Floor Statements

Mr. President, the majority manager is not here. I have been designated to be the opposition manager for the half hour that we have. In a short time, I will delegate that time to the senior Senator from Massachusetts.

As we begin this half hour on our side and half hour on the other side, I extend my appreciation and that of the whole Democratic caucus to Senator Kennedy for leading the opposition, literally, to this measure. He has had a lot of help. I have sat through days of speeches on this matter and I have been impressed with the quality of the speeches, really, on both sides. Especially on our side, I have been impressed with Senator Kennedy, and I will mention a number of names who I thought did such a wonderful job: Senators Bayh, Boxer, Cantwell, Clinton, Dayton, Dodd, Harkin, Pryor, Nelson of Florida, and Graham of Florida. What a loss it is going to be to this institution and our country that this fine man is going to no longer be part of the Senate after 1 year.

I believe there is no one who has a better grasp of this legislation than the Senator from Florida. He has done such an outstanding job of articulating his views.

Of course, I add a congratulatory note to Senator Stabenow who has worked on this measure long and hard.

Senator Durbin has always done such a good job of expressing his views. He was never any better than on this issue.

Mr. President, I reserve the last 5 minutes for Senator Daschle. I delegate the rest of our time to the senior Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, we have 23 minutes on our side; 23 minutes on the other side.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''

Mr. President, people have to understand the process here. We are being criticized for not agreeing to this omnibus bill.

I first of all want the Record to be spread with the fact that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, has worked tirelessly to get this done. He has worked, not a matter of hours or days but weeks. I have spoken to him on this legislation at least 50 times. So my remarks are not in any way to criticize the distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate.

Here it is, November 25, and there have been no final papers filed. What does that mean? There is no final draft of the legislation. Yesterday was the first day that some selected staff people could look at the proposed bill. But even then there were open items. It certainly does not speak well of the legislative branch of Government, as to what is happening.

What do I mean by that? The Congress has agreed on these appropriations bills. The Congress, the House and the Senate, in conference have agreed on these bills. What has been the problem is the interference--and I say that word purposely--by the executive branch of Government.

What are some of the outstanding items in this bill that are causing problems? We have over here 15 holds on this bill if it ever came to me. Regarding the Federal Communications Commission, the House and the Senate have agreed. We had two votes in both bodies, overwhelming votes that determined what would happen. But the White House is not happy with that. They want that changed. They don't want to change it in the normal process, by having hearings, et cetera; they want to do it in the conference--even

though there have been two overwhelming votes in both the House and the Senate.

Another deals with outsourcing. There were overwhelming votes in the House and Senate dealing with outsourcing, privatizing. The White House doesn't like that, so they want it changed.

There were two overwhelming votes dealing with overtime pay. The White House didn't like the votes of the legislative branch of Government, so they, by fiat, want to change that.

Then we have other issues that are troublesome in this bill, not necessarily to this Senator but to other Senators. We have situations dealing with when the ATF destroys records of the instant check on guns. The legislation called for 90 days. It has been shortened to 24 hours.

There is a situation that has come up that has overtones of the abortion debate. This is dealing with cloning, human cloning. We thought it was so simple in the committee that we--people don't want to do cloning of human beings, but there is a protracted dispute as to how to write that.

This bill may pass when we come back in January. But we can come back next week, the week after--it is not going to happen. It is not going to happen, as important as this legislation is. And no one knows the importance of it more than the senior Senator from the State of Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, who has fought for this legislation, making sure that we have fair votes across the country, that we have votes using the same pieces of equipment, basically, so we do not have the problems we had in the last Presidential election.

We understand the importance of this legislation, even though it is not the right way to do things. We would rather do appropriations bills. We accept the omnibus strategy. But here it is, November 25, 1 more day from the eve of Thanksgiving and we don't have a final draft of what they want us to approve, in addition to all of the things that have been interfered with by the White House.

I believe in the Constitution of the United States. Here it is. This is the second one. It was given to me by Senator Byrd. I wore the first one out. He gave it to me. I treasure the other one, although it is worn out. I asked him to give me another one.

The Constitution, among other things, calls for three separate but equal branches of Government. This is not a king's court. This is an Executive led by the President and a Congress that has two branches; the House and the Senate. Then, of course, we have the courts. The President can't just override by dictates what we have done here in a legislative body. I know there are crocodile tears being shed by people saying: Why can't we do the omnibus?

These are only some of the reasons. Some people badly want to pass this omnibus bill, and the reason is quite clear. My friends have come to me and indicated that they agreed to do this in the Energy bill, or in this bill we just passed, because they were told they would get things in the omnibus. I understand the legislative process. I have no qualms about arrangements being made. I believe legislation is the art of compromise. That is how we work with different legislation. There is nothing wrong with that. It is not illegal or immoral doing that. But you have to understand that it will be a difficult time.

I favor the omnibus. I want to get it done. I have worked very hard on the omnibus. The Senator from New Mexico and I added money in our energy and water bill. There was no problem at all. We have worked with Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens to make sure we were part of the deal. We didn't want to interfere with getting a bill. We were told there were certain things that needed to come out of our bill and which could only come from our part of the omnibus. We agreed to do that.

But I repeat: If we only had appropriations matters in this bill, this thing would whip out of here in a second because the chairmen and the ranking members of the appropriations committees are Members of the Senate who are appreciated and respected. They know we wouldn't jam things into those bills. I speak for all of the other 12 appropriations subcommittees on the Democratic side.

But we don't have that situation. We have a situation that these two legislative bodies agreed to overwhelmingly. But the White House won't leave them alone. That is why the House hasn't given us a bill because the White House won't leave them alone. They keep wanting other things stuffed in it.

When we come back in January, I hope this is the first bill we take up. I hope the second bill we take up is the highway bill. I hope we get to this bill. It is too bad we are not going to do something for the months of December and January. It would be better for the American people, and it would be better for my State. But we can't agree to this because we have so many problems dealing with FCC and outsourcing. We swallow hard and take the across-the-board cuts that Senator Stevens said we have to do. That is fine. There are issues such as dealing with guns, abortion, and overtime. People don't have to come and tell us what is in this bill. We know what is in this bill. We know how important the bill is. Go down 16 blocks from here and tell them to leave us alone and let us go back to the constitutional basis of this country and have a Congress that does what it wants. If the White House doesn't like it, let them veto the bill. But they have no right, in my opinion, to start stuffing things in the bill that the House has overridden--overtime, FCC, outsourcing, for example.

I want this omnibus bill to pass. We want the omnibus bill to pass. But we are not going to under the constraints we have.

Remember, it is November 25 and they still haven't filed the papers. We are asking for unanimous consent to pass this. A legislator would have to have rocks in their head to agree to something they haven't yet read.

Mr. President, some of us are barely old enough to recall the end of World War II. And we remember that it was an effort that involved the entire Nation in a monumental struggle against the evil of fascism.

During World War II the United States sent more than 250,000 nurses to the front lines to care for our wounded Allied troops.

By 1942, the country was experiencing a shortage of nurses for domestic medical needs. In fact, the shortage was so severe that many clinics were forced to close.

To alleviate our domestic medical crisis, Congresswoman Frances Payne Bolton introduced legislation creating the United States Cadet Nurse Corps in 1943. Over the next 5 years, the Corps recruited about 125,000 young women to assume the duties of nurses who had been dispatched to the front lines. Throughout World War II, cadet nurses accounted for 80 percent of the nursing staff in our domestic medical facilities.

Cadet nurses completed rigorous training under the jurisdiction of the Public Health service. They also pledged to serve at any time during the war, at any hospital or clinic where they might be needed. They were often required to leave their families and fill vacant positions across the country. They acted as both caregivers and medical doctors--as there was also a scarcity of doctors--to the sick and wounded.

The Cadet Nurse Corps provided the support of health care system needed. By putting the needs of the Nation ahead of their own, these young women made it possible for Allied troops to receive the best possible medical care during a time of war.

Although the uniforms of these dedicated cadet nurses were decorated with patches certified by the Secretary of the Army, and they served under the authority of commissioned officers, the Cadet Nurse Corps has never been recognized as a military organization.

Today, many of these cadet nurses are no longer living. Those who do survive are in their seventies and eighties. Ironically, they are not entitled to use the veterans health care system, nor do they receive other benefits such as disability pay.

Even more important, they rarely receive the recognition they deserve for their service to their country. And every year, as more of the cadet nurses pass away, it becomes too late to recognize them.

These women served their country in a time of war. I believe they deserve to be recognized as veterans of that war effort. Therefore, I support veterans status for members of the Cadet Nurse Corps.

I have introduced legislation that would accomplish this goal. I hope my colleagues will support this effort so we can finally properly recognize the cadet nurses for their outstanding service to this country.

Yes, if my distinguished friend will yield.

Mr. President, we have, on this side, a number of people who wish to speak. It is my understanding, to make this debate fair, that on this side the time will be given to those who are opposed to cloture being invoked. So the people who speak on this side will be opposed to cloture. I want all the people who have asked for time on this side to understand that. And we are--this is just for Democrats-- we are going to give 9 minutes to the following Senators, and in no necessary order. Whoever is here can speak. They should all be alerted that if there are quorum calls, they are going to lose time. So, Mr. President, I would, on our side, grant 9 minutes to Senators Akaka, Lautenberg, Kerry, Lieberman, Dodd, Clinton, Mikulski, Pryor, Kennedy, with Kennedy to have the last time before the Democratic leader speaks, closing the debate.

Now, again, I want to tell those listening, this side is for those who oppose cloture.

Yes. And I think it would be better if we alternated back and forth until 12:30.

Mr. President, I make an announcement to Democrat Senators. I have spoken and said this time will be set aside for those who are opposed to cloture, but I think that is too restrictive. We want to make sure there is good debate this morning. Some people

have not had an opportunity to speak, so our time will be for those who are opposed to the legislation, the bill itself. They can make up their mind whatever they want to do on cloture.

I ask unanimous consent that the names I read before--Senators Akaka, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerry, Lieberman, Clinton, Mikulski, Pryor, and Kennedy--all be allotted 9 minutes, the amount of time on the Democratic side that they would be entitled to, and no more. I ask consent that that order be entered.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I would say the same thing. We have a long list of people who have said they want to come. When our time is called and we are not here, that time will run off of our time. So the 9 minutes people have, that time will be limited. If people come and want extra time, I would have to object to protect other Senators.

Senator Akaka is here and raring to go.

Mr. President, on our side, I think the time we have allocated--we have a little time left, is that true?

I have allocated a lot of that time. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Edwards be given 3 minutes under our control.

Mr. President, if I may speak briefly, I say through the Chair to the senior Senator from New York, we have been taking significantly longer than the majority on speeches. They should get two speakers to make up for what we have been taking on our side. Senator Clinton is next in the order.

I yield the Senator from Massachusetts 1 minute additional.

Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. President, my understanding is that we have 12 minutes left.

We have allocated time to Senator Edwards, 3 minutes; is that right?

I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. We want to make sure we will use all of our time now. If Senator Edwards isn't here, that time will run because Senator Frist gets the last 5 minutes.

Mr. President, will the Senator withhold?

Mr. President, on our side, Senator Graham will speak for 10 minutes, Senator Boxer for 5 minutes, Senator Dodd for 5 minutes, and Senator Corzine for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, the Senator from California has already been recognized to speak for 5 minutes. Following the Senator from California, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd be recognized, and following that, Senator Corzine be recognized for 5 minutes, and following that Senator Durbin for 5 minutes.

That is correct.

Mr. President, we reserve the last 4 minutes for the Democratic leader.

Mr. President, if I could interrupt the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, I have a unanimous consent I would like to propound.

Mr. President, pursuant to the rule, Senator Daschle has designated me the manager in opposition. Senator Levin is on the floor. Senator Akaka is on the floor. Pursuant to the rules, they have asked that I be given their 1 hour postcloture. They are both on the floor. Is that sufficient?

Mr. President, through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, thank you very much for allowing me to proceed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am wondering if the Senator from Nevada is qualified to talk about a bill such as this.

I ask that the Senator from Nevada be listed as cosponsor of this important legislation.

Mr. President, will the Senator withhold? We have had a very difficult day. I was trying to add a little levity to it. Senator Ensign is, of course, a veterinarian. He is the acting majority leader. I thought he was moving a bill dealing with veterinarians. I should bring to the attention of the American public, we have a veterinarian serving in the Senate.

Mr. President, I hope that Senators would not ask to extend beyond half an hour because it is so difficult to object. We have a lot of people. We have 17 on this side. Multiply that by half an hour and one gets the figures. I hope everyone will stick by the half hour that will be entered into, hopefully, momentarily.

I say to my friend from Massachusetts, the way the order is now set on our side, the majority leader would speak first. I would speak second. I would be happy to change places with the Senator from Massachusetts so he can go second, and I will go sixth or seventh.

If I could offer a unanimous consent request?

That is fine.

In layman's terms, what this means is, if there are Senators on our side or the other side who want to use the 30 minutes in any way they want--10-10-10, 15-15--that is certainly permissible. The going back and forth would be unfair otherwise because someone here would use 30 minutes and only 10 there.

So what we are going to do--I think this is totally appropriate. I ask the distinguished Senator from Kentucky to allow a modification, simply a housekeeping matter over here. The Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, and the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, are going to switch places, and also that Senator Edwards would be listed at the end of our list as the final Democratic speaker.

Madam President, Senator Nickles is in the building. I do not know if he is going to speak.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Parliamentary inquiry. This, of course, has nothing to do with the legislation. It is my understanding the action of the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee would not be in derogation of the consent order before the Senate for debate today.

Mr. President, if I could just be heard briefly.

We had a Senator who took an extra 5 minutes today because of various reasons, so it is my understanding that the distinguished Senator from Kentucky wants an extra 5 minutes. We would be happy to agree to that. So we would just add that on to what time he has.

Is the Senator on his way down?

We would agree to give him that extra 5 minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Senator Baucus is the next scheduled speaker. I will ask for a quorum call, but I also ask unanimous consent that the time be taken off his time. It is not fair to wait because we have 4\1/2\ hours' worth of speakers.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we have 4\1/2\ hours of speeches still tonight, and that is why we have limited it to half an hour each.

Sure.

Mr. President, first of all, I want to underscore the comments about the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, which were made by the senior Senator from Montana.

Senator Grassley is a dedicated Senator, a gentleman, and I have great respect for him. So I appreciate the Senator from Montana saying those nice things about the senior Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley.

But I also want to say that on our side we have two people who have been so heavily involved in getting a bill here. One is the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, who, as he said, is my friend. I have the deepest respect for him, and I know how hard he has worked on this legislation. He has kept me apprised of his progress and slippage on occasion.

Senator Breaux and I, of course, came to the Senate together. There is a bond of friendship between us that will last forever.

So even though I do not agree with my two friends, Senators Baucus and Breaux, on this legislation, no one can take away how hard they have worked on it and how they believe they are doing the right thing.

Mr. President, the Presiding Officer knows that my father was a hard rock miner. As I look back, the best times we spent together were when I was a little boy.

My dad worked in a number of mines, but the mine that I remember is a mine called The Elvira. My dad worked underground alone, which was, of course, against the law. No one ever prevented him from doing that. The mining inspectors rarely came to Searchlight.

It was during the summertime, when I was out of school, the first summer I can remember going down with him, keeping him company.

As I look back on my father, those were times we had together underground. I had my own little hat, with a carbide lamp. I was not much help to him, but I kept him company.

My dad was a very quiet man, but he would talk to me. We had wonderful times. I would have my own lunch. My mom would pack my lunch.

But my dad taught me a lot of things. As I indicated, the finest memories of my dad are from those days we spent together underground.

As I got older and stronger there were things I did later, as I became a teenager, that I could do to help him physically other than just keep him company. But those days were not like the days I spent alone underground with my dad.

He taught me a lot of things. But one of the things he taught me how to do was to pan for gold. Of course, we never had much. He never found much for what he did. There was not much gold there.

But I knew how to pan for gold. You would take the rock and grind it up real fine into a little metal bowl. Then you would put it in like a frying pan, a pan that was made just for that, and shake it with water coming down. And gold, of course, is very heavy, and the gold would be at the bottom. You could see if there was any gold there.

The other way, of course, you could find if there was gold is you could send it to an assayer and find out. But the first preliminary thing you did was pan for gold.

Mr. President, one of the things I learned as a boy in Searchlight is there was a lot of something called iron pyrites. It is fool's gold.

I have this little rock in my hand. It is the same kind of rock I have pictured on the right side of this chart. If you were up close, you could see this glittery, gold stuff on the rock. It is all over the rock, and it looks like gold. It glistens like gold. The only way that you can find out if it is real gold is if you either pan it or assay it.

What I have shown on the left side of this chart is gold. And what is shown on the right side of the chart looks like gold, but it is fool's gold.

I say to my friends within the sound of my voice, even though this product looks like gold, I think if you examine it, if you assay it, you will find it is not gold. It is like the iron pyrites in the mines of Searchlight. It is something we call fool's gold.

This legislation started as a Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors. Now, this large bill we have here, of approximately 700 pages--approximately 700 pages--about 150 pages of it deal with prescription drugs for Medicare. The rest of it is something that I never thought was to be part of the legislation; it is to reform Medicare.

Now, my friend, John Breaux, has spent a lot of his legislative life talking about the need to reform Medicare. And I have not talked in detail with Senator Breaux, but I am confident he was much more involved in and concerned about reforming Medicare than the prescription drug aspect. That is not necessarily bad, but that is what he was focused on.

Senator Breaux believes that Medicare needs reform. During the Clinton years, he was the chairman of a committee to come up with some Medicare reform. And he came up with it. He was the chairman of that committee. More than 50 percent of the people who served on that panel believed that his program was good that they had come up with. But under the rules of engagement, it took a supermajority to do that, and he could not get that.

So Senator Breaux, as I have already said about my friend--Senator Baucus and Senator Breaux, fine people, wonderful Senators, but I think this legislation, which started out as a prescription drug benefit for seniors, has gone way beyond that and is now a bill mostly dealing with Medicare reform.

This legislation is OK at first glance, but if you look at it closely, I believe, as I have indicated on this chart, it is really not the gold, shown on the left, but it is the fool's gold, the iron pyrites, shown on the right.

This summer, we passed a bipartisan prescription drug bill, which was not perfect. As it returned from the House, though, the prescription drug bill that passed the Senate has taken a step backward. It is not imperfect; it is bad.

I think there are millions of people worse off. It gnaws away at the foundations of Medicare.

Seniors have trusted this program for 40 years. My position has been that we should make health care available to every American, we should cut costs, we should improve quality, and we should expand access. Upon review of this legislation, we don't have that. We have what I believe is an image, an image that looks like gold, but it isn't, it is fool's gold.

All you have to do is look at the facts. In Nevada, 20,000 low-income seniors will have to pay more when this legislation goes into effect. This bill contains an unfair and confusing assets test. Why would we charge someone negatively because they have planned ahead and have a burial plot, maybe a car, maybe some furniture? This bill contains an unfair and confusing assets test. More affluent seniors are going to be punished. That is not right.

I have been through this once before as a Member of Congress. On catastrophic, I introduced legislation in the Senate that the chairman of the Finance Committee, Lloyd Bentsen, personally criticized me for introducing. That legislation was to repeal catastrophic. I did it because the seniors of America were up in arms. I was a relatively new Senator, and I won't say my colleagues shunned me, but they weren't happy for a while. But that legislation passed. It repealed catastrophic.

Catastrophic was directed toward people who had taken care of themselves, had provided for the future. They were being punished for having done a good job, taking care of the future. They rebelled. And that is what we are going to find here.

Clearly, they will pay more in Medicare premiums. The costs of Medicare will go up for them. They already pay more than their share of payroll and income taxes. They already pay the greater share of Medicare costs.

I have received some letters from people in Nevada, constituents of the Presiding Officer and me. Let's note what some of them say.

Mrs. Betty Sweet of Las Vegas: Don't sell the seniors out to big business HMOs. The HMO plan will be a step down in our care.

Martha Pruter of Reno: This plan is only going to benefit the pharmaceutical companies. It will not benefit consumers.

Mary Ann Brim of Henderson: I oppose the Medicare bill. Has anyone done the math? I can't believe they would support this bill if they had. Certainly you can come up with something better than this.

Now, these people, Mrs. Brim in particular, actually did their homework on the math. The actual drug benefit created by this bill is confusing and offers seniors only a meager drug benefit. Someone who spends approximately $5,000 a year on drugs will be stuck with almost 80 percent of the bill.

People have come to me and said: Vote for this. Nothing is going to kick in for a couple of years. You are protected. You can talk about the benefits of this bill. Maybe they are right. But in a couple years I would look back on this vote saying, I didn't do the right thing because thousands of retirees in Nevada will lose their coverage as a result of this bill.

In Nevada, tens of thousands of seniors stand to lose their current retiree drug benefits. The Nevada senior prescription program that Governor Guinn of Nevada tried, it was one program, and nobody even signed up for it. He has one now that is good, people like it, and we don't know what is going to happen. We don't know what is going to happen to this program.

We heard the distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, talk about demonstration projects, six of them. We could get as many as three of them in Nevada. I don't think we should be used as guinea pigs in an ideological experiment that would force them to give up their doctor and join an HMO or pay higher premiums to remain in traditional Medicare. Those who opt for private plans would have to use a doctor approved by the insurance company in these areas. Over time the seniors who remained in the traditional fee-for-service Medicare would likely be the oldest, the sickest, and the poorest. They would have to pay an ever-increasing premium to maintain their coverage.

This bill would make a wide range of seniors worse off than they are today, from seniors who are eligible for Medicaid, seniors who have coverage through former employers, seniors enrolled in State pharmacy programs, to seniors who will be forced to pay higher premiums to stay in traditional Medicare. That is not the type of prescription drug coverage our seniors deserve. It is fool's gold.

Many of my colleagues support this bill because they like the concept of competition. I like competition, too. But I am in favor of competition where there is a level playing field. This bill does not provide for fair competition.

This rigs the rules in favor of private insurance companies by paying them off to serve a patient whom Medicare would also take care of without the additional incentive that these companies get. It siphons off $12 billion that should be used to help our seniors. It pushes it off into a fund for private insurance companies. That is why we have read in all of the papers around the country that the insurance industry is wild about this legislation. The pharmaceutical companies are wild about this legislation. They wiped out the reimportation we had in our bill, something that went to the House, where we could reimport drugs which are much cheaper in Canada. That is eliminated, and that is too bad. It was a concept that both the House and the Senate approved. This is something that is hard to comprehend.

This bill even says that when Medicare becomes the largest purchaser of prescription drugs, it is expressly forbidden to negotiate prices with the drug companies. That is why we want these large purchasers of pharmaceuticals, so they can go to the drug companies and get lower prices. In this legislation, they are forbidden from doing this. If we really believe in a free market, why shouldn't Medicare also be able to bargain for good prices? It is no wonder big insurance companies and big drug companies are spending millions of dollars on lobbyists and ads to support this bill.

I have to say they have done a good job. I want everyone to know that the drug companies and the insurance companies have spent their money well. Because the lobbyists have really done well by them, this bill is a dream for the insurance industry and the big drug companies. It tilts the playing field in their favor at the expense of senior citizens. That is not competition, it is corporate welfare.

This bill is not what it claims to be, and seniors are smart enough to see this bill for what it really is, fool's gold. Betty Sweet, Martha Pruter, Mary Ann Brim, they all did their homework and understand that this legislation is not good.

As I have indicated, the actual drug benefit created by this bill is confusing and offers seniors only a meager drug benefit. It is a poor trade when you spend approximately $5,000 a year on drugs and you will be stuck with 80 percent of the bill. When we talk about a pharmaceutical benefit for Medicare, people think they are going to get the drugs at a reasonable price.

The Medicare conference agreement would make fundamental changes to Medicare as we know it, changes that have nothing to do with a prescription drug benefit or building a stronger foundation for the program. It would use our senior citizens as guinea pigs to test the theories of Newt Gingrich and other ideologues.

Am I off base on this? I carry this with me because I have used it on a number of occasions, and now it is kind of withered and dilapidated. I have seen Newt Gingrich, with whom I served in the Congress--a fine person. I like him. I think he has a great mind. And he has been able, with his great mind, to do some things with which I don't agree. But I have here some statements made by leaders. I believe their whole concept is what is behind this legislation.

First of all, this is Senator Bob Dole's direct quote:

I was there fighting the fight--

He was 1 of 12 against Medicare--

because we knew it would not work in 1965.

He and many colleagues believed it would never work. Senator Dole was 1 of 12 who voted against it then.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, said:

Now, we didn't get rid of it in round one because we didn't

think it was politically smart, but we believe Medicare is

going to wither on the vine.

Former House Member Dick Armey said this:

Medicare has no place in a free world. Social Security is a

rotten trick.

He goes on to say:

I think we are going to have to bite the bullet and phase

it out over time.

Those are direct quotes. I think part of what we have behind this legislation is an effort to have Medicare wither on the vine, and it will be withering on the vine. I think we should understand that this legislation is not what it purports to be; it is not. As a result of that, I believe we should vote against this legislation.

Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. President, I yield that time to my colleague from Nevada, Senator Ensign.

Mr. President, I want to make sure, having heard the distinguished majority leader speak about asbestos, that we understand, as he has indicated, it is a very complicated, difficult issue. But there are concerns that I have, and I think I speak for lots of people in this country. I am very concerned about how it affects business, but I am also concerned how it affects individual people.

I called Mrs. Bruce Vento this week, a woman from Minnesota whose husband served in the House of Representatives, a wonderful man. He worked in an asbestos facility for a few months as a young man. He is 58 years old, he gets sick, he is dead within a year as a result of the disease that comes from being around asbestos, mesothelioma. The average life expectancy of a person who is diagnosed with this disease is a little over a year. They die quickly.

Then we have asbestosis, where people live longer but it has a detrimental effect on their health.

What we have to do is get rid of the spurious lawsuits, those that don't deal with those two conditions about which I just spoke.

So I hope, as we proceed through asbestos legislation, we worry about and are concerned about these very sick people. People in this Senate have worked extremely hard to come up with a solution. The distinguished Senator from Utah is in the Chamber, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He and the ranking member, Senator Leahy, have worked days and weeks to try to come up with something. We always get close but never quite close enough.

So I hope as we proceed, as the distinguished majority leader indicated, toward legislation dealing with this, that we keep in mind the main reason we are doing it. The main reason we need to legislate, in my opinion, is to take care of the people who get afflicted with the diseases that are related to asbestos. In the process, I hope we can ban the importation of asbestos into our country. We continue to import thousands of tons of this stuff on a yearly basis, even as we speak.

So I appreciate the concern of the majority leader. I have concerns also. But if I were giving a speech in a prolonged fashion, I would speak about the people who get sick, as Bruce Vento did, and are now dead.

I am sorry, what was the concern?

Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will yield for a response?

What is in place is an agreement, gentlemen's in nature, that we would go back and forth. We are trying to work out an agreement where we would divide the time between proponents and opponents until 11 o'clock tonight. That has not been done yet, but there is something that has been typed up.

The reason going back and forth may not be fair is someone may speak for an hour and a half and someone else may speak for 10 or 15 minutes. So we have to come up with something better than that. That is what we are trying to do now.

Mr. President, we are alternating back and forth. It is obvious that it is not fair. The Senator from Arizona did not speak for an inordinate amount of time. If somebody comes and speaks for 5 minutes who is opposed to the legislation and someone speaks for 45 minutes in favor of it, that doesn't work out. I am somewhat at a loss as to why we have not worked out an arrangement that the time between now and 11 o'clock be equally divided between proponents and opponents, with no limit as to how much they could speak.

If someone who wanted to speak in favor of the legislation were here and there was nobody to speak in opposition, that person could go ahead and speak. For reasons I don't understand, the floor staff has not gotten that approved by the managers and leadership.

The Senator from West Virginia is here in the Chamber. He is going to speak against the legislation. With the agreement now in effect, it would be his time to speak. I know the manager is here. Is that OK with the Senator?

Mr. President, I think the Senator from West Virginia would be happy to yield for 10 minutes to the Senator; is that right? I don't know that to be the case. This shows how unfair this whole situation is.

I cannot imagine what is holding up the UC to allow the time to be divided equally.

I yield to the Senator from West Virginia. He has an obligation. That is why he is here at 11. The Senator from Illinois said he would be happy to yield, following the statement of Senator Byrd, to the Senator. He has that right anyway; he doesn't need consent to do that.

Just understand that following Senator Byrd is Senator Durbin. There could be as much as an hour and a half. I want to make sure everybody understands that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Idaho be recognized for up to 10 minutes, and then the Senator from West Virginia, followed by the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, I am sure the Chair can protect the majority if there is a problem. We need to get this unanimous consent agreement, which has been approved by both sides.

I ask unanimous consent that the time until 11 o'clock tonight be equally divided between the opponents and proponents; provided that when time expires on either, it be in order for either side to consume additional debate time; further, that the debate time used beginning with Senator Kyl's statement this morning be counted against the time allotment. I further ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the order for an alternating fashion following the remarks of Senator Durbin, it be in order for two Republicans to speak consecutively, one Senator for 20 minutes and the other Senator for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, further, so Senators will have some understanding as to when they can speak, I ask unanimous consent that the Democrat order be Senators Stabenow and Reed of Rhode Island following Senator Durbin, and that the Republicans be Senators Snowe, Cornyn, Collins, Bennett, Hatch, Bond, Nickles, and Gregg.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next Democratic speaker following Senator Reed of Rhode Island be Senator Harkin.

Mr. President, it is my understanding, on the Democratic side, the speaking order has been set for the next few speakers. Is that true?

Who would they be?

Following Senator Boxer, I ask that Senator Clinton be recognized.

I believe that is all we have at this stage, Mr. President.

For tomorrow, whatever time we come in, I ask on our side the Democratic leader be recognized first, I be recognized second, that Senator Graham of Florida be recognized third, and Senator Kerry of Massachusetts be recognized fourth--that is for Sunday.

Unless there is some change by the leadership, I assume we will do the same thing tomorrow we are doing today.

Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from Missouri is anxious to speak. He is going to visit his son who is coming home on leave from the Marine Corps.

I will be very quick. Following the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, our next speaker will be Senator Lincoln. Tomorrow, the Democrats, other than those we have already lined up--the last Member we lined up I believe was Senator Kerry--would be Senators Wyden, Levin, Kennedy, Murray, Dorgan, Corzine, and Akaka.

Mr. President, I have spoken to the Parliamentarian. The opponents of this legislation have approximately 2 hours left tonight before 11 o'clock.

Mr. President, following Senator Akaka, we would like to have Senators Johnson, Dayton, Bingaman, and Bill Nelson.

Mr. President, I apologize to the Senator from Utah. If the Senator will allow me to ask a couple questions, through the Chair, I appreciate the majority leader coming in an hour earlier tomorrow. We have 15 speakers lined up on our side for tomorrow. We are going to try to work out some kind of time arrangement. I say to the staff listening, what we would like to do on our side is limit the time to a half hour each. If anybody has any objection to that, they should call here as soon as they can. Otherwise, it is unfair to people who are at the bottom of the list.

I also say to the majority leader, we have gotten a number of calls today about this being the last item of business before we go home until January. I know the majority leader is working on that. I hope that is the case. Some of our folks are willing to give up time and do various things as a result of family obligations they have at home. If they have to come back again after Thanksgiving, I think their family obligations will become so paramount that they may not be as cooperative as we would like them to be.

Mr. President, briefly, I appreciate very much the majority leader mentioning that. We have had people say they want to speak Monday. What I have said is that we can have 90 minutes per side on Monday. That is my understanding, having spoken to the two leaders. People will only have very short periods of time because the managers will need to make the paramount arguments on Monday. You are absolutely right. For people wanting to come back, the time is going to be very minimal. I appreciate that from the majority leader.

Mr. President, we have no objection.

Mr. President, while the majority leader is on the Senate floor, before we begin the final hour of debate on this important issue, I think the last 2 days have been some of the finest hours of the Senate this year. The debate has been constructive on both sides. I think it has been issue-oriented. I have been very impressed with the manner in which the debate has proceeded. The two managers of the bill are, of course, both experienced, and I am confident that the debate for the next hour will be just as constructive.

We have our time lined up. Everyone is here to make their speeches.

I look forward to a vigorous debate and a vote in about an hour.