Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to weigh in as well. I appreciate so much the leadership and partnership shown by our chairman and ranking member. Let me go to the point the majority leader has made. If we want to finish by 2:30 tomorrow--and the reason we need to finish by 2:30 tomorrow, of course, is that we have a Jewish holiday coming up, and there are a number of personal matters that have to be tended to. I hope we can get everyone's cooperation tomorrow morning. If we are going to do that, we have to be at a point tonight with no more than 20 amendments, and 2 minutes on each, if we come in at 9 o'clock in the morning. That doesn't leave us with a lot tomorrow. In other words, we have to virtually finish our work tonight. A number of us are going to go to our colleagues and ask for their full cooperation and partnership and effort to try to get us to the point that we have nothing left but no more than 20 amendments in the morning. I hope we can all work together to make that happen. I appreciate very much the leader yielding.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to indicate my strong support for the amendment offered by Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski that would increase the amount of funding available for scientific research at the National Science Foundation, NASA and the Department of Energy by $1.4 billion. Our nation's capacity for groundbreaking scientific research is one of its greatest assets. Scientific research strengthens our economy, improves our international competitiveness and raises the quality of life for all of our citizens. President Bush's 2002 budget, however, will retard our nation's investment into such research. For example, it virtually freezes funding for the National Science Foundation, NSF, cutting facility project funding by $13 million, and providing no funding for new projects. Such cuts threaten to throw our country's research portfolio out of balance by not providing for needed advances in the physical sciences and engineering. Science is a bipartisan issue. A recent Wall Street Journal article reported that to pay for his tax cut, ``President Bush is having to chop another Republican priority: increased government spending for science.'' D. Allen Bromley, a professor of nuclear physics at Yale and science and technology advisor to former President George H. W. Bush, recently wrote, ``the proposed cuts by the Bush Administration to scientific research are a self-defeating policy. Congress must increase the federal investment in science. No science, no surplus. It's that simple.'' Even Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been reported as calling the President's NSF budget ``a tragic mistake,'' stating it ``should be $11 billion'' instead of $4.5 billion. Earlier this year, a blue-ribbon panel of physicists recommended a site in my state of South Dakota, the Homestake Gold Mine, as its preferred location for a world class underground physics lab. Last year, the Homestake Mining Company announced it will close its doors this December after more than 125 years of operation. The mine has been the economic mainstay of the Black Hills of South Dakota, and its closure would have a devastating effect on the surrounding communities. Converting the mine into a world-class research facility holds great promise for the scientific community at large and would minimize the disruption the mine's closure will have on the region. With an underground laboratory, hundreds of new jobs would be created, business would expand, and new opportunities for growth and learning would abound. If Homestake is selected as the site for a national underground science laboratory, it is imperative for the project to be funded this year. Unless construction begins this year, Homestake Mining Company will allow the mine shafts to flood when the mine closes, permanently foreclosing any chance of building the lab at Homestake. Moreover, the longer we delay, the more likely it is that the mine's workforce will leave, crippling our ability to construct the lab. The Bond/Mikulski amendment will greatly enhance the prospects that valuable scientific ventures like the national underground physics laboratory will secure the government support needed to make them viable. I encourage my colleagues to support it. Amendment No. 322

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Mark Twain once noted that politicians' biggest objection to ``tainted'' money is, ``tain't mine.'' My colleagues, today we stand on the verge of proving that saying wrong. In the last two weeks, we've achieved some things in this Senate that few people thought, going into this debate, were possible. We have had a real debate. We have reached bipartisan agreements. We have stood together, Republicans and Democrats, and rejected amendments that would have made this bill unworkable. And we have accepted amendments that improve the bill. Thanks to the hard work of Senator Wellstone, we broadened the Snowe- Jeffords provision to bar sham issue ads so that all outside groups are treated equally. Thanks to the hard work of Senators Torricelli, Corzine, Durbin and Dorgan, we lowered the cost of campaigns by ensuring that the stations that enjoy the benefit of federally licensed airwaves give candidates the lowest unit cost for their political advertisements. Thanks to the hard work of Senator Schumer, we put new teeth into the limits on the vast sums of money national parties may spend on coordinated expenditures for candidates. Moreover, we turned back destructive amendments aimed at silencing the voices of working people. I will be honest, this bill is not perfect. It now includes increases in the amount of hard money that may be contributed to candidates and parties. I believe we must reduce the amount of money in politcs--no matter the form. Still, I supported this amendment reluctantly, and only because it allowed this bill to move forward, and to reach this important vote. The bill also includes an unworkable scheme for financing opponents of wealthy candidates that, in my view, favors incumbents and unwisely multiples the amount wealthy individuals can contribute to candidates. These flaws are not insubstantial, but the benefits of this bill far outweigh them. And when it comes to an issue as central to our democracy as the trust people place in their elected officials, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And make no mistake this is a good bill. We owe that to the stewardship and commitment of Senators McCain and Feingold. Throughout these last two weeks, Senators McCain and Feingold have shown the same steadfast leadership that brought us to this point. They have refused to compromise the essential components of their bill in face of incredible pressure from all sides. And they have acted in the national interest rather than their respective partisan interests. I thank them for their service to our republic and to this Senate. I also want to thank Senator Dodd for his management of this bill for our side. Senator Dodd has managed to ensure that every viewpoint within our caucus is heard and accommodated. We would not be on the verge of passing this bill without Senator Dodd's commitment to our caucus, to our nation, and to reform. I also want to thank Senator McConnell, who has been honest in his disagreement with this bill, and fair in his handling of it. This is indeed the way the Senate should work. A Senate that brings up bill, gives members an opportunity to legislate, and entertains deep and meaningful debate--is a tribute to us all. It is also a Senate that gets things done. The McCain-Feingold bill does not address every flaw in our campaign system. But, as Senator Feingold has said so often: ``It does show the public that we understand that the current system doesn't do our democracy justice.'' And it curbs some of the most egregious injustices in that system. There are those who have argued, and will continue to argue, that in an attempt to make things better, we will only make things worse. Since its founding, the goal of America has been to strive for that ``more perfect union'' our founders envisioned. To say that we shouldn't attempt to make things better begs the question, ``Is what we have now good enough?'' I believe that if you look at the rising tide of money in politics, the influence that money buys, and the corrosive effect it has on people's faith in government, the answer is clearly no. Ours is a government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' It is not a government of, by, and for some of the people. This bill will help put the reins of government back into the hands of all of the people. I hope that we pass it, I hope that our colleagues in the House will follow suit, and I hope the President will sign it. It has taken us a long time to get to this point. The last time Congress tried to strengthen our political system by loosening the grip of special interest money was 1974, more than a generation ago. Congress may not have another chance to pass real campaign reform for another generation, long after most of us will have left here. The decision we make today, whether to pass this bill or not, will likely have a profound impact on each of us for the rest of our time here. More importantly, this decision will have a profound impact --for better or worse--on the kind of system, and the kind of America, we leave to our children. As a wise man once said on another occasion: ``We cannot escape history.'' This is a critical moment in our nation's history. What we do will be remembered for years to come. Success is within our reach. Let us remain united. Let us pass this final test. Let us take the power away from the special interests and give it back to the American people, where it belongs. We can do it. The time is now.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am joining with my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, Senator Richard Lugar, to introduce the ``Renewable Fuels Act of 2001.'' Over the years, Senator Lugar has been one of the nation's leading champions of American agriculture and energy independence, and I am pleased to work with him on this effort to encourage the use of ethanol in our nation's fuel supply in a way that improves air quality and strengthens the nation's energy security. The bill Senator Lugar and I are introducing today is a refinement of a proposal we introduced in the last Congress. Many of the provisions of that bill were included in legislation reported by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in September 2000. Unfortunately, time ran out on the 106th Congress before final action could be taken on that committee bill. The Renewable Fuels Act of 2001 allows states to address a serious groundwater contamination problem by phasing out MTBE and establishes a nationwide renewable fuels standard that encourages the environmentally sound use of ethanol. The effect of this measure will be to get MTBE out of groundwater, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, diversify our domestic liquid fuels production base, and promote investment and job creation in rural communities. The bill will also result in substantial reductions in taxpayer outlays by enabling farmers to value-add their products into renewable liquid fuels and reduce oil imports that are exacerbating our trade deficit. The genesis of this legislation is found in the compelling need to resolve the problem of MTBE contamination of groundwater in states such as California. As we discovered in the 106th Congress, the solution to this problem, whose roots go back over a decade to the congressional debate on the merits of RFG with oxygenates, is extremely complex. A review of the Congressional Record debate shows that the Congress had several major objectives in enacting the RFG with oxygenates program, including: to improve the environment by reducing mobile source vehicle emissions (VOC ozone precursors; toxics; NOx; and CO2); to improve energy security by reducing oil imports; to stimulate the economy, especially in rural areas; and to provide regulatory relief to the automobile industry, small businesses/ stationary sources, and state and local authorities. While the detection of MTBE in drinking water supplies in some areas of the country has encouraged criticism of the RFG program, the record shows that most of the Congress' original goals for the RFG program have been met and, in many cases, even surpassed. The RFG program has, in fact, provided refiners with environmentally clean, high performance additives that have substantially extended gasoline supplies. Due to the increased demand for oxygenated fuels like ethanol, capital has been invested in farmer-owned cooperative ethanol plants throughout the Midwest, and rural communities have benefited from quality jobs and expanded tax bases. Harmful emissions in our major cities, from California to the Northeast, have fallen dramatically. Our trade deficit has been substantially reduced, and taxpayers have saved hundreds of millions of dollars in farm program costs. In short, the RFG program has been one of the most successful private/public sector programs in recent memory. Some of our colleagues from areas that have experienced MTBE water contamination problems believe the entire RFG program should be dismantled. They argue that the RFG program has run its course and that states should be allowed to waive its oxygenate requirement. I do not accept this argument and will strongly resist any effort to grant state petitions to opt out of the 1990 RFG minimum oxygen standard requirements. That option is not supported by the science and would simply encourage multinational oil companies to import more crude oil and to use energy-intensive methods to refine it into toxic aromatics that combust into highly carcinogenic benzene. I am sympathetic, however, to concern about the existence of MTBE in groundwater, and Senator Lugar and I offer an alternative response to the states' struggle to deal with this issue. We believe the Renewable Fuels Act addresses this challenge swiftly and effectively without abandoning the documented benefits of the RFG program. Consider the agricultural, energy and environmental benefits of our approach. A September 6, 2000, United States Department of Agriculture analysis concluded that the Renewable Fuels Standard, RFS, provision in our bill would increase ethanol demand from baseline projections of 2.0 billion gallons, to a minimum of 4.6 billion gallons, over the next 10 years. This is a substantial increase when compared with sales last year, which reached approximately 1.5 billion gallons. USDA found that, under this renewable fuels standard, farm incomes would increase by an average of $1.3 billion per year each year from 2000 to 2010. That totals to more than $13 billion for hard hit rural communities. Taxpayer outlays would drop dramatically due to the improved, market- based terms of trade in basic farm commodities. Some experts calculate that the nation's taxpayers would directly benefit from billions of dollars per year in farm program savings. At today's price for imported oil, our bill's RFS provision would save the country over $4 billion annually in current dollars. The ``Renewable Fuels Act of 2001'' will triple the use of renewable fuels in the United States over the next 10 years. This tripling represents less than 4 percent of the nation's total motor fuels consumption, which is well less than the oil industry's projected demand growth over the next 10 years. However, while small in relationship to the market share of multinational oil companies, it would account for the lion's share of the stated goal of Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski when he recently announced his Committee's goal to reduce the Nation's oil import dependence over that same period. As for the environment, the Renewable Fuels Act of 2001 provides states like California with a way to get MTBE out of groundwater without sacrificing ethanol's contribution to the reduction of emissions of the greenhouses gases linked to global climate change. Finally, as impressive as its record has been, I believe the RFG minimum oxygen standard program has more to offer the country. And I am pleased to report that President Bush agrees with that analysis. In a visit to Sioux Falls, SD, earlier this month, the President has some encouraging words to say about the role of renewable fuels like ethanol. He emphasized his commitment ``to value-added processing, to make sure that ethanol is an integral part of the gasoline mixes in the United States.'' I applaud President Bush's vision for ethanol. We agree that it is time to make ethanol an integral part of this country's fuel mix, in a manner that is predictable, sustainable, cost effective, and environmentally responsible. The ``Renewable Fuels Act of 2001'' meets all of these criteria. What Senator Lugar and I are suggesting is a truly national program that addresses geographically diverse needs in a synergistic manner. This comprehensive approach has encountered skepticism from well meaning interests that are, understandably, focused on their own priorities: state officials who are intent on cleaning up their groundwater; elected officials who are philosophically troubled by the perception of federal mandates; and farm groups whose fear of the vagaries of the legislative process make them reluctant to lock arms with traditional foes. Senator Lugar and I present the Renewable Fuels Act of 2001 as a new paradigm for reconciling historically competitive interests in a manner that will promote a broad range of national benefits. It is my hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as representatives of state and local governments, the environmental community, the oil industry and farm groups, will take an open minded look at this approach.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am joining with my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, Senator Richard Lugar, to introduce the ``Renewable Fuels Act of 2001.'' Over the years, Senator Lugar has been one of the nation's leading champions of American agriculture and energy independence, and I am pleased to work with him on this effort to encourage the use of ethanol in our nation's fuel supply in a way that improves air quality and strengthens the nation's energy security. The bill Senator Lugar and I are introducing today is a refinement of a proposal we introduced in the last Congress. Many of the provisions of that bill were included in legislation reported by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in September 2000. Unfortunately, time ran out on the 106th Congress before final action could be taken on that committee bill. The Renewable Fuels Act of 2001 allows states to address a serious groundwater contamination problem by phasing out MTBE and establishes a nationwide renewable fuels standard that encourages the environmentally sound use of ethanol. The effect of this measure will be to get MTBE out of groundwater, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, diversify our domestic liquid fuels production base, and promote investment and job creation in rural communities. The bill will also result in substantial reductions in taxpayer outlays by enabling farmers to value-add their products into renewable liquid fuels and reduce oil imports that are exacerbating our trade deficit. The genesis of this legislation is found in the compelling need to resolve the problem of MTBE contamination of groundwater in states such as California. As we discovered in the 106th Congress, the solution to this problem, whose roots go back over a decade to the congressional debate on the merits of RFG with oxygenates, is extremely complex. A review of the Congressional Record debate shows that the Congress had several major objectives in enacting the RFG with oxygenates program, including: to improve the environment by reducing mobile source vehicle emissions (VOC ozone precursors; toxics; NOx; and CO2); to improve energy security by reducing oil imports; to stimulate the economy, especially in rural areas; and to provide regulatory relief to the automobile industry, small businesses/ stationary sources, and state and local authorities. While the detection of MTBE in drinking water supplies in some areas of the country has encouraged criticism of the RFG program, the record shows that most of the Congress' original goals for the RFG program have been met and, in many cases, even surpassed. The RFG program has, in fact, provided refiners with environmentally clean, high performance additives that have substantially extended gasoline supplies. Due to the increased demand for oxygenated fuels like ethanol, capital has been invested in farmer-owned cooperative ethanol plants throughout the Midwest, and rural communities have benefited from quality jobs and expanded tax bases. Harmful emissions in our major cities, from California to the Northeast, have fallen dramatically. Our trade deficit has been substantially reduced, and taxpayers have saved hundreds of millions of dollars in farm program costs. In short, the RFG program has been one of the most successful private/public sector programs in recent memory. Some of our colleagues from areas that have experienced MTBE water contamination problems believe the entire RFG program should be dismantled. They argue that the RFG program has run its course and that states should be allowed to waive its oxygenate requirement. I do not accept this argument and will strongly resist any effort to grant state petitions to opt out of the 1990 RFG minimum oxygen standard requirements. That option is not supported by the science and would simply encourage multinational oil companies to import more crude oil and to use energy-intensive methods to refine it into toxic aromatics that combust into highly carcinogenic benzene. I am sympathetic, however, to concern about the existence of MTBE in groundwater, and Senator Lugar and I offer an alternative response to the states' struggle to deal with this issue. We believe the Renewable Fuels Act addresses this challenge swiftly and effectively without abandoning the documented benefits of the RFG program. Consider the agricultural, energy and environmental benefits of our approach. A September 6, 2000, United States Department of Agriculture analysis concluded that the Renewable Fuels Standard, RFS, provision in our bill would increase ethanol demand from baseline projections of 2.0 billion gallons, to a minimum of 4.6 billion gallons, over the next 10 years. This is a substantial increase when compared with sales last year, which reached approximately 1.5 billion gallons. USDA found that, under this renewable fuels standard, farm incomes would increase by an average of $1.3 billion per year each year from 2000 to 2010. That totals to more than $13 billion for hard hit rural communities. Taxpayer outlays would drop dramatically due to the improved, market- based terms of trade in basic farm commodities. Some experts calculate that the nation's taxpayers would directly benefit from billions of dollars per year in farm program savings. At today's price for imported oil, our bill's RFS provision would save the country over $4 billion annually in current dollars. The ``Renewable Fuels Act of 2001'' will triple the use of renewable fuels in the United States over the next 10 years. This tripling represents less than 4 percent of the nation's total motor fuels consumption, which is well less than the oil industry's projected demand growth over the next 10 years. However, while small in relationship to the market share of multinational oil companies, it would account for the lion's share of the stated goal of Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski when he recently announced his Committee's goal to reduce the Nation's oil import dependence over that same period. As for the environment, the Renewable Fuels Act of 2001 provides states like California with a way to get MTBE out of groundwater without sacrificing ethanol's contribution to the reduction of emissions of the greenhouses gases linked to global climate change. Finally, as impressive as its record has been, I believe the RFG minimum oxygen standard program has more to offer the country. And I am pleased to report that President Bush agrees with that analysis. In a visit to Sioux Falls, SD, earlier this month, the President has some encouraging words to say about the role of renewable fuels like ethanol. He emphasized his commitment ``to value-added processing, to make sure that ethanol is an integral part of the gasoline mixes in the United States.'' I applaud President Bush's vision for ethanol. We agree that it is time to make ethanol an integral part of this country's fuel mix, in a manner that is predictable, sustainable, cost effective, and environmentally responsible. The ``Renewable Fuels Act of 2001'' meets all of these criteria. What Senator Lugar and I are suggesting is a truly national program that addresses geographically diverse needs in a synergistic manner. This comprehensive approach has encountered skepticism from well meaning interests that are, understandably, focused on their own priorities: state officials who are intent on cleaning up their groundwater; elected officials who are philosophically troubled by the perception of federal mandates; and farm groups whose fear of the vagaries of the legislative process make them reluctant to lock arms with traditional foes. Senator Lugar and I present the Renewable Fuels Act of 2001 as a new paradigm for reconciling historically competitive interests in a manner that will promote a broad range of national benefits. It is my hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as representatives of state and local governments, the environmental community, the oil industry and farm groups, will take an open minded look at this approach.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have not had a chance yet to consult with our colleagues. We have 10 remaining amendments on this side. I know Senator Specter has been waiting patiently to offer his amendment. Throughout the week, I have promised our colleagues that if they played by the rules and waited patiently for their opportunity to offer their amendments, we would accord them the same opportunity other Senators have had throughout the duration of this debate, as the majority leader indicated. This has been a very good debate. No one has talked about the need to file cloture. I hope we will not have any reason to do that in the future. I believe Senators ought to have an opportunity to have their amendments considered and have a vote. So until I have had the opportunity to consult more carefully with those colleagues who still have outstanding amendments, I have to object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is suggested that perhaps having a weekend for the staff to go through whatever screening or final review may be helpful. Obviously, I think both managers would have to agree to any technical amendments. So there is that assurance. But this would give the weekend to the staff to assure that if there is any inadvertent mistake, it be caught prior to the time we vote on final passage on Monday. I also note that it was suggested we may want to include in this unanimous consent agreement any second-degree amendments. I don't think that will be necessary because I don't anticipate second-degree amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE. As long as we make it clear it includes amendments in the second degree.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I was deeply saddened today to learn of the passing of a dedicated public servant and a dear friend to South Dakota and to me. Bill Radigan spent his entire life serving those around him, and he will certainly be missed. As a young man, Bill joined the Army Air Corps, so that he could serve his country during World War II. After the war, he returned to his hometown of Vermillion, SD to continue what would become a lifelong commitment to public service. He served Clay County with the U.S. Postal Service for 35 years and coordinated Vermillion's school bus system. Thousands across the State benefitted from Bill's work with the American Legion and the VFW, where he served as secretary of the South Dakota Teener Baseball program for more than 30 years, and as State Quartermaster/Adjunct for nearly 50 years. For 55 years he was a member of the Vermillion Volunteer Fire Department, where he served as secretary-treasurer. Bill was a dedicated husband to his wife Susie, the loving father of 11, and a grandfather to many. In 1988, Bill ran for, and was elected to, the Vermillion City Council. Six years later he was elected mayor. Vermillion has been well served by its mayor, and, under his leadership, the city has embarked on a number of exciting projects that will sustain the community's prosperity well into the future. Bill Radigan's list of accomplishments is certainly impressive. But those activities only began to scratch the surface of who Bill was and why he will be missed. Bill didn't engage in public service because he wanted to add to a list of accomplishments. He simply saw something that needed to be done, and he stepped forward to answer the call. From serving in the military, to agreeing to help drive busloads of children to school, no job was too daunting, or too insignificant, for Bill Radigan. As a mayor, Bill was universally recognized as someone who was fair, who truly valued citizen involvement in the governing process, and who cared deeply about his community. From the business community to college students, Bill Radigan truly valued every Vermillion citizen's thoughts on the issues confronting the city. I have never heard of anyone who thought they were treated unfairly by Bill Radigan, and even those with whom he disagreed found him sincere and honest. Bill Radigan was effective because he based every decision he made as mayor on what he thought was best for the community. We could all learn a lot from Bill Radigan's commitment to his community and his approach to government. I wish to express my sincere condolences to Bill Radigan's family and to the people of Vermillion. Mayor Radigan was a dedicated father, a model public servant, and a wonderful person. We will miss him.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. At times in the past when we have had debates of this kind--and this has been a very productive and good debate this week--we have sought unanimous consent for a finite list, and it would be something we might want to contemplate doing maybe no later than Monday evening so we can work down a list and try to find ways in which to manage the remaining amendments. Most Members on this side would be prepared to work with the leadership to find a way to do that. That may be something we want to contemplate over the weekend.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, he will not be the only person opposing this amendment. I thank him for his eloquent, extraordinarily lucent description of this amendment and what it may mean. He is right on the mark. I share his sympathy, his empathy, for those who may be faced in the future with the circumstances some of our colleagues already have been faced with--running against a well- financed, independently wealthy opponent. I think the Senator from Connecticut puts his finger exactly on the problem. This moves us away from limiting the money in the system. This ``cure'' creates even more financial pitfalls and political difficulties than the current system. This amendment, however well intentioned, has three major problems. First, and foremost, it is an amendment that will create different standards in different States. As a result of the different standards that are created, most likely it will be declared unconstitutional. It will allow different candidates to raise different levels of money in different States depending upon circumstances. I cannot imagine that a system so confusing and biased could be upheld in any court of law. I cannot imagine that any court would look favorably at this inequitable distribution of opportunity. Secondly, this puts even more political power in the hands of fewer and fewer people. When we began this debate we were trying to address this very problem--the concentration of political power in a wealthy few. Even with the limits as they were in the last election, almost half of all total contributions to Senate candidates came from donors who gave at least $1,000. So if the individual contribution limits now are raised to $3,000 or $6,000, or even higher if the underlying individual limits are changed by this amendment process, we know wealthy donors are going to control the field even more. Why we would want to do that in the name of campaign reform, I do not know? I heard somebody say this is in the spirit of McCain-Feingold. This flies in the face of McCain-Feingold. There is nothing in the spirit of McCain-Feingold in this amendment. This is not reform. This makes a mockery of reform. Finally, I cannot imagine why the compromise has not addressed one of the real problems that I see in this approach, which is that if an incumbent has $5 million in the bank or even $10 million in the bank, and his opponent declares that they want to spend some of their own money to mount a vigorous challenge, the incumbent gets to take advantage of the raised individual contribution limits. In my state of South Dakota, if my opponent wanted to spend over $686,000 of their own money, I could take advantage of the new limits even if I might have $5 in the bank myself. If the same forces that want to pass this amendment turn around and triple the underlying contribution limits, I would be able to go out and raise as much as $18,000 from every individual who wants to contribute to my campaign. How is that fair? Regardless of what money we may have in the bank, how is it we would not look at that? Just because I might have a wealthy opponent, should I be allowed to open up the floodgates here and take whatever money I can raise? How is that limiting the influence of money? No, instead this protects incumbents. How is that in the spirit of McCain-Feingold? How can we seriously look at anybody and argue that this legislation benefits the true spirit and intent of what it is we are trying to do today? I think the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the Senator from Connecticut, has articulately put his finger on the problem. We have to oppose this if we really want to support meaningful campaign finance reform. Do not let anybody out there tell you that somehow, by supporting this, we are moving in the right direction. This moves us down the wrong track. We ought to oppose it. It ought to be defeated. I support McCain-Feingold, but I do not support this. I yield the floor. Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I can certainly understand the frustration of some of our colleagues as we have attempted to work through the first day of what is an unusual unanimous consent agreement. We are used to a little more flexibility on amendments. I think when we entered into this unanimous consent agreement, our entire purpose was to ensure that we could move amendments along. That was the whole idea--that we would make sure that in the process of moving amendments along, we would accommodate Senators. I hope that unanimous consent agreements, to demonstrate a little more practicality, could be agreed to in the future because I think we will actually accommodate rather than impede our ability to take up and address this bill in a meaningful way. In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that I or my designee be recognized tomorrow morning as debate on the legislation is again convened in order to offer an amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, in consultation with our ranking member, I suggest that our amendment will deal with the millionaires amendment. The Durbin approach I think is one with which many of us could be comfortable. I understand they are talking now about ways in which to address some of the differences between Senator Durbin and Senator Domenici. But that will be the subject of an amendment we will offer at 9:30 in the morning. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to correct an inequity in the laws affecting many Native American children. I am joined by Senators McCain, Inouye, Baucus, Feinstein, and Cochran in supporting this important piece of legislation. This effort is also supported by the National Indian Child Welfare Association, American Public Human Services Association, and National Congress of American Indians. 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 their homes through state court placement receive money through Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Additionally, states receive funding for administrative training and data collection to support this program. Unfortunately, because of a legislative oversight, many Native American children who are placed in foster care by tribal courts 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 who are adopted through tribal placements. Currently, the IV-E program offers limited assistance for expenses associated with adoption and the training of professional staff and parents involved in the adoption. These circumstances, sadly, have meant that many Indian children receive little Federal support in attaining the permanency they need and deserve. 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 take these children into their homes should not 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 foster and adoptive parents. This bill would make it clear that tribes would be treated like States when they run their own programs under the IV-E program. The bill would make funding fair and equitable for all children, Native and non-Native. The bill I am introducing today would do the following: Extend the Title IV-E entitlement programs to tribal placements in foster and adoptive homes; Authorize tribal governments to receive direct funding from the Department of Health and Human Services for 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 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. I want to emphasize that this bill would not result in reduced funding for the 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 who are under the jurisdiction of their tribal governments, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to correct an inequity in the laws affecting many Native American children. I am joined by Senators McCain, Inouye, Baucus, Feinstein, and Cochran in supporting this important piece of legislation. This effort is also supported by the National Indian Child Welfare Association, American Public Human Services Association, and National Congress of American Indians. 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 their homes through state court placement receive money through Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Additionally, states receive funding for administrative training and data collection to support this program. Unfortunately, because of a legislative oversight, many Native American children who are placed in foster care by tribal courts 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 who are adopted through tribal placements. Currently, the IV-E program offers limited assistance for expenses associated with adoption and the training of professional staff and parents involved in the adoption. These circumstances, sadly, have meant that many Indian children receive little Federal support in attaining the permanency they need and deserve. 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 take these children into their homes should not 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 foster and adoptive parents. This bill would make it clear that tribes would be treated like States when they run their own programs under the IV-E program. The bill would make funding fair and equitable for all children, Native and non-Native. The bill I am introducing today would do the following: Extend the Title IV-E entitlement programs to tribal placements in foster and adoptive homes; Authorize tribal governments to receive direct funding from the Department of Health and Human Services for 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 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. I want to emphasize that this bill would not result in reduced funding for the 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 who are under the jurisdiction of their tribal governments, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the bankruptcy bill before us today has come this far because it is needed to address the record number of bankruptcy filings this country has seen in recent years. The number of personal bankruptcies hit 1.4 million in 1998--a new record. While that number declined slightly last year--to 1.3 million bankruptcy filings--it is still too high. It is still nearly twice the number we saw in 1990, during the depths of a recession. What accounts for this increase? It's clear that most people who file for bankruptcy do so only after suffering a serious reversal, such as serious illness, divorce or job loss. And most do so only as a last resort. But economic conditions clearly are not the only factor. If they were, we would have seen a drop in bankruptcy filings during the 1990s, given the booming economy. Instead, we saw record increases during the 90s. Clearly, some people are gaming and abusing the bankruptcy system. For them, the old stigma associated with bankruptcy has faded. The purpose of this bill is to stop those abuses. Many have asked--fairly--whether the solution it imposes is too tough on ordinary debtors who deserve the protection of bankruptcy court. Critics of this bill say that it makes it more difficult for people who have incurred overwhelming debts through no fault of their own to get back on their feet. In many ways, I agree with them. This bill could have been more balanced. It could have been crafted in a way that would have allowed all consumers to have their problems fully considered in bankruptcy court. A number of Democratic Senators offered amendments that would have made this bill better. Unfortunately, many of those amendments were rejected. I am pleased, however, that two key amendments were adopted. Both Senator Schumer's amendment on clinic violence, and Senator Kohl's amendment closing the homestead loophole, were needed to address real abuses of the bankruptcy code. If we are going to insist that consumers repay more of their debts, certainly we should also insist that people who resort to violence at health clinics must repay the debts they incur as a result of their illegal behavior. And certainly we must ensure that people who declare bankruptcy can't squirrel away millions of dollars in fancy homes that creditors can't touch. These abuses were not addressed in the bill President Clinton refused to sign last year. Their inclusion in this bill is one reason I am able to support it today. A bigger reason for my support is a basic principle that I grew up with. People who incur debts have a responsibility to repaying them if they can. That is a fundamental belief in South Dakota. It's part of the fabric of who we are. The pioneers who settled our state relied on each other during the hard times, the weak harvests, and at planting times. They knew they could trust each other to make good on their debts--because they had to. Their survival depended on it. Most people I know still feel that way. This bill is needed because of the people who do not share that belief--the minority of people who see bankruptcy as an easy out, rather than a last resort. It says to those people: ``Paying your debts isn't a matter of choice. It's a matter of honor. And it is a legal responsibility to which you will be held accountable.'' There are real costs when somebody does not repay their debts. Somebody has to pick up the tab. Some of those costs fall on lenders. But some are passed on to honest borrowers who do repay their debts. They get stuck with higher interest rates. So there are consumers on both sides of this equation. Under current law, people can file under Chapter 7 to wipe out their debts, and a judge can throw out a case if he or she determines that the filer can afford to repay some of the debts. But there is no consistent legal standard for determining one's ability to pay. This bill establishes such a standard. It says that bankruptcy judges must determine if a filer can pay $10,000--or 25 percent of his debts-- over the next five years. It is important to note: This new standard does not apply to filers who--after deducting food, rent, transportation, education and other expenses--earn less than their state's median income. These people can still file for relief under chapter 7. Opponents of the bill say it imposes new legal hurdles and paper burdens on consumers that will deny many the protection they deserve. These are serious concerns. We must monitor implementation of this new standard closely. If this bill is enacted into law--if we see that creditors are abusing the provisions of this law to harass debtors--we have a moral responsibility to revisit this law. And I can tell you, I will be the first Senator on this floor calling for that re-examination. Time will tell if this bill strikes the right balance. The Senate has heard good arguments on both sides of this debate. Because of the improvements that were made in committee and on the floor, and because of the fundamental values with which I was raised, I will vote for it. At the same time, I urge the conferees who will take it up next to respect and preserve the balance in it, so it can continue to command the broad, bipartisan support it will need to reach the President's desk and be signed into law.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to share with my colleagues a letter that Representatives Gephardt, Lantos, Skelton, Senators Biden and Levin, and I recently sent to President Bush. The letter outlines our support for efforts to work with our South Korean friends to address the threats to our security emanating from North Korea. Like President Bush, we harbor no illusions about the challenges posed by the North Korean government. To say North Korea's actions the past several decades have greatly troubled the United States and the world is an understatement. However, we also recognize that we cannot simply ignore the challenges the current regime poses for the international community; the stakes, which include the proliferation of missile technology, are simply too high. Last week Secretary Powell publicly recognized that the Clinton Administration made progress in addressing the threats posed by North Korea. We agree with that assessment. We believe the record shows that the Clinton Administration fell just short of reaching a comprehensive agreement with the North Koreans that would have dramatically reduced tensions between the two Koreas and between North Korea and the rest of the world. Given the urgency of these threats and the fact that a breakthrough appeared imminent just months ago, it is in the U.S. national interest to pursue additional discussions with the North Koreans. Only by allowing our negotiators to sit down with their North Korean counterparts will we be able to determine whether that recent progress contains the seeds of a comprehensive and verifiable agreement with North Korea. Let us be clear. The burden here is on the North Koreans to prove that they will join the international community. We may find that a deal is not possible. But to walk away from that effort now, without knowing whether a deal is possible, is to pass up an opportunity to address a principal threat to the United States and to our friends in the region, South Korea chief among them. We urge the President to work with President Kim and our South Korean friends--with our strong support--to test North Korea's commitment to peace through a comprehensive and verifiable agreement on its nuclear and missile activity. The stakes are too high and the issues too urgent to do otherwise. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated March 6, 2001.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate that. If I may, before yielding the floor-- and I will certainly yield so the majority leader can respond as well-- I am told that we asked virtually every author on Friday if they could be prepared to come to the floor on Friday to offer at least one amendment, and not one of our colleagues responded to that. Again, I want to use these days productively. We are not using them very productively if we cannot even offer one amendment for consideration and a vote at some point Friday or Monday. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator perceives my stance correctly. I was prepared to respond. I must say I am not sympathetic to that argument, and I am very sympathetic oftentimes of the admonitions and suggestions of the Senator from Minnesota. Friday and Mondays are legitimate legislative days.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield again in a moment. I have done everything to encourage Senators to come to the floor to offer their amendments. For some reason, we have gotten into this habit of thinking any amendment offered after 6 in the evening is not really considered prime time, or it is not considered to be a legitimate time to offer an amendment. Fridays and Mondays are considered, for some reason, not equal in quality to Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday as times to offer amendments. We have to break out of that mind set. We have done everything to petition Senators to come to the floor today to offer amendments. We did it on Friday. Those Senators who now express some concern they are going to be precluded from offering amendments--when they passed up the opportunity on Friday, they passed up the opportunity to offer amendments later in the evening, they passed up the opportunity to come here on Monday--are not going to get much sympathy. I am very sympathetic to many of the substantive questions raised by Senators with their amendments, but procedurally, if they are concerned about it, they ought to be here. They ought to come to the floor to offer these amendments. I am hopeful we will get more reaction than we have so far, at least for the remainder of the day and tonight.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I appreciate Senator Lott's expression of intent here. As we said last week, there is a real hope that we can resolve whatever procedural difficulties we face in accommodating the desire the majority leader has noted: that we schedule a vote for final passage sometime before the end of this week. It is clear now we really do have a number of pieces of legislation that have to be addressed, including campaign finance reform as early as next Monday or Tuesday. In order to accommodate that schedule, it would be best if we could complete our work on this bill before Friday. I will be supportive of whatever procedural arrangements we can make that respect the rights of Senators on both sides to be heard. I want to accommodate those Senators who may have amendments that will fall if cloture is invoked, if we can address those amendments first early in the week so we can make sure those who have other ideas and other proposals can be accommodated. I will work with the majority leader to try to find a way to schedule a vote on cloture, if it comes to that, perhaps later in the day on Wednesday. Our preference is later in the day to accommodate those Senators, with an expectation that we can certainly finish the bill by Friday. I will work with our colleagues to see what arrangements best suit their needs.

Mr. DASCHLE. If I might say to the majority leader, as I understand it, a number of amendments, in fact, over 20 amendments, have been cleared on our side. I guess we are awaiting some indication as to whether or not those amendments might be cleared on the majority side. That would move things along as well in terms of scheduling amendments. If Senators know those amendments have been adopted, we would be in a better position to whittle down the list and determine which of those amendments still need floor consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill along with Senator Johnson, to amend the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place legislation that was enacted in the final days of the 106th Congress. The original version of the Wakpa Sica bill that the Senate approved last year established a center of law, history, culture and economic development for the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota tribes of the upper Midwest. The Reconciliation Place authorized by the bill will become a focal point for the preservation of Sioux law and culture. It will enhance the knowledge and understanding of the Sioux by displaying and interpreting their history, art, and culture. It will also provide an important repository for the Sioux Nation history and the family histories for members of tribes, and other important historical documents. Regrettably, the Reconciliation Place law that ultimately passed in the 106th Congress did not include the economic development title to strengthen tribal communities and expand opportunities for tribal members and businesses. That provision, which I strongly support, was dropped due to objections from the House of Representatives that threatened enactment of the entire bill, which included Wakpa Sica. The bill that I am introducing today would authorize a Sioux Nation Economic Development Council. It complements the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place by providing opportunities for further economic development and regional job creation for the Great Sioux Nation. The Sioux Nation Economic Development Council will assist tribal governments and individuals in promoting economic growth on the reservations and surrounding communities. It will coordinate economic development and will centralize the expertise and technical support to help tribes obtain federal assistance. It will raise funds from private donations to match federal contributions. Finally, it will provide grants, loans, scholarships and technical assistance to tribes and their members, to ultimately help tribes generate jobs. The strength of the Reconciliation Place lies in its diversity of purpose. It will have many funding sources, both public and private. Each agency mentioned in the bill will assist in providing funding and technical assistance to the tribes and tribal members through the Reconciliation Place. This assistance will not diminish the government- to-government policy established by the United States for individual tribes. Instead, it will provide a focal point for governmental and private organizations to expand their ability to help the entire Great Sioux Nation. The United Sioux Tribes, the State of South Dakota and Mike Jandreau, Chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, have been working on this project for many years. I share their enthusiasm for the concept and commitment to building a comprehensive center for Sioux culture, law and economic development. Enactment of this legislation is necessary to fulfill that commitment to the Great Sioux Nation. I strongly urge my colleagues to approve this legislation this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.