Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in saying how much this Senate, and this nation, will miss Bud Nance. I want, as well, to offer my condolences to Admiral Nance's family, to Senator Helms on the loss of his childhood friend and staff member, and to Admiral Nance's colleagues at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Other Senators on both sides of the aisle have spoken of Admiral Nance's distinguished careers--in the Navy, the White House, and here in the Senate. He was, as they have said, a war hero, and a true patriot. Senior Naval officer. Commander of U.S. forces in Europe. National security advisor to two Presidents. Chief of Staff to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Helms is his dearest and oldest friend in the Senate. But Admiral Nance leaves many friends here--on both sides of the aisle. He was a good and decent man. A man of great accomplishment and true humility. He was also a man of integrity. You knew, whenever you dealt with Admiral Nance, that you were dealing with a fair and open man. You knew if Bud Nance made a commitment, it would be kept. His word was his bond. He was also an tireless worker. Most mornings, he arrived at the Capitol at 7 o'clock. He was still at his desk late into most nights. I don't know whether his work ethic was formed in the Navy, or earlier in life, but it was remarkable. And it never wavered, even during his last great battle with sickness and pain. Admiral Nance was a steady hand on the foreign relations Senate ship, just as he was in his command of the aircraft carrier Forrestal. He displayed courage and grace in his fight against illness. The Senate is served every day by men and women of great dedication, commitment and industry who believe in the American system of government. Even among these exceptional people, Admiral Nance stood out. He will be missed. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, Mary Lyda Faulk; their children, James Lee Nance, Mary Catherine Worth, Andrew Monroe Nance and Susan Elizabeth Nance, and their many grandchildren.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to entertain a question from the distinguished Democratic assistant leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is certainly correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me commend the distinguished assistant Democratic leader for his efforts, again, and for comments he has just made. I am puzzled. I thought we were going to proceed today with additional amendments. We have submitted our list with that intention. We had indicated we were prepared to work this afternoon; we are prepared to work on Monday. But not having our managers here, it makes it difficult. Senator Leahy is here. And Senator Leahy has indicated a willingness to come back and work through these amendments. You know, this points up the very problem our colleagues have raised with us when we talk to them about having the need to offer amendments on Fridays and Mondays. If the Republican manager leaves, it is awfully hard for us to offer these amendments. We want to make the most of Friday and Monday. The only way we are going to do that is to have the Republican manager here so we can accommodate those Senators who want to cooperate. It is hard to ask for their cooperation if we do not have somebody on the other side to cooperate with. So I am troubled by that and I hope we can make the most of this afternoon and make the most of Monday. I must say, Mr. President, I am also surprised at the motion to file cloture on the motion to proceed. That is tantamount to pulling this bill. That is what it means. If we get the motion to proceed we are on the Y2K bill. And I thought the majority leader said he wanted to finish this bill on Tuesday.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. There has. Many people on both sides of the aisle have been involved in very intense and, I would say, productive negotiations this week. I am encouraged by the reports I have been receiving throughout the week on their discussions. I am hopeful that----

Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate that clarification and assurance from the majority leader. As he knows, of course, that takes unanimous consent. There may be people who oppose going back to the juvenile justice bill, and so then we are, under regular order, on the Y2K bill. So a vote for cloture on the motion to proceed would be a vote to table, to put back on the calendar the juvenile justice bill. I have indicated to the majority leader that we would be prepared, based upon the negotiations that have been going on all week, to maybe work some arrangement out with regard to the Y2K bill. We hadn't had any discussion about this. The motion was filed, and so there was no communication at all on that matter--this, ironically, at the same time we were trying to work with the majority leader to try to accommodate his need to move this juvenile justice bill along. Surprises are never welcomed, and this was a surprise that was disappointing. Nonetheless, we will work through that. We will work to accommodate whatever other legislative schedule there may be this next week. I will say this: At this point I am very concerned about voting on the motion to proceed under these circumstances. I think we could finish this bill and then perhaps go on to the Y2K bill. I might even be prepared to move to the motion to proceed and support it myself if we can get this juvenile justice bill done. But to put it back on the calendar and then ask unanimous consent to take it back off the calendar, if we vote for cloture on the motion to proceed--and that is what we would have to do--is a matter that is disturbing. We have a circumstance here that is confusing, to say the least. The majority leader, for good reason, admonished all of us to make the most of Friday, to make the most of Monday, on the juvenile justice bill. Then he files cloture, effectively taking the bill off the calendar and denying the right to offer amendments and to work through these amendments on Friday and Monday. I am hopeful that we can make the most. Let us work on these bills today. Let us work on them Monday. Let us see if we can't work through the rest of the amendments before we divert our attention to other amendments and other bills. This isn't a very orderly process we find ourselves in right now, unfortunately, because of some of these decisions. I am hopeful that we can figure out a way to accommodate the needs of the schedule but also accommodate the needs of Senators who are very hopeful to have their day in court and their opportunity to offer amendments on the juvenile justice bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to consult with our colleagues and report back to the majority leader. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes. We submitted it.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first of all, I failed to mention my admiration for our two managers and the excellent job they have done in getting us to this point. This has not been easy. They have worked diligently on both sides to bring us to this point. I want to reiterate my gratitude for the effort they have made to get us here. In the 103rd Congress, we spent 11 days on a bill of this kind. It was a very important piece of legislation--I guess it was 12 days. So it is difficult to bring up a bill of this complexity and controversy without having the opportunity to spend some time on it. As the majority leader noted, he has brought this up, as he promised he would, open to amendment. I have indicated that if we were to do that, I would work as hard as I could to ensure that we stayed on the bill and worked diligently to ensure that it is completed in a reasonable time. My hope was that we could do it this week. I think we will get it done in a reasonable time early next week. I am unable to agree to that time limit just because, again, we don't know what the circumstances will be Tuesday. But I will promise this: We will continue to make the effort we have made over the last few hours to lock in time limits on all of the amendments and to make sure there is no quorum call, or any other intervening time that would be dilatory. We want to back these up, one after the other. So we will agree to a list and time limits, but I will have to object to a time certain for final passage.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if the majority leader has propounded a unanimous consent request, reserving the right to object, let me just respond first by sympathizing with his lament about scheduling votes. It is extraordinarily difficult, and both of us are confronted daily with requests for certain prerequisites with regard to votes that make it increasingly difficult for us to schedule legislative debate. There are people who are objecting to votes now even on Friday mornings. I remember Senator Mitchell once lamenting to me personally that the only time he could absolutely schedule a vote without any criticism was Wednesday afternoon. I think there is a lot of truth to that. Now I know fully what he meant. And that is before 7:00. We have been on this bill for 3 days. We have had 15 amendments offered, and there have been good debates. There have been time limits associated, as I understand it, with each one of the amendments. There have been 14 rollcall votes. Our side alone began with a list of 89 amendments, and I do not in any way diminish the importance of any one of those amendments. I think that they are all worthy amendments. Not one of them was dilatory, not one of them was irrelevant to this bill. The problem, however, is that with the extraordinary work of Senator Reid and Senator Dorgan, we have now been able to persuade our colleagues to reduce that list. Many of them have waited patiently with the expectation that if they waited patiently, they would get their turn. In many cases, they have waited now 3 or 4 days to be able to offer their amendment. Now what we are telling them is that we want you to offer them today or Monday, even though we have spent 3 days and we have only been able to get through 15 amendments. We have been able to get our list down to around 30 amendments, as I understand it. So it would be very difficult, without further cooperation on both sides, to accommodate the unanimous consent request that the majority leader has understandably propounded. So we will have to object to his request. We would be more than willing to enter into an agreement that would require a complete listing of all the amendments to be offered with time limits. We will offer amendments today and Monday, filling the day today, and then on Monday, in an effort to move this legislation along, and then stack votes on Tuesday, as the majority leader has requested. What we can't agree to, given where we are right now, is any time certain for final passage--recognizing the majority leader's desire to work through a number of other bills yet next week. At least right now, that is not something that we can agree to. I hope, at the very least, as the majority leader suggested, we can submit the list, work on that list, and we can even tighten up the time limits. I think that is all doable. So I have to object to the request as it was propounded.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, and I will not because I think this is a very good proposal, I wish we could actually be asking for more than this. I appreciate the managers' efforts to get us to this point. As I have noted to the majority leader, we started with 89 amendments and we went down from there to about 40 amendments. I thank Senators Reid and Dorgan on our side. We are now down to around 20 amendments. But those 20 are amendments where the authors have waited patiently for the opportunity to present them and have a debate. I hope they will do it tonight and tomorrow, and I hope we can do it on Monday. I believe we ought to use those days to have the remaining debate about these amendments. They are good amendments and they ought to be voted on. Senators have waited patiently. We also have a right to expect Senators to come forward and present their amendments in good faith and have debate. We are going to be here tomorrow, I assume, and I hope we will continue to conduct ourselves the way we have all week. This has been a good debate. We have had about the same number of amendments on both sides, Republican and Democrat. We have had good votes. Nobody has been playing political games here. We offer the amendments and have the debate in good faith. I hope we can continue to do that. I have no objection to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Meg Greenfield has just passed away. On behalf of all colleagues in the Senate, our hearts go out to the family, to all of those who were so close to Meg over these years. There are few giants in journalism who have the standing stature and the extraordinary influence that Meg Greenfield has had through the years. Her contribution to journalism has been legendary. Her contribution to her country through journalism has been extraordinary. It has been our good fortune to follow her leadership in journalism, to be guided by her wisdom, and certainly to be influenced by her good judgment on many, many occasions over these extraordinary decades which she has been involved. I express my condolences to her family and say farewell to someone who has made an extraordinary impact on our country and on her profession. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last evening, Senator Robb, Senator Leahy, Senator Kennedy and other Democratic Senators offered two amendments to S. 254 that were developed by a working group within the Democratic Caucus. Those amendments, together with an amendment to be offered by Senator Boxer to extend after-school programs, provide a comprehensive, measured response to youth violence. Children today face incredible emotional and societal pressures that most people my age never had to worry about. An average of 12 children die each day from gunfire in America. The National School Board Association estimates that 135,000 guns are brought into U.S. schools each day. This reality was painfully reinforced by the terrible, senseless tragedy that occurred in Littleton, Colorado, only a few weeks ago. The fear of school-related violence can have a profound effect on children's ability to learn. This fear has increased over the last decade. Fear for personal safety causes a significant number of students to stay home from school, or avoid certain areas of their schools. A full 71 percent of children ages 7 to 10 say they worry they will be shot or stabbed while at school. The root causes of the Columbine High School shooting, and wider threats to our schools and communities, are complex and deep. Finding solutions will require a national commitment that goes far beyond legislative proposals. It will require students, parents, teachers and principals, business leaders, faith-based organizations, youth groups, law enforcement officials and many others working together to reduce the threat of violence. While government--alone--can't solve the problem of youth violence, government must be part of the solution. The amendments that make up the Democratic package to S. 254 would help America's communities reduce violence in our schools and communities. Our caucus is united in our support of these amendments. We are also united in our determination to continue to seek long-term solutions to the problem of youth violence--solutions that will encompass both legislative and non-legislative strategies. Providing Resources and Services to Prevent Youth Violence More than 9 out of 10 police chiefs agree with the statement, ``America could sharply reduce crime if government invested more in programs to help children and youth get a good start'' by ``fully funding Head Start for infants and toddlers, preventing child abuse, providing parenting training for high-risk families, improving schools and providing after school programs and mentoring.'' Nine out of 10 police chiefs also agree that ``if America does not pay for greater investments in programs to help children and youth now, we will all pay far more later in crime, welfare, and other costs.'' They know, and we know, that prevention works. Efforts to prevent delinquency before it starts can make a real difference in keeping children and communities safe. That's not conjecture. It's a fact. A recent study on the effectiveness of after-school programs looked at 2 housing projects. One of the projects instituted an after-school program, the other did not. In the project with the after-school program, juvenile arrest rates declined 75 percent. In the other project, juvenile arrest rates rose 67 percent. In housing projects with Boys and Girls Clubs, juvenile arrest rates are 13 percent lower, and drug activity is 22 percent lower, than in projects without clubs. In Boston and Los Angeles, comprehensive efforts to prevent juvenile crime have significantly reduced the number of murders of young people. Violence prevention saves lives. And it saves money. A RAND study found that crime prevention efforts were three times more cost-effective than increased punishment. A Vanderbilt University study estimates that each high-risk youth prevented from adopting a life of crime could save the country from $1.7 million to $2.3 million. That is why our leadership amendments sought to balance smart prevention and tough enforcement. Senator Robb's amendment would have created a National Center for School Safety and Youth Violence--a national clearinghouse of strategies that work. A Center could provide expert advice to schools and communities. It could establish a toll-free number for students to seek help and anonymously report criminal activity and other high-risk behaviors. It could provide assistance to parents and communities to address emergencies. The Center could also conduct research on and evaluate effective school safety strategies. It could serve as a clearinghouse of model programs, and establish a web site on school safety. It could also work with local communities to strengthen school safety. It could do all of those things if the Senate had chosen to adopt the amendment. The Robb amendment also built on the existing Safe Schools/Healthy Students program. This is a program that brings together schools, law enforcement and the mental health community to reduce both juvenile violence and drug and alcohol abuse. We think this program should be available to 150 additional communities, not just 50. Charges that the Robb amendment would create a whole new bureaucracy and duplicate existing programs are just not true. Mr. President, I find it ironic that Republicans in the Senate voted against the Robb amendment, yet voted in support of the Gregg amendment, which claims to do many of the things the Robb amendment would do with fewer resources. Making our schools safe should be one of our highest priorities. Preventing youth violence also requires a special focus on after- school hours. Many students today spend more of their waking hours alone than they spend in school. We know that children left home alone are more likely to become involved in risky behaviors. Most juvenile crime occurs between 3 p.m and 8 p.m. We also know that children who attend quality after-school programs are less likely to engage in delinquent activity than children who do not. They have better relationships with their peers. They're better adjusted emotionally, get better grades, and they're better behaved in school. So, our package includes an amendment, to make quality, school-based after-school programs available to more students, in more communities. Our amendment triples funding authorization for the existing 21st Century Learning Center grant program, from $200 million to $600 million. This proposal is in S. 7, our education agenda bill, and was in the President's budget. By investing in prevention, we can prevent a lot of good kids from going bad. But we know there are young people who need tougher measures. The amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont would have provided those measures as well. It was tough on juvenile crime--especially violent juvenile crime. It gave the Attorney General greater discretion to prosecute violent offenders as adults in the federal courts, and streamlines the process for doing so--without trampling on the rights of juvenile suspects. It established a program of flexible, graduated sanctions. Our amendment also provided grants to States to incarcerate violent and repeat offenders. We need to get violent kids off our streets, and out of our communities. When police chiefs were asked to rank the long-term effectiveness of a number of possible crime-fighting approaches, they chose ``increasing investments in programs that help children and youth to get a good start'' nearly 4 times as often as ``trying more juveniles as adults.'' Four times more often! Our law enforcement amendment reflects the police chiefs' judgment. It invests in programs we know work, from ``Say No to Drugs'' community-based centers, to incentive grants for local delinquency prevention programs and drug prevention education programs. We also proposed to better protect children from drugs by expanding drug treatment opportunities, and increasing penalties for people who sell drugs to children. In addition, our amendment built on one of the most successful initiatives of the 1994 Crime Act, the COPS program. We proposed to put 6,000 more police officers in our schools and our communities. Mr. President, I think we were all disturbed by the bomb scares that were called into schools all across our nation in the wake of the Littleton tragedy. South Dakota has had to deal with 30 bomb scares or threats of violence since that incident. One of those bomb scares was called into Tri-Valley, a school in a rural community outside Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Fortunately, Tri-Valley has a police officer, called a ``school resource'' officer. His name is Deputy Preston Evans. His position is funded by a COPS grant. He actually covers two schools. On the day of the bomb threat, as students were being evacuated from the school, a number of students came up to Deputy Evans and told him they knew who had made the threat. By the end of the day, two students had been arrested. Those students were able to confide in Deputy Evans because they trusted him. And they were able to trust him because they knew him. They had a relationship with him. By expanding the COPS program, and giving kids the opportunity to have police as mentors and role models when they are young, we can reduce the chances that they'll need judges and wardens when they're older. That makes sense for our children, for our communities, and for our future. Mr. President, I never had to worry about assault weapons or pipe bombs when I was in school. No child, and no parent today should have to worry about those things, either. We simply cannot provide hope for our children if we cannot guarantee their safety in the very institutions where they go to learn the skills they need to succeed in life. I know that gun control proposals alone will not keep our children safe when they leave our homes in the morning. But we can--and we must--do more to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of children, and away from our schools. Our law enforcement amendment banned the possession of assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips by anyone under the age of 18. It also increased criminal penalties for those in the deadly black market of selling handguns, assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips to juveniles. Finally, when juveniles commit violent crimes and put the lives of others at risk, our amendment took away their right to possess a gun-- ever--regardless of whether they are prosecuted as adults or juveniles. In all this talk about juvenile crime, it's important for us to remember that the vast majority of our young people are good kids. They work hard in school. They're involved in their communities. Our goal should be to empower these young people, and their communities, to take action against crime, rather than be victimized by it. I've seen what can happen when we harness the power of our young people in my own state. Not long ago, a student in our capitol city, Pierre, took his own life. Many of his classmates were deeply affected. In addition to mourning, they also resolved to try to prevent other young people from making the same tragic mistake. High school students Craig Schochenmaier, Nick Johnson, and Blair Krueger have been working to raise money to give away gunlocks imprinted with the number for a suicide prevention hotline to parents who own guns. Instead of simply becoming numb to violence, Craig and his friends have found a way to fight it, and help others. I believe there are young people in communities all across our country who feel as Craig, Nick, and Blair do. They want to make their schools and communities safer. They're willing to work to end the violence. Our amendments would have given them, and their communities, the tools and support they needed to do that. I think we have missed two key opportunities on this bill. The provisions we have proposed and would make a real, positive difference in the lives of the people of this country. They represent the next right step in our ongoing effort to secure the safety of our schools and communities. My colleagues and I may offer some of these as individual amendments before the debate on this bill is over. I certainly encourage my colleagues, especially on the other side of the aisle but on both sides of the aisle, to reconsider these issues, to reconsider how we address these problems, and to vote in support of these amendments when they are offered again. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time to make a few remarks on this amendment prior to the time we have our vote. I am very appreciative of the efforts made by the distinguished Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Maryland and for their extraordinary leadership in offering this amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor. We call this proposal the American Bank Fairness Amendment. It is cosponsored by a number of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. On this side, the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, is a leading expert and a long-time champion of this measure. We are grateful to him for the work he has done. In a nutshell, this amendment, as my colleagues have noted, would give American banks the freedom to organize their activities in a way that makes the most sense to them. That is basically what it is. It is that simple. Let's give the banks the freedom and the opportunity to make their own choice. We are not going to have Government tell them what is the best choice; we are going to let them make up their own minds. Instead of forcing the banks to organize using an expensive holding company structure, as the underlying bill does, our proposal simply gives banks an option. They can conduct activities through a holding company, or they can conduct their activities through an affiliated operating subsidiary. By giving banks this choice, our amendment will lead to better services at lower costs for all sorts of financial services, from banking to brokerage services to insurance. I want to talk about two specific points--two specific and substantial ways in which our amendment improves on the pending bill. On the issue of safety and soundness, our proposal is actually stronger than the bill offered by the chairman. That is not my assertion. The current Chairman of the FDIC and his four predecessors-- three Republicans and two Democrats--all agree. They say that banks face greater risks if forced to use the holding company structure. I think everybody ought to know here that we are talking about an entirely new system. We are talking about moving into uncharted waters. We are talking about making sure that each financial institution has the best option available to it to make the best choice. What we are saying is that as a financial institution makes the choice as it goes into all these uncharted waters, the most important thing we can do is guarantee its safety and soundness. What are we getting? We are getting a virtually unanimous report from the FDIC Chairmen--the current one and four predecessors--that we are using an option here advocating a position that creates more safety and soundness than we have in this bill. So if you want safety and soundness, vote for this amendment. Mr. President, the chairman's bill exposes banks. And I have to say because it exposes banks, it exposes taxpayers to greater risks than our alternative. There are two reasons for that. First, subsidiaries are assets of the bank. They can be sold to satisfy creditors. Affiliates are not considered bank assets. The second reason subsidiaries are safer is because profits from a successful bank subsidiary accrue to that bank. But the profits from a company that is part of a holding company do not directly benefit the bank. Mr. President, it is no secret that of all the issues pending before us, one of those issues into which our Treasury Secretary has put the greatest amount of time and the greatest amount of effort, because he is so concerned about safety and soundness, is this. He wants a tough bill when it comes to safety and soundness. He agrees with the FDIC Chairman and her predecessors, that if we are going to have strong safety and soundness, it is absolutely critical that we ensure we have the structure available to make it happen. Even Fed Chairman Greenspan, who the chairman likes to cite in connection with this bill, agrees that safety and soundness is not the issue here. In his exact words, ``My concerns are not about safety and soundness. . . . It is not a safety and soundness issue.'' Our proposal corrects a second serious flaw in the underlying bill as well. It does so by giving American banks the same freedom as foreign banks to choose their operating structure. It is absolutely astounding to me that the chairman, who talks so passionately about free markets, actually dictates in his bill how financial services companies must organize their activities. He gives them one--and only one--choice, which means he gives them no choice at all. Forcing activities into affiliates would place American banks at a competitive disadvantage not only in the international markets; it would actually place American banks at a disadvantage in America. We already give foreign banks the freedom to choose the structure that best serves the business plan. Since 1990, the Federal Reserve has issued approvals for 18 foreign banks to own subsidiaries that engage in securities underwriting activities in the United States. All told, I am told these foreign-owned subsidiaries exceed $450 billion in assets. In a 1992 joint report on foreign bank operations, the Federal Reserve Board and the Treasury Department agreed that ``subject to prudential considerations, the guiding policy for foreign bank operations should be the principle of investor choice.'' The bottom line, therefore, Mr. President, is this: The chairman's bill discriminates against American banks in favor of foreign banks. We say that is wrong. Our amendment levels the playing field. Safety and soundness, basic fairness, these are the important issues that are underlying this amendment that we will be voting on in just a couple of minutes. There is one other important point we need to consider. The President made it absolutely clear that he will veto the financial services modernization bill unless we fix the problem with operating subsidiaries. So the choice is ours--or perhaps I should say it is the chairman's choice. Does he really want a bill badly enough to negotiate and find some solution? Does he want a bill badly enough to give up some potential leverage he might get in conference to deal with this legislation in a way that allows us to focus on the real problems? I hope he will reconsider what threats he has made to pull this bill if his position does not prevail on this amendment. Let's recognize for the good of our country, for the good of our financial institutions, for the good of choice, for the good of safety and soundness, for moving this bill along, that we only have one choice. It is to pass this amendment, and I hope we will do it tonight. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues in recognizing a historic achievement by one of the Senate's most remarkable Members. With the vote we are about to cast, Senator Joe Biden becomes the youngest Member of this body ever to cast 10,000 votes. It should come as a surprise to none of us that Senator Biden should set such a record. He has always been a few steps ahead of the crowd. In 1972, at the age of 29, he mounted his first Senate campaign against a popular incumbent, Republican Senator J. Caleb Boggs. No one--not even his own Democratic party--thought he could do it. But in 1973 he was sworn in as the second-youngest person ever to be popularly elected to the Senate. The first issue Senator Biden tackled was campaign finance reform--as we all know, this is a difficult issue for anyone, much less a first- year member. But as we also all know, Joe Biden has never shied away from a fight. His candor, strength of character and commitment to principle have led him through many battles over the years. As chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Biden helped this institution, and this nation, sort through the complexities of the most controversial issues of our day--from flag burning, to abortion and the death penalty, Senator Biden also presided over perhaps the most contentious Supreme Court nominations hearings in history. In the midst of the controversy surrounding nominee Robert Bork, Senator Biden maintained a level of intellectual rigor that raised the bar for committee consideration of all future nominations. We also recall his leadership and doggedness in crafting what may well be the most difficult and important pieces of legislation in recent years, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. This included the Violence Against Women Act, the very first comprehensive piece of legislation to specifically address gender-based crimes. He was also instrumental in creating the position of national ``Drug Czar,'' which has been invaluable in our fight against illegal drugs. His commitment to keeping drugs off the streets remains steadfast. The Senate and this nation have also benefitted from Senator Biden's leadership in the foreign policy arena. As ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, he is widely regarded as one of the Senate's leading foreign policy experts. He was one of the first to predict the fall of communism and anticipate the need to redefine our policies to fit a post-cold war world. And, as far back as early 1993, Senator Biden called for active American participation to contain the conflict in Bosnia. In his public service and personal life, Joe Biden sets a high standard we can all admire. His steel will, dedication and compassion, reinforcing a powerful intellect and impressive communication skills, have made Senator Biden an exceptional Senator and friend. The number of people he has inspired through his commitment to his family, his values and his beliefs is legion. Mr. President, it is indeed a pleasure to serve with Joe Biden, and to count him as a friend. On behalf of all the Members of this Senate, I congratulate Joe on this historic achievement and thank him for his numerous contributions to the United States Senate and to his country. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill intended to improve health care for Americans living in rural areas. The Promoting Health in Rural Areas Act of 1999 would improve the viability of rural hospitals and clinics, help rural communities attract and retain health care providers and health plans, and make optimal use of the extraordinary medical and telecommunications technology available today. One-fifth of Americans live in rural areas. They experience the same health care access problems that Americans in cities and suburbs face-- plus some problems that are uniquely rural. Issues of geography and transportation, which rural Americans face all the time, can make it difficult to visit the doctor or get to a hospital. These problems are made worse by the short supply of health care professionals in rural areas. Rural communities are striving to improve access through telehealth and the recruitment of health care professionals. At the same time, they must also struggle to maintain what they have, to ensure that providers who leave their area are replaced, and to keep their hospitals' doors open. This bill contains several provisions that will help them do this--by improving Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements to rural providers, strengthening recruitment programs, and encouraging the development of telehealth. These are important steps to improve access, increase choice, and improve the quality of care provided in more isolated parts of the country. One problem rural areas face is reimbursement systems that favor urban areas, or that do not take the special needs of rural providers into account. For example, Medicare payments to hospitals are based on formulas that are biased toward urban areas. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and its predecessor, the Prospective Payment Advisory Commission, have been pointing out these inequities for years. This bill would correct the formulas and pay hospitals more fairly. Another reimbursement problem in rural states is payment for health plans in Medicare+Choice. The bill includes a provision to guarantee that plans in rural counties get the increased reimbursement promised in the Balanced Budget Act. This provision is important to ensure that beneficiaries in rural areas have some of the health plan choices available to urban seniors. Rural communities also face difficulty recruiting and retaining health care providers. Despite great increases in the number of providers trained in this country over the past 30 years, rural communities have not shared equitably in the benefits of this expansion. As a result, about 22 million rural Americans live in areas considered Health Professional Shortage Areas because they do not have enough doctors to serve their community. Our bill addresses obstacles in current law to the recruitment and training of providers in rural areas. One obstacle is the current requirement that communities actually lose a physician before they qualify for recruitment assistance to replace that provider. This bill would let communities get assistance for up to 12 months in advance when they know a retirement or resignation is pending. Another provision in the bill ensures that new Medicare reimbursement rules for medical residents, enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act, do not discriminate against areas that train residents in rural health clinics or other settings outside a hospital. Telehealth is another promising tool to bring medical expertise to rural communities. Through telehealth technology, rural patients can significantly shorten their travel time to see specialists, and they can have access to doctors they would otherwise never encounter. The benefits of telehealth extend to rural health professionals as well, providing them with technical expertise and interaction with peers that can make practicing in a rural area more attractive. Our bill addresses some of the barriers that have limited the development of telehealth. It would expand Medicare reimbursement for telehealth to all rural areas, and to all services Medicare currently covers. The bill also would make telehealth more convenient, by allowing any health care practitioner to present a patient to a specialist on the other side of the video connection. The bill also includes a grant program to help communities establish telehealth programs. Mr. President, rural America deserves appropriate access to health care--access to hospitals, access to providers, and access to quality services. Providing this care in rural communities raises unique challenges, but we can--and must--overcome those challenges. The bill I introduce today, along with my colleague Senator Baucus and other members of the Rural Health Caucus, takes important steps toward that goal.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill intended to improve health care for Americans living in rural areas. The Promoting Health in Rural Areas Act of 1999 would improve the viability of rural hospitals and clinics, help rural communities attract and retain health care providers and health plans, and make optimal use of the extraordinary medical and telecommunications technology available today. One-fifth of Americans live in rural areas. They experience the same health care access problems that Americans in cities and suburbs face-- plus some problems that are uniquely rural. Issues of geography and transportation, which rural Americans face all the time, can make it difficult to visit the doctor or get to a hospital. These problems are made worse by the short supply of health care professionals in rural areas. Rural communities are striving to improve access through telehealth and the recruitment of health care professionals. At the same time, they must also struggle to maintain what they have, to ensure that providers who leave their area are replaced, and to keep their hospitals' doors open. This bill contains several provisions that will help them do this--by improving Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements to rural providers, strengthening recruitment programs, and encouraging the development of telehealth. These are important steps to improve access, increase choice, and improve the quality of care provided in more isolated parts of the country. One problem rural areas face is reimbursement systems that favor urban areas, or that do not take the special needs of rural providers into account. For example, Medicare payments to hospitals are based on formulas that are biased toward urban areas. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and its predecessor, the Prospective Payment Advisory Commission, have been pointing out these inequities for years. This bill would correct the formulas and pay hospitals more fairly. Another reimbursement problem in rural states is payment for health plans in Medicare+Choice. The bill includes a provision to guarantee that plans in rural counties get the increased reimbursement promised in the Balanced Budget Act. This provision is important to ensure that beneficiaries in rural areas have some of the health plan choices available to urban seniors. Rural communities also face difficulty recruiting and retaining health care providers. Despite great increases in the number of providers trained in this country over the past 30 years, rural communities have not shared equitably in the benefits of this expansion. As a result, about 22 million rural Americans live in areas considered Health Professional Shortage Areas because they do not have enough doctors to serve their community. Our bill addresses obstacles in current law to the recruitment and training of providers in rural areas. One obstacle is the current requirement that communities actually lose a physician before they qualify for recruitment assistance to replace that provider. This bill would let communities get assistance for up to 12 months in advance when they know a retirement or resignation is pending. Another provision in the bill ensures that new Medicare reimbursement rules for medical residents, enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act, do not discriminate against areas that train residents in rural health clinics or other settings outside a hospital. Telehealth is another promising tool to bring medical expertise to rural communities. Through telehealth technology, rural patients can significantly shorten their travel time to see specialists, and they can have access to doctors they would otherwise never encounter. The benefits of telehealth extend to rural health professionals as well, providing them with technical expertise and interaction with peers that can make practicing in a rural area more attractive. Our bill addresses some of the barriers that have limited the development of telehealth. It would expand Medicare reimbursement for telehealth to all rural areas, and to all services Medicare currently covers. The bill also would make telehealth more convenient, by allowing any health care practitioner to present a patient to a specialist on the other side of the video connection. The bill also includes a grant program to help communities establish telehealth programs. Mr. President, rural America deserves appropriate access to health care--access to hospitals, access to providers, and access to quality services. Providing this care in rural communities raises unique challenges, but we can--and must--overcome those challenges. The bill I introduce today, along with my colleague Senator Baucus and other members of the Rural Health Caucus, takes important steps toward that goal.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Two days ago, when that military transport plane touched down at Andrews Air Force Base and we saw our three American soldiers safe again at last, I said, instinctively, ``thank you.'' ``Thank you, God, and thank you, Jesse Jackson, for bringing Steven Gonzales, Andrew Ramirez and Christopher Stone safely home from their captivity in Serbia.'' Millions of people all across our country, I suspect, said much the same thing. I am pleased today to repeat those words here, in the United States Senate, and to support this resolution honoring Reverend Jackson and the others in his delegation who played such a critical role in securing the release of our service men. ``When I was in prison, you visited me.'' That was one of the ways Jesus said we could recognize those who do his work. In daring to visit our soldiers in prison in Serbia, Reverend Jackson and the delegation of religious leaders who accompanied him surely were following Jesus's teachings as they understood them. Our nation owes them a debt of gratitude. Some have questioned the wisdom of the delegation's trip. There has been speculation about what effect their going to Serbia could have on political or military tactics. Frankly, I don't want to get into that debate. This was not a political or military mission. It was a humanitarian mission. Much praise rightly goes to Reverend Jackson, who organized the trip. I also want to acknowledge another member of the delegation: Congressman Rod Blagojevich, a second-term Congressman from Chicago's North Side, and the only Serbian-American in the House of Representatives. There are moments in history where a person emerges who seems almost to have been born to fulfill a critical role. On this mission, Rod Blagojevich was that person. Not only is he a man of significant political and moral courage, he is also the son of Yugoslav immigrants. His father spent four years in a Nazi POW camp during World War II. He learned to speak Serbo-Croation as a child, and still speaks it. I remember when I first was elected to the House. I sought out several of my political heroes to ask them ``How can a young Congressman make a difference--a real difference--in people's lives?'' Rod Blagojevich has found an answer to that question. Steven Gonzales, Andrew Ramirez and Christopher Stone are united today with their families, in large measure because of the courage he, and Reverend Jackson, and the other religious leaders in their delegation displayed in going to Serbia. Today's Washington Post contains an interesting account of their mission, from the time it was first conceived by Reverend Jackson through their triumphant return home. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to compensate the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe for losses the tribe suffered when the Oahe dam was constructed in central South Dakota and over 100,000 acres of tribal land was flooded. Its passage will help the tribe rebuild their infrastructure and their economy, which was seriously crippled by the Oahe project during the 1950s. It is extraordinary that it has taken four decades to reach this point. The importance of passing this long-overdue legislation as soon as possible cannot be stated too strongly. This legislation was developed with the assistance of Chairman Gregg Bourland and Council Member Louis Dubray of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. Both men have worked tirelessly to bring us to this point and I am grateful for their assistance. This legislation represents one element of their progressive vision for providing the members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe with greater opportunities for economic development and to fulfill the debts owned to the tribe by the federal government. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act is the companion bill to the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act, which passed by unanimous consent in November of 1997, and the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act of 1996, which passed the Congress unanimously in 1996. The bill is based on an extensive analysis of the imp[act of the Pick-Sloan Dam Projects on the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe which was performed by the Robert McLaughlin Company. The McLaughlin report was reviewed by the General Accounting Office, which found that the losses suffered by the tribe justify the establishment of a $290 million trust fund, which is the amount called for in this legislation. It represents an important step in our continuing effort to fairly compensate the tribes of South Dakota for the sacrifices they made decades ago for the construction of the dams along the Missouri River and will further the goal of improving the lives of Native Americans living on those reservations. To fully appreciate the need for this legislation, it is important for the committee to understand the historic events that are prologue to its development. The Oahe dam was 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 Oahe dam flooded 104,000 acres of tribal land, forcing the relocation of roughly 30 percent of the tribe's population, including four entire communities. Equally as important, the tribe lost 80 percent of its fertile river bottom lands--lands that represented the basis for the tribal economy. Prior to the flooding, the tribe relied on these lands for firewood and building material, game wild fruits and berries, as well as cover from the severe storms that characterize winters in South Dakota and shelter from the heat of the prairie summer. Indian ranchers no longer had places to shelter their cattle in the wintertime, causing a significant loss in the value of their operations. The loss of these important river bottom lands can be felt today. During the extreme winter of 1996-1997, the tribe lost roughly 30,000 head of livestock, including 25,000 head of cattle. Without adequate natural shelter, the remaining Indian ranchers along this stretch of river can expect to continue to have difficulty scratching out a living in future years when the winter turns particularly hard. Mr. President, the damage caused by the Pick-Sloan projects touched every aspect of life on the Cheyenne River reservation. Ninety percent of the timber on the reservation was wiped out, causing shortages of building material and firewood. Wildlife, once abundant in the river bottom, became more scarce. The entire lifestyle of the tribe changed as it was forced to relocate much of its people from the lush river bottom lands to the windswept prairie. Most Americans, if not all, are familiar with the many broken promises of the United States Government to Native Americans during the 1800's. For Indian tribes located along the Missouri River in the state of South Dakota, the United States Government still has not met its responsibilities for compensation for losses suffered as a result of the construction of the Pick-Sloan dams. This proposed legislation is intended to correct that situation as it applies to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. We cannot, of course, remake the lost lands and return the tribe to its former existence. We can, however, help provide the resources necessary to the tribe to improve the infrastructure on the Cheyenne River reservation. This, in turn, will enhance opportunities for economic development which will benefit all members of the tribe. Perhaps most importantly, it will fulfill part of our commitment to improve the lives of Native Americans--in this case the Cheyenne River Sioux. I strongly urge my colleagues to approve this legislation this year. Providing compensation to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 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 bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Maryland. I thank him and the Democratic members of the Banking Committee for the tremendous leadership and patience that, in particular, Senator Sarbanes has demonstrated in getting us to this point. I also want to acknowledge the efforts of all my colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee, and especially the fellow Democrats of the Banking Committee, who have put so much effort and energy and diligence into bringing us to this very important debate, and ultimately this vote which we will shortly have. I might add, as I know the distinguished Senator from Maryland has already noted, that every Democratic member of the Senate Banking Committee is a cosponsor of the substitute we will be voting on shortly. Together, my colleagues on the committee have produced a proposal to give financial service companies new freedoms and new flexibility--without risking the financial well-being of our economy or of individuals. It is a balanced, responsible proposal--one the President can sign--and, on behalf of the entire Democratic caucus, I thank them for producing it. Let me be very clear, Mr. President. Senate Democrats support financial services modernization. We want to see a bill passed. There is no good reason that can't happen this year--in fact, this week. This should not be a partisan issue. Historically, it has not been one. Our substitute is based on last year's H.R. 10. The Senate Banking Committee passed H.R. 10 on a vote of 16 to 2--16 to 2. Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee supported H.R. 10 last year. So did virtually every major financial services industry group. In the House, the House Banking Committee passed a very similar bill this year. Again, the vote was overwhelmingly bipartisan--51 to 8. Until recently, Democrats and Republicans have agreed overwhelmingly that the path laid out in our substitute was the right path. That has all changed. Reform has suffered a major setback this year. In the Senate Banking Committee, the majority forced through a new, harshly partisan bill on a party line vote of 11 to 9. This new bill shattered the consensus that so many people worked so long and so hard to create. In place of the broad support enjoyed by H.R. 10, the committee bill is opposed now by every Democrat on the Banking Committee. It is also opposed by every civil rights group. It is opposed by community groups, community organizations, and local governmental officials. Instead of a clear path to enactment--which is what we would have had had we stayed with the bipartisan approach to H.R. 10--financial services reform is now on two tracks. There is the veto track. And make no mistake, S. 900 is on this track. It will be vetoed if the President receives it in its current form. Then there is the enactment track. That is the track our substitute and the bipartisan House Banking bill are on. We are not saying, ``It is our way, or no way.'' Neither side should ever issue such an ultimatum. That is not the way of the Senate. We have discussed with the majority leader our desire to find a bipartisan way to get the financial services modernization bill back on the enactment track. We have agreed to a floor procedure which will enable us to finish this bill in an expeditious manner. We do not want to delay this bill any longer. That has already happened. It has already been delayed. As I said, we want to pass financial services modernization this year, and perhaps even this week. So the choice for the Senate is clear. It is partisan brinkmanship, or bipartisan accomplishment. We stand ready on this side of the aisle to deliver a bill that the President can sign. He has cited four serious flaws in S. 900 which he has said will force him to veto the bill. Our substitute corrects all four flaws. First and foremost, our substitute does not gut CRA--the Community Reinvestment Act--as S. 900 does. The CRA has proven a huge success in expanding access to credit and investment in low- and moderate-income communities. Investment capital is the lifeblood of these communities. That capital must continue to be available to qualified borrowers in all communities. We cannot draw red lines around the American dream. Democrats will not support a bill that undermines the effectiveness of the CRA. The second major difference between our substitute and the underlying bill is the way the two proposals deal with the separation of banking and commerce. For nearly 70 years, since the collapse of the banking industry during the Great Depression, U.S. law has separated banking from other commercial activities. An army of experts--from Chairman Greenspan to Secretary Rubin to former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker-- believe that separation must be maintained. But you don't have to look in the history books to understand why mixing banking and other commercial activities is risky business. Look at the recent currency crisis that started in Asia and spread to some of our Latin American neighbors. If anything, the globalization of our economy makes a reasonable separation between banking and other commercial activities even more important now than it was when those laws were first enacted. Unfortunately, as the distinguished Senator from Maryland has observed, the underlying bill weakens the separation of banking and commerce in a number of ways. Our alternative does not. It reflects the careful compromises developed last year. It preserves the separation between banks and other commercial activities without in any way limiting the flexibility financial service companies need in today's economy. It strikes the right balance between opportunity and responsibility. Let me interject here that, should our substitute fail, my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Johnson, intends to offer a related amendment. It would close a loophole which commercial companies currently use to mix banking and commerce by acquiring existing unitary thrift holding companies. I will strongly support his effort. A third difference between our substitute and S. 900 has to do with consumer protection. H.R. 10--the bill the Banking Committee passed out last year with overwhelming support--included a number of consumer protections having to do with such things as risk disclosure and licensing of personnel. Those protections were essential for its passage last year. They remain essential to the American people. They have all been stripped out of the underlying bill--every one of them. They are all included in the Democratic alternative. They must be included in any financial services bill this Congress passes, or the President will veto it. There is a fourth way in which our bill differs from both the committee bill and from last year's bill. It involves what financial activities can take place in subsidiaries of banks, and under what conditions. As the legislative process has progressed, the Treasury Department has agreed to significant additional safeguards regarding the financial activities of banks' operating subsidiaries. Our alternative incorporates these safeguards. At the same time, it would permit banks to structure certain new activities in these so-called ``op-subs'' as they see fit. Again, it balances opportunity and responsibility. Mr. President, that is where we stand--the juncture of two tracks: The veto track, and the enactment track. S. 900--as it is currently written--will put us on the veto track. We know that: It undermines the Community Reinvestment Act. It breaches the separation of banking and commerce. It ignores consumer protection. And, it fails to strike a responsible balance on the question of bank operating subsidiaries. The failure to proceed on a bipartisan track has placed this bill at risk. Unless we negotiate with each other once again in good faith, I must say this bill will be vetoed. If that happens, it would represent a serious failure on the part of this Senate. More important, it would deprive American businesses, and the American people, of important tools and safeguards they need in this new global economy. We appeal to our colleagues: Let's get this bill back on track. Let's adopt this alternative. Let's pass financial services modernization. This year. This week. We can do it. I hope we will.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to compensate the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe for losses the tribe suffered when the Oahe dam was constructed in central South Dakota and over 100,000 acres of tribal land was flooded. Its passage will help the tribe rebuild their infrastructure and their economy, which was seriously crippled by the Oahe project during the 1950s. It is extraordinary that it has taken four decades to reach this point. The importance of passing this long-overdue legislation as soon as possible cannot be stated too strongly. This legislation was developed with the assistance of Chairman Gregg Bourland and Council Member Louis Dubray of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. Both men have worked tirelessly to bring us to this point and I am grateful for their assistance. This legislation represents one element of their progressive vision for providing the members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe with greater opportunities for economic development and to fulfill the debts owned to the tribe by the federal government. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act is the companion bill to the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act, which passed by unanimous consent in November of 1997, and the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act of 1996, which passed the Congress unanimously in 1996. The bill is based on an extensive analysis of the imp[act of the Pick-Sloan Dam Projects on the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe which was performed by the Robert McLaughlin Company. The McLaughlin report was reviewed by the General Accounting Office, which found that the losses suffered by the tribe justify the establishment of a $290 million trust fund, which is the amount called for in this legislation. It represents an important step in our continuing effort to fairly compensate the tribes of South Dakota for the sacrifices they made decades ago for the construction of the dams along the Missouri River and will further the goal of improving the lives of Native Americans living on those reservations. To fully appreciate the need for this legislation, it is important for the committee to understand the historic events that are prologue to its development. The Oahe dam was 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 Oahe dam flooded 104,000 acres of tribal land, forcing the relocation of roughly 30 percent of the tribe's population, including four entire communities. Equally as important, the tribe lost 80 percent of its fertile river bottom lands--lands that represented the basis for the tribal economy. Prior to the flooding, the tribe relied on these lands for firewood and building material, game wild fruits and berries, as well as cover from the severe storms that characterize winters in South Dakota and shelter from the heat of the prairie summer. Indian ranchers no longer had places to shelter their cattle in the wintertime, causing a significant loss in the value of their operations. The loss of these important river bottom lands can be felt today. During the extreme winter of 1996-1997, the tribe lost roughly 30,000 head of livestock, including 25,000 head of cattle. Without adequate natural shelter, the remaining Indian ranchers along this stretch of river can expect to continue to have difficulty scratching out a living in future years when the winter turns particularly hard. Mr. President, the damage caused by the Pick-Sloan projects touched every aspect of life on the Cheyenne River reservation. Ninety percent of the timber on the reservation was wiped out, causing shortages of building material and firewood. Wildlife, once abundant in the river bottom, became more scarce. The entire lifestyle of the tribe changed as it was forced to relocate much of its people from the lush river bottom lands to the windswept prairie. Most Americans, if not all, are familiar with the many broken promises of the United States Government to Native Americans during the 1800's. For Indian tribes located along the Missouri River in the state of South Dakota, the United States Government still has not met its responsibilities for compensation for losses suffered as a result of the construction of the Pick-Sloan dams. This proposed legislation is intended to correct that situation as it applies to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. We cannot, of course, remake the lost lands and return the tribe to its former existence. We can, however, help provide the resources necessary to the tribe to improve the infrastructure on the Cheyenne River reservation. This, in turn, will enhance opportunities for economic development which will benefit all members of the tribe. Perhaps most importantly, it will fulfill part of our commitment to improve the lives of Native Americans--in this case the Cheyenne River Sioux. I strongly urge my colleagues to approve this legislation this year. Providing compensation to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 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 bill be printed in the Record.