Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mary lost her youngest daughter, Donna, at age 22. She said: The week of February 3, 1997, Donna went to our PCP--that is her primary care provider--4 times in 5 days. With each visit her symptoms were worsening. She was told she had an upper respiratory infection and panic attacks. On Saturday, February 8th, she could barely get off the couch. I assisted her up the stairs to get cleaned up at 8 p.m. At 8:30 she started crying that she was very ill. I tried repeatedly to reach our PCP, but only reached the answering service, as this was a Saturday evening. I called the hospital at 9 and was told I couldn't bring her in unless her doctor authorized it or if I thought it was a life and death situation. Mary continued: I am a school bus driver and a mom, not a doctor or a nurse. At 9:10 I called 911, at 9:12 she screamed that her back hurt and that she thought she was going to die. She lapsed into a coma. She was pronounced dead at 10:45 p.m. at the young age of 22. I went to our PCP on Monday and the very first thing that was told to me was they couldn't justify to her HMO to send her for the diagnostic tests that would have shown what was wrong with her. Twenty-two-year-old kids don't die, so there were no tests done. None. In my subsequent research, I found that HMOs can and do penalize and sanction doctors for ordering tests which HMOs feel are unnecessary. I found out on Tuesday, February 11, she died from a blood clot on her lung literally the size of a football. A $750 lung scan would have shown this. But all for the sake of money, we lost a vital beautiful young lady that had only begun her life. I have about 50 stories just like this which have been compiled from all around the country--people dealing with HMOs and discovering they have to fight their cancer and their health plans at the same time. That is not a fair fight. We should pass a Patients' Bill of Rights. Now, the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights and this Senate passed what I call a ``patients' bill of goods.'' It is a hollow vessel, one of those charade-like things that doesn't do anything. In fact, the Republican Congressmen from the House have said the Senate passed proposal is a step backward, even worse than nothing. It is a charade. We still have an opportunity to enact a real Patients' Bill of Rights. This legislation is still in conference. This Congress can, in its final days, pass the Patients' Bill of Rights. When Mary Lewandowski comes to Washington, DC, three times because her daughter died--and this young woman should not have died--and says, ``Do something, please,'' we have a responsibility to respond. We ought to do it now. If the past is prologue, of course, we will end this session and we will not do the kinds of things we should--putting a prescription drug benefit in the Medicare program or enacting a real Patients' Bill of Rights. The American people will have lost. We will be back in January organizing as a new Congress and many of us will reintroduce exactly the same legislation. We will, once again, engage in this battle. The battle will not be over until we get done what needs to be done. Go back 40 years and the same people who stood on the floor of the Senate and opposed Medicare, oppose doing these important tasks. They do not think the Federal Government should do it. This same mentality is what is now providing the roadblock for doing what we should and adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare and passing a real Patients' Bill of Rights. We can alter that result. We can do it this week, if there is the will. There is a way. The question for the Members of this body is, Does the will exist in the Senate to do the right thing in these final days? I hope so. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. These CEOs of some of America's largest companies, and companies all across this country, join us expressing concern about what has happened to America's railroads. There is no competition in the railroad industry in this country. The deregulation of the rail industry occurred, now, over 20 years ago. At that point, we had 42 class I railroads. Now we are down to only about four major railroad operations in this country--two in the East and two in the West. Rather than encouraging some competitive framework in the rail industry, the deregulation of the railroad industry has resulted in a handful of regional monopolies. They rely on bottlenecks to exert maximum power over the marketplace. These megarailroads dominate railroad traffic, generating 95 percent of the gross ton miles and nearly 94 percent of the revenues, and they control 90 percent of all coal movement in this country, 70 percent of all grain movement in America, and 88 percent of all chemical movement in this country. It is quite clear what consolidation has meant to all Americans. Let me give a practical example. If you are a farmer in my State of North Dakota and you want to sent a load of wheat to market and you put that load of wheat on a railcar in Bismarck, ND, and send it to Minneapolis, MN, a little over 400 miles, you will pay $2,300. If you are going to ship that same carload of wheat from Minneapolis to Chicago, about the same distance, you do not pay $2,300, you pay less than $1,000. Why the difference? Why are we charged more than double as North Dakotans to ship wheat about the same distance? Because there is no competition on the line from Bismarck to Minneapolis, but there is competition between Minneapolis and Chicago, so the prices are competitive. Where there is competition, there are lower rates. Where there is no competition, there are monopoly prices. They say to businesses and farmers: Here's the charge; if you don't like it, don't use our service. What other service exists? There is only one line, only one railroad. There is a monopoly service, and they are engaged in monopoly pricing, and we have no regulatory authority to say this is wrong. We have what are called ``captive shippers.'' These are Main Street businesses, family farmers, big companies, small companies, and they are held captive by the railroad companies that say to them: We have the rails, we have the cars, we have the company, and here's what the service is going to cost you; if you don't like it, tough luck. In the circumstance I just described, the railroad says to a North Dakota farmer: We're going to charge you double what we charge other people. Why? Because we choose to. Why? Because we want to; because we have the muscle to do it, and if you don't like it, take a hike. That is what is going on in this industry where there is no competition and where we have shippers being held captive all across this country. Do rail costs matter much to my part of the country? Let me give another example. Grain prices have collapsed. A farmer does not get much for grain these days. If you take wheat to an elevator in Minot, ND, that elevator pays about $2.40 a bushel for it, which is a pittance--it is worth a lot more than that--the cost to ship that $2.40 a bushel wheat to the west coast is nearly $1.20 a bushel. Half the value of that wheat on the west coast ends up being transportation costs by the railroad industry. How can they do that? It's pricing gouging and nobody can do much about it because there is no regulatory authority to say it is wrong. They hide behind the Staggers Rail Act which deregulated the railroads, gave them enormous power, and resulted in a substantial concentration. The result is, all across this country we have shippers who are now held captive, they are locked in by an industry that says: This is what we are going to charge you; if you don't like it, that's tough luck. What happens if someone believes this is really arbitrary, really unfair and they intend to complain about it? We had what was called the Interstate Commerce Commission. That was a group of folks who had died from the neck up. Nobody told them, but they were dead from the neck up and had one big rubber stamp down there. It said: ``Approved'' They had one big rubber stamp and one big ink pad. Whatever the railroads wanted, the ICC said: ``Approved.'' We got rid of the ICC. Now we have a Surface Transportation Board, and we have someone at the Surface Transportation Board, Linda Morgan, to whom I pay a compliment. She put a moratorium on mergers. We had another proposal for a merger, and she slapped on a moratorium. That merger fell apart. Good for her. It is the first good sign of life for a long while among regulators. Good for her. But all of the merger damage is pretty well done. Linda Morgan is fighting a lonely battle at the Surface Transportation Board. Let me show you what happens when somebody files a complaint for unfair rail charges. You file a complaint, and here are the steps. First of all, you need to ante up some money. The filing fee for the standard procedure of complaint will be $54,000. It differs in some cases. If you have a beef with the railroad, first of all, understand you are taking on somebody with a lot more money and muscle than you have, No. 1. No. 2, you are going to pay a filing fee to file a complaint against the railroad freight rates, and then when you file the complaint, you ought to expect to live a long time because you are not going to get a result for a long, long time. In fact, some folks in Montana filed a complaint against a railroad. It took 17 years--17 years--for the complaint to go through the process, and then it never really got resolved in a satisfactory way. That is why rail shippers understand it does not make much sense to take the railroads on. You have the railroad with the muscle to make these things stick, and then you have regulators who have largely been braindead for a long, long time and do not want to do much. The exception again is we have a new Surface Transportation Board. Linda Morgan showed some courage, so there is some hope with the current STB. What is happening in this country must change. Senator Rockefeller, who has been a leader on this issue, and I have held hearings on it. We both serve on the Senate Commerce Committee. We are joined by Senator Burns in our efforts. It is a bipartisan effort. We want to pass the S. 621, but we are not going to get it done by the end of this year. What we are hoping for is that the 280 plus CEOs of companies across this country, large and small, who wrote this letter saying they are sick and tired of being held captive by shipping rates imposed by railroads that are noncompetitive--a rate that does not often relate to value for service--will get the attention in Congress that they deserve. We hope these CEOs continue to weigh in, in a significant way, with those who matter in this Congress to say: ``Let's do something serious about this issue.'' This is a tough issue but it is one Congress has a responsibility to tackle. I pay credit to my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller. He has been working on this issue for a long time. I have been privileged to work with him. We know that which is worth doing takes some time to get done often, but we are not going to quit. The message to the 280 companies that have signed this letter, the message to our friends in Congress is: We have a piece of legislation that tries to tackle this issue of monopoly concentration and inappropriate pricing in the railroad industry. It tackles the issue on behalf of captive shippers all across this country--family farmers and Main Street businesses and others--and we are not going to quit. We hope as we turn the corner at the start of this next Congress that we will be able to pass legislation that will give some help and some muscle to those in this country who are now paying too much. They expect to be able to operate in a system that has competition as a regulator in the free market, and that has not existed in the rail industry for some long while. I yield the floor, and I believe my colleague from West Virginia will also have some things to say. Exhibit 1 September 26, 2000. Hon. John McCain, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, Washington, DC. Hon. Ernest Hollings, Ranking Member, Senate Commerce Committee, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman McCain and Senator Hollings: We are writing to ask that shipper concerns with current national rail policy be given priority for Commerce Committee action next Congress. The Staggers Rail Act was enacted in 1980 with the goal of replacing government regulation of the railroads with competitive market forces. Since that time, the structure of the nation's rail industry has changed dramatically. Where there were 30 Class I railroad systems operating in the U.S. in 1976, now there are only seven. While major railroads in North America appear poised to begin another round of consolidations in the near future, the Surface Transportation Board continues to adhere to policies that hamper rail competition. Structural changes in the rail industry combined with STB policies have stopped the goal of the Staggers Rail Act dead in its tracks. We depend on rail transportation for the cost-effective, efficient movement of raw materials and products. The quality and cost of rail transportation directly affects our ability to compete in a global marketplace, generate low cost energy, and contribute to the economic prosperity of this nation. Current rail policies frustrate these objectives by allowing railroads to prevent competitive access to terminals, maintain monopolies through ``bottleneck pricing,'' and hamper the growth of viable short line and regional railroads through ``paper barriers.'' We applaud the Commerce Committee's leadership on behalf of consumers concerning proposed mergers in the airline industry. America's rail consumers also need your support and leadership to respond effectively to the dramatic changes that are underway in the rail industry. Bipartisan legislation is currently pending in both the Senate and House of Representatives that takes a modest, effective approach in attempting to remove some of the most critical impediments to competition. Please work with us and take the steps that are needed to create a national policy that ensures effective, sustainable competition in the rail industry. Sincerely, Fred Webber, President and CEO, American Chemistry Council; Glenn English, CEO, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; Alan Richardson, Executive Director, American Public Power Association; Tom Kuhn, President, Edison Electric Institute; Henson Moore, President and COE, American Forest and Paper Association; Kevern R. Joyce, Chairman, President and CEO, Texas-New Mexico Power Company; Jeffrey M. Lipton, President and CEO, NOVA Chemicals Corporation; Robert N. Burt, Chairman and CEO, FMC Corporation; Allen M. Hill, President and CEO, Dayton Power and Light Company; Paul J. Ganci, Chairman and CEO, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation; David T. Flanagan, President and CEO, CMP Group, Inc; Charles F. Putnik, President, CONDEA Vista Company; Thomas S. Richards, Chairman, President and CEO, RGS Energy Group, Inc; W. Peter Woodward, Senior Vice President, Chemical Operations, Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC; Phillip D. Ashkettle, President and CEO, M.A. Hanna Company; Eugene R. McGrath, Chairman, President and CEO, Consolidated Edison, Inc.; David M. Eppler, President and CEO, Cleco Corporation; Robert B. Catell, Chairman and CEO, KeySpan Energy; Thomas L. Grennan, Executive VP, Electric Operations, Western Resources, Inc,; Joseph H. Richardson, President and CEO, Florida Power Corporation; Wayne H. Brunetti, President and CEO, Xcel Energy, Inc.; Myron W. McKinney, President and CEO, Empire District Electric Company; Erle Nye, Chairman, TXU Corporation; Corbin A. McNeill, Jr., Chairman, President and CEO, PECO Energy Company; James E. Rogers, Vice Chairman, President and CEO, Cinergy Corp.; Stanley W. Silverman, President and CEO, The PQ Corporation; Robert Edwards, President, Minnesota Power; William G. Bares, Chairman and CEO, The Lubrizol Corporation; Stephen M. Humphrey, President and CEO, Riverwood International; Thomas A. Waltermire, Chairman and CEO, The Geon Company; James R. Carlson, Vice President, Flocryl Inc.; John M. Derrick, Jr., Chairman and CEO, Pepco; David D. Eckert, Executive Committee Member, Rhodia Inc.; Frederick F. Schauder, Ltd., CFO and HD of Business Service Center, Lonza Group, Ltd.; Marvin W. Zima, President, OMNOVA Solutions Performance Chemicals; Simon H. Upfill-Brown, President, and CEO, Haltermann, Inc.; Thomas A. Sugalski, President, CXY Chemicals, USA; John L. MacDonald, Chairman and President, JLM Industries Inc.; David A. Wolf, President, Perstorp Polyols, Inc.; Roger M. Frazier, Vice President, Pearl River Polymers Inc.; Yoshi Kawashima, Chairman and CEO, Reichhold, Inc.; Geroge F. MacCormack, Group Vice President, Chemicals and Polyester, DuPont; C. Bert Knight, President and CEO, Sud-Chemie Inc.; James A. Cederna, President and CEO, Calgon Carbon Corporation; Bernard J. Beaudoin, President, Kansas City Power and Light; William S. Stavropoulos, President and CEO, The Dow Chemical Company; Andrew J. Burke, President and CEO, Degussa-Huls Corporation; Geroge A. Vincent, Chairman, President & CEO, The C.P. Hall Company; William Cavanaugh, III, Chairman, President and CEC, Carolina Power & Light Company; Richard B. Priory, Chairman, President and CEO, Duke Energy Corporation; Howard E. Cosgrove, Chairman, President and CEO, Conectiv; Gary L. Neale, Chairman, president and CEO, NiSource Inc.; Robert L. James, President & CEO, Jones-Hamilton Co.; Vincent A. Calarco, Chairman, President and CEO, Crompton Corporation; Earnest W. Deavenport, Jr., Chairman and CEO, Eastman Chemical Company; Reed Searle, General Manager, Intermountain Power Agency; Robert Roundtree, General Manager, City Utilities of Springfield, MO; Walter W. Hasse, General Manager, Jamestown Board of Public Utilities; Glenn Cannon, General Manager, Waverly Iowa Light and Power; Jeffrey L. Nelson, General Manager, East River Electric Power Cooperative; Mike Waters, President, Montana Grain Growers Association; Terry F. Steinbecker, President & CEO, St. Joseph Light & Power Company; Hugh T. McDonald, President, Entergy Arkansas, Inc.; Dave Westbrock, General Manager, Heartland Consumers Power; David M. Radtcliffe, President & CEO, Georgia Power Company; Stephen B. King, President and CEO, Tomah3 Products, Inc.; Donald W. Griffin, Chairman, President and CEO, Olin Corporation; Ian MacMillan, Technical Manager, Octel-Starreon LLC; Martin E. Blaylock, Vice President, Manufacturing Operations, Monsanto Company; G. Ashley Allen, President, Milliken Chemical, Division of Milliken & Co.; Dwain S. Colvin, President, Dover Chemical Corporation; Bill W. Waycaster, President and CEO, Texas Petrochemicals

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 10 minutes, and I ask to be followed by the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, who will speak on the same subject.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller and I, along with the Senator from Montana, Mr. Burns, have been working on legislation dealing with our railroad service in this country. We have introduced legislation, S. 621, entitled the Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act which addresses problems associated with shippers who are ``captive'' or dependent on one railroad for their shipping needs. Mr. President, I have with me a letter from over 280 chief executive officers of American corporations writing about this subject. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record following my presentation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. If I might, the Senator certainly has a right to speak for as long as he chooses once he is recognized in the Senate, but for the purpose of others who desire to speak on the conference report, I am curious if we could get some time frame. I am willing to come back to the Chamber if the Senator will give me an idea of when he might complete his remarks.

Mr. DORGAN. I believe I will be recognized following the Senator's presentation, but for purposes of timing, how long does the Senator expect to continue speaking?

Mr. DORGAN. I have a number of other letters from people whose stories are just as inspiring, about their lives and the changes in their lives as a result of being able to access the education opportunities at tribal colleges.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding from the colloquy with the Senator from Nevada is that the Senator from Illinois indicated he would yield to me for 20 minutes without him losing the continuity of his presentation and with the stipulation he be recognized upon the completion of my remarks.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Illinois will yield at this point.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, that is a fair answer. I ask if, perhaps 10 minutes before the Senator finishes, he would say ``in conclusion,'' which would trigger me to come back to the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield for a question. The Senator from Illinois will retain the floor following my presentation.

Mr. DORGAN. If I might just conclude, I thank the Senator from Washington. I should certainly have, at the start of my presentation-- and I did not--given credit to President Clinton. In his budget request, the Senator from Washington mentioned he did start a process this year to say we must do better. So also, it seems to me, this administration deserves significant credit for the first steps in what I am sure will be a long journey, but one that we must complete. I thank the Senator from Washington and also the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, may I ask how much time is remaining?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the Interior conference report which is before the Senate, but first I want to make some brief comments on a bill called CARA, the Conversation and Reinvestment Act. My colleague from the State of Louisiana and other colleagues from the State of Florida and many other areas of the country feel, as I do, that it is very important for us to try to finish this important bill before we finish our work this year. CARA is a bill dealing with conservation, preservation, and reinvestment in our natural resources, wildlife, parks, and public lands. We struggled to bring that out of the Energy Committee under the leadership of Senator Murkowski. My hope is, before this Congress adjourns, we will have the opportunity to pass it through the Senate and find a way to have the House of Representatives work with us to accept it so it can become law. It is a very important piece of legislation. Mr. President, let me say a kind word about my colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Gorton, and also my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. I come to the floor to talk about this conference report. I am on the Interior Subcommittee. I have told my two colleagues before--the chairman and the ranking member--that I think they have done an awfully good job. This is not easy work. It is hard work, trying to fit unlimited wants into limited resources. How do you do all of that? You have to make choices. Sometimes the choices are hard and painful, but you have to make choices. While I would like to see more investment and more spending in some areas that I think are critical, I must say that this year, once again, Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd have taken another step--a significant step--in addressing some of these critical needs. And it has not always been done in the past. So I say to them, thank you. And good for you. I appreciate the work you have done. I especially wanted to come to the floor today to speak for a few minutes about the issues of Indian education. I have been such a strong advocate of Indian schools. These schools on Indian reservations--both the BIA schools and the public schools on or near reservations--that do not have much of a tax base to help them are in desperate need of repair. The legislation that was brought to the floor of the Senate does, this time, make some significant strides in providing investments for those areas. Let me use some charts that I have shown before to demonstrate why this is an important issue. This is the Marty Indian School in Marty, SD. This picture shows what happens to be some of their plumbing. Take a look at that and ask if that is where you would be proud to send your kids to school--to an old 70- and 80-year-old building that is in desperate condition with, effectively, rubber Band-Aids around their water pipes and sewer pipes. This is another picture of the Marty Indian School; an old rusty radiator with crumbling walls. Would we be proud to send our children into those classrooms? I have been to the Ojibwa Indian School many times. This is a picture showing the plywood that separates this building from a caved in foundation, which separates children from danger. Of course, many of the children in Ojibwa go to a series of structures, modular structures, that are kind of like the double-wide mobile homes. This picture shows the fire escape. Note the fire escape is a wooden set of stairs. These little children at the Ojibwa school move back and forth between all these modular structures, in the middle of the winter, with wind and snow blowing. I have been there. I have seen the wiring and other things that lead you to question whether those children are safe in those schools. We have report after report after report saying this school needs to be rebuilt. Here is a fire escape made of wooden stairs in these modular classrooms. These modular classrooms go inside. Again, they are in desperate need of repair. My point is that we need to do better than this. My two colleagues, who have put this bill together, have made a step forward this year in construction money and repair and renovation money for these schools. I say to them, thank you. I hope we can do even more in the coming years. But I appreciate the effort we have made this year. I will make another point about Indian education. I want to read something to my colleagues. The other issue that is so important to me is the issue of the Indian tribal colleges around this country. They have been such a blessing to so many people who have been left behind. There are so many people in this country who have been left behind, especially on the Indian reservations, living in poverty, living in communities with substantial substance abuse, violence that is the kind of unspeakable violence that breaks your heart. I have talked about a young woman on the floor of the Senate before named Tamara Demarais. I met her one day. Young little Tamara was 3 years old when she was put in foster care. One person was handling 150 cases of these children. So that person, working these cases, put little Tamara, at age 3, in foster care and did not check closely enough the family she was putting this little 3-year-old with. This is what happened to Tamara. At a drunken party, this little 3- year-old girl had her hair torn out by the roots, had her arm broken, and her nose broken in a severe beating. How did that happen? Why did that happen to this little girl? Because somebody did not care enough or did not have the time to check to see whether they were putting this little girl in a family who was going to be harmful to her. She went to a foster home and was beaten severely at age 3. I met that little girl about 2 years later. I wonder how long it will take her to get over the scars of what happened to her. But it happens too often--the struggle, the violence, amidst the poverty. How do we break out from that in these circumstances? I want to tell you a story about tribal colleges. As the Senator from Washington will remember, in the full Appropriations committee in the Senate, I offered an amendment to add a couple million dollars. I am pleased to say that this funding stayed in this legislation. These tribal colleges are the colleges where those who have kind of been left behind in many cases go back to school. Often the only way they can do that is to have an extended family right on the reservation for child care and for other assistance; and then they can go to school. I have talked before about the woman I met who was the oldest graduate at a tribal college when I gave the graduation speech one day. This is a woman who had been cleaning the toilets in the hallways of the college, a single mother with four children, and no hope and no opportunity. She said to herself: I would like to graduate from this college somehow. So as she toiled, cleaning the school at nights, she put together a plan to try to figure out a way to go to that college and graduate. The day I showed up, she had a cap and gown and a smile on, because this mother of four, with the help of Pell grants and student aid and other things, was a college graduate. Imagine, that is what it does to the lives of these people. I will read from a letter of someone who says it better than I could. I grew up poor and I was considered backward by non- Indians. My home was a two-room log house in a place called the ``bush'' on North Dakota's Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation. I stuttered. I was painfully shy. My clothes were hand-me- downs. I was like thousands of other Indian kids growing up on reservations across America. When I went to elementary school I felt so alone and so different. I couldn't speak up for myself. My teachers had no appreciation for Indian culture. I'll never forget that it was the lighter-skinned children who were treated better. They were usually from families that were better off than mine. My teachers called me savage. Even as a young child I wondered . . . What does it take to be noticed and looked upon the way these other children are? By the time I reached 7th grade, I realized that if my life was going to change for the better, I was going to have to do it. Nobody else could do it for me. That's when the dream began. I thought of ways to change things for the better--not only for myself but for my people. I dreamed of growing up to be a teacher in a school where every child was treated as sacred and viewed positively, even if they were poor and dirty. I didn't want any child to be made to feel like I did. But I didn't know how hard it would be to reach the realization of my dream. I almost didn't make it. By the time I was 17, I had dropped out of school, moved to California, and had a child. I thought my life was over. But when I moved back to the reservation I made a discovery that literally put my life back together. My sisters were attending Turtle Mountain College, which had just been started on my reservation. I thought that is something I could do, too, so I enrolled. In those days, we didn't even have a campus. There was no building. Some classes met at a local alcohol rehabilitation center in an old hospital building that had been condemned. But to me, it didn't matter much. I was just amazed I could go to college. It was life-changing. My college friends and professors were like family. For the first time in my life I learned about the language, history and culture of my people in a formal education setting. I felt honor and pride begin to well up inside of me. This was so unlike my other school experience where I was told my language and culture were shameful and that Indians weren't equal to others. Attending a tribal college caused me to reach into my inner self to become what I was meant to be--to fight for my rights and not remain a victim of circumstances or of anybody. In fact, I loved college so much that I couldn't stop. I had a dream to fulfill . . . or perhaps some would call it an obsession. This pushed me on to complete my studies at Turtle Mountain College and earn a Doctorate in Education Administration from the University of North Dakota. I've worked in education ever since, from Head Start teacher's aide to college professor. Now I'm realizing my dream of helping Indian children succeed. I am the Office of Indian Education Programs' superintendent working with nine schools, three reservations, and I oversee two educational contracts for two tribal colleges. My life would not have turned out this way were it not for the tribal college on my reservation. This is Loretta De Long. Loretta is a good friend of mine, a remarkable woman, a remarkable educator. She writes a letter--I have not read all of it, there is another page--but she writes a letter that describes in such wonderful, vivid detail the struggle and the difficulty to overcome the obstacles early in her life and the role the tribal college played in her life. The Turtle Mountain Community College is a wonderful place. I have been there many times. I have spoken at their commencement. They now have a new campus. They have people going to college there who never would have had a chance to get a college education, but being able to access the extended family on the reservation for child care and a range of other things, there are people getting education at this tribal college who would not have had the opportunity before. It is not just this college. It is the Sitting Bull College at Fort Yates. I was down there recently and helped them dedicate a new cultural center. There are so many good tribal colleges that are providing opportunity for people such as Loretta. There are people like Loretta who are going to schools of the type I described earlier. They are going to schools with heating registers that look like this. They are going to schools with plumbing that looks like this. That ought not happen. We know better than that. We can do better than that for these kids. It doesn't matter where you are in this country, when you send a kid through a schoolroom door, you ought to believe, as an American, that we want that child to go through the best classroom door in the world; we want that classroom to be one we are proud of. I have mentioned before--and if it is repetitive, tough luck--I have mentioned before Rosie Two Bears, who, in the third grade at Cannonball, looked up at me and said: Mr. Senator, are you going to build us a new school? Boy, do they need it. Rosie Two Bears deserves, as every other young child in this country, the opportunity to go to a school we are proud of--we, as Americans, are proud of. She goes to a school right near an Indian reservation, just off the site of the reservation, with no tax base at all. It is a public school. We need to fix that. The point is, that is sort of a long way of describing almost an obsession of mine--that we can't leave people behind in this country. This country is doing well. I am proud of that. But we can't leave people behind. There are some young kids, especially in this country, who are being left behind, going to schools that are not adequate. There are others who will be left behind if we don't continue to strengthen these tribal colleges. A final comment: The amount of money we provide for tribal colleges with this legislation will provide $3,477 per pupil, and that is an improvement. Let me finish by saying I commend the Senator from Washington and the Senator from West Virginia and others with whom I have worked. But the authorization is at the $6,000 level. And, frankly, in community colleges around the country--community colleges, not tribal colleges-- the average support for students is over $6,000 per student. So we are still well short in tribal colleges of doing what we can to make these the kind of institutions we all know they can be. I conclude by asking unanimous consent that the entire letter of Dr. Loretta De Long, from which I quoted, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read the names of some of those who have lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today. October 4, 1999: Darius Bradley, 18, Baltimore, MD; Joseph Booker, 21, Chicago, IL; Vincent Dobson, 22, Baltimore, MD; Frank Garner, 22, Kansas City, MO; Larry D. Hadley, 43, Madison, WI; Joseph Hall, 20, Detroit, MI; Arthur Harris, 39, Houston, TX; Kendall Hawks, 18, Baltimore, MD; Clarence Jackson, 21, New Orleans, LA; Derrick Jacque, 24, New Orleans, LA; Jasul Johnson, 23, Philadelphia, PA; Charlotte Lindsey, 50, Memphis, TN; James McClinton, 24, Chicago, IL; Richard Mitchell, 51, Detroit, MI; Shawn Moore, 25, New Orleans, LA; Cedric Outler, 41, Miami-Dade County, FL; Zawakie Walker, 23, Detroit, MI; Darieus Washington, 31, Baltimore, MD; William Wilson, 24, Baltimore, MD; and Unidentified male, 72, Nashville, TN. We cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to continue. The deaths of these people are a reminder to all of us that we need to enact sensible gun legislation now.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I also wish to say a word today about NBC and Fox, the two television networks that have decided they would not broadcast the Presidential debates live. I think it is deplorable, really, that networks, that use the public airwaves, and have some responsibility here with respect to the public good and public interest, have decided that Presidential debates are not important enough to preempt other programming. I notice that NBC said its local affiliates could make their own judgment. It is not as if NBC, according to Mr. Kennard, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, has not interrupted regular programming previously. In fact, they have interrupted sports programming previously. NBC, last evening, said: We have a contract to show a New York Yankees-Oakland Athletics playoff game. So they did not really want to, on a national basis, show the Presidential debate live. They did allow their affiliates to make that decision. Mr. Kennard points out in an op-ed piece in the New York Times that in 1994 NBC was showing the NBA finals, the basketball finals, but they cut away from the basketball finals to follow that white Bronco that was meandering around the highways of Los Angeles with O.J. Simpson in the backseat. So they were able to cut away from the NBA finals to deal with the O.J. Simpson saga in that white Bronco, we remember so well, but they could not cut away from a playoff game--not the World Series; a playoff game--in baseball to televise the Presidential debate. Fox News is another story. They did not give their affiliates any choice. From their standpoint, ``Dark Angel'' was important last night, entertainment programming. Apparently Fox News' entertainment programming is more important than televising the Presidential debates for the American people. I agree with Bill Kennard, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. He wrote a piece that says: ``Fox and NBC Renege on a Debt.'' It seems to me, in this country we ought to take this system of ours seriously. Presidential debates are very important. They have a wonderful and hallowed tradition in this country. It seems to me that television networks have a responsibility to the American people to provide live coverage of those debates. I regret that NBC did not. And I would say to the NBC affiliate in Washington, DC, they decided to carry the debate. Thank you for doing that. Good for them. But Fox News did not give any of their affiliates that choice. I think they have made the wrong choice.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Administration recently launched a new website, www.firstgov.gov. That website is the first all-government portal and will offer one stop information from over 20,000 separate federal websites. This promises to be a great tool. Throughout the country people will be able to download tax forms, read up on the status of legislation, better understand the Social Security system. But Mr. President, meaningful access to all of the important information depends on what side of the Digital Divide you find yourself. To benefit from websites like firstgov, you must have a computer and understand how to use it, and you must have an Internet connection with speeds fast enough to search databases, view graphics and download documents. As the demand for high speed Internet access grows, numerous companies are responding in areas of dense population. While urban America is quickly gaining high speed access, rural America is being left behind. Ensuring that all Americans have the technological capability is essential in this digital age. It is not only an issue of fairness, but it is also an issue of economic survival. To remedy the information gap between urban and rural America, I along with Senator Daschle introduced S. 2307, the Rural Broadband Enhancement Act, which gives new authority to the Rural Utilities Service to make low interest loans to companies that are deploying broadband technology to rural America. The Rural Utilities Service has helped before; it can help again. When we were faced with electrifying all of the country, we enacted the Rural Electrification Act. When telephone service was only being provided to well-populated communities, we expanded the Rural Electrification Act and created the Rural Utilities Service to oversee rural telephone deployment. The equitable deployment of broadband services is only the next step in keeping American connected, and our legislation would ensure that. If we fail to act, rural America will be left behind once again. As the economy moves further and further towards online transactions and communications, rural America must be able to participate. They must be able to start their own online business if they so desire and access information about government services efficiently. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to address this problem and to bring meaningful data access to all parts of this country.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have been listening to the discussion today on the floor of the Senate about process and procedure and where we find ourselves near the end of this session. I will speak to the comments made earlier today by my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, and perhaps speak a bit about the comments made by my colleague, Senator Conrad, especially about fiscal policy. First, let me talk about process. As I do so, let me acknowledge that it cannot be an easy job to try to schedule and arrange and deal with the House and the Senate, and pass all the legislation, authorization and appropriations bills, that are necessary. A lot of people over many years have had the responsibility of doing that and many people aspire to that responsibility. One of the circumstances of control is that those who win the most seats in the Senate and the House then become chairmen and leaders, majority leaders, chairmen of committees; and the responsibility of having those jobs, of course, means bearing the burden of having to schedule and trying to arrange to make certain that Congress works the way it ought to work and passes the legislation on time and in regular order. It is not an easy job. My colleague, Senator Byrd, who spoke earlier today, served as a distinguished majority leader in this Congress. He also served as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He has had the responsibility to try to find a way to get this Senate to move and get it to move on time and discharge its duties on time. Many others have done so, as well, including the distinguished Senator, Mr. Mitchell, most recently, as well as Senator Dole, and so many others over many years, going back to Lyndon Johnson, and decades and decades before that. In this Congress, the 106th Congress, things have changed some. What has changed, it seems to me, is we have missed most of the deadlines. There doesn't seem to be a cogent plan by which we will meet the deadlines or meet our responsibilities. I want to show some charts that describe what has happened this year. The red on this calendar shows the number of days the Senate was not in session. As shown, a fair part of January, February, and March, a fair part of a number of months of this year, were days in which we had no session in the Senate. There is some reason for some of that. We have work periods, when Senators go back to their States and meet with their constituents. That is understandable. That has always been the case. However, there needs to be some balance with respect to the number of days we are working here and the amount of time that is available to pass legislation that must be passed. This is the situation as we near the first of October: The Senate has been in session only 115 days this year; only 115 days have we been in session. Of those 115 days, 34 of those days included no votes at all. In most cases, not much was done, perhaps only morning business for most of the day. Of the 115 days in session, there were no votes on 34 of those days. In fact, there were only three Mondays during this entire year in which there were any votes. For practical purposes, we don't have a Monday in the Senate. On the issue of Fridays, there were only six Fridays in this year in which there were votes. What can be concluded from this is we have a Senate that really isn't in session much on Mondays or Fridays. Then the question is, what is left? Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays--except for weeks when the Senate isn't in session at all. That is what results in 115 days in session, 34 of which there weren't any votes. Now we come to the end of this fiscal year with a lot of legislation yet to be completed. Only 2 of the 13 appropriations bills have been signed by President Clinton. That means 11 of them are as of yet incomplete. In September, we have only had votes on one Monday. This is the period of time in which we are trying to finish everything. We have had no votes on Fridays in September. It is difficult to get all of this work done, appropriations bills and other measures that need to get passed, if we are not in session. I mentioned before we have 2 appropriations bills that are complete; 11 of them are, as of yet, incomplete. October 1 is the date by which the President is to have signed all of the appropriations bills. It is the first day of the new fiscal year. What we have is a circumstance where most of the work that needs to be done by that moment is not completed. I serve on the Appropriations Committee. I serve with a very distinguished chairman of that committee, Senator Stevens. I am not coming to the floor to be critical of Senator Stevens. I think he does an extraordinary job. I am serving on the agriculture appropriations subcommittee. The chairman of that subcommittee is Senator Cochran from Mississippi. I am not here to be critical of Senator Cochran. I think he is an extraordinary Senator. I think it is a privilege to work with Senator Stevens and Senator Cochran. I think they do an extraordinary job. They are Republicans; I am a Democrat. I think they are good Senators. I am not here to say they haven't done their work. I am saying this process, the fashion in which the House and the Senate have worked this year, has just not worked at all. It has become tangled in a morass of difficulty that has prevented Members from doing what we need to do. We have discovered someone put bills together that in some cases have not been considered by the Senate; in other cases they have not been the subject of a conference, and marry up various pieces of legislation, bring them to the floor and say: Well, let's just have one vote on this omnibus bill that has two or three different appropriations bills in it. That might sound efficient if you haven't done your work and you reach the end of the fiscal year, but efficiency is not what protecting the interests of all Senators or the interests of all Americans is about. The process by which we are able to debate public issues in this Senate, and by which we are able to get the best of what everyone has to offer, the best of the ideas, and the competition from debate, is a process in which we bring a piece of legislation to the floor, an appropriations bill to the floor, and say, all right, you come from different areas of the country; you come with different philosophies; you come representing different constituencies; now have at this. This is what we have tried to do in the committee. If Members have better ideas, let's hear them. If Members have the votes to convince the majority of the Senate to support their idea, let's see. Just bring these ideas to the floor of the Senate. Have votes on them. In that manner, we develop public policy. Wide open debate is the essence of democracy. That is the way democracy works. An old friend of mine back home used to love politics. He used to say: They don't weigh votes; they count votes. That is the way the Senate should work: Have the debate, have the vote, count it up, and the winner wins. That becomes the process of making public policy. We have a long and distinguished history in this body. I have learned a lot listening to Senator Byrd over the many years, talking about the history of the Senate. His history goes back to the Roman Senate and beyond. One cannot help but serve here and understand there is a tradition, a tradition that we must respect as we conduct our business on behalf of the American people. We are not here by ourselves. We are not standing just in our shoes. We are here because our constituents have said: Represent us in this democracy; go to the Senate and give it the best you have, adding your voice to the votes that come from the hills and valleys of this country, and participate in the making of public policy. The process we are seeing now all too often prevents that from happening. I am on a subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee that I am reading about every day in the newspapers. I am a conferee, in fact. But there has been no conference. Two days ago, I got a call from somebody saying it is going to be brought to the floor of the House and the Senate tomorrow. I said, ``What is?'' They said, ``A conference report.'' I said, ``I am a conferee and there has not been a conference. How can there be a conference report?'' But that is what is happening around here all too often. I think we need to get back on track and decide there is a process we should respect, a process that represents regular order and a process that protects the rights of all Senators to participate in the making of public policy. What is the agenda here? Why are we so passionate about this, talking about this process? Because the process allows everyone in this Chamber to come here and witness for the public policy they want, to try to keep this country ahead. Let me go through a list of them briefly. Some of my colleagues have done so. My colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, just talked about fiscal policy. The process, if followed the way tradition would have us follow it, would allow us, in a year such as this, to grab ahold of this fiscal policy issue and evaluate what do we do. This is a new time. We now have expected surpluses in our future. What a remarkable change from the understanding that every year we were going to have a deficit and it was going to continue to grow, to mushroom out of control. All of a sudden that is gone. We have a new reality. We have fiscal policy surpluses. I have told audiences from time to time the two enduring truths about political existence in the last 40 years or so in our public lives, the two enduring truths that overshadowed or at least represented a foundation for all of the decisions were: No. 1, we had a cold war with the Soviet Union, and, No. 2, we had budget deficits that just kept growing. Those were the two enduring truths that had an impact on everything else we did. Think of this: Those two truths are now gone. There is no Soviet Union. The cold war is over. And there is no budget deficit. What a remarkable change in a short period. So my colleague came to the floor a few moments ago and talked about fiscal policy given these new truths, the fact we may have budget surpluses in the years ahead. The question then is, What do we do with them? So we need to have a debate about that. Some come to the floor of the Senate and say: We know what to do with expected surpluses. Even before the surpluses exist, let's get rid of these surpluses by providing very large tax cuts and let's make sure the largest tax cuts go to those who have the largest incomes in this country. So they come to the floor with $1 trillion, or $1.3 trillion, in tax cuts over the next 10 years. This is before we even have the surpluses. Economists who can't remember their home telephone numbers tell us they know what is going to happen 3, 5, 7 and 10 years from now. I come down on the side on which my colleague comes down; that is, we ought to be mighty conservative and cautious about this. For the first step, maybe we ought to pay down some of the Federal debt. If you run up the debt during tough times, what greater gift could you give to America's children than to reduce the Federal debt during good times? That is step No. 1. Step No. 2, sure, if there is room, let's provide some tax cuts in a way that invests in opportunities for America's families, working families. Would it not be a nice thing for those people who are reaching up and struggling to afford to be able to send their kids to college to say: The cost of sending your kids to college you can deduct on your income tax; you can deduct the cost of tuition. What a good investment that would be, and what a nice way to have a tax cut in a way that incentivizes families to send their child to school: Reduce the debt, provide some tax cuts in ways that say to working families, we are going to try to help you. Then make some other investments. It is not a circumstance that everything that goes out of here is spent. Some of it is invested. Our future, 10 years, 20, 40, 60 years from now, is going to depend on what we invest in that future today. I mentioned education, but there are more issues than just education. The question of fiscal policy--what do we do, and how do we do it--is a very important question. The way we get to that and have the votes on it and have an expression of what we want to do, what the American people want to do, is have all the ideas here and vote on them. That is awfully inconvenient for some because we have to cast all these votes and some people want to just vote on the things they want and prevent the things other people want. It is inconvenient. That is democracy. Sure, it is inconvenient to give the other person their opportunity to bring their ideas to the floor of the Senate, but that is democracy. Democracy is not always convenient. It is not always efficient. It is so far above any other form of government known to mankind we can hardly describe the difference, but it may be inconvenient. The issue that has been raised today about process is to say that inconvenience is actually designed into this system, to make sure we do not move rapidly, we do not move with haste, to ensure we do not move riding on a wave of passion that will require us or persuade us to do things we will later regret. That is the way the Senate was developed. Nobody ever suggested the way the Senate was going to react to things, or the way the Senate was going to discuss public policy, was going to be efficient. In fact, those framers, Madison, Mason, Franklin, and so many others--Thomas Jefferson, who contributed from abroad when he was serving this country--did not want a system that created a Senate that was efficient so, in an afternoon, you could grab a big public policy and decide you would each get 10 minutes, have a little vote on a couple of amendments, and that was it because we needed it to be convenient for us. No, they created a far different system. This body has been known from time to time as the body in which the great debates of democracy take place. But I fear that is changing because some, I think, do not understand the value of debate. Debate is never a waste of time. Debate is always a contributor to knowledge. Debate, from the best to the least of those who come to public service, contributes in some way to the whole of democracy. I have been to the floor of the Senate many times talking about another issue on the agenda. I just talked about fiscal policy. There are other things I want to get done. One area where my colleague and I may disagree from time to time--some say you should not be repetitious in trying to push your agenda. In some cases I think repetition is necessary. For example, minimum wage. We have a lot of families out there who are working at the bottom of the economic ladder. In fact, a report came out 2 days ago that said we have 3 million people working 40 hours a week who are living in poverty in this country. There are 3 million workers working 40 hours a week, full time, living in poverty. Do you know why? Because they are working right at the bottom of the economic ladder. Who is out there in the hallways, clogging the hallways of the U.S. Capitol, saying: Do you know what my business is on Thursday here in the U.S. Capitol? I am here on behalf of the low-income folks. I am here on behalf of the voiceless, those not too involved in politics because they are struggling just to work, to make the minimum wage, trying to get home and feed their kids. The hallways are not flooded with people representing those folks. These hallways are crowded with people representing the privileged, people representing the largest corporations in America, people representing those who have done very well in this country, at the upper income scales. They have great representation. Good for them. Everybody deserves that in a democracy. But my point is, when it comes time to debate public policy on a range of issues and it comes time to discuss the minimum wage, who stands for those families? The people who work the night shift, the people who work the night shift in the hospital for minimum wages, who are moving the bed pans around and changing the beds and helping people up and out and walking around--who is here speaking for them? The people who are working in the convenience stores at 2 a.m. for a minimum wage, who are trying to raise a family and do not have the skills to get a better job and are trapped in one of these cycles of poverty--who is here speaking for them? The hallways are not crowded, in this Capitol Building, with people paid to represent those at the bottom of the economic ladder. I think from time to time it is important, even if rebuffed once, twice, or six times in a year, to say increasing the minimum wage for those who are struggling at the bottom of the economic ladder is important; if we do not get it the first time, we have a vote the second time; if we don't get it the second time, we have a vote the third time. Yes, that is inconvenient, too, but it seems to me the rules of this system also allow for those who are passionately interested in pushing for those who do not have much voice in this political system. Patients' Bill of Rights is another issue that gets caught in this process. Speaking of process, the Patients' Bill of Rights is the most remarkable piece of legislation. If I can for a moment describe the Patients' Bill of Rights as an issue and describe it through the experiences of people who have been gripped in the vice of a system that does not work for them, a woman who is hiking in the Shenandoah Mountains falls off a 40- or 50-foot cliff, breaks multiple bones, and falls into a coma. She is taken to a hospital in an ambulance, lying on a gurney in a coma with very severe injuries. She miraculously recovers, only to find that her HMO and managed care organization sends her a bill saying: We are not going to cover your emergency room treatment because you did not get prior approval for emergency room treatment. This is a woman hauled into the emergency room in a coma suffering serious injuries from a massive fall and told: You did not get prior approval for emergency room treatment. Or little Ethan Bedrick; Ethan Bedrick is a young boy. This is a picture of young Ethan. He was told he had a 50-percent chance of walking by age 5. He was born with pretty severe disabilities from cerebral palsy. He had a 50-percent chance of walking by age 5. He needed rehabilitative therapy, and his managed care organization said having a 50-percent chance of walking by age 5 is ``insignificant'' and, therefore, we deny coverage for the therapy. Think of that. It is insignificant for a young boy to have a 50- percent chance of being able to walk and, therefore, the managed care organization says: We deny coverage. Is there a Patients' Bill of Rights that ought to provide rights to Ethan Bedrick, provide rights to the woman who falls off a cliff and is hauled into a hospital unconscious? Or, if I may take one more moment to describe the woman who testified at a hearing Senator Harry Reid and I had in the State of Nevada, a mother who stood up and told us that her son was dead, 16 years old; he had leukemia. At the moment when he needed the treatment that would give him a chance to survive this leukemia, the HMO said no. Only later--much later--did they finally say yes, and it was too late; he was too weak. She held up his colored picture at this hearing and, through tears, she told us about her son. Her son, Chris Roe, died October 12, 1999, on his 16th birthday. I will never forget the moment when his mother, Susan, held up a picture and said: My son looked up at me from his bed and said: Mom, how can they do this to a kid like me? He was denied the treatment that would have given him the opportunity--not a guarantee, but the opportunity--to deal with his cancer, and he died. This young boy was told to fight his cancer and then fight his insurance company at the same time; take on both folks: You go ahead wage this cancer fight, but then you are going to have to fight us to get coverage for the things you need that might give you a chance at life. The question is: Mom, how can they do this to a 16-year-old kid like me? And his mother, through tears, held up this colored picture of this young, 16-year-old boy and asked: How could they have done this? Should Congress pass a Patients' Bill of Rights? What about the process there? The House of Representatives passed a bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights, a real one, and sent it to conference. This Senate has a right to do this. They passed what I call a ``patients' bill of goods,'' an empty vessel, and sent it to conference so the Senate could say: We passed a Patients' Bill of Rights. But we did not. A Republican Member of Congress, Dr. Norwood, and a Republican Member of Congress, Dr. Ganske--do not take it from me; take it from them-- said the Senate took a pass on this issue. They passed an empty vessel. What the Senate did is a step backward, not forwards. Should we have the opportunity in this process in the Senate to have another vote on this? Things have changed. The last time we voted on this, we came up one vote short. This time, it will be a tie vote, based on what we know to have happened in the interim. With a tie vote, the Vice President will cast a vote to break the tie, and this Senate will send to conference a Patients' Bill of Rights that is a real Patients' Bill of Rights. It says you have a right to know all of your medical treatment options, not just the cheapest. You have a right to emergency room care. You have a right, if you are being treated for breast cancer, to take your oncologist with you. If your spouse's employer changes health care providers, you can continue with that same cancer specialist who has been working with you 5 or 7 years. You have that right. Should we be able to have another vote on that in the next day or 2 days or 2 weeks? The answer is yes, absolutely yes, because it is important to young Ethan, it is important to the memory of Chris, and it is important to all the others out there who are being told: You fight your disease and, by the way, fight your insurance company as well because some of these managed care organizations are much more interested in profit than in your health. I hasten to say, not all. There are some terrific insurance companies and some terrific HMOs, and they do a great job, but there are some around this country that are doing to patients what I just described, saying to people like young Ethan that the potential to walk is insignificant at 50 percent. We should change that. Do I have passion for these issues? You are darn right. I was elected to the Senate and I came here because I wanted to do good things for this country. I want this country to be a better place in which to live, whether it is health care, a Patients' Bill of Rights, adding a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program, eliminating the barriers that prohibit the reimportation of prescription drugs from other countries so our people can access less expensive prescription drugs, or gripping the education issues in this country the way we know we should--reducing class size, renovating and repairing crumbling schools. I came here because I wanted to do these things. I do not want people to prevent us from having the votes on them. I have spoken so often about going into the school with Rosy Two Bears, a little third grader, that I know people are just flat tired of it, but I could care less. She walks into a school classroom that none of us would want our kids to walk into. It is a public school. Part of it is 90 years old; part of it is condemned. It has one water fountain and two toilets in this little school. They cannot connect to the Internet. They do not have good recreational facilities, and little Rosy Two Bears looks up at me and says: Mr. Senator, will you build us a new school? I cannot do that because I do not have the money, but this Senate can. This Senate can say to Rosy and all the others who are walking through a classroom door in this country: We want you to walk through a door of which you are proud. It does not matter where you are, who you are, if you are a first grader, a third grader, or a twelfth grader. We want that schoolroom to be a schoolroom of which you are proud; we want you to be the best you can be. We want every young child to rise to the level of their God-given talents in every corner of America. That ought to persuade us that the process by which we consider legislation in this Congress gives us full opportunity to take a look at that fiscal policy and say: If we are collecting more than we need, we can give a little back, pay down the debt, and let's also, in addition to giving a little back and paying down the debt, invest in better schools for our kids. Let's take the best ideas everybody has in this Chamber and have a good debate about that. That is part of the passion with which most of us came to this body. We came here to get things done, and we are so frustrated by a process that seems to say: If it is our idea, we are going to vote on it. If it is your idea, somehow we are going to put it in a box someplace.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia is very generous. Let me conclude by saying something I think is important. I came to the floor because the Senator from West Virginia is someone for whom I have great respect. He was talking about the process, the method by which the Senate is supposed to work. He has been here much longer than I have. He knows the history of the Senate far better than I do. I have great respect for that. He did not come to the floor--I listened carefully to his discussion this morning--and I did not come to the floor to be critical of others. It is a tough job running this Senate. I certainly did not come to the floor to say that the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee has not done his job. I happen to think Senator Stevens is an outstanding Senator, Senator Cochran, and so many others with whom I have served. So I do not come here with the purpose of casting aspersions. But I just come to the floor because I fear that what is preventing us from getting to where I want the Senate to get to, and that is to have a full debate, and good, strong open votes on the issues I care passionately about. We are thwarted from doing that. In fact, we have had bills brought to the floor of the Senate and had cloture motions to shut off debate before the debate began, cloture motions to shut off amendments before the first amendment was offered. That thwarts this process. Back home they would say that is throwing a wrench in the crank case. That just shuts it all down. It is not the way it ought to work. I think it is a privilege every day to come to work here. I grew up in a town of 300 people, had a high school class of 9, and never in my life thought I would meet another Senator, I suppose, let alone serve in the Senate. I think it is a privilege every day to come here. But the reason I think it is a privilege is because I bring, as most of my colleagues do, an agenda of passion to make changes that I think will improve this country. I might be wrong in some of it. Maybe so. But I want my day. If I can persuade enough Members of this Senate to vote on the things I care about, then if I win, I win. If I don't, maybe I learned something from the debate. I am willing to lose. But I am not willing to lose the opportunity to have a full debate and a vote on the things that I and the constituents I represent in North Dakota care deeply about. That is the point. I am not willing to lose that opportunity. The process in this Senate increasingly begins to shut those opportunities down. The Senator from West Virginia came the Senate to say, let's not do that. Let's not do it for Republicans or Democrats. Let's not do it out of concern for this Senate, its proud history and its future. Let's not do that. Let's get back to the way we are supposed to debate public policy in this Chamber. I commend the Senator from West Virginia and my colleague, the Senator from Nevada, and others, who have spoken today. I hope we can all work together and get the best of what each can bring to this Chamber in the debate about public policy. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for 30 additional seconds.

Mr. DORGAN. Just 2 is fine.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise in support as a cosponsor of S. 3116. The purpose of this legislation is to prevent molasses stuffed with sugar from being allowed into this country. As others have stated, the molasses in question is stuffed with South American sugar in Canada, and then transported into the United States. The sugar is then spun out of this concoction and sold in this country while the molasses is sent right back across the border to be stuffed with more sugar--and the smuggling cycle starts over again. This practice is a blatant circumvention of our tariff quota. The sole purpose of this process is to smuggle excess sugar into the United States, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which will put an end to this loophole.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, in recent days we have heard a lot about various proposals that would allow for the reimportation of prescription drugs. Patients pay more for the prescription drugs in the United States than anywhere else in the world. That is just not right. The Senate passed a proposal that Senator Jeffords and I authored that would allow for the reimportation of prescription drugs as long as certain steps are taken to ensure safety for American consumers. I am pleased that the Administration and the Republican leaders in Congress have agreed to work together to take this common sense step towards making prescription drugs more affordable for everyone. Dr. David Kessler, former head of the FDA, has sent me a letter expressing his support for the Senate version of the reimportation language. Dr. Kessler agrees that we must reform the current system so that American consumers have access to safe and affordable medicine. At this time, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from David Kessler for the Dorgan-Jeffords proposal in which he expresses support for our approach.