Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I couldn't agree more. In fact, what troubles me is there are those who would turn Medicare into a great big HMO. I don't know many people who are enthusiastic about the kind of care they get from their HMO. There are some good ones, I certainly would not deny that. But I must say, HMOs are not the panacea. There is not a one- size-fits-all HMO, health maintenance organization, or PPO, for that matter, preferred provider system, that would work in rural areas. We know. We have seen from our own experience. They have tried it. They have attempted to create managed care systems in rural areas. The demographics don't work. Our health care delivery system in rural areas does not allow for a managed care system that works. Perhaps it does in Washington DC, or Los Angeles or New York. So we cannot have a one-size-fits-all system. That is the beauty of the Medicare system. The Medicare system has adapted over the years, organizationally and administratively, to fit Alaska and South Dakota and Nevada in a way that has worked far beyond the expectations, I am sure, of many who created the system in the 1960s. Let us not throw out a system that has worked well. Let's improve it. Let's build on it. Let's provide better benefits through it. But to privatize Medicare--to eliminate it and replace it with a new HMO in the name of Medicare--is a mistake that we will fight to the last day. That would be a real tragedy because we have an opportunity to debate how to provide a good prescription benefit. Let's agree in a bipartisan way to have that debate. This is our moment and our opportunity and I hope we seize it. 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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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. President, I come to the floor to speak in opposition to the Bingaman amendment. I must say as I begin, however, that there is no one in the caucus--and, I argue, in the Senate today-- who knows more about the issues relating to energy than does my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman. He has been an outstanding leader, and I have enjoyed working with him on these issues now for many years. I recall so vividly his masterful work in getting us a bill that generated some 88 votes, if I recall, last year. That was after about 8 weeks of work. So it is not easy to take these issues or to move this legislation. He deserves great credit for the work he has done. I take issue with this amendment for several reasons. I have had a chance to look at the amendment itself. There are phrases on line 9 and on line 2 of page 2 that are of particular concern to me. I will read the pertinent passages of the amendment, and I will explain my concern. First, I have a little explanatory comment. Obviously, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico is interested in providing greater authority to the Secretary to suspend the requirements of the bill. Then he lists those instances in his amendment where the requirements of the bill would be lifted. It is in these areas that I find my initial concern, and then I will address some other concerns I have. On line 9, page 1, it says: Application of the requirements of paragraph (2) in the District will result, or has resulted, in an increase in the average cost of gasoline to the end users in the District of ten cents per gallon or more. Line 2, page 2, that he can suspend the requirements of the bill if, in the estimation of the Secretary of Energy: a significant interruption in the supply of renewable fuel in the District will result, or has resulted, in an increase in the average cost of gasoline to end users in the District of ten cents per gallon or more. The phrase that troubles me is ``will result.'' We all would like to be able to anticipate the future. But I could easily see a Secretary who has opposition to renewable fuels, opposition to any real requirement that we move to find replacements for gasoline; or, for that matter, you could put this in a larger context, if we were talking about the renewable portfolio standard, to wind, solar, biomass, or any other renewable fuel, where you could see a Secretary announce: You know what. I have made a decision. I have made a decision that this will result at some point in the future in a cost increase, and the Senator here would set as the threshold 10 cents a gallon. But it will happen, and on that basis I am going to suspend the law. First, the declarative authority on the part of the Secretary as a result of his ability to predict--weather men are wrong, politicians are wrong, and Secretaries could be wrong. Yet we would give him the authority, based on his judgment and his prediction that somehow he will know we are going to exceed 10 cents a gallon and, on that basis, suspend the law, take an action to suspend the law. The second concern I have is the good government concern. If we are going to suspend the law, it seems to me we ought to have an opportunity to have comment, to have others express themselves on whether this will result in a price increase. As an advocate of good government, generally when we pass legislation, anytime we designate authority to somebody else, we say, look, you cannot do this without some ability to be heard. You have to be heard. There has to be a process before we give dictatorial powers to somebody to change the law. That is exactly what our bill does. Our bill says that in those instances when some economic disruption might occur, No. 1, there has to be a demonstration that it has occurred. No prediction that it might happen. It has to happen so we know with what we are dealing. Secondly we say: If we are going to suspend a law passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States, there has to be a good government procedure, and that procedure simply says there has to be notice, there has to be an opportunity to be heard, and then a decision has to be made. Then we even go beyond that. We say a decision has to be made within 90 days. At one point, in a previous version of this bill, we said it had to be done in 180 days. Some said that was too long a period. So we have already cut that in half. Then it said no later than 90 days. That is not the threshold to start the decisionmaking process. That is the threshold to end it. Advocates of good government, I would think, would say that is a pretty good way to do it. If we are going to have price spikes--and I will get to that in just a minute--then it seems to us you ought to give somebody an opportunity to waive the requirements of law. That is understandable. We can do that. But to say, first, we are going to allow that person to make this decision based on what he thinks is going to happen, and then, secondly, allow him to make a decision based on what he thinks is going to happen without any good government application of the law, an opportunity to be heard, an opportunity to make some judgment based on facts, is an awfully troubling assertion or proposition to me. Having said that, the Department of Energy, in January of last year, just a little over a year ago, completed a report on this very issue. I have not known the Department of Energy necessarily to be a cheerleader for ethanol. They have not been out there leading the pack. But they were asked: What analysis can you provide us with regard to this very concern? Here is their conclusion: No major infrastructure barriers exist to expand ethanol to 5 billion gallons per year comparable to the legislation before us today. The Energy Information Agency said after their careful analysis in concert with this report: The cost of establishing a renewable fuels standard is less than half a penny per gallon for all gasoline. That is not an assertion by the Senator from South Dakota. That is not the ethanol industry. That is the Federal Government in its analysis of the implications of what it is we are doing with this legislation--a half a penny per gallon for all gasoline. In March of this year, the California Energy Commission analysis said it cannot establish any attributable increase in the price of gasoline based on the cost or availability of ethanol and the requirements under which they currently are living. Mr. President, first, if you listen to our own analysis, the Government agencies that have provided their most objective review of the circumstances, we are talking about half a penny per gallon for all gasoline. We are talking about the California Energy Commission--and I might note, as I said yesterday, 65 percent of all the gasoline sold in California today has ethanol. It is going to go to 80 percent by summer. And we have the California Energy Commission saying they cannot find any tangible connection between the price of ethanol and the price of gasoline. But if, for whatever reason, it might happen, we say: Let's give the Secretary the authority. Let's make sure we are not going to hold consumers hostage to some sort of unexpected price hike, but let's, No. 1, make sure it happens, rather than give the Secretary this ability to predict and make some assertion it might happen. And, secondly, let's use the good government practices we have always used to ensure if we are going to change the law for whatever period of time, that we do so with the opportunity for Americans to be heard. So I hope we oppose this amendment. I end where I started. The Senator from New Mexico deserves great credit for all he has done to bring us to this point. I respect him immensely and differ with him on this amendment. We could not be in better hands. I appreciate his cooperation on so many of these issues as we move forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate my dear friend Bill Walsh on the 100th anniversary of the Historic Franklin Hotel in Deadwood, SD. The Franklin Hotel is truly a piece of living history and a jewel of the Black Hills. Throughout the decades, the Franklin has accommodated Presidents and celebrities, including Teddy Roosevelt, William Taft, John Wayne, and the great Babe Ruth. In addition to being a much- celebrated destination for visitors to the Black Hills, the Franklin has also served as a cornerstone for the community of Deadwood. The Franklin was a source of comfort for city dwellers during the Great Depression, and hosted the first radio broadcast in the State of South Dakota. Today, the Franklin continues to be a place of celebration, as it accommodates thousands of tourists in the Black Hills each year. From viewing the Days of '76 Parade on the veranda, to celebrating St. Patrick's Day in Durty Nelly's, to a grand New Year's Eve celebration, the Franklin continues to be a source of great entertainment and a place where special memories are made daily. The Historic Franklin Hotel is a true reminder of our rich Western heritage. Today, on its 100th anniversary, the task of maintaining and preserving this rich cultural treasure rests on the shoulders of Bill Walsh. If founder Harris Franklin were alive today, he would be proud of Bill's dedication to the preservation of this historic landmark. I extend my best wishes to Bill and the Franklin Hotel's Board of Directors, Jo Roebuck Pearson, Mike Trucano, Taffy Tucker, and Orville Bryan. Congratulations to all of you as you celebrate this extraordinary milestone. We look forward to the next 100 years.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to comment on some of the arguments raised by a very dear friend of mine, my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein. First, let me say that 65 percent of all the gasoline utilized today in California is blended with ethanol--65 percent. They expect that it will be 80 percent this summer. So four out of five gallons of gasoline in California will already be blended with ethanol. I am not sure I understand what motivation there will be to seek a waiver, when 65 to 80 percent of all the gasoline is already blended. That is No. 1. No. 2, my colleague noted that she has applied to EPA--she and the State of California have sought a waiver under current law. That is the point. The renewable fuels standard will actually provide greater flexibility, greater opportunities for States to seek waivers than what they have right now. The waiver she is applying for is the waiver that she seeks under the law that was passed in 1991. She is frustrated that there has been no positive response on the part of EPA. I can understand her frustration with that refusal. But we are talking about the current law. What we are suggesting, of course, is that under the new law there will be waiver authority if a case can be made that somehow this is disruptive. Let me emphasize something. There is a very significant misperception here that somehow this renewable fuels standard is a mandate on States. There is not one word in this bill that requires California or New York or any State to mandate the utilization of ethanol. It is not in there. What it does is impose a requirement on refiners. The refiners are the ones that are going to have to blend ethanol. They can go to the part of the country where it makes the most sense. There is not any requirement that States have some percentage of their transportation fuel utilized for purposes of meeting the renewable fuels standard. We have, as I know the distinguished Senator knows, a credit trading program in addition which ensures that ethanol is going to be used where it is most economical. The refiners can make that decision--where it is marketable, where it is not. But I would argue if 65 percent is any indication of the marketability of ethanol, it is already being used in the State of California and it will be used even more this summer. In March, the California Energy Commission stated that: The transition to ethanol which began in January of 2003 is progressing without any major problem. Those are their words, not mine. There has been no ethanol shortage, no transportation delay, no logistical problems associated with the increased use of ethanol. Thus, efforts to carve out California from the RFS, while unjustified, are also completely unnecessary. We have to keep beating down these myths and these concerns generated by those who oppose the renewable fuels standard. I might also say the Senator from California might want to explain why she is supportive of the renewable portfolio standard without waivers. She is, as I am, a consistent advocate of the renewable portfolio standard that we will address later on in the debate on energy, which is, in concept, identical to the renewable fuels standard. Yet she is in support of many waivers for the renewable portfolio standard. So on the one hand, while she supports portfolio nationalization, she would suggest a renewable fuels exemption for waivers in California. No one cares more for her State. No one is more articulate on these issues. No one has studied these issues more than has she. We will carry on this debate for months, if not years, to come. At the end of the day, I will respect her and admire her tenacity and persistence as much as anybody in this Chamber. I just happen to strongly disagree with her in this case. I know that is her feeling with regard to my position. So we will agree to disagree and move on. I yield the floor, having had the opportunity to respond to some of the issues raised.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would be happy to respond. The answer is that is exactly what we do in the bill--exactly. We provide a waiver. Under the new application, the State of California, if they can make the case that they shouldn't be held responsible or shouldn't be held to the requirement of the legislation, is entitled to the waiver. That is No. 1. No. 2, the Senator from California still has yet to say why on the one hand she is prepared to support a renewable portfolio standard applicable to all States but not a renewable fuels standard. She isn't willing to do that. So there is an inconsistency there that I find interesting. Let me go back.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will have to depart the floor in a moment. Let me attempt to respond again to some of the concerns raised by the distinguished Senator from California. I remind my colleagues that California is currently using ethanol in 65 percent of the gasoline that it markets. That would go up to 80 percent this summer. It has gone up to 80 percent. Four out of five gallons in California will be using ethanol, and the Department of Energy in California has said there has been no disruption, no problems. There has been absolutely nothing they can point to that would be disadvantageous just to the consumer. Why the Senator from California would believe so strongly about a waiver when one certainly is not needed, given current experience, is not an answer I can provide. Methyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE, is not something many of us were supportive of when we integrated it in the first place. This was something that coal companies and many of the petroleum refiners wanted as an alternative to ethanol. So it was a compromise. Many of us raised questions even then, back in 1991, whether it was going to be advantageous for us. We predicted that there could be some issues involving the use of MTBE, and those predictions were borne out. As the case now has demonstrated, we are phasing out MTBE, as we should. But ethanol has shown itself now for 20 years to be what we said it was. It has proved to be, as advertised, the kind of clean- burning fuel that we have sought to increase not only clean air and the oxygen in gasoline but many other advantages. Here is one fact I hope my colleagues will remember: In the year 2002, because this country incorporated ethanol into gasoline, the Department of Energy estimated that we will have reduced--it could have been EPA; don't hold me to the source but a governmental analysis done on the effects of ethanol--greenhouse gases by 4.3 million tons. That is the equivalent of 636,000 cars taken off the road. That is what we have been able to do just in 1 year, 636,000 cars taken off the road, the equivalent of which we have now acquired or achieved as a result of the utilization of ethanol. Again, as to the chart, I don't know where it came from, but I will tell the Senate what the American Petroleum Institute and the California Energy Commission, the Senator's own commission, have said. California will need to use 843 million gallons of ethanol to meet the clean air requirements next year, according to API, but under this amendment they will only have to use 252 million gallons. They are already using 600 million this year. California is using 600 million. The requirement would be that they use 252. There are the California Energy Commission comments. Governor Gray Davis, quoted on March 15, 2002: Let's let the Daschle bill pass. Have a nice schedule that will affect the entire country, phase ethanol in, protect the environment. That is a quote from the California Governor. California EPA Secretary Winston Hickox: We need the Federal law changed for the flexibility that we are not in opposition to the stairstep in terms of the increase of the use of renewable fuels on a national basis. Potentially, ethanol is a creator of business and jobs in California. These are from California officials. One other issue, safe harbor. I was interested in comments made by the distinguished Senator from California on safe harbor. She actually supported safe harbor legislation on Y2K in 1999. There was no concern then about safe harbor problems when she voted for it. My other colleagues have voted for it as well. Let me make sure people understand what we are talking about with regard to safe harbor. What we did was say if there is a defect in design or manufacture of renewable fuel by virtue of the legislation we are mandating these companies to use, then we will exempt them from liability as a result of the mandate. Do you know how many cases that is? That is estimated to be two one-thousandths of 1 percent--not two one-hundredths, not two-tenths but two one-thousandths of 1 percent of all cases involved situations where we are providing safe harbor. I will tell you what we are not covering. We are not covering negligence. We are not covering the duty to warn. We are not covering personal injury. We are not covering property damage. We are not covering wrongful death. We are not covering compensatory damages or punitive damages. We are not covering all of those things about which the Senator from California has expressed concern. They are covered. They are in there; two one-thousandths of 1 percent providing the same safe harbor she voted for with the Y2K legislation in 1999. I will have to move on to other matters in my schedule. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss many of the questions with the distinguished Senator from California. I have no greater respect for anybody in the Chamber than I do her. I consider her a wonderful and close personal friend. This issue has forced us to agree to disagree for years. This year will be no different. I appreciate her efficacy and yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the gentle--the Senator yield for an answer to that question?

Mr. DASCHLE. I know she does, because she does want to know the answer to that question. It goes back to the first comment she made. The first comment is that California is forced. California is forced to have a certain standard, meeting the clean air requirements passed in the law of 1991. That is a requirement that the whole country is forced to live with. You have to meet that clean air requirement. What California has chosen to do--wisely, in my opinion--is to use ethanol to accommodate the goals and requirements set up for the entire Nation with regard to cleaning up the air that many of us voted overwhelmingly to do in the early 1990s. Here is the key issue. This isn't some ethanol advocacy group that said this. This isn't a group of us here in the Senate that have said this but the California Energy Commission, having studied very carefully the utilization and the acquisition of ethanol to meet these clean air requirements, said in January of this year that ``the integration of ethanol is progressing without one major problem . . . no shortages, no transportation delays, no logistical problems associated with the increased use of ethanol in the State.'' That is the response to the first part of the question. Why Alaska and Hawaii? Frankly, I didn't favor carving out Alaska and Hawaii because I think we could say categorically, regardless of circumstances. But Senators from Alaska and Hawaii were concerned about the fact that they are not part of the contiguous United States; that if you are ever going to come into an issue involving transportation, Alaska and Hawaii may ultimately create transportation issues which do not exist in the continental United States among the contiguous States. As a result, giving them the benefit of the doubt in the first phase of this integration is something I am willing to accept even though I am not prepared to support. But there is no question, based on current utilization and based on the Department of Energy in California that said themselves there is no integration problem. That is the reason. I thank very much the Senator from California yielding on that question.

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield again?

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me finish, and then I would be happy to yield. She quoted an article. She has had as much experience as I have had with journalism in the country, and in our lives. I don't know what journalistic publication that may have come from. But we know this. We know that oftentimes these columns are written with a built-in bias, with a built-in point of view, and I doubt that she would argue that all articles are written with an objective analysis as their motivation. But you have to think that the Department of Energy in California would be objective. They certainly aren't there touting ethanol as their goal for anything other than what they think is best for California. I am going to quote. She quoted an article. I will quote the report from California, page III-3, the report of March 28 of 2003, just a couple of months ago. Since the price of ethanol to refiners is currently at modest levels relative to gasoline, the recent increase in California's gasoline prices cannot-- Let me emphasize ``cannot''-- --be attributable to availability or cost of ethanol. That is from the California Energy Department report. That isn't the only one. That was corroborated by the Energy Information Administration here in Washington. The report was provided last month, in May of this year. Let me read from that report on page VII: ``Other factors associated with the MTBE/ethanol changeover, such as ethanol supply and price, and infrastructure to deliver, store and blend ethanol, did not seem to be significant issues'' in the calculation of costs. That is Department of Energy information. Here you have the Department of Energy from California and the Department of Energy from the United States Federal Government both calculating that there is no impact, pricewise, with the integration of ethanol into gasoline--none. I have seen all these articles, and they all have agendas and they all are written in subjective ways to make a point. I thought there was one again in the Post this morning. But, nonetheless, I think it would be hard for the Senator from California to argue against her own Department of Energy when it comes to the calculation of the integration of the ethanol. I know that is not her intention. I think that is what we really have to make sure is in the Record--a recognition after careful study that there really wasn't any impact on the price of gasoline with the integration of ethanol. I believe she has the floor and she yielded to me. I would be happy to relinquish the floor so she can regain it.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know we will be voting at 4:30 on the Feinstein amendments. Both amendments attempt to provide waivers to the States from the renewable fuels standard. There are several points to be made. I made some of them this morning. But in case my colleagues have not had the opportunity to evaluate the amendments or consider the concerns raised by many of us with regard to the amendments, I thought it would be appropriate for me to say a couple of words again now. First of all, with regard to ethanol utilization, the State of California is currently using ethanol in 65 percent of all the fuel it is marketing within the State. That is expected to go up to 80 percent this summer. The Department of Energy in California has said there has been absolutely no difficulty in the integration of ethanol from a transportation point of view, a storage point of view, an environmental point of view, or a cost point of view. So that would be first. Why have a waiver when there is no problem? The problem does not exist. In fact, studies have shown--that I pointed out this morning, one by the Department of Energy Information, one by the Department of Energy in California--that have said there is absolutely no connection between increases in the price paid for gasoline and the use of ethanol. So from a cost point of view in particular, there certainly isn't any need for a waiver. Secondly, and perhaps far more importantly, this legislation provides that there is no mandate on the States. There isn't one requirement within the bill that says a State must use ethanol as part of its requirement under the law. That does not exist. The requirement is on refiners, not on the States. And the refiners are given wide latitude to make their decisions based on where it is appropriately marketable and not on any predesign with regard to the market itself. We are not dictating to any oil company that that 65 percent now being used in California be used as a result of a legal requirement. That does not exist. We are simply saying: Look, we will let the oil companies and the refiners make up their own minds. And with the credit trading system, the job is made all the easier. I would also say that if worse comes to worst, we have said: Look, if all else fails, there is absolutely no reason why a State cannot apply for a waiver under the new law. Senator Feinstein and others have suggested, well, they have applied for waivers in the past and have been turned down. I hasten again to add for those who may be confused by this, she is talking about the current law. In part, what we are doing now is amending the law, removing the oxygenate requirement, phasing out methyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE, and providing an opportunity for States to get out from under requirements of the old law while at the same time coming up with a way with which our country can reduce its dependence on foreign sources, can find ways with which to clean up the air, and can do as much as possible to find markets for agricultural products within our own States and country. That is, in essence, what this bill provides. So I simply say, Mr. President, as well intended as the Senator from California is, there is absolutely no reason why this waiver is necessary. They have one in the bill. They have the credit trading system in the bill. There isn't any requirement for a State to mandate the use of ethanol in this bill. And, finally, it is working as we have predicted it would, certainly in those States where the markets have been allowed to work. California, as I said, now expects 80 percent of their fuel to incorporate ethanol through the summer. So it is yet another one of these constant myths that has to be destroyed and dealt with as we consider the many allegations about what it is we are trying to do. Very simply, we are saying to the country, to the refiners, to petroleum marketers in particular: We are going to give you as much flexibility as you could possibly hope to have. And that is exactly what this legislation does. Having said that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this amendment is based on a misconception. The misconception is that somehow there is a mandate to begin with. There is no mandate for the States under this bill. There is a requirement that refiners find a way to reach the goals that we set out in the legislation overall, both in energy as well as the ethanol itself, but there is no requirement that States meet some standard with regard to utilization of ethanol. And there is also an option for the States to opt out if they find the circumstances described by the distinguished Senator from Arizona would ever come about. States have the right to opt out, even though there is no particular mandate to opt into the program to begin with. This is a refiners obligation, not a State obligation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I am disappointed that the underlying amendment was withdrawn. That was an amendment offered by the distinguished majority leader and myself. We are certainly going to be coming back at the earliest possible time to continue the debate. We have had a good debate today. A couple of amendments were offered to the amendment. This is a revenue bill, and certainly it is within the right of the Senator from Arkansas to offer this amendment. This is a key amendment that I hope we can address. We have begun discussions about how we might address it over the course of the next couple of days. It would be my hope that we could get a vote on this amendment, whether it is freestanding or it is a part of the bill, and whatever our Republican colleagues may wish to offer as well, but we have to keep moving along. The sooner we can dispose of this amendment, the sooner we can get to some of these other issues. I hope we can reintroduce the ethanol amendment at the earliest possible date, continue the debate on that, finish it, and then move to the other issues as we debate this bill. So it is disappointing, but I hope we can regroup and begin again tomorrow.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I welcome our colleagues back. We are looking forward to a very productive few weeks. We know we have a lot of work to do in a relatively short time. In particular, work on the Energy bill is going to require a good and vigorous debate. I know there are a number of Senators wishing to offer amendments. I hope we can begin that process in earnest tomorrow. I know there are a number of my Democratic colleagues who have particular issues they wish to address. We will get into many of those issues in earnest as amendments are offered over the next several days. I didn't have the opportunity to hear the distinguished majority leader, but he has indicated to me--and I understand he has announced-- that it is his interest and his plan to bring up the Medicare reform/ prescription drug legislation the last couple of weeks of June. We certainly welcome that. We are looking forward to another debate, picking up where we left off last year. I am concerned, I suppose, that we are moving quickly to this legislation without the benefit of extended discussion or hearings in the committee. I was rather roundly criticized last year after giving the Finance Committee a certain deadline and having failed to meet that, going to the floor so that we could ensure that we would do all that was possible to get a bill through the Senate in order to conference with the House prior to the end of the session. That wasn't possible, but we made every concerted effort and certainly a case that we could not afford to wait beyond the August recess, which is why we took up the bill last July. We have not had, as I say, an opportunity to see the ideas that our colleagues on the other side are considering as we look at prescription drugs. But I was very appreciative of the report that I got about the majority leader's comments with regard to the value of Medicare. I think it is important to note that some of our colleagues on the other side have argued that we ought to eliminate Medicare, or terminate Medicare, or dramatically change Medicare--but the distinguished majority leader has noted that Medicare is a very valuable program, and indeed that is the case. Before Medicare was created--about 1965--less than half of all senior citizens had health insurance. Today, almost every senior citizen has health insurance. So I think that alone argues very well for the importance of recognizing the universality of access to health insurance by those at least over the age of 65. We only wish we could replicate that for the rest of the population. I think it is also important to note two other things. First, Medicare administrative costs are about 2 to 3 percent. That compares very favorably to the administrative costs of private health care--some 15 percent. So you have Medicare administrative costs at such a point that would leave 97 percent of the revenue generated that could go to benefits, where in the case of private health insurance, only about 85 percent of what revenue is generated is left that could go to benefits. That is a dramatic difference. So those who argue that somehow the private sector is so much better, I argue that at least from a benefits structure, an efficiency point of view, you can certainly argue that the Medicare prototype or paradigm is so much more efficient. I also argue that in South Dakota it is almost impossible to get private health care benefits. You cannot find them in many parts of my State. That is true of a lot of rural areas. Health care benefits, health care insurance in rural areas is almost nonexistent, especially if it is provided through managed care. We have no managed care, virtually, in South Dakota. So those who argue that somehow there is a panacea in the private sector overlook the fact that oftentimes, when it comes to rural areas in particular, it is almost impossible to use a private health care model. That is why we fought so hard last year. That is why when we offered the so-called Gramm-Miller-Kennedy legislation, we said, No. 1, there has to be a defined benefit; No. 2, a defined premium; No. 3, a way to ensure that rural areas are provided with the benefits; No. 4, we have to ensure as well that there isn't a coverage gap, a so-called sickness gap that was used oftentimes to make up for the fact that we needed to provide benefits right out of the box, but because we had limited dollars, they would go through a coverage gap before the benefits would kick in again. Now, unfortunately, on all of those particular points, the bill offered by our Republican colleagues last year failed. There was a coverage gap. You paid premiums into this health insurance plan all year long, but I'm concerned that in some cases the benefits could kick out in February and might not kick back in again until roughly October. So you went through all of the spring and summer paying into the system but not getting any benefit back. That coverage gap was a serious omission and, frankly, one of the reasons we didn't believe that plan had much merit. They could not tell us what it was going to cost on a monthly premium, or what the benefits were going to be. They suggested things, but there wasn't any defined benefit. There wasn't any defined premium. Then, of course, one of the biggest concerns many of us had is we could not count on the plan being offered in rural areas--especially in States like mine. So I hope as we begin, we can all agree, No. 1, Medicare is a critical program, a success story of tremendous magnitude. Any time you can say you have eliminated the lack of access to health care for a certain group of people almost entirely, that is a success. That is exactly what we have done. Can it be improved? Again, like the majority leader, I think absolutely it can be. We ought to be providing more preventive care. We ought to find ways in which to promote wellness. That ought to be part of any plan. I personally believe there ought to be a lot more screening, a lot more access to all of the available techniques, all of the available methods of ensuring that we catch illness early, so preventive care is one of those things we can do. Adding a prescription drug benefit--absolutely. But if we are going to do this, let's not make this a big roll of the dice with senior citizens and say we cannot tell you what the premium is going to be, or what the benefits are going to be, or we cannot tell you for sure when your coverage kicks out and when it kicks back in with the coverage gap, or we cannot tell you for sure whether it is going to be offered in rural areas, and we will have just a Medicare backup in case all of this fails. Well, that isn't a plan many of us would feel very good about, if, ultimately, that were the final vote. But I start with the hope and, I must say, the expectation that we can work together to find common ground; that we can address many of these shortcomings that were so evident in last year's legislation among some of our Republican colleagues; and that we can work together constructively. I don't see any reason we cannot finish this legislation by the end of this month. But if that is going to happen, I hope, indeed, we can send each other a clear message that we are not looking for a 51-vote solution; we are looking for a 70, 80, or 90-vote solution. We are looking for a compromise in this legislation that brings about a broad consensus. I hope we can use some discipline and avoid bringing up extraneous issues. We don't need to get into the array of controversial things that have nothing to do with prescription drugs or Medicare. If you want to derail prescription drugs, bring up any one of these extraordinarily controversial things, but I think it would be a very unfortunate set of circumstances. I am optimistic, having been given the report of the distinguished majority leader, and I am hopeful that we can work together so that by the end of this work period, not only will we have accomplished a good deal with regard to energy policy, but we will be able to say to seniors and to the country that we have at long last agreed on starting a Medicare benefit for prescription drugs that we can feel good about, that seniors understand, that would be offered in rural areas, and that builds on the model that has been such a success now for the last 40 years. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Thursday, May 22, the 5th U.S. Army demobilized Battery C, 2nd Battalion of the South Dakota National Guard's 147th Field Artillery. This unit, from Redfield and Miller, was among more than 20 Guard and Reserve units from my State called to active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Today, these soldiers and their service become a part of South Dakota's military heritage. Like those who served in the two world wars, in Korea, in Vietnam and numerous other places, this new generation has answered the call. They have offered to make every sacrifice, including life itself, to protect our freedom and security. We must never forget them or the honor with which they served. This unit participated in a mobilization with few precedents in South Dakota history. Nearly 2,000 Guard and Reserve troops were called to active duty in our State, by far the largest mobilization since World War II. At the time the fighting began, units from more than 20 communities had been called up, from Elk Point in the south to Lemmon in the north, from Watertown in the east to Custer in the west. Indeed, our State's mobilization rate ranked among the highest of all the States on a per-capita basis. These soldiers were proud to serve, and their communities are proud of them. Across the State, thousands of citizens pitched in to participate in send-off parades, to lend a hand for families who suddenly had to get by without a mom or dad, and even to assist with financial hardships caused by the mobilization. This mobilization was a Statewide effort, in many ways. South Dakota's Guard and Reserve units provided our active duty forces in Iraq with invaluable support. Many units did not participate directly in combat, which ended more quickly than anyone expected. But we all know that the battle would have been waged much differently if our Guard and Reserve units had not been ready to deploy as needed. Furthermore, we know that some units will play an important role in the work of restoring peace and order to Iraq, as well as rebuilding basic infrastructure. These tasks will be vital to ensuring that Iraq becomes a stable nation, hopefully with a prosperous economy and democratic government. This is how we can win the peace and save future generations from another conflict. In addition to the service of this particular unit, I want to acknowledge the sacrifices and dedication of the families who stayed home. They are the unsung heroes of any mobilization. They motivate and inspire those who are far from home, and they, too, deserve our gratitude. Today, I join these families and the State of South Dakota in celebrating the courage, commitment, and success of the members of the 147th Field Artillery, and I honor their participation in this historic event in our Nation's history. Welcome home. Thanks to all of you for your courage, your sacrifice, and your noble commitment to this country and its ideals.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Since we are not working under a time agreement, I will be happy to provide whatever time the Senator may require.

Mr. DASCHLE. I object. Madam President, if I could be heard on the objection, we have no objection to taking up the legislation freestanding. But because of the intricate relationship between Social Security and increasing the debt limit, we see no reason to separate these. This should be an amendment on debt limit. I believe the House ought to take up this matter. There is no reason why they can't vote on it this morning. There is no reason why this can't be addressed prior to the end of the week. We hope we can have a vote, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask for a count.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: I thought the yeas and nays had already been ordered on the amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, having passed the tax cut, our attention now turns to increasing the debt limit. We will have a number of amendments. I just thought it would be helpful for Senators to know we will not stack these votes. We will offer them, and there will be short time limits, maybe 10 minutes per amendment. The first one will be offered by the distinguished Senator from Montana, the ranking member, Mr. Baucus. Senator Kennedy will have one on unemployment. I will have a sense of the Senate on Social Security. There will be a couple of others. But these amendments will be offered and debated and then voted on as we go through the morning. So Senators will probably want to stay close to the floor in order to be here to vote so we can expedite consideration of these amendments. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Baucus amendment be limited to 10 minutes equally divided, with no second degrees.