Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the colleagues for their attention to this important problem, and ask unanimous consent that a letter from Timothy Lake of the BIA providing additional details about these problems be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if the chairman and ranking member would continue to indulge me, I would like to clarify one more technical point. The report language says that the funds would be available to tribes whose caseloads exceed 50 percent of the total welfare caseload for the State. In point of fact, the tribes per se do not have caseloads, the States currently run the programs. My hope is that the chairman intended to indicate that funds would be provided in States where native Americans exceed 50 percent of a State's total caseload using data collected by the Administration for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services in fiscal year 1995. Was that, in fact, the committee's intent?

Mr. DASCHLE. It is our hope that BIA funds can be made available to the tribe for these pressing law enforcement needs during fiscal year 1998. If there is special consideration for the funding requirements of underfunded tribes pursuant to section 118 of this bill, would you agree that the BIA should consider providing up to $650,000 to the Yankton Sioux Tribe for these purposes?

Mr. DASCHLE. Again, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member and look forward to working with you on this issue. I am proud of the Marty Indian School. Under the leadership of School Board President, Mike Redlightning, and past President Robert Cournoyer and the other Board Members, the school has a wonderful working relationship with the Yankton Sioux Tribal Council. Support for the Marty Indian School indeed is strong among the Yankton Sioux people.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, first let me thank the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, and the distinguished ranking Democrat, Senator Byrd, for their leadership and hard work on this legislation. I appreciate their willingness to work with me and Senator Johnson to provide greatly needed assistance to the Marty Indian School in our state. In the past, the Marty School has received funds sufficient to replace its decaying high school facility. However, the elementary school is 70 years old and is in serious need of immediate repairs. The facility is not suitable to serve the educational needs of its students safely. Recently, a piece of the ceiling in one of the elementary school's buildings crashed onto the desk of a young student. Fortunately, there were no injuries. However, the serious physical problems at the school continue to pose a significant threat to its students. It is clear that eventually the entire elementary school will need to be replaced. Senator Johnson and I would like to ask if it is the intent of the committee that the report language that refers to the Marty Indian School, found on page 55 of the Committee Report, gives direction to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to assess the serious structural deficiencies, particularly those that could compromise the health and safety of the elementary school students, and to endeavor to provide funds from the emergency or minor repair programs of the Facility Improvement and Repair program to correct these problems at the earliest possible date?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I express my sincere gratitude to the chairman and ranking member of the Interior subcommittee for their assistance in this matter. Last year's welfare reform bill provides an important opportunity for Indian tribes to run their own welfare programs. As I have said, I have met with representatives of all of the tribes in my State about this issue, and they care very deeply about it. I hope that, with these funds, they will be able to take on this important responsibility and help tribal members gain economic self- sufficiency.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I should like to engage in a discussion with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee about a provision in this bill that is very important to the Indian tribes in my State. The committee report directs the BIA to spend $5 million from the Tribal Priority Allocation [TPA] to provide funds to Indian tribes that wish to run their own welfare programs in States where the tribal welfare caseload exceeds 50 percent of total caseload. I am very grateful to my colleagues for recognizing the unique situation that exists in my State. More than half of the welfare caseload in South Dakota is made up of native Americans. Poverty on South Dakota reservations is very high; in the last census poverty among the South Dakota tribes was greater than 50 percent. My State has the dubious distinction of having the poorest county in the country, and it is a reservation county. Unemployment is also very high. For the largest tribes, it was 44 percent in 1995. The number of native Americans in the potential labor force who are not working averages 68 percent and, on some reservations, is as high as 95 percent. The native Americans in my State do not want to be dependent on welfare. Representatives for the tribes have talked extensively with me about how they want to build their economies and help their people find good jobs. They dream of the day when all native American people will have the opportunity to hold good jobs and have the satisfaction of contributing to the economic strength of their communities. For a number of complex reasons, this has been a difficult dream to accomplish. While they are working to improve their economies, they also want to assume the responsibility and use the option that is granted in the welfare bill to run their own welfare programs. They believe it is a matter of sovereignty, indeed even a treaty matter, that they enter into this new relationship with the Federal Government in a way that is parallel to how the States are treated. They do not want to be dependent upon the State. So they have asked for this funding to make it possible for them to take over their welfare programs and have a fair chance of succeeding in making their people's lives a little better. That is why I feel this provision is so important, and why I want to make sure it gives them the best chance at success. For this reason, I would like to ask my colleagues a few questions. As noted, the committee report indicates that $5 million would be provided under the Tribal Priorities Allocation to Indian tribes in States where the Indian welfare caseload exceeds 50 percent that wish to run their own welfare programs, and that the funds can be expended over a 2-year period. Is that also the chairman's understanding?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have one last question. As the Senators on this committee are painfully aware, allocating discretionary spending in times of major budget cutting has resulted in many difficult decisions. But, I would point out that the TPA account, which is the one from which this funding would be taken, was cut fairly heavily earlier in the 1990's and is only now starting to regain some of its resources. At the same time, the need among many of the tribes has been growing steadily. Indeed, many parts of Indian Country have not always shared in the economic boom that the rest of the Nation currently enjoys. I would like to ask my colleagues whether they might be willing to find an alternative offset, one which does not take away resources from other tribes, in order to find this important provision. I am, of course, aware that the increase requested by the President for TPA included in this budget, as well as funding for this provision. Would my colleagues be willing to work with me during conference to try to find an alternative means of providing these funds?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the majority leader's consideration of schedules. I do hope that all Senators will cooperate. We have had good debate on the NEA and I hope we can get it behind us. We have a lot of other issues and they all deserve some consideration. I hope we can create a finite list tonight and reach some agreement about what that list is so that we can complete our work, hopefully, tomorrow. So I ask for the cooperation of all of our colleagues on my side of the aisle in an effort to get that finite list so we can continue our work and, hopefully, complete it by the end of the day tomorrow. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

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 want to say a few words this morning about the Vice President of the United States--a man with whom most of us in this Chamber have served either in the House or here in the Senate. Right now, the bright glare of the public spotlight is on Al Gore. I think all of us know that public spotlight can sometimes be very harsh and unforgiving. Sometimes it can distort. But I don't believe the frenzy of the moment is going to diminish the achievement of two decades. Al Gore has spent 21 years in public life--and it has been a distinguished 21 years by any standard. Before his career in the Congress, he was an investigative reporter for the Nashville Tennessean. Prior to that time, he was a student at Vanderbilt's Divinity and Law Schools. And prior to that, he served this country honorably during the Vietnam war. People sometimes make a caricature of Al Gore's reputation for seriousness and honesty. But the truth of the matter is that Al Gore earned that reputation by immersing himself totally in his responsibilities as a lawmaker. In the House, he mastered the subtleties of the arms control debate and made internationally recognized contributions to stabilizing the nuclear arms race. In the Senate, he devoted himself passionately to protecting the environment. He was one of the first in this body to appreciate the potential of Federal Government supercomputers and the backbone that ultimately became the information superhighway. There's every likelihood that he will be remembered as a parent of the internet just as his own father is remembered as one of the founders of the Interstate Highway System. By almost all accounts, Al Gore has been the most influential and effective Vice President in modern American history. His Reinventing Government Program has literally revolutionized the executive branch agencies, reducing the size of bureaucracies, cutting out red tape, and building a more business-like paradigm for the delivery of vital services to the American people. That litany of achievement is real and familiar. I only run through it to give some sense of proportion to the charges that are now dominating the news. And my point is simple: we know Al Gore in this Chamber. The American people know him. The hearings we've had here in the Congress have revealed nothing to alter what we know. And I don't believe that insubstantial charges based on ambiguous law are going to count for anything against Al Gore's solid and unambiguous record of public service. I'm confident that, ultimately, a dispassionate and fair-minded American people will put the issues raised in the last campaign in their proper perspective. And I'm equally confident that, at the end of the day, Al Gore's reputation for public service and integrity will emerge absolutely intact.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I give extraordinary credit to our two leaders on this issue, Senators McCain and Feingold, for their persistence and diligence in the manner in which they have conducted themselves as they have sought resolution of this issue. I have indicated on occasions, both publicly and privately, that I think Senator McCain deserves great credit for having taken the initiative this year and worked as diligently as he has to bring us to where we are. Certainly the same could be said for our colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold. The two of them have spent countless hours and an extraordinary effort to bring us to a point where for the first time in recent modern history, Democrats and Republicans can join together in the passage of truly meaningful comprehensive reform. What I think this letter does is to reaffirm the new math on this issue, to reaffirm how close we really are to passage of a comprehensive bill. I'm not suggesting that all 48 Senators who have signed the letter have agreed to every provision in the legislation. Rather, I firmly believe this letter demonstrates that we are committed to enacting real campaign finance reform this Congress. There have been suggestions that all we really have to do is to strip away all but a soft money ban, and perhaps we can pass something this year if it is only that. But what this letter indicates is that we have 48 Senators, 2 shy of a majority, who are willing to do a lot more than that, who are willing to take a comprehensive approach to meaningful campaign finance reform, not next year, the year after, but this year, this fall. So I just hope that everybody understands the ramifications of a letter like this. This is unprecedented. I have looked back and our staffs have investigated the matter. We have never had an occasion where every single member of the Democratic caucus has signed on to one piece of legislation that is bipartisan, that is a direct intention or represents a direct intention to pass comprehensive campaign finance reform. It has never happened before. So this is an unprecedented and an extraordinarily strong statement on behalf of a lot of Senators who want to see something happen this year, who believe it can happen this year, who want to deal with spending limits, who want to deal with soft money, who want to ensure that somehow we are able to deal effectively with independent expenditures and these growing problems with ``issue'' ads, who want to see stronger enforcement of disclosure rules, who want to ban foreign contributions, who want to further limit the effort to put some end to the madness in campaigns today when it comes to financing. How tragic, how ironic it would be if, after all that we have read and all the print and all the time on television about investigations and speeches and intentions for change, and all the things that are going on currently in the Governmental Affairs Committee, after all that we said, our response is to do nothing at all, our response is to ignore the overwhelming evidence that something has to be done. One does not have to go through campaign cycle after campaign cycle to come to the conclusion that something is wrong in the system and something needs to be done in a comprehensive way to address the system, all of the difficulties we have, in a much more constructive and effective way than we have on the books today. That is why what Senators McCain and Feingold are doing is so laudatory. That is why what they are doing deserves not only Democratic but strong Republican support. That is why we cannot lose the momentum and let this opportunity pass us by. That is why we wrote the letter and why it is important now that we commit to an opportunity to resolve these issues this year, before we leave. So, Mr. President, I am very hopeful that this will add renewed momentum to the effort that I know is already underway in a very diligent manner by our colleagues and by others who have worked on this issue for as long as they have. Our history on campaign finance reform is not a good one. There have been too many lost efforts. There have been too many lost opportunities. There have been too many partisan divisions and extraordinarily confrontational fights on the floor in an effort to move something in the past. At various times we actually did move a bill through the Senate, at one point all the way to the President's desk, only to have it vetoed. Let us not have that happen again. President Clinton has said he will sign the McCain-Feingold bill if it gets to his desk. I have no doubt in my mind, if we ever got to a debate on the Senate floor, an overwhelming number of Senators, Republican and Democrat, would support something like this. Let us work our will. Let us come up with amendments. Let us try to find ways in which to come together rather than to be split apart on this issue in the future. Will we have unanimity? No. But can we achieve a meaningful, overwhelming consensus on this issue? My guess is, absolutely, yes, we can.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely right. You do not have to be a math whiz to count the numbers, to figure out what it takes to get us to 50. Because if we had 50, of course, the Vice President would be there to break a tie. God forbid we would have to call upon him to do so. My guess is, as I said a moment ago, there would be an overwhelming vote. But to get us to 50, we just need 2 more votes, two more people. If 2 Republican Senators would come forth and indicate their support publicly, that would be 50 votes. That would be, with the Vice President should he be needed, the majority necessary to pass it this year. In fact, this afternoon. So, there is absolutely no question that we are now within striking range, within reach, of an opportunity to pass it in the not too distant future. It really is an extraordinary opportunity, one that I would not have guessed we could have reached at this point, but we have, in large measure because of the unanimity of our caucus and because of the courage and leadership of some of our Republican colleagues to date.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we just announced the signing of a letter dated September 9 by every one of our Democratic colleagues in support of some bipartisan legislation that I hope will enjoy even broader bipartisan support in the not-too-distant future. The letter is addressed to the majority leader. Because it is brief, and I think the letter is very to the point, perhaps it would be appropriate for me simply to read it. On July 9, we sent you a letter requesting a date certain on which comprehensive campaign finance reform legislation would be considered on the floor. Today, we do more than simply renew this request. The purpose of this letter is to communicate to you in the clearest terms possible our specific legislative intentions in this regard. Senate Democrats are prepared to cast 45 affirmative votes for the substitute language to S. 25, as announced by Senators McCain and Feingold on May 22, 1997. This support, coupled with the votes of the three current Republican cosponsors of this legislation, constitutes 48 votes for final passage, merely two votes shy of a majority. While each of us might prefer to craft a bill to our individual liking, we recognize that 1997 represents an historic opportunity for comprehensive reform. We are therefore prepared to announce our unanimous support for the only comprehensive, bipartisan approach with a viable prospect of enactment in this session. There should now be no confusion about the prospects for enactment of the McCain-Feingold bill. Your willingness to schedule S. 25 for an up-or-down vote, coupled with the support of only two additional Republican Senators, could break ten years of gridlock on this matter. The environment for real campaign finance reform has never been more favorable. We are determined to seize this opportunity, and we ask your assistance in the effort. It is signed, as I indicated, by all 45 Senators in the Democratic caucus. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter, as it was signed, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his eloquence and his comments. He is absolutely right. I think this failure, should we experience it again, would add to the cynicism. On the other hand, if we could pass it, it would do so much to instill new confidence and new admiration for the legislative process, and I think restore hope in democracy itself. This is a rare opportunity. We have the momentum. We have demonstrated the votes now are there. I think it is simply a matter of continuing to ensure that we strike an agreement with regard to scheduling this legislation in the not too distant future. We can do it this week. We can do it within a very short period of time. We do not need a lot of time for debate. We can make this happen. We just need a commitment that we will make it happen. I do not know that the country could be any more pleased with the results of what I would consider to be one of the most consequential accomplishments of this session of Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I will use my leader time to talk on another matter, and I appreciate very much the Senator from North Dakota yielding the floor to allow me to do so.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is estimated that up to 50 percent of the women alive today will experience at least one serious osteoporosis-related fracture during the remainder of their lives. Approximately 25 percent of men alive today will also experience a serious fracture related to osteoporosis. It is clear that osteoporosis is becoming a greater and more expensive public health problem with each passing year. Medicare and other publicly funded health care programs are spending an estimated $28 billion per year to treat osteoporosis-related conditions. Osteoporosis is both preventable and treatable. There are a number of FDA-approved therapies that have been demonstrated to be effective in preventing the disease in those at risk, as well as treatments that can arrest or retard the progress of the disease in individuals who already have it. Good nutrition, including sufficient calcium, has also been shown to help protect against the illness. If programs can be put into place soon that will help detect and combat this illness, we can make a tremendous difference in the quality of life of seniors, and effectively reduce the spiraling cost of osteoporosis-related health problems. I understand that in its report, the committee has encouraged the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases [NIAMS] and the Agency for Health Care Policy Research [AHCPR] to use competitive grants and other mechanisms to plan and carry out definitive studies, including epidemiological studies, that will enable us to better understand the nature and scope of osteoporosis and design more effective prevention and treatment programs. I commend the committee for its action, and would like to reinforce the urgency of moving forward with the planning and execution of such studies and the importance of using competitive grants as appropriate to tap the skills and expertise of the Nation's academic and research communities. I would also like to emphasize the importance of including, as part of this effort, an analysis of policies and programs that should be pursued to prevent osteoporosis in the future. It is critical that we have an accurate sense of the dimensions of this widespread health problem and take every possible step to lessen its destructive impact. I hope the committee's well-articulate views, which clearly recognize the value of a comprehensive assessment of osteoporosis, and acknowledge the important contribution NIAMS and AHCPR can make to that effort, are incorporated into the conference report.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am grateful that this bill provides an increase in funding for the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. The program was implemented in accordance with the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act of 1990 to reduce morbidity and mortality from two cancers that will claim the lives of an estimated 500,000 women during the 1990's. It is structured as a State and Federal partnership to provide screening and diagnostic help and assure followup care for low-income uninsured women. Under the 1990 act, Federal funding is restricted to screening and diagnostic services. To ensure that women diagnosed with cancer receive treatment, States are expected to arrange access to treatment through whatever means they have at their disposal. The CDC's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program is now active in all 50 States, and as of January 1997, the program has screened more than 1.5 million American women. Unfortunately, too many women are not being provided the screening, disgnostic help, and treatment they need to save their lives. At the current level of funding, the program can provide screening to only 15 percent of the eligible low-income population, meaning that roughly 10 million low-income uninsured American women are not provided access to critical screening services. Moreover, as in many other States, the program in my home State of South Dakota faces another critical resource constraint: Insufficient resources to provide diagnostic services for women who have been screened by the program and require additional diagnostic treatment. It is tragic to think that some women are told they may have breast or cervical cancer, and then informed that their diagnosis cannot be confirmed. Additional funding for this program is critically needed to complete the task of diagnosing women as early as possible so that they can receive potentially life-saving treatment, and to fulfill the promise of the 1990 bill for all eligible women, not just a small fraction of them. In addition to our inability to provide screening and diagnostic services to all low-income women, we have not yet been able to establish a program to ensure the necessary treatment for those who are diagnosed with cervical or breast cancer. When you consider that the fundamental goal of the 1990 act is to prevent mortality, it becomes clear that we need to take greater steps to secure treatment for affected women. Since passage of the 1990 act, CDC and the States have been working diligently to ensure that all women diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer receive appropriate treatment. However, the resources that are available to fulfill this task--often an uneven patchwork of free clinics, charity care from hospitals, and pro bono services donated physicians--makes the job extremely difficult. To meet this challenge, it is essential that we determine accurately the extent to which women diagnosed with cancer under the CDC Program lack access to the care they need and how we can overcome the remaining barriers to providing all women with care they need. I understand that the CDC is conducting a comprehensive study of State-level efforts to provide appropriate treatment. Based on the results of that study, which should be available within the next few months, Congress and the administration have a responsibility to determine whether additional measures are necessary to help States ensure proper treatment for women who are diagnosed with cancer through the CDC screening program. It is my hope that when the results of the CDC study become available, the administration will evaluate them and make recommendations to Congress on ways the Federal Government can better help States ensure that women diagnosed with cervical or breast cancer obtain the treatment they need. Additionally, it is my hope that the Department of Health and Human Services will utilize whatever unexpended or discretonary funds that are available in fiscal year 1998 to expand the number of women who are provided screening or diagnostic assistance for cervical or breast cancer.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I note the committee is recommending a significant increase in funding for the National Institutes of Health as a whole, and for the National Cancer Institute in particular. I applaud the committee for its dedication to tapping the full potential of medical research. Such research represents hope for millions of Americans with cancer and other devastating illnesses, and in that sense it is far more valuable than any dollar figure we may attach to it. I understand that in its report, the committee stated that breast cancer research is among its top priorities, and asserted that the National Cancer Institute should strengthen its budgetary commitment to breast cancer. In light of these statements, I believe it is the committee's expectation that the substantial increase in NCI funding should be reflected in additional funding for breast cancer research. It is reasonable that NCI would increase its funding commitment to breast cancer research in order to respond to the committee's concern that more research is needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms of breast cancer and to improve the ability to detect, diagnose and treat this pervasive, life-threatening disease.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I note with pleasure that both the Senate and House reports accompanying the Labor/HHS appropriations bills reflect strong support for community water fluoridation in preventing tooth decay among children. These reports clearly state that we can both save money and improve children's health through fluoridation. Tooth decay remains the single most common disease of childhood and is highest in low-income children. Millions of Medicaid dollars currently used to repair these children's teeth could be saved through fluoridation. After 50 years, water fluoridation remains the hallmark public health preventive intervention. In my own State of South Dakota, water supplies for communities as small as 500 persons are fluoridated. It is my hope to extend similar benefit to children throughout the country. Both the House and Senate reports direct the Department of Health and Human Services to support implementation plans for additional community water fluoridation. The House provides $1,000,000 for this effort while the Senate directs the Department to fund this effort at a level no less than last year. Unfortunately, last year the Department allocated only $200,000 for this purpose, which did not meet the need. It is my hope that the conferees will be able to provide sufficient resources in the conference report to address this serious problem. The House level of $1,000,000 for community water fluoridation strikes me as a reasonable amount to accomplish this important purpose. Anything the Senate conferees could do to work with the House conferees to achieve this level in the final conference report would be enormously appreciated by beneficiaries of this program throughout the Nation.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, during a recent visit to rural South Dakota, I had the profoundly moving experience of meeting with a heroic individual who is working to keep deeply distressed kids off alcohol and drugs. Durein Chase works to build opportunities for distressed children by providing them with drug-abuse prevention counseling in a safe, drug-free recreation center. My hope for these children and excitement about the Crow Creek Four Winds Youth Center Program were cut short when I learned that Federal funding for this program was abruptly terminated because Congress ended its authorization in fiscal year 1996. The Homeless and Runaway Youth Drug Abuse Prevention Program, known as DAPP, had previously supported as many as 184 local programs around the country at an annual cost of $15 million. When DAPP lost its appropriation, the program was incorporated into a new comprehensive program for homeless youth. Unfortunately, the new initiative does not help those programs, like the one on Crow Creek Reservation, that do not run residential facilities. Simply put, the children of Crow Creek have slipped through the cracks. Dureine's heroic effort to help particularly vulnerable kids avoid drugs will disappear without our support. Fortunately, the Appropriations Committee has included in its fiscal year 1998 bill $10 million for SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, to support youth drug prevention programs. It is my understanding that the Crow Creek Four Winds Youth Center and facilities like it are eligible for a portion of the $10 million provided to the Department of Health and Human Services and it is my hope that the Department will seriously consider funding the Crow Creek Youth Center in fiscal year 1998. With adequate funding, the Crow Creek Youth Center will be able to provide help for isolated and distressed youth who come from areas distinguished by historically high rates of teen suicide.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter I received from Senator Wyden be printed in the Record.