Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I agree with the Senator from Tennessee. It's not enough for the principles of our democracy to be known by only a few. That's not American democracy. In order to have a strong, vibrant democracy, everyone has to participate. Everyone has to know the history and the rules. We all need to learn not just names and dates, but the process of democracy. We also need to develop new and better ways to keep adults informed and involved in the civic life of their communities and of our nation. Our nation faces grave, new challenges today. The very real threat of terrorism is forcing us to examine the balance between liberty and security. How do ``we the people'' respond to terrorism? How do ``we the people'' operate in an increasingly global world? In a world in which we are inundated with information of all kinds, how do we assure that people get the information they need to make informed decisions about our democracy and our future? These are the kinds of questions that future Congressional Conferences on Civic Education can explore.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Conference Statement and join the majority leader in encouraging all of our colleagues to lend their support to this Congressionally- sponsored effort to dramatically improve civic education and civic participation in America.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. There is a great, possibly prophetic, story from the end of the Constitutional Convention in 1789. For weeks, delegates to the convention had labored in the Philadelphia heat to draft a Constitution. Every day, crowds waited outside Independence Hall for any news of their progress. Finally, a draft was agreed upon. As Benjamin Franklin emerged from the hall, a woman asked, ``Dr Franklin, what have you given us: A monarchy? Or a republic?'' Franklin famously replied, ``A republic--if you can keep it.'' Some of our founders would, no doubt, be surprised that we have indeed managed to keep this republic they dared to imagine and create more than 200 years ago. What has enabled the United States to become the world's oldest surviving democracy is more than luck. It is more, even, than divine providence. It is also the result of deliberate work and effort by generations of Americans to understand and protect the principles on which our nation was founded, and to pass those lessons on, undiminished, to future generations. That is the heart of what we mean by ``civic education.'' I know the majority leader shares my belief that Congress has an important role to play in ensuring that civic education in America remains strong and vital and that it reaches all Americans. For that reason, it was an honor for both of us, along with many of our colleagues, to attend the First Annual Congressional Conference on Civic Education from September 20th to the 22nd of this year, in Washington, D.C. The conference brought together education and civic leaders and others from all 50 States and the District of Columbia and gave them an opportunity to compare notes about what is happening in their States to strengthen civic education. Each State team also adopted a State action plan, which they will implement before the Second Annual Conference, which will be held in December 2004, also in Washington. I have the South Dakota State action plan, which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Oglala Sioux Tribe Angostura Irrigation Project Rehabilitation and Development Act. I have worked with the leadership of the Oglala Sioux Tribe to develop this legislation, which is intended to benefit the Lakota people by restoring critical water resources and promoting economic development on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The Angostura Unit of the Bureau of Reclamation was first authorized by Congress under the Water Conservation and Utilization Act of 1939, and later continued under the Flood Control Act of 1944, otherwise known as the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Project. The program consisted primarily of building the six mainstem dams on the Missouri River, to be operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, along with several Bureau-operated irrigation and water development projects. The Angostura Unit was designed to provide irrigation to 12,218 acres of farm and ranch land in the Angostura Irrigation District, as well as flood control, fish, and wildlife benefits. Tribes in South Dakota existed long before the creation of the Bureau of Reclamation or the implementation of the water development projects in South Dakota today. Tribes therefore have a vested interest in the operation of these projects. While the projects have been helpful in meeting their authorized goals, they also contribute to adverse economic and environmental conditions on tribal reservations. In particular, the Missouri River reservoirs managed by the Corps led to the taking of thousands of acres of fertile river land from Indian tribes, and with that taking, the tribes lost valuable natural resources. Federal agencies were directed through subsequent acts to provide for the rehabilitation of the lost fish and wildlife habitat and to generally improve conditions on the reservations, but results were slow in coming, and often never materialized. Legislation was enacted several years ago to finally address some of these issues, but much more remains to be done before South Dakota's tribes realize the benefits that Bureau of Reclamation and Corps projects have provided other parts of the state. In addition to the irrigation benefits the Angostura Unit provides to ranchers and agricultural producers in the area, a substantial recreation industry has developed around the reservoir, including boating and fishing. However, members of the Oglala Sioux on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation have not seen equal economic benefits from the Angostura Unit as those experienced from the recreation and irrigation in Fall River County. The Cheyenne River forms the northern boundary of the reservation, which is just 20 miles downstream from the reservoir, and is an important natural resource for the tribe. The river is essential to the survival of riparian vegetation, traditional medicinal plants, fish, and wildlife habitat. The impoundment of water in the reservoir has curbed the Cheyenne River's natural flow, and water quality is reduced. This, coupled with the worst drought the region has seen in a decade, severely affects water resources on the reservation. The Oglala Sioux Tribe's leadership has long had a desire to address these problems, and this legislation is an important manifestation of their effort. During revision of the Angostura Unit's water management plan in 2002, the Bureau of Reclamation considered a variety of alternatives for future operations, but the tribe felt their concerns about the economic and environmental effects the reservoir has on the reservation were not adequately addressed. One alternative considered by the Bureau of Reclamation during this review would return natural flows to the Cheyenne River, and would provide more water downstream for the tribe and would improve reservation conditions. The Bureau took a different approach, however--one that calls for improved irrigation operations and a more efficient distribution of water resources in the irrigation district. These improvements would help free up additional water resources and hopefully lead to improved conditions on the Cheyenne River that would benefit the tribe. The Angostura Irrigation Project Rehabilitation and Development Act would authorize the efficiency improvements proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation, benefitting both existing water users and the tribe. The legislation also would authorize the creation of a trust fund to compensate the tribe for the economic impacts and lost natural resources caused by the operation of the Angostura Unit. This trust fund will be used by the tribe to promote economic development, improve infrastructure, and enhance the education, health, and general welfare of the Oglala Lakota people. This dual track will both help ensure continued and efficient operation of the Angostura Unit and the Angostura Irrigation District, while helping to mitigate the problems facing the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and providing the tribe with the natural and financial resources it needs to plan for the future and improve the quality of life for all tribal members. This legislation is just one small, yet important, step toward ensuring that U.S. natural resource policies are fair to American Indians, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, yesterday, the President signed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. But the name of that Act is completely misleading. In fact, the Act fundamentally damages the successful and popular Medicare program--a long-term Republican goal. And this Act does more to ensure that drug prices remain high than it does to assist beneficiaries in paying for their drugs. Why? Because drug companies want it that way. Republicans with financial ties to the industry are protecting drug company interests over the interests of seniors and people with disabilities. America's seniors pay the highest drug prices in the world, even though American taxpayers subsidize the research that produces many of those drugs. The Medicare bill signed by the President squanders our chances of remedying that inequity. Not only does the bill effectively prohibit the reimportation of more affordable drugs from other countries, it actually prohibits Medicare from using its tremendous bargaining power to ensure that beneficiaries pay lower prices and that our scant resources are most effectively used. Today, Senate Democrats are siding with the seniors. We are introducing legislation that would repeal the provision barring Medicare from negotiating for lower prices. The Medicare Prescription Drug Price Reduction Act would give Medicare the authority to negotiate with drug companies to obtain the lowest possible prices for seniors and people with disabilities. House Democrats introduced a companion bill yesterday. Together, we will fight for the goal of giving Medicare beneficiaries the drug benefit and lower prices they deserve.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Oglala Sioux Tribe Angostura Irrigation Project Rehabilitation and Development Act. I have worked with the leadership of the Oglala Sioux Tribe to develop this legislation, which is intended to benefit the Lakota people by restoring critical water resources and promoting economic development on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The Angostura Unit of the Bureau of Reclamation was first authorized by Congress under the Water Conservation and Utilization Act of 1939, and later continued under the Flood Control Act of 1944, otherwise known as the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Project. The program consisted primarily of building the six mainstem dams on the Missouri River, to be operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, along with several Bureau-operated irrigation and water development projects. The Angostura Unit was designed to provide irrigation to 12,218 acres of farm and ranch land in the Angostura Irrigation District, as well as flood control, fish, and wildlife benefits. Tribes in South Dakota existed long before the creation of the Bureau of Reclamation or the implementation of the water development projects in South Dakota today. Tribes therefore have a vested interest in the operation of these projects. While the projects have been helpful in meeting their authorized goals, they also contribute to adverse economic and environmental conditions on tribal reservations. In particular, the Missouri River reservoirs managed by the Corps led to the taking of thousands of acres of fertile river land from Indian tribes, and with that taking, the tribes lost valuable natural resources. Federal agencies were directed through subsequent acts to provide for the rehabilitation of the lost fish and wildlife habitat and to generally improve conditions on the reservations, but results were slow in coming, and often never materialized. Legislation was enacted several years ago to finally address some of these issues, but much more remains to be done before South Dakota's tribes realize the benefits that Bureau of Reclamation and Corps projects have provided other parts of the state. In addition to the irrigation benefits the Angostura Unit provides to ranchers and agricultural producers in the area, a substantial recreation industry has developed around the reservoir, including boating and fishing. However, members of the Oglala Sioux on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation have not seen equal economic benefits from the Angostura Unit as those experienced from the recreation and irrigation in Fall River County. The Cheyenne River forms the northern boundary of the reservation, which is just 20 miles downstream from the reservoir, and is an important natural resource for the tribe. The river is essential to the survival of riparian vegetation, traditional medicinal plants, fish, and wildlife habitat. The impoundment of water in the reservoir has curbed the Cheyenne River's natural flow, and water quality is reduced. This, coupled with the worst drought the region has seen in a decade, severely affects water resources on the reservation. The Oglala Sioux Tribe's leadership has long had a desire to address these problems, and this legislation is an important manifestation of their effort. During revision of the Angostura Unit's water management plan in 2002, the Bureau of Reclamation considered a variety of alternatives for future operations, but the tribe felt their concerns about the economic and environmental effects the reservoir has on the reservation were not adequately addressed. One alternative considered by the Bureau of Reclamation during this review would return natural flows to the Cheyenne River, and would provide more water downstream for the tribe and would improve reservation conditions. The Bureau took a different approach, however--one that calls for improved irrigation operations and a more efficient distribution of water resources in the irrigation district. These improvements would help free up additional water resources and hopefully lead to improved conditions on the Cheyenne River that would benefit the tribe. The Angostura Irrigation Project Rehabilitation and Development Act would authorize the efficiency improvements proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation, benefitting both existing water users and the tribe. The legislation also would authorize the creation of a trust fund to compensate the tribe for the economic impacts and lost natural resources caused by the operation of the Angostura Unit. This trust fund will be used by the tribe to promote economic development, improve infrastructure, and enhance the education, health, and general welfare of the Oglala Lakota people. This dual track will both help ensure continued and efficient operation of the Angostura Unit and the Angostura Irrigation District, while helping to mitigate the problems facing the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and providing the tribe with the natural and financial resources it needs to plan for the future and improve the quality of life for all tribal members. This legislation is just one small, yet important, step toward ensuring that U.S. natural resource policies are fair to American Indians, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, yesterday, the President signed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. But the name of that Act is completely misleading. In fact, the Act fundamentally damages the successful and popular Medicare program--a long-term Republican goal. And this Act does more to ensure that drug prices remain high than it does to assist beneficiaries in paying for their drugs. Why? Because drug companies want it that way. Republicans with financial ties to the industry are protecting drug company interests over the interests of seniors and people with disabilities. America's seniors pay the highest drug prices in the world, even though American taxpayers subsidize the research that produces many of those drugs. The Medicare bill signed by the President squanders our chances of remedying that inequity. Not only does the bill effectively prohibit the reimportation of more affordable drugs from other countries, it actually prohibits Medicare from using its tremendous bargaining power to ensure that beneficiaries pay lower prices and that our scant resources are most effectively used. Today, Senate Democrats are siding with the seniors. We are introducing legislation that would repeal the provision barring Medicare from negotiating for lower prices. The Medicare Prescription Drug Price Reduction Act would give Medicare the authority to negotiate with drug companies to obtain the lowest possible prices for seniors and people with disabilities. House Democrats introduced a companion bill yesterday. Together, we will fight for the goal of giving Medicare beneficiaries the drug benefit and lower prices they deserve.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I certainly will not--I just wish to indicate to the majority leader how pleased I am that at long last we have been able to get to this point. This has been a very difficult negotiation involving many Members. I think it is very important that we ultimately accomplish the passage of this legislation. This obviously does not bring us to a point where we will finalize the bill, but I think it sets us up in a way that will allow the completion of our work shortly after we return. That is the message we need to send on a bipartisan basis, and I appreciate the majority leader's leadership in getting us to this point. I will work with him as we coordinate the amendment time and debate, but I hope we can do this soon after we return. I expect we will complete our work at some point shortly after that. I thank him, and I have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am very pleased that we have been able to make what I consider real progress on the Executive Calendar. There is still work to be done, but I think this represents a very important compromise in the effort to try to find the bipartisan balance in these nominations that is key to success, regardless of the session or regardless of the Congress itself. There are still many Democrats whose nominations are languishing either in the White House or in committee. It is troubling that we have had the difficulty, in many cases, that has precluded greater progress on those and other nominations over the course of the last several months. I hope, as we begin the second session of the Congress, we can expedite many of these nominees. I certainly will redouble our efforts to work with the White House and to accommodate whatever concerns they may have with regard to some nominations, and certainly with regard to their own list of nominees who ought to be considered in an expeditious way. So we will continue to work. I hope the White House in particular recognizes the importance of reciprocity and the fact that the nominations must be a two-way street. Democratic and Republican nominations deserve expeditious consideration, and it would be a real opportunity to set that tone and to send that message as we consider the Executive Calendar again early next year. I yield the floor.

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, the other day the distinguished majority leader came to the floor to call attention to the special contribution made by a number of our pages who volunteered to stay beyond the time that was originally scheduled for their experience in the Senate. I wanted to join with him in expressing our heartfelt gratitude to each of those pages, not only those pages who stayed as volunteers but to those pages who have been with us this past session. Pages play a very important role in the Senate. They are not only spectators to the democratic experiment, but they are real participants. Each of them becomes all the more adept at all of their responsibilities as the session unfolds and they become students of Government in a unique and special way. I have always been an admirer of our pages because of the great job they do and the little attention they get. I hope they leave with an appreciation of Government. When we have graduation for our pages, I oftentimes urge them to consider this the first installment of their public experience. I urge them to consider coming back, not only as members of the staff, but hopefully one day as elected Members themselves. I am absolutely confident at some point some will. I will never forget Senator David Pryor, Mark Pryor's father, telling the story that when he was a page he left a penny in the Capitol and promised himself he would come back and pick up that penny as an elected official. He did. I think it was a testament to the dreams, aspirations, and remarkable persistence that oftentimes our pages have. As I noted, there are a number of pages who not only served the time that was expected of them but stayed on afterward to accommodate the elongated Senate schedule. Many others offered to stay, but because they had schedules that were in conflict were not able to. There are seven pages who stayed on until the last couple of days and in a couple of cases all the way up until today. Margaret Leddy, Melissa Meyer, Krista Warner, Yael Bortnick, Emily Holmgren, Farrell Oxley, and Sarah Smith all went above and beyond the call of duty. They all have served the Senate in their capacity as pages superbly. I did not want this day or this session to end without publicly acknowledging their remarkable contribution, the quality with which they did their work and the gratitude we have for the job they did. Yesterday was Melissa Meyer's birthday. I wish her a happy birthday besides, but to each of our pages--those who may still be here and those who have gone, those who served--again let me express on behalf of the entire Senate our heartfelt thanks, our best wishes for a happy holiday season, and, perhaps most importantly, our sincere wish that they come back again in some other capacity, because we need them. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time because I know we are out of the allotted time. I'm told that when Medicare was passed 38 years ago, the House and Senate galleries were filled with senior citizens who felt a great deal of hope, optimism and excitement about what that bill meant for them and for future Americans. I don't see any senior citizens in the galleries today. And I think that is a real reflection on what this bill really means. Why are there no senior citizens in the galleries for this vote? Why isn't there the hope and excitement and enthusiasm and optimism that we saw so vividly 38 years ago? Mr. President, I think we all know the reason: because there is no excitement. There is no enthusiasm. There is no optimism. There is no real confidence that what we are doing today will help the vast majority of senior citizens. They are not optimistic. They are watching with dismay at the vote we are about to take. I'll tell you what rooms are filled--not the galleries but the lobbies. The drug companies and the insurance companies are out there in droves. The highly paid representatives of these companies couldn't be happier about this bill. Their job is done for now. I heard a report on the radio this morning that the final vote was going to be taken early today. Well, that report was wrong, Mr. President. This is not the final vote on prescription drugs for seniors or on Medicare. This is only the beginning, not the end. We will see many, many more votes. I predict that we will be back within the next 12 months. Seniors will demand that we correct the many deficiencies in this bill, and they will not rest until we do. This may be the end of this debate. But I predict that a longer debate will begin tomorrow as senior citizens start to fully understand the magnitude of the problems this legislation creates for them. This bill is deeply flawed. There is a poll in this morning's South Dakota Rapid City Journal. The poll simply asked the question, Do you think the legislation the Senate is about to pass is adequate? Mr. President, 64.5 percent of those who responded said no, it is not adequate. Those of us who have been working on this legislation should not be surprised. Senior citizens with private coverage already know they could lose those benefits as early as tomorrow as the result of this bill. Seniors on Medicaid already know that they are going to have to pay more for drugs, and may even be refused some of the drugs they need. Seniors in South Dakota already know they may be coerced into an HMO they disdain and out of a Medicare plan they now count on. Seniors already know they are about to be subjected to a scheme for benefits they cannot even understand, much less afford. Taxpayers already know they are going to be giving huge handouts to insurance companies, drug companies, and special interests, even though our country is faced with deficits unlike we have ever known. Many Senators know this is lousy legislation, that we may spend the rest of our careers repairing the flaws of this disappointing bill. We are going to be called upon to vote today. My father admonished me many years ago never to put my signature on something I was not proud of. Mr. President, I am not proud of this legislation. I cannot put my signature on this bill. And I do not think anyone else should, either. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, by adopting the Medicare Conference Report today, the Senate has done great harm to one of our most successful and important social programs. As I have said over the past week, I believe that this will not be the end of the issue. I believe this is just the end of the first chapter. And I predict that the call from beneficiaries and future beneficiaries to repair this damage will be so loud that Congress will be compelled to act. We are hearing already from seniors in South Dakota and all across the country. For that reason, I am introducing today the Medicare Preservation and Drug Price Fairness Act. It is only a first step in addressing some of the many problems in the Republican Medicare bill--but it is an important step. This summer, the Senate passed a prescription drug bill. It was not perfect. But it was a start at providing the most necessary reform Medicare needs--covering prescription drugs for the program's 41 million beneficiaries. And I reluctantly supported it. What came back from the Conference was no longer a bill to add a drug benefit to Medicare. It was a vehicle for Republicans to harm Medicare under the guise of ``reforms.'' I am introducing a bill today to address some of the main weaknesses in the Conference bill. It will not be the last of these bills introduced. And it does not repair all of the damage done to Medicare by the Conference bill. The bill I introduce today is simply an initial effort to carve out some of the more egregious provisions of the Conference bill. It does not address the critical issues of the 2.7 million retirees who will lose their good coverage or the 6 million of the lowest-income seniors who will be worse off than they are now. It does not address the inadequacy of the drug benefit itself. We will come back to those issues in the near future. The Medicare Preservation and Drug Price Fairness Act is a start toward righting the wrongs done to Medicare today. It repeals the language in the Republican bill that prohibits Medicare from negotiating lower prices on behalf of beneficiaries. It repeals the highly controversial ``premium support'' demonstration projects that would force beneficiaries who do not want to join an HMO to pay higher premiums. It ensures that the guaranteed Medicare fallback is triggered whenever there are not two stand-alone drug plans available in an area so that seniors are not forced to join an HMO if the one that is available to them is priced too high. It repeals the $12 billion slush fund giveaway to HMOs and the $6 billion tax shelters for the wealthy and healthy. And, unlike the Republican bill, it allows Americans to obtain US-made drugs at lower prices safely from other industrialized countries. I noted earlier today when we voted on the Conference Report that there were few, if any, seniors looking on expectantly from the gallery. And in fact, we have heard from them in large numbers that they do not support the Conference bill. In contrast, the lobbies were full of well-tailored lobbyists--and the big drug companies and the HMOs are the ones celebrating the passage of the Conference bill. The Republicans got it backwards. The Medicare Preservation and Drug Price Fairness Act is a first step toward the bill Congress should have passed--a bill that truly benefits America's seniors.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, by adopting the Medicare Conference Report today, the Senate has done great harm to one of our most successful and important social programs. As I have said over the past week, I believe that this will not be the end of the issue. I believe this is just the end of the first chapter. And I predict that the call from beneficiaries and future beneficiaries to repair this damage will be so loud that Congress will be compelled to act. We are hearing already from seniors in South Dakota and all across the country. For that reason, I am introducing today the Medicare Preservation and Drug Price Fairness Act. It is only a first step in addressing some of the many problems in the Republican Medicare bill--but it is an important step. This summer, the Senate passed a prescription drug bill. It was not perfect. But it was a start at providing the most necessary reform Medicare needs--covering prescription drugs for the program's 41 million beneficiaries. And I reluctantly supported it. What came back from the Conference was no longer a bill to add a drug benefit to Medicare. It was a vehicle for Republicans to harm Medicare under the guise of ``reforms.'' I am introducing a bill today to address some of the main weaknesses in the Conference bill. It will not be the last of these bills introduced. And it does not repair all of the damage done to Medicare by the Conference bill. The bill I introduce today is simply an initial effort to carve out some of the more egregious provisions of the Conference bill. It does not address the critical issues of the 2.7 million retirees who will lose their good coverage or the 6 million of the lowest-income seniors who will be worse off than they are now. It does not address the inadequacy of the drug benefit itself. We will come back to those issues in the near future. The Medicare Preservation and Drug Price Fairness Act is a start toward righting the wrongs done to Medicare today. It repeals the language in the Republican bill that prohibits Medicare from negotiating lower prices on behalf of beneficiaries. It repeals the highly controversial ``premium support'' demonstration projects that would force beneficiaries who do not want to join an HMO to pay higher premiums. It ensures that the guaranteed Medicare fallback is triggered whenever there are not two stand-alone drug plans available in an area so that seniors are not forced to join an HMO if the one that is available to them is priced too high. It repeals the $12 billion slush fund giveaway to HMOs and the $6 billion tax shelters for the wealthy and healthy. And, unlike the Republican bill, it allows Americans to obtain US-made drugs at lower prices safely from other industrialized countries. I noted earlier today when we voted on the Conference Report that there were few, if any, seniors looking on expectantly from the gallery. And in fact, we have heard from them in large numbers that they do not support the Conference bill. In contrast, the lobbies were full of well-tailored lobbyists--and the big drug companies and the HMOs are the ones celebrating the passage of the Conference bill. The Republicans got it backwards. The Medicare Preservation and Drug Price Fairness Act is a first step toward the bill Congress should have passed--a bill that truly benefits America's seniors.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise to note my disappointment with the impasse over nominations. Earlier this afternoon I made clear to the Republican leadership that the Democratic Caucus was ready to confirm the following nominees today for important ambassadorships around the world: David C. Mulford to be Ambassador to India, William Hudson to be Ambassador to the Republic of Tunisia, Jon Purnell to be Ambassador to the Republic of Uzbekistan, Margaret Scobey to be Ambassador to the Syrian Arab Republic, and Thomas Riley to be Ambassador to Morocco. These are important posts to the war on terrorism, Mr. President, and I regret that the Republicans were unable to clear them in order for the full Senate to give its advice and consent to their confirmation. Again, the record should reflect that these nominees would have been confirmed today but for Republican objections.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, how much time remains on either side?

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

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, obviously the pending motion is now the matter before the Senate and the clock is ticking. I want to use some of the time at this point and reserve the remainder of time for those who wish to speak. I will, hopefully, reserve some time for myself at the end of the debate. I make this motion recognizing there are a lot of concerns involving budgetary considerations on the legislation now pending. Those on the other side have expressed their understandable concern about the overall commitment in the budget to a new entitlement program, and I respect their position. It may be that on that basis alone, many of our Republican colleagues will want to vote against the motion to waive a budget point of order. They will make the case that this is an entitlement that goes way beyond the $400 billion, that it is very likely this legislation could grow to $600, $800, $900 billion in the very near future, as other entitlements have on occasion. That is their right. They will argue that this, as a new entitlement, provides very little cost control. On that I would agree, and I will come back to that point in a moment. So without a doubt, there are very important budgetary points of order to be made. Technically, this budget point of order challenges the bill because it exceeds the 2004 budget authorization. It also challenges the allocation of resources within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. So those are the technical reasons. I want to give my reasons for expressing the concern I have throughout the debate, and how it relates to this budget point of order. I don't challenge the $400 billion. Frankly, I don't think that it is adequate to provide a meaningful drug benefit. We have to do better than that. But that is another issue. What I challenge is why it is we are misallocating so many of the resources within that $400 billion budget pie. That is my concern; how it is that we can spend $6 billion on HSAs, health savings accounts, and at the same time tell our seniors they are going to have to pay $35 a month, 100 percent of the cost for drugs up to $250, 25 percent up to $2,250, 100 percent up to $5,100. Why are we going to tell them that when we have all this money for these special interests is something I can't understand. I can't go to my senior citizens and tell them: You are going to have to suck it up and understand that sacrifice is something we are going to ask of you for the opportunity of the Government to pay 75 percent of your drug costs for a limited period of time throughout the year. That is what we are saying. We have money for all these other accounts, but we don't have adequate resources dedicated to providing meaningful help to seniors. That is my first concern. We are simply not allocating the resources within that $400 billion to their maximum advantage. But there is another concern as well. We all ought to be concerned, Republicans and Democrats, about this. We have taken virtually all the cost control mechanisms out of this bill. So those who are concerned about an exploding entitlement have a right to be concerned about what this is going to cost 10 years from now. Ten years ago, we passed a bill by unanimous consent. I wish my colleagues all could have heard an eloquent speech made by the distinguished Senator from Florida about this in our caucus this morning. Ten years ago, on a bipartisan basis, we passed legislation providing not only a drug benefit to veterans but a cost containment mechanism for that benefit. We passed it unanimously. When we passed it, we basically said, we are going to allow the Government to negotiate the price for the VA, passing on the savings to veterans. We have done that. And by most accounts, we have now cut the cost of veterans drugs in half. Senator Graham talked about being at a VA hospital in Florida on Veterans Day. He said: How much are you spending on drugs right now? They said: $39 million, at that facility. He said: If you couldn't negotiate, if you had no ability to negotiate on behalf of your veterans, what do you think the veterans would be spending? They said: $71 million, almost twice as much. How is it we can argue on behalf of veterans that we ought to keep their costs down but at the very same time, argue that senior citizens ought to bear the full cost of those drugs? You tell senior citizens sitting next to another one at a public meeting a year from now that we somehow just believed there was a distinction, that it was OK for seniors to spend twice as much as veterans. I will fight every single day for the right of veterans to get the lowest cost for their drugs, but that same opportunity should be provided to every senior citizen as well. So you are going to see an exploding cost. And you are going to see the misallocation of resources within that $400 billion, away from seniors and to so many other groups that I have to say even the most avid supporters of this legislation would say don't need it as much. Do healthy people who have access to an HSA really need help as much as a senior citizen who is struggling to pay their bills? Isn't there a better way that we can allocate these resources to maximize the drug benefit for every citizen in the country today? The answer is, of course, yes. Why is it that we saw the need to exclude the single demonstrated ability on the part of a Federal program today, in the Veterans' Administration, to control the cost of drugs when it came to protecting drug prices for senior citizens? Why did we do that? Unfortunately, that wasn't the only cost containment mechanism excluded. For all intents and purposes, we also took out reimportation. We don't have any real authority now to reimport lower cost American- made drugs into this country. I am told the reason we didn't is because the drug companies were overwhelmingly opposed. Keep in mind that a lot of these drugs are manufactured inside the United States, exported to be retailed outside the United States. So the irony is that drugs made inside the U.S. cannot be sold and brought back into the U.S. under this bill. I think it is a folly. So the bottom line for those who are concerned about the exploding cost of an entitlement is this: I have news for you. You have a right to be concerned because we have not done anything to control costs in this legislation. We are going to woe the day we passed this without providing the same mechanism VA has to do just that. We are going to woe the day. We are also going to woe the day when we draw distinctions between seniors for absolutely no good reason. If it is good enough for veterans, it ought to be good enough for senior citizens across the board. But the drug companies don't like that either. Because they don't like it, it was excluded. So I make these points of order on four very specific points. No. 1, we are not using that $400 billion we have allocated very well. We could do a whole lot better. No. 2, there are specific programs in here that don't belong in here in the first place, have nothing to do with offering drugs to seniors; that are handouts to special interests and have no business in this bill. No. 3, we do very little with cost containment. We exclude the most consequential leverage the Government has had in the past with a program as important as the VA. It passed unanimously on the Senate floor 10 years ago. Why is it excluded now? Because there was special interest opposition. No. 4, we are going to woe the day when we put special interests ahead of the senior citizens in making these resource allocations in this legislation the way we have. Mr. President, we can do better than this. We have to do better than this. I hope, on a bipartisan basis, we simply say we are going to ask that these provisions, these concerns be renegotiated. I was one--and I will end here--who voted in favor of cloture. I am not desirous of extending debate unnecessarily and in a prolonged way. I wanted to make that point by voting for cloture. But I must say, we expedite the day when we do the right thing with regard to the costs of drugs and with regard to a new system under Medicare. We expedite the day by voting against the motion to waive the point of order made by the distinguished majority leader. So I hope those who claim fiscal responsibility as an important priority, those who want to maximize the bang for the buck for seniors in this legislation, those who are concerned about the distinctions we draw among senior citizens, will join with those who voted for and those who voted against cloture, against waiving this point of order. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for purposes of time management under cloture, I designate Senator Reid, the Democratic whip, as the opposition manager. Mr. President, I make a point of order that H.R. 1, the pending conference report, violates section 311(a)(2) and section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, among other reasons, because of the provisions related to premium support and health savings accounts.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. I will yield time in just a moment to my colleagues. First, I will respond briefly to a point made by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici. I am sorry he is not on the Senate floor. I wanted to respond to a comment he made. He said this was a frivolous point of order. I remind my colleagues, this is precisely the point of order made by Senator Grassley and Senator Frist on two different motions last year. So I argue if it was appropriate last year, it would be appropriate this year. If it is frivolous this year, it would have been frivolous last year. Yet the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, and I might add, of course, my friend the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, both voted in favor of the points of order last year when that precise point of order was made. I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall involving both points of order be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Florida.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this is our last chance to do something to control the exploding costs that are absolutely guaranteed to occur for seniors and for the Government unless we do something else. This is the last chance. There are those who have just said this will kill the bill. Just to make sure everybody understands, this has nothing to do with killing the bill. What happens under Senate rules is that we will go back to S. 1 as an amendment to H.R. 1. That is the pending business. That was voted on, by the way, 76 to 21. So we go back, if we sustain this point of order, to the Senate-passed bill, which passed 76 to 21. We can send it to the House and ask for bipartisan support. The distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania was saying that one of the concerns I raised was our ability to contain costs. And yes, he is right, we had an early bill that had the provision, this egregious provision in it prohibiting the Government from getting the best deal, just as Secretary Thompson has done with Cipro, just as we do with the Veterans Administration. What he did not tell our colleagues is that every subsequent bill-- the last two bills we have introduced--did not have this provision in it. Why? Because we understand what an incredibly valuable tool it has been for the Veterans Administration. So, Mr. President, if you want to control costs, if you want to make sure the senior citizens of this country have the ability to get the lowest price, if you are absolutely as concerned, as you say you are, about controlling the costs of this program, then you are going to vote to sustain this point of order. This is our last chance. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the remainder of my time.