Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have to rise to express my frustration with our current circumstances. I have been doing all I could to assure that we could bring this bill to closure. We agreed to a limited number of amendments. We agreed to time limits on those amendments. We have agreed to try to accelerate the consideration of this bill in every way, shape, and form. Now we are told we cannot have a vote on final passage until Tuesday. That is totally inexplicable. We have been told over and over and over again this bill is so important and time-sensitive. We have been told it cannot wait. We have been told we cannot take up other legislation because we do not have time. We have been on this bill for a couple of days. We have addressed every concern Senators have raised. We have offered amendments. We have no reason this bill could not be completed today--no reason at all. It is very hard for me to understand why, after all of this effort to bring us to this point, to have completed our work on the bill, we cannot bring this bill to closure, we cannot move on to other legislation. There is just no reason for it. I am very disappointed. It is very hard to ask my colleagues day after day to cooperate, day after day to try to figure out a way to complete work on bills, and then be told: Well, we have changed our mind. We don't want to complete work on a bill. We are going to bump this bill into next week. And, by the way, we are going to make up reasons to have votes. That is not the way to run the Senate. It is not the way to do business. It makes it very difficult to go back to colleagues and say: Now we have changed our mind again. We are going to try to finish this bill in 2 days. We are going to try to take something else up and work it through, but we want your cooperation. That is unacceptable. I do not know why we cannot have the final vote. I do not know why we cannot finish the legislation. I do not know why we cannot find a way to resolve all the other outstanding issues there are with regard to this bill this afternoon. We can do it this afternoon. It is only 2 o'clock. I am told that all we have left only two or three. That is all we have. We are told by the Republicans that there is no more time, that we will not be allowed to go to final passage today. As I say, it leaves me mystified. I am absolutely puzzled, exasperated. I do not understand. I just wish we had been told, because there have been a lot of other amendments we could have offered on our side had we known we would have all this time. We were told: No. We don't have time. Let's get this bill done, and let's get it to conference. We are now not going to get to conference--not now, not tomorrow, not until next week. There is no excuse.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont. I applaud the Senator for his amendment. 12,000th Vote for Senator Stevens

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Today, I call the attention of all my colleagues to a very important and historic achievement by one of the Senate's most remarkable Members. With this vote, Ted Stevens will cast his 12,000th vote in his career. It is certainly fitting that Senator Stevens represents Alaska in the United States Senate. He has lived in that great state and worked for its residents since before it was a state. In fact, as Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, Ted was instrumental in setting the groundwork for Alaska's admission to the Union in 1959. In 1964, Ted was elected to the Alaska House of Representatives. Two years later, his colleagues elected him House Majority Leader, an honor that surprises none of us who have first hand knowledge of Ted's legendary tenacity, legislative acumen and dedication to his constituents. Senator Stevens brought that determination and skill to the Senate in 1968. I'm sure that every Senator has his or her own anecdote to document Ted's dedication and effectiveness as a legislator. Ted once declared that his constituents ``sent me here to stand up for the state of Alaska.'' No one who served with Ted over the past thirty years can doubt his commitment to do just that. In fact, some surely wonder at times if he isn't more of an ambassador than a Senator. Ted has endeavored to ensure that promises made to Alaska under the Statehood Act are kept. He helped pass the Native Claims Act in 1971 and played a pivotal role in bringing the oil pipeline to Alaska in 1973. He joined with Senator Warren Magnuson in co-authoring the 200 mile fishing limit that protects all coastal states from encroachment by foreign fishing fleets and helps sustain America's fisheries. In the late 1970s, when President Carter made the creation of wilderness areas in Alaska a national priority, Ted worked with his characteristic focus and tenacity to ensure that the Alaska Lands Act protected his state's interests as much as possible. After the Exxon Valdez accident in 1989, Ted managed legislation that not only financed the cleanup of the despoiled coastline, but also required double- hulling on tankers. Senator Stevens has worked tirelessly and effectively for Alaska. But his accomplishments are certainly not limited to the 49th state. Ted's career documents his far reaching influence on national policy and dedication to the institution of the Senate as well. Ted has been a leader in the defense area for his entire career, as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and now the full Appropriations Committee. And he has developed recognized expertise in science and technology issues through his long and distinguished service on the Commerce Committee as well. Ted has a deep affection for the Senate and has labored to preserve the character, integrity and prerogatives of the institution. He has chaired the Rules Committee and served in the leadership as Majority Whip. Ted Stevens is recognized for his no-nonsense style, limitless energy and ability to get things done--not to mention an impressive collection of neckties. Everybody in the Senate knows that Ted's word is good, and he has earned the high esteem of his colleagues through his hard work and devotion to his job. Mr. President, it is indeed a pleasure to serve with Ted Stevens, and to count him as a friend. I congratulate Ted on his achievement, and thank him for his numerous contributions to his state, his country and the United States Senate.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to express the views of this Senator on a very important amendment. I think the biggest question facing the Senate today is not whether to support the Y2K liability reform. Most supporters, on both sides of the aisle, agree that we need to protect the high-technology companies from frivolous lawsuits. For more than a decade, this industry has been the driving force of our economy. Its well-being is extremely important to this country and to all of us. In South Dakota, Gateway computers is the largest private employer in the State today. I want a bill that provides Gateway--and every other member of this industry--with reasonable protections from frivolous Y2K-related lawsuits. Businesses need to be able to focus on fixing the problem--not defending against lawsuits. But the high technology industry is not the only group that faces potential difficulties as a result of this problem. Consumers and other businesses that use and depend on computers face potential risks as well. We need to protect consumers who might be hurt by the Y2K bug. We need to protect their right to seek justice in the courts. A major problem with the underlying bill, as we consider just how we do that, is an issue of great importance to many of us; that is, how we resolve the issue of capping punitive damages that go beyond what is needed to prevent frivolous Y2K-related lawsuits. The amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, and developed by him, and a number of our colleagues, corrects these problems. Before I describe the differences between our approach and the underlying bill, it is important to point out that--on most of the basic issues--the two proposals are identical to the pending bill. Both approaches encourage remediation by giving defendants 90 days to fix a Y2K problem before a lawsuit can be filed. Both approaches would discourage frivolous lawsuits by allowing either party to request alternative dispute resolution at any time during the 90-day waiting period. Both approaches require anyone seeking damages to offer reasonable proof--including the nature and amount of the damages--before a class action suit could proceed. Both approaches would permit class-action lawsuits to be brought only if a majority of the people in the lawsuit suffered real harm by real defects. Our approach addresses 95 percent--if not 100 percent--of what those in the high-technology community have asked for. It addresses all of the principles they have said are essential. But there are a number of important ways in which our approaches differ. Our proposal carefully balances the rights and interests of the industry, and consumers. It limits its remedies to problems that are truly, legitimately Y2K related. Our alternative offers high-tech companies more incentives than the underlying bill to fix the problem--now, while there is still time. We are concerned that the underlying bill may--perhaps inadvertantly--provide such blanket protection against all Y2K problems, including those that could have and should have been avoided, that companies will lose the incentive to fix problems now. For example, our amendment provides a balanced and reasonable solution to the issue of ``proportionality.'' The underlying bill preempts State laws on this issue. It would grant defendants proportional liability in almost all Y2K cases--no questions asked. Our amendment, simply says that Y2K defendants would have to pass a simple test to quality for this protection. It is sometimes referred to as the ``good corporate citizen'' test. And I know my colleague from Massachusetts has discussed this in some detail this afternoon. All a company has to do to pass the test is to show that it has identified potential problems and made a good-faith effort to alert potential victims. This is a major concession. But we are willing to make it in this case because of the extraordinary circumstances. These are reasonable conditions. Every single high tech company we know of has already met it. If there are others that have not done so, they do not deserve special protection from Congress--plain and simple. There are a number of other ways in which our amendment improves on the underlying bill: It does not prohibit consumers from seeking justice in the courts for real and legitimate Y2K-related problems. The underlying bill would require consumers to meet so many conditions before bringing suit that it would effectively shut the courthouse door. Our bill establishes strict requirements for class actions to protect against frivolous suits. The underlying bill shifts virtually all Y2K suits to the Federal courts. This has two effects. In many cases, it makes it harder for consumers to bring a suit. It also increases the strain on an already backlogged Federal court system. This is strongly opposed by the Judicial Conference--not only because of the additional strain it would place on Federal courts, but also because it would upset the traditional division of responsibility between State and Federal courts. I might say, I am continually amused by those on the other side of the aisle who have expressed themselves as being advocates of States rights and the Constitution and the requirement that States be given the prerogative in matters of jurisdiction on this and so many other areas; but when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle find it convenient, it seems this shift to Federal responsibility comes so easily. This is just yet another example of that shift. There have been scores of those examples in recent years. Our alternative would not enforce illegal contract terms. The underlying bill might. It could enforce any and all contracts-- even those that are currently illegal under State and Federal laws. Our alternative does not protect defendants from liability for intentionally wrongful acts. It allows victims of such acts to sue for economic losses. The underlying bill protects companies even when they knowingly harm consumers, or use fraud to pressure someone into signing a contract. Finally, our bill does not include a cap on punitive damages. The pending bill would limit the amount of punitive damages that smaller businesses and municipalities could be assessed--regardless of whether they acted responsibly. The people who would benefit from a cap on punitive damages are bad actors who injure others. Ironically, many of those who would be hurt if this passes are themselves small businesses. In summary, our amendment is identical to the underlying bill in every important, necessary way. But, it does differ in ways that are critical to consumers, to businesses, and to the functioning of our courts. Perhaps the most important difference between our approach and the underlying bill is that our approach is the only version the President will sign. We know that. The administration has said so unequivocally on numerous occasions. Make no mistake, unless the improvements in this amendment are adopted, the President will veto this bill for going too far. So the choice is ours, and the year 2000 is fast approaching. Do we want to engage in an exercise that would be fruitless? Do we want to waste precious days debating a bill we know will be vetoed and then have to start all over? Do we want to limit frivolous Y2K lawsuits? This year is now more than halfway over. How much more time are we willing to let go before we agree to work together on a real solution? The bottom line is, we have the power to fix the Y2K problem today. We have before us now an approach that targets the real problem and can be signed into law. I urge my colleagues to join us in adopting the Kerry-Robb amendment. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following list be printed in the Record with respect to the Y2K agreement and first-degree amendments on the Democratic side: Mr. Hollings, 3 amendments; Mr. Kerry (MA), 1 amendment; Mrs. Boxer, 1 amendment; Mrs. Feinstein, 1 amendment; Mr. Feingold, 1 amendment; Mr. Graham, 1 amendment; Mr. Leahy, 1 amendment; Mr. Dodd, 1 amendment; Mr. Edwards, 2 amendments; Mr. Daschle, 1 amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the values and spirit that helped early settlers thrive and prosper in the harsh conditions of life on the prairie are alive and well today in South Dakota. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet someone who embodies many of the values and ideals that the great state of South Dakota was built upon. Phillip Clark, owner and President of Hansen Manufacturing Corporation of Sioux Falls, is one of 53 persons honored this week by the Small Business Administration as part of its celebration of National Small Business Week. For over two decades, Phil has guided his company through a variety of complex challenges and built a thriving business. In the process, he has made an important contribution to our state, and to the city of Sioux Falls. As a manufacturer of conveyer belt assemblies, Phil invented an enclosed belt conveyor system. Anyone who has worked in or around a grain elevator knows the importance of minimizing dust; it is one of the most important safety steps that can be taken to prevent fires and explosions. This enclosed belt system has helped a number of grain facilities improve the safety of their operations, and dramatically changed the way that grain and other bulk materials are moved. Phil was able to develop this system because he listened to what his customers wanted, and he acted to fill that need. it is a basic lesson that every successful business owner must know: listen to your customer. While Phil has maintained a clear focus on his company's future, he has also taken the steps necessary to position his company to deal with current business conditions. As a manufacturer of conveyor belt systems, Hansen Manufacturing derives much of its business from grain elevators, feed manufacturers, and other companies that process agricultural goods and other bulk materials. Because of the continued crisis in our agricultural markets, many of these companies have faced extremely difficult business conditions over the past few years, resulting in equally difficult times for their suppliers. Furthermore, domestic weakness has been compounded by weakness in foreign markets, which have become increasingly important for Hansen Manufacturing. While short-term business conditions have been challenging, Phil has been able to successfully grow his business while making critical investments in new product lines. His successful stewardship of Hansen Manufacturing serves as an example to all small business people in South Dakota. I commend the Small Business Administration for recognizing his outstanding work. In South Dakota, almost all businesses are small businesses, and that's true nationwide. But in South Dakota small businesses are big business. I thank the Small Business Administration for its work with business owners such as Phil Clark, and I congratulate Phil for his hard work and his outstanding contributions to his community and state.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to compensate the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota and the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska for losses the tribes suffered when the Fort Randall and Gavins Point dams were constructed on the Missouri River over four decades ago. As a result of the construction of these dams, more than 3,259 acres of land owned by the Yankton Sioux Tribe was flooded or subsequently lost to erosion. Approximately 600 acres of land located near the Santee village and 400 acres on the Niobrara Island of the Santee Sioux Tribe Indian Reservation also was flooded. The flooding of these fertile lands struck a significant blow at the economies of these tribes, and the tribes have never adequately been compensated for that loss. Passage of this legislation will help compensate the tribes for their losses by providing the resources necessary to rebuild their infrastructure and their economy. To appreciate fully the need for this legislation, it is important to understand the historic events that preceded its development. The Fort Randall and Gavins Point dams were constructed in South Dakota pursuant to the Flood Control Act (58 Stat. 887) of 1944. That legislation authorized implementation of the Missouri River Basin Pick-Sloan Plan for water development and flood control for downstream states. The Fort Randall dam, which was an integral part of the Pick-Sloan project, initially flooded 2,851 acres of tribal land, forcing the relocation and resettlement of at least 20 families, including the traditional and self-sustaining community of White Swan, one of the four major settlement areas on the reservation. On other reservations, such as Crow Creek, Lower Brule, Cheyenne River, Standing Rock and Fort Berthold, communities affected by the Pick-Sloan dams were relocated to higher ground. In contrast, the White Swan community was completely dissolved and its residents dispersed to whatever areas they could settle and start again. The bill I am introducing today is the latest in a series of laws that have been enacted in the 1990s to address similar claims by other tribes in South Dakota for losses caused by the Pick-Sloan dams. In 1992, Congress granted the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe compensation for direct damages, including lost reservation infrastructure, relocation and resettlement expenses, the general rehabilitation of the tribes, and for unfulfilled government commitments regarding replacement facilities. In 1996 Congress enacted legislation compensating the Crow Creek tribe for its losses, while in 1997, legislation was enacted to compensate the Lower Brule tribe. The Yankton Sioux Tribe and Santee Sioux Tribe have not yet received fair compensation for their losses. Their time has come. Mr. President, the flooding caused by the Pick-Sloan projects touched every aspect of life on the Yankton and Santee Sioux reservations, as large portions of their communities were forced to relocate wherever they could find shelter. Never were these effects fully considered when the federal government was acquiring these lands or designing the Pick- Sloan projects. The Yankton Sioux Tribe and Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska Development Trust Fund Act represents an important step in our continuing effort to compensate fairly the tribes of the Missouri River Basin for the sacrifices they made decades ago for the construction of the dams. Passage of this legislation not only will right a historic wrong, but in doing so it will improve the lives of Native Americans living on these reservations. It has taken decades for us to recognize the unfulfilled federal obligation to compensate the tribes for the effects of the dams. We cannot, of course, remake the lost lands that are now covered with water and return them to the tribes. We can, however, help provide the resources necessary to the tribe to improve the infrastructure on their reservations. This, in turn, will enhance opportunities for economic development that will benefit all members of the tribe. Now that we have reached this stage, the importance of passing this legislation as soon as possible cannot be stated too strongly. I strongly urge my colleagues to approve this legislation this year. Providing compensation to the Yankton Sioux Tribe and the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska for past harm inflicted by the federal government is long-overdue and any further delay only compounds that harm. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the American people continue to say they want a comprehensive, enforceable Patients' Bill of Rights. Toward that goal, several of my Democratic colleagues and I introduced S. 6, the Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, earlier this year. That legislation, which we first introduced in the 105th Congress, addresses the growing concerns among Americans about the quality of care delivered by health maintenance organizations. I am disappointed that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle prevented the Senate from considering managed care reform legislation last year. But I remain hopeful that the Republican leadership will allow an open and honest debate on this important issue this year. I am hopeful that my colleagues will also take a moment to listen to veterans in this country who are raising legitimate concerns about the medical care they receive from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Many veterans are understandably concerned that the Administration requested approximately $18 billion for VA health care in FY00--almost the same amount it requested last year. They fear that if this flat- lined budget is enacted, the VA would be forced to make significant reductions in personnel, health care services and facilities. I share their concerns and agree that we simply cannot allow that to happen. On the contrary, Congress and the Administration need to work together to provide the funds necessary to improve the health care that veterans receive. Toward that end, and as we prepare to celebrate Memorial Day, I am reintroducing the Veterans' Access to Emergency Care Act of 1999. I am pleased that Senator Rockefeller, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, is joining me in this effort. This legislation, which was S. 2619 last year, calls for veterans to be reimbursed for emergency care they receive at non-VA facilities. The problem addressed in the bill stems from the fact that veterans who rely on the VA for health care often do not receive reimbursement for emergency medical care they receive at non-VA facilities. According to the VA, veterans may only be reimbursed by the VA for emergency care at a non-VA facility that was not pre-authorized if all of the following criteria are met: First, care must have been rendered for a medical emergency of such nature that any delay would have been life-threatening; second, the VA or other federal facilities must not have been feasibly available; and, third, the treatment must have been rendered for a service-connected disability, a condition associated with a service-connected disability, or for any disability of a veteran who has a 100-percent service- connected disability. Many veterans who receive emergency health care at non-VA facilities are able to meet the first two criteria. Unless they are 100-percent disabled, however, they generally fail to meet the third criterion because they have suffered heart attacks or other medical emergencies that were unrelated to their service-connected disabilities. Considering the enormous costs associated with emergency health care, current law has been financially and emotionally devastating to countless veterans with limited income and no other health insurance. The bottom line is that veterans are forced to pay for emergency care out of their own pockets until they can be stabilized and transferred to VA facilities. During medical emergencies, veterans often do not have a say about whether they should be taken to a VA or non-VA medical center. Even when they specifically ask to be taken to a VA facility, emergency medical personnel often transport them to a nearby hospital instead because it is the closest facility. In many emergencies, that is the only sound medical decision to make. It is simply unfair to penalize veterans for receiving emergency medical care at non-VA facilities. Veterans were asked to make enormous sacrifices for this country, and we should not turn our backs on them during their time of need. There should be no misunderstanding. This is a widespread problem that affects countless veterans in South Dakota and throughout the country. I would like to cite just three examples of veterans being denied reimbursement for emergency care at non-VA facilities in western South Dakota. The first involves Edward Sanders, who is a World War II veteran from Custer, South Dakota. On March 6, 1994, Edward was taken to the hospital in Custer because he was suffering chest pains. He was monitored for several hours before a doctor at the hospital called the VA Medical Center in Hot Springs and indicated that Edward was in need of emergency services. Although Edward asked to be taken to a VA facility, VA officials advised him to seek care elsewhere. He was then transported by ambulance to the Rapid City Regional Hospital where he underwent a cardiac catheterization and coronary artery bypass grafting. Because the emergency did not meet the criteria I mentioned previously, the VA did not reimburse Edward for the care he received at Rapid City Regional. His medical bills totaled more than $50,000. On May 17, 1997, John Lind suffered a heart attack while he was at work. John is a Vietnam veteran exposed to Agent Orange who served his country for 14 years until he was discharged in 1981. John lives in Rapid City, South Dakota, and he points out that he would have asked to be taken to the VA Medical Center in Fort Meade for care, but he was semi-conscious, and emergency medical personnel transported him to Rapid City Regional. After 4 days in the non-VA facility, John incurred nearly $20,000 in medical bills. Although he filed a claim with the VA for reimbursement, he was turned down because the emergency was not related to his service-connected disability. Just over one month later, Delmer Paulson, a veteran from Quinn, South Dakota, suffered a heart attack on June 26, 1997. Since he had no other health care insurance, he asked to be taken to the VA Medical Center in Fort Meade. Again, despite his request, the emergency medical personnel transported him to Rapid City Regional. Even though Delmer was there for just over a day before being transferred to Fort Meade, he was charged with almost a $20,000 medical bill. Again, the VA refused to reimburse Delmer for the unauthorized medical care because the emergency did not meet VA criteria. The Veterans' Access to Emergency Care Act of 1999 would address this serious problem. It would authorize the VA to reimburse veterans enrolled in the VA health care system for the cost of emergency care or services received in non-VA facilities when there is ``a serious threat to the life or health of a veteran.'' Rep. Lane Evans introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives earlier this year. I am encouraged that the Administration's FY00 budget request includes a proposal to allow veterans with service-connected disabilities to be reimbursed by the VA for emergency care they receive at non-VA facilities. This is a step in the right direction, but I think that all veterans enrolled in the VA's health care system--whether or not they have a service-connected disability--should be able to receive emergency care at non-VA facilities. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Rockefeller and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that veterans receive the health care they deserve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am today introducing the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal Land Conveyance Act of 1999. This proposal is the culmination of more than 2 years of discussion with local landowners, the South Dakota Water Congress, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, local legislators, representatives of South Dakota sportsmen groups and affected citizens. It lays out a plan to convey certain parcels of land acquired for the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal features of the Oahe Irrigation Project in South Dakota to the Commission of School and Public Lands of the State of South Dakota for the purpose of mitigating lost wildlife habitat, and provides the option to preferential leaseholders to purchase their original parcels from the Commission. In order to more fully understand the issues addressed by the legislation, it is necessary to review some of the history related to the Oahe Unit of the Missouri River Basin project in South Dakota. The Oahe Unit was originally approved as part of the overall plan for water development in the Missouri River Basin that was incorporated in the Flood Control Act of 1944. Subsequently, Public Law 90-453 authorized construction and operation of the initial stage. The purposes of the Oahe Unit as authorized were to provide for the irrigation of 190,000 acres of farmland, conserve and enhance fish and wildlife habitat, promote recreation and meet other important goals. The project came to be known as the Oahe Irrigation Project, and the principal features of the initial stage of the project contained the Oahe pumping plant located near Oahe Dam to pump water from the Oahe Reservoir, a system of main canals, including the Pierre Canal, running east from the Oahe Reservoir, and the establishment of regulating reservoirs, including the Blunt Dam and Reservoir located approximately 35 miles east of Pierre, South Dakota. Under the authorizing legislation, 42,155 acres were to be acquired by the Federal government in order to construct and operate the Blunt Reservoir feature of the Oahe Irrigation Project. Land acquisition for the proposed Blunt Reservoir feature began in 1972 and continued through 1977. A total of 17,878 acres actually were acquired from willing sellers. The first land for the Pierre Canal feature was purchased in July 1975 and included the 1.3 miles of Reach lB. An additional 21-mile reach was acquired from 1976 through 1977, also from willing sellers. Organized opposition to the Oahe Irrigation Project surfaced in 1973 and continued to build until a series of public meetings were held in 1977 to determine if the project should continue. In late 1977, the Oahe project was made a part of President Carter's Federal Water Project review process. The Oahe project construction was then halted on September 30, 1977, when Congress did not include funding in the FY1978 appropriations. Thus, all major construction contract activities ceased and land acquisition was halted. The Oahe Project remained an authorized water project with a bleak future and minimal chances of being completed as authorized. Consequently, the Department of Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, gave to those persons who willingly had sold their lands to the project the right for them and their descendants to lease those lands and use them as they had in the past until needed by the Federal government for project purposes. During the period from 1978 until the present, the Bureau of Reclamation has administered these lands on a preference lease basis for those original landowners or their descendants and on a non- preferential basis for lands under lease to persons who were not preferential leaseholders. Currently, the Bureau of Reclamation administers 12,978 acres as preferential leases and 4,304 acres as non- preferential leases in the Blunt Reservoir. As I noted previously, the Oahe Irrigation Project is related directly to the overall project purposes of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1944. Under this program, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed four major dams across the Missouri River in South Dakota. The two largest reservoirs formed by these dams, Oahe Reservoir and Sharpe Reservoir, caused the loss of approximately 221,000 acres of fertile, wooded bottomland which constituted some of the most productive, unique and irreplaceable wildlife habitat in the State of South Dakota. This included habitat for both game and non-game species, including several species which are now listed as threatened or endangered. Merriweather Lewis, while traveling up the Missouri River in 1804 on his famous expedition, wrote in his diary, ``Song birds, game species and furbearing animals abound here in numbers like none of the party has ever seen. The bottomlands and cottonwood trees provide a shelter and food for a great variety of species, all laying their claim to the river bottom.'' Under the provisions of the Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, the State of South Dakota has developed a plan to mitigate a part of this lost wildlife habitat as authorized by Section 602 of Title VI of Public Law 105-277, October 21, 1998, known as the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Act. The State's habitat mitigation plan has received the necessary approval and interim funding authorizations under Sections 602 and 609 of Title VI. The State's habitat mitigation plan requires the development of approximately 27,000 acres of wildlife habitat in South Dakota. Transferring the 4,304 acres of non-preferential lease lands in the Blunt Reservoir feature to the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks would constitute a significant step toward satisfying the habitat mitigation obligation owed to the state by the Federal government and as agreed upon by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. As we developed this legislation, many meetings occurred among the local landowners, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, business owners, local legislators, the Bureau of Reclamation, as well as representatives of sportsmen groups. It became apparent that the best solution for the local economy, tax base and wildlife mitigation issues would be to allow the preferential leaseholders (original landowner or descendant or operator of the land at the time of purchase) to have an option to purchase the land from the Commission of School and Public Lands after the preferential lease parcels are conveyed to the Commission. This option will be available for a period of 10 years after the date of conveyance to the Commission. During the interim period, the preferential leaseholders shall be entitled to continue to lease from the Commissioner under the same terms and conditions they have enjoyed with the Bureau of Reclamation. If the preferential leaseholder fails to purchase a parcel within the 10-year period, that parcel will be conveyed to the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks to be used to implement the 27,000-acre habitat mitigation plan. The proceeds from these sales will be used to finance the administration of this bill, support public education in the state of South Dakota, and will be added to the South Dakota Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Trust Fund to assist in the payment of local property taxes on lands transferred from the Federal government to the state of South Dakota. In summary, Mr. President, the State of South Dakota, the Federal government, the original landowners, the sportsmen and wildlife will benefit from this bill. It provides for a fair and just resolution to the private property and environmental problems caused by the Oahe Irrigation Project some 25 years ago. We have waited long enough to right some of the wrongs suffered by our landowners and South Dakota's wildlife resources. I am hopeful that the Senate will act quickly on this legislation. Our goal is to enact a bill that will allow meaningful wildlife habitat mitigation to begin, give certainty to local landowners who sacrificed their lands for a defunct federal project they once supported, ensure the viability of the local land base and tax base, and provide well maintained and managed recreation areas for sportsmen. I ask unanimous consent that the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am today introducing the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal Land Conveyance Act of 1999. This proposal is the culmination of more than 2 years of discussion with local landowners, the South Dakota Water Congress, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, local legislators, representatives of South Dakota sportsmen groups and affected citizens. It lays out a plan to convey certain parcels of land acquired for the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal features of the Oahe Irrigation Project in South Dakota to the Commission of School and Public Lands of the State of South Dakota for the purpose of mitigating lost wildlife habitat, and provides the option to preferential leaseholders to purchase their original parcels from the Commission. In order to more fully understand the issues addressed by the legislation, it is necessary to review some of the history related to the Oahe Unit of the Missouri River Basin project in South Dakota. The Oahe Unit was originally approved as part of the overall plan for water development in the Missouri River Basin that was incorporated in the Flood Control Act of 1944. Subsequently, Public Law 90-453 authorized construction and operation of the initial stage. The purposes of the Oahe Unit as authorized were to provide for the irrigation of 190,000 acres of farmland, conserve and enhance fish and wildlife habitat, promote recreation and meet other important goals. The project came to be known as the Oahe Irrigation Project, and the principal features of the initial stage of the project contained the Oahe pumping plant located near Oahe Dam to pump water from the Oahe Reservoir, a system of main canals, including the Pierre Canal, running east from the Oahe Reservoir, and the establishment of regulating reservoirs, including the Blunt Dam and Reservoir located approximately 35 miles east of Pierre, South Dakota. Under the authorizing legislation, 42,155 acres were to be acquired by the Federal government in order to construct and operate the Blunt Reservoir feature of the Oahe Irrigation Project. Land acquisition for the proposed Blunt Reservoir feature began in 1972 and continued through 1977. A total of 17,878 acres actually were acquired from willing sellers. The first land for the Pierre Canal feature was purchased in July 1975 and included the 1.3 miles of Reach lB. An additional 21-mile reach was acquired from 1976 through 1977, also from willing sellers. Organized opposition to the Oahe Irrigation Project surfaced in 1973 and continued to build until a series of public meetings were held in 1977 to determine if the project should continue. In late 1977, the Oahe project was made a part of President Carter's Federal Water Project review process. The Oahe project construction was then halted on September 30, 1977, when Congress did not include funding in the FY1978 appropriations. Thus, all major construction contract activities ceased and land acquisition was halted. The Oahe Project remained an authorized water project with a bleak future and minimal chances of being completed as authorized. Consequently, the Department of Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, gave to those persons who willingly had sold their lands to the project the right for them and their descendants to lease those lands and use them as they had in the past until needed by the Federal government for project purposes. During the period from 1978 until the present, the Bureau of Reclamation has administered these lands on a preference lease basis for those original landowners or their descendants and on a non- preferential basis for lands under lease to persons who were not preferential leaseholders. Currently, the Bureau of Reclamation administers 12,978 acres as preferential leases and 4,304 acres as non- preferential leases in the Blunt Reservoir. As I noted previously, the Oahe Irrigation Project is related directly to the overall project purposes of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1944. Under this program, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed four major dams across the Missouri River in South Dakota. The two largest reservoirs formed by these dams, Oahe Reservoir and Sharpe Reservoir, caused the loss of approximately 221,000 acres of fertile, wooded bottomland which constituted some of the most productive, unique and irreplaceable wildlife habitat in the State of South Dakota. This included habitat for both game and non-game species, including several species which are now listed as threatened or endangered. Merriweather Lewis, while traveling up the Missouri River in 1804 on his famous expedition, wrote in his diary, ``Song birds, game species and furbearing animals abound here in numbers like none of the party has ever seen. The bottomlands and cottonwood trees provide a shelter and food for a great variety of species, all laying their claim to the river bottom.'' Under the provisions of the Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, the State of South Dakota has developed a plan to mitigate a part of this lost wildlife habitat as authorized by Section 602 of Title VI of Public Law 105-277, October 21, 1998, known as the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Act. The State's habitat mitigation plan has received the necessary approval and interim funding authorizations under Sections 602 and 609 of Title VI. The State's habitat mitigation plan requires the development of approximately 27,000 acres of wildlife habitat in South Dakota. Transferring the 4,304 acres of non-preferential lease lands in the Blunt Reservoir feature to the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks would constitute a significant step toward satisfying the habitat mitigation obligation owed to the state by the Federal government and as agreed upon by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. As we developed this legislation, many meetings occurred among the local landowners, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, business owners, local legislators, the Bureau of Reclamation, as well as representatives of sportsmen groups. It became apparent that the best solution for the local economy, tax base and wildlife mitigation issues would be to allow the preferential leaseholders (original landowner or descendant or operator of the land at the time of purchase) to have an option to purchase the land from the Commission of School and Public Lands after the preferential lease parcels are conveyed to the Commission. This option will be available for a period of 10 years after the date of conveyance to the Commission. During the interim period, the preferential leaseholders shall be entitled to continue to lease from the Commissioner under the same terms and conditions they have enjoyed with the Bureau of Reclamation. If the preferential leaseholder fails to purchase a parcel within the 10-year period, that parcel will be conveyed to the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks to be used to implement the 27,000-acre habitat mitigation plan. The proceeds from these sales will be used to finance the administration of this bill, support public education in the state of South Dakota, and will be added to the South Dakota Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Trust Fund to assist in the payment of local property taxes on lands transferred from the Federal government to the state of South Dakota. In summary, Mr. President, the State of South Dakota, the Federal government, the original landowners, the sportsmen and wildlife will benefit from this bill. It provides for a fair and just resolution to the private property and environmental problems caused by the Oahe Irrigation Project some 25 years ago. We have waited long enough to right some of the wrongs suffered by our landowners and South Dakota's wildlife resources. I am hopeful that the Senate will act quickly on this legislation. Our goal is to enact a bill that will allow meaningful wildlife habitat mitigation to begin, give certainty to local landowners who sacrificed their lands for a defunct federal project they once supported, ensure the viability of the local land base and tax base, and provide well maintained and managed recreation areas for sportsmen. I ask unanimous consent that the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to compensate the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota and the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska for losses the tribes suffered when the Fort Randall and Gavins Point dams were constructed on the Missouri River over four decades ago. As a result of the construction of these dams, more than 3,259 acres of land owned by the Yankton Sioux Tribe was flooded or subsequently lost to erosion. Approximately 600 acres of land located near the Santee village and 400 acres on the Niobrara Island of the Santee Sioux Tribe Indian Reservation also was flooded. The flooding of these fertile lands struck a significant blow at the economies of these tribes, and the tribes have never adequately been compensated for that loss. Passage of this legislation will help compensate the tribes for their losses by providing the resources necessary to rebuild their infrastructure and their economy. To appreciate fully the need for this legislation, it is important to understand the historic events that preceded its development. The Fort Randall and Gavins Point dams were constructed in South Dakota pursuant to the Flood Control Act (58 Stat. 887) of 1944. That legislation authorized implementation of the Missouri River Basin Pick-Sloan Plan for water development and flood control for downstream states. The Fort Randall dam, which was an integral part of the Pick-Sloan project, initially flooded 2,851 acres of tribal land, forcing the relocation and resettlement of at least 20 families, including the traditional and self-sustaining community of White Swan, one of the four major settlement areas on the reservation. On other reservations, such as Crow Creek, Lower Brule, Cheyenne River, Standing Rock and Fort Berthold, communities affected by the Pick-Sloan dams were relocated to higher ground. In contrast, the White Swan community was completely dissolved and its residents dispersed to whatever areas they could settle and start again. The bill I am introducing today is the latest in a series of laws that have been enacted in the 1990s to address similar claims by other tribes in South Dakota for losses caused by the Pick-Sloan dams. In 1992, Congress granted the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe compensation for direct damages, including lost reservation infrastructure, relocation and resettlement expenses, the general rehabilitation of the tribes, and for unfulfilled government commitments regarding replacement facilities. In 1996 Congress enacted legislation compensating the Crow Creek tribe for its losses, while in 1997, legislation was enacted to compensate the Lower Brule tribe. The Yankton Sioux Tribe and Santee Sioux Tribe have not yet received fair compensation for their losses. Their time has come. Mr. President, the flooding caused by the Pick-Sloan projects touched every aspect of life on the Yankton and Santee Sioux reservations, as large portions of their communities were forced to relocate wherever they could find shelter. Never were these effects fully considered when the federal government was acquiring these lands or designing the Pick- Sloan projects. The Yankton Sioux Tribe and Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska Development Trust Fund Act represents an important step in our continuing effort to compensate fairly the tribes of the Missouri River Basin for the sacrifices they made decades ago for the construction of the dams. Passage of this legislation not only will right a historic wrong, but in doing so it will improve the lives of Native Americans living on these reservations. It has taken decades for us to recognize the unfulfilled federal obligation to compensate the tribes for the effects of the dams. We cannot, of course, remake the lost lands that are now covered with water and return them to the tribes. We can, however, help provide the resources necessary to the tribe to improve the infrastructure on their reservations. This, in turn, will enhance opportunities for economic development that will benefit all members of the tribe. Now that we have reached this stage, the importance of passing this legislation as soon as possible cannot be stated too strongly. I strongly urge my colleagues to approve this legislation this year. Providing compensation to the Yankton Sioux Tribe and the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska for past harm inflicted by the federal government is long-overdue and any further delay only compounds that harm. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the American people continue to say they want a comprehensive, enforceable Patients' Bill of Rights. Toward that goal, several of my Democratic colleagues and I introduced S. 6, the Patients' Bill of Rights Act of 1999, earlier this year. That legislation, which we first introduced in the 105th Congress, addresses the growing concerns among Americans about the quality of care delivered by health maintenance organizations. I am disappointed that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle prevented the Senate from considering managed care reform legislation last year. But I remain hopeful that the Republican leadership will allow an open and honest debate on this important issue this year. I am hopeful that my colleagues will also take a moment to listen to veterans in this country who are raising legitimate concerns about the medical care they receive from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Many veterans are understandably concerned that the Administration requested approximately $18 billion for VA health care in FY00--almost the same amount it requested last year. They fear that if this flat- lined budget is enacted, the VA would be forced to make significant reductions in personnel, health care services and facilities. I share their concerns and agree that we simply cannot allow that to happen. On the contrary, Congress and the Administration need to work together to provide the funds necessary to improve the health care that veterans receive. Toward that end, and as we prepare to celebrate Memorial Day, I am reintroducing the Veterans' Access to Emergency Care Act of 1999. I am pleased that Senator Rockefeller, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, is joining me in this effort. This legislation, which was S. 2619 last year, calls for veterans to be reimbursed for emergency care they receive at non-VA facilities. The problem addressed in the bill stems from the fact that veterans who rely on the VA for health care often do not receive reimbursement for emergency medical care they receive at non-VA facilities. According to the VA, veterans may only be reimbursed by the VA for emergency care at a non-VA facility that was not pre-authorized if all of the following criteria are met: First, care must have been rendered for a medical emergency of such nature that any delay would have been life-threatening; second, the VA or other federal facilities must not have been feasibly available; and, third, the treatment must have been rendered for a service-connected disability, a condition associated with a service-connected disability, or for any disability of a veteran who has a 100-percent service- connected disability. Many veterans who receive emergency health care at non-VA facilities are able to meet the first two criteria. Unless they are 100-percent disabled, however, they generally fail to meet the third criterion because they have suffered heart attacks or other medical emergencies that were unrelated to their service-connected disabilities. Considering the enormous costs associated with emergency health care, current law has been financially and emotionally devastating to countless veterans with limited income and no other health insurance. The bottom line is that veterans are forced to pay for emergency care out of their own pockets until they can be stabilized and transferred to VA facilities. During medical emergencies, veterans often do not have a say about whether they should be taken to a VA or non-VA medical center. Even when they specifically ask to be taken to a VA facility, emergency medical personnel often transport them to a nearby hospital instead because it is the closest facility. In many emergencies, that is the only sound medical decision to make. It is simply unfair to penalize veterans for receiving emergency medical care at non-VA facilities. Veterans were asked to make enormous sacrifices for this country, and we should not turn our backs on them during their time of need. There should be no misunderstanding. This is a widespread problem that affects countless veterans in South Dakota and throughout the country. I would like to cite just three examples of veterans being denied reimbursement for emergency care at non-VA facilities in western South Dakota. The first involves Edward Sanders, who is a World War II veteran from Custer, South Dakota. On March 6, 1994, Edward was taken to the hospital in Custer because he was suffering chest pains. He was monitored for several hours before a doctor at the hospital called the VA Medical Center in Hot Springs and indicated that Edward was in need of emergency services. Although Edward asked to be taken to a VA facility, VA officials advised him to seek care elsewhere. He was then transported by ambulance to the Rapid City Regional Hospital where he underwent a cardiac catheterization and coronary artery bypass grafting. Because the emergency did not meet the criteria I mentioned previously, the VA did not reimburse Edward for the care he received at Rapid City Regional. His medical bills totaled more than $50,000. On May 17, 1997, John Lind suffered a heart attack while he was at work. John is a Vietnam veteran exposed to Agent Orange who served his country for 14 years until he was discharged in 1981. John lives in Rapid City, South Dakota, and he points out that he would have asked to be taken to the VA Medical Center in Fort Meade for care, but he was semi-conscious, and emergency medical personnel transported him to Rapid City Regional. After 4 days in the non-VA facility, John incurred nearly $20,000 in medical bills. Although he filed a claim with the VA for reimbursement, he was turned down because the emergency was not related to his service-connected disability. Just over one month later, Delmer Paulson, a veteran from Quinn, South Dakota, suffered a heart attack on June 26, 1997. Since he had no other health care insurance, he asked to be taken to the VA Medical Center in Fort Meade. Again, despite his request, the emergency medical personnel transported him to Rapid City Regional. Even though Delmer was there for just over a day before being transferred to Fort Meade, he was charged with almost a $20,000 medical bill. Again, the VA refused to reimburse Delmer for the unauthorized medical care because the emergency did not meet VA criteria. The Veterans' Access to Emergency Care Act of 1999 would address this serious problem. It would authorize the VA to reimburse veterans enrolled in the VA health care system for the cost of emergency care or services received in non-VA facilities when there is ``a serious threat to the life or health of a veteran.'' Rep. Lane Evans introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives earlier this year. I am encouraged that the Administration's FY00 budget request includes a proposal to allow veterans with service-connected disabilities to be reimbursed by the VA for emergency care they receive at non-VA facilities. This is a step in the right direction, but I think that all veterans enrolled in the VA's health care system--whether or not they have a service-connected disability--should be able to receive emergency care at non-VA facilities. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Rockefeller and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that veterans receive the health care they deserve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Nebraska for his advocacy and his leadership on this issue. This is probably one of the most important debates that we are going to have this year with regard to nuclear proliferation. This amendment could be one of the most important amendments that we will have the opportunity to vote on this year with regard to nuclear proliferation. So his advocacy of this issue and this amendment is greatly appreciated. I am very impressed with his command of the facts as we consider its advocacy this morning. Much of the current debate on national security issues these past several weeks has focused on two issues, as we all know: Kosovo and the alleged Chinese espionage of our national weapons laboratories. That concentration is very understandable. In the first instance, the courageous men and women who make up America's military forces are risking their lives daily in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to reverse the genocidal policies practiced by that country's leader. That is a just cause. For the sake of hundreds of thousands of refugees made homeless by Milosevic's reign of terror, as well as the future of NATO, we simply cannot afford to fail. As for the safety of our nuclear secrets, this, too, is an issue of vital national security. It is alleged that for the last two decades the Chinese Government has systematically engaged in efforts to gain access to some of our most important nuclear weapons scientists and the knowledge they possess. Although all agree that classified information has fallen into the hands of the Chinese Government, it certainly remains unclear who is involved and exactly how much of our national security suffered as a result of these activities. The administration, the Congress, and law enforcement agencies are vigorously exploring answers to these troubling questions. But as important as these issues are, as I noted just a moment ago, I submit there is an issue of equal or greater importance to America's immediate and long-term national security interests, and this amendment addresses it. The issue is the U.S.-Russia relationship and the fate of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, and hundreds of tons of nuclear weapons material possessed by each side. The Kerrey amendment recognizes the importance of that relationship. The Kerrey amendment proposes that the United States take a small step to improve this relationship by acknowledging that the Russian nuclear arsenal is shrinking, and adopting the view of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that our security will not be jeopardized if we do the same. I strongly support this amendment and ask my colleagues to join me. It is difficult to point to a period of time since the end of the cold war when relations between the United States and Russia have been under greater stress. Protests and public opinion polls in Russia demonstrate that anti-American feeling is on the rise in that country. The tension in this critical relationship has grown as a result of both Russia's internal economic and political troubles and actions by this Government. At the very time the U.S.-Russia relationship is under unprecedented stress, the need to work with Russians to reduce the threat posed by nuclear weapons and the spread of nuclear weapons material and expertise has never been greater. Nearly a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the United States and Russia still possess roughly 12,000 strategic nuclear weapons, thousands of tactical nuclear weapons, and hundreds of tons of nuclear weapons material. Even more alarming, both sides keep the majority of their strategic nuclear weapons on a high level of alert--something I addressed in past comments and, for the life of me, cannot understand. And reports are growing that Russia's government lacks the resources to properly maintain and control its nuclear weapons, nuclear materials, and nuclear know-how. Consider these recent events. In September of 1998, roughly 47,000 nuclear workers protested at various locations around Russia over the Atomic Energy Ministry's failure to provide them their wages for several months. Russian Atomic Energy Minister Adamov told the workers that the government owed the ministry over $170 million and had not provided a single ruble in two months. Again late last year, Russian radio reported that the mayor of Krasnoyarsk-45, one of Russia's closed nuclear cities, where enough nuclear material to build thousands of bombs is stored, warned that unless urgent action was taken, a social explosion in the city was unavoidable. More recently, guards at nuclear facilities reportedly left their posts to forage for food. Others have been reluctant to patrol facility perimeters because they did not have winter uniforms to keep them warm on patrol. At some nuclear facilities, entire security systems--alarms, surveillance cameras, and portal monitors--have been shut down because the facilities' electricity was cut off for non-payment of bills. According to recent testimony by senior Pentagon officials and statements by senior Russian defense officials, Russia's nuclear stockpile is faring no better than the workers hired to maintain and guard it. According to Assistant Secretary of Defense Ted Warner, Russia's force of roughly 6,000-7,000 strategic nuclear weapons will be dramatically reduced regardless of whether Russia ratifies START II. By 2005, according to Warner, ``[Russia] will be hard pressed to keep a force of about 3,500 weapons * * * and by about the year 2010, they will be hard pressed to even meet a level of about 1,500 weapons.'' Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev recently stated that Russia is ``likely to have no more than 500 deployed strategic warheads by 2012 for economic reasons.'' Finally, in this weekend's newspapers comes the latest evidence of Russia's nuclear troubles. Under the headline, ``Russia Faces `New Chernobyl' Disaster,'' the London Sunday Telegraph reports, What a Russian energy minister has called a Chernobyl in slow motion is unfolding in [Russia's] far north where nuclear submarines are falling to pieces at their moorings and a decaying nuclear power station has been refused European Commission aid to buy vital safety equipment. According to the Russian chief engineer at the nuclear plant, ``We are in despair.'' Mr. President, while U.S.-Russia relations approach their nadir and Russia struggles to keep the lid on its nuclear forces and workers, what has been the response of the majority of the United States Senate? Unfortunately, for the last several years, a majority of the Senate opted to legally prohibit the United States government from responding by making modest reductions in our forces. A majority in the Senate has prevented the U.S. government from reducing our nuclear forces below the START I level until Russia has ratified START II. This majority has chosen to include a similar provision in this year's defense authorization. This provision further damages U.S.-Russia relations, locks us in at nuclear weapons levels not needed for our security, and drains much-needed resources away from higher priority defense programs. Senator Kerrey's amendment wisely strikes this provision. As I noted earlier, our relationship with the Russian government and Russian people is at a low point. Russians fail to understand our actions on several fronts--from NATO enlargement to ballistic missile defense. As Russians look at the inevitable decay of their own strategic nuclear forces, they question why the United States insists on holding firm at weapons levels Russia can never hope to match, let alone exceed. As for whether mandating by law that we retain 6,000 strategic weapons, our senior military leaders--current and former--have decisively expressed their opinions on this issue. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year, General Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and this country's senior military leader, opposed just such a requirement. According to General Shelton, ``I would definitely oppose inclusion of any language that mandates specific force levels.'' General Eugene Habiger, former chief of all U.S. strategic nuclear forces, agreed with General Shelton and went farther. General Habiger stated, ``There is no need to stay at the START I level from a military perspective.'' The Republican decision to keep our strategic weapons levels at an artificially high level also has budgetary ramifications. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that keeping U.S. strategic nuclear weapons totals at START I levels will cost the Defense Department $570 million in FY2000 and nearly $13 billion over the next 10 years. Resources are incredibly scarce, both in the Defense Department and in other areas of the government. We should spend every nickel necessary to ensure a strong defense. But we shouldn't spend a nickel on weapons systems the military tell us they do not need. For all of these reasons, I oppose the provision in the underlying bill. I support Senator Kerrey's amendment to strike this provision and restore a modicum of sanity to an increasingly troubled state of affairs. I ask my colleagues to do right by this important relationship, by our senior military leaders, and by the U.S. taxpayers who foot the bill for all we do. I ask for our colleagues' support on the Kerrey amendment. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 393

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak on the Kerrey amendment. Did the Senator from Nebraska want additional time as well?

Mr. DASCHLE. If it would be appropriate, I ask unanimous consent to address the Kerrey amendment at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 368 (Purpose: To provide appropriate interventions and services to children who are removed from school, and to clarify Federal law with respect to reporting a crime committed by a child)

Mr. DASCHLE. If I could just ask the majority leader, we had one Member's request; Senator Kerry asked if he could have a period of time--I suggest 10 minutes--prior to final passage, for him to be recognized.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving my right to object, I support that request. Just for clarification purposes, Senator Biden wants to be sure that the other part of the arrangement we had, which was an up- or-down vote on his amendment, would occur. I just would clarify that for the record. I understand that to be the case.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not because I think we need to move quickly here, I want to thank all those who are responsible for getting us to this point. This has taken some cooperation on the part of both sides. I especially want to thank Senators Harkin, Ashcroft, Frist, Biden, Wellstone and others who have been very helpful. I have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE. Perhaps we can consult with Senator Kerry.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, let me just remind everyone that we have approximately 24 hours left of this week. In that timeframe we have to do not only the rest of this bill but the supplemental appropriations bill. The only way we are going to finish this is if everybody is willing to cooperate a little bit more and indulge the leadership and the managers of this bill in such a fashion that will allow completion. It has been difficult, and, I must say, increasingly frustrating, for those who have tried to work through all of this in a way that would allow some reasonable conclusion. It seems the longer we work on it, the more everyone's back is up. It is essential we work together and try to resolve this matter. We have been on this bill now for over a week. It is time to bring it to a successful conclusion. I ask the cooperation in the remaining hours of this debate on the part of Members on both sides, so that we can finish it. I have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, before we vote, let me make a couple of points very clear. The first point is that we have done everything I know how to cooperate on the juvenile justice bill. We have offered a finite list of amendments. We have worked with our colleagues to reduce that list. We have agreed to time limits. We have not second-degreed or filibustered any amendments on the other side. As I say, we have done it all. We even offered to offer amendments on Friday and Monday. That was rejected by our Republican colleagues because they didn't want to debate those particular amendments on Friday and Monday, after the majority leader made it clear that he wanted to have a full debate on both of those days. We didn't have a full debate, but it wasn't the fault of Democrats. So Members might understand my surprise when the majority leader, out of the blue, without any prior notification, filed this motion to proceed on Y2K. I am not sure why he is doing it today. I sense there are some on the other side who don't want to finish the bill, who would rather put the bill back on the calendar, for whatever reason, and who don't want to do it cleanly. They want to do it in an obfuscated way so our fingerprints are on removing the bill. They want our fingerprints on this bill as it is put back on the calendar. We are not going to do that. We ought to stay on this bill until it is finished. We are getting closer. There is absolutely no reason why, this week--early this week--we couldn't finish this legislation, if we set our mind to doing so. So we are going to oppose cloture today, not because we don't want to move to Y2K. I want to move to that bill, and I will support a motion to proceed to Y2K. I will do it and I hope we do it immediately, after this bill is completed. We don't need to file cloture on it. I will support it, a lot of our colleagues will support it. We want to get a Y2K bill passed. I hope we could do it in a way that would bring a 100- 0 vote. I think we are negotiating in a way that could produce that result, but maybe I am too optimistic. Let's take these things one step at a time. Let us ensure that we finish this bill before we move on to the next bill. And when we do, I will move on to the next bill and I will move on to the bill after that. We have to get our work done, but let's do it in an organized fashion. I yield the floor.