Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to speak today in support of the nomination of Congressman Pete Peterson to be our Ambassador to Vietnam. This day has been a long time coming, and I want to thank Congressman Peterson for his patience. Mr. President, I traveled to Vietnam in 1991 as a member of the Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs and then again in November 1996 as part of a congressional delegation. The change that has taken place in Vietnam in those 5 years is staggering. Vietnam is a dynamic country with great potential. The United States needs a full diplomatic presence in Hanoi to represent our interests in Vietnam adequately, and I am very pleased that this is about to happen. Congressman Peterson is an excellent choice for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which is his deep and personal understanding of our troubled history with Vietnam. He understands firsthand the toll of the war, and, while much good work has been done on the relationship between our two countries, much more remains to be done. Representative Peterson is among the best qualified to continue that work. He is also eminently qualified to continue the work on one of our most important national priorities--achieving a full accounting of those Americans missing in action. In each of our meetings with Vietnamese Government officials during our recent trip, our congressional delegation stressed the high priority the United States places on resolving these remaining cases. The Vietnamese pledged ongoing cooperation, and I feel fully confident that Pete Peterson will see that we get it. As he pointed out in testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, he has a personal stake in achieving the fullest possible accounting of those still missing, since many are personal friends of his. In addition to the POW/MIA issue, I am happy that Congressman Peterson will be in Hanoi to help shepherd our developing economic and trade relations with Vietnam. Vietnam's interest in achieving full economic relations with the United States is clear. The most recent evidence was the agreement it reached last month with the United States to repay millions of dollars of debt incurred by South Vietnam for roads, power stations, and grain shipments during the Vietnam war. Although the United States does not yet have full economic ties with Vietnam, its dynamic economy offers great trade opportunities for United States businesses. During my recent trip to Vietnam, we met with the United States Chamber of Commerce in Ho Chi Minh City. The size of that contingent was a graphic evidence of United States businesses' interest in United States economic ties with Vietnam. There are many issues that need to be resolved in fashioning a comprehensive bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam that is a prerequisite to full economic relations. In particular, Vietnam remains committed to a system of central planning, which conflicts with the free market economic principles it espouses. Work has begun on an agreement to resolve these issues, but much remains to be done. This is an important priority for the United States, as Congressman Peterson is well aware. Another important issue that merits Congressman Peterson's attention is conveying to the Vietnamese the important priority the United States attaches to Vietnam's human rights practices. Despite its economic progress, Vietnam continues to impose restrictions on political and religious freedom. We must work with the Vietnamese to address these practices. There is another issue to which I attach great importance, a fact that I stressed to each of the Vietnamese leaders I met with during my visit last November. For more than a decade, scientists in the United States and Vietnam had been working together to attempt to understand the health effects resulting from our use of agent orange during the Vietnam war. However, nearly 2 years ago, Vietnam executed a major change in policy with regard to their support of collaborative research between United States and Vietnamese scientists. In June 1995, Vietnamese customs officers seized without warning documents and specimens from a team of American scientists who had been on the first official scientific mission from the United States. All papers, even the most innocuous, such as curriculum vitaes, were confiscated. Newly collected specimens were also taken. Though I find the seizure and subsequent refusal to return the materials or address the issue quite disturbing, I am even more concerned that this may be Vietnam's way of telling us that they no longer want to collaborate on this vitally important issue. To do so would be a shame, not only for our veterans and their families, but also for the Vietnamese. Just last February, the Wall Street Journal published an article that outlined the myriad of health problems and birth defects occurring among the Vietnamese who live in areas that were heavily sprayed. Here in the United States, many dioxin experts are now looking to research in Vietnam as the next step in fulfilling our commitment to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the health effects of exposure to agent orange. Yet, without cooperation from Vietnam, our efforts to further understand these issues will fall short. We must press to obtain agreements for future cooperation on scientific issues of mutual importance, or we must have clear, rational explanations for why additional research is not warranted. The stonewalling is puzzling at best, and injurious at worst. I received some positive signs from the Vietnamese during my trip, and corresponded with Do Muoi, General Secretary of the Communist Party, upon my return to secure an agreement to release the seized documents and specimens. Unfortunately, I have still not received a response to my inquiry. I have communicated to Congressman Peterson my concerns and interest in working with him in his new role to expeditiously resolve this issue. We owe it to American veterans and their families. In conclusion, let me stress my belief that Congressman Peterson will be an important and valuable advocate of United States interests in Vietnam. I congratulate him and look forward to working with him in the coming years.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this Friday, April 11, is National Pay Inequity Awareness Day, the day on which an average woman's salary, when combined with her salary from last year, will equal the salary earned by an average man in 1996 alone. It is a day that challenges us to meet our goal of providing equal pay for equal work. Today I want to take another step toward this goal by introducing Senate Resolution 70, a resolution recognizing the important role that women play in the work force and in supporting their families and how far we have yet to go before they will be fairly paid for their efforts. This is an issue of fairness and of families. In 1995, 72 percent of all two-parent families with children--18 million in total--were supported by a working father and a working mother. An additional 7.6 million families were dependent entirely on the income of a working mother. The burden of unfair pay falls directly on these families, and makes an immediate difference in their lives. For example, an average female secretary makes $2,000 less than a male secretary. Think of the difference that $2,000 can make in the life of a family--it can pay for bags of groceries, checkups for the children, or rent. Unfair pay is more than a slogan, it means less security for families struggling to meet the needs of their everyday lives. There is no dispute about the facts. On average, women earn 71 cents for every dollar earned by a man. And even professional women earn less than men, even when women have the same duties, experience, and educational level. On average, female lawyers earn $11,000 less than male lawyers. Female computer programmers earn $4,000 less than their male counterparts. The discrepancies are equally great for women who work for hourly wages. Over her lifetime, the average woman will earn $420,000 less than a man. This leaves retired women with smaller pensions and leads to a high rate of poverty among elderly women. Mr. President, I look forward to the time when we no longer need to recognize National Pay Inequity Awareness Day. It is my hope that as women's wages increase, this day will fall earlier and earlier in the year, and that, someday soon, when women are finally paid what they deserve, we won't need to commemorate this day at all. One important step toward that goal would be the enactment of S. 71, the Paycheck Fairness Act. It would provide important new tools to remedy this problem of unfair wages, and I urge my colleagues to give it their full support. I also urge my colleagues to show their support for the principle of fair pay by joining me in support of this resolution recognizing National Pay Inequity Awareness Day. It calls for all women to be paid fairly, for women to have the same access to education and training as men, for all employers to comply with State and Federal laws requiring equal pay for equal work, and it commends employers who have made progress in this important area. It is a small but important way to demonstrate our support for working women, and to participate in the activities taking place in more than 30 States around the Nation to highlight the wage gap. Raising women's salaries presents us with formidable challenges, but, together, I am convinced that we will be successful.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that makes a commonsense change to Medicare's outdated policy regarding chiropractic care. Specifically, my bill would eliminate the requirement that beneficiaries get an x ray before they are authorized to be reimbursed for chiropractic services under Medicare. This legislation accomplishes two important goals. First, it removes outdated vestiges of still pronounced discrimination against chiropractic practitioners in the Medicare Program. Second, this bill makes chiropractic services more accessible and affordable for beneficiaries. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure, which is the Senate companion to legislation introduced in the House of Representatives on March 4, 1997 by Representative Phil Crane. Existing Medicare law strictly limits reimbursement for chiropractic services to manual manipulation of the spine and only to correct a subluxation. However, before beneficiaries can be reimbursed for chiropractic care, Medicare requires that the patient get an x ray to confirm the need for these services. Beneficiaries must either pay for the x ray out of their own pockets, a cost that many cannot afford, or pass through the ``gateway'' controlled by other medical providers, whose x rays, typically far more expensive, are reimbursable under the program. While x rays are often a useful diagnostic tool to verify a medical condition, most medical professionals and health analysts agree that there is no clinical justification for a blanket requirement that Medicare beneficiaries verify the need for chiropactic care through an x ray. Medicare's statutory x ray requirement results in unnecessary patient exposure to x rays and simply cannot be justified as an across- the-board requirement. Representatives of the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA] who have closely studied this issue reached the same conclusion that I did and recommended to the President that this provision be included in his Medicare reform plan. I am pleased that the President did include in his fiscal year 1998 balanced budget proposal a provision calling for the elimination of the x ray requirement for chiropractic care. I am cautiously optimistic that bipartisan support from within the Congress and the administration will help facilitate passage of this modest, but important, measure. I grew up in a community where chiropractors perform a valuable service by providing an alternative to allopathic medicine. The nearly 200 chiropractors in South Dakota serve the State well. In rural States like mine, chiropractors are often an essential source of health care delivery. Sometimes they are the only health providers in the community. In rural States across the country, the chiropractic profession plays an integral role in the health care system. But the issue is even larger than one of correcting inequities in the law and recognizing the contributions of chiropractors alone. We are constantly searching for ways to give more Americans greater access to quality health care, and to facilitate that availability of care in the most cost-effective manner. One proven way to make progress toward those goals is to exploit the talent and dedication represented in the diversity of practitioners increasingly involved in the delivery of health care services in the United States. Competition among different kinds of providers and access to less expensive forms of care have to be emphasized if we are to control escalating health care costs. Yet this competition is virtually impossible when programs like Medicare put up barriers to beneficiaries receiving care from a group of licensed professionals like chiropractors. As health care cost increases continue to threaten both the quality and economic stability of our national health care delivery system, the cost savings potential of chiropractic care should be fully explored. The bill I am introducing today will help provide access to quality care at a reasonable cost. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this measure to ensure Medicare patients have appropriate access to the benefits of chiropractic care. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that makes a commonsense change to Medicare's outdated policy regarding chiropractic care. Specifically, my bill would eliminate the requirement that beneficiaries get an x ray before they are authorized to be reimbursed for chiropractic services under Medicare. This legislation accomplishes two important goals. First, it removes outdated vestiges of still pronounced discrimination against chiropractic practitioners in the Medicare Program. Second, this bill makes chiropractic services more accessible and affordable for beneficiaries. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure, which is the Senate companion to legislation introduced in the House of Representatives on March 4, 1997 by Representative Phil Crane. Existing Medicare law strictly limits reimbursement for chiropractic services to manual manipulation of the spine and only to correct a subluxation. However, before beneficiaries can be reimbursed for chiropractic care, Medicare requires that the patient get an x ray to confirm the need for these services. Beneficiaries must either pay for the x ray out of their own pockets, a cost that many cannot afford, or pass through the ``gateway'' controlled by other medical providers, whose x rays, typically far more expensive, are reimbursable under the program. While x rays are often a useful diagnostic tool to verify a medical condition, most medical professionals and health analysts agree that there is no clinical justification for a blanket requirement that Medicare beneficiaries verify the need for chiropactic care through an x ray. Medicare's statutory x ray requirement results in unnecessary patient exposure to x rays and simply cannot be justified as an across- the-board requirement. Representatives of the Health Care Financing Administration [HCFA] who have closely studied this issue reached the same conclusion that I did and recommended to the President that this provision be included in his Medicare reform plan. I am pleased that the President did include in his fiscal year 1998 balanced budget proposal a provision calling for the elimination of the x ray requirement for chiropractic care. I am cautiously optimistic that bipartisan support from within the Congress and the administration will help facilitate passage of this modest, but important, measure. I grew up in a community where chiropractors perform a valuable service by providing an alternative to allopathic medicine. The nearly 200 chiropractors in South Dakota serve the State well. In rural States like mine, chiropractors are often an essential source of health care delivery. Sometimes they are the only health providers in the community. In rural States across the country, the chiropractic profession plays an integral role in the health care system. But the issue is even larger than one of correcting inequities in the law and recognizing the contributions of chiropractors alone. We are constantly searching for ways to give more Americans greater access to quality health care, and to facilitate that availability of care in the most cost-effective manner. One proven way to make progress toward those goals is to exploit the talent and dedication represented in the diversity of practitioners increasingly involved in the delivery of health care services in the United States. Competition among different kinds of providers and access to less expensive forms of care have to be emphasized if we are to control escalating health care costs. Yet this competition is virtually impossible when programs like Medicare put up barriers to beneficiaries receiving care from a group of licensed professionals like chiropractors. As health care cost increases continue to threaten both the quality and economic stability of our national health care delivery system, the cost savings potential of chiropractic care should be fully explored. The bill I am introducing today will help provide access to quality care at a reasonable cost. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this measure to ensure Medicare patients have appropriate access to the benefits of chiropractic care. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for a period of about 10 minutes.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Presiding Officer. Madam President, let me begin by complimenting my distinguished colleagues for their statements on the floor this afternoon. My intention is not necessarily to speak on that issue, but as I have in the past, I am supportive of their efforts and commend them once more for their concerted effort to bring some fairness to the issue that they have addressed. This is a matter of great import to the State of Nevada. No one has been more articulate, more aggressively persuasive on the issue than have the two distinguished colleagues from Nevada. I commend them and urge our colleagues to listen carefully to their counsel and support their efforts as we proceed for the remainder of this week on this very important issue.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. There is no question about it. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank my colleague from Idaho for his comments. I appreciate very much having the opportunity to hear them just now. Let me respond with four specific points. First of all, I don't know of a time when the Congress required the President to submit a budget that we were in total agreement with. That isn't what we do here. We are not waiting for the perfect document to come from the White House. That isn't what we did in past Congresses. It isn't what we did with Republican or Democratic Presidents. The President submits a vehicle, the President submits a budget, and we either accept it as the vehicle and mark up the vehicle and provide a budget that will allow the consensus to work its will, Republicans and Democrats, or we present an alternative. My argument this year is that, so far, the Republicans have done neither. They have said we don't like the Democratic budget, but they have not proposed one either. As I said in my comments a moment ago, time is running out. April 15 is soon to be here. We don't have many more days, legally, for the Republicans and the Democrats to do what my friend suggests we do--work together to come up with some resolution. That is No. 1. No. 2, June O'Neill, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, sent a letter directly, I think, to all members of the Senate Budget Committee reaffirming CBO's analysis of the President's budget, that indeed it does reach balance by the year 2002. Now, the Senator may not subscribe to the triggers used by the President to assure that we reach CBO figures and balance the budget by the year 2002, but there is no doubt whatsoever that the President did what he said he was going to do--present a balanced budget--and he uses a mechanism that will allow us to do that, which has been embraced wholeheartedly by Republicans and Democrats in past budgets, including the Republican budget in the last Congress. No. 3, there will always be differences between Republicans and Democrats on priorities. We have no doubt that, ultimately, whether or not we get a resolution, our differences may or may not be bridgeable. We feel very strongly about the need to commit resources to education beyond that which was committed in the past. We feel that if we lose the opportunity to educate the next generation, we lose the kind of freedom and greatness this country aspires to. So, Mr. President, there will be differences, and we will have our debates about those. But that is really what the debates ought to be all about, those fundamental differences on our priorities. I will argue for whatever length of time we have that investments in education, health care, housing, and investments in the people of this country in ways that will make them stronger and less relying upon Federal programs are in our long-term best interest regardless of what form they may take. Mr. President, No. 4, I believe that all too often in this country we get hung up on whether or not a given budget is going to achieve everything that we had hoped it would. You know, the funny thing is that we never find out, because the Congress, in all of its wisdom, oftentimes never gets to that point where we can pass a budget agreement that allows us to move on through the process of reconciliation and appropriation and the whole process here. I want to say that I think there are Republicans and Democrats who have come to a point of asking whether or not an annual budget resolution makes a lot of sense. That is a debate for another day. Someday I hope that we can have a good debate about whether annual budget resolutions make sense. My personal preference is to have a biannual budget resolution because I think it would allow us a lot more opportunities to cope with all of the circumstances involving the $1.5 trillion budget that we have to consider on an annual budget today. But that is the law right now, which takes me back to the first point. The law says that regardless of how we may feel about biannual budgets in the future the law requires an annual budget today. The President has fulfilled his obligations under that law. Now it is time to fulfill ours, working together to meet that April 15th deadline to do exactly what the President proposed that we do--balance the budget by the year 2002.

Mr. DASCHLE. I do not have the floor. The Senator from Idaho yielded to me.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Nevada, the answer to that is yes. We have made great progress to reduce the deficit by 60 percent. OMB and the Congressional Budget Office fought aggressively over past budget projections. But OMB has been more accurate than the Congressional Budget Office in the last 4 years. That has brought about economic strength that we didn't anticipate as we wrote this budget. So we have exceeded our target. We ought to continue to do that. We are prepared to use the Congressional Budget Office figures even though OMB is more accurate because the Congressional Budget Office tends to be more conservative, and that is fine when it comes to economic projections. But the bottom line is that we have come more than halfway already. Now it is time for us to complete the job.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we have 7 weeks between now and the next legislative recess, a period within which a great deal of work must be done. This has not been our most productive Congress so far. There are a lot of reasons why we have not been as productive as we would like it to be. I hope now as we get into the very critical months of April and May that we spend as much effort as we can to bring about the consensus we must have on a series of issues that this Congress must address. Some of them have deadlines. Some of them do not. But all of them are of extraordinary importance to this body and to the American people. There are two with deadlines that I hope we can begin work on in earnest this week. First and foremost, the Chemical Weapons Convention. There is no doubt we are facing the prospect that the United States could miss its opportunity to become a full-fledged member of the international convention responsible for bringing about the elimination of chemical weapons. If we fail to ratify the convention by the 29th of April, we will miss the opportunity to commit ourselves fully to the obligations of that convention and to the international community. We are told that enrollment of the convention requires at least 10 days, which means we only have until the 19th. In other words, we have fewer than 14 days within which all of the ramifications of that important convention can be addressed here on the Senate floor. This has been the subject of extraordinary debate, countless deliberations, numerous hearings, and efforts on both sides of the aisle to resolve the differences that still exist. It is my understanding that we are not that much closer today than we have been for several weeks. If that understanding is inaccurate, then I hope someone will come to clarify the current set of circumstances. Madam President, we simply cannot wait. We must deal with this convention. Time is running out. We are not inclined to support any other legislation or the movement of any other bill until such time as we have some appreciation of where we are with regard to this convention and when we can expect it to come to the Senate floor. I give great credit to the majority leader for his efforts in attempting to do that. He has been patient and diligent, but, so far, I think it is fair to say that none of us have been successful. So while our approach has always been to try to work through this and to give everyone the benefit of the doubt in the hopes that, ultimately, we can come to a resolution, the bottom line is that time is quickly running out. When time has run out, the last laugh may be on us. Madam President, the stakes are too high, the issue is too important, and the consequences are too severe for us to ignore this important deadline. We must confront it and we must recognize that this must occur this week. Hopefully, tomorrow must be the day we finally come to the conclusion about when it is this important treaty will come to the U.S. Senate for ratification. Anticipating failure, I don't think we have any other choice but to do all that we can to hold off on taking any action on any other piece of legislation until such time as we can anticipate success. So, Madam President, I am very hopeful that tomorrow we can resolve whatever remaining procedural questions there may be in an effort to deal with this issue directly. Second, let me just say that we are also running up against another deadline, and that deadline involves the budget. We already missed April 1. That was the deadline that the Budget Committee was supposed to have reported out its budget resolution. Now we have the important deadline of April 15. That is the deadline under the law for the Senate to pass a budget resolution. I didn't hear the distinguished majority leader this morning, but I am told that he had indicated that they are waiting for the White House to take additional steps and to make an additional effort. I must say, Madam President, I have heard that excuse now for too long. The fact is that the President has taken the action that is required of him under the law. He has presented a budget on time. He has presented a budget, by the way, that balances by the year 2002, using CBO figures. So, Madam President, as far as I am concerned, the President has done what he is required to do. The question now is, can we? And will our Republican colleagues take the leadership that comes with being in the majority and meet the April 15 deadline? I hope that we will no longer rely on excuses. I hope that we can come together, Republicans and Democrats, in the Budget Committee first, and second on the floor, and meet the obligations proposed by law, with no more excuses about who has acted under what circumstances. While the negotiations are not going well enough, the time has come to act now, and the time has come for us to come together, to work in the regular order under the budget process, through the Budget Committee, and get the job done. So there is an array of pressing issues, Madam President. As I indicated, some have deadlines--the Chemical Weapons Convention and the budget. Time is running out. Excuses are getting old. Let's get on with the work and get the job done. I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reform.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that in addition to this request, which I fully support, that the request be amended to accommodate a need by the senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, to speak for 30 minutes on another matter. I ask unanimous consent that following the vote, the Senator from West Virginia be recognized for 30 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues today in strongly endorsing this bipartisan resolution, which represents an important step in the fight to curb the flow of drugs from Mexico. This resolution strongly registers Congress' unhappiness with the current situation in Mexico. It includes a clause stating that it is the sense of Congress that ``there has been ineffective and insufficient progress in halting the production in and transit through Mexico of illegal drugs.'' There is ample evidence that Mexico is not doing enough to combat this problem. Let me cite a few examples. More than half the cocaine coming into the United States is smuggled across the United States-Mexican border. Major quantities of heroin, marijuana and methamphetamines used in the United States are produced in Mexico. Drugs are being moved illegally across the United States-Mexico border by major criminal organizations operating on both sides of the border. And, of great concern to the United States, there is evidence of significant corruption affecting the Mexican Government and undermining its anti-drug commitments. The most dramatic recent evidence of this fact was Mexico's February 1997 arrest of its drug czar, General Gutierrez. This resolution helps us move beyond the annual certification debate in achieving concrete action in a constructive way. Passage of this resolution will strengthen the President's hand in his upcoming April trip to Mexico. It puts the United States in a position to get the greatest possible cooperation from the Mexicans in fighting the war on drugs. And, most importantly, it puts the Mexicans on notice that we will expect such cooperation. This resolution clearly expresses Congress' view that the Mexican Government must do more and that the United States needs a plan to push that effort. The resolution lays out the positive steps they must take by requiring the President to submit a report to Congress by September 1 of this year laying out progress with Mexico in the following important areas: Investigation and dismantling of drug cartels, development and strengthening of the working relationship between the United States and Mexican law enforcement officials; strengthening of bilateral border enforcement; denial of safe havens for those responsible for drug trafficking, including improvement of cooperation on extradition matters between the United States and Mexico; simplification of evidentiary requirements for narcotics and other related crimes; full implementation of effective laws and regulations to combat money laundering; eradication of crops intended for illicit drug use; establishment of screening process to assess the suitability of all law enforcement personnel involved in the fight against organized crime; and the support given to Mexico in its efforts to identify and remove corrupt officials throughout the government, including law enforcement and military officials. The resolution also directs that the report include progress on important domestic goals, including the implementation of antidrug education efforts in the United States focusing on reducing drug use among young people; the implementation of a comprehensive international drug interdiction and enforcement strategy; and providing the additional personnel needed to get the job done. This resolution is not, and must not be, the end of this process. The 1998 drug certification process will give Congress another chance to express its support or disapproval of the progress we have made with Mexico. The resolution is not perfect, but it takes us in the right direction. Let there be no mistake: the United States cannot tolerate anything less than an all-out effort to control illegal drugs. Mexico must demonstrate a dramatic increase in its cooperation in the effort to stop the flow of drugs across the United States-Mexico border. The United States obligation is to insist on Mexico's cooperation and to make it clear that we will do everything we can to support their effort. We will be closely monitoring progress in this area. Without it, we will face an intolerable threat to our children and a severe degradation of our relationship with Mexico. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last week, over one-half dozen groups representing millions of Americans spread out across Capitol Hill to lobby for legislation that would guarantee every child health insurance. Their message was simple: it is wrong that America, alone among industrialized nations, doesn't assure health protection for its children. We in Congress should heed their call and work together to erase this ignoble distinction. Bolstering their message was the release last week of the Children's Defense Fund's 1997 edition of the ``State of the Children Yearbook.'' The picture that report paints of the state of children's health care is bleak. Every 48 seconds a child is born without insurance. One in every 7 children is uninsured for the entire year. Nearly 1 in every 3 is uninsured for at least one month during any year. Nine out of every 10 uninsured children is from a family where at least one parent works. In announcing the results of this report, Marian Wright Edelman, CDF's President, succinctly sums up the situation. ``Lack of health insurance is a problem we can solve right now and make a huge difference in many child lives. The issue is whether we care enough to build the political will to do it.'' The effects of children not having insurance are well known to us all: Children without health coverage get less cost-effective preventive care, less basic care and more costly acute care when their illness is too advanced to ignore. Further, uninsured children are more likely to suffer preventable disease and have trouble learning. How can we reverse these trends? Proposals to address this problem are well known to all of us and simply stated through the following principles. First, make health coverage available to every uninsured child through age 18 and every uninsured pregnant woman. Second, make coverage genuinely affordable to all families. Third, give children access to coverage that provides for the full range of health care that children need. Finally, build on--do not replace--the current employer- based system, Medicaid and public-private initiatives in the States. Advocates of guaranteeing all children health insurance are telling us to act bipartisanly. And there is ample precedent for bipartisan action on behalf of children's health. Almost every health reform bill, Democratic and Republican alike, introduced in the 103d Congress provided assistance to low-income Americans to purchase private health coverage--most had special assistance for the cost of children's coverage. In other words, we have agreed in the past that children who fall through the cracks deserve proper health coverage. Children don't vote; they do not sit on corporate boards; and they cannot argue their case on the Senate floor. But we have a vote. We can take it upon ourselves to improve the lives of our children and their families by making our nation's children our top priority. The public has taken note. Now is the time to answer their call. Our children deserve no less.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, let me begin by associating myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from California. She speaks for many on our side as well, who want very much to bring this issue to closure today. It is because of her efforts and the efforts, as she has indicated, of the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Georgia and others who have dedicated an extraordinary amount of time in the last couple of weeks to working with the administration and others to bring us to a point where, on one of the most contentious issues we have had to confront in this Congress, we have actually come to a point where Republicans and Democrats can reach agreement. That does not happen very often in this Congress, and especially in this session of this Congress so far. I hope we can avail ourselves of the opportunity it presents and come to an agreement on procedure and allow this resolution to be taken up and voted upon sometime by early afternoon. I did not hear a lot of what the majority leader has indicated is his position with regard to the chemical weapons treaty. He knows of the great concern on our side of the aisle about achieving a process that will allow us consideration of that treaty no later than the 19th of April so that, by the 29th of April, that treaty can be ratified and that we can be full-fledged members of the Chemical Weapons Convention. If we miss that small window, from April 7 to April 19, we will have lost the opportunity, that 125 other countries have already taken, that we have sought for decades to have an international agreement on chemical weapons. Our failure to become part of the convention will put us in the company of Iraq, Iran, Libya, and countries that in every way, shape, and form and by any definition are rogue states today. Do we want to be in that position? I would think there would be an unequivocal, unanimous verdict that, no, we do not want to be in the company of Libya, Iraq, and Iran. But we are in a position which, in a very short period of time, will force us into that company if we do nothing. That is why my Democratic colleagues feel so strongly about this issue and believe that there are very few other issues out there more important, and if we do not turn up the pressure and find ways in which to assert our determination to get this convention considered, we will have lost an opportunity, not only for the Senate, for the country, but perhaps for the convention itself. This is why it is so critical. Having said all of that, and I could say a lot more but in the interests of time, let me say I believe the majority leader is doing as much as he can at this point to bring us to a set of circumstances that will allow us consideration in due time. I believe there is a great deal of difference within the Republican caucus on this issue. I understand that. There are many issues that divide the Democratic caucus. So it is not out of the ordinary to be divided on an issue of this importance and controversy. But I do believe that the majority leader has given me adequate reason to be confident that we will take this treaty up in a time that will accommodate ratification on the Senate floor prior to the 19th of April. So, given all of his cooperation and his willingness to work with us, I think the most important thing for us to do today is to pass this compromise to allow us to work with Mexico to deal with the drug issue in a meaningful way without slapping them in the face. So I hope, as the Senator from California has so articulately pointed out just a moment ago, that we recognize how important this opportunity is for all of us, that we seize the moment, that we get an agreement, and we move forward. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to reiterate what Pat Leahy has said about how glad we are that Merrick Garland has finally been considered by the Senate for appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. We wholeheartedly believe that Mr. Garland is highly qualified for this position and deserves the strong vote we just gave him. Mr. Garland has been awaiting this day since being nominated by the President on September 5, 1995--1\1/2\ years ago. His qualifications are clear. The ABA's standing committee on the Federal judiciary found him well qualified to serve on the Federal bench, and he has received the support of a bipartisan and ideologically diverse group of individuals. His credentials cannot be challenged. He has worked at the Department of Justice as the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, in private practice and served as a law clerk to Justice Brennan on the Supreme Court and a law clerk to Judge Friendly on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. I am happy that today, after his long wait, Merrick Garland finally knows that he will serve as a Federal judge. It is unfortunate, however, that we have not yet voted on any other judges during this session of Congress--at a time when we have almost 100 vacancies on the Federal bench. That is a vacancy rate of over 10 percent. I hope that voting on Merrick Garland's confirmation today signals that we are going to address this serious problem and begin to fill those long empty seats on the Federal bench. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased that the Senate has confirmed the nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Let us ensure that our Federal bench has a full complement of such qualified judges so that the business of justice can go forward. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter submitted by Anthony Lake to the President involving his nomination to be Director of Central Intelligence be printed in the Congressional Record at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I do so simply to comment on the very unfortunate set of circumstances that led to the decision by Mr. Lake to submit this letter. I have had the opportunity to work with Tony Lake now for some time; first, as a Senator; and, second, as leader. I must say that I do not know that I have ever met anybody more decent, more committed, more dedicated to public service than is Tony Lake. Our Nation owes him a big debt of gratitude for his contributions, and a great level of appreciation for the many ways in which he has already served his country. I only hope that he will continue to choose to do so in spite of these extraordinary circumstances. Mr. Lake was asked to be the Director of Central Intelligence by the President of the United States. It has been the prerogative of the President to name people within his administration, going all the way back to George Washington. Of course, there are times when the Senate in its role as a body to serve with advise and consent that it has disagreed with the President about a particular nomination, or about a particular member of a given administration. But I must say in all of history I challenge somebody to come up with more flimsy evidence with which to destroy the character of a candidate for public office appointed by the President as grievously as what I see has happened to Tony Lake in the last several months. Mr. Lake was not even given the opportunity to be voted on, never presented an opportunity for a vote in the committee, never presented with an opportunity to be voted on on the floor. I was asked this morning if this is some retribution for John Tower, or Robert Bork. My answer was that I hope our Republican colleagues are not that cynical. I hope there is some other motivation for doing to Tony Lake what they did over the last couple of months. It is very unfortunate. And it is sad, Mr. President. A man of his integrity, his character, was treated so shabbily by the committee that is supposed to be as devoid of politics as any in this institution. I think they owe him an apology. At least they owed him a vote. Under these circumstances, I think he made the right decision. But I am deeply troubled. I am troubled by the way it was handled. I am troubled by the insinuations and allegations all printed on the front page of every newspaper as fact. I am troubled by his inability to be given the opportunity to defend himself adequately against this never- ending list of additional allegations and questions going over old material time and time again almost as if it was an inquisition. So, Mr. President, it is a sad day for this body. It is a sad day for the Intelligence Committee. And it certainly is a sad occasion for those seeking to serve our country in the capacity and the level as Director of Central Intelligence. I don't know what recommendation I would give to some other candidate who now may consider this particular position. What advice do you give someone who puts himself forward knowing full well that there will be raw FBI data available to Members, and, if the chairman of the committee had his way, to all Members? What do you tell someone who has laid himself out? What do you tell the next person who is expected not to subject himself or herself to the same set of circumstances? Mr. President, this institution needs to restore civility, needs to come up with a way with which to take the meanness out of our process, whether it is a legislative issue or a nomination. Civility has to be brought back into this process. I hope we will start soon.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I don't know that I will have an opportunity tomorrow morning to discuss another matter, and I want to do so just briefly. We will have the opportunity to vote, as the distinguished majority leader has indicated, on two resolutions tomorrow. My colleagues have done a good job of explaining what the circumstances are. But I hope everyone who will watch the debate tomorrow will try to understand the circumstances involving the two resolutions and what this issue is all about. There are four factors here that I want to briefly mention. The first factor is the timeliness of this resolution. I am deeply disturbed that on the very day that the President found himself on the operating table, our colleagues chose to file a resolution demanding that there be an independent counsel investigating the President. Moreover, on the very day the President leaves for Helsinki to begin negotiating extraordinarily important matters with heads of state, this body has chosen to vote on the independent counsel resolution. Taste and timeliness were certainly not factors in making the decision to bring about the resolutions under these circumstances. The second issue involves necessity. Certainly necessity wasn't a matter of concern here either. In accordance with the law, the Judiciary Committee may send a letter to the Attorney General. In good faith I think both sides worked to try to find a mutually acceptable letter, and that was impossible. So, as I understand it, three letters were actually sent. But that started the process under law. That is what is required. But that wasn't good enough for some of our colleagues. For whatever reason, our colleagues then chose to say, ``Well, in addition to the legal requirements, we are now going to do something extralegal. We are going to do something that was actually criticized on this floor when the independent counsel legislation was debated.'' We considered whether we ought to have a debate on the floor about requiring or asking for an independent counsel. And the decision was made on a bipartisan basis. In fact, Senator Dole was very involved at that point in this debate, and the agreement was that having Congress vote on the need for an independent counsel for a particular investigation would politicize the process. So, for that reason, we agreed that it should not be a function of the Senate floor, but that it ought to be a legal process confined to the Judiciary Committee. That is the way the law was passed. Yet, what do we do now? What do we find ourselves faced with? Not just a resolution calling for the Attorney General to consider under the law the available evidence; the Republican resolution goes even beyond that. It says, first of all, that the Judiciary Committee letter is not adequate, and, second, that we are going to use a resolution to dictate to the Attorney General that she ought to appoint an independent counsel--in total violation of the intent and the spirit of the law we passed just a few years ago. So the intent, Mr. President, is questionable to say the least. The third issue is scope. We had a good debate about scope last week, and it became clear that a significant majority of the Members on both sides of the aisle said if anything is going to be investigated, then we better investigate everything. And that, indeed, is what is called for in the independent counsel law, which includes the alleged misdeeds of senior executive branch officials and Members of Congress. Curiously, once more, the Republican resolution, just as it did last week initially, specifically limits the scope of the requested investigation to the President. Our resolution calls for a review of all of the reported improprieties to determine the severity of the problem. Our resolution calls for the scope to be as broad as the one that was set out in the Governmental Affairs resolution last week and adopted in the Senate by a vote of 99 to 0. So we will have an opportunity tomorrow to vote on scope, to vote on whether or not we limit the independent counsel's investigation just to Presidential activity or whether--in the name of fairness, balance, and the real intent of the law--everything is on the table. To vote no on the Democratic resolution is to say, ``No, we do not want an independent counsel to look at Congress.'' So scope is a very critical issue, and that will be the subject of a good deal of debate and scrutiny as we go forth in the coming weeks. Finally, there is the question of whether or not it ought to be our purpose to dictate at all what direction the Attorney General should take. How is it that we put ourselves in a position to say we know better than she does the circumstances that might dictate the appointment of yet another special prosecutor? She has 25 FBI agents and a grand jury investigating all of this. She is reviewing the matters, I am sure, on a daily basis. What do we have? So far, we only have newspaper reports and the reports on all of the nightly networks. It is on that basis that some of our colleagues have already concluded an independent counsel is warranted. It is arrogant in the least to say we know better than the Attorney General on this issue and to dictate to her that she should appoint a special prosecutor in spite of whatever facts she may have available to her today. So, Mr. President, with regard to all four of these questions, I hope our colleagues will take great care as they vote tomorrow morning. There is one other procedural matter unrelated to substance that I think is also curious. The resolution offered by our colleagues on the Republican side is a congressional resolution requiring a vote in the House and a signature by the President of the United States. That is curious. Why is it that this body would offer a resolution asking for an independent counsel and then put it in a form which requires a Presidential signature? I am skeptical about the motivation in that regard as well. For all these reasons--taste, timeliness, scope, attitude, not to mention the resolution itself in the form that it takes--I certainly hope my colleagues will vote against the very maligned, poorly worded, extraordinarily ill-timed, narrowly drawn resolution offered by our colleagues and simply join us in restating what current law already requires. It is for the Attorney General to make that determination and, if she makes it, to recognize that scope ought to be as broad as she needs to make it, even including Congress, if that may be required. I yield the floor and I, given the resolution already adopted, call upon the Chair for the final issuance of the day.