Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is now my intention to go to seven additional district court nominees. Senator Leahy and the Judiciary Committee have done an extraordinary job of reporting these out. They have been on the calendar. And it is certainly Senator Leahy's prerogative to ask for a rollcall vote on each nominee. He and I have discussed this matter, and I would ask the Senator from Vermont, the distinguished chair of the Judiciary Committee, about the need to have additional rollcalls for each of these district judges. I yield the floor for that purpose.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, that is the current count, 72 district and circuit court judges over that period of time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time on the trade promotion authority conference report be yielded back.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that all time for debate on the conference report for the trade promotion authority bill be yielded back.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President: for too long, Congress has been deeply divided between those who argued that free trade has no downside, and others who said it is a complete disaster. As a result, we did not give the President the authority to aggressively pursue new markets for American goods and services, nor did we do enough to help the workers who were being hurt by trade. Today we stand on the verge of recognizing in law a basic truth: our economy as a whole benefits enormously from expanded global trade. But some workers, due to no fault of their own, are hurt by it. We could not have reached this point without the leadership shown by Chairman Baucus. Simply put, Senator Baucus engineered an agreement that few thought was possible. I have no doubt our nation will be stronger because of it. I want to thank Senator Grassley, the Ranking member, and Senator Hatch on the Republican side for their work in crafting a bipartisan bill. I want to thank Senator Breaux, who worked so effectively to help us achieve the initial compromise that got us into the conference . . . and then helping find the compromise that got us out . . . with this agreement. And, finally, I want to say a special word of thanks to Senator rockefeller for his work in the conference. He was an incredibly strong and passionate advocate for the health care provisions and the entire worker package. He did the workers of West Virginia, and this country, proud. I stand in strong support for this trade legislation for three fundamental reasons: First, in this time of economic uncertainty, it sends a strong message to the American people and to the markets of the world that nothing is going to stop us from seizing the opportunities of the global economy. Second, it makes sure that while we advance trade, we do not trade away the values on which prosperity is built: that every American should have the opportunity to succeed. Third, this bill sends a strong message to the nations of the world, friends and enemies alike--that the United States of America will not shrink from our responsibilities as a global economic leader. These are uncertain economic times. Americans have seen their confidence in corporate governance shaken. The resulting decline in the stock market has hurt pensions and savings. Families are wondering how they're going to afford a child's college tuition, or their own retirement. This fear plays itself out against the backdrop of an economy struggling to re-emerge from recession, and a government that has seen one of the most dramatic fiscal reversals in history. The historic accounting reform bill we passed unanimously last week-- and that the President signed on Tuesday, will help restore integrity to our capital markets. This trade bill is another important step in restoring strength to our economy. No nation is better suited or better prepared to benefit from global trade. We have the best-educated workers and most productive workforce in the world, the most mature economy, the most developed infrastructure. We are in a position to seize the high-skill, high-wage jobs generated by open global markets, so long as we don't turn our backs on them. Just as we can't turn our backs on trade, we can't turn our backs on the hard-working American families who have had their lives ruined by the impersonal forces of trade. It can be devastating to a family when a parent loses his or her job because a factory closes down or moves away. That devastation can turn to real fear if losing that job means losing health insurance. The reality is that the jobs we gain from trade do nothing to compensate the men and women who have lost their jobs because of trade. That's why, for the first time, this legislation provides a 65 percent tax credit to help trade dislocated people keep their health coverage. This represents a significant step in providing families with a greater sense of security. This bill also makes a number of additional improvements over our current system: Under our current TAA program, benefits are available only to those industries that are ``directly'' affected by trade. For example, workers at an automobile plant that closes down due to a flood of imported cars will qualify for help. But workers at a parts supplier that's right across the street, and that closes as an inevitable consequence of the auto plant's shut-down, are out of luck. Now, for the first time, ``secondary'' workers and farmers will be eligible for training and other kinds of assistance. This bill also includes ``wage insurance,'' a time-limited stipend that replaces some of a dislocated worker's lost income if he or she takes a lower paying job. Instead of an unemployment check, these workers would receive a subsidy when they take a lower paying job. This new approach will encourage this group to get back into the workforce and help them try to sustain their standard of living as they approach retirement. Last year, we passed an important education reform bill. We agreed then that we would ``leave no child behind.'' Now we need to make sure we leave no worker behind. By strengthening the safety net for those who are hurt by trade, our Trade Adjustment Assistance proposal will help us remedy America's other trade deficit, the deficit of support for the workers here in America who have been hurt by trade. Finally, passage of this bill will reassert American leadership in the world. We are the freest, wealthiest, and most powerful country in the world. It is in our interest and it is our responsibility to demonstrate global economic leadership, especially in these troubled times. At a time, when many around the world are doubting our commitment to multilateral action, this legislation says that the United States will be a leader in the effort to establish stronger global trade ties. Expanding trade is not solely about economic leadership, it also offers national security and foreign policy benefits. When it is done correctly, trade opens more than new markets; it opens the way for democratic reforms. It also increases understanding and interdependence among nations, raises the cost of conflict, and alleviates the global disparities in income and opportunity that terrorists seek to exploit in order to advance their own deadly aims. For example, the Andean Trade Preferences Act, ATPA was designed as an effort to reduce barriers to trade between the United States and Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. It was first passed in 1991 as part of a comprehensive effort to defeat narco-trafficking and reduce the flow of cocaine into the United States. The program has already established a record of success. According to the International Trade Commission, between 1991 and 1999, tow-way trade between the U.S. and Andean nations nearly doubled, and U.S. exports to the region grew by 65 percent. The ITC also reports that ATPA has contributed significantly to the diversification of the region's exports, which means that farmers in a region that produces 100 percent of the cocaine consumed in the U.S. now have viable economic alternatives to the production of cocoa. That's the positive power trade can have, and that is why, as part of this bill, we renew and improve the Andean Trade Preferences Act. The word ``trade'' has its roots in an old Middle English word meaning ``path,'' which is connected to the word ``tread'', to move forward. This trade package will enable us to move forward in this new global economy in a way that strengthens our national security, and the economic security of American businesses and families on both sides of the trade issue. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I will use a minute of my leader time. I know we are scheduled to have a vote. I simply remind my colleagues that almost every senior organization has endorsed the Graham amendment. Not one senior organization has endorsed the Republican plan. What does that tell us? The drug companies endorse the Republican plan. The insurance companies endorse the Republican plan. We do not find one senior organization endorsing the Republican plan. So what is wrong with this picture? Why is it that we cannot get bipartisan, overwhelming support for something every senior organization endorses? This is our opportunity to make a downpayment, a first step, and we ought to support it. I applaud the Graham amendment. I hope our colleagues will look at it carefully and support it. This is a critical moment. Senior organizations agree. They endorse it. They want this to pass. I yield the floor.

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

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 was in my office and I heard that the distinguished assistant Democratic leader was speaking about the contribution of our distinguished senior Senator from Hawaii. I wanted to come to the floor to add my voice. Someday, when the history of this period in the Senate is written, one of those Senators who will tower as one of the giants is the Senator from Hawaii. On so many occasions over the course of his career, the Senate has called upon him to provide leadership in inquiries of all kinds, extraordinary challenges involving the need to work with both sides, somebody whose fairness, whose appreciation of this institution could never be challenged. I come to the floor to publicly thank him for taking on the extraordinarily difficult role that he had earlier this year when he agreed to my request to serve in the capacity of senior member of the Democratic representation on the Ethics Committee. He didn't want that job. He certainly didn't ask for that job. He knew the difficulty it would pose, and he knew how much time it would consume. But in keeping with his practice, he said yes. Last night we witnessed the product of his work, along with the others of the committee. I think it is fair to say, without question, he lived up to and exceeded the expectations of all of us in the Senate in conducting the hearings with fairness and dealing with the issue adroitly, and recognizing the important matters and issues that had to be addressed in this inquiry. I come to the floor simply to add my voice of gratitude to the distinguished Senator from Hawaii. I might also say, as the Senator from Nevada has noted, it is a little ironic, perhaps, that the two men who have given the most in the Senate today to their country at times of war are either sitting in the chair or standing at the manager's desk as we begin the DOD appropriations bill. I know of no two finer men. I have no greater admiration for any two people in the Senate than I do these two Senators. I thank them for what they have already done for their country and for what they continue to do in the roles they play as truly outstanding U.S. Senators. I look forward to the debate on Defense appropriations and, as always, we turn to our dear Senator from Hawaii with our admiration and our gratitude and our expressions of hope that we conclude this successfully within the course of the next period of time. I thank the Senator for accommodating me. I know he wants to get started on his bill, but I needed to come to the floor to express myself, as the Senator from Nevada has as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I agree with my good friend from Michigan about the merits of this legislation. Once again, Chairman Inouye has produced an excellent bill that will ensure that our Nation's military remains the most capable fighting force in the world. Unfortunately, this Nation has unresolved issues with regard to previous conflicts, such as Operation Desert Storm, and I believe we must continue to pursue a better scientific understanding of war-related ailments.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we appreciate the Chairman's concern and support for this work. We believe it has important implications for future generations of military personnel and we look forward to working with him and the committee as this bill moves forward to do all we can to address this important issue. the uss scranton depot modernization

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I share my colleague from South Dakota's support for the B-1 and believe maintaining the B-1's capabilities is in our national security interests. I am concerned that the cuts proposed, particularly in the House version of the bill, are imprudent and could do lasting damage to our nation's military capabilities. Although I have not yet been able to confer with the Air Force about the newest test flights with the towed decoy, the results would seem to obviate the need to delay or restructure this program. More tests are expected in the weeks to come, and I am hopeful that in conference we will find a way to restore DSUP funding. If that seems imprudent when this matter is taken up in conference, I urge the committee to transfer the proposed DSUP funding into other B-1 modernization programs. For example, the B-1 is next scheduled to have its radar replaced with a version of the system now used on the F-16. It is important to me that we retain the funds within the B-1 upgrade program and reinforce the Administration's pledge that all savings from fleet reduction will be reinvested in B-1 modernization.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 37 years ago today President Lyndon Johnson traveled to Independence, MO, to the home of Harry Truman to sign Medicare into law. In signing the bill, LBJ said: No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over a lifetime so that they may enjoy dignity in their later years. . . . No longer will young families see their own incomes, and their own hopes, eaten away simply because they are carrying out their deep moral obligations to their parents, to their uncles, and their aunts. Medicare, he stated, would provide light and hope to older Americans ``fearing the terrible darkness of despair and poverty.'' To a remarkable degree, Medicare has fulfilled that promise. But today the high cost of prescription drugs, combined with seniors' increasing need for such drugs, is once again destroying the life savings and threatening dignity and security of millions of older Americans. We have debated many important questions over the last 2 weeks, but the fundamental question facing us is, Are we willing to work together constructively to renew the promise of Medicare? Or will we refuse to help even the most hard-pressed seniors with prescription drugs? We have considered three very different plans so far. The bill I supported, the Graham-Miller-Kennedy bill, was the only true Medicare prescription drug benefit among the three plans. It would have created a guaranteed Medicare prescription benefit for all seniors. It included reasonable premiums of $25 a month. It included affordable copays of $10 for generic prescriptions and $40 for brand name ones. Our Senate Republican colleagues offered a very different plan, not a guaranteed Medicare benefit. It would have forced seniors into HMOs to get prescription drug coverage and given HMOs billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies and seniors' premiums to entice them to offer seniors a prescription drug plan. There were no guarantees. HMOs and insurance companies would decide who gets prescription drug coverage, what coverage is included, and how much it costs. The plan used accounting gimmicks to hide huge costs to seniors. A coverage gap meant millions of seniors would have no coverage at all over a period beyond a few hundred dollars, even if they continued paying premiums. A new $10 copay for home health visits was also required. But basically and fundamentally their premise was that HMOs could deliver prescription drug benefits and all health care better than Medicare. Well, HMOs don't even exist for the most part in South Dakota and rural States. In areas where they do exist, HMOs have proven to be a poor fit with health needs of seniors. More and more HMOs are pulling out of Medicare+Choice. Many that are not leaving the program have dramatically cut benefits or increased premiums or both. Two fundamentally different plans, one fundamental similarity: Neither plan got 60 votes. Our proposal, the Medicare benefit, got 52 votes, a majority of the Senate. Their plan to create pharmaceutical HMOs received 49 votes. But still, we didn't give up. The Hagel-Ensign bill was offered, and for the first time Medicare would have linked seniors' benefits to their incomes, which was a major concession. The Hagel-Ensign bill did not get 60 votes either. Now we are considering a fourth proposal, the Graham-Smith amendment. It is not the comprehensive coverage that Democrats all voted for, but it is an important first step. The Graham-Smith proposal offers real protection for every senior for just $25 a year. Let me emphasize, $25 a year. Seniors get up to a 30-percent discount on all prescriptions, coverage against catastrophic expenses over $3,300 a year. Low- and moderate-income seniors would receive extra help. The program would pay for all of their benefits for just a small copay on prescriptions of $2 for generic drugs and $5 for brand name drugs. CBO predicts that the Graham-Smith proposal would result in few or no employers dropping retirees prescription coverage, versus an estimated one-third of seniors who would have lost benefits under the Republican plan. I have to say that the two Senators responsible for this plan deserve a great deal of credit for their persistence, for their effort to come up, yet again, with another approach, with a recognition that perhaps there are those unwilling to spend more than about $400 billion in resources on a drug plan. They have come up with a way to address health benefits for all seniors, yet recognizing the limited resources we have to do so. I don't know that you could come up with a better framework than the one they have proposed. I will say this: I met a woman in Mitchell, SD, a few weeks ago when I was home in Mitchell. Her name is Margaret McBrayer. She is 75 years old. She and her husband raised 11 children. Since 1956, she has had 21 surgeries, 3 aneurisms, and 1 stroke. She takes 11 prescriptions a day. Her average prescription costs are $814 a month, if she takes all brand names. If she uses generic brands, she can still spend $625 a month, two-thirds of her total monthly income. Medicaid used to pay all but $2 per month per prescription. But this past February, Mrs. McBrayer lost her husband to bone cancer. She also lost her Medicaid coverage. As a widow, rather than half of a couple, her income is now too high for Medicaid--less than $12,000 a year, but too high for help. So Margaret McBrayer is left to figure out how to pay for her own prescriptions. Her children help, but she is worried that they will end up spending all of their retirement savings on her prescription drugs, too. Some doctors who know Margaret McBrayer call her ``the Miracle Woman'' because of all the health difficulties she has overcome, and the courage and dignity with which she has done it. Fortunately, it doesn't require a miracle for us to help her--and Medicare's 40 million other beneficiaries--with the high cost of prescription drugs. The reason LBJ traveled to Independence 37 years ago today to sign the Medicare bill was to honor Harry Truman--the man who had begun the fight for medical insurance for seniors 20 years earlier. In his remarks that day, LBJ said Americans loved Harry Truman not because he gave 'em hell, but because he gave people hope. We can walk away from this effort and give each other hell--blame each other for failure--or we can accept good-faith compromise and give the American people hope, and continue working to provide an affordable, reliable prescription benefit for all seniors. the choice is in our hands this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that later today when the Senate considers the nomination of D. Brooks Smith to be a U.S. circuit court judge, there be a time limitation for debate of 4 hours equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee; that at the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the Senate return to legislative session; that following the vote on final passage of S. 812, the Senate return to executive session and vote on confirmation of the nomination; that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table; the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and the Senate return to legislative session; and that the preceding all occur without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, again, the distinguished Republican leader is correct. Because the motion to proceed to the conference report on trade promotion authority is subject to a vote, I announce that that vote will take place at 6:15 this evening. That will be the last vote of the day. We will accommodate Senators who have already expected to speak on the pending legislation, and the 6:15 vote will accommodate all Senators who have come to the floor with an expectation of being recognized. I yield to the assistant Democratic leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is also then my intention to invoke the authority given Senator Lott and I last week with regard to DOD. It would be my intention to move immediately to the DOD appropriations bill, and we will seek a time agreement on that, perhaps sometime tomorrow morning. Let me thank all of our colleagues for their cooperation and I certainly thank the distinguished Republican leader. Again, let me outline the schedule, as a result of these unanimous consent agreements, tonight and tomorrow. We are now in a position to move shortly to the nomination of D. Brooks Smith. There is a 4-hour time agreement that has been allocated to that debate. We will then resume consideration of the Graham amendment tomorrow morning at 9:30. The debate will last an hour and a half. It is equally divided. There will be a vote on the Graham amendment, a vote on the Dorgan amendment, as amended, and a vote on final passage, to be followed by a vote then on the judicial nomination. I would then move to the DOD appropriations bill, in consultation with the distinguished Republican leader. I should also note that it is my intention to call up the fast-track conference report, and we will, if necessary, file cloture on that motion as well. Senators should be prepared, if necessary, to be on the floor to accommodate that desire as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, that is correct. I have been informed that there are those who will object, so it is unlikely that we would be able to complete our work on the trade promotion authority conference report tonight. Expecting that, I would intend then to file cloture on the conference report itself.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. I anticipate that we would get cloture. If we don't, of course, we will stay on the bill for whatever length of time it takes and be unable to complete our schedule as it has been announced. Obviously, cloture on the motion to proceed to a conference report is not necessary. This would actually be cloture on the conference report itself with regard to the trade promotion authority.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. We would start debate at approximately 6:45 on Mr. Smith. Senators should be here. The debate will be completed tonight. It is a 4-hour debate. So Senators will have ample opportunity to come to the floor and express themselves. It must be done tonight. There will be no time tomorrow. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, within that 45-minute time block that has now been designated for debate prior to the vote at 6:15, Senator Kennedy be accorded 10 minutes of that time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the Senate at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow resume consideration of S. 812; that there be 90 minutes for debate on the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to Senator Graham's amendment equally divided between Senator Graham and Senator Grassley; that if the motion to waive fails and the amendment falls, then the underlying Dorgan amendment be agreed to and the Senate vote immediately on cloture on the generic drug bill, S. 812; further that if cloture is invoked, the bill be read a third time and the Senate then vote immediately on final passage of the bill, with the preceding all occurring without any intervening action or debate.

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

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I again propound the request.