Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I add my voice to the majority leader's admonition to all of those who have amendments. He and I have worked on this from the very beginning of the year and have used the regular order to accommodate all Senators, first in committee, and now on the floor. I don't have any qualms about the interests on the part of so many Senators to express themselves. That is what the legislative process is all about. But let me say this will not be the only bill we take up this year. There will be other legislation. It is fair to say that if cloture is filed--and I hope that will be unnecessary--it will probably be invoked. Senator Lott came to me a few minutes ago to express an interest in filing--even today. I urged him to hold off filing today in order to accommodate Senators who may have amendments that are not relevant. In order for that to happen, we have to see, give and take on both sides. We are going to have to have a unanimous consent agreement that if he holds off on filing cloture, we can have that vote, perhaps Wednesday, so we can finish on Friday. Like he has noted, we have campaign finance reform that is already part of a unanimous consent agreement scheduled for the week after. So there is no question that we are going to have to finish this bill next week. There are over a hundred amendments. I think it is going to require some real cooperation on the part of all Senators, if we are going to address this matter in a meaningful way, orderly way, and in a way that is fair. Anybody can object to the unanimous consent request we are going to make. If I were the majority leader, I guess if that were the case, I would probably file cloture and move on. I hope that won't be necessary. I hope we can accommodate those Senators who have amendments that are not necessarily germane, but I hope we can finish the bill. I hope those who have a litany of amendments--some Senators have expressed an interest in offering 8 to 10 amendments. I am not very sympathetic to that. There are a lot of other issues out there that can be addressed on other bills down the road. So let's show a little cooperation, a little effort to be accommodating. Let's recognize that we have a lot of work to do. The only way we will get it done is if everybody plays fairly and does what they can to accommodate the needs of scheduling. I yield the floor.

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.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes of the time allocated to me.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me begin by complimenting the Senator from Massachusetts for the extraordinary work, his leadership, the commitment he has made, and the passion and eloquence he has again demonstrated on this issue. No one cares more deeply about working people and has committed more of his public life to working people than has he. This fight, again, is an illustration of the deep, passionate commitment he holds for working Americans. I congratulate him and thank him. As others have noted, it was in 1990, over 10 years ago, then-Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole announced that the Federal Government would take what she called ``the most effective steps necessary'' to reduce ergonomic hazards that injure and cripple millions of workers every year. It took 10\1/2\ years of research and three exhaustive studies, but we finally have a modest, reasonable ergonomics rule. And now, only after 10 hours of debate, with no public hearings, we are on the verge of wiping out that 10 years' worth of work. Before we vote on this misguided measure, let me be very clear. Men and women across this country will be injured and crippled because of the pressure for this quick political victory. Millions more will have to live with the same pain that Shirley Smith lives with tonight. Mrs. Smith is the mother of four. She used to work in a poultry processing factory in North Carolina. She cut chicken breasts on a fast-moving line, using a dull knife, until she could not hold the knife anymore. At 41 years old, she was disabled by her work. She can't work anymore. She can't do a lot of things anymore. Listen to her words: I go to bed in pain. I wake up in pain. I can't do things like I used to--like playing football with my kids. I can't fix a big meal like I used to, or hang up clothes, or do yard work at all. I can't even go to the grocery store because I can't push the cart alone. Shirley Smith is, unfortunately, just one in a million. One in a million. The most recent report by the National Academy of Sciences found that, in 1999 alone, 1 million people took time away from work to treat and recover from work-related ergonomic injuries--a million people. That is 300,000 people more than live in the entire State of South Dakota. More workers lose time from work because of ergonomic injuries than any other type of workplace injury. That is a fact, not an assertion. One out of every three workplace injuries serious enough to keep workers off the job is caused by ergonomics. The cost of these injuries is staggering. When you add up compensation costs, workers' medical expenses, lost wages, and lost productivity, it comes down, conservatively estimated, to $50 billion a year. Carpal tunnel syndrome is one of the most common types of repetitive motion injuries, causing workers to lose more time from their jobs than any other type of injury, even amputation. The loss to businesses is immense. The cost to workers is even worse. Repetitive stress injuries are serious injuries. They can cause permanent crippling and unending pain. Women are especially at risk. While women make up 40 percent of the overall workforce, they account for more than 64 percent of repetitive motion injuries. Two out of every three women hurt on the job are hurt because of ergonomic job hazards. Opponents of this ergonomics rule condemn it as an eleventh hour rulemaking by an outgoing administration. Let me tell you, that is not true. This all started, as I said a moment ago, by a Republican, the Secretary of Labor, Elizabeth Dole, when she announced, at the beginning of the rulemaking process in August of 1990, that something had to be done. In 1992, her successor, also a Republican, then-Secretary Lynn Martin, issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on ergonomics. For the next 7 years, the Federal Government examined virtually every study done on ergonomics and workplace injuries. And before issuing a final rule, OSHA extended the comment period just to be sure they had given everybody a chance to comment. They held 9 weeks of public hearings, heard more than a thousand witnesses, and reviewed over 7,000 written comments. The rulemaking process was public and, obviously, it was exhaustive. Only after doing all of that did OSHA issue its final rule last November. This ergonomics rule reflects an extraordinary amount of public comment and advice and the latest scientific understanding of workplace injuries. Both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Institute For Occupational Safety and Health--the leading experts--agree: ergonomic hazards in the workplace cause injuries. Moreover, these experts agree that minor modifications to the workplace can prevent ergonomic injuries. So if ergonomics is as big a problem as we have been now told and if the minor modifications called for in this OSHA rule can help, then why not allow it to work? The rule the Department of Labor crafted is sensible, flexible and modest. To begin with, it exempts many industries such as agriculture and construction. In industries that are covered, the rules contain only one universal requirement--one. It requires employers to inform workers about signs and symptoms of ergonomic injuries and give them a way to report such injuries. That is it. Only if an employee is injured, and the employer determines the injury is work related, is the employer required to take measures to address the job hazards. And when it is all said and done, it is the employer who determines what constitutes an appropriate remedy. This, to me, is the most remarkable aspect of it all--who is the arbiter of the decision about work-relatedness and what must be done to remedy the situation? The employer. The employer is the one who decides whether an employee has a work-related injury. The employer makes the decision whether and how to address the problem. Does that sound onerous to you? Does it really sound like a one-size- fits-all approach? I find it hard to believe that anybody could answer yes to those questions. But even if you do believe those things, this resolution of disapproval is exactly the wrong approach. Instead of a deliberative and thoughtful review, the Congressional Review Act is an all-or-nothing approach. After 10 years of work, it all comes down to 10 hours of debate and not one hearing. With so much at stake, it strikes me that this is exactly the wrong way to proceed. There has to be a better way. There is a better way. Instead of throwing out this rule, OSHA could go back to the drawing board today, under this administration's guidance, and change the ergonomics rule in any way, shape, or form they wish. They could do it today. They could start that process today. Under current law, all they have to do is publish a notice of intent to reopen the rule in the Federal Register and provide an opportunity for public comment, period. Instead of encouraging that sort of inclusive process, this resolution constrains OSHA's ability to regulate in this area in the future. We know that. Backers of this resolution insist that it merely requires OSHA to rework its rule. I hope they are correct. I hope they are correct. I hope that Secretary Chao will take seriously her responsibility under the Occupational Safety and Health Act to ``assure, so far as possible, every working man and women in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions.'' I hope she will read the rich record that was developed to support this rule. I hope she will direct the Labor Department to work aggressively to craft a new rule. I trust she will not be misled by those who oppose ergonomic standards. I take for granted simple tasks such as cooking dinner with my wife, dressing myself, opening doors, and turning the page of a book. Shirley Smith can't take these things for granted. For her, and millions of other Americans who have been disabled on the job, these simple tasks require heroic strength. By repealing this rule, we are letting her down. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senators Tim Johnson and Chuck Hagel to introduce legislation to compensate the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota and the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska for losses the tribes suffered when the Fort Randall and Gavins Point dams were constructed on the Missouri River over four decades ago. As a result of the construction of these dams, more than 3,259 acres of land owned by the Yankton Sioux Tribe were flooded or subsequently lost to erosion. Also, approximately 600 acres of land located near the Santee village and 400 acres on the Niobrara Island of the Santee Sioux Tribe Indian Reservation were flooded. The flooding of these fertile lands struck a significant blow to the economies of these tribes, a loss for which they have never been adequately compensated. This legislation attempts to redress that unfortunate reality by providing the tribes resources to rebuild their infrastructure and strengthen their economies. To appreciate fully the need for this legislation, it is important to understand history. The Fort Randall and Gavins Point dams were constructed in South Dakota pursuant to the Flood Control Act (58 Stat. 887) of 1944. That legislation authorized implementation of the Missouri River Basin Pick-Sloan Plan for water development and flood control for downstream states. The Fort Randall dam, which was an integral part of the Pick-Sloan project, initially flooded 2,851 acres of tribal land, forcing the relocation and resettlement of numerous families, including the traditional and self-sustaining community of White Swan, one of the four major settlement areas on the reservation. On other reservations, such as Crow Creek, Lower Brule, Cheyenne River, Standing Rock and Fort Berthold, communities affected by the Pick-Sloan dams were relocated to higher ground. In contract, the White Swan community was completely dissolved and its residents dispersed to whatever areas they could settle and start again. The bill I am introducing today, the Yankton Sioux Tribe and Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska Development Trust Fund Act, follows the precedent established over the last ten years by a series of laws that address similar claims by other tribes in South Dakota for losses caused by the Pick-Sloan dams. In 1992, Congress granted the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe compensation for direct damages, including lost reservation infrastructure, relocation and resettlement expenses, the general rehabilitation of the tribes and unfulfilled government commitments regarding replacement facilities. In 1996, Congress enacted legislation compensating the Crow Creek tribe for its losses and in 1997 legislation was enacted to compensate the Lower Brule tribe. Last year, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe also received compensation. The Yankton Sioux Tribe and Santee Sioux Tribe have not yet received fair compensation for their losses. Their time has come. The flooding caused by the Pick-Sloan projects touched every aspect of life on the Yankton and Santee Sioux reservations, as large portions of their communities were forced to relocate wherever they could find shelter. These effects were never fully considered when the federal government was acquiring these lands or designing the Pick-Sloan projects. The Yankton Sioux Tribe and Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska Development Trust Fund Act represents an important element of our continuing effort to compensate fairly the tribes of the Missouri River Basin for the sacrifices they made decades ago for the construction of the dams. Passage of this legislation will not only right a historic wrong, but in doing so it will also improve the lives of Native Americans living on these reservations. It took decades for Congress to recognize the government's unfulfilled federal obligation to compensate the tribes for the effects of the construction of the Fort Randall and Gavins Point dams. We cannot, of course, reclaim the productive lands lost to those projects which are now covered with water and return them to the tribes. We can, however, help replace the forsaken economic potential of those lands by providing resources to improve the infrastructure on the reservations. This approach, in turn, will enhance opportunities for economic development that will benefit all members of the tribe. I strongly urge my colleagues to approve the Yankton Sioux Tribe and Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska Development Trust Fund Act this year. Providing compensation to the Yankton Sioux Tribe and the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska for past economic harm inflicted by the federal government is long overdue, and further delay only compounds that harm. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senators Tim Johnson and Chuck Hagel to introduce legislation to compensate the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota and the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska for losses the tribes suffered when the Fort Randall and Gavins Point dams were constructed on the Missouri River over four decades ago. As a result of the construction of these dams, more than 3,259 acres of land owned by the Yankton Sioux Tribe were flooded or subsequently lost to erosion. Also, approximately 600 acres of land located near the Santee village and 400 acres on the Niobrara Island of the Santee Sioux Tribe Indian Reservation were flooded. The flooding of these fertile lands struck a significant blow to the economies of these tribes, a loss for which they have never been adequately compensated. This legislation attempts to redress that unfortunate reality by providing the tribes resources to rebuild their infrastructure and strengthen their economies. To appreciate fully the need for this legislation, it is important to understand history. The Fort Randall and Gavins Point dams were constructed in South Dakota pursuant to the Flood Control Act (58 Stat. 887) of 1944. That legislation authorized implementation of the Missouri River Basin Pick-Sloan Plan for water development and flood control for downstream states. The Fort Randall dam, which was an integral part of the Pick-Sloan project, initially flooded 2,851 acres of tribal land, forcing the relocation and resettlement of numerous families, including the traditional and self-sustaining community of White Swan, one of the four major settlement areas on the reservation. On other reservations, such as Crow Creek, Lower Brule, Cheyenne River, Standing Rock and Fort Berthold, communities affected by the Pick-Sloan dams were relocated to higher ground. In contract, the White Swan community was completely dissolved and its residents dispersed to whatever areas they could settle and start again. The bill I am introducing today, the Yankton Sioux Tribe and Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska Development Trust Fund Act, follows the precedent established over the last ten years by a series of laws that address similar claims by other tribes in South Dakota for losses caused by the Pick-Sloan dams. In 1992, Congress granted the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe compensation for direct damages, including lost reservation infrastructure, relocation and resettlement expenses, the general rehabilitation of the tribes and unfulfilled government commitments regarding replacement facilities. In 1996, Congress enacted legislation compensating the Crow Creek tribe for its losses and in 1997 legislation was enacted to compensate the Lower Brule tribe. Last year, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe also received compensation. The Yankton Sioux Tribe and Santee Sioux Tribe have not yet received fair compensation for their losses. Their time has come. The flooding caused by the Pick-Sloan projects touched every aspect of life on the Yankton and Santee Sioux reservations, as large portions of their communities were forced to relocate wherever they could find shelter. These effects were never fully considered when the federal government was acquiring these lands or designing the Pick-Sloan projects. The Yankton Sioux Tribe and Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska Development Trust Fund Act represents an important element of our continuing effort to compensate fairly the tribes of the Missouri River Basin for the sacrifices they made decades ago for the construction of the dams. Passage of this legislation will not only right a historic wrong, but in doing so it will also improve the lives of Native Americans living on these reservations. It took decades for Congress to recognize the government's unfulfilled federal obligation to compensate the tribes for the effects of the construction of the Fort Randall and Gavins Point dams. We cannot, of course, reclaim the productive lands lost to those projects which are now covered with water and return them to the tribes. We can, however, help replace the forsaken economic potential of those lands by providing resources to improve the infrastructure on the reservations. This approach, in turn, will enhance opportunities for economic development that will benefit all members of the tribe. I strongly urge my colleagues to approve the Yankton Sioux Tribe and Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska Development Trust Fund Act this year. Providing compensation to the Yankton Sioux Tribe and the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska for past economic harm inflicted by the federal government is long overdue, and further delay only compounds that harm. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, once again, we hear the eloquent passion of a Senator who cares deeply about an issue. I applaud him for that passion and his compassion for those who are now out of work as a result of layoffs in Minnesota. I understand how deeply felt his views are. He has expressed, in his own eloquent way, that it is within his right to object tonight. Each Senator has enormous power to stop things. Each Senator has enormous power to change the legislative process. The majority leader, on several occasions, could have thwarted this process, avoided regular order, prevented Senators from the opportunity that I believe we will have next week to offer amendments. He could have done a number of things using his rights, first as a Senator and, secondly, as a leader, to undermine what we have delicately constructed here in this new bipartisan environment. He could have done that. Senator Lott chose not to do that. The majority leader said, in keeping with the spirit we are trying to maintain, as much as I wanted to go to this bill 3 weeks ago, last week, the week before, as many times as we have talked about this, every time I have asked him, he has said: Look, I am going to try to maintain the kind of spirit that we have been able to create so far where we can have a win-win; Senators who are passionately opposed to this bill ought to have the right to express themselves, ought to have the right to offer amendments, ought to have the right to have a good debate; Senators who want to move this process along ought to be able to use the tools available to them to do that as well. What we are trying to do is to strike a delicate balance because there is passion on both sides. There is a depth of feeling on both sides. I, frankly, have been on both sides because I am so ambivalent about the importance of the arguments raised by the Senator from Minnesota as well as the concern that I have for the abuse we find in the system. I appreciate very much the Senator from Minnesota expressing himself and at least giving us the possibility that we could revisit this issue tomorrow, and I recognize, once again, that if every Senator exercised all of their rights, we probably wouldn't get much done in this body. But because everybody uses common sense, attempts to strike a balance between exercising those rights and moving along the legislative process, generally, we have worked out things in a way that has accommodated the needs of most people. It is in keeping with that spirit that I hope we can talk to the issue again tomorrow. I thank the Senator from Minnesota, and I thank the majority leader. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would prefer to follow the senior Senator from the State of Minnesota.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on the morning of the last day of the 20th century, as he was preparing his breakfast, Alan Cranston died at his home in Los Altos. After 86 years, his great huge heart just stopped. There can never be a good time to lose someone like Alan Cranston. Such leaders are too rare. Still, there is something fitting about Alan Cranston leaving us just as the century came to a close. It was almost as if, having spent his life working to protecting us the darker possibilities of the 20th century, he held on until the last day in order to see us safely to the new century. I first came to know Senator Cranston from a distance. He was four years into his second Senate term, and had just been elected Democratic Whip, when I was first elected to the House. That was back in 1978. Studying Senator Cranston from the other chamber, I realized early on that he possessed a rare balance. He was a standard bearer for great public causes--and he was as good a behind-the-scenes organizer and vote counter as I have ever seen. He was a pragmatic idealist. I also noticed something else about Alan Cranston back then. I noticed that he listened respectfully to all kinds of people and very often, just by listening, was able to bring people together. In this practice, and in many others, I have tried since then to follow his example. Another thing I admired about Alan Cranston was his tremendous running ability. From the time he was in high school, he was a champion sprinter. In college, he was a member of the nation's fastest one-mile sprint relay team in America, and he remained a competitive runner most of his life. At one point, I understand, he held the world record for the 100-yard dash among 55-year-olds. As a 53-year-old runner who is not likely to break any speed records soon, I find that amazing. I also find it a little ironic--because in politics, Alan Cranston was no sprinter. He was a marathon runner. When Alan Cranston signed on to a cause, it was for life. As a reporter in Europe in 1936, he was among the first to recognize the evil of fascism for what it was. He chronicled the rise of Hitler and Mussolini. When he discovered that Hitler had authorized the export of a sanitized copy of Mein Kampf to America, he acquired a copy of the German text and had it translated accurately, with all its hideous lies restored. He sold copies for 10 cents--thus giving America some of its true glimpses into the real Hitler. A copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Hitler himself eventually forced Alan Cranston to stop selling copies of Mein Kampf in America. But nothing could ever stop him from speaking out against oppressors of freedom and human dignity. In 1946, Alan Cranston met Albert Einstein, who persuaded him that nuclear weapons must be banned or they will destroy the human race. From that day until he died, Alan Cranston was a tireless champion in the effort to monitor nuclear arms and reduce their use. During his years here in the Senate, he also championed an array of other noble causes--from the environment, to civil rights, to the men and women who serve in our nation's military. Literally and figuratively, Alan Cranston was a towering figure in this Senate for nearly a quarter of a century. He was an example to many of us and to me personally. I am proud to say he was also a friend. With some sadness, and with gratitude for his lifetime of service to our nation, I join my colleagues in honoring the memory of Alan Cranston and conveying our deep regrets to his family--especially his sister Ruth, his son Kim, and his granddaughter--as well as his many friends across this country and around the world. Alan Cranston was loved in this Senate, and he will be deeply missed.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the celebration of Black History month. It began in the 1920's when Dr. Carter G. Woodson, a historian and educator, proposed the idea of creating ``Negro History Week'' during the second week of February to commemorate the history and achievements of the black community. He chose this week to honor the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, both of whom had a great impact on the lives of African Americans across the country. Since 1976, we have dedicated the entire month of February to celebrating the contributions of African Americans throughout our Nation's history. Today, African Americans represent about 13 percent of our total population, and they greatly contribute to the increasingly dynamic cultural tapestry of America. Over the years, they have actively shaped the future of our country in the roles of teachers, parents, judges, doctors, lawyers, religious leaders, and factory workers. Although the African American population of my home State is smaller than most, the cultural heritage of South Dakota has been enriched by our African American community. I am proud to tell you about Oscar Micheaux, the first African American to produce a feature-length film, as well as the first African American to break the ``sound barrier'' with a ``talkie'' motion picture, the earliest form of film with sound. Born to freed slaves in 1884, Micheaux grew up in Illinois as one of 11 children, before he moved to South Dakota to become a farmer. It was on the South Dakota prairie that he began to write, publish, and sell his first novels. At a time when blacks were not welcome in the film industry, Micheaux started his own company, where he wrote, directed, and produced at least 43 movies during the course of his life. He dealt with such controversial subjects as white-on-black crime, intra-racial discrimination, and lynching. In 1919, he released ``The Homesteader,'' a movie based on his autobiographical book that describes his experiences on the South Dakota plains. This became the first feature length film produced by an African American. Because Hollywood discriminated against blacks, Micheaux was forced to do all of the work for his films independently. He was responsible for not only producing, but distributing his films which were only viewed in segregated black theaters. Some of his films that addressed issues like real estate discrimination and inter-racial relationships were censored and confiscated for being too ``controversial.'' Despite facing discrimination, Micheaux paved the way for blacks in the film industry. Micheaux is revered by such entertainment industry figures as Spike Lee, Robert Townsend, Tim Reid, and Carl Franklin. South Dakota holds an annual film festival in Micheaux's honor. A true pioneer in every sense, he is a hero to all Americans who have a dream. I salute this accomplished, self-made man. His achievements serve as a wonderful example of how barriers can be overcome and how dreams can be attained. Micheaux and other figures in the African American community remind us of the difference an individual can make to the Nation, and that dreams can still be attained, even in the face of adversity. Micheaux's life encompasses Dr. King's vision when he said that he had a dream that ``. . . children will one day live in a Nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.'' We are still working today to realize this dream. Black History Month not only celebrates the individual achievements of the African American community, but reminds us all that we need to come together as a greater community to ensure that everyone has equal rights, freedoms, and the resources to achieve their dreams.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, South Dakota, and the country, lost a friend. Mrs. Matilda Tschetter of Huron, South Dakota was laid to rest on February 3rd in Freeman, SD. This chamber is no stranger to great men and women, and the Record is replete with recognition of their accomplishments. From Presidents to civil rights leaders, we often come to the floor to recognize Americans who have made a difference in our country. Matilda Tschetter may not have been featured on the front page of the newspaper, but she was certainly a great South Dakotan, and a great American. And she, too, made a difference in this world. Matilda Tschetter represents all that is great about our people. Strong, smart, and committed to her family, she spent much of her life serving others. Matilda and her late husband Henry were both educators. They raised a family, and Matilda remained active in Democratic politics throughout her life. I got to know Matilda when she served as a Senior Intern in my office. I was impressed by both her kindness and her informed thoughts on the issues confronting our country and the world. I understand that in the last election, Matilda voted absentee and made a point to remind everyone in her family to vote on election day. Matilda certainly understood the responsibility that comes with the privilege of living in a democracy. In South Dakota, and throughout the country, people like Matilda Tschetter quietly make our country a better place. They are committed to their families, to their communities and to their country. They persevered through the Great Depression and are the reason our country is as strong as it is. Matilda Tschetter will certainly be missed. Today the Senate joins me in paying tribute to an admirable woman. My sincere condolences go out to Matilda Tschetter's surviving family: her daughter, Dianne Sandvick, and her son-in-law, Dr. Roger Sandvick. In this difficult time, my thoughts and prayers are with them, and with Matilda's many friends.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, earlier this week I had the honor and pleasure of meeting with the presidents, faculty and student leaders from South Dakota's tribal colleges to talk about the educational needs of Native Americans and the crucial role tribal colleges play in strengthening tribal communities. It was a fascinating conversation. We sat around a table in my office in the United States Capitol building talking about the hopes and aspirations of the next generation of Native American leaders. Every one of those young people had good ideas and the poise and self-confidence to express them. As the participants spoke of the importance and the power of education as the key to unlock the promise of the future, the story I heard was not one of bricks and mortar, but rather one of enduring spirit, sense of community and hope for a better quality of life. Listening to the discussion and observing the people in the room, I had no doubt that the future of Indian Country is in good hands. Tribal colleges and universities play a critical role in educating Native Americans across the country, and I have come to believe they may well be the best kept secret in higher education. For more than 30 years, these institutions have been instrumental in providing a quality education for Native American students, many of whom our mainstream educational system previously had failed. Before the tribal college movement began, only six or seven out of 100 Native American students attended college. Of those few who did, only one or two would graduate with a degree. Then tribal colleges emerged, offering curricula that is culturally relevant and focused on a tribe's particular philosophy, culture, language and economic needs. With this focus and a clear mission, these institutions have had a high success rate in educating Native American and Alaska Native people, and tribal college enrollment has increased 62 percent over the last six years. The track record of tribal colleges is impressive. Recent studies show that 91 percent of 1998 tribal college and university graduates are working or pursuing additional education one year after graduation. Over the last ten years, the unemployment rate of recently polled tribal college graduates was 15 percent, compared to 55 percent on many reservations overall. While tribal colleges and universities have been highly successful in helping Native Americans obtain a higher education, additional challenges remain before the future of these institutions is assured. These schools rely heavily on federal resources to provide educational opportunities for their students, and federal spending trends for these schools have been woefully inadequate. It is imperative that the bipartisan effort to provide additional core and facilities funding to tribal colleges continue. In addition to resource constraints, tribal college administrators and faculty have expressed to me a particular frustration over the difficulty they experience in attracting qualified teachers to Indian Country. Geographic isolation and low salaries have made recruitment and retention particularly difficult for many of these schools, and this problem has been exacerbated by rising enrollment. As a matter of public policy, it simply makes sense for Congress to help tribal college administrators overcome these serious barriers to the recruitment and retention of qualified faculty. Today, with the support of the South Dakota delegation of Tribal Colleges, the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, and the National Indian Education Association, and the co-sponsorship of my colleagues Senators Bingaman, Conrad, Baucus, Akaka, Reid, Kennedy, Leahy, Dodd, and Johonson, I am pleased to introduce the Tribal College or University Loan Forgiveness Act, which will provide forgiveness on federal student loans to individuals who commit to teach for up to five years in one of the 32 tribal colleges nationwide. Under this proposal, individuals who have Perkins, Direct or Guaranteed loans may qualify to receive up to $15,000 in loan forgiveness, which will help tribal colleges attract qualified teachers and encourage Native American students to fulfill their promise. The Tribal College or University Loan Forgiveness Act will benefit individual students and their communities. By expanding opportunities for Native American students to develop valuable skills, it will not only allow individuals to maximize their human potential, but also spur economic growth and help facilitate self-sufficiency in communities that desperately need it. I believe our responsibility as legislators was perhaps best summed up by one of my state's historic leaders, Sitting Bull, who said: ``Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children.'' This message still resonates loudly and applies today, and is reflected in the life's work of Sitting Bulls' great-great-great grandson, Ron McNeil, the president of Sitting Bull College, with whom I met on this very subject earlier in the week. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Ron McNeil and his fellow educators across the country to familiarize the public with the accomplishments and the promise of the tribal college movement. And I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress to pass the Tribal College or University Loan Forgiveness Act as quickly as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, earlier this week I had the honor and pleasure of meeting with the presidents, faculty and student leaders from South Dakota's tribal colleges to talk about the educational needs of Native Americans and the crucial role tribal colleges play in strengthening tribal communities. It was a fascinating conversation. We sat around a table in my office in the United States Capitol building talking about the hopes and aspirations of the next generation of Native American leaders. Every one of those young people had good ideas and the poise and self-confidence to express them. As the participants spoke of the importance and the power of education as the key to unlock the promise of the future, the story I heard was not one of bricks and mortar, but rather one of enduring spirit, sense of community and hope for a better quality of life. Listening to the discussion and observing the people in the room, I had no doubt that the future of Indian Country is in good hands. Tribal colleges and universities play a critical role in educating Native Americans across the country, and I have come to believe they may well be the best kept secret in higher education. For more than 30 years, these institutions have been instrumental in providing a quality education for Native American students, many of whom our mainstream educational system previously had failed. Before the tribal college movement began, only six or seven out of 100 Native American students attended college. Of those few who did, only one or two would graduate with a degree. Then tribal colleges emerged, offering curricula that is culturally relevant and focused on a tribe's particular philosophy, culture, language and economic needs. With this focus and a clear mission, these institutions have had a high success rate in educating Native American and Alaska Native people, and tribal college enrollment has increased 62 percent over the last six years. The track record of tribal colleges is impressive. Recent studies show that 91 percent of 1998 tribal college and university graduates are working or pursuing additional education one year after graduation. Over the last ten years, the unemployment rate of recently polled tribal college graduates was 15 percent, compared to 55 percent on many reservations overall. While tribal colleges and universities have been highly successful in helping Native Americans obtain a higher education, additional challenges remain before the future of these institutions is assured. These schools rely heavily on federal resources to provide educational opportunities for their students, and federal spending trends for these schools have been woefully inadequate. It is imperative that the bipartisan effort to provide additional core and facilities funding to tribal colleges continue. In addition to resource constraints, tribal college administrators and faculty have expressed to me a particular frustration over the difficulty they experience in attracting qualified teachers to Indian Country. Geographic isolation and low salaries have made recruitment and retention particularly difficult for many of these schools, and this problem has been exacerbated by rising enrollment. As a matter of public policy, it simply makes sense for Congress to help tribal college administrators overcome these serious barriers to the recruitment and retention of qualified faculty. Today, with the support of the South Dakota delegation of Tribal Colleges, the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, and the National Indian Education Association, and the co-sponsorship of my colleagues Senators Bingaman, Conrad, Baucus, Akaka, Reid, Kennedy, Leahy, Dodd, and Johonson, I am pleased to introduce the Tribal College or University Loan Forgiveness Act, which will provide forgiveness on federal student loans to individuals who commit to teach for up to five years in one of the 32 tribal colleges nationwide. Under this proposal, individuals who have Perkins, Direct or Guaranteed loans may qualify to receive up to $15,000 in loan forgiveness, which will help tribal colleges attract qualified teachers and encourage Native American students to fulfill their promise. The Tribal College or University Loan Forgiveness Act will benefit individual students and their communities. By expanding opportunities for Native American students to develop valuable skills, it will not only allow individuals to maximize their human potential, but also spur economic growth and help facilitate self-sufficiency in communities that desperately need it. I believe our responsibility as legislators was perhaps best summed up by one of my state's historic leaders, Sitting Bull, who said: ``Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children.'' This message still resonates loudly and applies today, and is reflected in the life's work of Sitting Bulls' great-great-great grandson, Ron McNeil, the president of Sitting Bull College, with whom I met on this very subject earlier in the week. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Ron McNeil and his fellow educators across the country to familiarize the public with the accomplishments and the promise of the tribal college movement. And I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress to pass the Tribal College or University Loan Forgiveness Act as quickly as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, yesterday we read the first news accounts of the first analysis ever of the human genetic code--what some have called ``the blueprint of human life'' itself. Today, Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Dodd, and I are introducing a bill to make sure this stunning new knowledge is used to help Americans, not hurt them. Our bill is called the ``Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act.'' It says simply that genetic information may not be used to discriminate against Americans in health insurance or employment. An identical measure will be introduced tomorrow in the House by more than 150 Republican and Democratic co-sponsors. The genetic revolution has the potential to dramatically improve health care. Genetic technology can greatly improve our ability to treat and even cure now-incurable illnesses. Genetic tests can tell whether a person is at risk of developing certain diseases years before symptoms appear, giving her either peace of mind--or critical time to reduce her risks. But the scientific and commercial value of the human genome project will be seriously undermined if people refuse to take genetic tests because they fear the results may be used against them. That is not just our opinion. That warning has been sounded repeatedly by the two men who understand genetic testing better than anyone in the world--the scientists in charge of the two teams that mapped the human genome. Dr. Craig Venter and Dr. Francis Collins. At a White House ceremony last June where Doctors Venter and Collins unveiled the sequencing of the human genome, they warned that our laws were not keeping pace with science and urged Congress to pass strong federal protections against genetic discrimination. As Dr. Collins put it: ``If we needed a wake-up call, isn't today the wake-up call?'' The question now is: Are we going to heed that warning? Or, are we going to turn a deaf ear? This bill is the test. It has four major components. First, it forbids employers from using genetic information to decide who to hire or fire, and other terms and conditions of employment. Second, it forbids insurers from using genetic information to deny or restrict coverage, or raise premiums. Third, it prevents disclosure of identifiable genetic information to health insurers, health insurance data banks, employers--and anyone else who has no legitimate need for the information. Finally, if these basic rights are violated, our bill gives victims of genetic discrimination the right to hold the violator accountable in court. It's been nearly three years since we first introduced this bill. Back then, some people said there was no need for these protections because there was no proof that genetic discrimination ever actually occurs. We got another wake-up call last Friday, when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission went to court to challenge genetic testing by an employer. The EEOC has asked the court to order the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to end its alleged policy of requiring employees who claim work-related injuries related to carpel tunnel syndrome to undergo genetic testing--or lose their jobs. The Burlington Northern case marks the first time the EEOC has ever brought a genetic discrimination in court. But it is not the first case of genetic discrimination we've heard about in this Senate. Last July, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee held a hearing specifically on genetic discrimination in employment and what, if anything, the Senate should do about it. I testified at that hearing about a social worker who made the mistake of telling her co-workers that she had been the primary care-giver for her mother, who had died of Huntington's disease. Despite her own good health and her long history of outstanding performance reviews, she was fired. Why? Because there is a chance she might one day develop the same disease that killed her mother. I also testified about a 40-year-old mother of two young children who agreed to participate in a genetic research study. She tested positive for BRAC1, the gene implicated in breast and ovarian cancer. After undergoing preventive surgery to remove her breast and ovaries to minimize the risk of cancer, she lost the insurance she received from her job. Then she lost her job. She, too, had a history of good work evaluations. Now she says she will never again participate in any health studies, and she will not allow her children to be tested. While genetic discrimination may be relatively rare now, experts say that's only because genetic tests are still relatively rare. As testing becomes more affordable, and more common, experts tell us, the incidence of discrimination is likely to increase dramatically. How many more times do we need to hear about lives that have been shattered by someone's misuse of genetic information before we say clearly: ``In America, you cannot discriminate against people because of their genetic makeup. Period.'' This is a matter that effects every one of us. We all have flaws in our genes. With rare exceptions, genetic tests can't confirm if we will ever develop a particular disease. All they can tell us is that we might some day develop the disease. Or we might not. Is it fair for employers to use genetic information in deciding who to hire and who to fire? More than 10 years ago, we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. We agreed then that, in this country, you can't discriminate against someone because of a disability. Can we really believe now that employers and insurers ought to be allowed to discriminate against someone because he or she might someday develop a disability illness? Last week, three insurance companies in England admitted for the first time that they test for Huntington's disease, a progressive and incurable neurological disorder. One insurer also admitted it uses experimental tests for breast and ovarian cancer and Alzheimer's disease. Do we have to wait until insurers in this country start using genetic screening routinely before we set some reasonable legal guidelines for genetic tests? How many more wake-up calls do we need? Last summer, shortly after he and Francis and Collins unveiled the sequencing of the human genome, Craig Venter wrote me a letter. In it, he warned that genetic discrimination ``is not a theoretical concern. Today, people who know they may be at risk for a genetic disease are foregoing diagnostic tests for fear they will lose their job or their health insurance.'' As a result, he said, ``the incentives for new discoveries and treatments based on our newly acquired genomic information are diminished, and the promising new era in medicine is delayed.'' There are some who say strong federal protections are not needed because a number of states have already passed bills to prevent genetic discrimination. They're right about one thing: many states have passed laws. I'm proud to report that South Dakota became the latest last Friday when it adopted legislation to curb the collection of a person's genetic information without informed consent. In all, 37 states have passed bills regarding genetic discrimination in health insurance, and 22 states have laws regarding genetic discrimination in the workplace. Those laws represent progress. And they offer some protection. The problem with the current patchwork of state laws is that it contains major loopholes. For example: some states protect only DNA and RNA. Other states extend protection to family history data and other medical information that could offer some genetic clues. In addition, because of federal exemptions, state laws offer no protections to the one-in- three Americans who get their health insurance through their employer. Others say this bill is not needed because the Americans with Disabilities Act already prohibits discrimination based on disability. The problem with that theory is: it's never been tested. The Burlington Northern case represents that first time a genetic discrimination suit has been brought specifically on the grounds that it violates the ADA. Maybe the court will decide that the ADA does cover genetic discrimination. Maybe it will decide that it doesn't. Either way, a definitive answer could take years. What is the harm of us acting now to say clearly that genetic discrimination will not be tolerated in America? What is the worst thing that could happen? That we end up with two laws, each protecting the same fundamental principle? Last year, then-President Clinton signed an executive order banning genetic discrimination in federal employment. Our bill seeks merely to extend the same protections to private workplaces and insurers. The principles in our bill are supported by both Dr. Craig Venter and Dr. Francis Collins. They are also supported by the federal Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the departments of Labor, Justice, and Health and Human Services. More important, they are supported by a strong majority of the America people. At the beginning of our nation's history, Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``laws and discoveries must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As . . . new discoveries are made . . . institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.'' Our new knowledge about the genetic blueprint has the potential to dramatically improve our health and the quality of our lives. However, if we don't respond to the wake-up call now, this new knowledge also has the potential to destroy lives. We simply cannot afford to take one step forward in science, while taking two steps backwards in civil rights! The legislation we offer today will enable us to move forward in a way that will benefit--and protect--all Americans. I thank my colleagues--Senators Kennedy, Dodd, and Harkin--for all their help in this endeavor. I also thank our colleagues in the House--particularly Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, for her tireless effort to move our companion bill to the floor in that chamber. And I urge my colleagues to join us in answering the wake-up call now so that we can make sure the genetic revolution--which has been largely financed with American tax dollars--helps people--instead of hurting them.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, yesterday we read the first news accounts of the first analysis ever of the human genetic code--what some have called ``the blueprint of human life'' itself. Today, Senators Kennedy, Harkin, Dodd, and I are introducing a bill to make sure this stunning new knowledge is used to help Americans, not hurt them. Our bill is called the ``Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act.'' It says simply that genetic information may not be used to discriminate against Americans in health insurance or employment. An identical measure will be introduced tomorrow in the House by more than 150 Republican and Democratic co-sponsors. The genetic revolution has the potential to dramatically improve health care. Genetic technology can greatly improve our ability to treat and even cure now-incurable illnesses. Genetic tests can tell whether a person is at risk of developing certain diseases years before symptoms appear, giving her either peace of mind--or critical time to reduce her risks. But the scientific and commercial value of the human genome project will be seriously undermined if people refuse to take genetic tests because they fear the results may be used against them. That is not just our opinion. That warning has been sounded repeatedly by the two men who understand genetic testing better than anyone in the world--the scientists in charge of the two teams that mapped the human genome. Dr. Craig Venter and Dr. Francis Collins. At a White House ceremony last June where Doctors Venter and Collins unveiled the sequencing of the human genome, they warned that our laws were not keeping pace with science and urged Congress to pass strong federal protections against genetic discrimination. As Dr. Collins put it: ``If we needed a wake-up call, isn't today the wake-up call?'' The question now is: Are we going to heed that warning? Or, are we going to turn a deaf ear? This bill is the test. It has four major components. First, it forbids employers from using genetic information to decide who to hire or fire, and other terms and conditions of employment. Second, it forbids insurers from using genetic information to deny or restrict coverage, or raise premiums. Third, it prevents disclosure of identifiable genetic information to health insurers, health insurance data banks, employers--and anyone else who has no legitimate need for the information. Finally, if these basic rights are violated, our bill gives victims of genetic discrimination the right to hold the violator accountable in court. It's been nearly three years since we first introduced this bill. Back then, some people said there was no need for these protections because there was no proof that genetic discrimination ever actually occurs. We got another wake-up call last Friday, when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission went to court to challenge genetic testing by an employer. The EEOC has asked the court to order the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to end its alleged policy of requiring employees who claim work-related injuries related to carpel tunnel syndrome to undergo genetic testing--or lose their jobs. The Burlington Northern case marks the first time the EEOC has ever brought a genetic discrimination in court. But it is not the first case of genetic discrimination we've heard about in this Senate. Last July, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee held a hearing specifically on genetic discrimination in employment and what, if anything, the Senate should do about it. I testified at that hearing about a social worker who made the mistake of telling her co-workers that she had been the primary care-giver for her mother, who had died of Huntington's disease. Despite her own good health and her long history of outstanding performance reviews, she was fired. Why? Because there is a chance she might one day develop the same disease that killed her mother. I also testified about a 40-year-old mother of two young children who agreed to participate in a genetic research study. She tested positive for BRAC1, the gene implicated in breast and ovarian cancer. After undergoing preventive surgery to remove her breast and ovaries to minimize the risk of cancer, she lost the insurance she received from her job. Then she lost her job. She, too, had a history of good work evaluations. Now she says she will never again participate in any health studies, and she will not allow her children to be tested. While genetic discrimination may be relatively rare now, experts say that's only because genetic tests are still relatively rare. As testing becomes more affordable, and more common, experts tell us, the incidence of discrimination is likely to increase dramatically. How many more times do we need to hear about lives that have been shattered by someone's misuse of genetic information before we say clearly: ``In America, you cannot discriminate against people because of their genetic makeup. Period.'' This is a matter that effects every one of us. We all have flaws in our genes. With rare exceptions, genetic tests can't confirm if we will ever develop a particular disease. All they can tell us is that we might some day develop the disease. Or we might not. Is it fair for employers to use genetic information in deciding who to hire and who to fire? More than 10 years ago, we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. We agreed then that, in this country, you can't discriminate against someone because of a disability. Can we really believe now that employers and insurers ought to be allowed to discriminate against someone because he or she might someday develop a disability illness? Last week, three insurance companies in England admitted for the first time that they test for Huntington's disease, a progressive and incurable neurological disorder. One insurer also admitted it uses experimental tests for breast and ovarian cancer and Alzheimer's disease. Do we have to wait until insurers in this country start using genetic screening routinely before we set some reasonable legal guidelines for genetic tests? How many more wake-up calls do we need? Last summer, shortly after he and Francis and Collins unveiled the sequencing of the human genome, Craig Venter wrote me a letter. In it, he warned that genetic discrimination ``is not a theoretical concern. Today, people who know they may be at risk for a genetic disease are foregoing diagnostic tests for fear they will lose their job or their health insurance.'' As a result, he said, ``the incentives for new discoveries and treatments based on our newly acquired genomic information are diminished, and the promising new era in medicine is delayed.'' There are some who say strong federal protections are not needed because a number of states have already passed bills to prevent genetic discrimination. They're right about one thing: many states have passed laws. I'm proud to report that South Dakota became the latest last Friday when it adopted legislation to curb the collection of a person's genetic information without informed consent. In all, 37 states have passed bills regarding genetic discrimination in health insurance, and 22 states have laws regarding genetic discrimination in the workplace. Those laws represent progress. And they offer some protection. The problem with the current patchwork of state laws is that it contains major loopholes. For example: some states protect only DNA and RNA. Other states extend protection to family history data and other medical information that could offer some genetic clues. In addition, because of federal exemptions, state laws offer no protections to the one-in- three Americans who get their health insurance through their employer. Others say this bill is not needed because the Americans with Disabilities Act already prohibits discrimination based on disability. The problem with that theory is: it's never been tested. The Burlington Northern case represents that first time a genetic discrimination suit has been brought specifically on the grounds that it violates the ADA. Maybe the court will decide that the ADA does cover genetic discrimination. Maybe it will decide that it doesn't. Either way, a definitive answer could take years. What is the harm of us acting now to say clearly that genetic discrimination will not be tolerated in America? What is the worst thing that could happen? That we end up with two laws, each protecting the same fundamental principle? Last year, then-President Clinton signed an executive order banning genetic discrimination in federal employment. Our bill seeks merely to extend the same protections to private workplaces and insurers. The principles in our bill are supported by both Dr. Craig Venter and Dr. Francis Collins. They are also supported by the federal Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the departments of Labor, Justice, and Health and Human Services. More important, they are supported by a strong majority of the America people. At the beginning of our nation's history, Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``laws and discoveries must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As . . . new discoveries are made . . . institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.'' Our new knowledge about the genetic blueprint has the potential to dramatically improve our health and the quality of our lives. However, if we don't respond to the wake-up call now, this new knowledge also has the potential to destroy lives. We simply cannot afford to take one step forward in science, while taking two steps backwards in civil rights! The legislation we offer today will enable us to move forward in a way that will benefit--and protect--all Americans. I thank my colleagues--Senators Kennedy, Dodd, and Harkin--for all their help in this endeavor. I also thank our colleagues in the House--particularly Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, for her tireless effort to move our companion bill to the floor in that chamber. And I urge my colleagues to join us in answering the wake-up call now so that we can make sure the genetic revolution--which has been largely financed with American tax dollars--helps people--instead of hurting them.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering S. 235, legislation to improve the safety of pipelines carrying oil, natural gas and hazardous liquids. I commend Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, Senator Murkowski and Senator Bingaman for their work on this legislation. Over the past few years, deadly pipeline explosions have destroyed homes and taken lives. There is no question that safety standards need to be improved to ensure the safety of all Americans and to avoid interruptions of energy supplies that can lead to shortages and significant price increases. This legislation will help to meet this goal by strengthening safety regulations, updating penalties for safety violations, improving whistleblower protections and providing increased funding for safety research and enforcement. I also want to express my support for the objectives mentioned today by Senator Torricelli and Senator Corzine, and my appreciation for the willingness of Senator McCain and Senator Hollings to address these issues. It is my hope that the final bill will include strong right-to- know, oversight, enforcement and worker certification provisions, and ensure that those who violate regulations are held accountable for their actions. Finally, we need to ensure that adequate funding will be available to meet all of these goals. Once again, I want to thank my colleagues for their work on this issue.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, earlier today, Senator Lieberman became a cosponsor of S. 21, the Social Security and Medicare Lock-Box bill that I introduced earlier this year. Senator Lieberman was an important supporter of this legislation last year. Unfortunately, in spite of the fact that this bill received 60 votes in the Senate, Republicans opted to prevent the bill from becoming law. However, given the fact that some in the administration and the other side of the aisle have indicated they may not support protecting Social Security and Medicare trust funds, it is even more important that we enact this legislation. I look forward to working with Senator Lieberman and all the others who have supported the idea that Social Security and Medicare funds should be used for these programs and these programs alone.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to add my voice to the chorus of those singing the praises of Loretta Symms. Much as I hate to say it, Loretta will be retiring as Deputy Sergeant of Arms at the end of this week. We hear a lot of talk about bipartisanship these days--and that's good. But Loretta Symms was the walking, breathing personification of bipartisanship before bipartisanship was cool. She is a consummate professional. As Deputy Sergeant at Arms, one of Loretta's many responsibilities is greeting visiting dignitaries. Over the years, she has escorted Presidents, Vice Presidents, foreign heads of state, and other visiting dignitaries through these hallways. In fact, she has probably met more foreign leaders than most Senators. She is a good and gracious ambassador for this institution. When it comes to the Senate, no chore is too big for Loretta--or too small. I understand she even put on rubber gloves once to show her staff how to clean. Her reverence for this building is something I share, and one of the many reasons I like her. Loretta feels strongly that the Capitol is the People's House. When visitors come here, she wants them to be treated with respect, and she wants them to be able to learn something they may not have known before. That is why she works so closely with the staff who work directly with the public. Loretta has also made a difference in the lives of people in this building whom the public never sees. In her 14 years in the Sergeant at Arms office, she started a broad array of training programs to help employees sharpen their skills and advance their careers. Beyond her considerable professional strengths, what I admire most about Loretta are her personal qualities: her kindness, and her generosity of spirit. She has given her time--and in some cases, her own financial resources--to help other members of our Senate family through difficult times. Between them, Loretta and her husband, our former colleague Steve Symms, share seven children. Many parents of seven would not have time for anyone else's children. But not Loretta. She is a surrogate Mom and confidante to many of our Senate pages. Senators on both sides of the aisle also know they can count on Loretta to tell us honestly if she thinks we are wrong, and to encourage us when she thinks we are right. We will miss her good advice, her kind smile--and much more. As Loretta and Steve begin this next chapter in their lives, we wish them good luck and good health. We hope they have many great adventures, and we hope Loretta will come back to visit often. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to express my strong support for S. 248, the U.N. dues bill. This is a straightforward bill that continues our efforts to set right U.S. accounts at the United Nations. Those efforts are not yet complete, but in passing this bill today we take a big step in the right direction. This bill--and the $582 million in U.S. arrears it will allow us to pay--will go a long way to improving our relations at the United Nations. The importance of a solid relationship with a capable UN should not be underestimated. In the last year alone, we have worked with the UN to bolster U.S. interests, including: Containing Saddam Hussein; combating the debilitating effects of the AIDS pandemic; confronting--and detaining--war criminals in the Balkans; and controlling the potentially destabilizing conflicts in East Timor and East Africa. Two years ago the outlook was much different. At that time, skepticism about the effectiveness of the UN prevailed, and Congress outlined an aggressive agenda for reform at the United Nations. Behind the leadership of Senators Biden and Helms, Congress outlined a series of conditions before we would pay the nearly $1 billion in debts. Passing that bill was difficult here, including months of debate, deliberation and negotiation. But it turns out that we in Congress had the easy part. The heavy lifting was done by Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and his team at the United States Mission to the United Nations, who took the demands we made here in Congress and came back from New York with a solid deal. Let's take a quick look at what Ambassador Holbrooke and his team delivered: A reduction in the U.S. assessed costs for the UN regular budget: That reduction--from 25 percent to 22 percent--is the first rate drop for the United States in the regular budget account since 1972. A reduction in the U.S. assessed costs for the UN peacekeeping budget: That reduction--from 31 percent to 27 percent--is the first rate drop for the United States in the peacekeeping account since 1973. A combined savings for the U.S. from these reductions is in excess of $100 million annually; and, perhaps most importantly, rejuvenated Congressional support for the United Nations. Yet the agreement that Ambassador Holbrooke delivered does not spell the end of reform at the United Nations. Last year saw the release of the so-called Brahimi Report, a series of common sense improvements to the way the United Nations handles peacekeeping operations. The report gives cause for optimism, but aggressive implementation of the report's recommendations is crucial to ensure success. Those recommendations will go a long way to burying the peacekeeping failures of Srebrenica and Sierra Leone and developing a Department of Peacekeeping Operations that can successfully plan, deploy and manage complex peacekeeping operations. We will also watch the implementation of a series of accountability, oversight and planning measures created in the last year. Secretary General Annan is demanding a high level of excellence from his team in New York, and we join him in expecting efficiency and results. Work here in Washington is not done yet. Nor is our work in Congress done yet. Continued reform at the United Nations demands U.S. leadership and involvement--and approving this bill today is only the first step in convincing the international community that we are serious about reform. As it stands right now, the United States will continue to accrue arrears at the United Nations. A law we passed in 1994 that caps U.S. payments to the UN peacekeeping budget at 25 percent, but we will continue to be billed by the UN for between 26 percent and 28 percent of that budget, generating arrears and engendering criticism of the U.S.--particularly from our European allies whose combined assessments account for well over a third of UN peacekeeping operations. If Congress does not make this fix this year, we risk worsening U.S. relations with the UN and its member states, limiting our ability to use the United Nations to advance vital U.S. interests, and setting back the efforts or reform that Ambassador Holbrooke did so much to move forward. It is my hope that, before the end of this fiscal year, Congress will lift the cap on U.S. assessed contributions to international peacekeeping efforts. Doing otherwise will be a lost opportunity.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as the tax cut debate begins in earnest this week, I would like to commend to my colleagues' attention two editorials that appeared in separate South Dakota newspapers this week, the Pierre Capital Journal and the Madison Daily Leader. Both of these opinion pieces give an excellent explication of this year's budget and tax cut debate and responsibly advocate a tax cut while paying down the national debt. In so doing, each reminds us that beyond the Beltway and across the country the American public can see through the often overheated rhetoric of political debate and focus on the bottom line priority of maintaining the fiscal responsibility that forms the foundation of the economic recovery of the 1990's. As these editorials underscore, balance between tax cutting and debt reduction should be a central principle of the tax and budget debate. While Congress should and will pass a significant tax cut this year, it must also make sure that we pay down the national debt and address budget priorities like education, defense and healthcare. And so I commend Dana Hess of the Pierre Capital Journal and Jon Hunter of the Madison Daily Leader for their exceptional pieces advocating a tax cut within the parameters of sound fiscal policy. Their words should give us all pause for thought. I ask consent that these editorials be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to say a few things about the nominee and about the larger issue of trade. I commend my distinguished ranking member for his comments earlier and those who have already expressed themselves. It goes without saying, and it ought to be emphasized, that Robert Zoellick is going to be an excellent Trade Representative. He has broad Government experience and a record of achievement that is enviable. His experience in the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the White House is a clear demonstration of his commitment to public service and public policy. The USTR role is one that I think is an increasingly important role in the Federal Government, particularly given the increasing importance of trade and globalization generally. I am concerned about reports that consideration was given to downgrading the position from its Cabinet rank, and I am very pleased that the Cabinet rank in this case will be retained. As I look back over the 106th Congress, one could argue that some of our greatest achievements were in the field of trade. We enacted the Caribbean Basin and African trade bill. We met our obligation under the WTO regarding FSC. We granted permanent normal trading relations to China, paving the way for the most populous country in the world to join the global rules-based trading system. Now we have a chance to build upon the achievements and the record of the 106th Congress by promoting the economic, national, and foreign policy interests of the United States in a global economy. The United States is uniquely positioned to benefit, in my view, from increased globalization. First, we have the most productive economy in the world. Second, we have a comparative advantage in an increasingly information-based global economic framework. Globalization improves productivity as countries specialize in areas of comparative advantage and puts downward pressure on prices consumers face. We have seen examples of that over and over. The promotion of international understanding and the reduction of international conflict is critical if this is going to happen in the months and years ahead. The freer flow of goods, capital, people, and ideas around the world creates interdependence and understanding that both can help lower the probability of conflict and raise the cost of conflict. There is an economic cost to a nation being ostracized from the global economy. Economic liberalization advances key foreign policy goals such as increased economic freedom and reduced poverty. So the stakes could not be much higher for us or for the world as we create this global framework and recognize the advantages of participating in it. We also have to recognize that participation in and of itself is not all necessarily positive. There is a lack of domestic consensus on expanded trade and globalization, and as we consider all of the public policy choices we will face in the 107th Congress, I hope we work to try to build a better consensus, one we did not have in all occasions last year. We start building that better consensus by recognizing that globalization can inflict costs on certain groups, and those costs need to be addressed. Workers in import-competing countries may face downward wage pressure and job loss. In a recent study, ``Americans on Globalization'' the author, Steven Kull, found that people would be much more supportive of increased globalization if the government did more to help people who lose out through trade. I believe that is true. I do not think there is any question that if we could find ways with which to address that concern, a consensus could be more the reality than it is today. Fully 66 percent of respondents agreed with the following statements: I favor free trade, and I believe it is necessary for the government to have programs to help workers who lose their jobs. That is all they seem to be asking: the realization that there are people who get hurt as this new infrastructure gets established. Another 18 percent favored free trade in the absence of such help, while 14 percent opposed it with or without the help. We have 66 percent of the people who say they favor free trade so long as we address the problems of free trade. We need to work together to do that to address those problems. Our challenge is to build that consensus on trade policy in a global economy, not only in this country but around the world. I look forward to working with Bob Zoellick and my colleagues on the challenge we face in doing that constructively and successfully. There are some key elements, in my view, for building that consensus. First, I believe one of the key and perhaps one of the fundamental approaches that will be required is a realization that expanded worker adjustment assistance is one way with which to ease the pain and address the problem. A more broad-based, flexible, and effective adjustment assistance program is clearly needed, and I hope we all can accept that realization. A smooth transition from displacement back into the workforce is important for communities and the overall economy, and such assistance is critical to building consensus on moving forward on greater trade liberalization. Bob Zoellick was a key member of the Trade Deficit Commission. The Commission did not agree on the underlying cause of the trade deficit or how to remedy it. The only area of broad bipartisan agreement was for expanded worker adjustment assistance. I look forward to working with Mr. Zoellick in this area. I look forward to recognizing the possibility for bipartisan consensus on expanded worker adjustment assistance. I hope it will be an integral part of anything we do in the longer term with regard to trade policy. A second element is increased support and emphasis on lifetime learning. A policy that waits until someone loses a job is doomed to failure. Over time, the goal has to be to embed the culture with an appreciation of learning and upgrading skills throughout one's life, and that by doing so, economically and educationally, this new construction of lifelong learning can be an integrally important and extremely essential part of anything we do to advance the cause of world trade. Let's recognize that building those learning skills and upgrading them throughout life must not be viewed simply as an education issue but as a trade issue. Third, we must advance labor and environmental standards around the world. I believe this has to be done on a bilateral and multilateral basis. Recent bilateral trade pacts, such as the one with Jordan, have begun to make progress in this critical area. But there is so much more that needs to be done. We recognized it in the bilateral arrangement with Jordan. We ought to recognize it in any new bilateral arrangement. But, clearly, we have to recognize it in multilateral efforts as well. We recognize how difficult it is. We recognize how challenging. We recognize how divisive. We recognize how much debate, and in some ways confrontation, has occurred over issues relating to labor and environmental standards. But we also must recognize that if we are going to address increased consensus, we must address this issue. We also must make sure that our trade laws work and are perceived as fair. Fair trade laws help create an environment that maintains consensus for the openness we all seek in the first place. We have to maintain vigilance to ensure that laws are perceived as fair both inside and outside the country. Frankly, we have not always done a good job at that. The steel industry is one such industry. Despite substantial investment and modernization, steel has faced repeated pressure from dumped steel all over the world. We have to do a better job. We have to also understand the importance of making the WTO work better. Greater transparency and avenues for participation are needed. In the United States, we must advance those reforms. We have to help poor countries. Greater globalization holds great promise for further reducing poverty in poor areas. But the United States and other rich countries need to continue to help poor countries participate in the WTO, and the trading system generally, and be mindful that poor countries often seem to believe that globalization is being imposed on them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. So I look forward to working, on a bipartisan basis, on all of these challenges. I look forward to working with the soon-to-be-confirmed USTR and with my colleagues. As I talked a moment ago about steel and dumping, there is an array of dumping and serious imbalances in trade with our European and Canadian allies with regard to agriculture that also must be addressed--whether it is meat or agriculture in a number of ways, or whether it is the New Softwood Lumber Agreement with Canada. The Softwood Lumber Agreement with Canada expires in a few short months. There is a major risk of a flood of imports entering our market at a time when low timber prices already have led to mill shutdowns and closures. This will be one of the first issues that Mr. Zoellick will have to face. I share Senator Baucus' concern, as he has taken a leadership role in addressing this matter. We need a new agreement with all stakeholders at the table. We need to address agriculture with all producers, processors, and traders at the table. We need to understand the implications of the imbalances, the dumping, and the serious problems that we face in agriculture today as a result of unfair trading practices in agriculture. That has to be addressed and put on the table. We have to work towards a consensus, as I said a moment ago, on labor and the environment. I hope we can find common ground on those issues as well. The President has made a strong nomination. I know my colleagues will be as supportive of this nominee as I am. I hope and expect it will be an overwhelming vote. But I also hope and expect that this is not the end but the beginning of the creation of an even more balanced trade policy with more consensus on international trade and globalization, and a realization that that consensus depends on how effectively we address myriad challenges that we have not addressed successfully to date. I look forward to working with our nominee and with my colleagues in that regard. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will have more comment later, but is it the intent of the majority leader to include in this unanimous consent agreement debate and disposal of the Hollings constitutional amendment as well?

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the majority leader. I have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, a special guest joined us at our caucus lunch this afternoon. His name is Arthur Malan St. Clair. We know him better as ``Tinker.'' Tinker St. Clair has spent 55 years in public service. He has worked in the Senate--for the Sergeant at Arms--for the last 22 years. This Friday, he is retiring. His leaving was inevitable. He is, after all, 85 years old, although you would never guess it. Even so, Tinker's departure will leave a void for all of us. Every Member of this Senate knows how dedicated Tinker is to his work. We all know how much he loves this Senate, and this Nation. We have all benefitted--at some time--from Tinker's kind smile, and from his quiet words of encouragement, which always seemed to come exactly when we needed them. We will all miss him. Tinker St. Clair was born in a coal miner's camp in McDowell County, West Virginia. His father worked in the mines. All together, his parents had six sons and one daughter. He got his nickname from his grandmother, because he was a curious little boy--always ``tinkering'' with something, she said. While some of his brothers followed their father into the coal mines, Tinker knew he wanted to do something different with his life. After graduating from high school in 1937, he went to work as a school bus driver, and then a commercial bus driver. He later owned his own small taxi business. In 1940, Tinker had the good sense and good fortune to marry Elnora Hall. They would remain married for 55 years, until her death. Tinker and Elnora had two daughters, Patty and Linda. In 1948, when the girls were little, Tinker began his life in public service. He became Deputy Sheriff for McDowell County. Over the next 20 years, he would serve as: court bailiff; criminal investigator for the McDowell County prosecuting attorney; and justice of the peace. In 1968, Tinker was elected McDowell County Clerk, running on the slogan: ``the man to give the office back to the people.'' In 1974, he was re-elected--with 89 percent of the vote. He might have won 100 percent of the vote had he chosen to run for a third term. As a local office holder, Tinker helped many a national leader through the back roads of West Virginia. He walked through the coal fields with President Truman. In 1960, he campaigned with a charismatic young Senator from Massachusetts, John Kennedy. He greeted President Johnson during LBJ's visit to West Virginia. He was at Robert Kennedy's side in 1968 when Senator Kennedy sought to bring hope to places prosperity had overlooked. He has been a constant help over the years to his fellow West Virginians, Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller. In July 1979, Tinker and Elnora left West Virginia and moved to the Washington area to be closer to their daughters and grandchildren. At 63--an age when most people are thinking about retiring--Tinker came to work in the Senate. A friend once told me that--for a month after she started working in this building--every time she saw Tinker, she thought, ``Which Senator is that?'' You can see how a person could think that. Tinker St. Clair is one of the most distinguished-looking men you could ever hope to meet. He's also one of the kindest. At our caucus lunch today, Tinker told us he plans to visit his two brothers in Florida. He also hopes to do a little traveling with his 82-year-old sister, who lives in Tennessee--if she can get away long enough from the little shop she owns and runs. Tinker also told us about some of the friendships he has made in the Senate. Probably the most important of those friendships was with the man who was sitting at his left at lunch, his fellow West Virginian, Robert Byrd--the only man in the Senate with hair as nice as Tinker's own. He also spoke about his friendship with the man seated to his right: Ted Kennedy. They first met in 1960--two years before Ted Kennedy was elected to the Senate. Recently, as a token of their friendship, Senator Kennedy gave Tinker a framed photograph. It shows the three Kennedy brothers John, Bobby and Ted all standing together, smiling and young. ``It's really something,'' Tinker told us. We feel that same way about you, Tinker. You're really something. On behalf of the Senators and staff, I want to say: We're proud to have had the chance to work with you and to know you. You are a treasured member of our Senate family. You take with you our best wishes as you begin this next chapter of your life.