Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I designate Senator Glenn.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I listened with great care to the comments made by the distinguished majority leader. I hope that he will not be discouraged. I hope that, given all the progress we have made so far, we go right back and make some more. I do not think there is a Senator here who would deny that we need regulatory reform. But I also think that virtually every Senator who has examined this issue has concluded that indeed it was one of the most far-reaching, most complex issues we are going to address this year. We have all been around this place. We all know that when it comes to issues with the magnitude we are talking about now, it is not something you pass on a Tuesday afternoon. I can recall having come here several years ago and spending more than a month on the Clean Air Act. We spent a month. We negotiated and we said we do not know that there is ever going to be a chance to make anymore progress. Lo and behold, we stuck to it because the leaders on both sides said we had to, and what do you know, we did it. I remember Senators on the other side last year talking about how we really want health care, but it is just not yet exactly what we want, so let us keep negotiating. We talked until we never got health care, unfortunately. I remember talking about the need for campaign finance reform, and vote after vote on cloture, and people on the other side said we have to have campaign finance reform, but this is not the bill. I do not know what their motivation was in voting against cloture on those occasions. I know a lot on that side did not want health care reform, and that is a legitimate position. A lot did not want campaign finance reform, and that is a legitimate position. But a lot of people on this side want regulatory reform. We are continuing to work on this bill because we are not in agreement yet. I believe that we can reach agreement. I believe that there is a legitimate desire on the part of more and more people to try to resolve these outstanding differences, to get a bill very soon. I just remind all of our colleagues, the bill that was defeated 48 to 52 passed unanimously; Republicans and Democrats voted unanimously for the bill in the Governmental Affairs Committee. If it was so bad then, why did every single Republican vote for it? I also remind my colleagues, of the 41 votes cast so far, 27 of them have been offered by Senators on the other side. Only 14 amendments have been offered on our side. So I do not want to delay this thing. I do not want to find anymore reasons to delay final passage. Senators on our side are as frustrated as those on the other side. But it is through that frustration that we must work to accomplish what I believe we all truly want--a good bill, a bill that can bring us an ultimate resolution on something that we all recognize we need. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to advise the Senate that, pursuant to the authority granted in Senate Resolution 120, the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] has designated the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] to serve as the Committee on the Judiciary's representative on the Special Committee on Whitewater.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, the unanimous-consent agreement just propounded by the majority leader would then require two recorded votes beginning at 6:15.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I understand that all time has expired, so I will use part of my leader time to comment briefly on the pending resolution. I note that my colleagues have made the case very well. Those who have preceded me in opposition to this cloture motion, I think, have made the case that I would simply like to summarize prior to the time we come to a vote. The first and most important point is that this vote is unnecessary. There is no effort to filibuster. No one is delaying final passage on this bill. No one is trying to stop us from coming to a conclusion on this legislation. There has been a sincere attempt, by virtually every Senator involved in this debate, now for several weeks, to try to improve the legislation and accommodate the very difficult points that have been raised and in many cases resolved as a result of those negotiations. So that is point No. 1; no filibuster. Point No. 2, there has been, as my colleagues have indicated, substantial progress since the day we began this effort several weeks ago; substantial progress. Senator Kerry, Senator Chafee, Senator Glenn, Senator Levin, and Senator Johnston on our side have all indicated that progress, as a result of these negotiations, has been real. And I think the latest testament to the fact that progress is being made is what the Senator from Rhode Island has just announced. As a result of the efforts in the last 24 hours, he, too, has been able to get additional concessions as a result of these negotiations, concessions that would not have been made were we not at this point in this deliberative process, concessions that we have been talking about now for some time. So, with each stage in the development of this debate, additional progress has been made up until this very afternoon. Point No. 3, from the outset we have laid out some principles that we say are essential to a good bill. They are very simple. First and foremost, we have to have a bill that does not roll back laws that have provided cleaner air, purer water, and safer food. Second, we will not support a bill loaded with special interest fixes. Third, we will not have a bill that results in an avalanche of litigation from hundreds and hundreds of lawyers. That is it. Those are our principles. We are guided by those and it is in that effort to maintain our allegiance to those principles that we continue to negotiate in good faith. I believe those concerns have not yet been adequately addressed. I believe equally as strongly, though, that we can get there. I believe the Glenn-Chafee bill would have gotten us there, and 48 Senators agreed with us on that matter. But most important in the statement, I want to emphasize right this minute: We are willing to continue to go into that room, continue to work, continue to work out the differences, as has been the case now for several days. Finally, let me make a point about the issue raised by the distinguished Senator from Michigan. If, indeed, we are going to come to closure on this bill, one of the most important things we have to do is ensure that those Senators who have amendments that are relevant but not germane can be protected. Regardless of whether or not we come to closure in the next couple of days on this bill, it is very important that those who want to make additional contributions to this legislation, to try to improve the bill with or without negotiations that may or may not come to any fruitful conclusion, they ought to be protected in their right to offer those amendments and have them successfully debated and ultimately voted on. A vote against cloture ensures that they will have that right, and I think it is very, very important that everyone understand that. So, I think, in essence, the message is very simple. A vote against cloture is a vote for progress, progress that has been demonstrated over and over again as we have resolved these differences and as we continue to work for final passage, as we continue to guarantee that the principles we laid out at the very beginning can be protected. I am optimistic that we can achieve that. I believe we can continue to work in good faith to accomplish what remains. And I believe voting against cloture today is the fastest way to get there. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the distinguished majority leader's effort to try to accommodate Senators on our side. The offer that the Senators on our side, Senators Wellstone and Moseley-Braun, have made is that we have three amendments and three votes. This request accommodates two amendments. I know that there are still some outstanding negotiations underway with regard to the third matter. This is a very important bill. It deals with assistance to be provided in cases in California and Oklahoma, as we all know. I hope, as close as we are, we could continue to try to resolve these differences. But unfortunately, as a result of our inability to resolve that third outstanding matter, on behalf of Senators Wellstone and Moseley-Braun I have to object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the distinguished Senator from Delaware accommodating both myself and the majority leader. Mr. President, over the last week we have debated a regulatory reform bill that poses a number of serious concerns. Senators have come to the floor with amendments to address those concerns for over a week now. It has become increasingly clear that in order to produce a bill that will be acceptable to a majority of this body and the President, significant changes will need to be made. Frankly, given the way the debate has gone--the fact that we have until now been unable to pass most of our amendments--I am not optimistic that we will be able to bring this bill into a form that is reasonable and responsible, unless the circumstances change. Despite efforts last week to clarify that the bill will not override existing law, the so-called least-cost standard that remains will drive agencies away from choosing more cost-effective and thus economically sensible and justifiable regulatory options. Last week, the Senate rejected by one vote my amendment to protect the ability of the Department of Agriculture to issue its proposed rule requiring science-based hazard analysis and critical control point, or HACCP, systems in meat and poultry inspections. I later learned that while I was here on the Senate floor recounting the story of 2-year-old Cullen Mack, a young boy from South Dakota who fell ill from eating beef contaminated with E. coli bacteria, people were suffering from E. coli poisoning in at least four States: Georgia, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Illinois. So, despite the fact that we are confronted presently by real gaps in our ability to ensure a safer food supply, and despite the fact that the USDA rule would take a huge step toward that goal, we continue to have a bill that would subject that rule to legal challenge and consequent delay. Farmers have special concerns about this bill. The Department of Agriculture each year issues regulations to implement the farm program-- regulations that address wheat, wool, rice, cotton, and feedgrain programs. The Department issues regulations to implement the Federal crop insurance program and the Conservation Reserve Program. USDA marketing orders--orders which are voluntarily approved by agricultural producers--are implemented through Federal regulations. Many, if not all, of these regulations would be subject to the cost- benefit and risk assessment delays of this bill. They would be subject to the decision criteria in the bill calling for the least-cost option, and they would be subject to judicial challenge. Do we really want to foreclose regulatory options that would provide greater benefits to farmers? Is this what we really want for rural America? I certainly do not think that this makes sense for South Dakota or any other rural State. Recently, the majority leader, came to the floor of the Senate to discuss the power of shame. His comments were made in the context of the public debate over the content of Hollywood movies. The leader made the point that shame can be a very valuable tool in the effort to encourage movie-makers to be more socially responsible in writing and producing movies. I agree. I think that in this society, shame can be a very powerful means of encouraging more responsible behavior. Certainly, the evidence is clear that the Community-Right-To-Know Program has been able to put shame to good use. What industry wants to declare year after year that they are releasing poisons into the air and water of local communities? What industry is so callous that it is not moved to reduce those releases when faced with public disclosure of its behavior? Why, then, if we can agree that shame is such a powerful tool, are we attempting to erode the effectiveness of the toxic release inventory-- known as the Community-Right-To-Know Program--in this bill? Last Thursday, this body voted against an amendment by Senators Baucus and Lautenberg to protect the Community-Right-To-Know Program. Apparently, despite the clear success of this program in getting industries to cut their releases of toxic chemicals, shame is too tough a medicine for some industries to endure. Instead of shaming the special interests into responsible behavior, the Senate essentially defended the special interests' shameful behavior. In addition to the special-interest fixes and the willingness of the sponsors of the bill to undermine even the most needed and supported rules, there are countless opportunities for petitions in the bill that will consume vast agency resources. Petitions themselves are subject to judicial review, increasing the likelihood of delay and administrative burden. The sum effect of all these provisions would create havoc with out ability to protect public safety. The Office of Management and Budget estimated that the Dole-Johnson bill would cost the Federal Government roughly $1.3 billion to implement, including the salaries of an additional 4,500 full-time Federal employees, who would be needed to fulfill the bills' requirements. I am skeptical that the bill itself could even pass a cost-benefit test. It may well impose more costs on the Federal Government--and thus the taxpayers--than it purports to save in regulatory expenses. At a time when we are trying to downsize the Government and balance the Federal budget, it makes little sense to consider legislation that would reverse our course. Last week, the House appropriators recommended cutting the Environmental Protection Agency's budget by one-third. Other Federal agencies will surely feel the budget knife this year and in the years to come. Where will the money to pay the costs of this bill come from? Where will we find this army of analysts to fulfill all the new requirements of this bill? Who will pay for them? The primary beneficiaries of this bill will be the large corporate law firms, which undoubtedly will enjoy a renaissance of business if it becomes law. The judicial review provisions invite a morass of litigation. In fact, I understand that there will be at least 144 different issues that can be litigated, if this bill is enacted. It is ironic that this body passed legislation limiting opportunities for litigation earlier this year and now stands poised to pass a bill designed to create an explosion of litigation. Mr. President, no Senator would agree that every regulation that has ever been issued by the Federal Government makes good sense. All of us Members recognize that excesses occur in the development and enforcement of rules. In many cases, we in Congress are to blame, as we enact laws that provide little or ambiguous regulatory guidance. Federal agencies are staffed by human beings, who are known to make mistakes from time to time. The political winds frequently change, carrying the Federal agencies in different and often inconsistent directions. So, the entire process is imperfect. The question we are confronted with, then, is how can we improve the regulatory development process without crippling the ability of the Federal Government to protect the quality of our food supply, our water, our air, and all the other of those services that Americans have come to expect. The bill we have been debating now for a week was seriously flawed when it was introduced, and our efforts to improve it have been thwarted. It remains a bill that could be used to undermine the ability of the Federal Government to carry out its responsibility to protect our environment and the health of American families. It is not emblematic of the type of society that most Americans believe we should be striving for, and should not be enacted in its current form. The alternative regulatory reform bill that has been introduced by Senators Glenn, Chafee, and others would provide serious, constructive reform that I believe should gain broad support. Unlike the Dole bill, the Glenn- [[Page S 10220]] Chafee bill would limit the opportunities for litigation to the fundamental question of whether the rule is a major rule and whether the final rule is arbitrary and capricious, taking into account the entire rulemking record. Unlike the Dole bill, it does not allow judicial review of the agency decisions to grant or deny petitions. The Glenn-Chafee bill contains no special-interest fixes, which do not belong in a procedural bill like this and which should only be addressed through hearings and legislation debated within the committees of jurisdiction. The Glenn-Chafee alternative does not impose rigid criteria of the Dole bill that agencies must apply when selecting a regulatory option, driving agencies toward the cheapest, but not necessarily the most cost-effective, alternative. I think we can all agree that the costs and benefits of proposed rules should be considered during their development. But calculating those costs and benefits can present a great challenge. What is the value of ensuring that our children and grandchildren do not suffer the effects of lead on their ability to reason? What is the value of ensuring that when we take our families to see the Grand Canyon, the air will be clean and we will have a clear view of that incredible vista? Given the extreme challenges in characterizing these values, does it make sense to apply such a rigid test to the rules that will effect the quality of our lives so profoundly? The Glenn-Chafee substitute places cost-benefit analysis in proper perspective. It requires agencies to identify the costs and benefits of proposed rules, but does not elevate cost considerations above all else. The cheapest option is not always the best or the most cost- effective one. The Glenn-Chafee bill follows an approach that I believe provides a far better representation of the goals and objectives of mainstream America with respect to regulatory reform. Apparently the Governmental Affairs Committee agrees with me. I say that because the Glenn-Chafee is nearly identical to the bill passed unanimously by the Governmental Affairs Committee. It is moderate and sensible, and I believe it should serve as a model for reforming the regulatory process. The modifications that Senators Glenn and Chafee subsequently made to the Governmental Affairs-passed bill represent good, sensible improvements. First, we have eliminated the arbitrary sunset for existing rules, that would have occurred whenever an agency failed to perform the needed review in a timely manner. Given the history of antagonism to environmental and public health and safety regulations that have been demonstrated by recent administrations, it does not make sense to provide future administrations that might also be antagonistic to such rules with the incentive to intentionally fail to perform reviews as a back-door means of repealing existing rules and thwarting the will of Congress. Second, the Glenn-Chafee bill eliminates the narrative definition of major rules, adding clarity to the bill, and limiting its scope so as not to overburden Federal agencies. Finally, the Glenn-Chafee alternative incorporates technical changes to the risk assessment portions of the bill to more closely track recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences, and to cover specific programs, not merely agencies. These changes strengthen the bill, make it more responsible and more reasonable. If the Senate is interested in real reform and wants to pass a bill that can be signed into law then I urge my colleagues to support this substitute. Mr. President, I know the distinguished majority leader is here. To accommodate him and allow Senators to get to the caucus, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think that is a very good idea. Obviously, we are at a point where we have to work through what remains as significant differences between the two sides. I think an opportunity over the next hour to discuss those differences and determine whether or not they are reconcilable is a very good opportunity for both sides. I will encourage it and think that this is probably the best plan.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object, and it is certainly not my intention to object. Let me make one observation and note a couple of concerns, as we propound the second part of this request. [[Page S 10230]] The observation is this: those who are engaged in trying to work through the remaining differences on the regulation reform bill reported to me just moments ago that real progress has been made this afternoon. I think that we have been able to report progress from time to time. I think in all sincerity, some effort has been made on both sides to continue to narrow the differences, and we made significant progress over the course of the last several hours. The time that has been spent since about 3 o'clock this afternoon has been well spent. As it relates to this resolution, I think the recommendation made by the majority leader and the majority whip is a good one. I think laying the bill aside will accommodate the negotiations, and I think that it is safe to assume that we are going to continue to make progress over the course of the next couple of days. We certainly do not relegate any rights to continue to object to closure on the legislation, should we find that progress has not been sufficient. But I think we need to recognize that, indeed, efforts are being made on both sides to try to accommodate the concerns. It is in that context that we want to allow that process to continue.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, again, reserving the right to object, now I simply want to state the two concerns I mentioned a moment ago. First, we have an understanding that over the course of tomorrow morning and early afternoon that there be no votes on amendments or on the resolution itself. A number of Senators have been invited down to the White House to discuss this matter. I think it would be very helpful if that discussion can take place prior to the time we are called upon to make any decisions. Second, should we find the need to come back to S. 21, it would be very helpful if we had plenty of notice. The majority leader and the majority whip have both indicated that, indeed, it would be their desire to give us plenty of notice. So it is with those two understandings that we have no objection and encourage Senators to comply with this unanimous-consent agreement and get on with the debate relating to the Dole resolution.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I was not aware of the concern of the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin with regard to the regulatory reform bill. We have an hour prior to the time we would go to the third cloture motion under this unanimous consent agreement. He would like to be protected to offer a nongermane amendment relating to a sense-of- the-Senate resolution prior to that time. I think if we could accommodate the Senator from Wisconsin, perhaps we could accommodate this unanimous-consent agreement.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I do not want to confuse the matter any more, so I waited until after the unanimous consent request was proffered. Let me make sure my colleagues are clear as to what the circumstances are now. I have had the opportunity to consult with the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin. It is my intention to protect his right to offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution either before cloture or after cloture, if a cloture motion is required; or if no cloture motion is required, we will negotiate with the majority to ensure that the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin has an opportunity to raise the issue that he hopes to address through this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I appreciate his cooperation in this regard, and as a result, we are now able to go forward. I think this is a good solution to the matter, and I appreciate everyone's consideration and cooperation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know that we are about ready to cast the vote. I will be very brief. As we have said over and over throughout the debate today and over the course of the last several days, the fact is that there has been a very good debate about a number of extraordinarily complex issues, issues that ought to be aired, issues that ought to be raised in the context of both regulatory reform and public safety. We have done that. We have offered amendments. We have had a good debate. There have been very few quorum calls. There is no filibuster. I hope all colleagues consider this vote very carefully and vote against cloture this afternoon. Let me remind my colleagues that 38 amendments, so far, have been offered--38 amendments over the last 7 days or so. Of the 38 amendments that were offered, 24 of those amendments were offered by proponents-- 24 of them. Only 14 of the 38 amendments which have been offered have been offered by those who are not supporters of the legislation. Of those, 7 were adopted, 3 were rejected by a 2-vote margin, 2 were withdrawn, 1 was the only one to lose by more than 10 votes, and 1 is pending right now, the Glenn-Chafee substitute. So if you take the substitute away, 13 amendments are all the amendments that have been offered on our side to date. And of those, very few were rejected--in fact, only one was rejected--by more than 10 votes. I think the point of all this is very clear. We are making a good- faith effort to try to work through this issue in a meaningful way. Even if the substitute is declared germane, as I understand it has been, there are a number of additional relevant amendments, amendments that we have been waiting to offer, amendments that we hope to be able to propose at some point in the not-too-distant future, most likely even with time agreements. We are willing to do that, but if we are going to be able to offer those amendments, invoking cloture now would preclude a lot of Members from having the right to do so. So I urge our colleagues to oppose cloture, recognize that we are not filibustering, we are not extending debate unnecessarily, recognize that the amendments that have been offered in large measure have been offered by those on the other side, and recognize as well that as complicated as this is, it is imperative we continue to try to work through the bill, as difficult as it may be. I believe we can do it. I am still optimistic that we can accommodate all Senators in trying to achieve our objective of reaching some ultimate compromise on this legislation and vote in a bipartisan manner. But we cannot do that today; we cannot do that by cutting off debate. We cannot do that by precluding Senators' rights to offer amendments as they have been doing now for about a week. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. At this point, I am not sure we are prepared to come to any agreement on a time certain, but we will have a good debate on the substitute on Monday, and I assume sometime either Monday night or Tuesday we will be prepared for a vote on that, too.

Mr. DASCHLE. If the leader will yield, that would be my understanding as well. I think there are a number of people who have expressed an interest in speaking on the substitute, but I would say, in fair warning to all of our colleagues, if there is a lull, we are prepared on this side to bring up another amendment, set the substitute aside and have a good debate on the amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. If the leader will yield, does the leader contemplate votes prior to that?

Mr. DASCHLE. If the leader will yield, that would accommodate a couple of our Members who will be back and ready to vote at 6 o'clock.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Access to Medical Treatment Act. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Dole, Harkin, Hatch, Grassley, Pell, Hatfield, Simon, and Reid in this effort to allow greater freedom of choice in the realm of medical treatments. I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to mention one other person, someone who has been instrumental in sparking my interest in this issue. That person is Berkley Bedell, a former congressman from the Sixth District of Iowa. His story was one of the main catalysts in my decision to develop the Access to Medical Treatment Act, and provides powerful testimony to the need for this type of legislation. As did a number of us in the Senate, I had the privilege of serving with Congressman Bedell for several years in the House of Representatives. During his tenure in the House, he acquired a well- earned reputation for intellectual honesty and commitment to principle, as well as for tilting at the occasional windmill. In more than one instance, he appeared out of step with conventional opinion and subsequently proved to be ahead of his time. As some may remember, Congressman Bedell was ill with Lyme disease when he left the House at the end of the 100th Congress. Having tried several unsuccessful rounds of conventional treatment consisting of heavy doses of antibiotics, the cost of which ran in the thousands of dollars, he turned to an alternative treatment that he believes cured his disease. This treatment, which is actually a veterinary treatment, consisted on its most basic level of nothing more than drinking processed whey from a cow's milk. After approximately 2 months of taking regular doses of this processed whey, his symptoms disappeared. He estimates that the total cost for this alternative treatment was a few hundred dollars. In spite of Congressman Bedell's amazing recovery, and the fact that this same treatment appeared to be effective in some cases of Lyme disease, the treatment can no longer be administered because it has not gone through the FDA approval process. Not long after he recovered from Lyme disease, Congressman Bedell discovered he had prostate cancer. He again found conventional treatments to be unsuccessful and turned to alternative medicine. This time he had to leave the country to obtain his treatment. Once again, however, alternative therapy appears to have been successful thus far-- he has been free of cancer for 5 years. Mr. President, there are people in our country who are desperate, as was Berkley Bedell, for cures that conventional medicine simply does not seem to be able to provide. It is a tragedy that, in a nation that considers itself a world leader in the area of health care, many potentially helpful alternative treatments remain unavailable to those without the financial resources to seek them out abroad. The Access to Medical Treatment Act attempts to address this situation. Is intent is twofold: First, to allow increased access to alternative treatments; and second, to allow increased opportunities for the trial of alternative treatments that may prove to be extremely effective. It will be asked why this legislation is necessary. If a particular alternative treatment is so effective, then why can't it simply go through the standard FDA approval process? The answer is that the time and expense currently required to gain FDA approval of a treatment makes it very difficult for all but large pharmaceutical companies to undertake such an arduous and costly endeavor. The heavy demands and requirements of the FDA approval process, and the time and expense involved in meeting them, serve to limit access to the potentially innovative contributions of individual practitioners, scientists, smaller companies, and others who do not have the financial resources to traverse the painstakingly detailed path to certification. This system not only forgoes untold potential for exploring life-saving treatments, but also serves to prevent low-cost treatments from gaining access to the market. I want to be absolutely clear, however, that this legislation will not dismantle the FDA, undermine its authority, or appreciably change current medical practices. It is not meant to attack the FDA or its approval process. It is meant to complement it. The FDA should--and would under this legislation--remain solely responsible for protecting the health of the Nation from unsafe and impure drugs. The heavy demands and requirements placed upon treatments before they gain FDA approval are important, and I firmly believe that treatments receiving the Federal Government's stamp of approval should be proven safe and effective. The intent of my legislation is merely to extend freedom of choice to medical consumers under carefully controlled situations. I believe that individuals, especially individuals who face life-threatening afflictions for which conventional treatments have proven ineffective, should have the option of trying an alternative treatment, so long as they have been fully informed of the nature of the treatment and are aware that it has not been approved by the FDA. This is a choice that is rightly left to the consumer, and not dictated by the Federal Government. The Access to Medical Treatment Act will allow individuals, under certain carefully circumscribed conditions, to obtain medical treatments that have not yet been approved by the FDA. The medical treatments prescribed under this bill cannot be dangerous to the patient. However, given the fact that the very intent of the bill is to allow treatments that have not necessarily undergone extensive testing, it is possible that a treatment administered under the bill could turn out to be a danger to the patient. In such cases, the treatment and its adverse effects must be immediately reported to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who must disseminate that information, and the treatment cannot be utilized again. The bill requires full disclosure to the patient of the treatment's contents, potential side effects, and any other information necessary to fully meet FDA informed consent requirements. The patient must also be informed of the fact that the treatment has not been proven safe and effective by the Federal Government, and is required to sign a written statement indicating that he or she has been made aware of this information. Finally, no advertising claims can be made about the efficacy of a treatment by a manufacturer, distributor, or other seller of the treatment. Claims may be made by the practitioner administering the treatment, but only so long as he or she has not received any financial benefit from the manufacturer, distributor, or other seller of the treatment. Lastly, a statement made by a practitioner about his or her administration of a treatment may not be used by a manufacturer, distributor, or other seller to advance the sale of such treatment. I ask that the text of the bill be placed into the Record upon the completion of my remarks. Concerns have been voiced about how this proposal safeguards consumer protections. I take seriously these concerns. Individuals are often at their most vulnerable when they are in desperate need of medical treatment, and that is why it is absolutely critical that a proposal of this nature include strong protections to ensure that consumers are not subject to charlatans who would prey on their misfortunes and fears for personal gain. The Access to Medical Treatment Act is armed with these protections. The bill requires that a treatment be administered by a properly licensed health care practitioner who has personally examined the patient. It requires the practitioner to comply fully with FDA informed consent requirements. Most importantly, however, the bill strictly regulates the circumstances under which claims regarding the efficacy of a treatment can be made. It is designed to prohibit all claims by individuals for whom the underlying intent of promoting the treatment might be linked to personal financial gain. What this means is that there can be no marketing of any treatment administered under this bill. As such, I see very little incentive for anyone to try to use this bill as a bypass to the process of obtaining FDA approval. Also, because only properly licensed practitioners are able to make any claims at all about the efficacy of a treatment, I see very little room for so-called quack medicine. In short, if an individual or a company wants to earn a profit off their product, they would be wise to go through the standard FDA approval process rather than utilizing this legislation. Mr. President, I fully realize that there will be significant debate over both the concept and content of this legislation. I welcome this debate, and am open to changes. If this bill generates the serious discussion that I believe these issues merit, then we will have made much-needed progress. If that discussion results in action, then I believe we will offer hope to thousands who feel they have run out of options. In essence, this legislation addresses the fundamental balance between two seemingly irreconcilable interests: The protection of consumers from dangerous treatments and those who would advocate unsafe and ineffective medicine--and the preservation of the consumer's freedom to choose alternative therapies. Some may say that reconciling these two interests is an impossible task. I am not convinced of that. In any case, the complexity of this policy challenge should not discourage us from seeking to solve it. I am convinced that the public good will be served by a serious attempt to reconcile these contradictory interests, and I am hopeful the discussion generated by introduction of this legislation will help point the way to its resolution. I welcome anyone who would like to join me in promoting this important debate to cosponsor this legislation. Mr. President, I firmly believe that our health care delivery system should be more receptive to alternative treatments. I am also sensitive to the fact that how we accomplish that goal has important ramifications that must be thoroughly explored. It is my hope that the Access to Medical Treatment Act, and the debate it engenders, will serve those ends.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. That is my point. I want to emphasize, at least to colleagues on this side of the aisle, there is likely to be additional votes this afternoon, and that Members ought to be prepared to come to the floor to cast those votes. Let me say in the larger context, that is the reason why, in my view, we do not need a cloture motion, because, as I say, the work is getting done. This has been a good debate this week on a very, very complex issue. I would hope we could continue to work in good faith and find a way to accommodate Senators who have good amendments, who have reasons to offer these amendments, and do so in a time that accommodates the schedule but also accommodates the Senator. I appreciate the majority leader's decision, but I hope that at some point we could get beyond the cloture votes and try to finish this bill.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as the distinguished majority leader indicated, he and I have had the opportunity to discuss this cloture motion. I will say again, I do not know that cloture motions are even necessary at this point. We have had a very rigorous debate. There have been very few quorum calls and there is not a filibuster going on here. We are proposing amendments. We will lay down the substitute this afternoon. We are ready to go to additional votes this afternoon. I hope that we could have a vote on the Hutchison amendment this afternoon. I am sure that is something the majority leader is prepared to do. I yield to the majority leader for comment on the pending amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me comment, too, that I hope we can complete our work on a couple of additional amendments this morning and work well into the afternoon. I have talked to a number of our colleagues, and we are prepared to stay late into the afternoon to work on these amendments. So I encourage the leader to continue to hold us here and continue our work. Rescissions Bill I did not have the opportunity to listen to my friend, our colleague from Oklahoma, about the rescissions bill. But I hope we can resolve that matter at some point as well. We have made an offer that, in my view, is a good-faith offer. We have laid down three amendments, and we are prepared to work under very tight time agreements there. We could have that bill on the President's desk by the end of the week. We can do it today. I hope that we can accommodate the Senators who have expressed an interest simply in being heard on some very important issues. They have agreed to limit their amendments. They have agreed to a limited amount of time. We have had a number of other colleagues that have expressed an interest in modifying the bill, who have said in the interest of moving the bill, they will withhold doing that at this time. So we are really at a point where a couple of Senators simply want to have the right to offer an amendment. I do not think that is too much to ask. Hopefully, we can resolve that and move on with rescissions. We are here to work, and we will be here this afternoon. I encourage everybody who wants to participate in the debate to do so and come to the floor. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. My State of South Dakota is small in population but large in spirit. This is particularly true of the native American population that calls South Dakota home. Indian people have blazed their way into American history in countless ways. Even their names convey poetry and magic: from great leaders like Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, and Black Elk, to modern day role models like Billy Mills and Jim Thorpe. White Eagle--Wanblee Ska--was a Rosebud Sioux who soared on the wings of classical music. Last week, at his parents' home in Mission, SD, White Eagle died at the age of 43. In spite of his untimely death, he left a legacy that will live on for generations. In a State where country/western music is heard on most radios, White Eagle turned his natural gift for song into a polished operatic tenor talent. He sang for the inauguration of a President and at Carnegie Hall. Despite his relative youth, he had already been enshrined in the South Dakota Hall of Fame at the time of his death. Dennis Holub, director of the South Dakota Arts Council, says that White Eagle was ``the epitome of a great artist * * * [he] sang in some of the world's finest halls but also brought his songs home so South Dakotans could enjoy them, too.'' But it was not only his gift of song that made White Eagle rise on currents of critical and public acclaim. It was his courage in overcoming obstacles and misfortune, his ability to make himself continually better while remaining utterly human, that made him an inspiration to the people of South Dakota. Although he began singing as a child and achieved some success as a church soloist and musical performer, he stopped singing after developing nodes on his vocal cords. Nevertheless, when he was subsequently asked by a friend to help out the Mile High Opera Workshop after the company lost its tenor, it became clear that White Eagle had found his true vocation. His 30th birthday was already behind him when he began voice lessons. He continued his studies and graduated from the San Francisco Opera's Merola Opera Program. He went on to work in New York City, and with the Pennsylvania Opera Theater, the Cleveland Opera, and others. White Eagle developed AIDS in the late 1980's. In a State where AIDS is even rarer than classical concerts, he became the human face of the disease. He could have hidden; instead, he became a powerful force for understanding and compassion. White Eagle overcame many obstacles in his tragically short life. He succeeded, but fate decreed he would not have enough time to fully savor his success. Nor did we have enough time to enjoy his gift. But White Eagle left an enduring legacy. Many who otherwise might not have been exposed to classical music became devotees because of White Eagle's gift. Many who might never have seen the human face of AIDS gained understanding through his courage and dignity. My connection to White Eagle stems not only from my love of his music, but also from the fact that his brother, Robert Moore, is a former member of my Washington staff. I know I speak for my office, and all of South Dakota, as I offer our condolences and prayers of support for his family in this difficult time. We join them in mourning the untimely death of White Eagle. But, even as we mourn, we celebrate his life and his gift of music, and we remember his courage and compassion. White Eagle will be missed, but he will not be forgotten, for the spirit of his gifts will endure for generations to come.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the first chart, entitled, ``Unfunded Mandates to the States (or Counties, Cities, Local Taxpayers) Under the Senate Finance Committee Welfare Bill (FY1966-FY2002).'' is a State-by- State breakdown of the unfunded mandates under the legislation over the next 7 years. The analysis was prepared by the staff of the Democratic Policy Committee based on HHS data on JOBS participation and the cost of such participation. The second chart is entitled, ``The Top Ten States With the Largest Unfunded Mandates Under the Senate Finance Committee Welfare Bill.'' South Dakota didn't make the top 10 list, but anyone in our small State will tell you that an unfunded mandate of $20.5 million is a lot of money. I suspect people in the other 39 States facing similar shortfalls would react the same way. I am disappointed that so few Members have focused on the unfunded mandate aspect of this legislation. Instead, they have chosen to focus on the size of the slice of pie they expect to get. During the last several weeks, I have read on numerous occasions that one of the largest reasons the Senate Republicans have not brought the legislation to the floor for consideration is that there is a formula fight brewing in their caucus. What's the fight about? The distribution of money. Under a frozen block grant as proposed in the Finance Committee bill, funds are really frozen. Despite your circumstances, that's it. You get one piece of the pie each year. The problem is that a number of Members have looked ahead and seen their slice of the frozen pie, and they don't know if they're so hungry for block grants anymore. What about population growth? What about times of recession or economic downturn? Unemployment? Natural disaster? Perhaps there ought to be adjustments they say. Adjustments for these uncontrollable things or events. Southern States don't want to be punished just because their populations are growing. Mr. President, I agree with them. That's why our plan isn't a frozen pie that locks States into the same size piece each year for the next 7 years. Our plan abolishes AFDC, but continues a matching share partnership with the States so that, as need rises, the Federal Government will be there to remain a partner. So we don't have a formula fight over our plan. We recognize that, to put welfare recipients to work, to end the cycle of dependency, we must first make some initial investments to get welfare recipients into the work force. Our plan cuts existing welfare programs and reinvests those funds in the effort to putting welfare recipients to work, and in day care to enable these mothers to go to work without abandoning their children. I have said it before and I'll say it again. Senate Democrats are ready to debate welfare. Senate Republicans have delayed that debate time and again. I call on the other side not to let extremists hold welfare reform hostage. Join with us. Work with us. It's not too late. We can enact a bipartisan welfare reform plan. A plan that is truly about putting welfare recipients to work and enabling them to become self- sufficient. We support that. Able-bodied welfare recipients ought to work. As some have said, they need to get out of the cart and help pull it. But, babies and toddlers shouldn't be thrown out of the cart. That kind of extremism aims at the mother and hits the child. We believe the Senate can enact a welfare reform plan that is not extreme, but that is fair and requires work and personal responsibility. Rhetoric is fine, but the reality is that a small minority support the extreme approach and are using their power to block real reform. If the rest of us join together, we can have a pragmatic, sensible, realistic plan to reform welfare.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, yesterday we had a very productive meeting with the President, a number of my colleagues here in the Senate, Governor Carper, Mayor Archer of Detroit, County Executive Rick Phelps of Dane County, WI, and Bill Purcell, majority leader of the Tennessee House of Representatives. It is clear that the Work First Coalition is growing. Government leaders at all levels agree that we need to move forward with welfare reform--that we can't let extremists hold this very important reform hostage. We have a plan. It is about work. It is about ending the cycle of dependency and helping single mothers and unemployed fathers become self-sufficient and stay that way. The bill that was reported from the Finance Committee is not about work. It's a huge unfunded mandate to the States. In fact, the head of the bipartisan U.S. Conference of Mayors may have put it best when he called the Republican welfare reform plan the ``mother of all unfunded mandates.'' It's ironic that S. 1, the first bill the Republican leadership introduced this Congress, was a bill to stop unfunded mandates. Now they want to dump a $35 billion unfunded mandate on the States. Why is the welfare reform bill as reported from the Finance Committee an unfunded mandate? The reason is simple. The bill as reported by the committee freezes Federal funding to the States at the fiscal year 1994 level in each of the next 7 years. At the same time, the bill requires an increasing percentage of welfare recipients to participate in the current-law JOBS Program, which offers education or training or other work opportunities to welfare recipients. But, participation in the JOBS Program is not free. There is a cost to providing education or job training. In addition, when we talk about welfare recipients, we are usually talking about single mothers raising children, many of them small children or infants. To enable a single parent to participate in an education or training program, someone has to care for her child during that time period. She may be lucky; perhaps a relative will watch her child for free. But, chances are, she will not be lucky. She, like the majority of working parents today, will have to pay for child care--will have to pay someone to take care of her child while she is away from home. The cost of child care is not cheap. In fact, today the cost of child care is often a low-income family's largest expense--larger even than rent. And, the problem for parents of very young children is that the cost of child care is greatest for toddlers and infants. Certainly, if we want to put the parents of these young children to work-- if we want them to stay in the workforce and become truly self- sufficient--then we need to help them afford quality day care. I do not think any Member of the Senate would suggest that we promote a policy that would result in infants and toddlers being left home alone--even in the name of requiring parents to work or participate in the JOBS Program. I do not believe any Senator truly wants that. However, it needs to be clearly understood that, in order to avoid that result and, at the same time, comply with the participation rates in the Finance Committee bill, States will have to pay for increased JOBS Program participation and child care to enable mothers to participate. Otherwise, participation in the JOBS Program simply won't happen, and/or mothers will be forced to leave young children and infants alone. The Finance Committee bill provides no funds to help States comply with this mandate. What will States have to pay? About $35 billion over the next 7 years. Now, one begins to understand why this bill has been called the mother of all unfunded mandates. Who will pay that $35 billion? I'll tell you if you haven't already figure it out. The States. The counties. The cities. And, last, but certainly not least, the local taxpayers will have to pay. That's who. If a mandate is enacted and resources aren't provided to facilitate compliance with that mandate, someone will have to foot the bill. That's a simple fact that we cannot afford to overlook in the welfare debate. I ask unanimous consent that two charts I have be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I guess I am not clear. The majority leader, then, would not be prepared to set a time for the vote on the Lautenberg amendment until we know whether we can sequence more amendments and determine from that whether we might be able to sequence, then, the votes following consideration of all the amendments.