Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts for a question before I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. If I may respond, the irony is that the only tax matter that has been on the table for our Republican colleagues has been the earned-income tax credit, the tax credit affecting working families who are trying to get off welfare, who are trying to ensure that they pay their bills on time, who appreciate the importance of having that little help in April of every year. In fact, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and on the other side of the Capitol, made the point last week that these families need some help in managing. Well, I have heard, ``I am from the Government and I am here to help you'' in a lot of different ways, but this is a new chapter. There is no way we are going to help working families manage their money better by taking away the one financial tool they have in the Tax Code. That doesn't help them. It is a charade that even George W. Bush fully understood and appreciated and spoke out on. I think the Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely right. That ought to be a consideration as well. We ought to be looking at $4 trillion in possibilities there, at least prior to the time we commit to cut the first dollar of education, the first dollar of health care for children, or the first dollar of Armed Forces personnel stationed abroad. That, it seems to me, would be the prudent approach.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is what I am talking about. Obviously, when we talk about tax expenditures, people sometimes wonder what reference that is. In many cases, we are talking about loopholes. In fact, it is interesting that our Republican colleagues, in order to pay for the huge tax cut they had proposed earlier this year--which ended up going nowhere--used corporate loophole closures as a way to pay for part of it. So even they have acknowledged on occasion that these corporate loophole closures are something we should be looking at; not in this case, however. In this case, they are proposing that we cut education first, that we cut health care first, and then we look at other things, perhaps--although it isn't addressed in this proposal. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Massachusetts makes a very important point. Not $1 of tax expenditures are on the table in their proposal. What they are suggesting is that we cut education first, that we cut disaster assistance first, that we cut LIHEAP first, that we cut defense first; and only after we have done all of that, I suppose they would assume we might look at tax expenditures. But there is not a word about looking at the $4 trillion of possibilities in the tax expenditure category before we look at cutting education for children, before we look at cutting Head Start, before we look at cutting afterschool programs, before we look at cutting title I and funding for disadvantaged children. All of those cuts are on the table but not $1 in tax expenditures. So the Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from North Dakota makes a very interesting point. We had that debate and we had some votes back then. I think the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Nevada were the prime sponsors of the amendment that said you cannot use Social Security trust funds for the purposes of general revenues in calculating a balanced budget. I think we lost that amendment fight on a party-line vote. And now, in the last couple weeks, the CBO has already said: Look, Republicans are now acting in a manner consistent with their votes on this constitutional amendment. We now know that, according to CBO, they have already used $18 billion. Those aren't our numbers, those are CBO numbers. They have already done that. But that is the way they voted 3 or 4 years ago when we had that constitutional amendment debate--to use Social Security trust funds for the purposes of general revenues, for the purposes of meeting whatever obligations there may be. So they are consistent. But I don't think anybody ought to be misled. Now there is some talk about, well, we ought to use across-the-board cuts. They know across- the-board cuts involve deep cuts in defense, in education, in commitments to the environment, and in disaster and emergency assistance. They know that isn't going to happen. The only way it is going to happen is to do what is now on the table. This ought to be a 100-0 vote. Every Republican and Democrat ought to be supporting this amendment because it is the only way we are going to resolve this impasse. The sooner we recognize that, the better.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader. We recognize and applaud the desire of a number of groups and organizations in this country to take the proceeds from this non-renewable resource and reinvest a portion of these outer continental shelf revenues in the conservation and enhancement of our renewable resources. When the Land and Water Conservation Fund was created more than thirty years ago, the intention was for revenues from off-shore oil and gas drilling to be deposited into the fund, allowing federal and state governments to protect green space, improve wildlife habitat and purchase lands for conservation purposes. In my state of South Dakota this program has been particularly beneficial, helping local and state governments to purchase park lands and develop facilities in municipal and state parks throughout the state. Unfortunately, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has rarely received adequate funding. Congress has the opportunity this year to pass legislation that would finally ensure consistent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and provide a permanent stream of revenue for conservation. We applaud the efforts of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources as well as the House Committee on Natural Resources for conducting the process thus far in a fair and bi-partisan manner. We encourage these committees to continue their progress so that Congress as a whole can debate and pass what may well be the most significant conservation effort of the century.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I agree with the characterization made just now by the majority leader. I think all we can do is continue to discuss the matter to see if we might proceed in a way that would accommodate the concerns and needs of both caucuses. I think what the majority leader said, especially about rumors, and how all this began is irrelevant. In fact, the more rumors, the more this matter is exacerbated. If we really want to try to proceed successfully, we need to quell the rumors and get on with trying to talk with dispassionate voices and make sure we make the right decisions. We are prepared to do that, and I know the majority leader is prepared to do that. That is all that needs to be said at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to voice my support for S. 82, the Air Transportation Improvement Act. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend Senator McCain, the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Senator Hollings, the Ranking Member of that committee, for their leadership and their willingness to accommodate many of our colleagues who raised concerns about various provisions in the bill. I would also like to thank Senator Gorton, the Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, and Senator Rockefeller, the Ranking Member of that committee. They truly have been tireless advocates for improving aviation safety, security and system capacity. I would also like to thank the Majority Leader, Senator Lott, for the cooperation he has shown on this bill and for recently leading the way on another aviation bill that allowed the FAA to release FY99 funds for airport construction projects. Finally, I would like to thank all of my colleagues for their willingness to allow timely Senate consideration of this must-pass legislation. If it seems like the Senate has already considered legislation bill to authorize programs at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) including the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), that is because it has. More than a year ago, the Senate passed S. 2279, the Wendell H. Ford National Air Transportation System Improvement Act. Although there was overwhelming support for this legislation in the Senate last year, House and Senate negotiators could not agree on a multi-year FAA authorization bill. In October of last year, Congress passed a six- month authorization of the FAA instead. The FAA has been operating under short-term extensions ever since. Mr. President, this is no way to fund the FAA. Short-term extension after short-term extension disrupts long-term planning at the FAA and at airports around the country that rely on federal funds to improve their facilities and enhance aviation safety. Perhaps the only thing worse than passing a short-term extension is allowing the AIP program to lapse all together. Unfortunately, that is exactly what Congress did before the August recess when the House failed to pass a 60-day extension previously approved by the Senate. Almost two months later, Congress passed a bill authorizing the FAA to release $290 million for airport construction projects just before the funds were set to expire at end of the fiscal year. Airports around the country came within one day of losing federal funds they need for construction projects. The numerous short-term extensions could have been avoided if Congress would have simply passed a multi-year FAA preauthorization bill. We had our chance last year, and we have had more than enough time to carry out that responsibility this year. The Senate Commerce Committee approved S. 82, the Air Transportation Improvement Act of 1999 on February 11--almost eight months ago. As my colleagues know, this legislation is almost identical to S. 2279, the Wendell H. Ford National Air Transportation System Improvement Act. With the amendment offered by the managers of the bill, S. 82 would authorize programs at the FAA including the AIP program through FY02. Specifically, it would provide more than $2.4 billion a year for airport construction projects and more than $2 billion a year for facilities and equipment upgrades. It would also provide between $5.8 billion and $6.3 billion for the FAA's operations in FY00 through FY02. S. 82 includes a number of provisions to encourage competition among the airlines and quality air service for communities. For instance, it would authorize $80 million for a four-year pilot program to improve commercial air service in small communities that have not benefitted from deregulation. Specifically, the bill calls for the establishment of an Office of Small Community Air Service Development at the Department of Transportation (DoT) to work with local communities, states, airports and air carriers and develop public-private partnerships that bring commercial air service including regional jet service to small communities. I have often commented about how critical the Essential Air Service Program has been to small communities in South Dakota and around the country to retain air service. Although the Small Community Aviation Development Program would not provide a similar per passenger subsidy, it would give DoT the authority to provide up to $500,000 per year to as many as 40 communities that participate in the program and agree to pay 25 percent in matching funds. In addition, the legislation would establish an air traffic control service pilot program that would allow up to 20 small communities to share in the cost of building contract control towers. I am hopeful that South Dakota will have the opportunity to participate in the Small Community Aviation Development Program. Mr. President, some have suggested that we should use S. 82 as a vehicle to reform the air traffic control (ATC) system. Due to a number of factors, including bad weather, flight delays reached record levels this summer. Last month, Senator Rockefeller noted on the Senate floor that air traffic control delays increased by 19 percent from January to July of this year and by 36 percent from May to June when compared to the same time periods last year. The Air Transport Association estimates that the cost of air traffic control delays is $4.1 billion annually. The Administrator of the FAA, Jane Harvey, recently announced a number of short-term plans to reduce air traffic control delays. Ensuring aviation safety must always be the FAA's top priority. But I think Administrator Harvey should be commended for working with the airlines to determine ways to reduce air traffic control delays while maintaining the FAA's commitment to safety. Although these short-term improvements may help reduce flight delays, Administrator Harvey and Secretary of Transportation, Rodney Slater, insist that more must be done to modernize the AT for the long-term. Last week, Senators Rockefeller and Gorton introduced a bill with a package of ATC improvements, and I am pleased that they plan to offer this proposal as an amendment to Air Transportation Improvement Act. Their proposal would create a Chief Operating Officer position with responsibility for funding and modernizing the ATC system. It would also create public-private joint ventures to purchase air traffic control equipment. Under their proposal, FAA seed money would be leveraged with money from the airports and airlines to purchase and field ATC modernization equipment more quickly. Although more may need to be done to improve the ATC system in the future, I think the plans announced by Administrator Harvey and the amendment offered by Senators Rockefeller and Gorton are steps in the right direction. Mr. President, I know some of our colleagues oppose provisions in that bill that would increase the number of flights at the four slot- controlled airports. The proposal to increase the number of flights at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport has been particularly controversial, and I would like to commend Senator Robb for being a strong advocate for his constituents in Northern Virginia. Although the amendment offered by the managers of the bill would reduce the increase from 48 to 24 new flights into Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, I understand from Senator Robb that many Virginians continue to find that increase objectionable. I know my distinguished colleague from Virginia will continue to make persuasive arguments against the increase, and I look forward to that debate. Although there may be different provisions in this bill that each of us of may find objectionable, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting S. 82, the Air Transportation Improvement Act. We simply cannot continue to fund the FAA and the AIP program with short-term extensions. It is unfair to the FAA, and it is unfair to airports in South Dakota and throughout the country. I encourage my colleagues to support S. 82, the Air Transportation Improvement Act.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise to express how saddened I am by the party-line vote against Judge Ronnie White today. I had sincerely hoped that today would mark the beginning of a bipartisan attempt to clear the backlog of federal judicial nominees and begin to fill the vacancies that are rampant throughout the federal judiciary. I was mistaken. Instead, we got a party-line vote against a qualified minority judge coupled with a continued refusal to schedule votes on other qualified minority and women nominees. Judge White is eminently qualified to sit on the federal bench. He is a distinguished jurist and the first African-American to serve on the Missouri Supreme Court. Prior to his service on Missouri's Supreme Court, Judge White served as a State Representative to the Missouri Legislature, where he chaired the Judiciary Committee. In his law practice, which he continued during his service as a legislator, White handled a variety of civil and criminal matters for mostly low income individuals. His nomination received the support of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, the Saint Louis Post Dispatch, and the National Bar Association. He is a fine man who has given his life to public service and he deserved better than what he got from this Senate. He deserved better than to be kept waiting 27 months for a vote, and then to be used as a political pawn. This vote wasn't about the death penalty. This vote wasn't about law and order. This vote was about the unfair treatment of minority judicial nominees. This vote tells minority judicial candidates ``do not apply.'' And if you do, you will wait and wait, with no guarantee of fairness. Judge Marsha Berzon, for instance, has been kept waiting more than 20 months for a vote. Judge Richard Paez has been waiting more than 44 months. These nominees deserve a vote. While I am totally dismayed by what happened here today with respect to Judge White's nomination, the Senate today functioned, albeit in a partisan, political manner. As Chief Justice Rehnquist has recognized: ``The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him down.'' An up-or-down vote, that is all we ask for Berzon and Paez. And, after years of waiting, they deserve at least that much. The Republican majority should not be allowed to cherry-pick among nominees, allowing some to be confirmed in weeks, while letting other nominations languish for years. Accordingly, I vow today, that we Democrats just will not allow Paez and Berzon to be forgotten. As I have in the past, I will again move to proceed to the nominations of Judge Paez and Marsha Berzon, and I intend to take this action again and again should unnamed Senators continue to block a vote. Particularly after today's vote, I must say, I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination. Today's actions prove that we all understand that we have a constitutional outlet for antipathy against a judicial nominee--a vote against that nominee. What the Constitution does not contemplate is for one or two Senators to grind a nomination to a halt on the basis of a ``secret'' hold. This cowardly, obstructionist tactic is an anathema to the traditions of the Senate. Thus, today, I implore, one more time, every Senator to follow Senator Leahy's advice, and treat every nominee ``with dignity and dispatch.'' Lift your holds, and let the Senate vote on every nomination. The business of judges is the simple but overwhelmingly important business of providing equal justice to the poor and to the rich. Accordingly, the consequences of this confirmation process are awesome. It is time that we all take it more seriously and it is time that we schedule votes on every nominee on the Calendar--including Judge Paez and Marsha Berzon. All we are asking of our Republican colleagues is to give these nominees the vote--and hopefully the fair consideration-- they deserve. We will press this issue every day and at every opportunity until they get that vote. Today is a dark day for the Senate. We have voted down a fully- qualified nominee but I hope we can do better in the future and that we can move forward on the Paez and Berzon nominations in a fair and non- partisan manner.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. That is helpful. With that assurance, I will certainly not object to the request propounded by the majority leader. He has made it to me privately. It is my hope we will continue to work. These are important matters. As the majority leader has heard me say, and others say, now for some time, in some cases they have been pending not for months but for years. For anyone to be held that long is just an extraordinary unfairness, not only to the nominees but to the system itself. The majority leader has also noted that a cloture vote is an unfortunate matter. Actually, a cloture vote is a recognition of the difficulty to move judges. A cloture vote is probably no more unfortunate than a hold. We have people who are maintaining holds on judges, which is also very unfortunate. A hold is nothing more than an intent to filibuster. So I hope our colleagues will drop their holds and will recognize that taking hostages in this form is not the right way to proceed and does not live up to the traditions of the Senate when it comes to the expeditious consideration of individuals who want to serve in public life. The majority leader also mentioned--I will mention this just briefly because it is another important factor in our decision to want to cooperate with the majority--the decision and the commitment made by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that he will hold hearings and he will move other nominees forward. It is important that all of the nominees who are pending before the Judiciary Committee be considered. He has indicated he will do his best to ensure they are considered. Our ranking member, the Senator from Vermont, has been extremely persistent and dedicated to that effort. I appreciate his contributions as well. So, Mr. President, I will not object.

Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate the majority leader's effort to try to move these nominations along. Before I make some comment, let me ask the majority leader what his intentions are with regard to Marsha Berzon, the nominee to be the United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, as well as Richard Paez, a similar nominee for the Ninth Circuit. Can the majority leader give me his current intentions with regard to those two nominations?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I congratulate and thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his remarks and for his extraordinary commitment to this effort. He has been at every meeting. He has been engaged from the very beginning, and we are grateful, as on so many of the issues our caucus cares deeply about, for the leadership he has provided. I am proud of the fact we have had the participation of well over 20 Members, and the senior Senator from Massachusetts has been the leader of the pack, as he is on so many other issues. I also thank Senator Rockefeller for the extraordinary effort he has put forth. As a member of the Finance Committee, no one has worked harder on many of these issues than has he. I am grateful for the participation and leadership he has provided to get us to this point. Before I yield the floor, let me say how urgent this matter is. My colleagues yesterday discussed the urgency of this legislation again and again. I am disappointed and deeply concerned about the fact that, at least to date, there is no date yet set for consideration and markup of a bill to repair the damage done in the 1997 act. We have to address and consider and ultimately pass such a bill prior to the time we leave the Senate this year. We will do anything, and everything we know how, to ensure this becomes one of the highest legislative priorities left prior to the end of this session of Congress. It must be addressed. It must be passed. We must take this legislation up soon in order for us to accomplish what I know is a bipartisan recognition of the shortcomings and the miscalculations made in the 1997 act. I will say again, the fact that we have over half of our caucus already, and will probably have two-thirds of our caucus as cosponsors in the not-too-distant future, is a clear recognition of the depth of feeling our Members have on this bill and the importance we place on getting something done this year. We must do it. We will do it, and we will work with our Republican colleagues to make that happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 2 years ago, we passed the Balanced Budget Act. It was a monumental example of what Congress can achieve when we work together. Not only did we end 30 years of deficit spending with the Balanced Budget Act, we also extended the life of the Medicare Part A Trust Fund by 13 years. And we added important new preventive benefits, including mammograms and Pap smears, for Medicare beneficiaries. We made many changes that achieved a lot of good. We also know now that we made some miscalculations. Frankly, that is to be expected. Very often, when you make a lot of changes, you don't get everything right the first time. But the miscalculations we made about Medicare in the Balanced Budget Act are causing real hardships for some of our most vulnerable citizens--hardships that cannot be justified on either financial or medical grounds. We did not anticipate these consequences when we passed the Balanced Budget Act. But now that we know about them, we have a responsibility to address them. Today I am introducing the Medicare Beneficiary Access to Care Act of 1999. This bill is not a comprehensive Medicare reform plan. Nor is it a wholesale revision of the Balanced Budget Act. Instead, it is a reasonable, targeted solution to certain specific problems with Medicare that Congress created inadvertently as part of the Balanced Budget Act. Before I outline the specific remedies in my bill, I want to tell you about the real-life consequences of one of the changes we made to Medicare under the Balanced Budget Act. Two years ago, Congress decided to limit how much Medicare would pay for rehabilitation therapy. The new limits are $1,500 a year per patient for physical and speech therapy combined, and another $1,500 for occupational therapy. For some Medicare patients who need rehabilitation therapy, the new limits on payments are not a problem. But for Ruth Irwin, they are a nightmare. A while back, Mrs. Irwin had to have one of her legs amputated because of complications of diabetes. With an incredible amount of effort and the help of regular physical therapy, Mrs. Irwin was learning how to walk with a prosthetic leg and two canes. Her goal was to learn to walk with one cane, so she would have one hand free. She was on the verge of reaching that goal--when she hit the $1,500 physical-therapy limit. She couldn't afford to pay out-of- pocket, so she stopped seeing her physical therapist. Her condition deteriorated. A few months later, she tripped on a curb and broke three ribs. Ruth Irwin is not alone. It is estimated that 1 in 7 Medicare recipients who need physical therapy--about 200,000 Americans--will hit the caps this year. These are mostly patients who are recuperating from amputations, strokes, and head trauma, and people who suffer from serious degenerative diseases such as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's disease. Mr. President, between 1990 and 1996, Medicare spending on rehabilitation therapy grew 18 percent a year, to $1 billion. We had good reason to try to curb that growth. But we now know, we chose the wrong way to accomplish our goal. It's wrong to force stroke victims in nursing homes to decide whether they want to learn how to walk or talk. The Medicare Beneficiary Access to Care Act repeals the current, arbitrary caps rehabilitation therapy and replaces it with limits based on individual patients' specific needs. It also makes a number of other, targeted adjustments. First: It adjusts the new payment system for nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities to better reflect the increased costs of caring for very sick patients. Second: It postpones additional cuts in home health care payments for two years and addresses the more serious problems that have come to light while the current ``interim payment system'' has been in place. Third: It protects hospitals from crippling losses they might otherwise suffer as the result of a new Medicare payment system for outpatient medical services. This protection is especially important for people who depend on rural hospitals--like Mobridge Hospital, in Mobridge, South Dakota. Mobridge Hospital is the only source of inpatient hospital care for 100 miles. If it were forced to drastically reduce its services, or close, that would have a devastating impact on scores of communities. Because they serve a population that is generally older and less wealthy than average, America's rural hospitals operate on lower profit margins, and they have virtually no margin for error. They need the relief that is in this bill. A fourth area addressed by the bill are the deep cuts made by the BBA in payments to teaching hospitals. Major teaching hospitals represent only 6% of all hospitals. But they account for 70% of the burn units in America, more than half of the pediatric intensive care units, and they provide 44% of the indigent care in this country. The bill moderates these cuts. When you combine other BBA cuts in payments with reductions in payments for indirect medical education, nearly half of America's major teaching hospitals are projected to lose money during the next few years. We cannot sacrifice the high-quality care, teaching, and research activities these hospitals provide. We must make this fix, and keep these hospitals whole. This bill does it. Fifth, Mr. President, the Medicare Beneficiary Access to Care Act provides new protections for seniors enrolled in Medicare+Choice, when their plan pulls out of their community. Finally, the bill includes additional provisions to protect access to rural hospitals, hospice care, community health centers, and rural health clinics. As I said, this is not a comprehensive solution to Medicare. There are still many questions we must work together to answer. How can we add the prescription drug plan both our parties--and the vast majority of Americans--say we support? How can we make sure Medicare remains solvent when the Baby Boomers retire--and beyond? These are questions that must be answered. They are important and must be addressed in legislation that falls outside the purview of the bill we introduce today. But make no mistake, they are high priorities, and ones which will not go away, and will be addressed in future bills. For now, though, there is no question that we made some miscalculations in 1997, when we changed the way Medicare pays for certain services. There is no question that those miscalculations are causing real hardships today for some of America's sickest and frailest citizens, and for the institutions that care for them. And there should be no delay in correcting those miscalculations. We should make these changes not just because of the human suffering they are causing. There are compelling economic reasons to make them as well. That is the other part of Ruth Irwin's story. As a result of her three broken ribs, Mrs. Irwin received regular visits by a registered nurse and a home health aide--all paid for by Medicare. She also received physical therapy three times a week. The bottom line: Her recovery was far longer, more painful--and more costly--than it needed to be. We did a lot of good in 1997. We made some tough decisions that added years of solvency to Medicare, and enabled us to add life-saving new preventive benefits. But we also made some miscalculations. We didn't know at the time the harsh consequences some of these miscalculations would have. Now that we do, we need to correct them--the sooner, the better. So I urge all my colleagues to support this bill and to work with us to ensure its prompt consideration and passage. This legislation was the result of a tremendous amount of work by a number of our colleagues. This is clearly a team effort. I thank in particular Senator Moynihan for his extensive efforts to help us draft and craft this legislation. His expertise was invaluable in making very important decisions. I thank Senators Mikulski and Durbin and Kerrey for their commitment to solving the problem. I thank Senator Jack Reed for his help on home health and Senators Baucus and Conrad for their efforts on rural health. I thank especially Senator Rockefeller and the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts for their commitment to access to health care, to education, and to the array of issues they have raised throughout the work we have done on this bill to this date. Mr. President, I now yield the floor and again thank Senator Kennedy and others for their efforts on the floor this morning. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just respond quickly. I acknowledge that. But I believe there is a huge difference between looking at the issue of stockpile and looking at the importance of the treaty per se, at the language of the treaty, and whether or not we ought to ratify a treaty, whether or not we ought to send the message to the rest of the world that we want them to ratify the treaty, whether the treaty is in our long-term interests, and what the ramifications of the treaty are. That is what I am suggesting ought to be the subject of these hearings. We ought to be looking at stockpiles, and we ought to be looking at the ramifications of our current nuclear weaponry. And certainly the chairman has done an admirable job of that, as has the committee as a whole, but we have not held hearings until now. I think they are long overdue. I think we as a Senate have made a very big mistake in calling this treaty to the floor prior to the time we have had that kind of consideration in the Foreign Relations Committee or, for that matter, in the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I do not. I appreciate the majority leader yielding. The majority leader made reference to meetings where the CTBT has been discussed. Certainly we were not in any way acknowledging that this issue has never come up. But I think it is important for the record, once again, to say that in the time that this treaty has been before the Senate, not one hearing has been held. I am grateful for the chair of the Armed Services Committee at least taking this initiative, as late as the date may be. It sounds to be a very comprehensive set of hearings. That will be helpful. But I must say, it is equally irresponsible for us to be here at this moment without 1 day where the committee of jurisdiction has held hearings on an issue of this import and then ask our colleagues--the Senate--to pass judgment. The majority leader knows we have attempted to bring the Senate to this point now for some time. We are pleased that we have made this progress. But, frankly, this isn't the way to do it. We should have had hearings in the committee. We are glad we are having hearings in the Armed Services Committee. But to rush to judgment on an issue of this importance is not the way to do business. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I think this unanimous consent request represents progress from the first request made by the majority leader. But I still believe this procedure is unfair, and I would even say dangerous. This is the most significant treaty with which we will deal on nuclear proliferation maybe in the time that the majority leader and I will be leaders. We are going to be taking this up on the Senate floor without one hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee. We have looked back. We do not know when that has ever happened before, when the Foreign Relations Committee has not acted upon a treaty, even though it has been pending for 2 years. We are hoping that the Committee on Armed Services will take up the treaty next week, but I believe that alone is irresponsible. But we believe we have no choice. Our choice is to send the message as an institution that this treaty is not important, it does not even deserve a hearing, or to send the message, God forbid, that the Senate would reject this treaty and say it was not the U.S. intention to send the message around the world that we will ban nuclear weapons testing. Those are the options on the negative side. On the positive side, the option might be between now and October 12, we can convince the necessary two-thirds of the Senate to support this treaty. We still hope, we believe, that might be within our reach. But I know what some of the debate will be, and the Presiding Officer or the majority leader will mark my words. We will hear somebody say this treaty is not verifiable, in spite of the fact that expert after expert has noted that it is verifiable, but there will have been no hearings to verify the fact that, indeed, this treaty is subject to all the verification elements required of a treaty of this kind. We are going to hear all kinds of complaints and all kinds of allegations and rumors about what this treaty does or does not do, and when you do not have hearings, that is what is going to happen. So we are extremely disappointed with the way this has been handled. As I said, I believe it is irresponsible and dangerous. But we also note this may be the best we can get, and if it is the best we can get, as troubled as we are, we will take it. We will have our day in court. We will make our best arguments. We will let the judgment of this Senate prevail. I am very hopeful the administration will be engaged. I am very hopeful those who care as deeply as we care about this issue will join us in making the arguments and in dealing with the issue. I also say it is my intention, as Democratic leader, to conduct hearings of my own as part of the Democratic Policy Committee to ensure that we do have experts in Washington to express themselves. We will do that at the appropriate moment. I do not object, but I must express very grave reservations.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Alaska in remembering Mary Mikami Rouse. Mary Rouse recently passed away, at the age of 87, leaving behind an accomplished family and a legacy of academic achievement. She was born in the United States in 1912, the daughter of Japanese immigrants who had come to the United States to seek their fortune. Growing up in Alaska, Mary Mikami excelled academically and graduated with the highest honors from Alaska Agricultural College and the School of Mines, which later became the University of Alaska. After completing her college work in Alaska, she traveled to New Haven, CT, where she attended Yale University, where she met and married Irving Rouse and earned her Ph.D. Throughout her life she continued living in New Haven, working as lecturer, translator, and instructor at Yale's Institute for Oriental Languages. With her husband Irving, Mary had two sons, David Rouse, an urban landscape architect in Philadelphia, and Peter Rouse, my chief of staff and a man who has been my friend and closest adviser for now more than 15 years. All of us who know and work with Pete are aware of the enormous influence his mother Mary had on him. His success in life stems from the legacy of his mother--a keen intelligence, unparalleled integrity and judgment, and basic human kindness. The values he brings to this institution each day are, no doubt, the product of his upbringing and his mother's influence. In fact, it is her character we have the privilege of seeing reflected in her son each and every day. For those of us who have the good fortune to work with Pete Rouse, there is no way we can thank his mother Mary for all that she has done to influence his life, for all that she did to ensure we have the good fortune to call Pete Rouse our friend, to call him, now, our coworker, and for me to rely upon him each and every moment of every day to the extent that I do. I, and all who know Pete, share his loss now. We are grateful that she has had the good life, the successful life, the extraordinary life that she has had, and we all wish Pete and his family well under these circumstances.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object to this request for three reasons.

Mr. DASCHLE. First, 10 hours of debate is totally insufficient for a treaty as important as this. I appreciate very much the majority leader's willingness to respond to the continued requests we have made for consideration of this treaty. He and I hold a different view about the importance of it, but we are certainly willing to have a debate and have the vote. I appreciate as well his willingness to respond as quickly as he has. In this case, we have been attempting to get to this point for a long period of time. But October 6 is a time that I don't think allows for adequate preparation for a debate of this magnitude. Keep in mind, no hearings have been held yet on this issue. Unfortunately, as a result of that, I don't think people are fully cognizant of the ramifications of this treaty and the importance of it. I will certainly agree to a time certain if we can extend the length of debate. I would also be concerned about the language in the unanimous-consent request that assumes this treaty will be defeated. The last paragraph makes an assumption that we are not prepared to make at this point. We don't think it necessarily will be defeated. We look forward to working with the leader and coming up with a time we can debate it and give it the time it deserves. I hope it will be done sometime this coming month. I look forward to working with the majority leader to make that happen.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will object at this point. I do so only because it is my understanding that the junior Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, is still awaiting an answer from the manager of the bill, Senator McCain. They have been negotiating now for several days. The Senator from New York indicated he hopes that in a matter of hours he will hear from Senator McCain's office. As soon as he gets that clarification from Senator McCain, I think he will be more than happy to agree to this unanimous consent request. I will certainly notify the majority leader when that happens. Then it would be my expectation we could agree to this unanimous consent request. We have worked through a number of other problems and issues Senators have raised. I appreciate the cooperation of all Senators, especially those on my side of the aisle who have worked with us to get to this point. This is an important bill. It needs to be done. I hope it will be done next Monday.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield? He made reference to a couple of matters which ought to be addressed briefly. First, with regard to nuclear waste, I know of nobody on this side of the aisle who wishes to filibuster the bill, and I will be happy to clarify that with the majority leader. I think there is an interest, however, in amending the bill. We would love to have the bill come to the Senate floor under normal Senate order, regular order, and if the bill were brought up under regular order, we would be in support of moving the bill and voting in favor of the motion to proceed. I will be happy to work with the majority leader to schedule that, if we could accommodate Senators who wish to offer amendments. With regard to the FAA debate, this was one of the more difficult agreements. I appreciate the ability of many of our colleagues to allow us the opportunity to have this debate on Monday. But I must say that, once again, this is a unanimous consent request to limit debate and limit amendments. We are agreeing to this only because we believe the FAA bill is a matter of great national security and of import not only for safety and health of aviation but because we believe we have already taken too long to reauthorize this legislation. So because of the expiration of the authorizing legislation, because of the safety and health matters, we share the view that this legislation ought to come up and be debated and that we ought to limit ourselves to relevant amendments. But again I say that we have not had a bill before the Senate under regular Senate order since last May. We have gone through June, July, August, and now September--4 months--and we are simply saying: Let's bring bills to the floor under regular order. Let's have a good debate, and let's have amendments offered. I am hopeful that we can work through the rest of the agenda with that in mind. So we are not going to object to this bill being brought up, again, under abnormal Senate order and rule. But I think there is a growing concern that too many bills are coming to the floor without the opportunity for a full debate. So whether it is nuclear waste or whether it is an array of other bills that could come to the floor, we are ready to debate them. We are ready to have a good amount of time dedicated to whatever piece of legislation ought to be considered. But we want the right to offer amendments. We will forego that right under FAA, but there are not many bills that fit into that category, if any, for the rest of the year. I thank the majority leader for yielding. Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, at the request of tribal leaders throughout my state, today I am introducing legislation to establish the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place in Ft. Pierre, South Dakota. This history of South Dakota is carved with the rich cultural traditions of numerous Sioux tribes who lived on the plains for centuries and inlaid with the stories of immigrants who came during the last two hundred years to settle the towns, plow the earth, shepherd livestock and mine gold. The story of that settlement, and the mingling of Indian and non-Indian people, has not always been a peaceful one, and today in South Dakota we continue to face the challenges of disparate communities of Indians and non-Indians living side-by-side, often imbued with misunderstanding and mistrust. As a result, there is a growing recognition of the need for reconciliation between Indian and non-Indians. It is my hope that through the establishment of a Reconciliation Place, we can promote a better understanding of the history and culture of the Sioux people and by doing so, achieve better relations between Indian and non-Indian peoples. The Reconciliation Place will provide a home for a center of Sioux law, history, culture, and economic development for the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota tribes of the upper Midwest, and thus will help preserve the strong and unique cultural heritage of the Sioux. The Reconciliation Place will enhance the knowledge and understanding of the history of the Sioux by displaying and interpreting the history, art, and culture of the tribes of this region. It will also provide an important repository for the Sioux Nation history and the family histories for individual members of the tribes, and other important historical documents. The majority of the historic documents and archives of this region are kept in government facilities that are scattered across the West and are almost inaccessible to the people of this area. The Reconciliation Place will provide a central repository for these important elements of Sioux history, allowing easy access to tribal members interested in exploring their past. By empowering the Sioux tribes to establish their own Sioux Nation Supreme Court, the bill will help achieve greater social and economic stability in Indian Country. Moreover, the court will bring the legal certainty and predictability to the reservations necessary for businesspeople to have the confidence to make investments in tribal enterprises. This, in turn, will generate the economic infrastructure needed to create more jobs on reservations. Finally, the legislation establishes a Native American Economic Development Council to assist the Sioux tribes by providing opportunities for economic development and job creation. Specifically, the council will provide expertise and technical support to Indians to help gain access to existing sources of federal assistance, while raising funds from private entities to match federal contributions. Funding obtained by the Council will be used to provide grants, loans, scholarships, and technical assistance to tribes and their members, for business education and job creation. Mr. President, the need for this Reconciliation Place is clear. It will provide a focal point for public and private organizations to better assist Native Americans to protect their past, strengthen their present, and build a bright economic future. The Reconciliation Place will respect and compliment the government-to-government relationship established between the tribes and the United States. I urge my colleagues to support the establishment of this Reconciliation Place and am hopeful that this legislation can be enacted in the near future. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support by tribal leaders from South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska to the Wakpa Sica Board of Directors be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, at the request of tribal leaders throughout my state, today I am introducing legislation to establish the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place in Ft. Pierre, South Dakota. This history of South Dakota is carved with the rich cultural traditions of numerous Sioux tribes who lived on the plains for centuries and inlaid with the stories of immigrants who came during the last two hundred years to settle the towns, plow the earth, shepherd livestock and mine gold. The story of that settlement, and the mingling of Indian and non-Indian people, has not always been a peaceful one, and today in South Dakota we continue to face the challenges of disparate communities of Indians and non-Indians living side-by-side, often imbued with misunderstanding and mistrust. As a result, there is a growing recognition of the need for reconciliation between Indian and non-Indians. It is my hope that through the establishment of a Reconciliation Place, we can promote a better understanding of the history and culture of the Sioux people and by doing so, achieve better relations between Indian and non-Indian peoples. The Reconciliation Place will provide a home for a center of Sioux law, history, culture, and economic development for the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota tribes of the upper Midwest, and thus will help preserve the strong and unique cultural heritage of the Sioux. The Reconciliation Place will enhance the knowledge and understanding of the history of the Sioux by displaying and interpreting the history, art, and culture of the tribes of this region. It will also provide an important repository for the Sioux Nation history and the family histories for individual members of the tribes, and other important historical documents. The majority of the historic documents and archives of this region are kept in government facilities that are scattered across the West and are almost inaccessible to the people of this area. The Reconciliation Place will provide a central repository for these important elements of Sioux history, allowing easy access to tribal members interested in exploring their past. By empowering the Sioux tribes to establish their own Sioux Nation Supreme Court, the bill will help achieve greater social and economic stability in Indian Country. Moreover, the court will bring the legal certainty and predictability to the reservations necessary for businesspeople to have the confidence to make investments in tribal enterprises. This, in turn, will generate the economic infrastructure needed to create more jobs on reservations. Finally, the legislation establishes a Native American Economic Development Council to assist the Sioux tribes by providing opportunities for economic development and job creation. Specifically, the council will provide expertise and technical support to Indians to help gain access to existing sources of federal assistance, while raising funds from private entities to match federal contributions. Funding obtained by the Council will be used to provide grants, loans, scholarships, and technical assistance to tribes and their members, for business education and job creation. Mr. President, the need for this Reconciliation Place is clear. It will provide a focal point for public and private organizations to better assist Native Americans to protect their past, strengthen their present, and build a bright economic future. The Reconciliation Place will respect and compliment the government-to-government relationship established between the tribes and the United States. I urge my colleagues to support the establishment of this Reconciliation Place and am hopeful that this legislation can be enacted in the near future. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support by tribal leaders from South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska to the Wakpa Sica Board of Directors be printed in the Record.