Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Words alone are just not a fitting tribute to Paul Wellstone, It is the action that counts. I was deeply moved by Senator Domenici's beautiful eulogy for Paul last fall at the memorial for the Wellstones in Washington. In that eulogy Senator Domenici vowed to do everything he could to pass the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act this year. He has worked very hard to keep that promise and we thank him for it. He and Senator Kennedy introduced the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act 8 months ago in the early days of this session. Unfortunately, despite the efforts of Senators Domenici and Kennedy and many others, despite the support of 66 Senators, two-thirds of this Senate, including the distinguished Presiding Officer, despite the fact that the Senate voted overwhelmingly last year to pass this measure as an amendment to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act remains stuck in committee today because of opposition from the insurance industry and its backers. The insurance industry claims incorrectly that requiring insurers to treat mental illness the same way as they treat physical illness will drive up premiums so high that more people will lose their health insurance. That is not true. Those are the same kinds of scare tactics we have heard from that industry on other occasions. As another of our departed friends, Senator Moynihan, used to say, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but they are not entitled to their own set of facts. The truth is, two highly respected organizations have analyzed the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act. The private accounting firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers predicts the bill would increase health insurance premiums by 1 percent--1 percent. That works out to $1.32 per month. I think most families would think that was a very good deal. The Congressional Budget Office predicts an even smaller increase, nine-tenths of 1 percent. We also know from experience that requiring mental health parity in insurance has a negligible, if any, effect on premiums. In 1999, President Clinton signed an executive order giving the 8 million Federal workers in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan the same protections the Wellstone bill would extend to others. On the website of the Federal Office of Personnel Management, there is a list of ``frequently asked questions'' about mental health and substance abuse parity under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. This is what that website says: Recent advancements in the treatment and management of mental illness have left no justifiable rationale for disparate treatment of mental illness. The National Institutes of Mental Health informed us that most diagnoses have well-established biological bases, diagnoses are reliable, and treatment is effective and affordable. The website goes on to say: A growing body of research and actual industry experiences indicate that parity can be implemented without substantially increasing premiums, as long as it is coupled with efforts to manage the benefits. Those are the facts. In 1996, Congress passed the Mental Health Parity Act, which was also sponsored by Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici. The 1996 act says that group health plans sponsored by employers with 50 or more workers cannot place annual or lifetime dollars limits on mental health benefits that are more restrictive than their limits for physical health care. Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici may have seemed like unlikely allies to some, but they shared a deep bond. They had both seen close family members struggle with serious mental illness. So have many others. Fifty-four million Americans suffer from mental illness. They include Republicans, Democrats and people who don't care a whit about party labels. No family is untouched by mental illness. Four days ago I received an email from a man in Sioux Falls. His name is Jamie Snyder. His wife Bonnie suffered severe abuse in her first marriage and, as a result, she suffers from post traumatic stress disorder. Nine years ago, her doctor and two other doctors--including the head of the American Psychological Association in South Dakota--said she needed to be hospitalized. Unfortunately, a doctor who worked for Jamie Snyder's employer, which was self-insured--a doctor who was hundreds of miles away in another State and who never laid eyes on Bonnie Snyder--ruled that she didn't need to be hospitalized. So the Snyder's were left with an $8,000 hospital bill. Jamie Snyder tried for years to resolve this dispute with his employer. When that failed, he hired an attorney and went to court-- only to be told that he couldn't bring a claim because too much time had passed. Then he started getting calls from bill collectors. In desperation, he signed an agreement with a collection agency that charges exorbitant interest rates. If he misses a payment for any reason, the agency garnishes his wages and adds huge penalties. Since 1996, Jamie Snyder has paid $8,000 on his initial $8,000 bill. Yet today, he still owes the collection agency $15,950. Bonnie Snyder still suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, and now, on top of that, depression and agoraphobia. But she doesn't want to get counseling because she doesn't want to add to her family's debt. The irony is that she has been on full disability since 1992. The government would rather pay her disability every month than see that she gets the help she needs to return to work and a full life. Another family in Sioux Falls has a daughter who was always outgoing, socially active--a straight-A student. When she was a freshman in high school, she won debate competitions. When she was a sophomore, she told her mother, ``I'm a failure'' and admitted she had thought about suicide. It took 4 months to get an appointment with a psychiatrist. Eventually, the young woman received treatment in another State. She was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Despite that diagnosis, the insurance company refused to pay for her treatment, so her mother was forced to take out a $20,000 mortgage on their home. After a long fight, the insurance company finally paid the bill. Today, that young woman is a freshman in college. Medications help her control her illness. But they cost $3,000 a month. She will probably need to take the medications for the rest of her life. She is covered under her mother's health plan--for now. But that won't always be the case. She and her mother worry about what will happen when she has to leave her mother's policy. Will she be able to get affordable insurance on her own? If so, will it pay for the mental health care she needs to stay healthy? That young woman knows about the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act. She tracks its progress on the Internet. She is counting on us to do the right thing and help end the stigma and discrimination that makes it even harder for her to live with a tough disease. There is another young woman in college who is watching what we do on this bill. I know her. Her name is Erica Gitis-Miles. She is a junior at South Dakota State University, my alma mater. Erica's birth mother drank heavily during her pregnancy and Erica has fetal alcohol syndrome as a result. Erica was neglected by her birth mother and severely abused by her birth mother's boyfriend. She was in and out of 13 foster care placements by the time she was 4 years old. She was adopted into a loving home when she was 7. Fetal alcohol syndrome causes serious brain damage. Most people struck with that illness also have serious mental health problems. Erica suffers recurrent depression. A year ago, during a serious depression, Erica cut herself. The doctors who treated her decided that she might be a danger to herself, so Erica was ordered held in a mental health unit for 72 hours. Her parent's insurance company refused to pay for the hospitalization. They said Erica chose to hurt herself, so it was not their responsibility to pay for her care. So Erica and her parents are stuck with the bill. She says she is fortunate. Her father is a medical doctor. But she worries about all the families who aren't able to help themselves as they helped her. Who, she asks, will help them? The Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 was an important step forward. But we know that discrimination persists. Insurers have found new ways to restrict mental health benefits. They continue to discriminate by limiting visits, and requiring higher co-pays and deductibles. And some even continue to impose lower annual and lifetime spending limits for mental illness--and make little effort to deny it. The results can be devastating: unemployment, broken homes, shattered lives, poverty, poor school performance--even suicide. A report earlier this year by the GAO showed that at least 12,000 parents a year are forced to give up custody of their children because they cannot get them the mental health care they need. What family values is that? Wellstone Action has made passing the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act its sole legislative priority for this year. The Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act also has the support of 274 national organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Alzheimer's Association, the National PTA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Catholic Charities, The National Association of Counties, the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Association of Pastoral Counselors, The Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, the National Rural Health Association, the National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and many other groups. I ask unanimous consent that the complete list be printed in the Congressional Record at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE. More than a year and a half ago, in a speech at the University of New Mexico with Senator Domenici by his side, President Bush said: Our country must make a commitment: Americans with mental illness deserve our understanding and they deserve excellent care. They deserve a health care system that treats their illnesses with the same urgency as physical illness. In the great consensus-seeking spirit of Paul Wellstone, I must say I agree with the President. I appreciate his words. But words alone will not solve this problem. We urge the President to join us, help us take up and pass the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act now, this year. Paul was the champion of many causes, but no cause was more dear, more personal to him than making sure people with mental illness are treated fairly, are treated with dignity. Intentions are fine, but it is the actions that count. Millions of American families are counting on us to act for mental health parity. Let us agree to do it now as a tribute to Paul Wellstone, and let us keep his spirit alive. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr DASCHLE

Mr DASCHLE. Madam President, we have offered to go to the Healthy Forests legislation with no limitation on amendments. I hope we can work that out. We also have indicated we could send the CARE Act over to the House without going to conference and allow them to take it up immediately. I hope we can do that next week as well. Next week certainly can be a productive week. I ask the majority leader if it is his intention to dual-track the schedule for the coming days to accommodate debate and hopefully resolution on appropriations bills for a certain period during the day and then the possibility that we could take up and debate some of the bills we have discussed as priority items later on in the day, to accommodate both authorizing and appropriations bills prior to the end of the session. I yield for that purpose.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I appreciate very much the majority leader's reply. The bills he has mentioned and the appropriations bills left to be done are all bills that ought to accommodate a great deal of bipartisan effort. There is nothing on the list that he has proposed, if I can recall the list, that would generate divisive debate. There are going to be amendments. I was just talking to my Governor, and he again expressed concern about the current form of the Internet tax bill as it relates to States and lost revenue they could experience because the bill has been changed. But on that bill and Healthy Forests, the fair credit reporting bill, and a number of other bills, I think there is ample bipartisan interest that could accommodate a very aggressive schedule, and I look forward to working with the majority leader to see how much we can accomplish next week. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the update of the majority leader this morning. I commend him for coming back to the appropriations bills. No one cares more about that than the President pro tempore. There is a lot of interest on both sides of the aisle in working diligently to try to finish the appropriations bills this week and next week. I am a little concerned about the longer list of other items the majority leader mentioned, even though I recognize many of us share his desire to bring up these bills at some point soon. I hope we can reach agreement on the Fair Credit Reporting Act in the next day or so, so we can accommodate its consideration. The Internet tax bill is something I think we ought to be able to work through as well. He didn't mention but there is still a possibility that we could reach some agreement on asbestos or on class action as we work over the next couple of weeks. I have indicated, in the most heartfelt way, that we would like to negotiate and work with him to find ways to address those issues. He didn't mention them, but I know they are priorities of his as well. We have a lot of work to do in a very short period of time. But I think it is important, first and foremost, to try to finish these appropriations bills in a way that will allow us to conference each bill and then work to try to resolve our differences with the House. I still have, unfortunately, grave reservations about the way we have conducted our conferences. I read more about what happens in conference as the Democratic leader than I get from even my Democratic Members who are supposed to be conferees. We can't conduct business that way. I am concerned about that. It will affect, of course, our ability to go to conference on future bills, even if we are able to pass them here. We are off to a good start today on appropriations. I hope we can deal with Transportation, the District of Columbia, other bills that deserve our consideration. I think we will receive a fairly expeditious review and debate so we can move these bills on. I thank the majority leader for his update. I look forward to working with him throughout the day.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to pick up where the distinguished Senator from Delaware left off because I could not agree more. This is an issue that should not divide us politically or even philosophically. This is an opportunity for us to find common ground and work together. That is what many of us have sought to do from the very beginning, what we have tried to do with our colleagues on the other side and with others, because we believe there is ample opportunity to find common ground if we only seek it. I don't know the number of times I have offered to sit down, along with many of our colleagues, with Senators on the other side in an effort to find the common ground we are looking for. For whatever reason, none of those offers have been accepted. So we find ourselves in a very difficult situation this morning. If I had the same confidence the Senator from Delaware had that we could offer amendments and they would truly be considered and perhaps some of them adopted, I would have no hesitation to support the motion to proceed. Unfortunately, on too many occasions now, especially involving tort, that has been an elusive goal, to say the least. We have not had the opportunity to have amendments offered in good faith. They have been rejected, one after the other, on a party line vote. As a result, we are left with no recourse but to simply say: Look, let's find a way to resolve this matter. Let's negotiate a bipartisan solution and let's resolve this issue. I would even use the current circumstances as an illustration of what it is I am talking about. The Judiciary Committee passed a bill that enjoyed bipartisan support, signed by several of our colleagues on this side. They sent it to the floor. We fully expected the debate would be about that committee bill. But that is not what the issue is this morning. The issue is whether we should support a motion to proceed to a bill that was ``rule XIVed'' onto the calendar in spite of what the Judiciary Committee did; I would say in direct conflict with what the Judiciary Committee did. This bill is not just a class action bill. This bill is also a mass tort bill. The committee voiced its opinion on mass tort. They objected. On a unanimous vote, mass tort was excluded from the class action bill. Lo and behold, it is right back in the legislation today. So we will be voting on the motion to proceed not only to class action but to mass tort, and mass tort for many of us is a woman's issue. It is the Dalkon shield, it is silicon breast implants, it is fen/phen. It is a lot of issues that would not have been addressed had this legislation been in law when those cases were taken up. It is that simple. Mass tort is something most of our colleagues did not bargain for, but it is in this bill. The second issue has to do with the right of removal. Defendants now have an opportunity to remove a case from State court within a 30-day snapshot. They do that. Everyone understands that is their opportunity to move to a different venue. Under this legislation, they strip that legislation. At any time during the consideration of a case they can remove themselves from that particular court's jurisdiction. That is unprecedented. You talk about forum shopping. I can't think of a better invitation to forum shopping than the right of removal at any time up to the time the verdict is about to be announced. That is in this legislation. This is bad legislating. It is bad legislating because it overrides the rules of the committee, because it overrides the voice, the opinion, the position of the committee on some of these key questions. Frankly, it overrides the consensus that I know we can establish together. I have said as late as yesterday to the majority leader, I want to sit down with you. I want to negotiate some way to resolve these issues. Do we recognize there is abuse? Absolutely. But this legislation is killing a housefly with a shotgun. There is a lot of collateral damage that is going to be done if it passes. I am very hopeful we all recognize the distinguished Senator from Louisiana has offered a viable alternative that recognizes there are times when class actions ought to be held in State court, but there are times when class actions ought to be held at the Federal court level. We can recognize that there are those times when there is a Federal jurisdictional question. Whether it is his language or something like it, we can work with our colleagues on the other side. But the only way that is going to happen is if we sit down and do this together. That is what I am offering. That is why I opposed the motion to proceed, because that has not happened yet. I am hopeful it will. Whether or not we can succeed in establishing that important priority with this vote remains to be seen. I am hoping my colleagues will join me. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the message in this vote is that now is the time for us to sit down and negotiate. I have said on several occasions, as late as this morning, that we are prepared to work with the majority. I will certainly work with the majority leader to bring to the floor a bill that will enjoy much broader support than 59 votes. We can do that. We recognize the need for reform, but we also recognize we have to do it right. I would like to start this afternoon. I will do it tomorrow. I will do it whenever the majority is prepared to do it, but we are prepared to do it, and I look forward to further discussions on this issue in the days ahead. After that, I hope we can move to other issues that divide us. I think there is an opportunity on asbestos as well, but it takes real negotiation. I am prepared to enter into those negotiations anytime the majority is prepared to do so as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask the Chair whether the motion to reconsider has been propounded on the last vote.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DASCHLE. I have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank everyone who has worked with us to get to this point. We have had a very good debate. We have many amendments to be considered today. I hope we can have a good debate on those that are yet to be offered. We have tried to protect Senators who have indicated a desire yet to offer amendments following the stacked votes. I need to discuss with the majority leader his plans for the conference. Obviously, I have noted, both to him personally as well as publicly, that before we are able to go to conference, we need to have assurances that the Democrats will be at the table and that we will be working in conference, unlike what is now happening on energy as well as prescription drugs and other bills. So I will talk with him through today on that and hope to reach some accommodation with regard to the importance of having a full conference on this bill, given the differences that now exist between the Senate and House versions of the legislation. I look forward to the votes ahead and appreciate everybody's help.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the essence of this amendment is really very simple. We have to demonstrate at some point that we are not alone, that we have help from the international community. We are going to have committed this year $166 billion in help for Iraq. That may be unprecedented. I don't know of another time in all of history when we have committed that much money to one country in 1 year. What this simply says is that from here on out, after that $166 billion is committed, the President needs to go to the international community and make the case and ask for help. That is all it does. It says we have to get some additional help from the international community after we have expended the $166 billion. But even if we don't get it, the President can come back and certify that it is still in our national interest for us to dedicate more of American resources to this effort. I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Leahy amendment to strike wasteful funding from this supplemental and redirect that spending for humanitarian and peacekeeping assistance to Liberia. I commend my colleague for advancing this important amendment. Last month, I had a moving meeting with Archbishop Frances of Monrovia. He relayed to me stories of suffering and pain in Liberia, a country that has been ravaged by war and brutal government. He also relayed to me the great hope the people of Liberia place in the United States and pleaded with us to help Liberia in this time of great need. This amendment is an answer to the pleas from Archbishop Frances--and a response to the hope invested in us by millions of Liberians. Though 85 percent of Liberians are unemployed and 75 percent do not have access to clean drinking water, there are reasons for hope in Liberia. A new leader, Charles Gyude Bryant, has assumed the task of shepherding the people of Liberia from war to peace, from violence and destruction to rebuilding and reconciliation. The open violence that has plagued the country for over a decade has been checked. An international peacekeeping force will be necessary to ensure outright war does not return. This amendment would help pay for an international peacekeeping force--an African force to stabilize an African nation. In addition to renewed security, this amendment ensures that disaster relief and humanitarian assistance will get to thousands of Liberian families uprooted by years of conflict and children who have been separated from their parents. The amendment will provide relief for Liberians denied access to food and basic services for years. In this supplemental appropriations package, Congress is providing funding to our Nation's efforts to restore stability and democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq. We do so not because we are obliged to, but because we need to see democratic government flourish in these countries that have been so crippled by violence and corruption. Liberia, a country to whom we are bound by shared history, enduring interest, and national security, needs our help as much as Afghanistan and Iraq. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to answer their call.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know the regular order is to now recognize Senator Leahy. I ask unanimous consent that we alternate between Republican and Democratic Senators following Senator Leahy in speeches regarding the vote just taken.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for a very short colloquy prior to the time Senator Leahy is recognized for his remarks.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I discussed the appointment of the conferees on this important legislation with Senator Stevens and the distinguished majority leader. As I mentioned on the floor earlier, we in the minority have been concerned about our lack of input in conferences that are now ongoing. And that is unsatisfactory. I have made that clear to the majority leader. This bill enjoys bipartisan support, as we have just seen from the vote, and provides an opportunity to begin anew. As a result, I sought and received the assurance of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee that the minority will be full participants in this conference on the bill. That should be the norm when the Senate seeks to resolve its differences with the House. This means the minority will have the opportunity to provide input on key issues for the duration of the conference and be kept fully apprised of all developments as we seek to get a conference report on this legislation which will enjoy the same broad bipartisan support as did the bill before us today. I ask if that is in keeping with the understanding of the distinguished manager of the bill.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the manager of the bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 2 years ago, a letter containing about 1 gram of highly concentrated anthrax was opened in my office in the Hart Senate Office Building. Potentially deadly anthrax letters were also mailed, apparently by the same person or persons, to my dear friend and colleague, Senator Patrick Leahy, and to several news organizations. Two years later, all of those crimes remain unsolved. The anthrax attack on the Senate remains the largest bioterrorism attack ever on U.S. soil. Here in the Senate my staff and members of Senator Feingold's staff were exposed to up to 3,000 times the lethal dose of anthrax. The entire Hart Senate Office Building was closed for 3 months while scientists searched for a way to do something that had never been done before: To reclaim a building that had been badly contaminated by anthrax. We all remember those times. Coming less than 5 weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the anthrax attacks of 2001 sometimes made it seem as if none of us was safe anywhere. As traumatic as the anthrax attacks were for the people of Capitol Hill, we were actually the fortunate ones. Before those deadly letters arrived in the Senate, they traveled through the U.S. mail where they left a deadly trail. Five innocent people died and still more innocent people suffer today from serious health and debilitating problems resulting from their exposure to the anthrax letters. All too often, they are the forgotten victims of the anthrax attacks on America. They are victims of terrorism, just as surely as are all of those who were killed or injured in the September 11 terrorist attacks on America. This bill that Senator Leahy are I are introducing today acknowledges that fact by allowing the victims of the anthrax attacks to participate in the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund. The rules for anthrax victims would be the same as the rules for victims of the September 11 attacks: Before they can receive any compensation from the fund, anthrax victims must first waive their right to file or participate in any lawsuit in State or Federal court for damages relating to the anthrax attacks. The legislation that my colleague and I are introducing today, and that I am very proud to cosponsor, is narrow and specific: Only persons who were exposed to anthrax during the attacks of 2001 and who have been diagnosed with a ``laboratory-confirmed anthrax infection'' may be compensated from the fund. A ``laboratory-confirmed'' case may include one in which elevated anthrax antibody levels are present, even if the anthrax bacteria cannot be detected. In at least one case, the anthrax diagnosis was made late when, after introduction of antibiotics, the actual bacteria was no longer detectable in the bloodstream. In such cases, the highly elevated anthrax antibody levels confirm both the exposure and the diagnosis. Thomas Morris and Joseph Curseen worked for the U.S. Postal Service. They were decent, hard-working men who pushed themselves and continued to go to work and church even as anthrax infections were killing them. They and Robert Stevens, Kathy Nguyen, and Ottilie Lundgren all lost their lives in the anthrax attacks. Their families have suffered a devastating blow. This bill would allow them to receive some small compensation for their losses without having to suffer through the additional trauma and long delays associated with a lawsuit. Leroy Richmond, Norma Wallace, and Ernesto Blanco should be spared a long and difficult legal ordeal, too. They and others who suffered laboratory-confirmed anthrax infections as a result of the 2001 attacks deserve justice. They deserve the opportunity to participate in the same compensation fund as the victims of September 11, as long as they are willing to abide by the same rules. This bill gives them that right, that option, if they choose to exercise it. After that letter was opened in my office, the Senate put in place new mail-screening procedures to prevent another similar attack on the Capitol complex. Nearly 2 years later, we no longer have to worry that terrorism can slip in here through the mail. Some days we even forget about the anthrax attacks. But there are victims and victims' families who cannot forget. The anthrax attacks of 2001 still haunt them every day. This bill will not restore their strength or return their loved ones, but it will give them a small measure of compensation and perhaps a small measure of peace. It will say clearly that whether it happens in September, October, or any other month, terrorism is terrorism and here in America its victims will not have to suffer alone. I thank my colleague and friend, Senator Leahy, with whom I have been working on this bill now for nearly 2 years, for his remarkable commitment to this cause. I urge all of our colleagues to join us in seeking justice for these forgotten victims of terrorism.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I do not know if anybody on the other side wishes to use that time, but in the interim, perhaps I might use leader time to make a statement on another matter. (The remarks of Mr. Daschle and Mr. Leahy pertaining to the introduction of S. 1740 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DASCHLE. Would the Chair inform the body as to the amount of time remaining on the Republican side?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I understand the majority leader will be coming to the floor shortly to address our current legislative circumstances. I have become increasingly concerned about our ability to finish this bill. We have noted that concern to the majority leader, as well as to the manager of the bill. Our concern stems from really two issues: One, the unwillingness on the part of some to have votes on the pending amendments. I am told now there are eight or nine amendments that are pending, that have been offered and that have been set aside. Tomorrow is Friday. We wanted to have votes on all of those amendments. Yet for whatever reason, we have been unable to get to the votes. The second issue is the issue involving the amendment to be offered by the Senators from Indiana and Wyoming, Mr. Bayh and Mr. Ensign. I am told, for whatever reason, many of our colleagues on the other side are unwilling to allow that amendment even to be brought up. If that is the case, obviously we are not going to be able to finish this bill. We can't have completion of the consideration of this legislation until that amendment has been offered and we have an opportunity to debate it and vote on it. So, for whatever reason, we are stymied this afternoon at 5 o'clock with, I guess, some 30 amendments pending. We had indicated all along we would make our best good-faith effort to try to finish this legislation. But I emphasized all the way through, this is going to take cooperation on both sides. I think we have cooperated in every sense of the word. We have laid down the amendments. I think most of the amendments that have been offered have been our amendments. We have laid them down. We have not in any way stalled consideration of this legislation. Now we are here Thursday afternoon at 5 o'clock with nine amendments we are told we cannot have votes on, and one of them that cannot even be offered. So we are going to have to come to some understanding about how to proceed. I must say, with each passing hour the likelihood that we will be able to complete our work as we had hoped we could--by the end of the day tomorrow--dwindles and diminishes to a point where it will soon be nonexistent. I call these concerns to the attention of my colleagues and ask we get some clarification about the schedule and about our ability to deal with these issues. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am gratified to hear the distinguished assistant Republican leader is optimistic. I was optimistic. I hope I can have that optimism restored. As I noted just a moment ago, there are about 30 amendments pending, but we really believe that a lot of the amendments that are still pending depend on the outcome of the amendment to be offered by Senators Bayh and Ensign. So it is hard for us to move forward on the other amendments until that one has been resolved. So we are in a situation where we cannot move forward until our Republican colleagues acknowledge the need to, not only offer the amendment, but to have it debated and voted upon, so we can clear the way for whatever additional amendments along the lines of the subject matter the Bayh-Ensign amendment addresses. That is the issue. That is the concern we have. I hope we can clarify it soon. But I only raise this concern because I suggest the hour, while it is not late, is getting later, and we do not have a lot of time to finish all the work that is left. I believe we made our commitment, kept our commitment, and I hope we can accomplish what many of us had hoped we could do 2 weeks ago. I yield the floor.