Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me begin by discussing the amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have the floor, do I not?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, two years ago today, on September 23, 1997, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was read for the first time and referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Unfortunately, instead of coming to the Senate floor to commend the Senate for ratifying the CTBT or for taking steps toward that end, I must come to point out the Senate has done absolutely nothing on CTBT. Not a hearing, not a vote. And I must confess up front, I do this with a sense of confusion, disappointment, and profound regret over the Republican majority's inaction on this important treaty since its submission to the Senate. The Republican majority's unwillingness to permit the Senate to take even a single step forward on a treaty to ban all nuclear testing has me and many observers confused for a variety of reasons. First, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has been enthusiastically and unequivocally endorsed by our senior military leaders, both current and former. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated ``the Joint Chiefs of Staff support ratification of this treaty.'' The current chairman and fellow service chiefs are not alone in their support for CTBT. In fact, the four previous occupants of the chairman's seat have endorsed this treaty. Former Chairmen General John Shalikashvili, General Colin Powell, Admiral William Crowe, and General David Jones issued a statement on the treaty and the additional safeguards proposed by the President. Their statement concluded ``with these safeguards, we support Senate approval of the CTB treaty.'' Second, several Presidents, both Republican and Democratic, have supported a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing. In fact, Presidents as far back as President Eisenhower have worked to make this prohibition a reality. On May 29, 1961, President Eisenhower said the failure to achieve a test ban ``would have to be classed as the greatest disappointment of any administration, of any decade, of any party.'' Similar statements have been made by Presidents in every subsequent decade. And if this Congress fails to act, Presidents in the next millennium unfortunately will be uttering comparable remarks. Third, the overwhelming majority of the American people, approximately 82 percent, have indicated they endorse immediate Senate approval of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Although opponents of the treaty argue support is limited to just Democrats or liberals, opinion polls point to a different conclusion. CTBT support spans the entire political spectrum. For example, among those who identify themselves as Republicans, 80 percent support the treaty and 79 percent of those who characterize themselves as ``conservative Republicans'' believe the Senate should ratify the CTBT. As far as geographic limitations, the polls show CTBT support knows no boundaries. From coast to coast and all points in between, the vast majority of Americans support this treaty. Let me provide the Senate with a few examples that back up this statement. In Tennessee, 78 percent support the treaty. In Kansas, 79 percent. In Washington, 82 percent. In Oregon, 83 percent. The story is similar in every other state in the Union. With these facts as a backdrop, I think it is easy to understand why I and many others are confused that, in the two years since the President submitted the CTBT treaty, the Republicans have chosen to do nothing. CTBT is vigorously endorsed by our most senior military leaders, past and present. Senate Republicans are unmoved. Republican and Democratic Presidents since Eisenhower have strongly backed the CTBT. Yet, Senate Republicans choose to do nothing. Finally, over 80 percent of our constituents, from all parts of the political spectrum and all regions of the country, have asked us to ratify the CTBT. And the response of Senate Republicans? Not a hearing, not a vote. Nothing but silence and inaction. I mentioned at the outset that I am also disappointed by the course Senate Republicans have pursued. The reason for my disappointment is that Senate Republicans have permitted a small number of members from within their ranks to manipulate Senate rules and procedures to prevent the Senate from acting on the CTBT. I recognize these few members are well within their rights as Senators to use the rules in this manner. Under Senate rules, a small group can thwart or delay action on even the most vital pieces of legislation. This has been proven time and again since the Senate's founding. In more recent times, we have seen the same handful of Senators on the far right of the political spectrum repeatedly resort to these tactics to prevent the Senate from acting expeditiously on arms control treaties. However, in many of these previous instances, a number of Republicans eventually decided to call an end to the political gamesmanship of their more conservative colleagues. They decided that this nation's national interests superseded the political interests of a few Senators at the far end of the political spectrum. They decided that the full Senate should be allowed to work its will on matters of national security. In short, they decided that politics stopped at the water's edge. I am disappointed that in this particular instance, two years have elapsed and I see no such movement within the Republican caucus. Two years is too long. I would hope we would soon see some leadership on the Republican side of the aisle to break the current impasse and allow the full Senate to act on the CTBT. Finally, I also indicated I deeply regret the Senate's failure to act. While waiting for the United States Senate to ratify the CTBT, we have seen nearly 40 other nations do so. We have witnessed two additional countries test nuclear weapons while the intelligence community tells us several others continue developing such weapons. And in a few short weeks, we will observe the nations that have ratified the treaty convene a conference to discuss how to facilitate the treaty's entry into force --a conference that limits participation only to those nations that have ratified the treaty. If the United States is to play a leadership role on nuclear testing, convince others to forgo nuclear testing, and actively participate in efforts to implement the treaty, the United States Senate must exercise some leadership itself and give the CTBT a fair hearing and a vote. That effort must begin today.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield my hour to the distinguished Senator, Mr. Byrd.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me begin where others have also begun by complimenting the distinguished chair and ranking member. They have an extraordinary working relationship. They are excellent partners in moving this important bill. I commend them both for their work. This has not been easy, especially this year, but they have demonstrated once again what happens when two people of intelligence and determination can work together to achieve the product that we have before us. I certainly hope that our colleagues will recognize that work and will be as supportive as I hope we can be on a bipartisan basis. If there is one area where I hope we can take another look in conference it is section 8 and the question of public housing. The affordable housing crisis, as many know, is now at record levels. But we are in a situation where very little is available in the form of new vouchers to deal with millions of children and senior citizens who are currently at risk, not because we don't have the desire but because we haven't had the resources. We have considered the demand for section 8 housing. We have looked at public housing in many ways but have not funded it adequately because we have felt the need to fund other priorities. In fact, we have used section 8 as an offset to fund other programs. That offset has now been completely depleted. But 5.3 million American households suffer from the worst-case housing situations--defined as paying more than 50 percent of their income in rent or living in substandard conditions. I believe Senator Sarbanes mentioned that. In my home State of South Dakota, the average waiting list for public housing is now 9 months for section 8. It is a very serious problem even in a rural State such as ours where one wouldn't think that the availability of public housing is nearly as much of a problem as it might be in some of the larger cities. But we have seen a half decade of a budget freeze on housing assistance. From 1977 to 1994, the number of HUD-assisted households grew by 2.6 million--an average of 204,000 additional households each year from 1977 through 1983, and an additional 107,000 households per year from 1984 to 1994. But in 1995 we saw a reversal of that policy--a freeze on new housing vouchers despite the growing need. In 1999, we saw the first new vouchers in 5 years. The President has made a modest request for fiscal year 2000 of 100,000 for this year. Last year we made available 50,000 new section 8 vouchers, the first in 5 years. In my own State, again, 321 families would receive section 8 assistance with appropriations of 100,000 new vouchers. To provide no new vouchers is, frankly, a flaw in what is otherwise a very important bill. I hope we can begin to work on it much more constructively. In some areas, housing costs have risen faster than incomes of low- income working families. In addition, due to the aging and gentrification of older housing, the number of affordable rental units has actually declined. The section 8 housing voucher program clearly provides one of the only means--if not the only means--to subsidize the rents of apartments that families locate on the private rental markets. They don't give families a free ride. I think everyone hopefully understands that. There is no free ride for families. They still must find the resources to pay between 30 and 40 percent of their incomes for rent. They have to take some responsibility in their own right. Without vouchers, many low-income working families simply are unable to secure affordable housing. Another problem, of course, related to public housing and section 8 housing is the Community Builder Program. The bill currently would require the firing of 410 HUD employees, which would eliminate local service in almost two dozen communities, including South Dakota. That also would be a problem. I realize our distinguished colleagues had to make some very tough choices. I applaud them for making many of the choices they did and coming up with as fair and comprehensive a bill as we have before the Senate. I intend to support it strongly and enthusiastically. I do hope, though, when we get to conference, we can address the section 8 and public housing programs. I believe that is the one area where, as good as this bill is, we still can demonstrate real progress. Failing that, I am very concerned about the implication for housing for low-income people across this country, in South Dakota, in rural areas, as well as in urban areas that I know are commonly associated with public housing programs. This is not just an urban problem; it is a rural problem as well. I know the distinguished ranking member understands that and is very knowledgeable and cognizant of that issue and problem. I hope we can do better in resolving it once we get to conference. I congratulate my colleagues and yield the floor.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to have the opportunity to talk about the next four votes because it is critical that everyone understand what really is at stake tonight. Many Democratic Senators are in favor of the bankruptcy bill. Many of us have indicated publicly we support a bankruptcy bill. But we also support debate on a bankruptcy bill. We support the opportunity to take up a bill under the regular rules of the Senate, regular order, have a good debate, have amendments offered, do what we should do in the Senate tradition, and have the kind of full and open debate we have not had on a bill since last May. We have not brought a nonappropriations bill to the Senate floor since last May under the normal Senate rules. Every single bill that has come before us since May has been under unanimous-consent agreements that circumvent, if not completely eliminate, the use of the normal Senate rules. I had a clear understanding, as early as last summer, that when we brought the bankruptcy bill up, it would come up under normal Senate rules. I understand times change and circumstances change, but it is regrettable--although not surprising--that once again cloture was filed preemptively and without good cause. Keep in mind, when one files cloture, it calls for the end of all debate. It is amazing to me that tonight we are voting on a motion to end all debate before we have even had any debate. Not a word of debate has been uttered on the bankruptcy bill. We find ourselves in an amazing Orwellian circumstance in which we are ending debate before it begins, calling it a debate, filing cloture, and calling it quits. We cannot do that. Time after time, I have indicated that many of us have opportunities to stop legislation, and we will be inclined to do that if we have no opportunity to bring up amendments, as regular order would allow. Again, many of us support bankruptcy reform and want to see a bankruptcy bill, but we also want to be able to offer amendments. If cloture is invoked tonight, many of the amendments we had agreed to prior to bringing the bill to the floor will fall--amendments that both sides agree will improve the bill. Cloture will actually prevent those relevant amendments from being considered. I do not know why any colleague would vote to eliminate even relevant amendments, amendments for which there is agreement. We have a managers' amendment to make improvements to the bill, but under cloture it would be subject to a point of order. We want to go to bankruptcy. I want to see if we can reach some agreement on going to bankruptcy, but we cannot continue to gag Senators and prevent them from using the normal rules of the Senate in offering amendments. Second issue: Cloture on Mr. Stewart. I have indicated publicly that even though I have some misgivings about Mr. Stewart, I will support him. This issue is not about Mr. Stewart. This issue is about the 45 nominations that are still pending, awaiting Senate action a few weeks before the end of the session. This issue has to do with 38 nominations in committee, 24 district, 13 circuit, and 1 International Trade Court judge. This issue has to do with nominees who have been waiting for the Senate to act now since January of 1996. Judge Richard Paez, who is currently a U.S. district court judge, was first nominated in January of 1996. Judge Paez has been waiting 3\1/2\ years for a Senate vote--3\1/2\ years. That is half a Senate term. He has been waiting half a Senate term for the Senate to act. He has been waiting for more than 1,300 days for the Senate to vote, or 25 times longer than Mr. Stewart. Mr. President, 1,300 days is a long time to wait for the Senate to act. Judge Paez is a patient man, but I do not think it is too much to ask that, up or down, we let him get on with his life, up or down he have the opportunity to have a vote, up or down we say yes or no, you will be a circuit judge. Justice Ronnie White, the first African American to serve on the Missouri Supreme Court, was originally nominated on June 26 of 1997. He was actually put on the calendar in this Congress on July 22 of 1999, but he has waited for a total of over 7 months on the calendar in this and in previous Congresses. Marsha Berzon was first nominated in January of 1998. Her nomination has been pending over 10 times longer than Ted Stewart's nomination. There are 64 vacancies in the Federal judiciary today. Chief Justice Rehnquist has noted that and has urged the Senate to act. We have 45 nominations pending in the Senate right now awaiting action either in the committee or on the floor. There are seven nominations on the Executive Calendar. Only 17 judges have been confirmed to date. Some might claim: We have seen that happen before. I hate to say ``when we were in the majority,'' but when we were in the majority, during the first session in 1991, the last year we were in the majority in a nonelection year, we confirmed 57 judges; in 1992, an election year, we confirmed 66 judges. In the election year 1994, the last election year where we were in the majority, we had 101 judges confirmed. All one has to do is look back at past precedent. All one has to do is look at the terrible unfairness of someone having to wait 1,300 days, 25 times longer than Ted Stewart, months and months--10 times longer than Ted Stewart in the case of Marsha Berzon--to see how unfair this system is. I want to find a way to work through this. I know Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wants to find a way through it. I am hopeful we can find a way through it within the next few days. Tonight I will move to proceed to the nominations of Judge Paez and Ms. Berzon, and we will have an opportunity to express ourselves on the importance of these judges. We will vote. I hope the majority will not oppose moving to proceed to those two judges: Ms. Berzon, an exceptional nominee for the ninth circuit; and Judge Paez, a sitting district court judge, a Hispanic American, also fully qualified, a nominee for the Ninth Circuit. I hope we can find a way to resolve our differences and move forward. I felt strongly about the importance of having these votes. I feel equally strongly about the importance of trying to resolve this impasse. We will make every effort to do so. I believe my colleagues will support an effort to break this impasse, recognizing that, as important as this is, we cannot go home leaving all of this work undone. I hope we can do so this week. I know the majority leader has indicated a willingness to perhaps even hotline Judge Paez and Ms. Berzon. I hope that will happen this week. If that happens, we will be in a better position to know just how much opposition there is. We have to move on. We have to have these votes. We have to confirm these nominations. We have to ensure we can pass a good bankruptcy bill. There is so much more we can and ought to do. That will take working together, and I stand ready to do so.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I now move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar No. 159, Marsha L. Berzon, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 208, Richard A Paez, to be a U.S. Circuit Court Judge for the Ninth circuit. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

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, today I am introducing legislation to authorize the Black Hills National Forest to sell or exchange property it owns in order to acquire new property for the purpose of constructing two new district offices for the forest. The legislation is cosponsored by my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Johnson. On February 27, 1998, the Forest Service approved the consolidation of the Black Hills National Forest's seven Ranger Districts into four districts. As a result, the Pactola/Harney and Spearfish/Nemo Ranger Districts are each currently managed by one District Ranger, but utilize two offices each. Combining these four separate offices into two district offices would save money in the long-term, be more efficient, and ensure good customer service for users of the forest. One of the new district offices would be located on federally-owned property in Spearfish Canyon and house the Spearfish/Nemo Ranger District employees. The other new district office would be located on property to be procured near Rapid City, and would house the Pactola/ Harney Ranger District and the Rapid City Research Station employees. It is important to note that this legislation is particularly necessary given the extraordinarily poor working conditions experienced by the employees of the Rapid City Research Station. Their building is literally falling apart and fails to meet basic safety standards. In fact, due to a lack of proper ventilation and a failure to meet fire codes, the fire marshal has prohibited the research station from carrying out any of the chemical analysis critical to its mission. As a result, that work must be contracted out, using funds that could more appropriately be spent elsewhere. Much of the resources necessary for the implementation of this legislation can be gained by selling property that will be made unnecessary by the construction of the new offices. However, the legislation does authorize any additional funds that may be necessary to complete this important project. I have worked carefully with the Forest Service to develop this legislation. I believe it is a sensible and efficient way to ensure that the agency can meet the needs of the public. I urge my colleagues to give it their support.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to authorize the Black Hills National Forest to sell or exchange property it owns in order to acquire new property for the purpose of constructing two new district offices for the forest. The legislation is cosponsored by my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Johnson. On February 27, 1998, the Forest Service approved the consolidation of the Black Hills National Forest's seven Ranger Districts into four districts. As a result, the Pactola/Harney and Spearfish/Nemo Ranger Districts are each currently managed by one District Ranger, but utilize two offices each. Combining these four separate offices into two district offices would save money in the long-term, be more efficient, and ensure good customer service for users of the forest. One of the new district offices would be located on federally-owned property in Spearfish Canyon and house the Spearfish/Nemo Ranger District employees. The other new district office would be located on property to be procured near Rapid City, and would house the Pactola/ Harney Ranger District and the Rapid City Research Station employees. It is important to note that this legislation is particularly necessary given the extraordinarily poor working conditions experienced by the employees of the Rapid City Research Station. Their building is literally falling apart and fails to meet basic safety standards. In fact, due to a lack of proper ventilation and a failure to meet fire codes, the fire marshal has prohibited the research station from carrying out any of the chemical analysis critical to its mission. As a result, that work must be contracted out, using funds that could more appropriately be spent elsewhere. Much of the resources necessary for the implementation of this legislation can be gained by selling property that will be made unnecessary by the construction of the new offices. However, the legislation does authorize any additional funds that may be necessary to complete this important project. I have worked carefully with the Forest Service to develop this legislation. I believe it is a sensible and efficient way to ensure that the agency can meet the needs of the public. I urge my colleagues to give it their support.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, yesterday my colleagues, Senator Enzi and Senator Gorton, discussed the importance of a proposed new clean coal initiative that offers the opportunity to create a new type of cleaner- burning coal that will help to meet our nation's energy needs and the requirements of the Clean Air Act. I want to lend my strong support to this initiative, and express my hope that the Department of Energy and Congress can work together to find a way to fund this important project. Under this initiative, the Black Hills Corporation of Rapid City, South Dakota, would work with the Department of Energy to test a new method of processing sub-bituminous coal to remove its moisture content and increase its heat-value. This new technology is much less capital intensive than any other coal enhancement technology known to exist today and has the real potential of becoming the first such process to be commercially feasible. It is my understanding that the upgraded coal which would be produced by this new process would be environmentally superior to current sub-bituminous coal and less expensive to ship, allowing coal users across the country to benefit from it. There are extensive reserves of sub-bituminous coal in the Powder River basin, and particularly on the reservation of the Crow Indian Tribe. By expanding the market for coal from this area, we can help to promote economic development across the west. At the same time, we can provide coal users throughout the United States with cleaner-burning coal, and help to improve our air quality. It is my hope that we can move forward with this project as quickly as possible. I urge my colleagues to give it their strong support.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last year I worked closely with my colleagues Senator Byrd and Senator Gorton to place language in the report accompanying the Fiscal Year 1999 Department of Interior appropriations bill directing the Secretary to report to Congress on the need for a uniform federal policy guiding the collection of fossils from public lands. This was an important step that was long overdue. Public lands such as those administered by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and other agencies are some of our nation's finest repositories of fossils. By studying fossils, paleontologists learn information that is vital to understanding the Earth and the history of life on this planet. Unfortunately, the variety of policies used by federal agencies to guide the collection of fossils from these lands are confusing to the public, do not ensure that scientists have a full opportunity to study valuable specimens, and do not ensure that fossils are adequately preserved for the future. I believe it is time that we developed such a policy and implemented measures to maximize access to and preservation of important fossil specimens. I am very pleased that the Department has undertaken a serious review of this issue and is consulting with all stakeholders to ensure that it provides Congress with the best information and recommendations possible. It is my hope that this report will be completed expeditiously so that we can work with the administration on any follow-up measures that may be required. In the meantime, it is my hope that the administration will move forward with one important way that it can immediately make fossils more readily available to the public. New information technology has given us the ability to send vast amounts of data anywhere in the world almost instantaneously. I believe the administration should begin immediately to explore ways to utilize this capability to make data about critical fossils available to scientists worldwide. For example, the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology has the capability to use CT scans to create high-resolution, three-dimensional images of a fossil and its internal structure that can be accessed by scientists over the next generation Internet. I strongly urge the administration to fund initiatives of this type in its fiscal year 2001 budget, and to move forward as quickly as possible with steps that can improve public access to these fossils.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. As a result of that, I object to the proposal as presented.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, the majority leader objects to my modification.

Mr. DASCHLE. If I can respond to the distinguished majority leader, first, let me say that nothing, as I understand it, in this resolution--again, I have only had a cursory opportunity to look at it--would do anything with regard to the President's actions. The President is going to be able to act with or without this resolution. So the timing of the resolution has no real bearing on the President's decision. We can adopt or reject the amendment and the resolution at any time. That is, I think, what the majority leader's intent would be, to put the Senate on record with regard to the action, not prevent the President from doing so because this resolution does not prevent him; it simply comments on what they view to be the advisability of the resolution. But in answer to the question of the majority leader, let me say, we would want to at least give our colleagues the right to offer amendments. I am not in a position at this moment to come to agreement with regard to what the amendments might or might not be. I simply am asking that in the context of legislation and the Senate rules the regular order be followed. The regular order is that Senators can offer amendments. It does not say the regular order requires germaneness or relevancy. The regular order is Senators have a right to offer amendments. I simply ask in my unanimous consent request that the regular order under Senate rules be allowed in this case as one would expect they would be followed traditionally.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, let me say this resolution was introduced last night. It was only put on the calendar today. To my knowledge, very few, if any, people have had the opportunity to read the resolution, much less give much consideration to it. So I ask unanimous consent the majority leader's consent request be modified to conform with the regular order of the Senate and provide for amendments and no limit on debate.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am delighted to join in the introduction of the ``Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 1999.'' For the last year, I have been working to extend the benefits of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) to South Dakotans who worked in uranium mines and a uranium mill in western South Dakota. This legislation would accomplish that goal, and I am very grateful to Senator Hatch for his hard work on this issue. In the 9 years since the passage of RECA, we have had time to reflect upon its strengths and its shortcomings. During that time, it has become overwhelmingly clear that we have not fully met our obligation to victims of our nuclear program. Most seriously, we have arbitrarily and unfairly limited compensation for underground miners to those in only five States, despite the fact that underground miners in other states such as South Dakota faced exactly the same risk to their health. This fact alone requires us to amend RECA so that we can right this wrong. However, we have also excluded other groups of workers, and their surviving families, from compensation for serious health problems and, in some cases, deaths, that have resulted from their work to help defend our Nation. Many of those who worked in uranium mills have developed serious respiratory problems as a result of exposure to uranium dusts and silica. Similar concerns have been raised about above-ground miners and uranium transportation workers as well. This legislation would address those shortcomings and ensure that those who have suffered health problems because the government failed to warn them about the hazards of working with uranium are compensated. It is my hope that Congress will act on it this session so that we can provide compensation to these workers as quickly as possible. There is one issue I hope we can address when this bill is considered in committee. Earlier this summer, I hosted a meeting of former uranium workers in Edgemont, SD. The most pressing concern of many of them was their inability to purchase affordable, quality health insurance due to the serious, ongoing health problems many of them have as a result of their work. Even if compensated by the Federal Government, they fear they are only one hospital stay away from bankruptcy. I hope that I can work with my colleagues over the next several months to determine how we can ensure that these workers, who sacrificed their health for their country, have access to affordable health insurance. Finally, I have noted in the past the difficulty of tracking down documentation about South Dakota's uranium mining and milling activities. For that reason, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources and a letter from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology on this issue be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as we approach final passage of the reconciliation conference report, I would like to put what we are about to do in proper perspective. Although some have characterized this process as politics as usual or political posturing, I do not see it that way. What the House has done, and the Senate is about to do, is serious business, not a political game. We are about to vote on legislation that affects this nation's economic and fiscal health and well-being. It will affect the live of millions of Americans for decades to come. The stakes could not be higher. And when you boil away all the rhetoric heard during this debate, what you really have is a tale of two paradigms. The Republican plan is an old and familiar one. Republicans would take us back to 1981 and the failed economic policies of that era. These policies can best be characterized as wishful thinking that led to a fiscal disaster. The Democratic position is that we should follow the model Democrats put in place in 1993 and continue to pursue to this day. Our plan turned record deficits into record surpluses and halted the skyrocketing growth of federal debt. At the same time, we have experienced the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history. The Democratic plan is one of fiscal responsibility and economic prosperity. In addition to giving us the strongest economy in a generation, the politically difficult vote cast by Democrats nearly 9 years ago provided something else. It provided this Congress with an historic opportunity--sustained economic health and the possibility of actual budget surpluses. The question facing this Congress at this time is, which road will we take--the fiscally responsible path or the fiscally dangerous one? Will we opt to build on our success or put our nation's fiscal health at risk yet again? As I have listened to many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I am struck by how familiar many of their arguments sound. I am hearing some of the same dangerous rhetoric and false rosy scenarios that I heard last decade. And as I look at their bill, I see many of the same special interests disproportionately benefitting from their actions. Make no mistake about it. When it comes to irresponsible tax cuts tilted to the wealthy, the Senate bill was bad, and the conference bill is much worse. Let me cite a few examples. Under the terms of the bill before us, the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of just $138. That's about 25 cents a day, not even enough for a cup of coffee. At the same time, Republicans feel it is appropriate to provide the top 1 percent of taxpayers, people with incomes over $300,000, an average tax cut of over $46,000. A cup of coffee for most, $46,000 for a few. To further highlight the skewed nature of this cut, people earning over $300,000 would receive more than 40 percent of the $792 billion in tax relief provided by this bill. Meanwhile, people making between $38,000 and $62,000, the heart of this country's middle class, would receive 10 percent of the tax cuts in this bill. Once again, much for a few, and little for many. It's hard to see how anyone could characterize this as fair. While providing these huge tax cuts for a few, the Republicans opt to set aside nothing for prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries. In order to generate the surpluses necessary to pay for their monstrous tax breaks, Republicans require drastic cuts in education, veterans' health, defense and agriculture. If our military were funded at the level requested by the President, the Republican budget would force across-the-board domestic discretionary cuts of 38 percent below their level today. If defense were fully funded and Republicans followed the plan laid out by Chairman Domenici, these cuts would grow to 50 percent. A final consequence of Republican recklessness is that they would force $90 billion in cuts to Medicare, student loans, veterans' benefits and many other programs on top of cuts I just described. The budget rules are clear on this. If tax cuts are not budget-neutral, the law requires across-the-board cuts in many mandatory programs. The Republican plan would require $32 billion in Medicare cuts over the next 5 years. And starting in 2002, the Republican plan would eliminate the Commodity Credit Corporation, crop insurance, child support enforcement, and veterans' education benefits. As I said earlier, we have this historic opportunity, and this is how the majority responds. They fail on at least three counts. First, Republicans would set out on an irresponsible fiscal policy. As history has painfully proven, their tax cuts would inevitably lead to bigger deficits and more debt. Second, they are pursuing an irresponsible national policy. Their tax cuts would explode just as baby boomers retire, eating up scarce resources that will be needed if the government is to keep its commitments on Medicare and Social Security. Third, as Republicans have known from the outset, engaging in this reckless and risky course will only produce one outcome--a Presidential veto. The President has been clear: he will veto this bill. And I am confident that the vote on final passage will show equally clearly that this veto will be sustained. Instead of wasting Congress's and the American people's time with this vainglorious pursuit, we should be working together on a fiscally responsible plan that protects the entire Social Security surplus, strengthens and modernizes Medicare by extending its solvency and providing a prescription drug benefit, pays down the debt, provides targeted tax relief for working Americans, and invests some of the non- Social Security surplus in critical priorities such as defense, education, veterans' health, and agriculture. The size of the projected surpluses are sufficient to permit all of this. Yet, the Republicans insist on pursuing a course that neglects all but the tax cuts and is certain to produce a veto. We have seen this course before. On juvenile justice, on the Patients' Bill of Rights, on gun control, on their overall budget plan, and on this bill. Time and again the Republican Congress has opted to follow a path outlined by ideological extremists. A path that focuses attention on special interests instead of the nation's interests. A path that wastes precious time and fails the American people when it comes to truly addressing their concerns. When we return from the August recess, this Congress will have about 30 working days until our target adjournment date in October. I hope that when we come back in September, we can focus our limited time on the people's business. I ask that my colleagues reject this bill today, and begin that process immediately.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am delighted to join in the introduction of the ``Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 1999.'' For the last year, I have been working to extend the benefits of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) to South Dakotans who worked in uranium mines and a uranium mill in western South Dakota. This legislation would accomplish that goal, and I am very grateful to Senator Hatch for his hard work on this issue. In the 9 years since the passage of RECA, we have had time to reflect upon its strengths and its shortcomings. During that time, it has become overwhelmingly clear that we have not fully met our obligation to victims of our nuclear program. Most seriously, we have arbitrarily and unfairly limited compensation for underground miners to those in only five States, despite the fact that underground miners in other states such as South Dakota faced exactly the same risk to their health. This fact alone requires us to amend RECA so that we can right this wrong. However, we have also excluded other groups of workers, and their surviving families, from compensation for serious health problems and, in some cases, deaths, that have resulted from their work to help defend our Nation. Many of those who worked in uranium mills have developed serious respiratory problems as a result of exposure to uranium dusts and silica. Similar concerns have been raised about above-ground miners and uranium transportation workers as well. This legislation would address those shortcomings and ensure that those who have suffered health problems because the government failed to warn them about the hazards of working with uranium are compensated. It is my hope that Congress will act on it this session so that we can provide compensation to these workers as quickly as possible. There is one issue I hope we can address when this bill is considered in committee. Earlier this summer, I hosted a meeting of former uranium workers in Edgemont, SD. The most pressing concern of many of them was their inability to purchase affordable, quality health insurance due to the serious, ongoing health problems many of them have as a result of their work. Even if compensated by the Federal Government, they fear they are only one hospital stay away from bankruptcy. I hope that I can work with my colleagues over the next several months to determine how we can ensure that these workers, who sacrificed their health for their country, have access to affordable health insurance. Finally, I have noted in the past the difficulty of tracking down documentation about South Dakota's uranium mining and milling activities. For that reason, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources and a letter from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology on this issue be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, could the Senator share with us what his amendment is about?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. If the Senator from Kansas would yield.