Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if Senator Kennedy will allow me to speak at this point, let me say, first of all, that I think progress is being made. Senator Reid has been working. Everybody has been trying to cooperate. I believe, after this very important amendment, we will have the substitute, and hopefully we would be ready to go to final passage. I don't want to usurp the majority's role here, but I want people to realize that we are to the point where perhaps we can begin to wrap this up. I thank Senator Kyl for agreeing to not have lengthy debate. He feels very strongly about it, and this is certainly a very good and valuable alternative. I heard Senator Bond of Missouri say repeatedly that when it comes to health care, we should make it available, affordable, and safe. One of our greatest concerns about this bill in its present form is health insurance for patients, and what they have available through managed care is not going to be affordable. Rates are going to go up. They are going to lose coverage for a variety of reasons. So it is a question of availability and affordability. This is a good, viable alternative. This provides a low-cost option that will, hopefully, result in more people keeping their coverage. But it is an option. It is not in place of; it is in addition to what will be available otherwise. It just gives plans the option of offering a low-cost alternative that forgoes lawsuit damages under the law. The State court would still have the ``quality of care'' damage available. Those lawsuits would still be there. You don't replace that. So I want to emphasize, it is not in lieu of but it is in addition to the plans offered under the bill. This really is about patients, and it really is about the freedom to have a choice, to have an option to choose to have this coverage but not going to lawsuits later on. By paying less, they will be able to afford it. That will give them an option. I think this would be a very attractive way to make sure it is available and affordable. I would like to speak at greater length on this myself, but in the interest of time I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. I believe that perhaps if Senator Kyl or others can yield back their time, we are ready to go to the Frist-Breaux substitute. Senator Frist is here ready to proceed. Is that acceptable on all sides?

Mr. LOTT. That is correct. We would vote in stacked series, Kyl, Breaux-Frist, and then I presume we would be ready for final passage.

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, I hope the Senator will withhold. I think a continued effort is underway, and if he will withhold at this point--I prefer not to object--let's see if we can't work it out.

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I will not object, I just want to clarify where we are. I believe we are ready to recognize Senator Kyl--he had a little time left on his amendment--and then I believe we will be ready to have the three votes: Kyl amendment, Breaux-Frist, and final passage.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise to take this opportunity to recognize the exemplary service and career of an outstanding naval officer, Vice Admiral James F. Amerault, upon his retirement from the United States Navy at the conclusion of more than 36 years of honorable and distinguished service. It is my privilege to commend him for outstanding service to the Navy and our great nation. Vice Admiral Amerault embarked on his naval career thirty-six years ago, on the 29th of June 1965. In the years since that day, he has devoted great energy and talent to the Navy and protecting our national security interests. It would be hard to calculate the innumerable hours this man has stood watch to keep our nation safe. He has been steadfast in his commitment to the ideals and values that our country embodies and holds dear. Following his commissioning at the United States Naval Academy, he embarked on the first of many ships that would benefit from his leadership and expertise. Vice Admiral Amerault served at-sea as Gunnery Officer and First Lieutenant on board USS Massey (DD 778). He then served as Officer in Charge, Patrol Craft Fast 52 in Vietnam, a challenging and dangerous assignment that kept him in harm's way. His courage and commitment to our nation was more than evident during these tumultuous years as he conducted more than 90 combat patrols in hostile waters off the coast of South Vietnam. One example of his valor and heroism is quoted from Commander Coastal Division Fourteen on 21 December 1967, ``On the night of 4 August 1967 the patrol craft in the area adjacent to the one you were patrolling came under enemy fire. Disregarding your own safety, you directed your patrol craft to within 300 yards of the beach and bombarded the enemy position with intense .50 caliber and 81mm mortar fire. During this exchange your patrol craft was narrowly missed by a barrage of recoilless rifle fire.'' Again, his valor and heroism was established early in his career. He was awarded a Bronze Star Medal with Combat V and the Navy Combat Action Ribbon for his service. Vice Admiral Amerault's follow-on sea tours demonstrated the tactical brilliance that would become his trademark. His next tour was on board USS Taylor (DD 468) as Engineer Officer. During this tour he earned a coveted Shellback certificate for crossing the equator. He then reported as Chief Engineer on board USS Benner (DD 801) where he earned his first of three Navy Commendation Medals. Several sea tours followed in steady progression. He was Executive Officer in USS Dupont (DD 941). He also was Executive Officer in USS Sierra (AD 18). He served as commissioning Commanding Officer of USS Nicholas (FFG 47) and Commanding Officer of USS Samuel Gompers (AD 37). It is difficult to convey the challenges and hardships that were faced by this officer and his family during these many and arduous sea tours. As Vice Admiral Amerault progressed in the Navy he served as Staff Combat Information Center Officer for Commander, Cruiser Destroyer Group TWO; and commanded Destroyer Squadron SIX, Amphibious Group FOUR, and the Western Hemisphere Group. Again, these were all difficult tours of tremendous responsibility that required an incredible commitment to duty and country. Vice Admiral Amerault's shore assignments have included Director, Navy Program Resource Appraisal Division and Executive Assistant to the Director, Surface Warfare Division on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations. His flag assignments have included Director, Operations Division, Office of Budget and Reports, Navy Comptroller; Director, Office of Navy Budget; and Director, Fiscal Management Division in the office of the Chief of Naval Operations. His final tour in the Navy as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Fleet Readiness and Logistics) has demonstrated his brilliant logistics acumen. With dynamic leadership he has refocused the Navy's logistics systems to more accurately meet the needs of the war fighter and the Navy of the future. A scholar as well, VADM Amerault is a graduate of the Naval Postgraduate School (MS Operations Research) and the University of Utah (MA Middle East Affairs and Arabic), and was the Navy's 1986-87 Federal Executive Fellow at the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California. As he ascended to the highest echelons of leadership in the Navy, Vice Admiral Amerault garnered many commendations that further highlight his stellar career. They include the Distinguished Service Medal; Legion of Merit (seven awards); the Bronze Star with V; the Meritorious Service Medal (two awards); the Joint Service Commendation Medal; the Navy Commendation Medal (three awards); and Vietnam, Desert Storm, and numerous other campaign medals. Vice Admiral Amerault also has the distinction of being the Navy's ``Old Salt''--the active duty officer who has been qualified as an officer of the deck underway the longest. Standing beside this officer throughout his superb career has been his wife Cathy, a lady to whom he owes much. She has been his key supporter, devoting her life to her husband, to her family, and to the men and women of the Navy family. She has traveled by his side for these many years. They are the epitome of the Navy family team. From the start of his career at the Naval Academy, through Vietnam, the Gulf War, Kosovo and beyond--thirty-six years--Vice Admiral Amerault has served with uncommon valor. He is indeed an individual of rare character and professionalism--a true Sailor's Sailor! I am proud, Mr. President, to thank him on behalf of the United States of America for his honorable and most distinguished career in the United States Navy, and to wish him ``fair winds and following seas''.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, recently the Epsilon Xi Chapter of Sigma Nu at the University of Mississippi celebrated the eleventh anniversary of the Charity Bowl in Oxford, Mississippi. Founded in 1989, the Sigma Nu Charity Bowl has helped many unfortunate men and women, who from accidents or injuries have been permanently paralyzed. Since 1990, over $500,000 has been raised to help these individuals. Throughout the years, the Epsilon Xi Sigma Nu Charity Bowl has become one of the largest college philanthropy events in the nation. Every year, Sigma Nu competes in a football game against another fraternity from Ole Miss or another university. It has become an annual event that the citizens of Oxford, the parents of the players, and the Ole Miss community enjoy each year. This year's recipient was a very deserving young man named James Havard, who enjoyed watching Sigma Nu defeat Phi Delta Theta 18-13. I would like to recognize some very special men who generously gave their time and talents in order to make the Charity Bowl a great success. Steve Freeman, Michael Miles, Kevin Roberts, Scott Steenson, and Michael Woodard are to be commended and honored for their efforts in serving as volunteer referees for the charity bowl football game. They graciously took time out of their busy schedules in order to make the game more enjoyable for the players and the fans, but more importantly they gave James Havard an opportunity to enjoy a better life. These men belong to the Professional Football Referees Association Charities, PFRA. The PFRA is also very involved in helping out other charitable organizations such as the Make-A-Wish Foundation. This distinguished organization has been very helpful in getting aid to individuals like James, and they have given many people a chance to have a better life. These men and the PFRA are to be commended for a job well done, and for their continued efforts in improving the lives of others.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a memo from the Congressional Reference Service. As this memo makes clear, the Senate has a long record of allowing the Supreme Court nominees of the President to be given a vote on the floor of the Senate. No matter what the vote in committee on a Supreme Court nominee, it is the precedent of the Senate that the individual nominated is given a vote by the whole Senate. The letter inserted in the Record as a part of the agreement accompanying the organization resolution refers to the ``traditional'' practice of reporting Supreme Court nominees for a vote on the floor. This memo from CRS shows that since 1881, there is only one case where the nominee was not given a floor vote. In that case, there was no opening on the Court for the nominee to fill and thus the nominee was withdrawn. So this precedent is even purer than the ``99 and 44/ 100ths'' soap test.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, Madam President.

Mr. LOTT. First of all, I think it is important that we dispose of this issue as quickly as possible so that we can get back to the debate on the amendments that are pending. There are still a number of very important amendments that Senators wish to offer with regard to the Patients' Bill of Rights. I know the Senator from Nevada has been working on this issue and knows that. These are substantive and important amendments. When it was suggested by the Senator from North Dakota that most of the major amendments have already been offered and considered, I don't believe that is accurate. Of course, I guess how important they are is in the eye of the beholder or the offeror of the amendment. I think it is important that we address this issue and get back to having debate and hopefully votes this afternoon and into the night, however long it takes to deal with important issues that still need to be addressed. We still believe very strongly that this bill has not been corrected in terms of its major problems in the likelihood of loss of coverage and increased premiums, and when, how, and where lawsuits are going to be filed instead of making sure patients get the health care coverage they need. We can resolve this relatively quickly and then go back to that. With regard to the organizational resolution, we continue to exchange ideas. I think it is possible that it could be handled with only one vote, or it may take three, but we are hoping we can get that worked out. I know there are a couple of letters that are being reviewed now on both sides that might make it unnecessary to have three recorded votes. I think we are going to have two letters dealing with the question of public disclosure of the blue slips which can be used by Senators to block a judicial nomination. There is a strong belief on both sides that those should be made public and not just handled secretly, as has sometimes been the case but not always the case, in the past. Also, we are looking to see if we can get some agreement in writing that we would continue to do what the precedents are with regard to Supreme Court nominees. I believe going back all the way to 1881, the whole Senate has voted on Supreme Court nominees even when the committee has voted on a tie or negatively. But we are working on that, and I would like us to get that resolved in the next 24 hours myself. With regard to this unanimous consent request, I had really hoped we could do it Monday. I thought it could have been, I believed it could have been done Monday in a very limited period of time without this rash of amendments. I think we could have gotten an agreement that there be no amendments. That didn't happen for whatever reason. Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens had indicated they would like to have done it even last night so that we could have done it quicker and so we could perhaps have gotten into a conference with the House. The problem now is that if we don't take this up immediately, right now, we are not going to be able to get a conference agreement. There is no chance of a conference agreement until after the Fourth of July recess, even if the Senate should act sometime tomorrow or Saturday. I really had hoped we could do it earlier so we could get into conference, get it completed, and send it to the President. That now appears not to be likely, unless the Senate wants to turn right now to consider this very important supplemental appropriations resolution. I would like that to be considered. Failing that, I think we are not going to object to agreeing to this unanimous consent request, but there are 35 amendments now--34 or 35. Some of them clearly are important to Senators involved on both sides of the aisle. Senator Bond has a couple of them. Senator Boxer has one I think she probably feels very strongly about. Senators Cleland, Roberts, and others have amendments with regard to the B-1 bomber. Senator Conrad, I haven't talked to him, but he has one on Turtle Mountain Indians. As you look down the list, some of them are not just relevant, some of them are amendments about which Senators are going to care greatly. And it looks to me as if you are talking about an extended period of time at this point to complete action on this legislation. I regret that. If we could get an agreement to go to it now--I see Senator McCain; I know he has an amendment he feels very strongly about--if we could do that now, maybe we could get some time agreements and move to completion. I see the distinguished Senator from Alaska, the senior member of the Appropriations Committee on the Republican side, who wants to speak. I am glad to yield under my reservation, Madam President.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, under my reservation, I will propound as an alternative unanimous consent agreement the same proposal the majority leader has made, except that in the first paragraph under consultation with the Republican leader, I would add ``may proceed immediately to the consideration of Calendar No. 76, S. 1077.'' I make that in the form of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. LOTT. Under my reservation, I have one inquiry. I thought we had a definitive list. It may be big, but I thought we had a list of amendments still pending out there.

Mr. LOTT. We will work on that.

Mr. LOTT. If Senator Daschle will yield to respond briefly, I thought you had been given a list. I am going to make sure you have it and then we can evaluate that and work on it.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I object to that. Obviously, I have to consult with the managers of the legislation on our side about the amendment list, which is very long, and I have it now, and about what is possible in terms of completing it. I don't think it is possible at all to set an arbitrary time, in view of the very serious amendments that are pending on the Patients' Bill of Rights. So I object to that request.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, will the distinguished Senator from West Virginia yield?

Mr. LOTT. I apologize to my colleagues for not being here to hear the discussion earlier. I have been briefed on basically what has been said. I commend the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member for the work they have done on this very important defense, and other issues, supplemental appropriations bill. They have worked hard. They did bust a gut to get it out, and they held it within the area of the President's request. They have done a credible and formidable job. I would like to get a time agreement, a tight time agreement, and a limit on amendment or amendments, and would, in spite of the fact that there is a very important conflict tonight, be willing to work with the managers of the legislation to see if we could get an agreement to do it tonight so that a conference would be possible with the House and this very important matter could be completed in the conference and the money be available for the needs of our defense and the health care of our military men and women. I will be glad to work with the Senator from West Virginia and with his leader, the majority leader, and to work with Senators who do have concerns to make sure we address those, that they are heard. The important thing is that we push to try to get this done. I appreciate that effort. I know the President wants it. I have spoken to him, and Senator Daschle has spoken to him. Clearly, we need to get this business done. I make my commitment to the Senator that I will work with him and others to see if we can't work out an agreement to handle the bill tonight and then we can do the conference tomorrow. I will be working on that and will confer with Senators as we go forward.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, timewise, what is the situation now? Has the time been divided? Is it in blocks of an hour?

Mr. LOTT. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I will try to take advantage of that time and make a few remarks. Maybe then I can come back and talk again later. First of all, I wish to comment briefly with the time we are using now. I think it is an important part of the process that we have opening statements and descriptions of what is in the pending bills-- both the Kennedy-McCain-Edwards legislation as well as Breaux-Frist and other legislation--so we can see where the similarities are and find where the problems are. We did not want to go forward with the amendment process on Monday because there had been changes made in the underlying bill on Thursday of last week, June 14. I presume there will still be more changes offered by the sponsors of the legislation, whether it is Senator McCain, or Senator Edwards, or others, as problems are identified and as consideration is given to the reservations. Those will be either amendments or substitutes that will be offered. I make the point that we are not interested in prolonging the consideration of this legislation. We are prepared to go to the vote in the morning on the motion to proceed. We are prepared to begin the amendment process on Thursday afternoon. Hopefully, we can make progress on amendments on Thursday and Friday and on into next week. I also hope we will find a way before the Fourth of July recess to complete action on a supplemental appropriations bill. A lot of that will depend on whether or not the Committee on Appropriations can act tomorrow on what is in that legislation. We need to get that done or we are going to see more problems develop with the Department of Defense being able to keep our ships steaming and our planes flying. We will need to do both of these issues as much as we can during the next week. Let me emphasis a couple of points. Others have noted that many of the core components of the various bills that have been offered, whether it is the original Nickles proposal, the Breaux-Frist-Jeffords proposal, or the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy proposal, have a lot of similarities. Let me talk a minute about where we agree. We agree that we want a Patients' Bill of Rights to protect patients and to ensure those patients get the care they have been promised. That is why we believe so strongly that we need an immediate review process that will get a result hopefully within a managed care entity or an outside review if that is not satisfactory inside of the managed care entity and that it be done on an expeditious basis and not drawn out. Get a result. That is why the idea of going immediately to court has such little appeal to me because legal action, while it might get beneficial results that would be helpful to the heirs, may be of no value to a patient who will have had all kinds of problems, and perhaps even die, before the conclusion of a lawsuit. All of the bills have a review process. The important thing, in my opinion, is that the review be quick and that it get the results. If the result is not satisfactory, then there has to be some process to get it considered in the courts. I think we will find a way to do that. We agree that patients have to have access to specialists. That is what caused us to get into the need for a Patients' Bill of Rights. After the managed care concept was established and started going forward, it was doing a good job. It was providing care at a reduced cost. But some of the managed care entities started to make mistakes. The difficulty is they wouldn't make medical records available to patients, which were their own medical records. You can't have that. The idea that you would have to get permission from some other organization to go to an emergency entrance is unacceptable. You have to have access to emergency care in case of an accident, or whatever. Or if you have an OB/GYN doctor seeing a pregnant woman who then leaves that managed care operation, she should be able to continue to have the care of that OB/GYN. There is no question that we need to make sure that common sense applies and that there is access to physicians. We need to have some way that cancer patients can have access to clinical trials. We need to make sure there is access for women to surgical treatments or for breast cancer. We need to make sure that patients will be able to continue to see their doctor, if the doctor no longer works for the health care plan. There is a long list of places where we agree that there needs to be access to information that patients and beneficiaries need. We need to make sure that there are new quality measures available. We should not ignore the fact that there is a lot of common ground. We, clearly, have some areas where we disagree. Of course, primarily it is when, where, and how you have a lawsuit. I was a lawyer years ago. I was with a trial firm. We did defense work. But we also occasionally filed some plaintiffs' lawsuits. I am not opposed to having access to the court systems. Americans deserve that right. The question is, Who can be sued? Should a person, or an entity, an employer, that has no involvement in the decision that is made based on business reasons, costs, or medical purposes be sued? Naturally, a good lawyer will throw out his dragnet and bring in employers, doctors, nurses, the managed care entity, the insurance company--everybody who is within range and, by the way, look for the one with the deep pockets. That is what you really want. You want the one from whom you can get the money. I think we need to be very careful about who is covered by these lawsuits and when they can be filed. Unless and until the review processes are exhausted, we should not be resorting to legal action. Also, where a lawsuit is filed does make a difference. I know for sure from my own personal experience, since some of my very closest friends and relatives are plaintiff lawyers, that there is this little thing of forum shopping: Let's look around and find the county in the State where we could get the highest judgment. Or maybe it is in a Federal court; let's pick and choose. Or maybe let's file in both Federal and State court. In my own State of Mississippi, there are a series of articles being done by a Gannett newspaper, the Clarion-Ledger, that would not ordinarily do an article such as this, noting that there are one or two particular counties in my State that are considered a plaintiff's wonderland, where you can get massive damages if you go into these particular counties. By the way, our insurance commissioner--a very fine insurance commissioner of many years a Democrat--has noted that 46 insurance companies have said: We are leaving this State. We are not going to face these exorbitant, ridiculous judgments in this particular county, Jefferson County, MS. So where you file does make a difference. We need to pay attention to that. Of course, there is also the question of how much in damages. Is this about a result or is this about a lawsuit? Do we want health care or do we want legal action? Do we want a reasonable judgment for losses that you have incurred or do we want pain and suffering and punishment? Those are basic questions. But I hope we can bring all sides together and get a result. I want a result. I want us to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights. I think we need it. It is the right thing to do. And I am tired of hearing about it. It is time to act. It is kind of like what we did in the tax relief bill on the marriage penalty. We have been talking about it for 10 years, about how it is unfair, and that we ought to get rid of it. My question was, Why haven't we done it? We can do this if both sides can be reasonable. I talked to the President yesterday. There is no doubt in my mind the President wants to sign a reasonable and fair Patients' Bill of Rights. But there is also no doubt in my mind he will veto the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill in its present form. I hope we can go through this amendment process, address the delivery questions, the liability questions, and also see if we can find a way to make health care more accessible to many Americans who are not now covered. Small business men and women have a hard time, even when they really want to, making sure all of their employees are covered because even if they offer them the coverage, and pay half the cost, many employees say: We just can't afford it. We are not going to do it. So they are not covered. Can't we find a way to give them access to coverage or to help them with the expenses of that coverage? I think we can. I think this is a bill where we can help address that. Let me note that the distinguished Senator from Nevada is on his feet. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. LOTT. That was about the nicest way I have ever been told my time has expired. That is why I was talking fast. I did want to get in a few remarks. I appreciate Senator Reid noting that. At this point, I will yield the floor because we have had very good cooperation in going back and forth every 30 minutes. I would like to continue that. I will take advantage of leader time another time. But thank you very much, I say to Senator Reid. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on my reservation, I note a couple of facts have to be considered at this time. That is, the manager of the legislation is not able to be here today. I have not been able to talk with him. I tried to reach him, as a matter of fact, this morning by phone--that is Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire--and other Senators who are directly involved in this legislation. I have not been able to get clearance to proceed at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow. Also, I understand the underlying legislation that will be the vehicle we consider was changed perhaps as late as Friday afternoon. We are trying to get a look at it and see exactly what changes have been made because that will determine what first amendments might be offered or what the tone of the debate will be as we open this legislation. I am sure we are going to be able to go to the Patients' Bill of Rights in a reasonable period of time, but at this time I have been asked to object. So I object.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the manager in opposition to this amendment for allowing me to go ahead and speak now. Ordinarily, we make a real point to go back and forth. So I appreciate that. I will be brief and to the point. I rise in support of this amendment. I think it is an amendment that should basically be accepted by all of us. I don't know quite how to react to the fact that in America even the Boy Scouts seem to be under attack. Is motherhood and apple pie next? Is there nothing sacred anymore? I don't have a conflict of interest. I came from such a small, rural, poor area that we didn't even have a Boy Scout troop. I was a Cub Scout. Somehow or other we managed to have a Cub Scout troop. I enjoyed that. I never got to be a Weeblo or a Boy Scout. I missed it. I have been very supportive of the Boy Scouts, and I have attended Eagle Scout ceremonies. I have been to Boy Scouts events that recognized great Americans who started off as Scouts--such as Jerry Ford when he got a special recognition. It is not as if I am defending something from which I directly benefited. But, quite frankly, I think we all benefit from organizations such as the Boy Scouts. Their fundamental principles are rooted in basic good things such as duty to God and respect for individual beliefs, loyalty to one's country and respect for its laws, service to others, voluntarism, and training of youth in responsible citizenship, in physical and mental development, and in character advancement. These are all such fine goals. I have watched this organization transform young men's lives, as the Girl Scouts with girls. They have given them an opportunity to help themselves, to support causes bigger than themselves as the saying goes now, and to improve their community by involvement. I think in no way should we diminish the importance of that, or take away what they do for boys and girls of all races and ethnic and religious backgrounds. Now what does this amendment do? The title is the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act. It sounds good to me. I assume there are going to be those who say this is something we shouldn't do or it gives them some advantage. But all it says is that if a public elementary school or public secondary school has a designated open forum, then that school cannot discriminate against the Boy Scouts of America or any youth group on the basis of its membership or leadership criteria or on the basis of its oath of allegiance to God and country. If a public school did discriminate against the Boy Scouts of America, then that school would be in jeopardy of losing its Federal education funds. I know the Supreme Court rendered a decision recently saying a religious group could have time and access to space at a school if all other groups have access. You do not have to attend, but if you are going to have an open policy, then you have to let everybody have an opportunity to have access to the space in the school. This is a very meritorious and I think very defensible position to have. The Boy Scouts have become the largest voluntary youth movement in the world with a worldwide membership totaling more than 25 million. Over 6 million of those participants come from the United States alone. There have been a series of decisions in the courts that I think relate to this. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Boy Scouts v. Dale that the Boy Scouts are a private organization and, as such, they can decide who can be in their organization if they wish. There was a decision recently involving the Boy Scouts in the U.S. district court in Florida which said that Broward County could not evict Scouts off school property. So there are decisions at the district court level and from the Supreme Court affecting this. But of the attacks on the Boy Scouts, some people would say it is no real problem. It is having an impact. Based on the Boy Scouts' stand on their principles, eight of the United Way agencies nationwide have withdrawn their financial support from the Boy Scouts of America. We have seen that there have been some 359 school districts which have severed sponsorships with the Scouts since last June's ruling. So it is affecting the Boy Scouts in terms of financial support, and it is affecting them in that schools are beginning to prohibit Boy Scouts from being able to have sponsorships and meet in their schools. So clearly it is having an effect. We have reached the point now where when a Boy Scout troop comes out--four or five boys; or girls who are Girl Scouts--they get booed because they are there during the Pledge of Allegiance. Surely, we cannot reach that kind of ugliness in America. So I think it is very important that we have this amendment added. It would require that public schools treat the Boy Scouts of America exactly the same as they do all other groups meeting in the schools; that is all. Surely, the least we can do is to allow them to have equal access. So while there may be some wringing of hands and assertions of what this amendment does way beyond what it does, or its intent, they just want to be treated the same as everybody else --nothing more, nothing less. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I do not object to the request of the Senator, but just to make sure I understood, was there an original request? Did Senator Daschle make a unanimous consent request?