Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

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

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, there are two additional votes. I ask unanimous consent that they be 10 minutes each.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I would like everybody to stay right here. At the end of 10 minutes, we will go to a third vote. That will be the last vote for the week. I appreciate everybody's cooperation in staying here and voting, and staying here for the second of the two votes. Then we will be finished for the evening.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will propound a unanimous consent request. It has been agreed to on both sides. And then I would like to put the Senate in a quorum call so we might proceed in an organized way. I think we are just about there. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be considered and agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the bill, as thus amended, be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment; that no points of order be considered waived by virtue of this agreement.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I join the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, in introducing the South Dakota Tribal Nursing Facilities Act of 2002. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, which will address the growing need for tribally-operated nursing homes on South Dakota's Indian reservations. The Committee on Indian Affairs recently held a hearing on the growing health concerns facing Native American elders throughout Indian Country. Elderly Native Americans suffer from diabetes and other debilitating illnesses at rates hundreds of times higher than the general population. As more and more people live longer, it is necessary to find new ways to provide them with the health care, support, and services they need to lead productive, dignified lives. American Indian elders are well respected and play a strong, central role in their communities. They are the storytellers, the historians, the teachers, and the link between the younger generation and the past. Unfortunately, Native American elderly in need of nursing home or other long-term care are forced to enter off-reservation facilities, or pay for private care, which many cannot afford. In rural States like South Dakota, many off-reservation facilities are hundreds of miles from the reservation, which places an increased burden on family members and ioslated the elders who are housed there. Many families cannot afford to visit their parents or grandparents in these distant nursing homes, and the elders often die forgotten and alone. While these nursing homes provide for the physical well-being, their spiritual health suffers. There are only eleven tribally operated nursing home nationwide, and only one in South Dakota, operated by the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. The National Indian Council on Aging estimates that there are approximately 165,000 American Indians elderly nationwide, with less than 700 tribal nursing home beds available. Tribal nursing homes will allow tribal elders to remain in their communities, surrounded by friends and loved ones in their later years. In recent years, several South Dakota tribes have expressed an interest in establishing nursing homes on their reservations to provide for their tribal elderly. However, the South Dakota Legislature, in response to a surplus of nursing home beds and dwindling Medicaid funding, enacted a moratorium prohibiting the construction and licensing of new nursing homes. While the moratorium does not apply to construction on Indian reservations in the State, the prohibition on licensing has the unfortunate effect of blocking access to a key and critical source of funding for any tribally-operated nursing home, Medicaid. Federal law requires that nursing homes be licensed by the State in which they are located to be eligible for reimbursement under Medicaid. The South Dakota Tribal Nursing Facilities Act of 2002 will overcome this obstacle by authorizing Indian tribes to construct, operate and license their own nursing homes. This will level the playing field to afford an opportunity to tribal governments that is afforded already to States. It is my hope this proposal will serve as a starting point so we can begin to address the long-term health care needs of American Indians across the country. I hope you will support our joint efforts

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I join the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, in introducing the South Dakota Tribal Nursing Facilities Act of 2002. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, which will address the growing need for tribally-operated nursing homes on South Dakota's Indian reservations. The Committee on Indian Affairs recently held a hearing on the growing health concerns facing Native American elders throughout Indian Country. Elderly Native Americans suffer from diabetes and other debilitating illnesses at rates hundreds of times higher than the general population. As more and more people live longer, it is necessary to find new ways to provide them with the health care, support, and services they need to lead productive, dignified lives. American Indian elders are well respected and play a strong, central role in their communities. They are the storytellers, the historians, the teachers, and the link between the younger generation and the past. Unfortunately, Native American elderly in need of nursing home or other long-term care are forced to enter off-reservation facilities, or pay for private care, which many cannot afford. In rural States like South Dakota, many off-reservation facilities are hundreds of miles from the reservation, which places an increased burden on family members and ioslated the elders who are housed there. Many families cannot afford to visit their parents or grandparents in these distant nursing homes, and the elders often die forgotten and alone. While these nursing homes provide for the physical well-being, their spiritual health suffers. There are only eleven tribally operated nursing home nationwide, and only one in South Dakota, operated by the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. The National Indian Council on Aging estimates that there are approximately 165,000 American Indians elderly nationwide, with less than 700 tribal nursing home beds available. Tribal nursing homes will allow tribal elders to remain in their communities, surrounded by friends and loved ones in their later years. In recent years, several South Dakota tribes have expressed an interest in establishing nursing homes on their reservations to provide for their tribal elderly. However, the South Dakota Legislature, in response to a surplus of nursing home beds and dwindling Medicaid funding, enacted a moratorium prohibiting the construction and licensing of new nursing homes. While the moratorium does not apply to construction on Indian reservations in the State, the prohibition on licensing has the unfortunate effect of blocking access to a key and critical source of funding for any tribally-operated nursing home, Medicaid. Federal law requires that nursing homes be licensed by the State in which they are located to be eligible for reimbursement under Medicaid. The South Dakota Tribal Nursing Facilities Act of 2002 will overcome this obstacle by authorizing Indian tribes to construct, operate and license their own nursing homes. This will level the playing field to afford an opportunity to tribal governments that is afforded already to States. It is my hope this proposal will serve as a starting point so we can begin to address the long-term health care needs of American Indians across the country. I hope you will support our joint efforts

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am honored today to present to my colleagues in the Senate an essay by Jessica Hicks of Rapid City, SD. Jessica is a student at St. Thomas More High School and she is the National Peace Essay Contest winner for South Dakota. ``Taking the Middle Ground: The Role of the Military in International Peacekeeping With Focus on Rwanda and Bosnia'' is a call to U.S. leaders to seek an active American role in international peacekeeping that never loses sight of our national security interests. Jessica has tackled a vitally important subject with compassion, realism, and maturity. I can only hope that she continues to share her wisdom with the world, and I commend her essay to my colleagues' attention. I ask unanimous consent that Jessica Hicks' essay be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this is not a happy day for America. On this day occurs a memorial service for Lew Wasserman, who died in his 89th year. He is one of the two giants of the American free enterprise system who for over 60 years helped shape and build one of America's greatest export trade prizes and an extraordinary engine of economic and creative growth: The American film industry. He was a pioneer of great intellect and innovation. He could see what others could not, for he had the gift of vision, both rare and valuable. He was more than that. He was a patriot in a shining sense of that word. He cared about his country and all who live in it. He believed in the American free market system. He was appalled at the behavior of those executives who knowingly soiled the honor and integrity of that system. He and his wife, Edie, believed in young people and lavished millions of dollars in scholarships on them at a dozen universities on a continuing basis. His heart and his purse went without hesitation to the Motion Picture Home and Hospital, giving it millions of dollars so that those in the movie industry, hard-working craftsmen, artisans, and creators, when they became old and sick, could be cared for. More millions were conferred anonymously. Lew never sought the spotlight because fame was not his goal nor publicity his guide. He had an old-fashioned view about loyalty. He never turned his back on a friend nor did he ever break his word once given to an individual, to a cause, to his country. Those who worked with him revered him because he never considered himself their leader but, rather, one who served his employees and their company. There are many in this Congress today who can bear personal witness to his commitment to be of service to the Nation. He was the personal friend of Presidents from John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, to Bill Clinton. I daresay if God granted him the time, he would have known and served George W. Bush. To me, personally, he was invariably kind, thoughtful, responsive to my requests for counsel and his wise judgment. He never asked me for a thing. He was, to my mind, the exemplar of the man who wants to give back more than he gained, to give back to his neighborhoods, his industry, to the young whose hopes are slender, to offer more than he has asked for, to strive always to try to make the future of this country a favorite and favorable place for generations of Americans yet unborn. He shunned tributes, but he was proud of the Presidential Medal of Freedom bestowed on him by President Clinton. If he had not just bought Universal Studios, he would have accepted the Cabinet post offered to him by President Johnson. He is truly one of those unique human beings whose like is seldom found, which is why his loss is so profound to this Nation. I miss him. I thank him for being my friend. And I wish his family Godspeed during these difficult times. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I am sorry. I think the Senator from Michigan has the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time so as not to take any time still allotted to the Senator from Michigan. I hope we can get the unanimous consent request that the Senator from Michigan is propounding. I will also say that this is not a question of if he can get consent and ultimately bring the amendment to the floor. One way or the other we will have a vote on the Levin amendment. It may not be on this bill this afternoon if we fail, but our colleagues need to know we will have a vote on this amendment. This will occur. If I have to offer it myself, we will have a vote on this amendment. So we can do it this afternoon, we can do it tomorrow, or we can do it next week. We are going to have a vote on this amendment. Senators need to take that into account before they object. Let me say as strongly as I can, this amendment belongs on this bill. This is exactly what I think we ought to be doing, and I think on a bipartisan basis there is strong support for what Senator Levin is proposing. I want to speak briefly this afternoon, in my leader time, on the amendment itself. I think it is important, as my colleagues have been noting, that the Levin amendment contains precisely the right solution to the difficult problems of determining the proper accounting treatment for stock options. It reserves that judgment for the appropriate body, the Financial Accounting Standards Board. They are the ones given the authority, they are the ones with the credibility, they are the ones with the standing to make the right decisions about this very important and complex matter. I argue this is the heart of our ability to deal with the accounting reforms that are in the Sarbanes and Leahy bills. It has become all too clear that accounting standards are complex and can be easily manipulated by aggressive and sometimes unscrupulous corporate executives. Unfortunately, FASB's weak, dependent condition has contributed to those manipulations. In fact, it is arguable that the undermining of FASB's independence was the necessary precondition to the crisis in confidence afflicting our capital markets today. One of the many virtues of the Sarbanes bill is that it corrects that situation. It provides for a new, improved FASB, giving it for the first time full financial independence from the accounting industry. That certainly is the first and most vital improvement we need with respect to establishing clarity and regularity of accounting standards. Another needed improvement is for those of us in Congress to allow FASB to do its job. In 1994--and my colleagues have referenced this-- when this issue was last taken up by the Senate, I am proud to say I was one of nine Senators who voted against the Senate intruding itself on FASB's decisionmaking process. That is the only reason I opposed my colleague's amendment last week. As well intended as it is, in my view it did the same thing on the other side that they were trying to do 9 years ago. It asserts Congress's authority to undermine the independence of that board. I opposed it 9 years ago, and I oppose it today, but for obviously different results. At the same time, the Senate was coming at the options issue from the direction of prohibiting expenses back in 1994, and as I said today the momentum is the opposite, but the right course is the same. Let the experts on the accounting standards board do their job and make the appropriate decision. Eight years ago, the technical accounting questions were essentially the same as they are today, although obviously 8 years have given us an entirely different perspective than the one we had back then. Nonetheless, the questions are still real. Accountants still debate the relative merits of the opposing sides. We still have expert opinion going both ways. On the one hand, the argument is made that if options are not expensed, bottom lines look far more attractive than they actually should be, and the investors can be deceived by the distorted financial pictures that result. On the other hand, we hear that it is inherently impossible to value options with no concrete reality behind what the options will actually be worth when they are exercised. There is also a real debate about the incentive effects of options. Supporters argue that they better align an employee's interests with the company's. Opponents contend they result in a ``pump and dump'' mentality, with senior executives seeking to inflate their stock prices at any cost so they can quickly and cynically enrich themselves. In contrast to those complex questions, the Levin amendment is simplicity itself. It is one sentence. It says that FASB shall: Review the accounting treatment of employee stock options and shall, within one year of enactment, adopt an appropriate generally-accepted accounting principle for the treatment of employee stock options-- End of issue. The business of setting accounting standards is lodged, by the Levin amendment, in the board that the Sarbanes bill expressly seeks to strengthen and improve. I fully support the Levin amendment and the philosophy behind it. Congress should not be engaged in setting technical accounting rules. We should be seeking to do the reverse: Establish an independent FASB that can help restore confidence in the accuracy of financial information. I observe in this context that because of that principle, as I said a moment ago, while well intended, I believe the McCain amendment went too far and did exactly what we were trying to do in 1994 but on the flip side. Restoring independence to the accounting standards is one of the overriding objectives of the Sarbanes bill, and that is one of my main reasons for supporting it as strongly as I do. That was my primary reason for voting in 1994 against a previous attempt to direct FASB in its decision about expensing, and it is the primary reason for supporting the Levin amendment today. So I will end on this particular issue where I began. There will be a vote on the Levin amendment. It will be today, tomorrow, next week, or at some point in the future, but Senators should not be misled. If there is an objection today, it by no means ends the debate. We might as well have it. We might as well get it. We might as well include it in the Sarbanes bill because it will be included in one fashion or another, ultimately, before the work has been done in the Senate on this very important, complex, and comprehensive challenge we face.

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, under an earlier agreement, the next four votes will all be 10-minute votes. I urge Senators to stay in the well. We are going to cut it off at 10 minutes. If you are not here in 10 minutes, you have lost the opportunity to vote. I urge Members to move forward, and we will take on the next vote. Vote on Amendment No. 4187, As Modified, As Amended

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. Madam President, I understand that no one is asking for a rollcall vote on confirmation if we can reach the cloture vote. So if we reach cloture, this will be the last vote of the evening.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank all of my colleagues for the tremendous work done in the past week. I especially compliment the distinguished Senator from Maryland, the chairman of the Banking Committee, for the extraordinary leadership he has shown in getting us to this point. I am sure there were few who have ever guessed this could have passed so overwhelmingly as it did tonight. That is the accounting legislation. I am very grateful to all who had a significant role to play. I thank the staff of the Banking Committee and so many of my colleagues. I also acknowledge the fine work done by Senator Leahy on the enforcement aspects of this legislation. The combination of the contribution made by the Judiciary Committee, along with the Banking Committee, makes this a historic moment for the Senate, a historic moment for corporate governance, and a real recognition that at long last we are going to be rebuilding the confidence and trust we need in our free enterprise system. We made a contribution in that regard today. I am very hopeful we can get this work done very soon. It would be my hope, given the President's support for the Sarbanes bill, and Speaker Hastert's support, as he indicated just last week, that the House consider taking up the Sarbanes bill and passing it free-standing so we could send it directly to the President in time to afford the President the opportunity to sign it very quickly. That would be the quickest way, and given the broad bipartisan support this legislation now enjoys, and given Speaker Hastert's support for the legislation, I would think this would be a tremendous opportunity to demonstrate in a bipartisan way how quickly we can respond as we did today. But more than how quickly, how effectively we can respond to the needs of our Nation when it comes to restoring that confidence.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Having disposed of the banking legislation, it is now our intent to turn to the whole issue of prescription drugs. We will deal with both cost containment as well as Medicare benefits. The bill passed out of the Labor Committee, S. 812, Calendar No. 491, will be the vehicle for our debate. It is my intention now to ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 491, S. 812, to provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals at 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, July 16.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. I think I retain the floor. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, obviously, I am disappointed. I looked at the vote. I think it was 16 to 5--similar in magnitude, on a bipartisan basis, to the Sarbanes bill that passed out of the Banking Committee. We ended up with a unanimous vote on the floor. I hope we can get the same kind of unanimity ultimately on this legislation. But a 16-to-5 vote would seem to me to indicate very strong bipartisan support for this legislation as well. Senators are welcome to offer amendments. We oftentimes negotiate issues on the floor and accommodate Senators' concerns, both in the managers' amendment as well as in individual votes. So we will certainly have that opportunity once again. I have no doubt if there is an interest in resolving these outstanding questions, we ought to be able to do so. But we do need to move on. That was my hope, that we could lay the bill down and begin the debate and have these discussions. Cloture Motion

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have no choice, of course, but to move to proceed to Calendar No. 491. I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Lincoln and Hutchinson have the opportunity to speak for up to 8 minutes each with respect to the Smith nomination, to appear at the appropriate place in the Record.