Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the troubling developments in the Middle East. Given what has happened in the past several days, it is increasingly apparent that we are at a dangerous juncture in a critically important region of the world. The United States can and must stay engaged in the Middle East. First and foremost, Mr. President, my heart goes out to the families of the seventeen sailors reported killed and the 36 injured in the explosion yesterday on the U.S.S. Cole off the coast of Yemen. These brave individuals lost their lives or suffered injury in defense of our country, our values, and our future. This explosion underscores the danger that the men and women of our Armed Forces face every day, and our debt of gratitude for the duty they undertake. All evidence strongly suggests that yesterday's explosion was a terrorist attack. Such an attack is senseless and cowardly, and those responsible will be found and brought to justice. The world should know that the President and the Congress stand united on this score. We will not grant the perpetrators an ounce of satisfaction that they have succeeded in altering the way the United States conducts business. We will remain a force for stability. We will continue to press for a negotiated peace in the Middle East. We will stand against insecurity and senseless violence in the Middle East and throughout the world. We owe that much to the brave sailors who were killed yesterday. Recent days have also confronted us with a stream of horribly violent incidents in Israel and the territories. Unfortunately, efforts to end unrest have yet to succeed. Yesterday two Israeli soldiers were killed in a distressing scene of mob violence as protests gave way to deadly confrontation. I deplore that violence, Mr. President, and I call on Chairman Arafat to raise his voice in favor of peace. I have followed with grave concern the violence that has gripped Israel and the territories for more than two weeks. After years of instability and violence, this region of the world--so riven with religious and strategic interests--was experiencing relative calm. This state of affairs was born out of an emerging consensus among all parties in the region that the future peace and security of Israel and the territories could be decided only through negotiation. The outlines of and expectations for a lasting peace were beginning to take shape. A successful conclusion to these negotiations seemed tantalizingly close just two short months ago when Israel made unprecedented compromises in the name of peace. In addition to the human toll exacted by the recent string of violent incidents, there has been another equally tragic casualty--at least in the short term. The events of the past week or so have apparently punctured the hope for a quick peace settlement, putting at risk the great progress that had been made toward settling long-standing Israeli-Palestinian differences. Moreover, the latest crisis in Israel and the territories also threatens wider regional conflict, as evidenced by the abduction of three Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah guerrillas operating out of Lebanon as well as Iraqi troop movements. The stakes, Mr. President, are high and the time is short. If we are to return to the path of a peaceful settlement after the events of the last two weeks, we must first end the violence. A cessation of hostilities can only be accomplished if all sides demonstrate leadership by condemning the violence. I am sorely disappointed in Arafat and the Palestinian Authority and in the fact that they have allowed violence to be carried out without restraint or comment. Preferring instead to blame the violence on what he terms Israeli provocations, Arafat has refused to publicly and unequivocally call for an end to violent protests and confrontations. Palestinian police have failed to control mob violence. And efforts at re-establishing negotiations have been rebuffed. The result is despicable violence that has cost far too many innocent lives. Rather than being unable to control the violence--as Chairman Arafat claims--his silence leaves the impression that he condones it. The on- again off-again cooperation with Israeli security forces suggests that Arafat prefers using violence and the threat of wider war as a negotiating tool. Such tactics are cynical, dangerous and stand in stark contrast to the Oslo process that brought the region to brink of a comprehensive peace just two short months ago. Meanwhile Prime Minister Barak has remained committed to negotiations and the Oslo Process. He took great risks at Camp David in July. He offered remarkable concessions on issues that go to the very core of his country's history and identity--compromises that no one had considered possible before President Clinton convened the Camp David talks. Despite subsequent violence provocations, Barak has repeated his interest in restoring calm, ending the violence and returning to the negotiating table. When he was approached by President Clinton to join an emergency summit, he readily stated his interest and willingness in participating. And unlike Arafat, Barak has clearly denounced violence. He implored Israelis not to participate in the violence when he said, ``I urge our Jewish citizens to refrain from attacking Arabs and their property under any circumstances.'' Time is short in the Middle East, Mr. President. The risk of a wider regional conflict is very real. The first step toward assuring that the situation improves is a strong public statement from Chairman Arafat calling for an end to the violence.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I commend the majority leader for his work in reaching this agreement and compliment and thank Members on both sides of the aisle. We have to be realists as we try to finish our work at the end of this session. Being realists means we don't get it exactly the way we want it. Obviously, many Members have serious problems about the way we are proceeding. We, nonetheless, realize we have to get the work done. While it may not be pretty, it will get the work done. That is ultimately what we are here to do. To clarify what this agreement does with regard to some of the concerns that some Members have raised, first and foremost, this allows for the completion of the Treasury-Postal bill because we address the IRS concern raised by the administration. We are very pleased that issue has been resolved and we are now able to go forth at least from the point of view of the administration. Senator Byrd had the same concern I did about procedure. This allows us technically to have taken up TPO on the floor, as Senator Byrd has strongly suggested we do and as some Members proposed be done. This allows us to do that, and we will do it in concert with the consideration of HUD-VA. Obviously, as I think everyone now knows, section 103 of the energy and water bill is very problematic for the administration and for some of us. This understanding takes out section 103. We have accommodated a lot of the concerns in reaching this agreement. We will have a couple of amendments offered by Senator Boxer who has concerns about the HUD-VA bill. This reaches the level of understanding we have with regard to her concerns, as well. Clearly, this is a compromise taking into account both the procedural as well as the substantive concerns many Senators have had on both sides of the aisle, and it accommodates those concerns as best we can under these circumstances. Again, I end where I began by complimenting the majority leader, by expressing my appreciation for his work in trying to reach an accommodation of some of these issues. I hope we can do more on other bills that are yet to be considered. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have discussed this unfortunate situation with several of my colleagues. I believe that it would be very helpful to have the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Energy undertake a joint analysis of the facts of this situation and report back to the Senate on their discussions with the Chinese government within 45 days.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate all those who have worked so hard for so long on the H-1B bill. Senators Leahy, Hatch, Kennedy, Abraham, Feinstein, Lieberman and Biden have all done an admirable job at putting together a good bipartisan bill that will strengthen our economy and increase the resources that go to technology education and training. I would also like to thank the Majority Leader for his efforts. While we have disagreements about how the process, here in the Senate, should work, on this bill, we have shared a commitment that the Senate must act to ensure the stability of the H-1B program in the years to come. Mr. President, as you know, this legislation responds to the pressing need many American companies are facing for highly-skilled workers. The bill increases the annual ceiling for the admission of H-1B non- immigrants to 195,000 for fiscal years 2001, 2002 and 2003. It also includes an important provision to exempt H-1B visa applicants employed by higher education institutions and other non-profits from the yearly numerical limits. This visa increase could not come at a more important time. With unemployment rates currently at or near historic lows, the H-1B program has become an increasingly important source of skilled labor for U.S. employers. U.S. employers are expected to need roughly 1.6 million information technology workers in the next year. Unfortunately, the demand far exceeds the supply of qualified individuals. This shortage not only threatens the competitiveness of U.S. high technology companies but it also threatens our economy, which owes much of its success to the technology sector. These labor shortfalls are not just felt in Silicon Valley, Northern Virginia and other high tech clusters--they are felt nationwide. In fact, 35 percent of the unfilled jobs in the information technology sector are in the Midwest. In a study done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the state of South Dakota had the greatest high-technology employment growth in the early 1990's--a whopping 172 percent increase. And South Dakota companies, like those in other states, are struggling to find the workers they need to continue to grow. That said, the H-1B visa program is only a short-term solution to the skills shortage being experienced by American companies. Accordingly, I am proud of the work that was done, largely at the behest of Democratic Senators, to ensure that this bill begins to address our long-term challenge--ensuring that in the future there are enough Americans with the necessary skills to fill these jobs. Indeed, as Senator Mikulski reminded us during this debate, America is facing a skills shortage, rather than a worker shortage. It is our job to reverse that trend. This bill is a step in the right direction. It dedicates over half of the H-1B fees collected to the worker training primarily in the fields of high technology, information technology and biotechnology skills. By increasing the H-1B visa fee modestly, this bill will triple the money going to these important training programs enabling 45,000 workers a year to take advantage of these new training opportunities. In addition, the bill also triples the money dedicated to providing meaningful educational scholarships for students, particularly minority students, who are enrolled in a mathematics, engineering or computer science degree program and for improving science, mathematics and technology education in the K-12 system. There are millions of Americans who yearn for the opportunity to participate in our new economy and all its rewards. And they need only one thing to do just that--skills training and education. It is our duty to help these Americans realize their dreams. This bill is an important down-payment in that effort. Thus, I look forward to this bill becoming law in the near future. Both U.S. workers and U.S. companies stand to benefit. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record)

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we are about to cast a vote at 5:30. I think in many ways this is a very difficult situation. I come to the floor this afternoon expressing my gratitude to the distinguished chair of the Energy and Water Subcommittee and certainly to the ranking member, the Senator from Nevada, our extraordinary assistant Democratic leader, for the great work they have done in responding to many of the issues and concerns that our colleagues have raised. I think in large measure it is a very balanced bill. Unfortunately, we were unable to resolve what is a very significant matter relating to the Missouri River and the precedent that it sets for all rivers. The Corps of Engineers must, from time to time, update the master manual for the rivers that it manages. Unfortunately, some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have indicated that they were unwilling to compromise with regard to finding a way they could address their concerns without calling a complete halt to a multiyear process that has been underway to revise and update a master manual that is now over 40 years old. That is the issue: a manual that affects thousands of miles of river, hundreds of thousands, if not billions, of dollars of revenue generated from hydroelectric power, navigation, irrigation, municipal water, and bank stabilization. There is perhaps no more complicated management challenge than the one affecting the Missouri and, for that matter, the Mississippi Rivers. So our challenge has been to address the concerns of the two Senators from Missouri in a way that recognizes their legitimate questions regarding the Corps' intent on management, and also to recognize that there are stretches of the river both affecting the Mississippi in downstream States as well as all of the upstream States that also must be addressed, that also have to be worked out, that have to be recognized and achieved in some way. We have gone to our distinguished colleagues on the other side on a number of occasions indicating a willingness to compromise, indicating a willingness to sit down to try to find a way to resolve this matter. I must say, we have been rebuffed at every one of those efforts. So we are left today with no choice. What I hope will happen is that we can vote in opposition to the bill in numbers sufficient enough to indicate our ability to sustain a veto; the President will then veto this legislation, as he has now noted publicly and privately on several occasions; and that we come down together to the White House, or anywhere else, work out a compromise, work out some suitable solution that accommodates the Senators from Missouri as well as all other Senators on the river. That is all we are asking. It is unfortunate that it has to come to this, to a veto. I warned that it would if we were not able to resolve it. I am disappointed we are now at a point where that appears to be the only option available to us. Before he came to the floor, I publicly commended the chair of the Energy and Water Subcommittee for his work. And I will say so privately to my colleagues that what he has done and what the ranking member has done is laudable and ought to be supported. But the overriding concern is a concern that has been addressed now on several occasions. It was my hope that it was a concern that could have been addressed in a way that would have avoided the need for a veto. Unfortunately, that is not the case. So we are left with no choice, Madam President. I regret that fact. I hope that my colleagues will understand that this legislation is important. I hope after the veto, after it is sustained--if that is required--we can go back, get to work, and find the compromise that I have been seeking now for weeks, and find a way with which to move this legislation along. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield?

Mr. DASCHLE. As I understand it, the senior Senator from Montana would like a minute or two to talk on this subject. Perhaps it would be better for him to do it now, and then you could close the debate, if that would be appropriate.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, it appears we have 10 minutes remaining before the vote. I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur at 5:32 and the time be equally divided.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from California and the Senator from Iowa for their extraordinary colloquy this afternoon on prescription drugs. There is so much confusion, unfortunately, on the issue, largely generated intentionally by the other side, hoping to confuse people, obfuscate the question, and confuse the issue. The Senators from California and Iowa have, with great clarity, redefined it and redescribed it. I hope my colleagues, if they did not have the chance to hear them, will read it in the Record tomorrow. It was really an extraordinary contribution. I am grateful to them. Also, I am grateful to the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia for allocating this time. I think it is very important that we have an opportunity to talk about how it is that we got here. I want to devote my comments to the question of how we got here, and I will talk about two things. First, I want to talk about how we got here in the larger context of Senate rules and Senate procedure and the practice of the majority under the rules and Senate procedure. And then I want to talk a little bit about the schedule itself and how it is we got here, with only two days remaining in the fiscal year, and so much work still incomplete. I think it is very important for us to understand that, procedurally, we have seen the disintegration of this institution in so many ways. I have come to the floor on other occasions to talk about this disintegration. I think this is important for newer Senators to understand. I see the extraordinarily able new Member from Georgia, a Senator who has just joined us, Mr. Miller. I worry about the Senator ``Millers'' and about the Senator ``Fitzgeralds,'' our current Presiding Officer. I worry about those who may not have understood what the Senate institution looked like as an institution years ago. The controversy that we are facing is not about procedural niceties. The right to debate and the right to amend are fundamental rights to every Senator as he or she joins us in this Chamber. Without those features, those abilities, we diminish substantially the nature of the office of Senator, the institution of the Senate, and indeed the reason why Senators come here in the first place. Obviously, we are here to debate the great issues of the day. But how does one do it if we are relegated to press conferences or other forums that force us to talk about those matters off the floor? This Chamber has been called the most deliberative body in the world. Yet I worry about how little we have actually deliberated this year. And because we have not deliberated, the Senate as an institution has suffered. Unfortunately, over the last few years, I believe the Senate has changed dramatically. We have been denied the opportunity to offer amendments, as we are right now on the pending legislation, the so- called H-1B bill. In the entire 106th Congress, we have had only a handful of opportunities where Senators were given their prerogative, given their fundamental right as a Senator, to do what they came here to do: to represent their constituents through active participant in the legislative process here on the floor of the United States Senate. There has been an extraordinary abuse of cloture. Over one-fourth of all the cloture votes in history--over 25 percent--have been cast since 1995. Twenty-five percent of all the cloture votes in history have been cast in the last four years. That is one figure I hope people will remember. The other one which I think is critical is that we have had more cloture votes in 1999 than any other year in history. We broke a record there as well. Under the majority leader's approach, we have also had the most first-day cloture filings ever. We have never had this many cloture filings on the first day. This is a motion to invoke cloture. This is what it says. They are all the same. It is a stock statement. We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending amendment--in this case the marriage tax penalty bill. The key phrase is the one we have outlined in yellow: ``To bring to a close debate.'' I ask anybody who is even a casual observer of debate: How can you close debate before it has even started? But that is what we are doing. A bill is filed. Amendments are filed to the bill in order to close the parliamentary tree. That denies us the opportunity to offer amendments. Then cloture is filed so we can bring to a closure debate that hasn't even begun. We have done that more in 1999--of course we don't know about 2000 yet--than in any other year in our history. Of all the cloture votes together, over all of these years, 25 percent of them were in just the last 4. Under previous leaders, we filed cloture, of course. There were some great debates about many issues in the past that went on for days and weeks and even months. People would be here 24 hours a day. The debates would go on, and a majority leader would be compelled to file cloture to bring the debate to a close. Why? Because they had been debating it. That is what they were supposed to do. That is why cloture is supposed to be filed. Yet now we find ourselves voting on cloture before we have had even the first hour or the first 5 minutes of debate. We are also rewriting the rules on amendments themselves. Recently, we outlawed nongermane sense-of-the-Senate amendments to appropriations bills. We can't do that anymore. The number of amendments have also been grossly restricted. I have never seen, as I have this year, the overly restrictive way with which we have approached virtually every single bill. Take the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the bill we took up earlier this year. An average of 39 amendments have been offered to ESEA reauthorization bill over the last 25 years--39 amendments. Yet this year, only four Democratic amendments to the ESEA bill were permitted before the bill was pulled. That's right: historically, there were an average of 39 amendments to ESEA bills. This year, Democrats offered four amendments, and the bill was gone. We are told we don't have time to complete the bill. We are told the Democrats shouldn't even think about offering all of these amendments. We are told that bills should be passed with no amendments at all, or if we must offer amendments, they must meet the strict definition of ``relevant" used by the parliamentarian. The interesting thing is, nonrelevant amendments have been considered OK for the Republican Party in the past. I have a chart that shows some of the examples of non-relevant amendments offered when the Republicans were in the minority, and even in some cases when they were in the majority. We had a juvenile justice bill that came up in 1999. The majority leader saw fit to offer a ``prayer at school memorial services'' amendment to a juvenile justice bill. That was OK. We had a Commerce-Justice appropriations bill 2 years ago. It was OK to offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution on Social Security at that time. We had a supplemental appropriations bill. This was when the Republicans were in the minority, and the Senator from Delaware, now chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, certainly didn't see anything wrong with offering a tax cut amendment to that bill. Evidently, that was OK, too. Yet now Republicans are saying: Democrats don't have a right to offer nonrelevant amendments, nongermane amendments. We can, but you can't. I don't understand that logic. I don't understand how in 1993 when they were in the minority the senior Senator from North Carolina saw fit to offer a patent for the Daughters of the Confederacy amendment to the community service bill. I don't see how we could have a Lithuanian independence amendment to the Clean Air Act. I want clean air in Lithuania, but I have to tell you this had nothing to do with clean air in Lithuania. This wasn't relevant. This wasn't germane. There is a double standard here. I hope people understand our frustration as they watch the action and hear the words. We have also trivialized Senate-House conferences over the last several years. The scope of the conference rule was repealed. Now conference reports can include anything and everything--even measures that were never included in either House. That is all part of what got us to the problem we are in now with appropriations. All of this, I might say, goes back to the concern the senior Senator from West Virginia shared as he talked about the procedures and the breakdown of the institution. When we repeal the scope of conference rule that said things had to be in either the House or Senate bill before they could be considered in conference, when we repealed that, we opened up, as our Senator from New Mexico likes to call it, a ``box of Pandoras''--a real box of Pandoras. We now have sham conferences. It is almost like a huge U-Haul truck is pulled right up to the front door. We just lob everything in there and drive it on down to the White House. Nobody knows what is in that big box of Pandoras. It is put into that truck, hauled down to the White House, the President signs it, and it becomes law. It is getting worse and worse. Now we find our Republican colleagues want to take what happened in a subcommittee, where maybe a handful of people know anything about it, bypass this Chamber entirely, go into a conference, load up that truck, and take it down to the White House. That is why we said no last week. That is why we said you can't marry these bills that have had no consideration on the Senate floor--sham conferences. I know why we are doing this. In fact, our colleagues on the other side have been very candid about it, both privately and publicly. They have said: We don't want to have to vote on these tough issues. We have a lot of vulnerable incumbents. We are not going to allow these amendments if they are going to be problematic. I am sorry if someone is inconvenienced. We have had to do that for years. Casting votes is what being a Senator is all about. If you oppose a measure, then table an amendment, offer a second degree, offer an alternative. There has to be a way of doing it other than gagging this institution. Forcing cloture votes against imagined filibusters in order to cast blame just doesn't work. There are those on the other side who have said we shouldn't have to spend more than a couple of days on any one of these bills. We should be able to get these things done within 24 to 48 hours. Why should they take so long? My answer is because this is the Senate. I will get into days in just a minute. We have the days. We have ways with which to ensure we can have a good debate. We can work Mondays and Fridays. We can work after 6. We could do a lot of things to ensure that the days are there. Some of the very finest pieces of legislation ever to pass the Congress took more than a couple of days. Bills sometimes take longer. They are complicated. The majority keeps asking for cooperation. But I think what they truly mean is capitulation. All Senators should be free to debate an amendment. We shouldn't have to face these artificial relevancy requirements. Important bills should have their time on the floor. We ought to have good, rigorous debates. We ought to be able to offer amendments. Let's agree to disagree and let's vote and move on. We did that in 1994 with a piece of legislation from which we still benefit today. Every crime statistic is down in America today, every single one. Do you know why that is? That is in part because we passed the COPS Program, the community police program. That is because we have provided resources to police officers in ways they didn't have earlier in the decade. Another reason is that we passed an awfully good crime bill in 1994, the last year Democrats were in the majority. Do you know how long it took? We spent 2 weeks on that crime bill. We had 92 amendments which were proposed, 86 amendments adopted, over 20 rollcall votes. That is the way the Senate is supposed to work--a good, rigorous debate, and ultimately a product that enjoyed, in this case, broad bipartisan support. Why? Because it was a good piece of legislation. Why? Because everybody had their say. Why? Because it was probably an improved product over what it was when it was first introduced. That ought to be the model. I don't think there was a cloture motion filed in that entire debate. We didn't fill any trees. We didn't say, we have to get this done in 2 days. We didn't say, we don't have time. We said, we are going to do it and we are going to do it right. And we did it right. And 6 years later, we still benefit. We are prepared to work with our colleagues on the other side. We only hope they share the deeply held view about commitment to the institution, about commitment to the rights of each Senator, about an understanding of the responsibility for the legacy of this institution for future Senators and for all of this country as we consider the fragile nature of democracy itself. I said there were two items. The first was procedural; the second is schedule. The majority later said last year: We were out of town two months and our approval rating went up 11 points. I think I've got this thing figured out. They are sure acting as if they have it figured out. If they were motivated to be out, so their points went up, they have shown it by the schedule. This is the schedule for the year. All those red days are days we are not in session. All the blue days are the days we are in session. Look at all those red days. Yet we are told: We don't have time. We don't have time to take up appropriations bills. We don't have time to take up amendments. We don't have time to take up a legislative agenda. We don't have time? Maybe it is because there is a little more red than there ought to be. The number of days we are scheduled to be in session in the year 2000 is shown: 115. That is the number of days in session in the year 2000. Keep in mind, there are 365 days in the year, yet all we could find time for were 115 out of that 365. As it happens, this is the shortest session of the Senate in half a century--since 1956. In fact, this year's schedule is only two days longer that the infamous do-nothing Congress of 1948. The number of days with no votes in the year 2000, out of that 115: 34. We will be in session for 115 days in session out of 365 days, but we have lopped off a third of those days. On 34 of the 115 days, we have had no votes at all. But there is no time. The number of days on Mondays with votes in the year is shown. Out of all the Mondays in this year, we have only had three where we have had votes--three Mondays. On how many Fridays of this year 2000 did we have votes? Six. We did a little bit better on Fridays than Mondays. Three Mondays with votes; six Fridays with votes. Mondays with votes in September? There it is: One. No time for appropriations bills. No time for all of the issues Democrats wanted to take up. Yet on only 1 Monday in the month of September did we have votes. On Fridays in September, we didn't do quite as well. I don't know how we explain no votes on Fridays in September when we have all this work, knowing we will bump up against the end of the fiscal year at the end of this month. Imagine not having votes on Mondays or Fridays, knowing we have 11 appropriations bills that are yet to be completed. Appropriations bills completed to date? Only two. We are dealing here with numbers most people understand: 1's and 2's. We have done a little calculating because now we are getting into more advanced arithmetic. I said we have been using 1's and 2's and 0's. We used our calculator to decide how long it would take at this rate to complete the work on the remaining 11 appropriations bills, and now we are into triple digits: 572 days to complete work on the 11 appropriations bills on this schedule. Finally, there is one more calculation. I am sure people are trying to figure that out. If you take the 572 and project it out, I promise we will be finished by April 16 of the year 2002. That is when we finish our work on the appropriations bills using the schedule we have adopted in the year 2000: 4/16/02--April 16, 2002. So mark that in your calendars, folks. That is likely to be the year, the month, and the day that we finish our bills using the schedule we have employed this year. Someone once said, 90 percent of success is just showing up. Maybe that is our problem. We aren't showing up. Maybe we ought to show up a little bit more. Maybe we ought to work on Mondays and Fridays. Maybe we ought to work a little bit longer after 6 o'clock. Ninety percent of success is just showing up. Maybe we can be a little more successful. When we show up, maybe we ought to remember why we are here. Maybe we ought to remember the prerogatives of every Senator. Maybe we ought to call back the golden days when Senators debated profoundly on the issues of the day. Open this drawer: Lyndon Baines Johnson sat at this desk, Mike Mansfield sat at this desk, Joe Robinson sat at this desk, Robert C. Byrd sat at this desk. George Mitchell sat at this desk. I don't know how I would explain to my predecessors what has happened to the Senate this year. That is why the same Robert C. Byrd came to the floor this morning. Listen to Robert C. Byrd. Listen to George Mitchell. Go back in the Record and listen to Lyndon Baines Johnson, listen to Joe Robinson, and remember what Mike Mansfield said. Let's call back the glory of this institution. Let's remember why we are here, and we can then all be proud. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the willingness on the part of the Senator from Iowa to give me an opportunity to make some remarks with regard to where we are on the legislation. Yesterday's vote demonstrates clearly that there is strong bipartisan support in the Senate for increasing the number of visas for high- skilled workers. On that point, Democrats and Republicans agree, but there is a stark disagreement between our parties on the issue of fairness to immigrants. Republicans do not want to acknowledge this; they do not want to admit that they oppose the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. That is why they have gone to such extraordinary lengths to try to avoid having to take a public position on it. There is an election coming up, and they do not want to have to explain to Latino and immigrant groups why they told thousands of hard-working immigrants who are in this country doing essential jobs: Go home. Republicans would rather risk not delaying the passage of the H-1B visa bill than vote for the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act or risk the political consequences of voting against it. There is really no reason we cannot pass both a strong H-1B bill and the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. We are in the longest period of economic expansion in our Nation's history. We all know that now. The census numbers which were released yesterday confirm once again the remarkable progress we have made in recent years. In the last 7 years, we have seen 20 million new jobs. Unemployment is lower now than it has been in 30 years. In my State of South Dakota, the jobless rate is between 2 and 3 percent. Ten years ago, many companies could not expand because they could not get the capital. Today they can get the capital, but they cannot get the workers. Clearly, one of the industries hardest hit by today's skilled-worker shortage is the information technology industry. According to a recent survey of almost 900 IT executives, nearly 10 percent of IT service and support positions in this country--268,740 jobs--are unfilled today because there are not enough skilled workers in this country to fill them. The H-1B visa program was supposed to prevent such shortages, but it cannot because it has not kept pace with the growth in our economy. This year, in fact, the H-1B program reached its ceiling of 115,000 visas in less than 6 months. That is why my colleagues and I support substantially increasing the number of visas available under the H-1B program. The high-tech industry, however, is not the only industry struggling with worker shortages. The Federal Reserve Board has said repeatedly that there are widespread shortages of essential workers all through the United States. All across America, restaurants, hotels, and nursing homes are in desperate need of help. Widespread labor shortages in these industries also pose a very significant threat to our economy. That is one reason my colleagues and I introduced the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act earlier this year and why we wanted to offer that legislation as an amendment to this measure. The changes in our proposal are pro-business and certainly pro- family. They are modest, and they are long overdue. We have talked about them before, but let me just, again for the Record, make sure people are clear as to what it is we want to do. First, we want to establish legal parity for all Central American and Caribbean refugees. That is not too much to ask. Why is it we treat refugees from some countries differently from refugees from other countries? All we are asking for is parity. Second, we want to update the registry so that immigrants who have been in this country since before 1986, who have worked hard and played by the rules, will remain here permanently and will have the ability to remain here legally. We want to restore section 245(i) of the Immigration Act so that a person who is in this country and on the verge of becoming a legal resident can remain here while he or she completes the process. Why would we want to send somebody back to the country they fled--someone who is eligible to be a legal resident--just so they can come back here again? If we do not change the law, that is exactly what will happen, forcing these immigrants to pay thousands of dollars, disrupt their lives, and maybe imperil their opportunity to come back at all. Finally, we want to adjust the status of the Liberians who fled to America when Liberia was plunged into a horrific civil war. Thousands of them live in the State of the current Presiding Officer. Our Nation gave these families protected immigrant status which allowed them to stay in the United States but preempted their asylum claims. Instead of forcing them to return to Liberia, a nation our Government warns Americans to avoid because it is so dangerous even today, our bill will give them the opportunity to become legal residents. That is all it would do. Earlier this month, a coalition of 31 associations--the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Health Care Association, the National Restaurant Association, the National Retail Federation, and about 28 more--all came together and said: If there is something you do before the end of this year, now that we have PNTR finished, we hope you can pass the restoration of Section 245(i) and these other reasonable immigration provisions. It is the only fair thing to do, and it is good business. We need this done. That is the message from the Chamber of Commerce and the American Retail Federation sent. The American economy is growing not in spite of immigrant workers, but with their help. That is one reason we should pass the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act now. There is another reason. President Roosevelt once said: ``We are a nation of immigrants.'' We are also a nation that values families. This principle is not relegated to one ethnic group. Whether you are African American, European American, Latino American, or Asian American, we value family. That is important to us. If we do not pass the provisions in our proposal, thousands of immigrant parents of American-born children will face an excruciating choice. If they are told to leave this country, should they defy the law so that they can remain with their American-citizen children or should they leave their children here in the hope that others will care for them? Forcing choices like this is simply antithetical to our commitment to family values. I have heard all the speeches in the Senate Chamber about protecting family, doing what is best for family, trying to ensure that families stay together. We are concerned about what children watch on television. But for Heaven's sake, if we care what they watch on television, we ought to decide right now where we want them to watch television. Children ought to be watching television here with their families. That is the choice: Should they leave their children here and hope that others care for them, or should they take their children back to nations that are mired in poverty and torn by violence or both? Surely, those are not the kinds of choices we should force on people who have lived in this country and played by the rules for years. That is not the way we should treat people who have done the essential jobs that others did not want, particularly today when we need their labor so desperately. My colleagues and I strongly support the H-1B visa bill. On that there can be no doubt, especially after yesterday's vote. But we are deeply disturbed and disappointed that the majority has refused to allow us to offer the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act or any other amendment on this bill. Once again we have been refused the right to offer even one amendment to the bill. I have offered the majority leader many opportunities. I suggested five and five. I suggested that they have five amendments, that we have five amendments, that we limit them in terms of time and second degree amendments because we wanted to get this bill done. I heard the allegation that: No, Democrats just want to slow down the process, the deliberation, the consideration of the H-1B bill; they don't want it to pass. Our answer to that, you saw yesterday. We want it to pass. That is why I offered a limit on amendments, why I offered a limit on time, why I offered almost any formula you could come up with so that we could accommodate both. Let's pass H-1B, but for Heaven's sake, with 2 weeks left, let's pass the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act as well. Once again we have been refused the right to offer even one amendment to the bill. Once again we are told: Do it our way, or we are not going to do it at all. This is not how this body should operate. Offering amendments and voting on them does not kill bills, it strengthens them, and it strengthens this Senate. Why are our Republican colleagues so determined not even to let us discuss our amendment? They are the majority. If they believe our proposal is misguided, they can vote it down, they can table it. They can do anything they want to. They have the votes. Why won't they allow that vote? What are they so afraid of? We are pleased we are finally on the verge of passing this legislation and increasing the number of H-1B visas. But we are disappointed by the disdain the majority has shown for this Senate and its tradition of fair and open debate. We are even more disturbed by the indifference they are showing to thousands--tens of thousands--of decent, hard-working families who are looking forward to the time when they can live here in freedom and peace, and with confidence that their families can stay together. I am disappointed. I am frustrated, once again, that we have not had an opportunity to have the voice, to have the input, to have the opportunity that any Senator should count as his right or her right to participate fully in debate. But we have been precluded by the rules of the Senate imposed upon us in this case by the majority. The rules in the Senate, of course, allow for free and open debate, allow for amendment, allow for unlimited debate and discussion. The majority continues to insist on bending the rules so that they can constrain the way we pass legislation and which issues will be heard, without regard to the rights of all Senators to have their voices heard. Motion To Suspend Rule XXII So, Mr. President, as my statement in yesterday's Record indicated, I now move to suspend rule XXII to permit the consideration of amendment No. 4184.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have colleagues on the floor who are waiting to speak. I apologize to them for breaking in ahead of them. I appreciate their kindness in allowing me to respond briefly to the comments of the Senator from Texas. I can't believe what I have just heard, frankly. I am really amazed, and I may take a longer time at a later date to respond. I do not even know where to begin. But let me make four points very quickly. First, to the point made by the Senator from Texas that somehow we are holding up the H-1B bill, that could not be further off the mark. That is not true. I have suggested to Senator Lott and to others that we would be willing to take a very short time agreement, period; it is over; let's have the vote. I think what he said was we are trying to hijack the bill. What is it about offering an amendment that hijacks a piece of legislation? We are not hijacking anything. We are simply asking that we use the regular order here. Let's have the vote. Let's have the vote. We can do it this afternoon. Second, with regard to this notion that somehow we are making illegal activity legal, I wonder if the Senator from Texas has looked at the Statute of Liberty recently--the Statue of Liberty welcoming those oppressed from around the world. What is wrong with granting fairness to all immigrants regardless of circumstance? Why do we draw a distinction? That is all we are suggesting--that we not draw any distinctions here; that if you come from El Salvador or Haiti that you ought to have the same rights as if you came from Cuba. We are simply saying we want some basic fairness. We are not condoning any illegal activity. He knows that. Third, I must say that it seems that it is the Senator from Texas who is shedding crocodile tears--in his case, for people who have been waiting in a long line to become American citizens. I am sympathetic to these people too. But, with the passage of the H-1B bill that I know the Senator from Texas will vote for, we are going to allow 600,000 people--over three years--to go to the front of the line. We are going to put them at the front of the line. Never mind those 7 million people he just said were waiting. We are going to put them at the front of the line because they are filling high-paying, high-skilled jobs. Never mind the individuals who fill the thousands of available low-paying, low-skilled jobs. It is only the high-skilled workers we are interested in? To them, we say go to the front of the line. But if you work in a nursing home, if you work in a restaurant, if you work for the minimum wage, we say get back to the end of the line. Fourth, let me correct this notion that somehow Democratic Senators are out of sync. This isn't our legislation. This is the legislation that virtually the entire Hispanic community has said they need. I didn't draft it. We worked with the Hispanic community to draft it. A large number of those people who the distinguished Senator from Texas said voted for him in the last election were the ones who came to this Senate, and said: Fix this problem. Fix it. We are not out of sync. We are trying to respond, as we all must do, to legitimate problems in the Latino community, and the Liberian community. Fairness is what we are asking for. We are not alone. It is the other side that is out there all by themselves. I know the distinguished Senator from Nevada, the Assistant Democratic Leader, has a list that Senator Kennedy initially constructed, of 31 national organizations, including the National Restaurant Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and the National Retail Federation, that all believe we should pass these immigration reforms. These organizations are not supporting sanctifying or somehow justifying illegal activity. How does the Senator from Texas possibly explain to the Chamber of Commerce that they are condoning illegal activity? For Heaven's sake. That is why I say I don't believe what I just heard. I can't believe anybody would come to the floor and say those things. But they were said. They deserve a response, and I hope our colleagues will keep them in perspective. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the state of South Dakota has just dedicated a very special park at my alma mater, South Dakota State University. This park holds two new granite markers, each honoring a former SDSU student who won the Congressional Medal of Honor, our nation's highest award for valor in action against an enemy force. Today I offer my solemn appreciation to these great Americans: First Lieutenant Willibald C. Bianchi, whose heroism occurred in the Philippines during the first weeks of World War II, and Lt. Colonel Leo K. Thorsness, who was decorated for his feats as a fighter pilot over North Vietnam. First Lieutenant Bianchi, a Minnesota native, was a football player at SDSU and graduated in 1940 with a degree in animal science. During World War II, he served in the 45th Infantry, Philippine Scouts, one of the largest units in the Philippines during the Japanese invasion of December 1941. The invasion was brutally effective and, after less than a month, our Filipino and American troops were forced to retreat onto the Bataan Peninsula where they mounted a final stand against a numerically superior foe. For three desperate months, the Americans and Filipinos battled the Japanese in a sweltering, mountainous jungle. Food was limited and medical supplies scarce. About a month into the fight, however, First Lieutenant Bianchi participated in a crucial series of battles that helped eliminate a pocket of Japanese troops behind the American line. Four days after the Japanese incursion, our forces targeted ``the Big Pocket'' in a coordinated infantry-tank attack. A tank was lost and only slight gains made. On February 3, our forces tried again. Although he was assigned to another unit, First Lieutenant Bianchi volunteered to join a rifle platoon that was directed to destroy two machine gun nests. While leading part of the platoon, First Lieutenant Bianchi was struck by two bullets in his left hand. Refusing to pause for first aid, he dropped his rifle and began firing a pistol. He located one of the machine gun nests and silenced it with grenades. When wounded again, this time by machine gun bullets through his chest muscles, First Lieutenant Bianchi climbed atop an American tank, seized its anti- aircraft gun, and fired into another enemy position until he was knocked off the tank by a third severe bullet wound. This story has a sad ending. First Lieutenant Bianchi survived that day and returned to the fight a month later. The American-Filipino forces crushed ``the Big Pocket'' about a week after his heroics. But the Japanese would take Bataan in the end, and First Lieutenant Bianchi was sent off on the Bataan Death March. Though he survived the march, he died on January 9, 1945, when an American plane bombed a Japanese prison ship, not realizing that it held Americans. The other hero memorialized in Brookings is Lt. Colonel Leo Thorsness, with whom I share some history. We both studied at SDSU, we both served in the Air Force, and we both ran for South Dakota's 1st Congressional District seat in 1978. While I prevailed, it was only by the skin of my teeth--110 votes out of more than 129,000 total ballots. And from that struggle, I gained a first-hand appreciation of the spirit, determination and patriotism of Leo Thorsness. For me, that experience enhances my appreciation for the remarkable story of a 35- year-old Air Force major who, in the words of his strike force commander, took on ``most of North Vietnam all by himself.'' Lt. Colonel Thorsness had served as a pilot for about 15 years when he was assigned to the 357th Tactical Fighter Squadron at Takhli Royal Thai Air Base. Lt. Colonel Thorsness was sent in just months after the Soviet Union began supplying North Vietnam with surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), and his mission was a new and dangerous one--distract and destroy the SAMs so that U.S. bombers could deliver their ordnance. At one o'clock in the afternoon on Wednesday, April 19, 1967, his F- 105 screamed off the runway, headed for the Xuan Mai army barracks and storage supply area, 37 miles southwest of Hanoi. Lt. Colonel Thorsness and his wingman attacked from the south, while another pair of F-105s attacked from the north. He silenced one SAM site with missiles, and then destroyed a second SAM site with bombs. But in the attack on the second site, Lt. Colonel Thorsness' wingman was shot down by intensive anti-aircraft fire, and the plane's pilot and electronic warfare officer were forced to eject over North Vietnam. Lt. Colonel Thorsness circled their parachutes and relayed their position to search and rescue crews. While he was circling, a MIG-17 was sighted in the area. Lt. Colonel Thorsness immediately initiated an attack and destroyed the MIG, but he was then forced to depart the area in search of an aerial tanker for refueling. After learning that rescue helicopters had arrived, but that no additional F-105s were arriving to provide cover, Lt. Colonel Thorsness returned alone, flying back through an area bristling with SAMs and anti-aircraft guns to the downed flyers' position. As he approached, he spotted four MIG-17 aircraft, which he attacked, damaging one and driving away the rest. Soon it became clear that Lt. Colonel Thorsness' plane lacked sufficient fuel to continue protecting the rescue operation and that he would have to find an aerial tanker. On his way to the tanker, however, Lt. Colonel Thorsness received a distress call from a fellow F-105 pilot who had gotten lost in battle and was running critically low on fuel. In response, Lt. Colonel Thorsness allowed that pilot to refuel at the tanker, while he himself flew toward the Thai border, a decision that may have saved the other plane and the life of its pilot, according to the Medal of Honor citation. Lt. Colonel Thorsness managed to return to a forward operating base--``With 70 miles to go, I pulled the power back to idle and we just glided in,'' he would recall later. ``We were indicating `empty' when the runway came up just in front of us.'' A week-and-a-half later, on a similar mission, Lt. Colonel Thorsness was shot down over North Vietnam by a heat-seeking missile from a MIG- 21. He spent the next six years as a North Vietnamese prisoner of war. He was released on March 4, 1973, and in October of that year, the President of the United States draped the light blue ribbon of the Congressional Medal of Honor around Lt. Colonel Thorsness' neck. The official citation says: ``Lt. Colonel Thorsness' extraordinary heroism, self-sacrifice, and personal bravery involving conspicuous risk of life were in the highest traditions of the military service and have reflected great credit upon himself and the U.S. Air Force.'' I could not have put it any better myself. With this statement before the United States Senate, I join in saluting First Lieutenant Bianchi and Lt. Colonel Thorsness. As Congressional Medal of Honor winners, they are a symbol of the finest our nation has to offer. Their feats serve as extraordinary lessons in courage, commitment, and self sacrifice, and I am proud that they are identified with my home state.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think the point I was trying to make, and I asked the response of the assistant Democratic leader, I don't know that I have ever seen the majority go to the extremes they have on so many of the levels I have described to deny Members the right to offer amendments. Have there been precedents where the Senators have offered another Democrat or Republican amendment? Of course. But have they done so with all of the other layers of opposition, parliamentarily, that have been now shown to be the case here? Again, I argue, no, they have not. I think this is the most remarkable set of circumstances. What is amazing to me is we have already offered a limit on time. All we want is a simple opportunity to debate the issue for a brief period so we can be on record with regard to fairness for these many millions of immigrants who are looking to us right now for relief. That is all they are doing. Whether they are Liberians, whether they are Latinos, we have a responsibility in this Congress to respond. The President has said to me personally, and he has said in as many ways as he knows how, that he will demand this legislation be addressed before the end of the Congress. He has said that. If we don't do it on this, on what will we do it? So I ask the assistant Democratic leader if he shares my conviction that, first, this extraordinarily unique set of circumstances again reflects the opposition on the part of the majority to basic fairness procedurally and basic fairness with regard to Latinos in this country today?

Mr. DASCHLE. Would the assistant Democratic leader yield?

Mr. DASCHLE. If the Senator will yield for one last question, I also yield the Senator from Nevada 30 minutes of my time. I hope the Latino community, the Liberian community, all of those communities concerned about this immigration language, understand why we are here. We are here in the last days of this session to make right the problem that has existed all too long. We want to make it right. The President wants to sign this legislation. Unfortunately, apparently with unanimity, every one of our Republican colleagues oppose this. We haven't heard one of them come to our position on this issue. I hope the Latino community understands that. I hope those who are concerned about fairness at the end of this session understand that. I hope they will do all they can to reflect their feelings and their opinions before it is too late. We still have time to do this. We still should do it this week. We ought to do it on this bill. I hope our Republican colleagues will reconsider. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me ask the assistant Democratic leader, I have to say for those who may not have watched the 106th Congress, we have established a new threshold. It used to be anytime a majority opposed an amendment, they would vote against it. They would perhaps make a motion to table an amendment, we would have the debate, they would vote, and the issue would be behind us. Oftentimes, the minority would lose. That is the way it used to be. Then our colleagues on the other side of the aisle raised it another notch. They said: We don't think you ought to have the right to offer an amendment, so we will file cloture on a bill denying you the right to even offer an amendment. That was the new threshold. We have gone through many, many of these--in fact, a record number. I have given presentations on the floor regarding the number of times our colleagues have actually filed cloture to deny us the right to offer an amendment. This now reaches way beyond that. For the first time--maybe in history--our Republican colleague, without his even knowing it, has offered a Democratic amendment, has second-degreed that amendment, continued to file cloture, to say with even greater determination, we are not going to let you offer an amendment. I ask the assistant Democratic leader in the time he has been in the Senate whether he can recall a time when we have ever seen the majority go to that length to deny Members the right to offer an amendment in the Record dealing with immigration or any other issue for that matter?

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask the assistant Democratic leader--I wasn't on the floor when this began. I ask if the Senator from Nevada could confirm what I understand to be our circumstance. I apologize for not being here sooner. But as I understand the circumstances, our Republican colleagues have filed cloture on second-degree amendments, and they had intended, as I understand it, to file it on the bill and made a mistake. We understand that. They have created a problem for themselves that they are trying to get out of. But my question is: I ask the Senator from Nevada if the issue is whether or not we ought to have the right to offer an amendment. We have been debating the issue of immigration as if an amendment were pending. We have been debating this issue assuming that somehow there is opposition on the Republican side and support for an amendment on the Democratic side. In the normal course of debate, you ultimately lead to a vote on an amendment. As I understand it, the Republicans have denied us the right to offer an amendment. Is that correct?

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the assistant Democratic leader yield for a question as well?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, pursuant to rule V, I hereby give notice in writing of my intention to move to suspend rule XXII to permit the consideration of amendment No. 4184 to S. 2045.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate is poised to pass the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA). This legislation includes critical provisions to restore the Florida Everglades and the Missouri River in South Dakota and I am hopeful that it will be enacted this year. Among the provisions of WRDA that will most benefit South Dakota is a section incorporating elements of S. 2291, the Missouri River Restoration Act. I introduced this legislation last May to address the siltation of the Missouri River in South Dakota and the threat to Indian cultural and historic sites that border the river. The WRDA bill under consideration today takes an important first step to address these problems, and I want to thank all of my colleagues for their help to secure the passage of this legislation. In particular, Senator Johnson, Senator Baucus, Senator Smith of New Hampshire and Senator Voinovich deserve praise for their efforts to incorporate this legislation into the larger bill. It is my hope that Congress will adopt the remaining elements of my comprehensive proposal to restore the Missouri River, including the creation of a Missouri River Trust Fund, in the foreseeable future. The need for this legislation stems from the construction of a series of federal dams along the Missouri River in the 1950s and 1960s that forever changed its flow. For decades, these dams have provided affordable electricity for millions of Americans and prevented billions of dollars of damage to downstream states by preventing flooding. They have also created an economically important recreation industry in South Dakota. However, one of the consequences of the dams is that they have virtually eliminated the ability of the Missouri River to carry sediment downstream. Before the dams, the Missouri was known as the Big Muddy because of the heavy sediment load it carried. Today, that sediment is deposited on the river bottom in South Dakota, and significant build-ups have occurred where tributaries like the Bad River, White River and Niobrara River empty into the Missouri. The Bad River, for example, deposits millions of tons of silt into the Missouri River each year. This sediment builds up near the cities of Pierre and Ft. Pierre, where it has raised the local water table and flooded area homes. Already, Congress has had to authorize a $35 million project to relocate hundreds of families. To prevent more serious flooding, the Corps has had to lower releases from the Oahe dam, causing a $12 million annual loss due to restricted power generation. Farther south, near the city of Springfield, sediment from the Niobrara River clogs the Missouri's channel for miles. Boats that used to sail from Yankton to Springfield can no longer navigate the channel, eroding the area's economy. This problem will only grow worse. According to the Corps of Engineers, in less than 75 years Lewis and Clark lake will fill entirely with sediment, ending the ability of that reservoir to provide flood control and seriously threatening the economies of cities like Yankton and Vermillion. In addition to the impact of sediment on flood control, over 3000 cultural and historic sites important to Indian tribes, including burial grounds, campsites, and ancient villages, are found along the Missouri River in the Dakotas. Many of these sites are threatened by erosion, and each year some of them are irretrievably lost as they tumble into the river. Critical points of the Lewis and Clark trail also follow the Missouri through South Dakota, and they are threatened by erosion as well. The elements of the Missouri River Restoration Act included in WRDA today address these problems by establishing a Missouri River Task Force composed of federal officials, representatives of the State of South Dakota and area Indian tribes. It will be responsible for developing and implementing a Missouri River Restoration Program to reduce sedimentation and protect cultural and historic sites along the river. I would like to take a few minutes to explain in detail how this process will work First, the bill establishes a 25-member Missouri River Trust. Appointments will be made to the Trust by the Secretary of the Army. These appointments must be in accordance with the recommendations of the Governor of South Dakota and area Indian tribes to ensure that there is a strong local voice on the Trust. Second, the bill establishes a Missouri River Task Force, chaired by the Secretary of the Army and including representatives of the Department of Interior, Department of Energy and Department of Agriculture. It also includes the Missouri River Trust. Once funding for this legislation becomes available, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will prepare an assessment of the Missouri River watershed in South Dakota that reviews the impact of siltation on the river, including its impact on a variety of issues: the Federal, State and regional economies; recreation; hydropower; fish and wildlife; and flood control. Based upon this assessment and other pertinent information, the Task Force will develop a plan to improve conservation in the Missouri River watershed; control and remove sediment from the Missouri River; protect recreation on the Missouri from sedimentation; protect Indian and non-Indian cultural and historic sites from erosion; and improve erosion control along the river. Once this plan is approved by the Task Force, the Task Force will review proposals from local, state, federal and other entities to meet the goals of the plan and recommend to the Secretary of the Army which of these proposals to carry out. It is the intention of this legislation that the Corps contract with, or provide grants to, other agencies and local entities to carry out these projects. To the extent possible, the Secretary should ensure that approximately 30 percent of the funds used to carry out these projects are spent on projects within Indian reservations or administered by Indian tribes. The bill authorizes a total of $4 million per year for the next 10 years to carry out these goals. While the Task Force will have the flexibility it needs to take appropriate actions to restore the Missouri River, it is my expectation that a significant effort will be made to improve conservation in the Missouri River watershed. Pilot projects have shown already that the amount of sediment flowing into the Missouri's tributaries can be reduced by as much as 50 percent with appropriate conservation practices. If requested, the Task Force will also have the authority to work with farmers across the river in Nebraska, for example, to reduce the amount of sediment flowing in from the Niobrara River. The conceptual underpinnings of this legislation were developed through numerous public discussions that I have held in South Dakota over the last year. Last January, I held a Missouri River Summit in the town of Springfield with Governor Janklow, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Chairman Mike Jandreau, and other experts to discuss how to address these critical problems. In April, Governor Janklow and I held a hearing in Pierre to gather public comment about proposals to restore the river. I have been pleased by the outpouring of support I have seen for efforts to restore the river. Dozens of communities such as Yankton, Chamberlain, Springfield, Wagner, Pickstown, Mitchell and others have passed resolutions in support river restoration. American Rivers, a national leader in river protection, has recognized this need as well. The legislation passed today takes the first important step we need to take to get this job done. I'd like to thank all those in South Dakota who contributed to this process, and my colleagues in the Senate for all of their support. I look forward to our continued work together. Finally, the WRDA bill includes an amendment to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Act. This amendment requires the Corps of Engineers to meet its legal responsibilities to identify and stabilize Indian cultural sites, clean up open dumps, and mitigate wildlife habitat along the river. It also makes important technical changes to that law that will help ensure its smooth implementation. It is my hope that the Corps of Engineers will respond by working closely with the tribes and the state to clean up those lands, stabilize Indian cultural sites, and transfer the lands along the river to the tribes and state in a timely manner.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use some of my leader time to comment briefly on the pending legislation. I come to the floor to express my strong objection to the manner in which this was presented to the Senate. It is wrong, it is dangerous, it is shortsighted, and it does a real disservice to this institution, period. I have no objection to appropriations bills coming to the floor, as they must. I have no objection to perhaps even limiting the amendments at this late date to relevant legislation that may be affected in the bill. But I do have a strong reservation when we gag the Senate, as we have once again, limiting debate about important matters directly relating to tax and appropriations in a way that precludes the right of every Senator to be fully engaged in these deliberations. I have heard again and again from colleagues on the other side that it is our desire to slow things down--to stop things. Let me say that is poppycock. No one here wants to slow anything down. In just a moment I will present a list for the Record of all the things we are prepared to take up this afternoon--this afternoon. We know why this package was cobbled together in the form and manner in which it now appears before the Senate. It was put together to deny us the right to offer amendments--something we seek to do not because we want to slow things down but because we want a voice. I am not necessarily opposed to the telephone tax repeal. Senator Robb has been an extraordinary advocate of that. I give him great credit for getting us this far. But I must say I think it begs the question at this hour, with our Republican colleagues clamoring for 90 percent of the surplus to be used for debt retirement, should we would choose the telephone tax, of all things, as one of the items to be paid for with the remaining 10 percent of the surplus our Republican colleagues suggest should be available for both tax reduction as well as investments? I am told there is about $28 billion left in the budget if we reserve 90 percent for the surplus. If we assume for the moment that we accept the Republicans' proposal to use 50 percent of that $28 billion for tax reduction and 50 percent for investments, that leaves about $14 billion for tax reduction in the remainder of this year. Fourteen billion dollars isn't a lot of money when you are talking about the proposals we have had to vote on this year, but $14 billion represents what the Republicans would make available for tax cuts. The telephone tax would use up one-third of what they would allocate for tax reduction in this fiscal year--one-third. Maybe we want to commit one-third of the remaining surplus for tax reduction to the telephone tax. But this Senate is denying us the opportunity to suggest something else. This Senate is denying us the opportunity to offer amendments and to have a debate. In fact, I must say I will bet you most people are going to vote on this and they don't even have a clue what the telephone tax is. I know the Presiding Officer does. He just noted that to me. But I will venture a guess that a lot of people do not. That is just one of the problems we have with this course of action. I don't have any objection to taking up the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. I don't have any objection to taking up Legislative Branch appropriations bill. But I do have an objection when the administration informs us that we have virtually eliminated funding for counterterrorism and have not provided the funding necessary for the IRS and we have been denied the opportunity to at least debate these issues. Then I am told indirectly that, well, we will come up with the money somewhere on another vehicle. I am mystified by that approach. What is it that leads us to think we can find the money elsewhere, at a later date, if we can't find it now? And if we can't find it now, it just seems to me we are premature in moving the bill forward until we can find it. There are a lot of specific practical problems that I hope my colleagues share about this approach--problems related to our ability to participate in the process, problems related to our ability to offer amendments, problems related to the fundamental rights of every Senator to be involved in the debate, problems related directly to the substance of the issues on which we are now voting. Those are serious problems, and they shouldn't be minimized. But beyond that, I have fundamental problems with the precedent we are setting here. There are many who may come into the Senate in future years who, if we continue this process, may come to the conclusion that if it is good on appropriations, why not on any authorization? Why not on a tax bill? Let's just go from committee to conference. Let's forget this Chamber. This Chamber might well be additional office space someday. We don't need a Chamber anymore--not for deliberations, because there are none. Where does it end? Not in our generation. I am sure this will be a slow process. But, institutionally, anybody who cares about the way the Senate should be run should care about the process we are using now. I don't know what message it sends to our young Members on either side of the Chamber about the way we do business around here. But I don't want to have it heard or said on the Senate floor anytime in the near future that this is the greatest deliberative body, because we aren't deliberating. We are not deliberating on these issues, we are rubber stamping. We are sending them through the process the way you might expect it done in the House, but it doesn't, and it shouldn't, happen here. Institutionally, Republican or Democrat, old or young, it shouldn't matter. I am troubled, very troubled, by this process. As I said a moment ago, we have no objection--none--to moving to other bills. I will not do it. But I would love to ask unanimous consent to move, immediately following the conclusion of our debate on this package, to the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. Guess what. I would get an objection on the other side. I am not sure why. I don't know why. But I know this. We haven't brought it up because somebody over there doesn't want it to come up. That isn't us. I would love to ask unanimous consent to take up the D.C. appropriations bill, the intelligence authorization bill, and the H-1B bill. Let's take them up. Let's have a debate. Let's offer amendments. I have offered to Senator Lott that we could take up the H-1B bill with five amendments on a side with an hour limit on each amendment, period. We would be done in a day. I believe we could do it in a day. The other side has rejected this offer. Don't let anybody say with a straight face or with any credibility that it is Democrats holding things up. Let's get to these bills. Let's get them done. Let's offer amendments. But, for heaven's sake, let's remember this institution. Let's call it the most deliberative body and mean it. Let's recognize the institutional quality. It degrades us each time something such as this happens. I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join today with Senator Moynihan and many of our colleagues in introducing the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 2000 (BBRA-2000). The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) made some justified changes in Medicare payment policy and contributed to our current budget surpluses. It also included important provisions to improve seniors' access to preventive benefits, and it created the Children's Health Insurance Program. These are important accomplishments. But some of the policies enacted in the BBA cut providers significantly more than expected. This has created severe problems for health care providers all over the country. Last year, we took steps to correct these problems. But we did not go far enough. When I met with hospital administrators in South Dakota earlier this summer, one told me that since the cuts from the BBA were implemented, his hospital has been just barely breaking even. Usually, that alone would be cause for concern. But then other hospital administrators told me they were jealous, because they are far from breaking even. In my state, the operating margins for hospitals with 50 or fewer beds were a relatively healthy 2 percent before the BBA. Last year, these small hospitals--which are so vital to their communities--had negative margins of 6 percent. Hospitals are not the only health care providers facing this problem. Home health agencies, nursing homes, hospices, and many other providers are all struggling to make ends meet in the face of deeper-than- expected cuts. The package of payment adjustments that Senate Democrats are introducing today will provide a much-needed boost to these providers-- totaling $80 billion over 10 years. This will ensure that Medicare beneficiaries continue to have access to the care that we have promised them. The bill has many provisions, but I would like to highlight a few. For hospitals, BBRA-2000 would restore the full inflation update. It would also improve payments for Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) and teaching hospitals, who provide essential care for some of the neediest patients. Our bill repeals the 15 percent cut in home health, and delays adding medical supplies to the home health prospective payment system (PPS). These fixes are essential to an industry that has seen an unprecedented drop in spending. For skilled nursing facilities we would restore the full inflation update, with an additional two percent increase in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. We would also delay therapy caps for two additional years so that beneficiaries do not face an arbitrary limit on the amount of care they can receive. Although the cost of providing care at the end of life has risen dramatically, the base for hospice payments has not been changed since 1989. The bill restores the full inflation update for hospice providers, and provides a ten percent upward adjustment in hospice base rates. We are committed to ensuring that appropriate payments are made to Medicare+Choice plans. BBRA-2000 increases the growth rate in payments to these plans and allows plans to move to a 50-50 national blend one year earlier. The bill also improves payment for ambulance providers, medical equipment suppliers, and dialysis facilities, who all provide important services to Medicare beneficiaries. We recognize the special circumstances of rural health care providers in our bill. The rural health provisions include increasing payments for small rural hospitals, rural home health agencies, and rural ambulance providers. There are other steps we need to take to improve beneficiaries' access to care. The bill we are introducing today includes a package of refinements to Medicare that directly help beneficiaries. For example, the bill will build on provisions in the BBA to lower beneficiary copayments and expand preventive benefits in Medicare. We also provide for increased access to health care through improvements to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. These include changes to the BBA, such as improving state processes for enrolling people who are eligible for Medicaid and CHIP. We also make changes to the health-related provisions of immigration and welfare reform legislation that passed in 1996. For example, the bill would extend assistance to people who leave welfare for work. Senate Democrats continue to believe that passage of an affordable, voluntary, meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit is of highest priority. This bill, the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 2000, is the next step in ensuring that beneficiaries have access to the care they need. I want to thank Senator Moynihan and his staff for their hard work putting this bill together. They have spent the last two months listening to health care providers, beneficiaries, community leaders, and members of our caucus. Through that listening process they have drafted a bill that addresses the needs of the many communities that are struggling to deal with the impact of the Balanced Budget Act. We know the problems providers are facing in health care. And we know how to fix many of them. The bill we are introducing today is a comprehensive plan to ensure the stability that health care providers need and that beneficiaries depend on. We must take this opportunity to act, before it is too late to save some of the providers who are so close to closing their doors.