whether politicians' self-interests will once again override the public good. They wonder if after all the hearings, all the press releases, if after all that we do nothing, what then? They know the system is broken. They know this is going to be our only chance perhaps this Congress to fix it. I hope we can demonstrate that their pessimism, their cynicism, in this case, is not warranted. I hope we can rise up to what we did last July when Republicans and Democrats, against the odds, decided to come together and balance the budget in the next 6 years and put this economy on track well into the next century. We did it then. We did it with the Chemical Weapons Treaty last spring, and now we can do it again. With the leaders we have from Arizona and Wisconsin, with Democrats and Republicans working together, we can make it happen. This is our chance. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to have some discussion with the majority leader about this schedule. I have not had the opportunity to discuss this matter at any great length with our colleagues, but I want to thank the majority leader. I think this is a schedule that affords a good opportunity to debate campaign finance reform. It takes into account the Jewish holiday and the need for our Jewish colleagues to be away. It does afford the opportunity, as well, to take up other issues later on in October. I think it is a very good schedule and I look forward to getting into the debate tomorrow and working with the majority leader to schedule the other matters as they come available to us. I hope our colleagues would avail themselves of the opportunity to begin the debate tomorrow. I know I will be on the floor, and I am sure many of my colleagues will, and we will have a good debate. I am sure we will have a number of opportunities to debate amendments and have votes over the course of that time.

Mr. DASCHLE. If I could ask the majority leader a question, I made an assumption about the schedule. It just occurred to me that I had not clarified this, but I assume that the majority leader would anticipate votes on campaign finance reform on Tuesday the 30th and Wednesday the 1st of October; is that correct?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the letter sent to me by the President be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this is the same unanimous-consent request propounded last Friday. The difference is that I have now had the opportunity to consult with my colleagues, and also to consult with the President and those in the White House who have a great deal of interest in our progress on this legislation. The President has just sent Senator Lott and me a letter, indicating his desire to either keep us here or bring us back if we are not sufficiently successful in meeting the goals that we have all indicated we share with regard to the completion of the work on the McCain- Feingold bill. Given his assurances that he will call us back or keep us here--and I certainly hope that that is not necessary because I think there is plenty of opportunity for us throughout the month of October to bring this legislation to the floor and have a good debate--we certainly would not object. As I indicated on Friday, I had two concerns, one, that we would run out of time and, two, that I had not had the opportunity to discuss this matter, and we were precluded from offering the amendment to any other legislation in the event that we would have run out of time. Now there is no concern for running out of time because the President will see to it that we have whatever length of time we need to complete our work. So Mr. President, I am very pleased that we have been able to make this progress, and we have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment with my friend from Iowa. The amendment promotes the same fundamental goals that have fueled FDA reform--that is, to improve access to safe and effective medical treatments, and respond to the growing popularity of alternative health care options. I commend Senator Harkin for his dedication to breaking down barriers that are too often a function of ignorance, inertia or territorialism in order to increase the health care options available to all Americans. Senator Harkin has advocated long and hard for openminded exploration of treatments outside the box of western medicine, and we owe him a debt of gratitude both for his common sense and his vision in promoting the safe and effective use of promising alternative treatments. I would also like to thank Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy for their commitment and leadership throughout this process. I appreciate their willingness to work with us on reforms aimed at creating a more level playing field for alternative medical treatments. And I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge my good friend Berkley Bedell, who represented Iowa's sixth congressional district so ably for 12 years. Berk has worked tirelessly, against strong odds, to give consumers more health care options, and the fact that we are here today, talking about the potential of alternative medicine, is largely due to his vision, conviction and persistence. For those of us whose health and well-being may ultimately depend on these options, Berkley Bedell's contribution is an invaluable one. Thank you, Berk, for your time, energy and unyielding commitment to expanding consumers' choices. The strategy outlined in this amendment--increasing the autonomy and authority of the NIH Office of Alternative Medicine --is a sorely needed and long overdue response to the obstacles hindering access to alternative medical treatments. Under this amendment, the role of the NIH Office of Alternative Medicine would be enhanced through the authority to conduct and support intramural and extramural research. The Office would no longer be relegated to the second tier, placed in the untenable position of convincing other institutes within NIH to take on as part of their own resource-constrained agendas, projects the Office deems important. As a full research institute, the Office of Alternative Medicine could respond to the growing interest in alternative treatments by identifying research gaps and fulfilling those gaps on a timely basis. Mr. President, as you may recall, in February Senator Harkin and I reintroduced the Access to Medical Treatment Act, a bill intended to give consumers greater freedom to use alternative and complementary medical treatments. The bill provoked some controversy, as was expected. There is no stronger opponent to change than the status quo, no matter how valuable. It has become abundantly clear that unless we shake things up a little, we will continue to tread water in our efforts to tap the full potential of alternative medical treatments. Like S. 578, this amendment definitely shakes things up, but it does so from a different angle. S. 578 promotes the idea that consumers should be free to use nontraditional medicines. This amendment confronts the resource barriers that prevent essential research into the benefits and risks of alternative treatments. Too often an alternative treatment is written off because, the traditional medical establishment claims, there is no proof of its effectiveness. In fact, untested does not necessarily translate as ineffective. It may mean that insufficient resources are available to definitively prove what has been demonstrated again and again on an anecdotal basis. A small firm or single practitioner may not have access to the resources necessary to conduct large-scale clinical trials in the U.S. to document the safety and effectiveness of a drug or device. If the treatment isn't patentable or profitable, it may be difficult to attract the interest of drug or device companies. This doesn't mean the drug doesn't work or isn't safe. It means we don't know. How many beneficial alternative treatments gather dust because they are not ``brand name'' material? Even more important is the issue of safety. Regardless of the obstacles hindering alternative medical treatments, they are increasingly popular. A 1993 article in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that more than one-third of Americans use alternative, nonconventional medical treatments. In 1990 alone, Americans spent over $14 billion on these treatments. Consumers are using these medical treatments, yet research on the safety and effectiveness of alternative treatments remains scarce, and the current regulatory system remains focused on large-scale, mainstream medicines. This amendment is intended to open doors to alternative treatments so that they can be assessed for safety and effectiveness and, when they are found to be safe and effective, made widely available. It's the right thing to do, and the longer we wait to do it, the more opportunities we forsake to make use of beneficial medical treatments. This amendment promotes the best interests of every health care consumer in the Nation, and I am proud to support it.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, on Friday afternoon of last week, I was shocked and saddened to learn that a B-1B bomber had crashed near Alzada, MT, during a routine training mission over the Powder River military operations area. The bomber was assigned to Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota, and all four crew members aboard the aircraft were killed. I wish to extend my deepest sympathies to the families of those courageous individuals. They died in the service of their country, and I know my colleagues join me in honoring their memory and their sacrifice. The B-1 accident was the sixth military air crash in 7 days. Although there is no apparent connection between the accidents, Secretary of Defense William Cohen rightly asked the Air Force and the other branches of the Armed Forces to implement a 24-hour safety stand down to allow those who fly and maintain U.S. military aircraft to focus on safety. Despite the rash of accidents that occurred in recent days, the past year has been a relatively safe year for the Department of Defense. Fifty-five military aviation accidents occurred this year compared to 67 last year, 69 in 1995, and 86 in 1994. Although this appears to be a good trend, the Pentagon must strive to improve its safety record even further, and they are doing that. I commend Secretary Cohen for implementing a safety stand down and am confident it will yield positive results. If it helps to prevent just one crash or the loss of just one life, the safety review will be well worth the effort. As Secretary Cohen recently said, ``The lives of our aircrews and passengers are very precious, and each loss is a great tragedy.'' As the Air Combat Command, the Air Force and other branches of the Armed Forces study safety this week, I hope all of us will take a moment to reflect on those committed and dedicated individuals who lost their lives in military crashes in recent days. I would like to take a moment to review the exceptional lives of those four service members from Ellsworth Air Force Base who died in the tragic accident last week. Col. Anthony Beat was born in Willard, OH, in 1951. He graduated from Ohio State University in 1973 and earned his commission through the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps the same year. During his long tenure in the Air Force, Tony served in a number of capacities. He was a B-52 copilot, aircraft commander and instructor pilot. He was also assigned to the Bases and Units Division in the Strategic Air Command headquarters. Most recently, he served as the vice commander of the 28th Bomb Wing at Ellsworth Air Force Base. My staff and I had worked closely with Colonel Beat on a number of issues during his tenure as vice commander. His expertise and many accomplishments had a profound impact on Ellsworth Air Force Base. Colonel Beat was a member of the Ellsworth Black Hills Chapel and enjoyed jogging, hunting, and fishing. He is survived by his wife, Dolores Ann, and their son, James Allen. Maj. Clay Culver grew up in Memphis, TN, and graduated from the Memphis State University in 1981. Since earning his commission in 1983, Major Culver was an Advanced Electronic Warfare Systems instructor in the 453d Flying Training Squadron, an assistant operations officer, and defensive systems officer instructor. Most recently, he served as an assistant operations officer and weapons systems officer in the 37th Bomb Squadron at Ellsworth Air Force Base. Major Culver is survived by his wife, Cynthia; a daughter, Ann; and son, Parker. Mrs. Culver said recently her husband ``was doing the right thing, and it was a very honorable way to go.'' Maj. Kirk Cakerice was born in 1954 in Eldora, IA. He graduated from the University of Northern Iowa in 1977 and married Myra Van Sickle the same year. Kirk earned his commission in 1982 and served in a number of assignments including B-1B Aircraft Commander, instructor of B-1B Aircraft Commanders, and cadet squadron commander at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Most recently, he served as an assistant operations officer in the 37th Bomb Squadron at Ellsworth Air Force Base. A longtime friend of Major Cakerice said Kirk was the ``prototypical Iowa boy.'' He ``grew up in smalltown Iowa, tremendous sense of humor, very talented at sports, could learn something quickly and do it.'' Major Cakerice was a member of the Canyon Lake United Methodist Church in Rapid City, SD. He is survived by his wife, Myra; son, Brett; and daughter, Kendra. Capt. Gary Everett, who was engaged to be married, was the youngest of the four who died in the B-1B crash on Friday. He was born in Brooklyn, NY, in 1962 and grew up near Louisville, KY. His parents, three brothers, and one sister still live in Kentucky. Gary graduated from the University of Louisville with a degree in physics in 1986 and earned his commission through the Officers Training School 2 years later. He served as B-1B Defensive Systems Officer in the 34th Bomb Squadron and as a weapons systems officer in the 37th Bomb Squadron at Ellsworth Air Force Base. Gary had many interests outside the Air Force, including an online service called RapidNet that he founded with two partners in Rapid City. Gary's sister-in-law, Karen Everett, said ``Gary was a hero to all his younger cousins. He was a wonderful role model for all his achievements, in starting his own business, and for his emphasis on how important education is.'' Captain Everett is survived by his parents, Joseph and Dorothy Everett, of Glasgow, KY; three brothers, James, Joe, and William; one sister, Carol Ann Johnson; and his fiancee, Karen Tallent of Rapid City, SD. Mr. President, we suffered a tragic loss on Friday. Col. Tony Beat, Maj. Clay Culver, Maj. Kirk Cakerice, and Capt. Gary Everett served nobly, and they will be deeply missed. Their commitment and dedication to their families, the Air Force, and our country will not be forgotten. Like many in South Dakota and throughout the country, my thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who lost their loved ones in this terrible tragedy. And we think of them now. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Is it the intention of the majority leader to adjourn on or about the date of November 14?

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Well, if it is the 7th, or the 14th, somewhere in there, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the request made by the majority leader be amended to say that ``at a date no later than the 31st of October.'' That would leave, according to the Senator's answer, at least 1 week for us to debate this and not make a sham of this request. Obviously, if he has no intention of bringing it up until the last day, this isn't a meaningful request. If we have at least a week to debate it, it is a meaningful request. So I would propose that we take S. 25 up before the Senate at a date no later than the 31st of October.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am very disappointed on what I thought was an understanding the majority leader and I had about the way we were going to do business around here. I worked very closely with him all day yesterday. We were able to get quite a bit done legislatively on Interior appropriations, and work through an agreement on FDA that required my cooperation. Yet I am presented with this about 30 seconds ago--no consultation, no discussion, no deliberation, no way with which to discuss whether this makes sense for either side; an ultimatum, take it or leave it. That is not the way to do business around here. It is an affront to the Democratic Caucus, to me personally, and it begs the question about how sincere this offer really is. If it were sincere I would think the majority leader and I would have a chance to sit down and talk about it together, work it through. No effort was made to do that. So, it is enlightening, it is instructive, and it will be reciprocated. I am delighted that the Republicans have finally seen fit to recognize the importance of dealing with this issue this year. I am pleased that at long last they have agreed at least to taking the bill up, the McCain-Feingold bill, that 45 Democrats have said they support. It only takes 2 more Republicans and we will have the 50 votes necessary to pass McCain-Feingold as it was introduced, as S. 25. So we are looking for two more Republicans. We are hoping that 5 Republicans and 45 Democrats will pass this legislation sometime this year. What the majority leader is asking in this unanimous-consent request is that at some point between now and the time we adjourn--it could be the last day of this session--that we give consent to go onto this legislation. Before the majority leader leaves the floor, I will have a question for him, if I could pose it? At least I would appreciate that respect. Is it the intention of the majority leader to bring this bill up at a point that will allow a deliberation and consideration of the legislation well before the adjournment of the session in order to afford us the opportunity to have a good debate about the bill? Mr. President, I would ask the majority leader that question.

Mr. DASCHLE. Is it the majority leader's intention to adjourn on or about the date of November 14?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, can I just request for the record why the majority leader has seen fit not to share this unanimous-consent request with me until we came to the floor? This is a highly unusual matter. I would be interested in the leader's response.

Mr. DASCHLE. Has the majority leader shared the language----

Mr. DASCHLE. Well, the Senator from Mississippi is a smooth sell. Let me just say this. Senator McConnell ought to be very happy with this, because this plays right into the hands of the opponents of campaign finance reform. Senator Feingold didn't know about this. I didn't know about this. There is no Democrat I am aware of who has seen any of this language. So, I am very disappointed. We are not going to relegate our right to offer campaign finance reform in some form to other bills prior to the last day of this session, and that's really what the majority leader is asking here. He is asking us to forgo the opportunity to debate campaign finance reform until what could be the very last day of the session, and we will then be under the terms of this agreement, an agreement that I have not seen. And yet, yesterday we worked through several unanimous-consent requests, back and forth, in detail, in direct consultation, he and I working together to get an agreement on Interior appropriations, to get a deal, as difficult as it was, on FDA reform. We worked through that because he knows it is one thing to say we are going to schedule FDA next week, it is another thing to come up with an arrangement that brings about the unanimity of all 100 Senators that takes care of all the concerns raised by Senators who have issues and concerns that they want to raise. That's how you work through unanimous consent requests. You don't bring it to the floor and say, ``Here it is, take it or leave it.'' You negotiate it. If there was a real intent, a sincere intent to negotiate a real unanimous-consent agreement, do you suppose I would have been presented with it 2 minutes ago on the floor with no discussion, no negotiation? We did have a discussion here on the floor a couple nights ago, or whenever that was. But it was, ``You know what, we may actually bring up campaign finance reform and we may actually have an agreement I would like you to look at.'' I am looking at it, but this is the very first time. In all the time I have been leader, every single time when there has been a sincere effort to resolve a unanimous-consent request, guess what happened? Senator Dole and I worked on it together, Senator Lott and I worked on it together, and jointly we presented it to the body because we wanted to get it passed, we wanted everybody to agree. This is designed for disagreement. This is designed to surprise. This is designed so all the people up there will write, ``Democrats objected to a unanimous-consent request.'' That's what this is about. He knows it; I know it. We are playing a game this afternoon. We object.

Mr. DASCHLE. We will do it in October. I guarantee the majority leader of that. But we will do it either the easy way or the hard way. We will do it the easy way, by scheduling Democrats and Republicans in a way that makes sense in getting a unanimous consent that works, or we will do it the hard way, we will do it the way we had to do on Kennedy- Kassebaum, we will do it the way we had to do it on minimum wage, we will do it the way we did it on disaster. But we will do it and do it and do it until it is done. That is a promise. So we can play games on schedule and we can position ourselves and talk about how much we are in favor of campaign finance reform, but the bottom line is it is going to be more than rhetoric. We are going to get this job done the hard way or the easy way. It is going to get done. I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I mentioned that the tribes in my State have indicated that they would like to run their own programs, but it is possible that some will decide it is not feasible for them to do so. The way this proposal is currently structured, if this happens, I would want to make sure that any unused funds revert to the TPA, and not the U.S. Treasury. Is it the committee's intent that, if all of the funds are not used 60 days prior to when they would otherwise lapse, they would then revert to the TPA fund to be allocated according to the program's formula?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to raise a technical detail that is not addressed in the report language. One of the tribes in South Dakota, the Standing Rock Tribe, also extends into North Dakota. It was my intention that, if that tribe chooses to submit a plan to run its own welfare program, the funds be available to run their program in both North and South Dakota, and that the match for the tribal members in North Dakota be proportionate to the match that Standing Rock would have received from their State. I should note that the amount of funding is sufficient to allow Standing Rock to serve both its North and South Dakota members. Would the chairman and ranking member agree that this would be possible under this provision?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Johnson and I have recently been informed of two urgent matters on the Yankton Sioux Reservation in South Dakota that require immediate attention. The boundaries of the Yankton Reservation are the subject of an ongoing legal dispute. Although the final status of the case will be resolved in the coming year by the Supreme Court, lower court decisions have already transferred criminal jurisdiction over tribal members within the disputed boundaries of the reservation to the Yankton Sioux Tribe. As a result, the tribe's patrol area has increased from 38,000 acres to 400,000 acres and the number of arrests and detentions by the tribe has tripled. The cost of providing these law enforcement services has correspondingly increased from $56,000 to $308,721. We are informed the tribe is in need of $250,000 to accommodate these increased costs.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Just briefly, I have been consulting with a number of my colleagues who are concerned about the amendment. I think they are prepared to come to the floor. I know the distinguished Senator from Connecticut is here and is prepared to respond to the statements and arguments made by the Senator from Arkansas. We are prepared to enter into a time agreement, if perhaps we can work one out in the not too distant future. I yield the floor. Excepted Committee Amendment Beginning on Page 96, line 18