Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time in discussing the Boxer amendment for a moment. First, I came to the floor to commend Senator Boxer for her amendment and applaud her for her leadership in drawing attention once again to this very important matter. This amendment simply highlights the fact that students can't learn when they are afraid. Why are they afraid? They are afraid because too many communities and too many children live worried that today's playground will be tomorrow's crime scene. This week's tragedy in Michigan is just one more bloody reminder of this phenomena. As the President stated today, now is the time for us--for the Administration, for the Congress--to do its part to respond. So, I say with as much heartfelt emphasis as I can, now is the time for Congress to stop stalling. It was on May 20 of 1999 that the Senate passed the juvenile justice bill. That was over 9 months ago. It was on June 17 of 1999 that the House passed the juvenile justice bill. That was over 8 months ago. After waiting weeks, on August 5 of 1999, almost 7 months ago, the juvenile justice conference had its first, and regrettably, only meeting. We are still stalled, with a phantom conference, today. Stalled in that conference are measures that will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children, help keep schools safe, and provide some balance, some degree of confidence that children can go to school more safe and more secure than they are today. What are we talking about? We are talking about handgun safety locks, something that could have easily helped this week. We are talking about a measure to close the gun show loophole. We are talking about a juvenile Brady bill. And we are talking about the banning of the importation of high-capacity ammunition clips, once and for all. That is what we are talking about. On virtually every one of these issues, the overwhelming majority of the American people said: Why didn't you do this last year or years before? Why is it now, the year 2000, 9 months after the Senate began this debate, and we still have yet to act? How many more children must die? How much more must we and the American people endure? We need to stop listening to narrow special interests and pass these commonsense gun safety measures now. The tragedy in Michigan should shock us all into action; although Columbine and Jonesboro, and countless other shootings have not seemed to prompt Congress into action. Just think, a 6-year-old girl lost her life, lost her life, because a young boy, who probably still doesn't understand the consequences of his act, had access to a deadly weapon. The truly sad fact is these tragedies happen every day in this country and do not generate the news attention this particular incident did. If they did, we would all be in the Chamber today. If we had a daily rollcall of those who no longer are living as a result of our inaction, we would all be called to action. Thirteen children under the age of 19 are killed with guns every single day, and other children suffer from witnessing those deaths and fearing for their own lives. I just listened to the letters by children read by Senator Feinstein. All you have to do is listen to one of them. All you have to do is imagine a child sitting down writing that letter. A child should be writing about baseball and soccer and all the good things that happen in school. But they are writing about fear. They are writing about guns. They are writing about violence. They are writing about death. I do not know how much more tragedy this country has to endure before Congress wakes up. This amendment simply asks us to recognize we need to act now. This amendment should be more than just a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It should be a call to action. Today, we lay down a marker that if by April 20, the anniversary of the Columbine tragedy, the Congress has not sent the President a juvenile justice bill that includes commonsense gun safety measures, we have failed. We have failed. That is what this amendment is all about. That is the endeavor in which I hope all my colleagues will join. This does not have to be, and is not, a partisan issue. This is an education issue. It is a family issue. It is a life or death issue. I hope we all realize its consequences. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. We already voted to reconsider and to lay it on the table.

Mr. DASCHLE. This appears to be an understandable clerical error, and I don't think we ought to challenge the calculation or the ultimate outcome of that particular vote, but under the rules, I think the author of the amendment might have been entitled to another vote under consideration, and I suggest that as a way to resolve the matter.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment and applaud the authors. I am very hopeful that we can get good bipartisan support for this legislation, in large measure because it is exactly what we need to be doing right now, if, indeed, we are serious when we say we want more technology in schools. I can't think of a better way to encourage more technology in schools than to ensure that companies are able to use the incentives that are there to maximize the opportunities for schools to acquire the kinds of hardware and software they need to fully equip every school across the country. As I travel throughout South Dakota, it is with great pride that superintendents and principals will show me their computer room. They will show me how computer literate their students are. They show me how integrated technology is now becoming in schools. But the one consistent lament they have is that they just don't have the resources to ensure that they can acquire the equipment or, in a timely way, replace that equipment, knowing it is going to be outdated in 3 years, knowing they are going to be faced with the same budgetary decisions once again in a very short period of time. There is a longer life for acquiring sports equipment, books, desks, or almost anything else related to schools. The timeframe within which the technology becomes outdated, as we all know, is extremely short. So this amendment is simply designed to acknowledge that fact--to acknowledge the fact that schools desperately need this technology and all of the equipment associated with it. They need to have the assurance that once they have acquired this technology, they are going to continue to get it in the future. This relatively minor tax incentive, from the perspective of a budgetary impact, will have profound consequences with respect to its effect on companies and the incentive it will create, and with its effect on what can happen in schools if we pass it. Mr. President, I applaud Senators Wyden, Baucus, Abraham, and others for their effort to make this issue the prominent one it is with this debate on how we might improve our educational opportunities. As I say, I think that as we look at the next 10 or 20 years, one of the biggest challenges schools are going to face--whether they are rural or urban, private or public--will be the insurmountable task of technology acquisition. I do hope they can overcome the fiscal challenges they all face. Whether or not they do, in part, will be dependent upon whether or not something as simple as this can be passed, creating an incentive that will ultimately provide companies with more reasons to support schools in their effort to acquire technology. That is what this amendment is all about. It deserves our support. I am sure it will have our support, and I am sure it may not be the last word on what it is we need to do with regard to technology acquisition. But it is a good beginning. I applaud my colleagues--especially Senators Wyden and Baucus--for all their efforts in bringing it to this point. I urge its passage. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I want to speak briefly on a matter we will probably have the opportunity to discuss in greater detail at a later time. That has to do with the nomination of Bradley Smith to be a Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission. The President has made this nomination with the greatest reluctance. He delayed it for many months while fending off hard lobbying on behalf of Mr. Smith by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In the end, the President forwarded this nomination to us, acknowledging the Republican leadership's strongly held view that, under standard practice for FEC appointments, each party is entitled to have the President nominate its choice for a Commission seat allocated by law to that party. I understand the President's decision. He did what he believes that he, as President, was required to do, notwithstanding his concerns about the suitability of Mr. Smith. Now we, as Senators, must do what we are required to do by the Constitution--to consider this nomination on the merits. I have examined the candidacy of Mr. Smith carefully, guided by only one question--indeed the only question that should guide us: Is he qualified, as Commissioner of the FEC, to enforce the laws we have passed to control federal campaign fundraising and spending? In my view, Mr. Smith's complete disdain for federal election law renders him unqualified for the role of an FEC Commissioner, whose principal job is to administer the Federal Election Campaign Act as enacted by Congress and upheld by the courts. Madan President, the American people must be able to trust that we, as legislators, mean what we say when we write the laws of the land. They should not fear that we are passing laws professing the noblest motives, while actively working against those laws by whatever means we can find. Nowhere is there a more critical need for this consistency of purpose than in our consideration, enactment and oversight of laws governing campaign finance. We are, after all, candidates, and also party leaders, directly affected, in our own campaigns and political activities, by the operation of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Few laws that we pass as elected officials more acutely raise the spector of conflict of interest--that we might structure rules and encourage enforcement policies designed more to serve our own interests than the public interest. Why would the public not be suspicious, observing our failure session-after-session to enact comprehensive campaign finance reform? Now our Republican colleagues would like the Senate to confirm Mr. Smith. He comes to them highly recommended by those who would oppose meaningful controls on campaign finance. And he has earned the respect of those in the forefront of the fight against reform. Why? Because he believes that ``the most sensible reform . . . is repeal of the Federal Election Campaign Act.'' Because he believes that most of the problems we have faced in controlling political money have been ``exacerbated or created by the Federal Election Campaign Act.'' Because he believes that the federal election law is ``profoundly undemocratic and profoundly at odds with the First Amendment.'' And because--and I quote again--``people should be allowed to spend whatever they want.'' This is the man our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like us to seat on the Federal Election Commission, charged with the enforcement of the very laws he believes are undemocratic and should be repealed. This is not just asking the fox to guard the chicken coop. It is inviting the fox inside and locking the door behind him. What would be better calculated to promote and spread public cynicism about our commitment to campaign finance reform--indeed, cynicism about our commitment to responsible enforcement of the law already on the books--than confirmation of this nominee? In considering this nomination, we are bound by the law we passed that speaks specifically to the qualifications required of an FEC Commissioner. That law states that Commissioners should be ``chosen on the basis of their experience, integrity, impartiality and good judgment.'' Certainly a fair, and in my view fatal, objection could be raised to the Smith nomination on the grounds that he lacks the prerequisite quality of ``impartiality.'' He would be asked, as a Commissioner, to apply the law evenhandedly, in accord with our intent, without regard to his own opinions about the wisdom of the legislative choice we have made. Yet Mr. Smith has made his academic and journalistic reputation out of questioning that choice. How will he reconcile that conflict, between his strongly held views and ours, in the often difficult cases the FEC must decide? When the Commission must enforce our contribution and spending limits, what degree of impartiality can be expected of a Commissioner who believes, in his words, that ``people should be allowed to spend whatever they want on politics''? I am concerned, too, about the requirement of judgment. For Mr. Smith has insisted for years that the Federal campaign finance laws are an offense against the First Amendment of the Constitution, undemocratic and in need of repeal. The Supreme Court has held in clear terms to the contrary. Perhaps Mr. Smith imagined that the Court's jurisprudence had changed. If so, he is seriously mistaken, as made plain by the Court's decision only weeks ago in the Shrink Missouri PAC decision effectively to affirm Buckley v. Valeo. A commissioner who neither understands nor acknowledges the constitutional law of the land is poorly equipped to balance real First Amendment guarantees against real Congressional authority to limit campaign spending in the public interest. This is particularly true where he questions our laws, not merely on constitutional grounds, but on the sweeping claim that they are undemocratic. Mr. Smith is an energetic advocate for his views. We can respect his wish to express those views, and some indeed may agree with them. But this nomination places at issue whether he is the proper choice to act not as warrior in his own cause, but as agent of the public, as a faithful, impartial administrator of the law. I must conclude that he is not the right choice, not even close, and so I will oppose that nomination, and I will vote against confirmation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I ask the majority leader, may we have an understanding that vote will not occur prior to 1:45 p.m.? Let me clarify. The motion to proceed can take place now, but if there are subsequent votes, those votes not take place----

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for the last several days the Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski, and the Ranking Member, Senator Bingaman, have been working to come to an agreement on legislation to resolve how our nation will provide long- term storage for deadly nuclear waste that is currently stockpiled near nuclear reactors around the country. Despite many hours of hard work, an agreement was not reached. The legislation before the Senate today will not ensure the safety of the American public or deal with the critical issues of liability that first led us to consider this legislation. I would like to take a few moments this morning to explain why I will be opposing the substitute amendment to S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste Amendments Act of 2000. As Senator Bingaman explained last night, this legislation was proposed because the federal government was unable to meet its obligation under the law to provide a long-term storage site for nuclear waste. In 1982, Congress directed the Department of Energy to begin accepting waste at a long-term storage site by 1998. This deadline has not been met, and as a result, the taxpayers are facing billions of dollars in potential liability. Originally, this bill would have allowed the Department to settle these lawsuits by taking title to the waste in its current sites pending completion of a long-term storage facility. This provision has now been removed from the bill. As a result, this legislation does nothing to relieve the taxpayers of the enormous bill they may have to foot. I am also deeply concerned by steps taken in the bill to undermine the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to set radiation safety standards. EPA has currently proposed tough but reasonable standards to protect groundwater and those living in the area. These standards are consistent with a report of the National Academy of Sciences issued in 1995. However, this legislation prevents EPA from issuing final standards until June 1, 2001. The clear expectation underlying this provision is that a new president will be in office who will support weaker standards than those currently proposed. Mr. President, it is unacceptable to gamble with the health of Americans who will be living near the long-term storage site. It is very likely that waste will be stored at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Nearby, there is a dairy farm and fields of crops that use groundwater for irrigation. If we do not support tough safety standards, there is a chance that radiation in the groundwater will end up in the water used in these farms and for drinking by those who live there, putting public health at risk. Finally, I am concerned about an enormous potential write-off for nuclear utilities in this bill. Currently, utilities pay into a Nuclear Waste Fund to ensure that the Department of Energy has the resources it needs to pay for long-term storage. This bill caps the amount that must be paid by utilities, setting up the taxpayer to fund whatever costs remain. We need to do a better job of protecting the safety of the American public and the taxpayers from the bottomless liability that may result from this legislation. For these reasons, I will oppose this bill. Finally, I want to thank Senator Bingaman for his hard work on this issue, and Senators Reid and Bryan. While this bill today is not yet satisfactory, it is significantly better than those we have seen in the past. It is largely thanks to the efforts of these Senators that these changes have been made.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will be brief. I come to the floor for just a couple of moments to express my sincere regret that we have not been able to come together to resolve the outstanding differences that are represented today in the debate and will be represented in the final outcome of the vote. I give great credit to the distinguished ranking member of the committee, Senator Bingaman, and to our colleagues, both from Alaska and Nevada, for the effort that has been made to try to reach some accommodation. Unfortunately, in part because of a lack of willingness on the part of some of our Republican colleagues to come to the middle, we have lost a golden opportunity to finally resolve this matter once and for all. The administration has indicated it will veto this bill in its current form. The EPA, the Secretary of Energy, and others, have expressed vehement opposition. Environmental groups, both liberal and conservative, the energy utility companies, oftentimes in favor of this legislation, in many cases today have come out in opposition to this bill, in part because of the failure to reach some compromise, and in part because this situation now makes their lives even more complicated and more difficult than it was before. Furthermore, there is deep concern that this bill undermines EPA's ability to protect the American public by delaying its authority to issue a radiation safety standard until 2001. Instead of streamlining the process of moving nuclear waste to Nevada, this bill has complicated it even more. And, it fails to relieve American taxpayers of the extraordinary liability they face due to the failure to establish a long-term storage site. As a result, we have no choice but to continue to oppose the legislation in its current form. I hope my colleagues will join me in opposition to this bill. Maybe in conference we can work it out. If we can, maybe we can come to the floor at another date, with another opportunity to see if we cannot successfully resolve these outstanding problems. But today that has not happened. Today, Senator Bingaman and others have expressed their regret and their opposition. We simply cannot allow a bad bill to pass and be signed into law. This is the one opportunity we will have to do it right. We have to do it right before it is signed into law. The President has insisted on that. I think it is incumbent on us to insist on that. I think the American people expect no less. Mr. President, in just a short while we will have the opportunity to vote. It is my sincere hope that a large number of colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, will join us in saying: No. We have not done the job yet. Until we do it right, our vote will remain no. I yield the floor. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DASCHLE. I didn't have the opportunity to hear the initial comments of the Senator, but I appreciate very much his calling attention to many of these issues. What an appropriate time to do it as we consider the budget. The budget was just released yesterday. Did the Senator from Illinois make comment that we actually have a lower percentage of Government spending as a percentage of GDP than at any time in the Reagan administration or, for that matter, any time in modern days? Did the Senator state that?

Mr. DASCHLE. Did the Senator from Illinois also make the point earlier that we actually don't go into the non-Social Security surplus with this budget, that we keep approximate current services, but we dedicate many of these new investments to areas that directly affect working families? Did the Senator make that comment?

Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate the answer from the Senator from Illinois. The debt, under this budget, would be completely retired by the year 2013; Medicare solvency would be extended to the year 2025; Social Security solvency would be extended through the year 2050; we broaden health care coverage; all of these plus maintain the kind of commitment we have begun to make in areas such as investments in education and in increased law enforcement activity that have made a real difference in this country. Did the Senator from Illinois talk about those things as well?

Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate very much the leadership of the Senator from Illinois in bringing Members to the floor for a colloquy of this import as we consider the extraordinary implications of this budget. I was disappointed this morning to read in one of the newspapers some of our Republican colleagues have already pronounced this budget dead on arrival. What is there not to like about this budget? This is a budget that protects the Social Security surplus, a budget that ensures we protect the non-Social Security surplus for other commitments we may want to make in tax cuts or in dedicated investments, a budget that ensures the solvency of the Social Security trust fund through the year 2050 and Medicare through 2025, a budget that understands, as the Senator from Illinois said, there is a prudent middle-center approach that recognizes the importance of ensuring the tremendous strides we have made in reining in Government and doing what we must to make the efficiency of the Government our task. All this is in this budget, and we are told it is dead on arrival. I am somewhat stunned and disappointed that some of our colleagues, who I am sure have not thought through the implications of their statement, would comment without a more careful consideration of the extraordinary impact that this budget could have if we pursued it this year. I thank the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DASCHLE. In answer to the Senator from New York, I have to say no. What a contrast from the 1980s when we made the huge cuts in taxes and then ran up the huge trillions of dollars in a deficit we are still trying to pay off today. What a remarkable contrast this is. This recognizes the importance of fiscal responsibility. First and foremost, it says we have made some tremendous strides in our budgetary and fiscal policy in the last 7 years. This will build on it. It is no accident today that we are seeing the economic achievement in this country with the fiscal and monetary policy. This says we want to build on that, we want to continue in this coming decade what we have pursued in the last decade: We have the lowest number of Federal employees since 1962, with the lowest percentage of spending for GDP since 1967. We recognize we can do a lot more with a lot less. We recognize we can still target tax cuts to the middle class. We recognize the importance of education by providing the largest single Head Start expansion in history in this budget. How remarkable it is in this budget we are able to keep our current services at below the cost of inflation in the coming year and still provide the largest Head Start expansion in history or deal with child care by providing low-income families with more affordable child care than they ever had in any other budget. You can look all the way down the list of opportunities this budget presents: Helping working families with greater EITC, helping working families with greater opportunities for college through deductibility, helping working families by providing safer communities. This is a budget of which we can be proud. It builds on what we have already done. Are there going to be naysayers? Of course. There always are. We have overcome them for 7 years. We will have to do it again. But it is here. I ask my colleagues to look at it. My colleague from New York asked exactly the right question: Is this a balanced budget? By any definition of that word, this is a balanced budget.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask the colloquy be taken off my leader time, if I could.

Mr. DASCHLE. It was so hard that there are some colleagues who are no longer here because they paid the price. Before we could see the results, of course, there were some across the country who made a judgment about the prudence of their very difficult decisions in 1993 and chose not to send them back to Washington. They paid the ultimate political price so we could enjoy the fiscal glory we are enjoying today. I can recall so vividly talking to some of my colleagues who, up until the very last moment, weighed whether this was the right thing to do. Only in the last few moments they made the decision to take the chance. But this was in the face of tremendous opposition, vocal opposition from the other side, projecting recessions and unemployment and extraordinary fiscal repercussions that we would feel for perhaps the rest of our professional lives. There were warnings, extraordinary in their scope and depth and visceral disgust, for what we were attempting to do. It was an overpowering moment, to see the Vice President cast that tie-breaking vote to give us the opportunity to put this budget on the fiscal path, a moment that we now look back on with great pride. What remarkable opportunities it presented. Twenty million new jobs--how do you put a value on that? We have an economy that has taken the stock market to heights we never dreamed. We have more homeowners than at any time in our history; two out of every three people have their own homes today, in large measure because of our fiscal responsibility and the incredible success we have enjoyed. I would say these did not come easy. Maybe the fight this year will not be in any way near the proportions or depth of feeling as when it was fought out on the floor of the Senate back in 1993. But it has the same repercussions. How fragile this all is. How easy it would be to go back and cast our votes for a huge tax cut that would destroy all of this in one fell swoop. It could happen again. If we don't understand the repercussions of a tax cut by now, it could happen again. I urge my colleagues to read this budget, to think carefully about what it is we have been able to do and how we have been able to do it, and make absolutely certain, before we depart from a blueprint that I think demonstrates remarkable balance, that we think long and hard about alternatives. Mr. President, I appreciate the question proposed by the Senator from California.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last week I joined several of my Democratic colleagues at a hearing on the agriculture crisis that is forcing many family farmers out of operation. We heard a number of witnesses tell compelling stories about how the 1996 ``Freedom to Farm'' Act has failed them and their communities. Lori Hintz, a registered nurse and farm wife, talked about the impact of the '96 farm bill on her community in Beadle County, South Dakota. She emphasized that farmers are not the only ones in her area that are struggling. When farm prices are depressed in a rural community--like they are in Lori's--small businesses, health clinics and schools also feel the pinch. Lori spoke eloquently about the urgent need to invest in rural communities and promote a healthy farm economy, thereby reducing out- migration and preserving the way of life that built and still defines the Midwest. I believe I speak for all Democratic Senators who participated in last week's hearing when I say that the testimony presented by each witness was both powerful and thought-provoking. That testimony only strengthened our determination to address the agriculture crisis facing this country. Few people have a better appreciation for the problems confronting our family farmers, and for what we in the Senate need to do to fix those problems, than my close friend and colleague, Senator Byron Dorgan. Senator Dorgan has stood throughout his public career as an effective and tireless advocate for America's family farmers and ranchers, and his perspective on the economic difficulties felt by many rural residents merits the undivided attention of policymakers in Congress and the Administration. Today, I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to Senator Dorgan for an article published in a recent edition of the Washington Monthly that presents a poignant and persuasive argument for the family farm. I commend this article, entitled ``Don't Be Down on the Farm,'' to my colleagues' attention. Senator Dorgan knows this topic as well as anyone. We have all learned from Senator Dorgan's entreaties, many of which have been delivered in this chamber, about the economic challenges facing the people to whom we entrust the safe and abundant production of our nation's food and fiber supply. We have listened to Senator Dorgan's impassioned oratory about conditions in rural North Dakota, and how the economic survival of many communities in his state depends on successful family farms. His words resonate deeply in me, because they often evoke similar scenarios in my state. In his article, Senator Dorgan makes a number of important observations--things we know to be true, but that too often are recklessly discounted in the crafting of farm policy. He reminds us of the proven efficiency of family farms, and how viable family farms translate into robust, successful communities. He also asks a question to which we still have not received a persuasive answer. What does society gain by replacing family farms with corporate farming operations? Senator Dorgan also reminds us of the social costs that we may all have to bear for the emergence of corporate agriculture, including the challenge of waste disposal, the threat of related environmental degradation and the loss of a valued way of life. Finally, Senator Dorgan asks whether we will take steps necessary to ensure the survival of family farms and ranches for the future. That is a question of interest to many members in this chamber, and one to which we simply must find the right answer. The eloquence and urgency of Senator Dorgan's message reinforces the views of the many Senators who want to secure a strong future for our country's family farms. I appreciate both the effort and conviction evident in the article, and thank Senator Dorgan for his commitment to this vital issue. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan's article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise to express my whole-hearted support for S. 1052, the Northern Mariana Islands Covenant Implementation Act, which the Senate considered and passed on Monday, and to recognize Senator Akaka, Energy Committee Chairman Murkowski, and Ranking Senator Bingaman for their determined efforts to shepard this bill through the Senate. During the recent recess, I had the opportunity to travel with Senator Akaka to South Asia. Once again, I was reminded why Senator Akaka is one of the most respected members of the Senate. As we met with leaders from India and Pakistan, Senator Akaka's humanitarian focus was evident time and again. Yesterday, Senator Akaka's concern for those without wealth and privilege was on display once more. I wish I could have been here, yesterday, to celebrate his legislative victory. Senator Akaka's special interest in the welfare of the residents of the Northern Mariana Islands dates back to WW II when he served with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and spent time on both Saipan and Tinian. In 1996, he and Senator Murkowski traveled to the Commonwealth to investigate reports of the horrible working conditions first hand. Senator Akaka returned with confirmation of those reports and worked quickly to introduce legislation, with Chairman Murkowski, to improve the often horrific conditions faced by alien workers in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Since then, Senator Akaka has come to the floor repeatedly to draw attention to this problem and he has worked tirelessly behind the scenes to build effective bipartisan support for this measure. Senator Akaka's dedication to this issue reminds us that our work here is not confined to the headline grabbing issues of the day but extends to the quiet pursuit of humane working conditions everywhere. S. 1052 is a bill to amend the legislation enacted by Congress in 1976 through which the Northern Mariana Islands became a Commonwealth of the United States. This bill provides for a transition period during which the Commonwealth will be incorporated into our federal system of immigration laws. The 1976 covenant enacted by Congress extended U.S. citizenship to CNMI residents, but it exempted the Commonwealth from the Immigration and Nationality Act. Over the years it has become clear what a mistake that was. Today the immigration situation in the Commonwealth contributes to some very grave social problems. Over the past twenty years, the number of citizens of the Commonwealth has doubled, while over that same period of time the number of alien workers has multiplied twenty-fold. This huge demographic change, and the absence of effective immigration control, has led to deplorable conditions for many of these alien workers. Senator Akaka addressed the Senate in October to describe the tragic circumstances in which many alien workers are held as virtual prisoners and are not permitted to leave their barracks during non-working hours. He reported that the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division had obtained criminal convictions of defendants who had forced alien women into prostitution and held them in what has been described as ``modern day slavery.'' I was personally moved by his report. This bill will immediately help to change the circumstances that contribute to these terrible conditions while at the same time minimizing any negative effect on the Commonwealth's legitimate businesses in the local tourism industry. In fact, the bill calls for the Secretary of Commerce to provide the kind of technical assistance that will help to encourage the growth and diversification of the local economy and promote the Northern Mariana Islands as a tourist destination. This is a first step toward ensuring that every man and woman who works under the U.S. flag works in conditions we can all be proud of. As Senator Akaka knows, we should do more. We should also guarantee the minimum wage for workers in the Commonwealth, and if the Democratic minimum wage proposal is passed, we will do just that. But we should not let what we know to be the best solution forestall our resolve to implement a good solution, and so I am very proud that the Senate passed this much needed legislation and I thank Senators Akaka, Murkowski and Bingaman for their fine work in this important endeavor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, a couple of days ago marked the longest economic expansion in U.S. history: 107 months. Alan Greenspan deserves credit for coordinating closely with the administration foster that growth. Mr. Greespan has been described as a master of the art of monetary policy. He has certainly learned and grown in office. His renomination deserves our full support. President Clinton renominated Chairman Greenspan for two reasons: Our unprecedented record of economic success; and his ability to coordinate Fed monetary policy with our fiscal policy. Those two reasons are, in fact, inseparable. It is the marriage of fiscal and monetary policy that created and has sustained current economic expansion. This successful working partnership has worked despite his being a lifelong Republican--though we would gladly welcome him as a Democrat. The best illustration of Mr. Greenspan's ability to coordinate closely with administration is the 1993 economic plan. Mr. Greenspan signaled that if the new President attacked the deficit aggressively, it would produce lower interest rates. The President followed that advice. A Democratic Congress passed that plan. As a result, we have gone from the biggest budget deficits in U.S. history to the biggest surplus. Largely as a result of the 1993 economic plan, we now have the lowest interest rates since WWII. We have created more than 20 million new jobs. Unemployment is at the lowest level in 30 years. The poverty rate is the lowest in two decades. Homeownership is at an all-time high. Real wages have grown faster and longer than at any time in more than two decades. What is most remarkable is that we have achieved all of this while keeping inflation under control: 2.7% inflation last year. It used to be an article of faith among many conservative economists that you had to have at least 6% unemployment or you would trigger inflation. Chairman Greesnpan had the courage to challenge that orthodoxy and prove it wrong. The result is millions of people are working today who would not have had jobs under the old rules. He has done so without sacrificing his commitment to taming inflation and has succeeded in maintaining record low inflation. We should confirm Chairman Greenspan for a fourth term as Fed Chairman. We should also continue to uphold our end of the partnership. We have confidence Chairman Greenspan will continue to exercise strong monetary leadership. We should commit ourselves to continuing to exercise strong fiscal discipline. People sometimes find Chairman Greenspan's messages a little difficult to decipher. They tend to look for shades of meaning in his statements. But on the question of our national debt, he has been absolutely clear and unequivocal. He has said over and over: We must pay down the debt. Huge new tax cuts or excessive Government spending could destroy our prosperity. He could not be clearer on that point. We need to listen to Chairman Greenspan. Many inside this Congress-- and outside--are now seizing on new surplus estimates from the Congressional Budget Office to justify massive new tax breaks. Their plans stand in direct contradiction to Chairman Greenspan's advice to us. Their plans represent a total abdication of the fiscal discipline that has helped get us to this point. Our best first use of the surplus is not to pay for an election-year tax cut. It is to pay down the debt. That will enable us to protect this economic recovery today and protect Social Security and Medicare tomorrow. We support tax cuts to help working families with real, pressing needs like child care and college tuition. We support tax cuts to help working families care for sick and aging relatives. We support eliminating the marriage penalty tax. The American people have made it clear that these are the kinds of tax cuts we should aim for: tax cuts that expand our prosperity, not undermine it; that help all Americans, not just a privileged few. We should listen to them. But we also share Mr. Greenspan's view that the best tax cut for America's families and businesses is to pay down the debt. This year because of the progress we have made since 1993 in eliminating the deficit and reducing the debt, the average American family will save: $2,000 on its mortgage; $200 on its car loan; and $200 more on student loans. Shortly after it was clear the Asian ``flu''--the Asian monetary crisis--had been successfully contained, Time magazine ran a cover story. The picture on the cover showed Alan Greenspan and, standing behind him, Bob Rubin and Larry Summers. The headline read: ``The Committee that Saved the World: The inside story of how the Three Marketeers * * * prevented a global economic meltdown.'' That is strong praise and it is deserved. Chairman Greenspan, working with this Administration, has earned our vote of confidence. I am proud to cast my vote in support of is renomination. Mr. President, I am very pleased that this nomination is before us, and I am hopeful that we will see an overwhelming vote in favor of Alan Greenspan this morning. We have made remarkable progress in this economy and in our country, in large measure because of the marriage between fiscal and monetary policy. That monetary policy was created because of the leadership of Chairman Greenspan. He has been a leader not only in creating monetary policy but in setting the tone for this country as we make some difficult choices in our fiscal policy. He has said to all of us we need to be very prudent in making decisions about how we spend our surplus, about how we manage our budget, about the commitments we make to tax cuts we cannot afford, about the importance of paying off the debt and bringing long-lasting fiscal responsibility by eliminating the public debt. That kind of advice is advice we all ought to take. It is the kind of advice that has given us the longest economic expansion in history. It is an expansion that ought to be continued for years and years to come. It will if we follow the advice of Alan Greenspan. It will if we keep this marriage of fiscal and monetary policy. It will if we pay off the debt and do what we should to ensure the fiscal prudence we have demonstrated in our budgets over the last couple of years. I very enthusiastically endorse this nomination and hope that on a bipartisan basis we can provide the kind of vote of confidence this Chairman deserves. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last week, to my regret, my good friend, Senator Bob Kerrey, announced that he will be leaving this Senate at the end of this year to return to private life. I'm sure my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will agree that his decision is a loss not only to Nebraskans, and to the Democratic party, but to the entire Senate. Over the years, Senator Kerrey has made us all laugh. More importantly, he has made us all think. He has challenged us to face the big questions of our time and to reach across party lines to find solutions. It has been said that some people seek public office to be someone; others seek office to do something. Clearly, Bob Kerrey is of the ``do something'' school. Before he ever came to the Senate, he had achieved more than almost anyone I know. A pharmacist by training, he has also been a Navy SEAL, a decorated war hero, a successful entrepreneur, and a popular governor--all by the time he was 44 years old. Perhaps even more impressive than his professional accomplishments, however, are his personal achievements. As we all know much of the story. Bob Kerrey was nearly killed 30 years ago in Vietnam. On a moonless night, while he was leading a surprise attack on North Vietnamese snipers, an enemy grenade exploded on the ground beside him, shattering his right leg, badly wounding his right hand, and piercing much of his body with shrapnel. Days later, doctors were focused to amputate his injured leg just below the knee. For his sacrifice, Lieutenant Kerrey was awarded the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, and the highest award our nation bestows for bravery, the Congressional Medal of Honor. He returned from Vietnam angry and disillusioned. What he endured in Vietnam, and what he saw later at the Philadelphia Naval Hospital, where he spent nine months learning how to walk again, shook his faith--both in the war, and in the government that had sent him to it. It forced him to re- examine everything he had ever believed about his country. But slowly, out of his pain and anger and doubt, he began to acquire a new faith in this nation. Years ago, when he was Governor of Nebraska, he described that faith to a reporter. He said, ``There are . . . people who like to say, `You know all these subsidy programs we've got? They make people lazy.' And I like to jump right in their face and say, that is an absolute lie.'' Government help ``didn't make me lazy. It made me grateful.'' It was the United States Government, he said, that fitted him with a prosthesis and taught him to walk again. It was the government that paid for the countless operations he needed. Later, it was the government that helped him open his first restaurant with his brother-in-law. And when that restaurant was destroyed in a tornado, it was the government--the people of the United States--that loaned them the money to rebuild. For 4 years as Nebraska's Governor, and for the last 11 years as a Member of this Senate, Bob Kerrey has fought to make sure the people of the United States, through their government, work for all Americans. He has fought to make health care more affordable and accessible. He has fought to give entrepreneurs the chance to turn their good ideas into profitable businesses. He has fought to make sure this Nation keeps its promises to veterans. He has fought tirelessly to preserve family farms and rural communities. As someone, like Senator Kerrey, who comes from a state that is made up mostly of small towns and rural communities, I am personally grateful to him for his insistence that rural America be treated fairly. But Senator Kerrey's greatest contribution to this Senate, and to this nation, may be the fact that he is not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom. In 1994, almost singlehandedly, he created and chaired the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. Conventional wisdom said, don't get involved with entitlements. You can't make anyone happy; you can only make enemies. But Bob Kerrey's personal experience told him that preserving Social Security and Medicare was worth taking a political risk. He has repeatedy opposed efforts to amend our Constitution to make flag-burning a crime. It is politically risky, even for a wounded war hero, to take such a position. But Senator Kerrey has taken that risk, time and time again, because--in his words, ``America is a beacon of hope for the people of this world who yearn for freedom from the despotism of repressive government. This hope is diluted when we advise others that we are frightened by flag burning.'' He is a genuine patriot, and a genuine American hero. There is a story Senator Kerrey has told many times about a conversation he had with his mother 30 years ago. Doctors at the Philadelphia Naval Hospital had just amputated his leg. When he awoke from surgery, his mother was standing at his bedside. ``How much is left?'' he asked her. His mother responded, ``There's a lot left.'' As Senator Kerrey says, ``She wasn't talking about body parts. She was talking about here.'' She was talking about what was in his heart. He has said that he would like to focus now on his private life. As much as I regret his decision, I respect it. Public life offers great regards, but it also makes great demands--on the officeholder, and on his or her family. The only consolation in seeing Bob Kerrey leave this Senate will be watching what he does next with his remarkable life. There is still a lot left. I have no doubt he will continue to contribute in significant ways to our Nation. And until he goes, we will continue to look to him for unorthodox solutions and uncommon courage. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

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