Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me say with enthusiasm how completely this Senator agrees with the statement made by the majority leader. Ted Stevens is one who is admired, I say even loved, by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We have worked with him; we have admired his work; we have seen on so many occasions he has effectively led not only the Appropriations Committee but the Senate itself in bringing together the kind of consensus, the kind of compromises, for successful legislative action. We all joke about his temperament. We sometimes say it is hard to understand how a guy from so cold a State could be so hot under the collar. I have to say, as Senator Lott has noted, he is quick to respond and quick to find ways with which to overcome his frustrations, as we all face them and deal with them on both sides of the aisle. Alaskans have every right to be proud. They have every reason to nominate and name this individual as Alaskan of the Year. Indeed, he is an Alaskan of the Century. We are proud to work with him, proud to call him a colleague, proud in this case to call him our chairman, and proud of the fact that Alaskans recognize him for the unique talents and the unique dedication and the unique leadership that he provides not only his State as an Alaskan, but his country as a Senator. I congratulate him on this special occasion. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the majority leader. Senator Lugar, in the committee as well as on the floor, demonstrated once again why he is admired on both sides of the aisle as a leader in agriculture. This was not easy for him, beginning last year. He maneuvered the committee and brought the Senate to a point where we successfully completed our work. I congratulate the Senator, and especially I congratulate Senators Roberts, Kerrey, Conrad, and others who had a role to play in bringing the Senate to this point. Our thanks to all Senators for their cooperation. I am grateful for the opportunity to have completed this work.

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Missouri River is one of our nation's greatest natural resources. Millions of visitors travel to the river each year to hunt, camp and fish. Millions more Americans rely on the Missouri's federal dams for affordable electricity. And, tens of thousands of South Dakotans depend upon the river as their only source of clean drinking water. The river is rich in history. For thousands of years, Native Americans have lived along the river, and countless sites of deep spiritual and cultural importance to tribes line its shores. The river was also part of the route used by Lewis and Clark as they explored our nation. As we approach the bicentennial of that journey, it is expected that millions of Americans will visit the Missouri River to retrace their steps. Because the river is so important to the economy of our nation and to its heritage, it is critical that we meet head-on the growing array of challenges that it is facing. That is why I am introducing the Missouri River Restoration Act of 2000. This legislation will provide critically needed resources to ensure that future generations will continue to benefit from the river as we do today. I am deeply concerned by the dramatic changes that we have witnessed since the construction of four federal dams on the river in South Dakota decades ago. These dams, which have prevented billions of dollars of flood-related damage downstream to cities like St. Louis, have altered the natural flow of the river. Sediment that used to be carried downstream, giving the river its nickname of ``Big Muddy,'' is now being deposited in South Dakota's reservoirs, Lake Oahe, Lake Sharpe, Lake Francis Case and Lewis and Clark Lake. The siltation of the river is having a dramatic impact. In the cities of Pierre and Ft. Pierre, it has raised the water table and flooded shoreline homes. Already, Congress has had to authorize a $35 million project to relocate hundreds of affected families, and the Corps of Engineers has been forced to curtail the generation of electricity at Oahe dam in the wintertime to prevent additional flooding. In the town of Springfield, the economy has suffered a decline in tourism because few boaters can navigate the tons of silt that have clogged the river. The problem will only grow more serious in the future. Each year, the river's tributaries deliver more than 40 million tons of sediment to the reservoirs. It is estimated that in less than 75 years, Lewis and Clark lake--the smallest of the reservoirs--will fill with sediment completely. The lake, and the development and recreation the lake has created for cities like Springfield and Yankton, will disappear altogether. The economic impact of these changes on South Dakota would be very serious. Currently, visitors to counties bordering the Missouri River spend over $85 million each year. Anglers spend over $200 million in the state, and support more than 5,400 jobs. The loss of the Missouri's fisheries to sedimentation and the decline in the number of visitors to the river would have grave economic consequences. Furthermore, limitations imposed on electrical generation and flood control caused by sedimentation will have a dramatic impact in states throughout our region, as electricity prices and damages from flooding increase. In addition to the problems caused by the siltation of the river, the river has faced a growing amount of erosion. While erosion is natural on all rivers, its pace has picked up on the Missouri due to the operation of the dams. Erosion has destroyed thousands of acres of farmland and is a serious threat to irreplaceable sites of spiritual importance to Indian tribes. Thousands of sites, ranging from burial grounds to campsites, are found up and down the Missouri River in South Dakota. It is unacceptable to let them wash away into the river. We must respect all those who came before us, and preserve this part of our nation's heritage. Last January, Governor Bill Janklow, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Chairman Mike Jandreau and I hosted a Missouri River Summit in the city of Springfield to bring together the best minds in the state to find a solution to these pressing problems. Over 400 South Dakotans attended this meeting and provided their thoughts and ideas. Virtually all those in attendance agreed that there is a critical need for more resources to improve conservation, to stop erosion and to help communities better utilize the river. The Missouri River Restoration Act of 2000 will help us to meet these goals as soon as possible. This legislation, which I have developed in consultation with Governor Janklow of South Dakota, Chairman Jandreau and other state leaders, would establish a $200 million federal trust fund to provide the resources necessary to address the critical needs of the Missouri River watershed. Of these funds, 30 percent would be set aside for projects in Indian reservations or administered by Indian tribes. Trust fund revenues would be administered by a 25-member ``Missouri River Trust'' composed of all the river's major stakeholders. Each of South Dakota's nine Indian tribes would appoint one member, as would the Three Affiliated Tribes of North Dakota. The remainder would be appointed by the Governor, and must equally represent environmental, agricultural, hydropower and other river interests. In consultation with appropriate federal agencies, the Trust must develop a plan for the use of trust fund revenues that will reduce the siltation of the river by improving conservation in fragile riparian lands, better protect Indian cultural and historical sites, reduce erosion and improve our ability to recreate on the river. It will also be responsible for reviewing grant proposals to meet these goals. Funding decisions would be made by a 5-member Executive Committee. To ensure that its decisions are balanced and represent the best interests of the state, the Executive Committee must be composed of members representing tribal, hydropower, agricultural, environmental and state government interests. By establishing a trust fund and administrating board that effectively represents all stakeholders, we can provide South Dakota with the tools it needs to preserve the Missouri River for generations to come. I hope my colleagues will give this important legislation their support. I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Missouri River is one of our nation's greatest natural resources. Millions of visitors travel to the river each year to hunt, camp and fish. Millions more Americans rely on the Missouri's federal dams for affordable electricity. And, tens of thousands of South Dakotans depend upon the river as their only source of clean drinking water. The river is rich in history. For thousands of years, Native Americans have lived along the river, and countless sites of deep spiritual and cultural importance to tribes line its shores. The river was also part of the route used by Lewis and Clark as they explored our nation. As we approach the bicentennial of that journey, it is expected that millions of Americans will visit the Missouri River to retrace their steps. Because the river is so important to the economy of our nation and to its heritage, it is critical that we meet head-on the growing array of challenges that it is facing. That is why I am introducing the Missouri River Restoration Act of 2000. This legislation will provide critically needed resources to ensure that future generations will continue to benefit from the river as we do today. I am deeply concerned by the dramatic changes that we have witnessed since the construction of four federal dams on the river in South Dakota decades ago. These dams, which have prevented billions of dollars of flood-related damage downstream to cities like St. Louis, have altered the natural flow of the river. Sediment that used to be carried downstream, giving the river its nickname of ``Big Muddy,'' is now being deposited in South Dakota's reservoirs, Lake Oahe, Lake Sharpe, Lake Francis Case and Lewis and Clark Lake. The siltation of the river is having a dramatic impact. In the cities of Pierre and Ft. Pierre, it has raised the water table and flooded shoreline homes. Already, Congress has had to authorize a $35 million project to relocate hundreds of affected families, and the Corps of Engineers has been forced to curtail the generation of electricity at Oahe dam in the wintertime to prevent additional flooding. In the town of Springfield, the economy has suffered a decline in tourism because few boaters can navigate the tons of silt that have clogged the river. The problem will only grow more serious in the future. Each year, the river's tributaries deliver more than 40 million tons of sediment to the reservoirs. It is estimated that in less than 75 years, Lewis and Clark lake--the smallest of the reservoirs--will fill with sediment completely. The lake, and the development and recreation the lake has created for cities like Springfield and Yankton, will disappear altogether. The economic impact of these changes on South Dakota would be very serious. Currently, visitors to counties bordering the Missouri River spend over $85 million each year. Anglers spend over $200 million in the state, and support more than 5,400 jobs. The loss of the Missouri's fisheries to sedimentation and the decline in the number of visitors to the river would have grave economic consequences. Furthermore, limitations imposed on electrical generation and flood control caused by sedimentation will have a dramatic impact in states throughout our region, as electricity prices and damages from flooding increase. In addition to the problems caused by the siltation of the river, the river has faced a growing amount of erosion. While erosion is natural on all rivers, its pace has picked up on the Missouri due to the operation of the dams. Erosion has destroyed thousands of acres of farmland and is a serious threat to irreplaceable sites of spiritual importance to Indian tribes. Thousands of sites, ranging from burial grounds to campsites, are found up and down the Missouri River in South Dakota. It is unacceptable to let them wash away into the river. We must respect all those who came before us, and preserve this part of our nation's heritage. Last January, Governor Bill Janklow, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Chairman Mike Jandreau and I hosted a Missouri River Summit in the city of Springfield to bring together the best minds in the state to find a solution to these pressing problems. Over 400 South Dakotans attended this meeting and provided their thoughts and ideas. Virtually all those in attendance agreed that there is a critical need for more resources to improve conservation, to stop erosion and to help communities better utilize the river. The Missouri River Restoration Act of 2000 will help us to meet these goals as soon as possible. This legislation, which I have developed in consultation with Governor Janklow of South Dakota, Chairman Jandreau and other state leaders, would establish a $200 million federal trust fund to provide the resources necessary to address the critical needs of the Missouri River watershed. Of these funds, 30 percent would be set aside for projects in Indian reservations or administered by Indian tribes. Trust fund revenues would be administered by a 25-member ``Missouri River Trust'' composed of all the river's major stakeholders. Each of South Dakota's nine Indian tribes would appoint one member, as would the Three Affiliated Tribes of North Dakota. The remainder would be appointed by the Governor, and must equally represent environmental, agricultural, hydropower and other river interests. In consultation with appropriate federal agencies, the Trust must develop a plan for the use of trust fund revenues that will reduce the siltation of the river by improving conservation in fragile riparian lands, better protect Indian cultural and historical sites, reduce erosion and improve our ability to recreate on the river. It will also be responsible for reviewing grant proposals to meet these goals. Funding decisions would be made by a 5-member Executive Committee. To ensure that its decisions are balanced and represent the best interests of the state, the Executive Committee must be composed of members representing tribal, hydropower, agricultural, environmental and state government interests. By establishing a trust fund and administrating board that effectively represents all stakeholders, we can provide South Dakota with the tools it needs to preserve the Missouri River for generations to come. I hope my colleagues will give this important legislation their support. I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am not aware of any effort on the part of Senators on this side to renew debate and start all over. As I said, I am more than willing and prepared to go to conference and to support efforts parliamentarily to ensure we are successful in going to conference. I understand there are some strong feelings by a very distinct minority of the minority. It is their right, and certainly I respect their right to object. But there are other ways to deal with the issue, and I am prepared to find ways.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the interest of the majority leader in moving this legislation along. I recall how long it was that we had to wait even to go to conference because of amendments that were outstanding. If I recall, we had to wait months, really, to accommodate, in fact, in this case, the majority; they wanted to offer some specific amendments that they were not interested in voting on until we got back from the first session of the Congress. So this has been languishing for a long time in large measure because some on the majority side were not interested in expediting consideration of this legislation. We clamored for conference last year and were unsuccessful in getting the conferees appointed last year. Now the majority leader, understandably, is frustrated and concerned for the lack of progress. That is understandable. There should not be any question that the overwhelming majority of the Senate wants to move to finish this legislation as soon as possible. It is what we clamored for last year, and it is what we have been trying to get this year. I hope there will be some degree of cooperation and communication with regard to how we proceed. I look forward to talking more comprehensively about my suggestion. It seems to me that going to the conference with the bankruptcy bill, as he has proposed, would make sense. Going to the conference on minimum wage would make sense if we had the opportunity, once again, to express ourselves on it, since we haven't been able to do that independent of the bankruptcy debate. If we are going to have a separate minimum wage conference, there ought to be a separate consideration, at least on the motion to instruct conferees. We could agree that it would not be amendable, that it would be expedited and not delayed, but simply a vote would make a lot of sense, it seems to me. I am prepared to talk with the majority leader at greater length. We all recall how long it took to even get the bill completed, and that was in large measure because we weren't able to complete it as a result of concerns expressed by the majority. We have now completed it. We now want to move on to the second phase of it. I want to work with the majority leader to see that it happens.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object. If I could just explain for a moment, we have been working closely with a number of our colleagues, I understand, on a bipartisan basis from the Northeast who want to be able to offer an amendment. I know at least in some cases they haven't had the opportunity to see the bill until yesterday. So they have asked for our indulgence in working with them to see if we can accommodate their needs. I have indicated a willingness to do that. I noted to Senator Lott just a few minutes ago that we are close to reaching a procedural arrangement whereby that could be done. I am hopeful that we will be able to get that agreement sometime shortly. I have no objection to proceeding to the bill. We could certainly do that. Earlier, a suggestion was made and a unanimous consent request I think was offered which would allow us to go to the bill for general debate only. As I understand it, that was objected to. But whether we go to the bill without an agreement or go to the bill and seek a unanimous consent that would allow for a general debate, either of those approaches would work. I hope that by the end of the day we can get a unanimous consent agreement that would spell out in more detail, as perhaps the chairman has suggested, an amendment list. As I said, we are close. I certainly have no objection myself to moving forward, as he has suggested. I want to accommodate Senators who have been working in good faith to try to find a way in which to amend the bill, and they should be prepared to do that before the end of the day. I will object at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not, let me thank all Senators for their cooperation and for their willingness to work with the leadership to accommodate the many concerns that have existed on both sides. Let me say briefly, however, for the record, this is yet another example of the minority again cooperating with the majority and denying ourselves the right to offer nonrelevant amendments first, that is nonagricultural amendments, or any other amendments that are nonrelevant, and limiting ourselves to relevant amendments to this particular bill. We are doing it as a result of the urgency that I think everyone understands about this matter, and we are doing it in an effort to try to accelerate consideration of this bill and also ultimately come to a conclusion. It is an abrogation of the rights of all Senators to again be asked that they preclude the consideration of any nonrelevant amendments. We will do it again in this case. But I think that, at some point, the Senate has to be the Senate, where Senators have the right to offer amendments regardless of subject matter. Again, in this case, I appreciate the cooperation of everybody. I hope we don't continue in the Senate what I think is a dangerous pattern--that we limit Senators in such a narrow way, as we are doing in this case. We are doing it for good reason, but I hope we can find ways in which to allow Senators to express themselves and be full participants in debate on other matters and other vehicles. I certainly don't object. I commend the chairman for getting this agreement.

Mr. DASCHLE. I have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask if the amendment is relevant.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. In this time of instant millionaires, it's easy to close our eyes to the fact that people, particularly children, go hungry in this country. But hunger is a fact and it's a national tragedy. It's particularly troubling that many working families find themselves short of food. When Congress enacted welfare reform in 1996, we worked to ensure that families would have the support they need to get off welfare. Food stamps are a critical part of that support. Yet food stamp enrollment has declined more rapidly than the poverty data would suggest is warranted. The policies we are talking about today are urgently needed to reduce hunger in this country, particularly in working families that need extra help as they work to become self-sufficient. I commend the Senators who have spoken today for their efforts to address the serious problem of hunger in America. A number of us met recently with Secretary Glickman to discuss this issue. I look forward to working with them to enact hunger relief legislation this year and urge the Budget Committee to reserve $2.5 billion for this effort.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the farmers and ranchers of this country have been struggling with terrible economic conditions over the past three years. They have seen their prices collapse and remain at, or in many cases below, the cost of production. Not only have farmers in my state and across the country endured these low prices, they have also been subject to the unpredictable forces of droughts, floods and crop disease. We have before us a bill that will help farmers and ranchers survive these bad times and manage production risks. S. 2251, the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act, is a comprehensive approach to reforming and improving crop insurance for producers across the country. It will make the federal crop insurance program more affordable and effective. Currently, the government provides subsidies for multi-peril crop insurance, but subsidies are progressively less at higher levels of coverage. This aspect of the crop insurance program often has the effect of restricting farmers from investing in the most efficient levels of coverage for their farms. This bill inverts this subsidy, so the higher levels of coverage are subsidized at the highest levels. This makes meaningful and comprehensive coverage much more affordable to farmers in this country who rely on the program to manage their production risks. This bill also addresses another issue of critical importance to farmers in South Dakota and nationwide. Many parts of the country have suffered devastating crop losses for several years in a row. As disastrous conditions persist, farmers' eligibility under the current crop insurance program decreases--the opposite of what common sense would dictate. This bill enables producers to protect and sustain their crop insurance eligibility so that crop insurance remains an economically viable option for them for the long term. This legislation also authorizes the Risk Management Agency (RMA) to develop insurance products on a pilot basis for livestock producers. For too long, we have excluded our cattle ranchers, hog producers, and other livestock producers from federal agriculture programs, including crop--or perhaps we should say ``commodity''--insurance. This bill expands the flexibility of the program in this way so that more producers can benefit from this important investment. This legislation also provides great benefits for producers of specialty crops. It improves catastrophic loss insurance coverage by increasing the access specialty crop farmers have to quality crop insurance policies. Current crop insurance policies do not cover the unique characteristics associated with the planting, growing, and harvesting of specialty crops. This bill will promote specialty crop producer participation in the federal crop insurance program, encourage higher levels of coverage than provided by catastrophic insurance, and enable those producers to make better planning and marketing decisions. Furthermore, the bill requires that at least fifty percent of the funds dedicated to research and development for new crop insurance products are focused on specialty crop product development. This legislation also specifically provides funds to the RMA to enter into public and private partnerships to develop specialty crop insurance policies, and authorizes funds for pilot programs that would be conducted at the state, regional, and national levels. Finally, this bill eliminates the area trigger for the non-insured assistance program, making any grower whose crop is uninsurable and who experiences a federally-declared disaster eligible for disaster funds. Some have shared a concern that this crop insurance plan does not adequately address the range of problems across the country. They should be assured that this bill was written with the input and support of lawmakers, farmers, and agricultural organizations from all regions of the country. The crop insurance program has grown in popularity over the last several years. This bill will significantly improve an already important and successful program. Effective and affordable crop insurance is a vital part of an improved safety net that farmers and ranchers need to protect themselves from production risks, and to survive and succeed this year and in years to come. But make no mistake. Passage of this bill is only one part of our overall effort to improve farm policy. We must consider the many other ways in which our current policies have contributed to the poor economic conditions plaguing our farmers and ranchers. I look forward to that debate.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the time is right to repeal the Social Security earnings test. I ask my colleagues to join with me today in support of the passage of H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 1999. We all know that reaching retirement age does not necessarily mean a person is ready to retire. It is good news that Americans are now living longer and healthier lives, and I believe that the Social Security system should not penalize those who want to work longer. I understand that many older workers choose to remain in the workforce because they need additional income or have no desire to stop working. I fully support this choice, and I believe that no one should face financial penalties for that personal decision. In South Dakota this year, 2000 people have seen their Social Security benefits reduced because they chose to continue working when they reached the age of 65. All told, Social Security withheld about $8 million in Social Security payments last year from those South Dakotans. That works out to a loss of about $4000 in Social Security benefits for each of those 2000 South Dakotans. That is not right. Let's not penalize them for staying in the work force to achieve a better standard of living. I know many Americans over 65 in my state who could use that money to pay for health insurance, prescription drugs, and electric bills. H.R. 5 will not only help these 2000 workers who are not receiving their Social Security benefits, but also encourage those who want to work, but are not doing so now because they fear the earnings limit would consume most or all of their earned benefits. As baby boomers begin to retire, it is especially important that these older Americans who want to work be encouraged to do so. Our nation is celebrating record low unemployment. Let us seize this opportunity to recognize the skills, knowledge, and experience that people over 65 have to offer. I am pleased that Congress is on the verge of removing the earnings limit to encourage citizens in my state and across the country to continue making an important contribution to the American economy. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to build on the momentum created by this bipartisan bill to work toward Social Security reform. We can pass legislation this year that will extend the solvency of Social Security for 50 years by using the interest savings earned by paying down the debt. We should take that simple step this year on a bipartisan basis, just as we are passing this bill today.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the majority leader's effort to try to move this legislation along. This bill, the bankruptcy bill, passed the Senate with more than 80 votes. Whether or not we get unanimous consent is not relevant. What is relevant is that we get these two pieces of legislation successfully completed in a timely manner. If we are not able to get unanimous consent, I intend to support finding a way to assure that we do go to conference both on the bankruptcy bill and the minimum wage. I am hopeful we can instruct the conferees with regard to minimum wage. It would be my hope, at least, that the Senate could express itself in regard to the issue on minimum wage prior to the time we go to conference. But if we could accommodate that request, that we have at least an opportunity to express ourselves on the conference itself, then I would certainly be supportive of moving on a motion to proceed to two conferences--one on bankruptcy and one on minimum wage. The distinguished Senator from Vermont, and others, Senator Torricelli, Senator Durbin, and others, have done an extraordinary job in getting us to this point. We have a much better bill, a stronger bill, in the Senate on bankruptcy than we do in the House. I hope we can take what we have been able to accomplish in the Senate and bring our House colleagues to the realization that that is the kind of legislation that will be signed into law. On the minimum wage, the House version, at least in terms of the 2- year approach, is the one the President said he will support. It enjoys strong support in the Senate as well. We are concerned about the size and magnitude of the tax provisions. If we could target those, we would be in good shape on that as well. I understand the majority leader's interest in moving this. We want to be supportive in that regard; most of us do. I am hopeful we can accomplish it through a unanimous consent request.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time and allocate that time to my comments on the floor this morning. Let me begin by acknowledging, as well, the extraordinary leadership, not only of Senator Reed, but of Senator Boxer. Everything Senator Boxer has said about Senator Reed is a view that I think is shared by Republicans and Democrats alike. He has come to the Senate and in a very short period of time established himself as an authority on a number of key issues, including education and defense matters, as well as now, on neighborhood safety. I applaud him again for taking the leadership, as he has. Senator Boxer, on this, as well as on so many other issues, comes to the floor, grinds it out, and speaks as passionately and as eloquently as anybody in this Chamber. It is an extraordinary privilege to work with her as well. I have heard the proposal made by the Senator from Rhode Island that we set for ourselves a date by which we must act with respect to juvenile safety, and that we choose a date that we all ought to remember--April 20th. Last year, that date, the date of the Columbine tragedy, triggered our commitment to better safety and prompted the Senate to act. We left with an expectation that, as a result of that action in the Senate, things were going to happen, that we could send a message of hope to the people of Colorado and to the people of this Nation that we will not tolerate the violence that exists in this country. We sent the message that we will respond to tragedy with careful, commonsense approaches that will make schools and neighborhoods safer, such as balanced gun legislation. That is what we said and that is how we voted. We are on record as having supported such commonsense legislation. In poll after poll, it is remarkable the degree to which the American people support the actions taken by the Senate and the amendments offered by our Democratic colleagues. It is overwhelming. There has been a sea change, an attitudinal progression on this issue in the country--a sea change. I represent a Western State where, after you are born, on your first or second birthday, virtually, you get a shotgun--because that is what we do. I am proud I have shotguns. I love to go hunting. I love to walk and take in nature in all of its splendor in the fall. That is part of the culture of the West. It is a part of the culture of growing up in South Dakota of which I am very proud and I love. I will defend it, and I will work to ensure that my children and grandchildren and great grandchildren have these same experiences. But there is a difference. That difference is becoming even more extraordinarily evident as we read about experiences such as we read this morning in the Washington Post, an agonizing description of what kind of setting created this despicable act in Michigan. A young boy, 6 years old, takes a gun, walks into a school full of children, his school, picks out a girl, says, ``I don't like you,'' and shoots her to death. That story generated a front page article and a spread, inside the paper, of two full pages--and it should have. Why? Because this incident illustrates the magnitude of the torturous existence that now is becoming more and more prevalent all across this country in schools and in neighborhoods. But you could put that kind of story on the front page of the Washington Post every single day. It happened in Michigan, but it happened yesterday somewhere else. It happened in Rhode Island shortly after that. It happens every day. Those of us who appreciate the culture of a good pheasant hunt recognize there is a huge difference between that and the disastrous consequences of this proliferation of guns that now has become a real threat to the safety and well-being of children in virtually every school in America today. All the Senator from Rhode Island is suggesting is that at long last we say: Look, we've talked enough. Let's act. We took the first step last May. We expected that we would take additional steps. We have not. We have talked. We have positioned. We have wrung our hands in agony as one shooting after another has been pasted on the pages of every single newspaper in the country. The litany of additional Columbines has continued all across the country. These new shootings may not have claimed as many lives. But they are tragedies nonetheless. They ought to trigger action. Let us act. Let us meet in conference and work through our differences so that we can finally say: We are not only going to talk about this. We are going to do something about it. We recognize that passing the modest gun safety measures in the Juvenile Justice report will not completely solve the problem of gun violence. There may be other things that can be done. I am very grateful to HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, and others in the administration, for having worked out a remarkable and historic new agreement with Smith & Wesson. What a statement: for Smith & Wesson to acknowledge that guns are inherently dangerous, and that they are going to do something about it. Regardless of what their motivation may be, the fact is, they are going to do something about it. In making this commitment, they are setting a precedent. I would love to see every gun manufacturer follow Smith & Wesson's lead. It is common sense. I have long admired President Ford, for many reasons. My admiration for him increased again this past week when he spoke about the need for this Congress to respond in a commonsense way to the gun violence that is claiming too many of our children. The American people are looking to us. They want to know that we hear them. They want us to give them some hope that we can solve the real problems facing families and communities--not only in Columbine, but in South Dakota, Michigan, Rhode Island, California, and all across America. The American people want to know that our democratic process works. In these days before the first anniversary of the Columbine tragedy, we ought to take President Ford's wise counsel to heart. For the sake of our children, we need to come together and pass common-sense gun safety laws. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time so as not to take time of either side. I want to add my voice especially to those of the distinguished senior Senator from Vermont and the Senator from California, who have spoken so eloquently on this matter for what seems to be several days. I want to make three points. I think the most disconcerting aspect of this debate, for those who may be watching, is the concern that I would have, having heard many of our colleagues express their virtual desire to influence the Ninth Circuit and the decisions made there. Our Founding Fathers did an extraordinary job of creating the checks and balances in our constitutional system. As I travel around the world and talk to leaders from other parts of the world, who have not enjoyed that delicate balance between the judiciary, the executive, and legislative branches, the lament I hear all around the world is: We don't have an independent judiciary. We have a politicized judiciary. Because it is politicized, we don't have the rule of law. Because we don't have the rule of law, we don't have the predictability in law that creates the extraordinary stability that you have in your country. These leaders tell me: We want the rule of law, and we recognize that if we are ever going to acquire it, what we have to do is to depoliticize our judiciary, and we have to ensure that we do what you have done--respect its independence. There is a huge difference between voting against somebody's philosophy or experience or qualifications based upon past judgments in a particular trial--and Senators have every right to do so on the basis of whatever qualifications they may choose. All of those criteria, it seems to me, are fair game. But if we are saying we ought to vote against someone, or for someone, because we want to influence the direction of a certain circuit, I think we get precariously close to creating the kind of politicization of the judiciary that, to me, is frightening. We need to be very, very careful. For 200 years, we have been able to maintain that independence and discipline it takes to ensure the rule of law will always prevail. I hope as we cast our votes, people will cast them based upon whether they think Judge Paez and Marsha Berzon are capable--whether they have the right qualifications. And, frankly, if they want to throw in philosophy, so be it. But let us not say this ought to be some judgment on the Ninth Circuit. Let us not say that somehow we want to send a message to the Ninth Circuit or any circuit, for that matter. That is not our role. That is not our responsibility. In the Constitution, the Founding Fathers had no design, no possible thought that we as Senators ought to be influencing in any way decisions made by the court, an independent and coequal branch of government. That is my first point. My second point is that I believe there is a time and a place for us to consider any nominee and, once having done so, we need to get on with it. I cannot imagine that anybody could justify, anybody could rationalize, anybody could explain why, in the name of public service, we would put anyone through the misery and the extraordinary anguish that these two nominees have had to face for years. Why would anyone ever offer themselves for public service if they knew what they had to go through was what these two people have had to experience and endure? I do not know who is going to be President next. I do not know who is going to be in the majority in the next Congress. But let's just assume that the roles are reversed and we, the Democrats, are in the majority and we have a Republican President--which I do not think is going to happen. If that happens, do we really want to wait 4 years to take up a Republican nominee? Do we want to pay back our colleagues for having made these people wait as long as they have? I know that I have heard from people over the last several months: that we should do to them what they have done to us. But, I do not want to hear about that in this body. There is going to be no payback. We are not going to do to Republican nominees, whenever that happens, what they have done to Democratic nominees. Why? Because it is not right. Will we differ? Absolutely. Will we have votes and vote against nominees on the basis of whatever we choose? Absolutely. But are we going to make them wait for years and years to get their fair opportunity to be voted on and considered? Absolutely not. That is not right. I do not care who is in charge. I do not care which President is making the nomination. That is not right. I hope somehow the nominations that are still pending will not be subjected to the same extraordinary, unfair process to which these nominees were subjected. We have 34 nominees pending. There is no reason why every single one of them cannot be confirmed or at least considered in the next few months. The last point I will make is one I have made a couple of times before, but it bears repeating. This has been a very difficult process for a lot of people, and there are a lot of people who deserve some credit. I have already cited the extraordinary contribution of the senior Senator from Vermont, our ranking Judiciary Committee member. I have already noted the efforts made by the California delegation, especially Senator Boxer. Senator Hatch is here. I note his cooperation and the effort he has made in getting us to this point. I thank the majority leader. He and I have talked about this on several occasions, and it is never easy when you have dissent within your own caucus to make decisions. He made a commitment last year, and he held to that commitment this year. He said we would have these votes, up or down, on the confirmation of these two judicial nominees before the 15th of March, and we are going to do that. I publicly thank him and commend him for holding to that commitment. It is not easy. He has done a difficult thing, but he has done it. I hope today we can celebrate not only the confirmation of two judges, but renewed comity between our parties when it comes to all nominees--regardless of party, regardless of administration, and regardless of who controls the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, among the constitutional responsibilities entrusted to the Senate, none is more critical to the well-being of our democracy than providing advice and consent on Presidential nominations. Later on today, we take up that solemn responsibility in connection with two very distinguished judicial nominees, Marsha Berzon and Judge Richard Paez. Let me commend the majority leader for his commitment to the Senate, and to these nominees, that we would take up these nominees for consideration and ultimately for a vote on confirmation before the 15th of March. We would not be here were it not for the fact that he persisted and that he was willing to hold to the commitment he made to us last year. Both nominees have waited an extraordinarily long time for this consideration. Marsha Berzon, a nominee for the Ninth Circuit, has been kept waiting for a vote more than 2 years. Judge Paez, another Ninth Circuit nominee, has waited for more than 4 years. That is longer than any Federal court nominee in history--a statistic that should shame the Senate. Judge Paez and Ms. Berzon are both exceptional legal minds and remarkable people. But before I discuss their qualifications, I wish to say something about the context in which these nominations are being considered. Since the 106th Congress convened in January, the President has nominated 79 men and women to fill the vacancies on the Federal bench. Without exception, these nominees have come to us with the highest marks from their peers. Yet of the 79 nominees, only 34--fewer than half--were confirmed last year, and only 4 have been confirmed so far this year. Looking at those figures, one might assume we have no pressing need for Federal judges. In fact, just the opposite is true. Today, there are 76 vacancies on the Federal bench. Of those 76 vacancies, 29 have been empty so long they are officially classified as ``judicial emergencies.'' The failure to fill these vacancies is straining our Federal court system and delaying justice for people all across this country. This cannot continue. As Chief Justice Rehnquist warns, ``Judicial vacancies cannot remain at such high levels indefinitely without eroding the quality of justice.'' The Ninth Circuit court, to which both Judge Paez and Marsha Berzon have been nominated, is also one of our Nation's busiest courts. It has also been hardest hit by our neglect. More than 20 percent of the Ninth Circuit bench is vacant. This is a court that serves almost 20 percent of the United States. Procter Hug, the Chief Justice of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, was appointed in 1980 when the court had 23 active judges and a caseload of 3,000 appeals. Today, with six vacancies, the Ninth Circuit has 22 active judges to hear more than 9,000 appeals. They have one fewer judge today than they had 20 years ago--with 300 percent more cases. So I thank my colleagues for finally coming together to address this urgent question. The failure to fill Federal court vacancies harms plaintiffs and defendants alike. Both are forced to wait too long for justice. The failure to fill Federal court vacancies also imposes heavy and unjustifiable burdens on judicial nominees and their families. Can any of us imagine what it would be like to be kept waiting more than 4 years, as Judge Paez has? What would it be like to be unable to make personal or professional plans for 4 years? I have met Judge Paez, and I have to tell you, I am amazed by the dignity and grace he has exhibited during this ordeal. Perhaps that is not surprising, though, from a man lawyers routinely rate as exceptional in both his judicial temperament and his command of legal doctrine. For a long time, those who opposed Marsha Berzon and Judge Paez would not say why. Now some of them say the problem isn't with the nominees, the problem is with the court itself. The Ninth Circuit, they claim, is a ``rogue'' circuit. They claim the Ninth Circuit's reversal rate by the Supreme Court is too high. They argue, therefore, that we should refuse to confirm anymore Ninth Circuit judges. We should just let the vacancies go unfilled. The fact is, the Eleventh, Seventh, and Fifth Circuits all have a higher rate of reversal than the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit is completely within the mainstream of prevailing judicial opinion. Even if that were not the case, this Senate has no right to attempt to punish the citizens who rely on the Ninth Circuit in this manner. Nor do we have the right to try to influence the independence of the court in this way. That is unconstitutional. Our responsibility under the Constitution is to vote on whether to confirm judges. It is not our responsibility, and it is not our right, to try to influence or intimidate judges after they are confirmed. As we consider the nominations of Judge Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon, let us remember that these votes are not a referendum on the Ninth Circuit, or on President Clinton. And they should not be about partisan politics. These votes are about two people. Two distinguished and inspiring Americans who are eminently qualified for the bench. Richard Paez has been a judge for 18 years. He is the first Mexican- American ever to serve as a federal district judge in Los Angeles. He was confirmed by this body in 1994; that vote was unanimous. Judge Paez has received the highest rating the American Bar Association gives for federal judicial nominees. He has worked for the public good throughout his career, working first as a legal aid lawyer, and then, for 13 years, as a Los Angeles Municipal Court judge. In his current position, as a United States District Judge, Judge Paez has presided over a wide variety of complex civil and criminal cases. For his work, he has garnered bipartisan support, and the support of such law enforcement organizations as the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs' Association and the National Association of Police Organizations. Time and again, on the bench he has demonstrated the qualities that are essential to a strong and respected judicial system--wisdom, courage, and compassion. We need judges like Richard Paez on the bench. Without public servants like him, this system fails. Marsha Berzon is equally qualified. She is a nationally known and extremely well regarded appellate litigator with a highly respected San Francisco law firm. She is also a former clerk for the United States Supreme Court. She has served as a visiting professor at both Cornell Law School and Indiana University Law School. She is a widely recognized expert in the field of employment law--an area of the law that requires the increasing attention of our federal judiciary. She has argued four cases in the Supreme Court of the United States, and has filed dozens of Supreme Court briefs on complex issues. To quote my friend Senator Hatch, her ``competence as a lawyer is beyond question.'' Ms. Berzon also has the support of the National Association of Police Organizations, business and Republican leaders. She enjoys a reputation among colleagues and opposing counsel for being a fair-minded, well prepared, and principled advocate. I have also met Ms. Berzon, and I find her temperament and seriousness well-suited for the job she has been nominated to fill. The federal judiciary has been described as ``the thin black line between order and chaos.'' I have faith that Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon, once confirmed, will live up to that challenge. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I intend to use my leader time for purposes of making a couple of statements this morning. I would like first to voice my support for the conference report to H.R. 1000, which, as has already been noted, is the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century. I hope our former colleague, Senator Wendell Ford, a dear and very special friend of mine who served as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee's Aviation Subcommittee for many years, is watching because this truly is a tribute to his dedication not only to aviation but to his country and to the Senate for a long time. It is a very appropriate designation for this legislation. The conference report we are considering today will help repair our aviation system for the skyrocketing number of passengers who will travel in the 21st century. It is also a fitting tribute to Senator Ford's vision that he expressed to us on many occasions as he was leading us on this and many other issues. I thank as well the majority leader, Senator Lott, for his persistence in providing leadership on this matter and in getting us to this point. I think the credit also must go to our distinguished subcommittee chairman and ranking member. It is clear they have the chemistry and the working relationship it takes to accomplish something of this complexity, and I pay tribute to both of them for their efforts and for their arduous work in getting us to this point. We ought to be celebrating this morning the accomplishments of something that many of us have been hoping to achieve for a long period of time. Were it not for their leadership and support, it would not have happened. I have been reminded oftentimes of the movie ``Groundhog Day'' with Bill Murray, with the Senate waking up once a year to consider the same FAA reauthorization bill. The Senate first began considering this bill in 1998 and passed S. 2279, the Wendell H. Ford National Air Transportation System Improvement Act, in September of that year. Although there was overwhelming support for that legislation in the Senate, House and Senate negotiators could not agree on a multiyear bill at that time. Last year, the Senate passed S. 82, the Air Transportation Improvement Act of 1999, in October. As my colleagues have recalled, this legislation was almost identical to the FAA reauthorization bill we approved the year before. Again, there was overwhelming support for the legislation in the Senate. However, House and Senate negotiators could not agree on a multiyear FAA reauthorization bill, just as they were unable to do the year before. As the Senate has considered and reconsidered the FAA reauthorization bill in recent years, the FAA has been operating for the most part under short-term extensions. I have mentioned on many occasions my view that this is no way to fund such an important Federal agency. Short- term extension after short-term extension disrupts long-term planning at the FAA and airports around the country that rely on Federal funds to improve their facilities and enhance aviation safety. The only thing worse than passing a short-term extension is allowing funding for FAA programs to lapse altogether. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Congress did when the House again refused to consider the 6-month extension the Senate passed on November 10 of last year. For the last 4 months, funds for airport improvement projects have been tied up because Congress has been unable to forge an agreement on the FAA reauthorization bill. So today we begin to rectify that mistake and prepare for the increased demand that will be placed on our aviation system in the 21st century. This bill will authorize approximately $40 billion for aviation programs over the next 3 years. In fiscal year 2001, the bill will authorize $12.7 billion, an increase of $2.7 billion over current levels. In the next fiscal year, it will enhance aviation safety by authorizing $3.2 billion for airport improvement projects, $3.3 billion in fiscal year 2002, and $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2003. It will also allow airports to increase passenger facility charges from $3 to $4.50. This PFC increase is expected to generate $700 million for much-needed construction projects that will improve airports in South Dakota and around the country, in every State. The conference report to the FAA reauthorization bill also includes a number of provisions that would encourage competition among the airlines and ensure quality air service for communities. For instance, it would authorize funding for a 4-year pilot program to improve commercial air service in small communities that have not benefited from deregulation. Specifically, the bill calls for the establishment of an Office of Small Community Air Service Development at the Department of Transportation (DOT) to work with local communities, states, airports and air carriers and develop public-private partnerships that bring commercial air service including regional jet service to small communities. We have often commented on how critical the Essential Air Service Program has been to small communities in South Dakota and around the country in their efforts to retain air service. The Small Community Aviation Development Program would give DOT the authority to provide up to $500,000 per year to as many as 40 communities that participate in the program and agree to pay 25 percent in matching funds. In addition, the legislation would establish an air traffic control service pilot program that would allow up to 20 small communities to share in the cost of building contract control towers. I am hopeful that South Dakota will have the opportunity to participate in the Small Community Aviation Development Program. I think it is one of the better features of this legislation. I commend my colleagues for their inclusion of it. Mr. President, I know some of our colleagues may oppose this bill because it would increase the number of flights at the four slot- controlled airports. The proposal to increase the number of flights at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport has been particularly controversial, and I would again like to commend Senator Robb for being a strong advocate for his constituents in northern Virginia. I know some of our colleagues on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation will also oppose this bill because of the budgetary treatment of the aviation trust fund. I understand their concerns and look forward to working with them to ensure that Amtrak, Coast Guard, the National Transportation Safety Board, and FAA operations are adequately funded. Although there may be different provisions in this bill that each of us may find objectional, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting H.R. 1000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century. Spring is just around the corner, and we cannot afford to delay construction on airport improvement projects any longer. It is unfair to FAA, it is unfair to airports in South Dakota and throughout the country, and it is unfair to passengers who rely on the aviation system for their travel needs. I encourage my colleagues to support the conference report to the FAA reauthorization bill. Again, I commend my colleagues, especially the chairman and ranking member, for their work on this bill. I hope we can pass it this afternoon on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know there is another unanimous consent to propound. Let me briefly thank the majority leader for keeping his commitment. He and I both hoped we wouldn't have to file cloture. We may yet have the opportunity to vitiate cloture if something can be worked out. I am hopeful that we will have an opportunity to have the votes as he has anticipated tomorrow at 5 o'clock. This agreement accords everybody their rights. People will have an opportunity to further discuss this matter. They will be able to respond to whatever statements may be made on the floor. We will have a good debate about these nominees tomorrow, even though we will be taking up other legislation. I think this is a very good agreement. I am grateful to him and to all of our colleagues for their cooperation. I appreciate the fact that we have come this far. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the leader yielding to me. As we go through our daily schedules and responsibilities, I bet I do a lot of things which are a source of concern for the majority leader. I am sure he is not surprised that the way this matter has been handled is a source of concern to me. We talk daily. Sometimes we talk hourly. Sometimes I am sure we talk more than he would like. But, nonetheless, we talk. To say we were surprised and disappointed that a unanimous consent request could be propounded without any notification is an understatement. It is disappointing. I hope we can avoid surprising one another. But, of course, we do it. That is understandable. Certainly, the majority leader has every right to proceed in any way he sees most appropriate. I think it is a violation of the trust and communication that we try to maintain. And I am very disappointed he sought to come to the floor without any notification of the issue. Let me say three things.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the majority leader's graciousness and accept the apology. As I say, we have had a great working relationship this year already on a lot of different issues. I appreciate very much the manner in which he has expressed himself on this particular situation. Let me say to the issue, as he noted, we have attempted to resolve this in the past. I give Senator Lott great credit for trying to find as many innovative ways in which to address what has been an irresolvable conflict. We have indicated a willingness to go to conference so long as it involves the committee that was responsible for passing this legislation. The Commerce Committee held hearings. They marked up the bill. They passed it. We are now at a point where the conference includes conferees from the Commerce Committee in the House, and we are prepared as we move to conference to accept conferees from the Commerce Committee. The problem is, the chairman of the Banking Committee wants to be part of the conference, and, frankly, the Banking Committee didn't have jurisdiction. The Banking Committee is not represented on the House side. There is no reason that we can understand why the Banking Committee, in and of itself, ought to be involved in the conference when they didn't have jurisdiction. Certainly, the chairman ought to be heard and he ought to be recognized as one who certainly has every right to express himself to the conferees, as other Members. Let him go to the conference and express himself. Let him offer suggestions on the Senate floor. But to make him a conferee when we have already agreed that the Commerce Committee could move forward, could accomplish what I think is unanimous support for the legislation--I am sure we could achieve that at some point, and it would be the fastest and most meaningful way with which to get it done. I am hopeful we can do that. There is no reason for this legislation to be delayed anymore. Let's have the conferees work their will. Let's get this legislation passed. Like Senator Lott, I think there are a lot of people out there, including his son, who ought to see the Senate act. I desire that no less than he. Hopefully, we can do it soon.

Mr. DASCHLE. I share the desire expressed by the majority leader to get this done. I want to publicly, again, commend Senator Leahy for all of his leadership and effort to get the Senate to this point. He spoke earlier and I appreciate very much his willingness to stay committed and his persistence in getting the Senate to a point where we actually could see this become law. Maybe there is a way, if we go beyond Commerce jurisdiction, to include the leadership of the Judiciary Committee and the leadership of the Banking Committee and maybe expand it to include a lot more Members than just Commerce Committee members. As Senator Lott noted, we can perhaps try to find another innovative mix of participants. Certainly if this happens, the distinguished Senator from Vermont ought to be a part of the conference. I am sure we can work it out at some point. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think this is a very good agreement. I think we can have a good discussion about the conference report. I know there are other Senators who may want to enter into a colloquy with the majority leader or others with regard to some of the implications of the FAA bill. This will accommodate any colloquies Senators may desire. I also am pleased that we are able to move to the Export Administration Act. As the majority leader noted, this bill is important. We ought to finish it this week. There is no reason why we can't finish it this week, if we can get agreement. It passed out of the committee unanimously. It is long overdue. It is important for us to act on it. I think this would be a good week for us to be able to deal not only with these nominations, not only with the FAA, but also with the Export Administration. We have an opportunity to do some real good work, and this agreement accommodates that. I appreciate Senators' cooperation on both sides. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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