Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Thomas Paine, the famed orator of the American Revolution, once offered an explanation for why corrupt systems last so long. He said: A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises, at first, a formidable cry in defense of custom. That is certainly true of the way we pay for campaigns in this country. Our reliance on special interest money to run political campaigns is such an old habit that for a long time it had the superficial appearance of being right but not anymore. While there is still a vocal minority who deny it, a clear majority in this Congress, and an overwhelming majority of the American people, know that our current campaign finance system is broken. The American people understand that special-interest money too often determines who runs, who wins, and how they govern. Opponents of change tell us that no one cares much about campaign finance reform. I believe they're mistaken. I believe the tide has turned. Instead of hearing a ``formidable cry in defense of custom,'' to use Tom Paine's expression, what we are hearing now is a growing demand for change. One of the newest voices demanding change belongs to a group of more than 200 CEOs of major corporations. They call themselves the Committee for Economic Development, and many of them are Republican. They're pushing for a ban on soft money because, they say, they're ``tired of being shaken down'' by politicians looking for campaign contributions. They, like the rest of America, will be watching this debate, Mr. President. Another reason I believe the tide has turned is because this election cycle has gotten off to such an ominous start. At both the Presidential and congressional level, we are on pace to shatter all previous records. During the first six months of this year, soft money donations--the unlimited, unregulated contributions to political parties--were already 80 percent above where they were at this point in the last Presidential election cycle, in 1995. There really are no limits any more, Mr. President. We all know that. The current system is more loophole than law. Opponents argue that our Constitution forbids us from correcting the worst abuses in the system. I disagree with their pinched interpretation of our Constitution. In any case, I believe our conscience demands that we at least try to fix the system. And so during this debate, Senator Torricelli and I, and others, will offer the Shays-Meehan plan. As I said, I have great admiration and respect for what Senator Feingold and Senator McCain have attempted to achieve. But I believe we can--and must--go further than their bill now allows. Shays-Meehan is fair. It does not place one party or another at an advantage. It treats incumbents and challengers in both parties fairly. Shays-Meehan is bipartisan. Shays-Meehan is passable. It has already passed the House. It is signable. The President will sign it into law. Most importantly, Shays-Meehan is comprehensive. Not only does it ban unregulated ``soft money'' to political parties--the biggest loophole in the current system--it also prevents soft money from being re- channeled to outside groups for phony ``issue ads.'' This is critically important, Mr. President. Spending on sham ``issue ads'' by advocacy groups and special interests more than doubled between the '96 and '98 election cycles--to somewhere between $275 million and $340 million. A 1997 study by the respected Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found that phony ``issue ads'' are nearly identical to campaign ads--with two exceptions. The ``issue ads'' are more attack-oriented and personal. And, it is harder to identify the sponsor. These ads epitomize the negative campaigning--without any accountability--the public so dislikes. Shays-Meehan closes the ``issue ad'' loophole. It does so by applying existing rules to ads targeting specific candidates that are run by advocacy groups within 60 days of an election. It does not silence anyone. It merely says, if you want to participate in the election process, you have to follow the rules. In addition to closing the ``soft money'' and ``issue ad'' loopholes, Shays-Meehan makes two other important changes. First, it provides for expanded and speedier disclosure of both campaign contributions and expenditures--plus, stiffer penalties for anyone who violates the requirements. Second, it bans direct and indirect foreign contributions to political campaigns. Shays-Meehan won a bipartisan majority in the other body, Mr. President. It deserves the same in this Senate. When a person gives money to a judge who is deciding his case, we call that bribery. But when special interests give money to politicians who vote on bills that help or hurt them, we call that ``business as usual.'' Some mistakenly call it ``free speech.'' Let's be very clear: Shays-Meehan is not an attack on free speech. It advances free speech by ensuring that those with the biggest checkbooks are not the only voices that are heard. Shays-Meehan represents extraordinarily modest reforms. It doesn't fix every problem with our current system. But it bans the worst excesses. It is not a panacea. But it is a credible and necessary first step in rebuilding people's trust in government. I have no doubt we will hear a great deal over the next few days about abuses of the current system. There are abuses--on both sides of the aisle. That's why we're having this debate. But it's not enough just to decry the abuses. If you're really outraged by the abuses, fix the system that invites them. Defenders of the status quo have tried to dissuade some of us from supporting real reform by warning how much it might cost us in lost campaign contributions. What about how much the current system costs us in lost credibility? Listen to this quote: Senators and Representatives, faced incessantly with the need to raise ever more funds to fuel their campaigns, can scarcely avoid weighing every decision against the question ``How will this affect my fundraising prospects.'' rather than ``How will this affect the national interest?'' Do you know who said that? It wasn't some Pollyanna progressive. That was Barry Goldwater, in 1995. And even if we don't make those kinds of calculations, it doesn't matter. No one has to prove that money influences our votes. It's damaging enough that people believe money influences our votes. There are other ways the current system costs us as well. Like the cost of endless fundraising. The demeaning, demanding money chase. In 1998, it cost an average of $4.9 million to run a successful Senate campaign. To raise that kind of money, you have to bring nearly $16,000 a week, every week, for 6 years. That is the minimum it takes. Some people have to raise twice that much. And we all know what that means. It means we spend hours and hours in campaign offices, dialing for dollars, instead of doing what people sent us here to do. It means running to fundraisers every night--sometimes two and three a night--instead of working on problems that affect families--or maybe just having dinner every once in a while with our own families. But the biggest cost of the current system is the cynicism it produces in people. The American people are disgusted, and they feel disenfranchised, by the current system. Every election cycle, the amount of money goes up, and voting goes down. Defenders of the status quo say we need soft money for ``party building'' activities--like ``get out the vote'' drives. If you really want to get out the vote, get the money out of politics! Pass Shays-Meehan. We expect opponents will use every procedural trick and advantage they can think of to try to block any real reform. They will offer amendments not to strengthen our proposal, but to sink it. They should know: The American people understand that game. They can tell the differences between protecting principles, and protecting partisan advantage. We make this pledge at the beginning of this debate: If Shays-Meehan does not pass, we will do everything we can to build a coalition for real reform. We will work with Senator Feingold and Senator McCain to strengthen their proposal and make it, once again, a comprehensive plan. When you read the history of campaign finance, one of the names that stands out is Mark Hanna. U.S. Senator. Wealthy businessman. Ohio political boss. And head, at the turn of the last century, of his national political party. Mark Hanna is widely credited with being the father of systemic campaign fundraising techniques. He introduced the concept, for instance, of regularly assessing businesses for contributions to his party, based on their ``share in the general prosperity.'' He also introduced the first modern political advertising operation. In 1895, Mark Hanna remarked that ``there are two things that are important in politics. The first is money--and I can't remember what the second one is.'' Mr. President, I believe Senator Hanna got it wrong. Money isn't the most important thing in politics. Integrity is. Integrity is essential to democracy. Without integrity we lose public confidence. And without public confidence, a democratic government loses its ability to function. We all know--whether we will admit it or not--that the current system is broken. I hope we can work together. I hope we can come up with a comprehensive, workable plan to fix it. The currency of politics should be ideas--not cash. Cloture Motions

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to H.R. 3064, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in the 2 days since this Senate rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, I've heard some of our colleagues insist they are proud of that vote. Frankly, I cannot understand how anyone could say that. I was deeply saddened and troubled when I opened my newspaper yesterday morning. The top headline in the Washington Post read: ``Senate Rejects Test Ban Treaty.'' The headline just below that read: ``For US, Fallout will be Fading Influence.'' How can anyone take pride in actions that increase the threat of nuclear weapons? How can anyone be proud of diminishing America's leadership in the world? How can anyone be proud that they have made the world a more dangerous place for ourselves and our children? For the life of me, I cannot understand that. We knew before we voted that, if we rejected the CTBT, we would almost certainly damage our national security and our standing in the world. We knew both of those things. Our senior military leaders warned us. Outside experts tried to warn us. Our allies tried to warn us. In fact, three world leaders--representing our three oldest and strongest allies--took the unprecedented step of writing an open letter to us. In that letter, published this week in the New York times, Jacques Chirac, Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroder implored us: ``As we look to the next century, our greatest concern is proliferation of weapons of mass destruction . . . Failure to ratify the CTBT, will be a failure in our struggle against proliferation . . . For the security of the world we will leave to our children, we urge the United States Senate to ratify the treaty.'' Unfortunately, a majority of Senators chose to ignore these warnings. they chose to ignore the serious implications that rejecting the CTBT would have on U.S. security and international standing, and on the safety of the entire world. If there was any doubt, before the vote, that rejecting the CTBT would be a serious mistake, there can be no doubt now. Look at the headlines. World dismayed by U.S. Treaty Vote--Associated Press International community dismayed by U.S. Rejection of CTBT--Agence France Presse Germany Says U.S. Nuke Reaction a Serious Setback--Reuters A Reckless Rejection--the Washington Post A Damaging Arms Control Defeat--the New York Times Defeat of Test Ban Treaty a Blow to U.S. Prestige--Reuters Nations Assail Senate Vote on Test Ban Treaty--Washington Post Asia Dismayed by US Treaty Vote--AP Arms-Control World Upended--the Christian Science Monitor Dismay and Anger Abroad at US Action--The Guardian of London Russia Press Digest: America Has Latent Desire to Explode Nuclear Bombs Listen to the reactions of world leaders: From a senior Chinese official: ``It leaves us with the impression that America has a double standard, you tell the rest of the world not to do something and then you go ahead and do it.'' From a spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry: ``This decision is a serious blow to the entire system of agreements in the field of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. There is a definite trend visible in recent times in US actions and it causes deep alarm.'' Some of our colleagues are quick to seize on China and Russia's displeasure. They point to that as proof they did the right thing in rejecting the treaty. Even if you accept the premise--and I do not-- that what is bad for China and Russia is, by definition, good for the United States, this goes far beyond these two countries. Condemnation of the Senate's action has been virtually universal. It's worldwide. It's from out friends to our foes, and every nation in between. From the first world to the third world. Listen to what other world leaders have said: In France, President Chirac said the Senate vote would inflict ``serious damage'' to the cause of nuclear disarmament, particularly dismayed that the views of America's allies were ignored. In Germany, Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping called the vote an ``absolute wrong'' decision. Foreign Minister Fischer said his country and other European nations were ``deeply disappointed'' and feared it would seriously harm the cause of nuclear disarmament. ``It is a wrong signal that we deeply regret.'' Lord Robertson, NATO's new Secretary General and former British Defense Secretary, called it ``a very worrying vote.'' A spokesman for the European Union called for the immediate ratification of the treaty by all signatories and said ``we have already stated our belief that the treaty is clearly in the interests of all states as an essential barrier to nuclear proliferation.'' In Japan, Foreign Minister Kono said the negative impact was ``immeasurable'' on the cause of disarmament and non proliferation. ``The adverse effects are inestimable and it is of extreme concern. We has been hoping for US leadership in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, so the restful is very regrettable.'' In the Phillipines, Foreign Secretary Siazon said the vote dealt ``an enormous blow to all our efforts to make the world a safer place to live in.'' From the Mayor of Hiroshima: The United States is ``going against international efforts to reduce nuclear arms, as a nuclear power the United States should lead the way to end the proliferation of weapons.'' Mr. President, what makes our failure to pass the CTBT doubly tragic is that there was nothing forcing the Senate to act on this treaty at this time. This vote could have, and should have, been postponed until the Senate had conducted proper hearings on the treaty. In fact, 62 members signed a letter to the Majority Leader pleading with him to delay the vote. Among the signers were the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee. Chairman and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee, and Ranking Member on the Foreign Relations Committee. Republicans and Democrats signed that letter. Under the rules of the Senate, it was fully within the power of the Majority Leader to reschedule this vote for a more appropriate time. The fact that we did not do so is a mistake of historic proportion. What we have done is nothing to be proud of. What we have done is deeply troubling. What we have done is dangerous. What we have done has--for now--made the world less safe. It has, for now, damaged the relationship between the US and some of our most important allies. It has, for now, diminished our standing and our moral authority in the world. It was a serious mistake. We need to un-do it. Immediately after the vote, a spokesman for the British government said ``we hope that what happened in Washington is not the end of the road.'' I want our friends in England the rest of the world to know that the United States Senate has not uttered its last word on the CTBT. The overwhelming majority of the American people support this treaty. Our senior military leaders support this treaty. My colleagues and I on this side of the aisle will do everything we can to secure the votes needed to pass this treaty in the United States Senate. In the meantime, we will insist that the United States continues to refrain from conducting nuclear tests. The United States must not, and will not, give up its position as a leader in the international effort to rid the world of the threat of nuclear weapons. I yield the floor.

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, I take this opportunity to express my regret at the loss of Ambassador E. William Crotty, U.S. Ambassador to Barbados. Bill assumed his position as ambassador in November 1998, so he had only begun his fine work representing the United States in Barbados and six other eastern Caribbean island nations. I am confident, however, that his contributions in service to his country would have continued and multiplied. I had the great fortune of knowing Bill over the years, and I saw firsthand his deep affection for his family and friends, and his fine work for his community, his party and his country. I am very sorry he will no longer be with us, and I send my condolences to his wife, Valerie, seven children and 14 grandchildren. Bill Crotty was an American success story. He was born in a small town during the Great Depression to a loving family. This set of experiences instilled in him a work ethic and a love of family and community that guided his life. Bill graduated from college and law school, succeeded in the business world and spent years giving back to his community and country. I would like to take a moment to cite some examples of Bill Crotty's work in his community that demonstrate the value of his contributions. He was chair of the Capital Fund Drive for Bethune-Cookman College. He was a member of the Board of Counselors of Bethune-Cookman College. He was chair of the membership drive for the Volusia County Society for Mentally Retarded Children. He was a member of the Board of Directors of the United Fund of Volusia County and of the Richard Moore Community Center, Inc. He was a charter member of W.O.R.C., an organization dedicated to the rehabilitation of the disabled. I could cite more examples, but these help provide a flavor of the kind of person Bill Crotty was. I feel privileged to have known him over the years. As a husband, father and grandfather, as a friend and as a public servant, Bill Crotty will be sorely missed.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I ask unanimous consent that, since neither of the statements made by the Senators relates directly to the treaty, none of the time be taken out of the limited time remaining for debate on the treaty.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, could the Chair clarify as to the amount of time remaining on both sides?

Mr. DASCHLE. The Democratic side has 45 minutes remaining?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am going to use my leader time. I understand I don't have to use a unanimous consent request to obtain the 20 minutes available to me. I will not use the full 20 minutes. My colleagues are going to rise to speak to the treaty itself. Up until now, I have refrained from talking about the deliberations themselves, but I think for the Record it is important for us to state how it is we got here. We just cast a vote of profound consequence. The choice that vote presented the Senate this afternoon was quite simple. It was a choice between statesmanship or partisanship. This was not just a procedural motion. Let's begin with that understanding. The motion that just passed on a party line vote was a vote to kill the test ban treaty. What is all the more important--and people should understand--was that there was no requirement that we cast this vote. This vote was not necessary. We did not have to go to executive session. We could have precluded that vote. Nothing on the Executive Calendar would have been affected adversely by allowing the treaty to stay on the Executive Calendar. So everyone ought to understand that. This was a voluntary choice made by the majority leader. That is the first point. The second point relates to how it is we got here. This treaty was submitted, as has been repeatedly stated in the Record, on September 22, 1997. Ever since that time, my colleagues on this side of the aisle have requested that there be hearings, that there be some thorough consideration of this very important matter. A number of other countries have already made the decision we were asking this body to make. One-hundred and fifty have signed it. Fifty- one countries have voted already to ratify it. We were asking that there be hearings. I don't know where the majority leader got his information about the length of time this treaty has been debated versus all the other treaties. It is interesting. I will submit for the Record all of the treaties and the consideration given them since 1972. But just quickly to summarize, it is important to note that the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty took 23 days of committee hearings and 9 days of floor consideration. The START I treaty took 19 days of hearings and 5 days of floor consideration. The Antiballistic Missile Treaty, approved in 1972, took 8 days of hearings and 18 days--more than half a month--of consideration on the Senate floor. Mr. President, we have had a couple of days on this particular issue. I ask unanimous consent that the entire list of treaties and the amount of time given them on the floor and in committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will withhold the unanimous consent request and look forward to that discussion. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, what Democrats sought, very simply, was complete consideration in all the committees for whatever time it may have taken to ensure we have established the kind of record we established on all the other treaties before we voted on them. That is what we asked. That is what we sought in our letter to the Majority Leader. The Republicans' response was cynical. They proposed we limit debate to 14 hours, that there be one amendment on a side, and that no time be given to proper hearings. They left us as Democrats the choice: Filibuster the treaty on which we have called for consideration, or accept a unanimous consent agreement. There was one reason that Republicans forced this choice--one reason, and one reason only. It was a partisan attempt to embarrass the President and embarrass Democrats. That was the reason. So it is now clear, based upon a letter being circulated by Senator Warner and others, that the President should delay consideration of this treaty. Over 51 Senators have now signed a letter circulated by Senators Moynihan and Warner. Nearly 60 Senators--a majority--have now said we ought to postpone consideration of this treaty. In fact, based upon this clear belief on the part of a majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I encouraged the President to submit a statement asking the Senate to delay the vote. He did. A couple of days ago, he made a formal request that the Senate delay consideration of this treaty until a later date to allow ample consideration of all the questions raised and the tremendous opportunities presented by this treaty. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have made similar requests. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, former Secretaries of Defense, former Chairs of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have all recommended publicly and privately that this treaty consideration be delayed. I added to the voice yesterday. I submitted a letter to the majority leader wherein I was willing personally to commit to hold over on a final vote for the rest of this Congress, barring any unforeseen and extraordinary circumstances as defined by myself and the Majority Leader. We may have seen an example just yesterday of just such a circumstance. What happens in Pakistan, what happens in India, what happens in North Korea, what happens in the Middle East, what happens in Iraq and Iran, what happens in an awful lot of those countries could have a profound effect on the decisions made in the Senate over the course of the next 14 months. Yet it was the view expressed by some in the majority, and now apparently all in the majority, that even in the most extraordinary circumstances, the Senate will not take up this treaty. Now we are left with nothing more than an up-or-down vote on the treaty itself. Now I have heard the latest rumor. In the last couple of hours, we are told that it is article 18 of the Vienna Convention that requires us to act. Mr. President, nothing could be farther from the truth-- nothing. Nothing in article 18 requires us to vote. The obligations of a signatory have already attached to the United States and will continue to do so until the President, only the President, makes clear the United States' intent not to become a party. The Senate will not change this by voting the treaty down or suspending its consideration today. So don't let anyone mislead this body about the ramifications of article 18. We find ourselves now at the end of this debate with the recognition on the part of Members in our caucus that, of all of our solemn constitutional responsibilities, there cannot be one of greater import than the consideration of a treaty. And, remarkably, incredibly, no constitutional obligation has been treated so cavalierly, so casually, as this treaty on this day. This is a terrible, terrible mistake. If it's true that politics should stop at the water's edge, it is also true that politics should stop at the door to this chamber when we are considering matters of such grave import. I urge those colleagues who have yet to make up their minds about this treaty to do the right thing; to support it, to recognize the profound ramifications of failure, to pass it today. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I also thought we had reached a unanimous consent understanding that there would not be time taken off either side for the colloquy that Senators Byrd and Lott encountered. As I understand it, the Chair ruled that the time up until the point that I made the unanimous consent request was not going to be taken from either side, but the remaining time was counted against us. I was making the assumption that the entire colloquy would be left outside our timeframe, and I again make that unanimous consent request.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, if that is the Senator's solution, I am disappointed. We have a number of Senators who have not yet had the opportunity to speak. As it is, it is going to be very difficult to divide what remaining time there is. I renew the unanimous consent request that we be given the 54 minutes that we understood we were entitled to when I made the first unanimous consent request.

Mr. DASCHLE. Six minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am asking for the 54 minutes the Senate was originally allotting either side when this debate began.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent both leaders be allowed to use leader time prior to the time we have this vote.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know we are close to running out of time. I will use my leader time to make a few comments on the pending conference report. I come to the same conclusion as the distinguished Senator from Iowa, and I would like to elaborate, if I could, briefly on why I have come to that conclusion. I believe we ought to be supportive of this conference report, but I must say I am deeply disappointed that we have to be in this position in the first place. This is a badly flawed bill from many perspectives. I strongly disagree with using the AMTA mechanism as the only mechanism by which we provide resources to those in need. As a result of our reliance on AMTA, there will be thousands of people no longer directly involved in agriculture who are going to get payments of over five and a half billion dollars. Our view is that that is a tragedy, given the limited resources we have available to us and the extraordinary need to ensure that resources are spent in the most prudent fashion. They will not be, in large measure, because of the formula incorporated in this language. I also am very deeply concerned about the fact that there is no loan availability in this bill. There are going to be farmers who are going to be turned away from banks throughout the country. When they are turned away, as is happening on many occasions, farmers go to the Farm Service Agency to ensure they can get the resources they need. Let us be clear. There is no recourse as a result of this legislation. Farmers have no opportunity to get alternative loan availability because there is no money in this bill for loans. For that reason, too, I am very concerned about the deficiencies in this legislation. As most of us know, we have lost a substantial number of our pork producers. The number of pork producers in South Dakota has diminished substantially in recent years. In fact, we have lost a large portion of the percentage of our hog producers in the last year in large measure because of the disastrous crisis they are now facing. There is not $1 in here for livestock producers involved in pork production. As a result, our pork producers have no hope of obtaining any kind of assistance as a result of this legislation. I must say we also are deeply concerned about the impact this legislation could have, if this is the last word on the circumstances those in the Northeast currently are facing. They have experienced serious drought. Other parts of the country have faced other serious farm disasters. The disaster assistance in this package is absolutely unacceptable. The $1.2 billion is a fraction of what will be required if we are going to meet all of the obligations this country should and must meet to address disaster needs, especially in the Northeast, in the coming 12 months. We have an extraordinary deficiency with regard to disaster assistance. As a result of that as well, I am deeply troubled that we are faced with a very untenable choice: vote for this, and get some assistance out to those who will receive it, in time for it to do some good, or do nothing and hope that somehow in some way at some time we can resolve this matter before the end of the session. I sadly come to the conclusion that what we have to do is take what we can get now, to take what we have been able to put in the bank now, and keep fighting to address all of these deficiencies before the end of this session. I have said just now to my colleagues in the Northeast that we will not rest, we will not be satisfied until we have adequately addressed their needs in disaster assistance before the end of this session. We will make that point with whatever vehicles we have available to us, appropriations or otherwise. It is absolutely essential that we provide that assistance before the end of this year and send a clear message that we understand the gravity of their circumstances and are prepared to address it. I might also say that we have to look also at an array of policy considerations. My view is that we are in this box in large measure because we created it ourselves. Those who voted for Freedom to Farm are coming to the realization that clearly this is a situation that has to be resolved through public policy, in new farm policy, with the creation of a safety net, with the creation of market incentives to create more of a balance between supply and demand than what we have right now. That is a debate for another day. We are left with a choice about whether or not we provide $8.7 billion in aid now, as poor as the vehicle may be, to people who need it so badly. I will vote yes, and I encourage my colleagues to do likewise. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today the Senate formally begins consideration of whether to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, CTBT. Each party to this treaty pledges not to carry out any nuclear weapons tests and to refrain from helping others to carry out such tests. CTBT has been signed by over 150 nations, 51 of which have already ratified the treaty. The question before the Senate now is whether we should join this group in an international effort to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. Although I will have more extensive remarks on the substance of the treaty shortly before the Senate votes, I would like to say a few words now about why I believe the Senate should ratify this important treaty. As in the case of previous arms control agreements, each Senator must ask himself or herself the following series of questions: Is U.S. national security enhanced by Senate ratification of the CTBT? Is this nation better off with the CTBT? Will Senate ratification of CTBT lead to a safer world for our children? In my view Mr. President, the answer to each of these questions is an unequivocal, unqualified yes for one simple, straightforward reason: a world with fewer countries possessing nuclear weapons is a safer, more secure world for our national security interests, our nation and our children. Senate ratification of CTBT will help us achieve just such a world. Opponents of the treaty raise two issues: can we verify that other nations are complying with the treaty and would U.S. compliance with the treaty permit this nation to maintain a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent? On the first issue, opponents assert that it is impossible to verify a prohibition of all nuclear tests. Mr. President, let me state now that they are absolutely correct on that point. The intelligence community has confirmed that neither the United States nor the International Monitoring System that would be established under CTBT would ensure the detection of every single nuclear explosion, regardless of size and location. However, this feature is not unique to CTBT. No arms control treaty is 100 percent verifiable. In just the last two decades, the Senate has ratified numerous treaties knowing full well at the time that it would be possible for a country to successfully skirt one provision or another for some period of time or another. The standard for the Senate on previous treaties and the standard we should apply to this treaty is ``effective'' verification. In the case of CTBT, effective verification means we will be able to detect, with a high degree of confidence, any tests that could undermine our nuclear deterrent. After examining the information and analysis provided by our intelligence community, our senior military leaders have testified that we can effectively verify this treaty. Furthermore, with or without CTBT, we need to monitor the nuclear testing activities of other countries and will face the exact same problems people are assigning exclusively to CTBT --with one major difference. In a world of CTBT, the United States would have additional tools at its disposal to determine what has happened. The treaty would permit us to have access to data collected at any of the 321 monitoring sites established as part of the CTBT's International Monitoring System. Under the treaty, we will also be able to conduct on-site inspections of facilities when we suspect questionable activity has occurred. These are resources available to us only if we ratify CTBT. As for the safety and reliability of our existing nuclear weapons, I am convinced that the science-based stockpile stewardship program will permit us to preserve our nuclear deterrent without testing. I acknowledge up front that this program, for which we are spending $4.5 billion annually, is still evolving and it will be a few more years before we will know for certain its effectiveness. However, critics must also acknowledge three other facts. First, our nuclear weapons are safe and reliable today and are likely to remain so for another decade--with or without a stockpile program. Second, although not fully up and running, the stockpile stewardship program has already demonstrated its viability. Although we stopped testing nuclear weapons seven years ago, for the past four years the Department of Energy has been able to certify that our nuclear stockpile is safe and reliable. In order to make this certification, the Department has relied in part on data generated by the early phases of the stockpile stewardship program. Third, the President submitted, and I strongly support, a condition to the treaty that would permit the United States to withdraw from the treaty and resume nuclear testing if we have anything other than the highest confidence in the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons. Having said all of this, I would like to raise another important issue today. Regardless of where members stand on the merits of the CTBT, I think there are two things every member of this body should agree upon. The process of treaty ratification is one of the most important responsibilities our founding fathers vested in the United States Senate. In the course of this nation's history, the Senate has never taken this responsibility lightly. It would be a mistake to do so now. Second, it is hard to imagine a treaty with more significant ramifications for our national security for decades to come than the treaty before the Senate today. In the few brief days that this issue has been before us, I have heard senior Senators, members who have cast thousands of votes, state that their vote on CTBT could well be one of the most consequential of their Senate careers. I agree with that assessment. Unfortunately, we are on the verge of ignoring these two truths. For some unknown reason, the CTBT has become a political football in a high stakes, highly partisan debate. It appears that some are seeking to score political points instead of carefully weighing this nation's national security interests and our role and responsibilities in the world. If politics should stop at the waters' edge, so too should it stop at the door to this chamber when we are deliberating treaties with such tremendous national and international ramifications. Instead, after over 2 years of inaction, the Senate now finds itself locked in a sprint to a vote that is equally unfair to both the opponents and proponents of this treaty. No member of this body can truly believe he or she has all the information needed to render such a momentous decision. No member can truly state that the Senate has lived up to the founding fathers' expectations of how this chamber should conduct itself when giving its advice and consent on treaties. No member can really assert with a clear conscience that this was a fair and thorough process for dealing with any issue, let alone one of this magnitude. Proceeding before we have given full airing to the numerous and complex issues surrounding the CTBT is unfair to the Senate, unfair to our national security and unfair to the American people. Before we begin the calling of the roll asking where we stand on this treaty, we should all take a step back and give ourselves time to study these issues. For the good of our nation's security and Americans for generations to come, I ask members on both sides of the aisle to join me in this effort.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I agree with my colleagues that this program is of tremendous benefit to rural states and to our nation's ability to produce top quality research. In recent years, five states have received 48 percent of the NIH research money. We need to broaden this distribution. In my state of South Dakota, universities have benefitted from this program in the past, but we need to continue this investment so that they may compete for research monies on an equal footing. Increasing IDeA funding would help to meet this goal.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have worked closely with my colleagues Senator Stevens, Senator Specter and Senator Harkin to make treatment and prevention of fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) and fetal alcohol effect (FAE) more of a federal priority and to place language in the report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2000 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill to underscore this commitment. I appreciate their efforts to support programs that will prevent and address this important public health problem and their commitment to continuing those efforts as they serve on the conference committee. There is a dramatic need for an additional infusion of resources to address alcohol-related birth defects, which are the leading known cause of mental retardation. These funds are needed for the development of public awareness and education programs, health and human service provider training, standardized diagnostic criteria and other strategies called for in the competitive grant program authorized under the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effect Prevention and Services Act. These resources will complement the excellent work that has been started by grass-roots organizations like the National Organization for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and the Family Resource Institute. I look forward to working with Senator Stevens, Senator Specter and Senator Harkin to promote treatment and prevention of FAS and FAE. It should be a priority for the Fiscal Year 2000 conference committee to fund these much-needed programs, and I am hopeful that the conferees will be able to find additional resources for this purpose. I believe it is critical that we provide line item funding for the competitive program that this Congress authorized last year. I look forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues in the Senate toward that end as they begin to draft the Fiscal Year 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time. I know if we are not out of time, we are just about out of time. I will take a few minutes of my leader time to talk about this amendment. I rise in strong support of the amendment. I do so in large measure because I believe it reflects the approach that represents the only way we are ever going to bring about a consensus on spending and the budget before the end of this year. I don't have it at this moment--I have asked my staff to bring it-- but the chairman of the appropriations committees in both the House and the Senate have expressed themselves publicly about the impropriety of across-the-board cuts. They have said it is the easy way; it is not the most appropriate way. Indiscriminate cuts have never been the right way to approach deficit reduction, but these indiscriminate cuts are not the only way our Republican colleagues have suggested we go about meeting our budget objectives in the past. They have used a number of devices. Some of them have been the subject of a good deal of discussion in recent days. George W. Bush has noted how inappropriate it is to use the EITC, and they appear to have backed away from using the tax credit available to working families. They have suggested accelerating the timing of the spectrum auction by $2.6 billion. They have suggested using two sets of books, one by and for congressional Republicans and one by the CBO. They have suggested declaring LIHEAP an emergency, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. They have suggested declaring the year 2000 census as an emergency. They have suggested that we raid the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. None of these have worked. Now we find our Republican colleagues suggesting maybe just an across-the-board, indiscriminate cut. We made some very difficult decisions with regard to defense earlier this year. We made the decision to provide them a pay raise for the first time in some time. Yet it appears our Republican colleagues are now prepared to go back and cut that pay raise and cut the other portions of the defense budget as well. We estimate that if you are going to pay for everything Republicans suggest with across-the-board cuts, a 3 percent cut won't do; the cut required is closer to 10 percent. That is what the Office of Management and Budget says. So if we cut defense by 10 percent, if we cut all the programs associated with disaster and agriculture by 10 percent, if we cut education by 10 percent, I wonder whether our colleagues want to do that. Yet that seems to be where they have relegated themselves, given the fact that none of their other budget gimmicks have worked. You can't accelerate spending. You can't turn the EITC program into an ATM machine. You can't use many of the approaches that have been previously proposed by our Republican colleagues. They now know that. However, as I said, congressional Republicans didn't figure this out until after we witnessed the unusual occurrence where they were criticized by one of their Presidential candidates. They will soon find out that across-the- board spending cuts will not work either. What works is what the senior Senator from New Jersey is now suggesting. What works is that we demonstrate some real leadership and find the offsets necessary to pay for these programs, or find the cuts that may be required to pay for these spending bills--not indiscriminately, but by making some tough choices. That is what we are suggesting. We are going to have to make tough choices in cuts or in offsets, but we have to make the tough choices together--Republicans and Democrats negotiating how to resolve this. We resolved it last year. That is how we should do it this year. In many cases, we have been locked out of the deliberations. Up until now, we haven't been involved in some of the conference committee deliberations. So I hope everybody realizes that in the end, if we are going to solve this problem, we have to do it in the way the senior Senator from New Jersey is suggesting. Let's solve it by showing some leadership, let's solve it by working together, let's solve it in the age-old traditional way of sitting down and finding the cuts and the offsets required to pay for the commitments we are making in the budget this year. I am happy to yield to the Senator from North Dakota for a question.