Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am really amazed and somewhat amused. As you look at this so-called conference report, one could almost read it in less than a couple of minutes. I won't do that. But I find it interesting, and I ask the Senator from Massachusetts if he could share his observations with regard to the way this conference report was written. This is no conference report. This is nothing more than a list of references to other bills proclaiming it to be a conference report. This says: The provisions of the bills of the 106th Congress are hereby enacted into law: H.R. 5538, H.R. 5542, H.R. 5543,

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts whether he shares my observation that it comes down to a question, as he said, of fairness. We are talking about whether or not this process is fair, whether or not, with all of the talk of bipartisanship in the Presidential campaign, there is any element of fairness or bipartisanship in the way this process has unfolded; whether or not there is fairness in a school construction proposal that leaves out over 90 percent of the school construction opportunity and need we have in this country; whether or not it is fair to provide more benefits to the top 5 percent of all taxpayers than the bottom 80 percent as represented in this bill; whether or not it is fair to give a third of all the benefits we are providing in BBA back to the HMOs as ransom payments to stay in States that they have already proclaimed they will not do. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts whether he doesn't agree that really the essence of this argument, the essence of this debate is a question of fairness.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

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

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I could just respond, I will probably have to agree to disagree. I suppose you could argue that we have spent a lot more money over the last 27 days than most of us realized in keeping the Senate in session as long as we have. We have been in, in large measure, because we haven't been able to complete our work. One could argue if we would have used the days we had available to us more effectively, we wouldn't be here today. As to the President's insistence on trying to find compromise, I guess this isn't a matter of whether the President gets all he wants. This is a President who has said on numerous occasions we are making progress in coming together. Let us keep at it. Let us try to find a way to resolve these issues. I am not asking for everything I want, but I don't expect the Republican leadership to get everything they want. The essence of good compromise is give on both sides. We haven't seen that. That is the essence of the concern we have on this side, the lack of fairness, not only with regard to any real void in bipartisanship in putting the tax and BBA bill together, but the consequences of having done so without constructive engagement, consequences that led somebody inadvertently, I assume, to leave out the minimum wage entirely, to nullify the minimum wage for 6 months. That is what happens if this bill passes. It is going to be nullified for 6 months. I know that that was not intended, but that is what happens. To reference bills as are referenced in this two-page conference report with no real ability to read it thoughtfully, to carefully look through it, ought to give everybody pause. I know one of the points raised by our colleague from Alaska regarding the appropriations bill is that he needs up to 20 hours to read, whenever it is agreed to, the Labor-HHS bill, the last appropriations bill to be addressed. That Labor and Education bill, if it is read by the Senator from Alaska, will at least assure that one Senator in this body has had a chance to read it from front to back. Nobody had that opportunity with this bill. There was no 20-hour read of this bill, in part because there was no bill. This is a reference to five bills. There was no careful consideration of what went into this legislation. Nobody knows. We are shooting entirely in the dark. We have no appreciation of what is in this bill. What we do know is that some things were inadvertently left out. What we do know is that when it comes to school construction, we fall $10 billion short of what ought to be a minimum in the commitment we make to school construction this year. This country has a deficit in infrastructure of $127 billion, a $127 billion backlog in school construction alone. What we have said is, let's require the States and the school districts to come up with at least $100 billion of that responsibility, but why not do for schools what we do for courthouses and airports and highways. Let us help school districts. Let us help States provide the funding mechanism that will allow them to refurbish and rebuild and construct new schools. That is part of the debate. That is part of this fairness question that is at the heart of the debate regarding the tax bill. Is it fair? That is the question. Is it fair to provide three times more in business lunch deductions than it is school construction? That is what this bill does. Three times more goes to business lunch deductions than we are prepared to commit to school construction. I don't think that is fair. We can argue a lot about whether it is fair to give more to the top 5 percent of all taxpayers than we do the bottom 80. One can argue that is a legitimate thing to do in public policy. But is it fair? I don't think anybody could argue it is fair to give the top 5 percent more in tax benefits in this bill than the bottom 80, but we are doing that. Again, it is a question of fairness. The question is, too, Is it fair to have two pots of money--one for hospitals, one for clinics, one for hospice, one for all the medical and health facilities all over this country--and say: We have a limited amount of money to spend, and we are going to split that amount into two pots. We are going to give a third of all the money to HMOs at the expense of all these health facilities. The HMOs are leaving States by the dozens. We are going to pay ransom to those HMOs to try to keep them in the States when they have already publicly announced they are leaving. The question is, Is it fair to say, no, hospital administrator, no, clinic administrator, no, hospice director, you can't have the money we are going to give to HMOs, even though you may go bankrupt, even though you may close your doors? That is not fair. And it is a question of fairness. It is a question of priorities. It is a question of how we do business around here and the fairness of excluding half the Senate as these decisions are being made. It is really a question of good management as well, when you leave out the minimum wage law, when you nullify that law for 6 months inadvertently. I think the speaker had it right. I won't use the phrase he used. He said ``half,'' I will say ``baked.'' He said, when you don't use the committee process, you have a half-baked process. Well, he was right because it is half baked. This work product doesn't deserve support. Because it doesn't deserve support, it will be vetoed. And when it is vetoed, I hope we can come back and do it right. I hope we can say that in the name of fairness we are going to provide more help to health facilities, in the name of fairness we are going to provide better balance in the Tax Code, in the name of fairness we are going to do better on school construction, in the name of fairness we are going to allow everybody in the room as we make these very critical decisions. Fairness dictates at least that. That is the essence of this argument. That is why it is important. It is what we should do. It also goes to the whole question of other things we should do. We talked about it earlier today. There is so much in unfinished business that we could have addressed--unfinished business relating to the Patients' Bill of Rights, prescription drugs, gun safety. None of those issues was addressed. That leads, of course, to the question of how long, if we don't address these and all the issues relating to fiscal responsibility, can we assure that this prosperity continues? There are two very fundamental differences in philosophy and approach enunciated in large measure by our two Presidential candidates. Governor Bush has articulated a particular position that, as it bears scrutiny, begs the question: How soon will we be right back to where we were 10 or 15 years ago? The American Society of Actuaries answered that question yesterday. They said--not a Democrat or anybody here in the Congress, but they said--having scrutinized the Bush proposal, we would be back into deficits similar to what we experienced in the 1980s by the year 2015 and that we would end the fiscal progress we have made for the last 3 years. It would be gone. If you pass the Bush tax plan, pass the Bush Social Security plan, you are right back smack in the middle of deficits as we were before. That is one approach. Again, as I say, that is not our analysis; that is not our report. That report is by the American Society of Actuaries. Mr. President, I see that other colleagues are on the floor. I want to respect their right to be heard as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will come to the floor and express themselves about this legislation. I know a number of our colleagues have indicated an interest in being heard. I note that it is my hope we can still get votes on both the tax bill as well as the Commerce-State-Justice bill today. We need to move this process along. We are now less than 2 weeks away from the election. There is a lot of work that remains prior to the time we leave. It seems to me we ought to be maximizing each day. That is why the President has insisted on 24-hour continuing resolutions. I have just had a conversation with the majority leader and noted my interest in our effort to try to resolve these matters today so we can move on to other outstanding issues. We talked earlier about the importance of trying to bring some resolution to both bills. The Commerce-State-Justice bill could be resolved, certainly, by Monday. If we can vote on it, and move it along, I think that behooves us and certainly accords us more of an opportunity to ensure that we can resolve these matters at a time that would allow us to bring closure to this whole session of Congress.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I fully agree with the response from the majority leader. Whether the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of the Treasury makes the disbursements has absolutely no effect on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources over this program. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has jurisdiction over the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and was the committee that originally reported the Coastal Impact Assistance program as part of the CARA legislation. The fact that we have funded the first year through the Department of Commerce has absolutely no effect on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources over the Coastal Impact Assistance program, including oversight and any future changes.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object--and I have no intention of objecting--the distinguished deputy Democratic leader noted that he had a number of requests to speak on Sunday. I wonder if the majority leader would mind if we move the time from 5 to 4 to accommodate speakers who wish to come in.

Mr. DASCHLE. I have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Founding Fathers intended that the legislative process work through strongly held policy differences to establish the law of the land. They saw open dialogue as central to our democracy, and their vision has served the American people well for over 200 years. It is regrettable, therefore, when policy disagreements degenerate into acts of retribution against individual public servants whose only transgression is to execute the directives of the President they serve. That is exactly what happened recently when a provision was inserted into the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Bill stripping the USDA Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, Jim Lyons, of his authority to administer the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service until his term in office expires in January 2000. This provision is not only unfair to Mr. Lyons, it undermines the separation of powers doctrine because it is designed solely to intimidate administration officials who are faithful to the policies of the President. What has Mr. Lyons done, you might ask, to warrant such rebuke? The simple answer is: he has done a difficult job conscientiously. Mr. President, Mr. Lyons was confirmed as the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment by the Senate in May of 1993. As Undersecretary, he administers two important agencies--the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service--that include nearly half the employees in the Department. I have worked closely with Mr. Lyons over the past 8 years and respect greatly his work ethic, his understanding of the issues within his agencies' jurisdiction and his commitment to the public policy making process. We have had policy disagreements, but I have never had reason to question Mr. Lyons' dedication to his job or fitness to serve as Undersecretary. Mr. Lyons has provided steady and clear leadership during his tenure at USDA, tackling many complex and controversial issues that have plagued the conservation and forestry communities for years. While many of these policy challenges defy easy solution, Jim Lyons never shirked his responsibility to address them. Further, it has been his hallmark to solicit and discuss the views of all parties in a search of common ground in the pursuit of Administration objectives. That approach was particularly evident in the policy dispute that culminated in the Agriculture Appropriations rider relieving Mr. Lyons of line authority for the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, NRE, has responsibility within USDA for working with the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, on issues affecting clean water and air, agriculture, forestry and other environmental concerns. It was in this role that Mr. Lyons entered into negotiations with the EPA to reduce the impact of EPA's proposed Total Maximum Daily Load, TMDL, rule on agriculture and forestry, while helping to ensure our continued progress in improving the quality of the waters of the United States. After months of negotiation with the EPA, Mr. Lyons helped construct a rule that would provide for measured progress in reducing non-point source pollution through the use of voluntary, incentive-based programs administered largely through the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Many of the provisions objectionable to commodity groups and the Farm Bureau were dropped from the final rule or significantly modified. The provisions affecting silvicultural activities and forestry were dropped altogether. In August, the President announced the final TMDL rules, and, in response to concerns expressed by Members of Congress, delayed their implementation for one year. Nonetheless, some who were upset that EPA had elected even to proceed with the rules decided to take their frustration out on Mr. Lyons, charging that he had not done enough to fight this rulemaking. As a consequence, language was added to the House version of the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill defunding Mr. Lyons' office. At the urging of Senator Cochran and his colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee, the House agreed to restore funding for the Undersecretary's office, but eliminate Mr. Lyons' authority to manage, supervise or direct his agencies--the job he had sworn to do and for which this body had confirmed him nearly 8 years ago. While policy differences certainly are an important and accepted part of the legislative process, acts of retribution against individual public servants--which this rider is--should not be tolerated. Mr. Lyons does not deserve this treatment. During his USDA career, he has faithfully pursued the President's policies, spearheading major reforms in the management of both the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS, and helping to develop the Forest Service's new natural resources agenda, which is focused on watershed protection, recreation, road management reform and sustainable forestry. Under Mr. Lyons' leadership, the Natural Resources Conservation Service has assumed a leadership role for the Administration in promoting conservation of the nation's private lands and has taken on an expanded role in protecting clean water and fish and wildlife habitats. Mr. Lyons has advocated establishing riparian buffers to capture nutrient and pesticide runoff, promoted efforts to protect farm and forest lands threatened with development, and encouraged strategies to protect drinking water supplies at their source. Mr. Lyons was also the principle architect of the President's Northwest Forest Plan conserving old-growth forests and promoting sustainable forestry. He has initiated efforts to assess forest ecosystem health in the Columbia River Basin, the Sierra Nevada and the southern Appalachians. He directed key acquisitions and additions to the National Forest System, and has overseen purchase of lands including New Mexico's Baca Ranch and the New World Mine near Yellowstone National Park. He was instrumental in the establishment of the Giant Sequoia National Monument. Mr. Lyons continues to lead USDA efforts on the presidential initiative to protect remaining national forest roadless areas. He helped craft the President's report on this year's devastating wildfires and then worked to shape the emergency funding package that will be used to restore fire-damaged forest lands and reduce the risks to communities from future wildfires. Mr. Lyons has promoted outdoor recreation on the national forests and created new programs and partnerships to improve urban forestry and conservation activities. In the Black Hills of South Dakota, Mr. Lyons worked with me to resolve differences between the timber industry and environmentalists that allowed timber harvesting to proceed in a responsible and environmentally sensitive manner. This experience demonstrated Mr. Lyons' ability to work with diverse interests in the pursuit of sound, common sense policies that reconcile multiple use objectives. President Clinton's approach to the stewardship of our national resources is clear, and Mr. Lyons has been faithful to that vision. His public record over the past eight years identify him as a leading conservationist and an effective agent of change, not only within the Department of Agriculture, but also within the Administration. Mr. President, I regret that, as the end of the Clinton Administration approaches, one of its longest serving subcabinet officials has been targeted for retribution as a result of a disagreement over policy. Personal attack should never become an accepted method for settling policy differences. I hope that the politics of personal intimidation can be removed from our policy debates. Finally, I ask unanimous consent to print a recent New York Times editorial on this subject in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I wanted to talk briefly tonight about where we are. We are now 26 days into the new fiscal year. We should have completed our work 26 days ago. We are at a stage that should command we work together to try to resolve what remaining differences there are, finish our work, and do all we can to bring this session to a close. Unfortunately, that is not what has happened tonight. What has happened tonight is that our Republican colleagues have insisted on a conference report for Commerce-State-Justice which they know will be vetoed. They have insisted on drafting a piece of legislation incorporating $240 billion in tax cuts, approximately $81 billion we are told--even though we still haven't had it analyzed and calculated-- in changes to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. They insisted at the last minute, without any consultation, on incorporating one of the most controversial pieces of legislation pending before the Senate at the end of the year, a bill having to do with forcing States to accept a certain position on physician assisted suicide. There hasn't been any vote in the full Senate, but it is in this tax bill. It is a bill that has nothing to do with taxes, nothing to do with hospitals and ways with which to address the real problems we are facing all across this country with health providers, hospitals, clinics, hospice facilities, nursing homes. You name it, virtually every health facility in this country today is either on the verge of bankruptcy or in a serious financial position. We all recognize the need to do this before we leave, to address the problems our hospitals and all of our health facilities are facing. What happened is that our Republican colleagues, with absolutely no consultation with any Democrats--House, Senate, or White House--have cobbled together a bill they know will be vetoed. The President just this afternoon sent a letter indicating he will veto the Commerce- State-Justice bill and he will veto the tax bill. I come to the floor chagrined, disappointed, angered, frustrated. Speaker Hastert has already reacted to the veto letters. I will quote what is reported in Congress Daily: Do you have to have everything you want? How much petulance is there on the other side of the aisle? When asked if Republicans would be willing to rework a tax bill at all, he responded that any new legislation would have to go through committee ``because anything else would amount to half-assed legislating.'' Let me repeat that. He said that new legislation would have to go through committee ``because anything else would amount to half-assed legislating.'' What is this, if it isn't what the Speaker has already described as half-assed legislating? We have got a bill before the Senate that nobody has seen. We have a bill before the Senate that hasn't gone through committee. No one has had the opportunity to consider it carefully. I hope my colleagues will hear me out on this. In fact, we have just heard and been told, and now it has been confirmed, that the conference report we are about to vote on tomorrow literally eliminates the minimum wage for 6 months--eliminates it because of a glitch in the writing of the bill. We are eliminating the minimum wage for half a year in this legislation, totally. We are not rolling it back. We are not freezing it. It is eliminated. I know our Republican colleagues had no real desire to eliminate the minimum wage, but that is what is in this legislation. Why? I think the answer is clear. Because the Speaker described it--I won't repeat it again and again but I think he had a very apt description for what we are doing right now. We are not going through committee. We are not going through the legislation on the floor. We are not going through a normal conference. Let me start by saying what this is really all about is fairness. This is about fairness. It is about whether we are fair to a process and whether we are fair to all Senators who ought to have an opportunity to more carefully consider a $240 billion tax cut. It is about whether or not fairness would dictate that, if we are going to address a bill as important as restoring some of the payments through Medicare for all the health facilities in this country, we would have a chance to look at it; that we would have a chance to be consulted about it; that we would have a chance to voice our concerns about it and ultimately to have a chance to put the bill together in a way we can bring it back to the Senate and House with some expectation that there has been this deliberation. That is fairness. I hear the Republican candidate for President, Governor Bush, talk, as he should, about the need for bipartisanship. If he says it once, he says it 10 times a day: I want to restore bipartisanship. I must say, why wait until next year? Why not do it now? What is wrong with a little bipartisanship in putting a tax bill together? What is wrong with a little bipartisanship in ensuring that as we write a Balanced Budget Restoration Act that we have Republican and Democratic input? That is bipartisanship. We have had a lot of bipartisan votes this year. We have the votes, now, to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights. That is bipartisanship. We have had Patients' Bill of Rights votes throughout the year. We have a bipartisan bill. We have had a bipartisan bill on a number of pieces of legislation relating to education, a bipartisan bill on minimum wage, a bipartisan bill on gun safety. Every time we have a bipartisan bill, the Republican leadership is not willing to allow the process to be complete. So there is no bipartisanship, whether it is on all the issues upon which we have already voted or whether it is on this bill tonight. None. Zero. No consultation. This is about fairness. It is also about fairness when it comes to the issues we are talking about in the bill itself. I am very troubled by the amazing and extraordinarily complex ways our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have attempted to address many of the issues before us in this bill. We have not seen, until just this afternoon, what the tax bill entails. But we are told the tax bill has provisions incorporated that allow the bottom 60 percent of all taxpayers to receive only 5 percent of the tax benefits--60 percent of all taxpayers get 5 percent of the benefit. That is an unfairness as well. We hear so much debate at the national level, at the Presidential level, about making sure everybody benefits. How is it the top 40 percent should get 95 percent of the benefit, once again? And why is it we have to insist that, in situation after situation involving tax fairness, it has to be a fight about whether or not we can equitably distribute the benefit? Once again, each and every time the minimum of what you would expect for working families is left off the table. I do not understand why we cannot be more fair when it comes to tax policy and distribution. But for 60 percent of the people to get 5 percent of the benefit is not fair. It is not fair as well to be sending millions of children to schools that are in a total state of disrepair. I do not have the number in front of me, but I will tell you this: 76 percent of all the school districts in this country have at least one school building that is in a state of disrepair. There are hundreds of billions of dollars in backlog all over this country with regard to school construction. We have had problems with infrastructure all over our State. My State is not unique. There is not a State in this country that has been able to adequately and satisfactorily address the problems with regard to school construction--not one. What we have said is let's take at least a modicum of the responsibility. My goodness, if we can pass highway construction bills and courthouse construction bills and airport construction bills and all the array of other housing construction bills at the Federal level, certainly we can help school districts help build better schools. What is wrong with providing them with some tools, financially, to get that job done? If this fight is about anything tonight, it is about that. It is about our inability to address in a meaningful way real school construction this year. We had asked for a $25 billion commitment on the part of the Federal Government and this bill falls far short of the mark. And the President said on that basis alone he would be prepared to veto this bill. If we do not fix the school construction bill adequately in this legislation, it will never be signed. That, too, is a question of fairness--fairness for those school kids who must face the fact each and every day that their safety and the quality of their education is dictated by the crumbling school they must enter each and every day they come. That is wrong. That is unfair. That ought to be addressed in this Congress before we leave. And whether it is in this tax bill or in the education funding that has to be appropriated prior to the time we leave, we have to fix it. We have to address it. There is also, as I noted earlier, a serious question relating to the fairness of the BBRA, the Balanced Budget Reform Act. We know what limited dollars we have. We recognize this may be our last shot. This may be our last real opportunity to send as much help out to the States as we can possibly provide if we are going to solve the problem of nursing homes, solve the problem of hospitals and clinics, solve the problems of hospice. Whether or not we are able to get that job done depends on whether or not we can adequately address it in this bill. But what did our Republican colleagues do? They spent $28 billion over five years, more than a third of which goes to HMOs who have already indicated, with or without the money, they are pulling out of Medicare in many States. They will not be influenced by this legislation or by the incredible price tag this legislation holds for them. I must say, I don't get it. We all claim to be concerned about the threat to the surplus that we have so carefully been able to amass over the last couple of years. We have all indicated that is our highest priority, to assure that we can retain the fiscal responsibility this year, next year, and from here on out. Yet we pass a bill that includes a gift of more than $11 billion to HMOs in the name of trying to keep them in Medicare in States when they have said they will not stay in those States regardless of how much we pay them, ransom or not. There is an $11 billion ransom payment in here and it is not going to help one State. The problem we have is that it is taking money away from nursing homes. It is taking money away from hospitals. It is taking money away from hospice. It is taking money away from clinics. I do not understand, in the name of fairness, why we can't appreciate how extraordinarily important this is. This is a question of fairness. It is a question of being fair to the nursing homes and hospitals which are hanging on by their fingernails tonight, hoping we can do the right thing in providing them with the assistance they need in fixing the mistake we made in 1997. It is a question of fairness about whether or not we are going to provide tax benefits to all the people, not just to those at the top. It is a question of fairness with regard to whether or not schools are going to have the kinds of funds they need to ensure they have the ability to build the schools our children need today; not tomorrow, today. It is a question of fairness whether or not we can do what Governor Bush, Vice President Gore, and so many of those out there seem to be talking about each and every day: restoring some semblance of bipartisanship in this body, in the Congress, and in the Federal Government. We have fallen so far off that mark. There is not anything bipartisan about this package. There is absolutely nothing in here that even begins to appreciate the need for a bipartisan consensus, and here we are tonight, 26 days after the fiscal year began, with a veto of a bill that should have been resolved months ago. It is not only unfair, it is incredibly bad management. We can do better than this, Mr. President. We have to do better than this. We have to do better than this in restoring some sort of comity, some sort of cooperation, and some sort of dialog when we take on bills of this import. We have to restore fairness if we are really going to address tax legislation this year. Fairness dictates that we have a school construction program of which we can all be proud. Fairness demands that we find a better way to solve the BBA problem than we have in this bill. We need fairness. We need attention to those issues. We need to resolve it before we leave. We need to do it tonight, tomorrow, Sunday, Monday, however long it takes. We have to do this before we leave. We will have more to say about this.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon has stated it so succinctly and so correctly. That is exactly what I am saying. He has noted the extraordinary nature of the provision he has cited. There is a great deal of controversy involving the issue, and I give credit to those in Oregon who have tried to grapple with the very personal issue of suicide and physician-assisted efforts involving suicide. As he has noted, a large number of organizations have publicly stated their support for the Oregon law, but the real question is not whether one agrees with the Oregon law or one does not agree. The question is, On a question of this controversy, of this import, of this breadth, should we be forced at 8:15 tonight to be talking about it without having had the benefit of discussion in the full Senate up until now? Not only that, should we take it on a take-it-or-leave-it basis? This has been buried in a bill having nothing to do with physician-assisted suicide. This has a lot to do with taxes. It has a lot to do with school construction. It has a lot to do with health care. It has nothing to do with physician-assisted suicide, and at the last minute, our Republican colleagues put it in there, buried it in the bill and now want us to vote on it, up or down, no debate. That is incredibly bad management. That is so unfair, not only to us--we ought to have the opportunity--but to Oregon, to the country, to the issue. That is what troubles me perhaps most of all: Once again, they have denigrated the institutional process in ways I do not think anybody can fully appreciate. Something as important as this should have its day in court. There should be a debate about it. I am sure in Oregon they spent a lot of time debating, considering, and consulting prior to the time they came to any conclusion. We should do no less. The Senator from Oregon is absolutely right. That is in part what this is about.

Mr. DASCHLE. I respond to the Senator from Oregon, since it is part of this legislation, I think it dictates that we have a lengthy discussion about it. Certainly we have to make sure that everybody understands the ramifications of all the provisions. Again, in the name of fairness, we ought to be providing those Senators who have a great deal of interest in this issue and who certainly know more about it than many of us who have not been exposed to much of the debate to date, that we have some discussion about it. Again, it goes back to the Speaker's comments in the first place. You can do it the right way or you can do it the way they have done it tonight. We have done it wrong tonight. People like the Senator from Oregon, like the Senator from Nevada--all of us--deserve better. The people deserve better. We are going to insist that they get better than what they have been given so far. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate very much the cooperation of the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate passed my resolution to urge the creation of a postage stamp honoring Korczak Ziolkowski, the visionary sculptor who began work on the Crazy Horse Memorial in the Black Hills of South Dakota over 52 years ago. I would like to take a moment to describe the man and the dream that led him to carve a mountain. Korczak Ziolkowski was born on September 6, 1908 in Boston, Massachusetts. Orphaned at age one, he grew up in a series of foster homes and often was mistreated. Korczak later would say that his collective experiences during this difficult part of his life prepared him for sculpting the Crazy Horse memorial and enabled him to prevail over the decades of financial hardship he encountered trying to create an Indian memorial in the Black Hills. Before coming west, Korczak was a noted studio sculptor and member of the National Sculpture Society. Although he never took a lesson in art or sculpture, his marble portrait of Polish composer and political leader Ignace Jan Paderewski won first prize by unanimous vote at the 1939 New York World's Fair. This award drew the attention of Lakota Sioux Chief Henry Standing Bear, who invited Korczak to carve a memorial to the Sioux warrior Crazy Horse in the sacred Black Hills. In his invitation letter, Chief Standing Bear wrote: ``My fellow chiefs and I would like the white man to know the red man has great heroes, too.'' In 1939, Korczak also traveled to South Dakota to assist Gutzon Borglum, the famed sculptor of Mount Rushmore. Korczak finally met Chief Standing Bear in 1941 and he learned more about Crazy Horse. He then returned to his sculpting career in New England, but he never stopped studying the life of Crazy Horse and the Native American tribes of North America. However, a sense of duty to his country delayed his return to South Dakota. At age 34, he volunteered for service in World War II, landed on Omaha Beach and later was wounded. After the war, Korczak turned down a government commission to create war memorials in Europe to accept Chief Standing Bear's invitation. He returned to South Dakota in 1947 and dedicated the rest of his life to sculpting the Crazy Horse Memorial. Korczak's first year in the Black Hills was spent pioneering, building a log cabin, and constructing a massive wooden staircase to the top of the mountain he would carve. Then, on June 3, 1948, the Crazy Horse Memorial was dedicated. From its inception, Korczak said that the memorial would be a nonprofit educational and cultural project for all Native Americans. The memorial would be financed solely by the interested public, not from government funds. In fact, Korczak twice turned down $10 million in federal funds because he believed the government would never complete the memorial as he envisioned it--a sprawling campus including the Indian Museum of North America and the University and Medical Training Center for the North American Indian with the massive mountain carving at its center. Carved in three dimensions, the memorial is 563 high and 641 feet long, and upon completion will be the largest sculpture in the world. In 1950, Korczak married Ruth Ross, a volunteer at the memorial, and had 10 children, one of whom he delivered himself. Korczak soon realized that finishing the memorial would exceed one man's lifetime, so he and Ruth prepared detailed plans for the memorial's completion. Since Korczak's death on October 20, 1982, Ruth has carried out his vision. Under her leadership, the memorial continues to grow. In 1998, 50 years after the first blast on the mountain, the completed face of Crazy Horse was dedicated, and more recently, a state of the art visitors center was opened to educate visitors about the memorial. Ruth's next task is to complete work on the head of the Sioux leader's horse, which is a staggering 20 stories tall. Completing the memorial may take decades, even generations, to complete, but I am certain that under the leadership of the Ziolkowski family and the Crazy Horse Memorial Foundation it will be completed. Korczak Ziolkowski was a humble man. From his first days on the memorial to his death, he never took salary. He always believed that, first and foremost, the Crazy Horse Memorial was for the Native Americans. I would like to close with a quote Korczak was fond of: ``When the legends die, the dreams end; when the dreams end, there is no more greatness.'' Korczak's legend did not die with him. His and Chief Henry Standing Bear's dream continues to inspire greatness today. Now, eighteen years after his death, it is my hope we can share his dream with all Americans by issuing a postage stamp in his honor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senator Larry Craig the Harmful Non-native Weed Control Act of 2000. This legislation will provide critically needed resources to local agencies to reduce the spread of harmful weeds that are destroying the productivity of farmland and reducing ecological diversity. In the last few years, public and private lands in the west have seen a startling increase in the spread of harmful, non-native weeds. In South Dakota, these weeds choke out native species, destroy good grazing land, and cost farmers and ranchers thousands of dollars a year to control. On public lands in South Dakota and throughout the West, the spread of the weeds has outpaced the ability of land managers to control them, threatening species diversity and, at times, spreading on to private land. This problem has become so severe that the White House has created an Invasive Species Council to address it. As Secretary Bruce Babbitt noted, ``The blending of the natural world into one great monoculture of the most aggressive species is, I think, a blow to the spirit and beauty of the natural world.'' Despite these efforts, the scale of this problem is vast. Some estimate that it could cost well into the hundreds of millions of dollars to control effectively the spread of these weeds. This legislation will help to meet that need by putting funding directly into the hands of the local weed boards and managers who already are working to control this problem and whose lands are directly affected. Specifically, this legislation authorizes new weed control funding and establishes an Advisory Board in the Department of Interior to identify the areas of greatest need for the distribution of those funds. States, in turn, will transfer up to 25 percent of it directly to local weed control boards in order to support ongoing activities and spur the creation of new weed control boards, where necessary. The remaining 75 percent of funds will be made available to weed control boards on a competitive basis to fund weed control projects. I would like to thank Senator Craig for his work on this issue, and to thank the National Cattlemen's Association and the Nature Conservancy, who have been instrumental to the development of this bill. Now that this legislation has been introduced, it is my hope that we can work with all interested stakeholders to enact it as soon as possible. I look forward to working with my colleagues during this process.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I know the Presiding Officer is required to move on and is being replaced again by a very distinguished Presiding Officer from Kansas, our colleague, Pat Roberts, but I appreciate very much the question posed by the distinguished assistant Democratic leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I understand we are about to recess for the day. I want to discuss for just a moment, if I may, my observations about the week and the lack of any activity or communication with the Democratic caucus. I am told that the majority leader has indicated to his caucus members that there won't be a vote tomorrow and that the vote will be postponed on the Agriculture appropriations bill until Thursday. I am surprised by that announcement, first, because I had not been forewarned or informed in any way that this would be the schedule for the week. I also am disappointed because I have indicated to a lot of people that they needed to ensure they would be here tomorrow at 11:30. They have all made plans accordingly. A lot of people have arranged their entire week around the fact that tomorrow at 11:30 there would be a vote. I am told that our Republican colleagues may simply go into a quorum call at some point and force the Senate into a vote on Thursday, which is, of course, their right. We will insist on a vote on adjournment tomorrow. There will be a vote tomorrow. We think we ought to be here, working, resolving the outstanding differences. The longer we are gone, the less likely it is we will finish our work. It is that simple. How many days do we have to go with absolutely no business on the Senate floor? We could be taking up an array of issues. We could be taking up unfinished business that begs our consideration. Yet we sit day after day holding hands and wondering when, if ever, we will adjourn sine die. This isn't the way to run the Senate. At the very least, there ought to be a minimum amount of communication between Republicans and Democrats with regard to the schedule. To read an announcement that there will be a vote postponement and not to give forewarning to all of our colleagues who are making travel plans is, again, just another departure from what I consider to be good will and common sense. We will delay the vote at least until 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon because of the Cole funeral. We understand there will be Members who need to travel to Virginia for that very important matter. We will delay the vote until at least after 4 o'clock. I want colleagues to know there will be a vote tomorrow and we will force that vote. We will continue to force votes to keep people here to do what they are supposed to do. I have also just been in consultation with a number of our colleagues from the White House, and they have indicated they will begin insisting on much shorter continuing resolutions, 2 or 3 days at the maximum. I hope the President will veto anything longer than a 3-day CR. Why? Because it is ridiculous to be taking 7-day CRs, leaving 5 days for campaigning and 2 days for work--if that. We should be working 7 days with a 7-day CR. We should be finishing the Nation's business with the CR. To give every single candidate, whoever it is, the opportunity to campaign while leaving the people's business for whenever they can get around to it and delay it to another occasion when it is more convenient for them to come back is unacceptable, inexcusable, and will not be tolerated. I put our colleagues on notice that in whatever limited way we can influence the schedule, we intend to do so. That will at least require perhaps a little more consultation but, at the very least, a little more forewarning to all colleagues with regard to the schedule and what it is we are supposed to be doing here.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. I have seen recesses that are more productive than what we have experienced since we started passing CRs. These recesses, as I like to call them--7 days of continuation of a resolution, and then 2 days, if that, of work, maybe 1 day of work--are mind boggling. There ought to be some urgency here. We ought to express the same level of urgency that a continuing resolution implies. But I don't see any urgency. I see no sense of determination to try to finish our work. If we take a poll of where our colleagues are today, they are cast out over all 50 States, with very little appreciation of the need to finish our work, to come back and do what we are supposed to do. (Mr. ROBERTS assumed the Chair.)

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me respond to the distinguished Senator from Nevada. First, I would like to see if we could work on Tuesday. I would like to see us work on Wednesday. But as he has noted, given the urgency of completing our work, Saturday and perhaps even Sunday would be a real departure from current practice. But just working on the weekdays of the week would be a startling revelation for some of our colleagues. I think it is time we get the job done. It is time we recognize how important it is we finish our work. It is time we bring people back. Let's keep people here. Let's require they negotiate. Let's work and get our business done before we have to continue this charade that seems to be a common practice of being in session but doing no work. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is with a sad heart that I speak this morning. We now all know that we have lost the Governor of the State of Missouri. Gov. Mel Carnahan was killed in a plane crash last night. Like another man from Missouri, Harry Truman, Mel Carnahan was a man of plain speech and enormous political courage. I believe he would have been a great United States Senator, just as he was a great Governor. His death is a loss to the people of Missouri and to all Americans. Mel Carnahan spent his life in public service. In this time of skepticism and cynicism about politics and politicians, it is worth noting that Mel Carnahan could have done anything with his life and been a success. His intelligence, his drive, his dedication, his hard work, would have landed him at the top of just about anything he chose to pursue. But Mel Carnahan made a choice early in his life that he would enter public service and that he would use his enormous talents to help people, and that is what he did. In the State legislature, as State treasurer, as Lieutenant Governor, and during his two terms as Governor, he worked to help people, to make government efficient, and to use the tools at his disposal to make a difference to people's lives. Whether it was improving public schools, expanding health insurance for children, stricter safety standards for nursing homes to protect seniors, or passing some of the toughest anti-crime measures in the nation to make communities safer, he made a difference. When Governor Carnahan raised taxes in 1993 to improve Missouri schools, it was an act of political courage that he said was part of his job. ``It was the right thing to do,'' he said later. It was the right thing to do. If one principle could sum up Mel Carnahan's entire political career of public service, it would be just that--he saw what needed to be done, and he did the right thing, regardless of political consequences. He saw what needed to be done, and using that strong inner compass of right and wrong that steered him through his entire life, he made his decisions--not based on polls or focus groups or other political considerations, but on what was the right thing to do. Last night, we lost a true public servant--the kind whose service on behalf of people brings honor to all of us who have chosen a similar path for our lives. The fact that his son Randy was with him makes the personal tragedy suffered by the Carnahan family all the more crushing. Our thoughts and prayers are with Jean Carnahan, and the Carnahan and Sifford families in this time of sadness. I yield the floor.