Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I think a 30-minute timeframe, equally divided, would be appropriate. We have debated the issue now for some time. This is another iteration, in our view, that is completely unacceptable, but we would be happy to talk about it. Thirty minutes would be acceptable to us.

Mr. DASCHLE. I have no objection to the offering of the amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with Senator McCain and Senator Inouye, an important bill to correct an inequity in the law affecting many Native American children. Every year, for a variety of often tragic reasons, thousands of children across the country are placed in foster care. To assist with the cost of food, shelter, clothing, daily supervision and school supplies, foster parents of children who have come to them through state agency placements receive money through Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Additionally, States receive funds for administrative training and data collection to support this program. Unfortunately, because of a legislative oversight, many income-eligible Native American children placed in foster care by tribal agencies do not receive foster care and adoptive services to which all other income-eligible children are entitled. Not only are otherwise eligible Native children denied foster care maintenance payments, but this inequity also extends to children adopted through tribal placements. Currently, the IV-E program offers sporadic assistance for expenses associated with adoption and no assistance for training professional staff or parents involved in the adoption absent a tribal-state agreement. In many instances, these children face insurmountable odds. Many come from abusive homes. Foster parents who open their doors to care for these special children deserve our help. These generous people who are willing to take these children into their homes shouldn't have sleepless nights worrying about whether they have the resources to provide nourishing food or a warm coat, or even adequate shelter for these children. This legislation will go a long way to ease their concerns. Currently, some tribes and states have entered into IV-E agreements, but these arrangements are the exception. They also, by and large, do not include funds to train tribal social workers and other program administrators. This bill would authorize tribes to operate IV-E programs in the same manner as states. Upon approval of a tribal plan by HHS, the tribe would be able to provide services to income-eligible children under its custody. The bill would also allow children in tribal custody to receive foster care payments where a tribe chooses not to operate the entire program if adequate arrangements are made between the tribe and the state for provision of child welfare services and protections required by Title IV-E. The bill we are introducing today would: Authorize reimbursement of Title IV-E entitlement programs for tribal placements in foster and adoptive homes; Authorize tribal governments to receive direct funding from the Department of Health and Human Services for training and administration of IV-E programs (tribes must have HHS-approved programs); Allow the Secretary flexibility to modify the requirements of the IV- E law for tribes if those requirements are not in the best interest of Native children and if the tribal plans include alternative provisions that would achieve the purpose of the requirement that is altered or waived; and Allow continuation of tribal-state IV-E agreements. In a 1994 report, HHS found that the best way to serve this underfunded group is to provide direct assistance to tribal governments and qualified tribal families. This bill would not reduce the entitlement funding for states, as they would continue to be reimbursed for their expenses under the law. I strongly believe Congress should address this oversight and provide equitable benefits to Native American children under the jurisdiction of their tribal governments, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me reiterate my admiration and gratitude to the Senator from Iowa. It has been his effort on the floor. He has managed our side in this regard. He has led us in working to come up with a comprehensive approach. No one has put more effort and leadership and commitment into this than has Senator Harkin. I am grateful to him.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, at this point I move to table the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, time is equally divided, so we have about 7 minutes on our side.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask the majority leader, for the purpose of scheduling, as I understand it, this will be the last vote and we will return to the dairy debate following this, is that correct?

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Montana for his powerful statement and for the empathy that he again demonstrates for the people in rural America. He has been an extraordinary leader on the agriculture issue, as well as on so many issues relating to the farmer over the years. Again, his eloquence this afternoon clearly illustrates the degree to which he understands their problem and the degree to which he is committed to solving it. There is a silent death in rural America today--a death that is pervasive, a death that increasingly is affecting not only farmers but people who live in rural America, whether it is on the farm or in the town. Thousands upon thousands of family farmers and small businessmen and people who run the schools and run the towns are being forced to change their lives--are being forced to leave their existence in rural America in large measure because it isn't economically viable. The situation we have all called attention to over the course of the last 24 months has worsened. Just in the last 12 months, more than 1,900 family farmers have left the farm in South Dakota alone. So there can be no question, this situation is as grave as anything we will face in rural America at any time in the foreseeable future. The question is, what should we do about it? Our response is the amendment that Senator Harkin and I have offered. I will have more of an opportunity to discuss that in a moment. Let me say, regardless of what legislation I have offered, and what legislation may have been offered on the Republican side, I think there are five factors that should be included, five factors that ought to be considered as we contemplate what kind of an approach we in the Senate and in the Congress must subscribe to if we are going to respond to the disastrous situation we find in rural America today. The first is that this must be immediate. We cannot wait until September, or October, or November, at least to take the first step. I realize the legislative process is slow and cumbersome, but if we don't start now, we will never be able to respond in time to meet the needs created by the serious circumstances we face today. First and foremost, in an emergency way, this has to be responsive to the situation by allowing the Senate to work its will and do something this week. Second, it has to be sufficient. The situation, as I have noted, is already worse than it was last year. Last year, we were able to pass a $6 billion emergency plan. I believe $6 billion this year is a drop in the bucket, given the circumstances we are facing in rural America today. Our bill recognizes the insufficiency of the level of commitment we made in emergency funding last year. Our bill is sufficient. Our bill recognizes the importance and the magnitude of this problem and commits resources to it: $10.7 billion. Groups from the Farm Bureau to the Farmers Union to virtually every farm organization I know have said we cannot underestimate how serious this situation is. We recognize that, provide the resources, and provide the sufficient level of commitment that will allow Members to address this problem. So, No. 2, it has to be sufficient. No. 3, it has to be fair. Our country is very diverse. I heard Senator Sarbanes talk about the disastrous circumstances we are facing right now in Maryland. Maryland is different. We don't have a drought in South Dakota, we have floods. We have low prices. We have commodities that cannot be sold because they cannot be stored. We have agricultural situations, regardless of commodity, that are the worst since the Great Depression in terms of real purchasing power. Southerners have different crop problems. We have to recognize that there are regional differences and there are differences in commodities. Our emergency response has to address them all. We also have to recognize that we must respond to the disaster that is out there. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues have drafted legislation that, at least in its current form, does not respond at all to the disaster. There is no disaster commitment in that legislation. For a lot of reasons--its insufficiency, its lack of fairness to commodities, its lack of appreciation of the problems within regions, the fact that it doesn't respond to the disaster--this side is convinced that if we were to pass the Republican bill today, it would not do the job. I congratulate my colleagues for joining in responding to the situation, but I don't think it is broad enough. I don't think it is sufficient enough. I certainly don't think it is fair enough, given the circumstances we are facing today. The final factor is simply this: As my colleague from Montana said, emergency assistance alone will not do it. We passed emergency assistance last year and here we are, back again, less than a year later, with an urgent plea on the part of all of agriculture to provide them with additional assistance. Why? Because the market isn't working. Why is the market not working? There are a lot of reasons, but I argue first and foremost it is not working because we don't have an agricultural policy framework for it to work. Freedom to Farm is not working. We can debate that on and on and on, but there are more farm organizations, there are more economic experts, there are more people from all walks of life, and there are more policy analysts who are arguing today that we have to change the framework, that we have to reopen the Freedom to Farm bill. That is a debate for another day. Today, this week, the debate must be: can we provide sufficient emergency assistance to bridge the gap to that day when we can achieve better prices, a better marketplace, more stability, and greater economic security? In just a moment I will move to table the Republican plan. This is in keeping with an understanding I have with the majority leader and the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee. It would be my hope, once it is tabled, we can have a debate on the Democratic alternative and have a vote on that at some point in the not-too- distant future, once people have had the chance to be heard. Then, hopefully, we will find some resolution. I think it is important at the end of the day, or no later than the end of the week, for the Senate to have agreed on something. I don't think it is enough to simply have a Republican vote and a Democratic vote and leave it at that. It is my hope that we can work together to resolve the deficiencies in the Republican bill and listen to them as they express themselves on what it is about the Democratic bill with which they are uncomfortable. At the end of the week, we simply cannot close and leave without having acted successfully on this issue. It is too important. It sends the wrong message if we simply walk away without having accomplished anything. I am very hopeful we can accomplish something, that as Republicans and Democrats we can come together to send the right message to farmers that we hear them, to send the right message to rural America that we understand, and that we are prepared to respond. As I noted, we have two versions that have not yet been reconciled. Because I don't believe the Republican plan is sufficient, because I don't think it is fair, because it doesn't respond to all regions and all commodities, I believe today we can do better than that and we must find a way with which to do better than that. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that a couple of other colleagues wish to speak. I don't see them. There is only a minute left. We are not going to delay this vote. I again compliment the distinguished Senator from Iowa and my other colleagues for their effort to get us to this point. I think for rural America this is one of the most important votes we are going to cast this session. Whether or not we send a clear message about the seriousness of this situation, the breadth and the depth of this situation, whether we really understand the magnitude of the problem will be determined by how this vote turns out. If I had my way, we would do a lot more. But at the very least, we must do this. There are millions of people who are going to be watching to see whether or not the Congress gets it --whether or not the Congress understands the magnitude of the problem, whether or not we can fully appreciate the fact that people are being forced off the farms and ranches today, whether or not that happens, and whether or not we understand how serious this situation is will be determined in the next 20 minutes. I must tell you, Mr. President, that this is a very critical vote. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to table this amendment. Join with us in support. Let's send the right message to American agriculture. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with Senator McCain and Senator Inouye, an important bill to correct an inequity in the law affecting many Native American children. Every year, for a variety of often tragic reasons, thousands of children across the country are placed in foster care. To assist with the cost of food, shelter, clothing, daily supervision and school supplies, foster parents of children who have come to them through state agency placements receive money through Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Additionally, States receive funds for administrative training and data collection to support this program. Unfortunately, because of a legislative oversight, many income-eligible Native American children placed in foster care by tribal agencies do not receive foster care and adoptive services to which all other income-eligible children are entitled. Not only are otherwise eligible Native children denied foster care maintenance payments, but this inequity also extends to children adopted through tribal placements. Currently, the IV-E program offers sporadic assistance for expenses associated with adoption and no assistance for training professional staff or parents involved in the adoption absent a tribal-state agreement. In many instances, these children face insurmountable odds. Many come from abusive homes. Foster parents who open their doors to care for these special children deserve our help. These generous people who are willing to take these children into their homes shouldn't have sleepless nights worrying about whether they have the resources to provide nourishing food or a warm coat, or even adequate shelter for these children. This legislation will go a long way to ease their concerns. Currently, some tribes and states have entered into IV-E agreements, but these arrangements are the exception. They also, by and large, do not include funds to train tribal social workers and other program administrators. This bill would authorize tribes to operate IV-E programs in the same manner as states. Upon approval of a tribal plan by HHS, the tribe would be able to provide services to income-eligible children under its custody. The bill would also allow children in tribal custody to receive foster care payments where a tribe chooses not to operate the entire program if adequate arrangements are made between the tribe and the state for provision of child welfare services and protections required by Title IV-E. The bill we are introducing today would: Authorize reimbursement of Title IV-E entitlement programs for tribal placements in foster and adoptive homes; Authorize tribal governments to receive direct funding from the Department of Health and Human Services for training and administration of IV-E programs (tribes must have HHS-approved programs); Allow the Secretary flexibility to modify the requirements of the IV- E law for tribes if those requirements are not in the best interest of Native children and if the tribal plans include alternative provisions that would achieve the purpose of the requirement that is altered or waived; and Allow continuation of tribal-state IV-E agreements. In a 1994 report, HHS found that the best way to serve this underfunded group is to provide direct assistance to tribal governments and qualified tribal families. This bill would not reduce the entitlement funding for states, as they would continue to be reimbursed for their expenses under the law. I strongly believe Congress should address this oversight and provide equitable benefits to Native American children under the jurisdiction of their tribal governments, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will be very brief. I thank the majority leader for moving this process along to accommodate a procedure that takes into account a number of very important matters that we hope to resolve this week. I think this procedure will do it. I also note for my colleagues that I designate the Senator from Iowa, the ranking member of the committee, to be my designee in offering the amendment. The yield the floor. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the New Millennium Classrooms Act, introduced by Senators Abraham and Wyden, I am very pleased the Senate adopted this provision to encourage computer donations to schools. While I oppose the underlying bill, and believe the magnitude of the Republican tax cut is irresponsible, I do support a more reasonable level of tax relief with provisions targeted to address national needs. This provision, which has strong bipartisan support, meets that test. I would also like to point out that Senator Baucus sponsored a similar provision that was part of the Democratic alternative considered earlier. Technology is playing an increasingly important role in our society, in homes, in businesses, and in many aspects of everyday life. Employers will require increasingly sophisticated levels of technological literacy in the workplace of the 21st Century. Education Secretary Riley has pointed out that we can expect 70 percent growth in computer and technology-related jobs in the next 6 years. Yet, a recent U.S. Department of Commerce report, ``Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide,'' finds there is a growing disparity in terms of who has access to technology. While more Americans are embracing technology, African Americans and Hispanics, particularly from lower-income families and from rural areas, have less access to computers, and that gap is growing. We find ourselves with a new, information-age definition of ``haves'' and ``have-nots.'' These conditions are not good either for those left behind, or for those who will be looking to hire employees in the future. Every child should be able to gain technological skills through his or her classroom. Yet many schools are having difficulty meeting this challenge. Sadly, while some schools have access to the latest in equipment, too many schools, particularly in fiscally strapped urban and rural areas, have an insufficient number of computers, and most of those are outdated. The average computer in the classroom is 7 years old--and many are even older. A large proportion of these computers cannot run current educational software or connect to the Internet. The Department of Education recommends that the optimal ratio of students per computer is five to one. Yet schools where 81 percent or more of the children meet the Title I eligibility standards have only one multimedia computer for every 32 students. Even schools where less than 20 percent of the students are economically disadvantaged have only one multimedia computer for every 22 students. At the same time, research shows that students with the least access to technology can be helped most from effectively integrating technology into the classroom. A study by City University of New York found test scores of disadvantaged children increased dramatically with computer-aided instruction. We have taken several steps at the federal level to increase schools' ability to integrate technology into the classroom. The creation of the E-rate program, for example, is helping schools obtain access to the Internet. Technology Challenge grants are providing resources to schools to upgrade their computer programs. We are also providing more resources to help train teachers on the best ways to use technology effectively in their classes. But many schools have a fundamental problem in obtaining suitable hardware. Current law provides an enhanced deduction for corporate donations to schools until December 31, 2000. Unfortunately, few corporations are taking advantage of the enhanced deduction for two main reasons: the requirement that donated equipment be 2 years old or less does not fit companies' equipment use cycles, and the deduction does not provide a sufficient incentive. Modifying the tax code to address these limitations, as the Abraham-Wyden amendment proposes, will help us achieve the goal of putting a computer in every classroom and create ongoing incentives to make sure the technology is kept reasonably up- to-date. The Rand Institute has estimated the cost of providing our schools with appropriate technology to be about $15 billion. The New Millennium Classrooms Act will help stretch federal funds efficiently and effectively to address this shortfall. Mr. President, we all talk about the importance of encouraging businesses to become more involved in the educational process in their communities. This provision creates a strong incentive to help build those relationships while providing school children with access to updated equipment. I thank my colleagues for supporting it and intend to work to see it enacted as part of a more responsible budget plan.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as the debate on the Senate's version of the reconciliation tax bill winds down, I wanted to come to the floor and say a few words about where we are in this process, how we got here, and where I think we ought to go. Let me begin by saying that the discussions we have seen on the Senate floor these past few days should lead all of my colleagues-- Democratic and Republican alike--to agree on one thing: the issues affected by this bill--Social Security, Medicare, education, tax relief--are serious and should not fall prey to political gamesmanship. It is not an overstatement to say that the nation's economic and fiscal health are at stake. What we do on these issues will affect the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come. The discussion has also revealed another truth. The debate on the proper course for this nation and its people as we head into the 21st century is really a tale of two paradigms. The Republican vision for the future is to replay the past. They would have us follow their economic policies of the 1980s, a course that can best be characterized as one of both wishful thinking and fiscal disaster. This is a course of irresponsible tax breaks for the wealthiest among us. This is a course of voodoo economics, where providing huge tax breaks to the wealthiest was to somehow benefit everyone and reduce government deficits. As history demonstrates, this really was a course of rosy scenarios and disastrous results. The benefits of their tax breaks were, not surprisingly, essentially confined to the wealthiest. Small deficits turned into massive ones. Government debt exploded, quadrupling in the 1980s. Unemployment averaged 7.1 percent in the previous decade. Median family income fell $1,825 in just four years. Welfare rolls were up 22 percent. The Democratic vision for the future is to continue along the path we set forth in 1993, a path marked by fiscal responsibility and economic prosperity. Just to remind my colleagues of what we have accomplished since we embarked on this road, let me talk about the state of our economy when President Clinton took office. The deficit in 1992 was $290 billion and projected to grow to over $500 billion by the end of the decade and to continue rising each year thereafter. Again, unemployment was up, and family income was down. Welfare rolls were growing. The Democratic-led Congress enacted a comprehensive economic plan in 1993. This plan was approved without a single Republican vote. And today, the results are clear. Economists have said this is the strongest U.S. economy they have seen in a generation. The record deficits have turned into record surpluses--$120 billion this year and larger every year thereafter for at least a decade. We are experiencing the longest peacetime economic expansion in this nation's history and, if it continues for several additional months, the longest in history, period. Economic growth during this period has averaged 3.5 percent-- nearly double that experienced during the Reagan-Bush years. Unemployment is just over four percent--roughly one-half the level during the Reagan-Bush years. Median income for a family of four is up $3,500 since 1993. Welfare rolls are down 35 percent since 1994. These are the two choices presented during this debate--whether we step back into a past filled with record deficits and debt or continue moving forward to sustain the economic and fiscal progress we have achieved since 1993. The question for the Congress and the American people is which road will we take--the dangerous one or the responsible one? Will we build on our success or put our national health at risk? After carefully listening to the debate, it is apparent to me that many on the other side of the aisle would like to do it all over again. I have heard some of the same old, dangerous rhetoric and false rosy scenarios I heard in the early 1980s. Like then, I have heard misleading representations of government spending--both current and future. I have again heard talk of irresponsible tax cuts tilted to the wealthy and special interests. Once again, my Republican colleagues are proposing that we give short shrift to Medicare and, in a new twist, a prescription drug benefit as well. And finally, Republicans are again proposing massive cuts in education, veterans' health, defense and agriculture. These cuts are as unprecedented as they are unrealistic. If one assumes the Republicans simply match the President's defense spending proposals, all remaining discretionary programs would have to be cut by 38 percent below today's levels. If we follow the new, phantom baseline created expressly for the floor debate by Senators Domenici and Frist, and again exempt defense, the cuts to all remaining programs will easily exceed 50 percent. Mr. President, it is all the more disappointing to me that in the face of the historic opportunity afforded this body by our unmatched fiscal strength, the Senate is about to fail on three counts. The Republican majority is about to prevail and pass an irresponsible fiscal policy. Their tax cuts would reverse the progress of the 1990s and lead to us back to huge deficits and more debt. The Republican position also constitutes irresponsible national policy. The cost of the Republican tax cut would explode in the second decade of the 21st century--precisely when the baby boomer generation is retiring and resources are needed if the federal government is to keep its commitments on Social Security and Medicare. Finally, the majority has chosen to pursue this course in the face of a certain Presidential veto, should the bill reach the President's desk in something even close to its current form. Instead of wasting the precious time of this Congress and the American people, it would have been better if Republicans had opted to work together with Democrats to develop a fiscally responsible plan that could get the President's signature. Democrats have offered the major parts of such a plan during the debate. Our plan consists of five components. Democrats protect the entire $1.9 trillion Social Security surplus; every dollar, every year. Democrats strengthen and modernize Medicare by setting aside a portion of the on-budget surplus to extend solvency and provide a prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. Democrats pay down the federal government's publicly held debt, and, if our course is followed, eventually eliminate it. Democrats invest some of the non-Social Security surplus in critical priorities, such as defense, education, veterans' health, agriculture, and NIH. Finally, Democrats believe in a significant, responsible tax cut. It is projected there will be sufficient resources to do all of this. Yet, Republicans refuse to do most of it. Instead, they choose to follow a course that has become all too familiar to Americans. Republicans again choose to pursue ideologically extreme positions that best serve special interests instead of the needs of ordinary, hard- working Americans. The Senate has seen this before, on the overall budget plan, on juvenile justice, and, most recently, on the Patients' Bill of Rights. This is not a political game. We face serious challenges and historic opportunities. We have wasted precious time. The list of unresolved items that the Senate should address is a long one. And time is short. I hope that when we come back next week and in September, Republicans will discard their agenda written by special interests and pursue the people's agenda. If they do so, we can accomplish much together. If they do not, the American people will be the losers.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it would be entirely agreeable. I would just ask that prior to the time we have a vote, I be able to use some of my leader time for a couple of comments. But I would be happy to yield the floor so that the Senator from New Hampshire can speak.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use a few minutes of my leader time to comment. We intend to support the effort to move this legislation to conference. In fact, I endorse the actions taken by the majority leader in this case in so-called filling the tree. For the purpose of record and drawing a distinction on this bill from other bills where our majority leader has filled the tree prior to the time we have had any debate, this bill, S. 254, has been debated now for 8 days, from May 11 through May 20. We conducted 32 rollcall votes. The Senate considered 38 amendments--18 Democratic amendments, 20 Republican amendments. We had 10 Democratic amendments agreed to, 17 Republican amendments agreed to, and then we had 10 Democratic and Republican amendments that were not agreed to, and 1 Republican amendment was withdrawn. The point I am making is that we have had a very good debate on S. 254. We had that debate. We brought it to conclusion. We had a final vote. Now it is time to move it on to conference. I fully respect the Senator from New Hampshire and his determination to slow this process down because he objects to some of the aspects in this bill, and that is his right. But I will say I support the effort made by the majority leader to move this bill to conference and the method he has employed to do so. Again, this is not the same as laying a bill down for the first time, filling the tree and precluding Democratic amendments. We have had a very good debate on this bill. We have had an opportunity to offer amendments. I cite S. 254 as the model I wish we would follow on all bills, a model that we historically and traditionally have always followed, which is to lay a bill down, allow it to be subject to amendments, have a good debate on amendments, have the votes, have the final vote, and then go to conference. I hope we can do more such of this in the future as we consider other authorizing bills. I urge my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues to support the effort this morning to move this legislation forward to conference so we can resolve what differences there are with the House--and there are many very important differences. I am hopeful we can bring this bill back from conference in time and that we can be as supportive of it as we were of the bill when it passed on May 20. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to be supportive this morning. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know our side is out of time, so I will use leader time to make a couple of remarks with regard to the vote we are to take. We all are able to use our rhetorical acrobatics from time to time, but I must say, no one is better at it than the distinguished Senator from Texas as we try to define this set of circumstances. This is a lot more than a technicality. The Byrd rule is there for a reason. I am glad he subscribes to the Byrd rule, but I must say, this goes way beyond the debate we had in committee and the understanding the American people and even Senators have with regard to what is in the bill. This will give the conference, the Congress, the Senate, everybody, carte blanche all the way through the legislative process until this bill goes to the President's desk. Is that what we want to do? It would be one thing to waive a point of order and do so on the bill alone. That would be understandable. I might add, in that regard, it wasn't the Democrats who made the point of order; it was the majority leader. The majority leader made his own point of order on this bill. It was the distinguished Chair, the senior Senator from Delaware, who made the motion to waive the point of order. So let's make sure we have our facts straight. No one here made the point of order. They did. But the point of order is not just on the bill. The point of order is on the conference report as well. I want somebody to come up and tell me what is going to be in that conference report. There is a huge difference between the Senate version and the House version, even on the Republican side. There are major differences that have to be ironed out and worked out. Is anyone here today prepared to waive the point of order on a conference agreement for which there has not been one word written, for which there has not been one meeting, for which really there is no understanding or comprehension today? How could we possibly waive a point of order on something we haven't done yet? That is what our Republican colleagues are prepared to do. I hope we would have better sense than that, that we would recognize how ill-founded it would be and what a terrible precedent it would be for us to waive a point of order on actions to be taken at a later date by a conference we haven't even named. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last week was one of unimaginable shock and sorrow for the families of John Kennedy, Jr., Carolyn Bessette Kennedy and Lauren Bessette. We prayed as we first heard the news that their plane had disappeared. We hoped against hope as the Coast Guard, the Navy and the National Transportation Safety Board conducted their ``search and rescue'' mission, and we anguished when they shifted to ``search and recovery,'' Now, as John, Carolyn and Lauren are laid to rest in the ocean that claimed their lives, we grieve. Much has been said these past weeks--in this Chamber, across the country, and around the world--about these three exceptional young people. We have heard again and again how John, Carolyn and Lauren loved life. We have heard so many stories of their compassion and grace, their generosity and their considerable talents. We've heard, most heartbreakingly, about their potential. They had, each of them, the capacity for greatness. That is part of what makes their loss so profound. The great poet William Wordsworth wrote: What though the radiance which was once so bright Be now for ever taken from my sight Though nothing can bring back the hour Of splendor in the grass, of glory in the flower; We will grieve not, rather find Strength in what remains behind. Nothing can bring back the splendor of their lives, or their potential. We are left now with only our memories of John Kennedy, Jr., his wife Carolyn, and her sister Lauren. With that in mind, Senator Lott and I are introducing a resolution to authorize the printing of ``Memorial Tributes to John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr.'' These are our own tributes and condolences offered on this floor, this week, by members of the United States Senate. I ask the Senate to pass a resolution so that we may share our tributes with the families of John Kennedy, Carolyn Bessette Kennedy and Lauren Bessette. I can only hope the Kennedy, Bessette and Freeman families are able to find some small strength in the memories of their loved ones, and in the words and sympathy of those who grieve with them.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this amendment addresses what we consider to be one of the major procedural problems facing Senators today. It has to do with what is referred to here as the scope of conference. For those who may be watching this debate and are not totally familiar with parliamentary procedure, after a bill is passed in the House and passed in the Senate, the bill goes to conference. Here the House- and Senate-passed bills, two separate pieces of legislation, are melded into one in a way that hopefully will be acceptable to members from both Chambers of Congress. Only one bill can become law. The conference report represents an agreement between the House and the Senate as to what specific proposals ought to be included in a single piece of legislation. It has always been the case that when a bill comes to conference, if there is something in the House bill that is not in the Senate bill, or something in the Senate bill that is not in the House bill, a vote is taken and a decision made about the propriety of including that provision for the final version in the conference agreement. At no time, up until recent years, was there ever consideration given to a situation where if a provision did not appear in either the House or Senate versions, could it even be considered in the conference. However, a decision was made by the majority to allow original legislative provisions to be taken up in the conference, that is language that may not have even been debated in either body let alone received a recorded vote. As a result of this decision made by the majority, we can go into this conference--whose purpose it is to work out the differences between the House and the Senate--and completely bypass the relevant authorizing and appropriations committees. In a sense, this decision set up a ``super'' legislative committee that makes up its mind oftentimes without the benefit of House or Senate hearings, without the benefit of action in any House or Senate committee, and without a vote on either the House or Senate floor. It is an amazing set of circumstances. We have seen that happen over and over again. The most consequential incident occurred at the end of the last session when the White House and a relatively small group of Senate and House conferees made decisions that were not based on any actions taken in either body of Congress. The distinguished Presiding Officer, after it happened on October 20, addressed this issue as eloquently and as succinctly as any Member I have heard. If my colleagues haven't had the opportunity to hear what he said, I think this excerpt states it so well: I don't believe the Founding Fathers of this country ever intended for a few Members and staff to make more than one half of a trillion dollars worth of arbitrary, closed-door decisions for the rest of us, for America--almost one-third of the Federal budget--and then present them to all other Senators and Representatives, men and women, elected by the people of this country, by the taxpayers, and then say take it or leave it, an up-or-down vote. So said the Senator from Nebraska. The Senator from Utah said something similar and equally on point. Senator Hatch, on the same day on the Senate floor, said: We should all be concerned about the perception this backward procedure--one in which we are considering conference reports on bills that have not even passed the Senate yet--will set a precedent for the future. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in a sweeping denunciation of this as anything other than a one-time event. I wish this had been a one-time event. Unfortunately, it happens over and over and over. It is a complete emasculation of the process our Founding Fathers had set up. It has nothing to do with the legislative process. If you were going to write a book on how a bill becomes a law, you would need several volumes. In fact, if the consequences were not so profound, some could say you would need a comic book because it is almost hilarious to look at the lengths we have gone to thwart and undermine and, in an extraordinary way, destroy a process that has worked so well for 220 years. This amendment simply says let's get real. If we mean what we say, and if we truly want to end this amazing process, now is our chance. This is the opportunity. I am very hopeful our colleagues will support our effort to put democracy back into the legislative process, to ensure the committees, authorizing and appropriating, have an opportunity to express themselves and to ensure every single Senator on the Senate floor has an opportunity to express himself or herself. As I noted earlier, the dictatorial, take-it-or-leave-it approach referred to by the two Republican Senators is, unfortunately, not a one-time event. It has happened over and over. If we are serious about making changes, I cannot think of anything that ought to change more quickly and with broader bipartisanship than this. We will have an opportunity. I appreciate very much the eloquence, leadership, and interest in making changes expressed by our colleagues over the course of many different occasions, occasions just as egregious as the one last October. On each of these occasions, Senators have been denied their basic rights as elected Representatives of the people of their State, and a mockery has been made of our legal and legislative process. This is a very critical amendment. We will have an opportunity to vote on it in 15 minutes. I hope we make the right decision. I hope it is a bipartisan decision. I hope we can do it in a way that will allow us the opportunity, once and for all, to put common sense and some semblance of order into our conference process and the conference reports that we are called to vote on after the process has been completed. Mr. President, I will speak just briefly about the underlying matter; that is rule XVI. I appreciate very much the effort made by the assistant Democratic leader. He has managed our time so exceptionally well. I am grateful to him once more for the extraordinary effort he has made in making sure colleagues have the opportunity to express themselves and to orchestrate our response to arguments made by our colleagues on the other side. I think the record clearly shows what the Democratic position was several years ago when our colleagues overturned the ruling of the Chair. We had said at the time that rule XVI was there for a reason. We believe rule XVI existed because there is an authorizing and an appropriating process. What has happened since that vote is interesting. What has happened is the Senate has become more like the House of Representatives than I believe it has, probably, ever been in our Nation's history. The House of Representatives has a very tight process by which amendments are considered. There has to be a Rules Committee. The Rules Committee decides, on each and every piece of legislation, how many amendments are offered. The majority dominates the Rules Committee, as we know, by a two-thirds to one-third ratio. When Democrats were in the majority, when I was in the House, I thought what an incredible power that is. For the Rules Committee, with its membership ratio tilted so heavily in favor of the majority, to decide means the majority gets its way virtually every single time. Only on rare occasions do a combination of minority and majority Members of the House join forces to thwart the will of the majority. That does not happen very often. The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, saw fit not to have a Rules Committee in the Senate in that same sense of the word. We do have a Rules Committee. It is very important and carries out some functions that are in large measure directly related to how this Senate operates. However the committee does not dictate how the Senate floor operates. There is no gatekeeper when it comes to legislation. The gatekeeper is all of us, 60 votes. Yet, what do we see now all too frequently? On virtually every single piece of legislation that comes to the Senate floor, the bill is filed, the so-called parliamentary tree is filled, and cloture votes are scheduled. Why would we be opposed to that? We are opposed to that because once there is no opportunity for us to offer amendments-- whether they are directly germane to the bill or not--we are precluded from being full partners as legislators. We are precluded from the opportunity to express ourselves, to make alterations, to offer suggestions, to have the kind of debate on public policy that I think our Founding Fathers understood. As a result of all of this, we have become increasingly concerned about what is happening to the Senate as an institution, as well as what it is doing to the Democratic Members who want very much to be a part of the legislative process as full-fledged Senators. So our vote is in large measure a protest of the extraordinary ways the legislative process has been altered now for the last several years; a process I do not believe our Founding Fathers ever anticipated; a process that is very much in keeping with the attitude and the mentality created by the Rules Committee in the House of Representatives. That is not what we were supposed to be. People who want those kinds of rules ought to run and get elected to the House of Representatives. They ought not want to serve in the Senate. The Senate is a different body. Who was it who said the Senate is a saucer within which emotions and the rage of the day cool. Legislation oftentimes can be passed directly through the House of Representatives. It is only after they have been deliberative and thoughtful and considerate of a lot of different issues, and a supermajority, sometimes on controversial issues, having been supported, do we ultimately allow a bill to be passed in the Senate. So this vote is about the institution. It is about protecting Senators' rights to be full-fledged Members of this body. It is about whether we, as Senators, want to be more like the House or more like what the Founding Fathers envisioned in the first place--full-fledged U.S. Senators with every expectation we can represent our people, we can represent our ideas and our agenda in whatever opportunity presents itself legislatively. Our Democratic and Republican colleagues certainly should support that notion. Our Republican colleagues used it many times to their advantage when they were in the minority. We simply want the same opportunity to do it now. My colleagues will be voting against this overturning of the ruling of the Chair in large measure because we still are not confident the majority is prepared to open up the legislative process as it was designed to be open up the process to allow amendments, open up and give us the opportunity to work with them to fashion legislation that will create a true consensus on whatever bill may be presented. We will have two votes at 5:30 p.m. The first will be the vote on whether or not legislation that has never been considered in the House or the Senate ought to be included in a conference report. Democrats say no; no, we should not allow that. The second vote will be about whether we permit Members of the Senate to offer legislation, whether it is on appropriations or authorization bills, without the encumbrance of a Rules Committee, a right that, by all description, was anticipated by the Founding Fathers. I hope we can adopt the amendment I have offered. I hope we will reject the overturning of the Chair on rule XVI. I hope we can work together to accomplish more in a bipartisan fashion in a way that will allow all Senators to be heard and to contribute. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would be prepared to use my leader time if the Senator is finished.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, before we take up the next amendment, let me just comment briefly on the amendment already agreed to, offered by the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I am very pleased with the action taken this afternoon by the Senate. The amendment certainly signals our continuing strong commitment to this innovative approach to crimefighting; that is, the COPS Program. The crime rate in the United States has gone down for 6 consecutive years--the longest period of decline in 25 years. And we received even more good news recently. This year's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the number of Americans who were victims of violent crimes dropped 7 percent between 1997 and 1998. That is great news. Of course, no one claims we have won the war against crime, but we are certainly winning some important battles. The 100,000 officers placed on the beat since the COPS Program began in 1994 have been on the front lines of this vital effort. Why would we jeopardize that success? The additional officers put on the beat since 1994 have revolutionized community policing, and the COPS Program has helped foster an unprecedented crime-fighting partnership between communities and Federal, State and local law enforcement. Why should we let something that has proven to be so effective wither on the vine? We should instead build on the success of this program, which has been endorsed time and again by every major law enforcement organization. I have seen firsthand how valuable the COPS Program has been in communities in my home State. South Dakota's law enforcement officials are among the most well-trained and capable public servants in the country. South Dakota's crime rate is low, and its streets are safe, but, just as in more populated States, South Dakota families still worry about the safety of their streets and neighborhoods. In my State, and in rural America in general, the COPS Program can double the size of some police or sheriff's departments by providing funding to hire just one or two additional officers. Many of the small towns and counties in my State are faced with tight budgets, limiting the amount of resources they can devote to law enforcement personnel. By providing those resources, the COPS Program has had a profound impact on these communities. Law enforcement officers in South Dakota have described that impact to me. They have testified about how the COPS Program has helped them. Let me share just one of those stories, because I think that it provides a vivid example of how this program can truly make a difference. In the days immediately following the Littleton, CO, tragedy, parents throughout the Nation were terrified by a rash of bomb threats and a fear of ``copycat'' crimes. In South Dakota, we had to deal with over 30 bomb scares. One of those threats was called into Tri-Valley, a school in a rural community outside of Sioux Falls, SD. Fortunately, Tri-Valley has a police officer, called a ``school resource'' officer. His name is Deputy Preston Evans, and his position is funded by a COPS grant. On the day of the bomb threat, as students were being evacuated from the school, a number of students came up to Deputy Evans and told him they knew who had made the threat. By the end of the day, two suspects had been arrested. Those students were able to confide in Deputy Evans for one reason they trusted him. And they were able to trust him because they knew him--they had a relationship with him. How many acts of violence or mischief are deterred in schools like Tri-Valley because the students can confide in such a person, who might not be there without the COPS Program? In a video conference yesterday, I spoke with some of the law enforcement leaders in South Dakota--Minnehaha County Sheriff Mike Milstead and Sioux Falls Police Chief Clark Quiring, and many others. They told me how the COPS Program has provided them the flexibility to increase their presence in schools. They mentioned how important it is for students to feel secure. As Sheriff Milstead so eloquently noted, ``there is not a bigger barrier to learning--than fear.'' For his generation, the greatest fear was going home that afternoon with a bloody nose, he told us. Littleton reminds us that kids today have a lot more to worry about than just a fist-fight with a school-yard bully. But thanks to the COPS Program, children today have someone they can turn to. Dr. Bill Smith, the Instructional Support Services Director for the Sioux Falls School District, joined the law enforcement leaders in yesterday's video conference and told me that we now have evidence that officers in schools are welcome and helpful. When students throughout the Sioux Falls district were asked in a year-end survey whom they would go to if they had a problem, 44 percent said they would confide in their school resource officer before anyone else. That is a remarkable statistic: 44 percent of the students said they would go to their school resource officer before they would turn to their teacher or principal. I can think of no more compelling evidence of how this program can make a real difference than that. Today, the Senate will help ensure that the COPS Program, and officers like Deputy Evans, will continue to make a difference--in our schools, on our streets, and in our neighborhoods. The action taken by the Senate just now is a tribute to the men and women across the country who risk their lives every day to make our communities safer. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.