Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. Chief Justice, I appreciate the Senator yielding. As I understand it, Senator Murray's motion will relate to the third motion, which is, as I understand it, the motion that allows for video excerpts to be used. Her motion would restrict both managers to transcripts, written transcripts. I am not sure in which order her motion should be offered, but since it relates to the third one, perhaps it would be in concert with that motion.

Mr. DASCHLE. That's correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask unanimous consent that the time be yielded back.

Mr. DASCHLE. I send a motion to the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 9 years ago Congress took the landmark step of extending benefits through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 (RECA) to thousands of American victims of the Cold War who were unknowingly and wrongly exposed to life-threatening levels of radiation and other harmful materials as part of our nation's nuclear weapons program. This law was long overdue, and was an important step by Congress to acknowledge the federal government's responsibility for its failure to warn or take adequate steps to protect victims of radioactive fallout from weapons testing and underground uranium miners who breathed harmful levels of radon as they worked to supply our nuclear weapons program. The law makes individuals who have developed cancer or other health problems as a result of their exposure to radiation eligible for up to $100,000 in compensation from the government. In the 9 years since the passage of that bill, we have had time to reflect upon its strengths and its shortcomings. During that time, it has become overwhelmingly clear that we have not fully met our obligation to victims of our nuclear program. Most seriously, we have arbitrarily and unfairly limited compensation for underground miners to those in only 5 states, despite the fact that underground miners in other states such as South Dakota faced exactly the same risk to their health. This fact alone requires us to amend RECA so that we can right this wrong. However, we have also excluded other groups of workers, and their surviving families, from compensation for serious health problems and, in some cases, deaths, that have resulted from their work to help defend our nation. Many of those who worked in uranium mills, for example, have developed serious respiratory problems as a result of exposure to uranium dusts and silica. Concerns have been raised about above-ground miners and uranium transportation workers as well. It is the obligation of the 106th Congress to continue the work of the 101st. Not only is it incumbent upon us to extend the law to compensate underground miners unfairly left out of the original legislation, we need to extend the law to cover new groups of workers who face similar risks to their health. It is for that reason that I am joining with Senator Bingaman today to sponsor the Radiation Exposure Compensation Improvement Act of 1999. This legislation will expand RECA to cover underground miners in all states, as well as surface miners, transportation workers and uranium mill workers who have had health problems as a result of their work with uranium. I hope my colleagues will join us to pass this legislation quickly. I also feel an obligation to correct the historical record. During my review of the scientific literature on the uranium industry and of testimony before Congress, I was concerned to see that South Dakota's former uranium industry has gone virtually unnoticed by the rest of the nation despite the fact that South Dakotans who worked in the industry appear to be suffering exactly the same long-term health consequences as residents of other states. For that reason, I would like to take a moment to outline the history of uranium mining and processing in my state. Uranium was first discovered in South Dakota in the summer of 1951, along the fringe of the Black Hills where grasslands uplift into pine forest. As you know, 1951 was a difficult time in American history. The Cold War with the Soviet Union was deepening, and the United States was rapidly expanding its arsenal of nuclear weapons. To supply this new weapons program, the United States adopted a program of government price supports to create a domestic uranium industry under the jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Almost immediately, South Dakota became one of the AEC's suppliers. After uranium was discovered in South Dakota, the AEC established an office in Hot Springs to conduct airborne radiometric surveys, and small-scale prospecting began. South Dakota's first uranium ore was shipped by rail to Colorado for processing, until an ore-buying station was established by the AEC in the town of Edgemont in December of 1952. A uranium mill was constructed in Edgemont shortly afterwards. Uranium mining and milling continued for nearly two decades in my state. According to the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, there were over 100 uranium mines in the vicinity of Edgemont, of which at least 22 were underground. In their 20 years of operation between 1953 and 1973, these mines produced nearly 1 million short tons of ore and just over 3 million pounds of processed uranium. Ore from South Dakota's mines was processed at the mill in Edgemont. According to a document provided to me by the Tennessee Valley Authority, which later acquired the mill and the responsibility for its cleanup, ``From 1956 through 1972 (when the uranium circuit was shut down and the mill stopped producing uranium concentrates), approximately 2,500,000 tons of mill tailings were produced onsite. Of this total, approximately 2,050,000 tons--82 percent--were produced under contract with the AEC for defense purposes. In fact, all of the uranium concentrates produced through December 31, 1966, and a portion of those produced until 1968 were sold to the AEC. The remaining 450,000 tons of mill tailings--18 percent--were produced under contracts for commercial sales.'' Mr. President, much of this information was difficult to come by, and to ensure that all those who need it in the future have full access to it. As these records make clear, for over 20 years South Dakota played a significant role in supplying uranium for our nation's nuclear weapons program. Yet rarely will you find South Dakota mentioned in any of the debate over the long-term consequences of that program. I am determined to change that fact, and to ensure that all South Dakotans, and other individuals across the country, who are suffering from poor health, or who are surviving relatives of uranium workers who have died as a result of their work, are fairly compensated by the federal government for their losses. As my colleagues know, in RECA Congress officially recognized that ``the lives and health of uranium miners and of individuals who were exposed to radiation were subjected to increased risk of injury and disease to serve the national security interests of the United States.'' However, the law only makes this determination for fallout victims and for underground uranium miners in 5 states. I believe it must be broadened to include underground uranium miners in all states. This is a matter of simple fairness. I can find no reasonable explanation for the failure of the law to include South Dakota and other states that had underground uranium mines whose workers would have been exposed to unsafe levels of radon. In addition, the law should be broadened to include uranium mill workers, surface miners and transportation workers to ensure that all those who may be suffering from health problems as a result of exposure to uranium dust or other harmful materials are compensated fairly. While there are strong grounds on which to expand the act to include all of these groups of workers, it is helpful to examine closely the evidence supporting the inclusion of one of these groups--mill workers--to better understand our reasons for seeking this change. The grounds for expanding the act to include mill workers are largely the same as those which led Congress to pass RECA 9 years ago. The United States government, which created the domestic uranium industry through price supports in order to supply its nuclear weapons program, failed to adequately warn mill workers of potential risks to their health, to take reasonable measures to create a safe working environment, or to act on initial warnings and conduct long-term studies of mill workers to determine whether their health was being affected by their work. The federal government recognized the potential risks of uranium production from the onset of our nuclear program, and in 1949 the Public Health Service (PHS) initiated a study of both underground miners and millers to determine whether they were suffering from any adverse health effects. Troublingly, a decision was also made by the federal government not to inform workers that their health could be at risk. As Senior District Judge Copple noted in his decision in Begay v. United States, ``In order to proceed with the epidemiological study, it was necessary to obtain the consent and voluntary cooperation of all mine operators. To do this, it was decided by PHS under the Surgeon General that the individual miners would not be told of possible potential hazards from radiation in the mines for fear that many miners would quit and others would be difficult to secure because of fear of cancer. This would seriously interrupt badly needed production of uranium.'' While the court's decision does not make clear whether that same decision applied to uranium millers, subsequent research has shown that over 80 percent of former mill workers felt they were not informed about the hazards of radiation during their employment. The early results of this study, as described in a May 1952 report entitled, ``An Interim Report of a Health Study of the Uranium Mines and Mills,'' are disturbing. It notes that, ``In 1950, 13.8 percent of the white miners and 26.5 percent of the white millers showed more than the usual pulmonary fibrosis, as compared to 7.5 percent in a control group. In the same year, 20 percent of the Indian millers and 13.2 percent of the Indian miners showed more than the usual pulmonary fibrosis, as against none in the controls. Such a finding would indicate a tendency on the part of these individuals to develop silicosis from their exposure.'' Given these and other findings, the study notes the ``need for repeating the medical studies at frequent intervals.'' It is inexplicable to me that these critical follow-up studies which were so strongly recommended by the Public Health Service took place only for underground uranium miners. No long-term, follow-up studies of uranium millers were conducted. This decision was made despite the fact that it was well established that uranium millers were being exposed to uranium dusts and silica, which increase the risk of non-malignant lung disease. One of the reasons the health problems of mill workers appear to have been so neglected is that most officials assumed that risks could be controlled by adopting standards to prevent workers from breathing or swallowing dust produced by yellowcake or uranium ore. As the 1952 PHS study states, ``In general, it may be said that there are no health hazards in the mills which cannot be controlled by accepted industrial hygiene methods.'' Noting poor dust control in the mills, the PHS study concluded, ``Until adequate dust control has been established at this operation, the workers should be required to wear approved dust respirators. Daily baths and frequent changes of clothing by the workers in this area are also indicated.'' These recommendations appear to have been largely ignored. Recent studies of former uranium mill workers by Gary Madsen, Susan Dawson and Bryan Spykerman of the University of Utah paint a devastating picture of workplace conditions in uranium mills prior to the enforcement of stringent safety standards in the 1970's. Eighty percent of former mill workers interviewed by the researchers for one study said they were never informed about possible effects of radiation. Of workers who reported working in dusty conditions, 35 percent did not wear respirators, and 20 percent wore them infrequently or said they were not always available. Sixty-eight percent reported moderate to heavy amounts of dust on their clothing at work, and virtually all workers reported bringing their dust-covered clothes home to be washed. One respondent noted, ``We washed the clothes once a week. It was messy. We were expecting our first child. I had to shake my clothes outside. There was yellow sand left at the bottom of the washer. All of the clothes were washed together. Nobody told us the uranium was dangerous--a problem. My wife would get yellowcake on her. I would remove my coveralls in the kitchen. Put them in with the rest of the [family's] laundry.'' Others reported regularly seeing workers outside the mills with yellowcake under their fingernails or in their ears. Mr. President, the dangerous conditions revealed by these studies show an inexcusable failure on the part of the federal government to ensure safe working conditions in an industry it created and controlled. And despite failing to enforce these standards or to even inform workers of the risk to their health, the government nonetheless decided to end long-term studies monitoring the health of mill workers. As a result, only a few studies have been conducted of the health impacts that uranium milling has had on workers. Dr. Larry Fine, Director of the Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, summarized the results of these studies in recent testimony before Congress: ``Health concerns for uranium millers center on their exposures to uranium dusts and silica. Exposure to silica and relatively insoluble uranium compounds may increase the millers' risk of non-malignant respiratory disease, while exposure to relatively soluble forms of uranium may increase their risk of kidney disease. The two mortality studies of uranium millers have not had adequate population size or adequate time since exposure to detect even a moderate risk of lung cancer if present; neither study reported an elevated risk of lung cancer. One of the two completed mortality studies of millers found an increased risk for cancer of the lymphatic and hematopoietic organs (excluding leukemia), and the other found an increased risk for non- malignant respiratory disease and accidents. A non-significant excess in deaths from chronic kidney disease was also observed in the second study. There have been two medical studies of uranium millers, one of which found evidence for pulmonary fibrosis (possibly due to previous mining) and the other of which found evidence for kidney damage.'' I am deeply concerned by our failure to study uranium mill workers more thoroughly and by the indications given by the evidence we do have that these workers are suffering long-term health consequences as a result of their work on behalf of our country. Unfortunately, it may now be too late to gather more conclusive evidence. These workers are growing older and some are now dying. Their numbers have grown so small that it may no longer be possible to conduct the type of conclusive study that should have been done years ago. We owe these mill workers the benefit of the doubt and should make them or their surviving families eligible for the same compensation that underground miners receive. Indeed, I have heard from many South Dakotans who have waited long enough for compensation. They tell me of former miners and mill workers who have died of cancer or who suffer from respiratory disease they believe is directly related to their exposure to harmful materials in their workplace. One of the most tragic stories I have heard was written to me in a letter from Sharon Kane, a widow in Sturgis, South Dakota. After working for 11 years in Edgemont's uranium mill, her husband, Joe, developed severe respiratory problems and was forced to leave his work at the mill. Unfortunately, his health problems continued. Joe died of bone cancer in 1987. It is difficult for me to understand why or how our country let this happen. However, it is now up to us to ensure that all those who have suffered as a result of our nation's actions are fairly compensated. We must expand RECA to include uranium mill workers and other groups of workers who are suffering as a result of their exposure to uranium dust or other materials. We also must ensure the law is expanded to include underground uranium miners in all states. By doing so we can make good on our debt to workers who have sacrificed their health--and sometimes their lives--during the height of the Cold War in order to protect their country. I hope my colleagues will join me in the effort to meet these goals. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document entitled, ``Brief History of Uranium Mining in South Dakota, 1951-1973,'' produced by the Mine Safety and Health Administration and a letter from Sharon Kane be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. Chief Justice, I have an amendment that I send to the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. Chief Justice, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Thursday, January 21 marked the end of Thomas Pellikaan's Senate career. Over the past 35 years, Tom Pellikaan served the Senate with distinction in various capacities--first as Senate press liaison and then at the Office of the Daily Digest, where he spent the majority of his Capitol Hill career. He advanced from a staff assistant in the Daily Digest office to serve as Editor of the Daily Digest since 1989. Tom's attention to detail is well known around the Halls of the Senate. His office has the responsibility of ensuring that the information contained in the Daily Digest section of the Congressional Record reflects the actions taken on any given day in the Senate. The Daily Digest is an important and useful tool for the Senate family. Tom and his staff are to be complimented for the excellent job they have done and will continue to do. While Tom has left the Senate, I am sure his interest in the Senate will continue. On behalf of my Democratic colleagues, we wish him well as he enjoys the ``country life'' on his farm in Culpeper, VA.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Could I inquire as to the length of time that response took.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate must bid goodbye today to an excellent group of young men and women who served as United States Senate Pages this last fall and winter. This group of pages observed a number of important and historic debates in the last few months. Since the beginning of last fall, the Senate has debated measures to reform our nation's bankruptcy laws, to govern commerce over the Internet, and to provide funding for the varied programs of the United States government, among others. Of course, in the last few weeks, these pages have seen history being made in the impeachment trial of a President for only the second time since our government was founded. But pages are not just passive observers. They are active participants in the daily operations of the United States Senate. Mr. President, a page's life is certainly not easy. They are up before dawn, at page school at 6:15 am, then here in the Senate for the rest of the day. While they are here, their duties run the gamut. They help set up the chamber, deliver messages all over the Capitol complex, and help things function smoothly here on the Senate floor and in the cloakrooms. During their limited down time, they often try to sneak in a few minutes of homework. At the end of their long day, it is back to the dorm for more homework, a little down time, and a little sleep before they wake up and do it again the next day. On behalf of all Democratic Senators, I would like to thank this fall and winter's pages for their hard work and contributions to the Senate, and I ask that a list of the 1998 fall and winter pages be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I hope each member of this page class takes back to his or her home state a better knowledge of how their government works and a better appreciation of the need to work together to achieve a common goal. These young people are our future leaders. Measured by their brief service here in the United States Senate, we should all feel confident about our country's future. Perhaps someday, one or more of them will return as Members of the United States Senate. The list follows: 1998 Fall Senate Pages democratic Hilary Davis, Virginia. George Etheridge, Michigan. Mark Hadley, Virginia. Jennifer Johnston, Vermont. Cara Lane, South Dakota. Lauren Luellwitz, Wisconsin. Andrew Mezvinsky, Pennsylvania. Anna Santiago, Illinois. republican Erin Anderson, Vermont. Molly Arico, Rhode Island. Rick Carroll, Delaware. Jessica Day, New Hampshire. Denise Foye, South Carolina. Courtney Johnson, Arkansas. Lauren Martindale, Georgia. John Natter, Alabama. Mejken Poore, Utah. Michael Rohrbaugh, Missouri. Russell Sample, Idaho. Tim Shumaker, Kentucky. Erin Tankersley, Mississippi. Sara Van Doren, Washington. Trenton Young, Utah.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Leahy and several other Democratic Senators in introducing the Safe Schools, Safe Streets and Secure Borders Act of 1999. Thanks in large part to the legacy of success that Senate Democrats have had in the area of anti- crime legislation, the crime rate in this country has been going down for six consecutive years. This is the longest such period of decline in 25 years, and the comprehensive crime bill that we are introducing will build on this success and reduce crime even further. Despite the decrease in crime throughout the last six years, juvenile crime and drug abuse continue to be problems that weigh heavily on the minds of the American people. In my home state of South Dakota, there has been a particularly alarming increase in juvenile crime, and I have been working extensively with community leaders and concerned parents to focus public attention on this issue. Now is the time when we must target the real needs of American families and communities, and I believe that the Safe Schools, Safe Streets and Secure Borders Act of 1999 will do just that. This bill will reduce crime by targeting violent crime in our schools, reforming the juvenile justice system, combating gang violence, cracking down on the sale and use of illegal drugs, strengthening the rights of crime victims, and giving police and prosecutors more tools and resources to fight crime. In addition, this bill would build on one of the most successful initiatives of the 1994 Crime Act by extending the authorization for the COPS program so that an additional 25,000 police officers can be deployed on our streets in the coming years. We will soon meet the commitment that we made in the 1994 Crime Act to put 100,000 new police officers on the beat across America--under budget and ahead of schedule--and we should build on that success. Putting more police officers on the streets, however, is not enough. Unfortunately, in the last few years, our schools have been plagued by tragic shootings far too many times. These senseless tragedies must be stopped, and the Safe Schools, Safe Streets and Secure Borders Act of 1999 targets violent crime in schools by providing technical assistance in schools, reforming the juvenile justice system, assisting states in prosecuting and punishing juvenile offenders and reducing juvenile crime, while also protecting children from violence. Moreover, we must stop street gangs from spreading fear in our neighborhoods and interfering with our livelihoods. A recent report by the Department of Justice indicates that more than 846,000 gang members belong to 31,000 youth gangs in the United States, and the numbers appear to be growing. The ramifications of this trend could be disastrous. For this reason, an important provision of the Safe Schools, Safe Streets and Secure Borders Act of 1999 would crack down on gangs by making the interstate ``franchising'' of street gangs a crime. It will also double the criminal penalties for using or threatening physical violence against witnesses and contains other provisions designed to facilitate the use and protection of witnesses to help prosecute gangs and other violent criminals. The Act also provides funding for law enforcement agencies in communities designated by the Attorney General as areas with a high level of interstate gang activity. We can also do more to keep our children off the street and out of trouble. The Safe Schools, Safe Streets and Secure Borders Act of 1999 will do just that by providing additional funding for proven prevention programs in crime-prone areas and creating after school ``safe havens'' where children are protected from drugs, gangs and crime with activities including drug prevention education, academic tutoring, mentoring, and abstinence training. In this way, we can provide kids with coaches and mentors now, so that they will not need judges and wardens later. This makes sense for our children, this makes sense for our communities, and this makes sense for our future. There are many other provisions in the Safe Schools, Safe Streets and Secure Borders Act of 1999 that will make a real difference--a positive difference--in the lives of the people of this country. This comprehensive bill is a vital part of our ongoing effort to secure the safety of our schools, streets and citizens, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give it their full support. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join with my colleagues to introduce the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. First, let me commend my colleague, Senator Abraham, for all of his work to develop this legislation. This bill addresses some of the critical threats to wildlife habitat and species diversity and demonstrates his commitment, which I strongly share, to solving the many challenges we face in this regard. The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act will help to ensure that some of our most valuable and beautiful species of birds--those that most of us take for granted, including bluebirds, goldfinches, robins and orioles--may overcome the challenges posed by habitat destruction and thrive for generations to come. It is not widely recognized that many North American bird species once considered common are in decline. In fact, a total of 90 species of migratory birds are listed as endangered or threatened in the United States, and another 124 species are considered to be of high conservation concern. The main cause of this decline is the loss of critical habitat throughout our hemisphere. Because these birds range across international borders, it is essential that we work with nations in Latin America and the Caribbean to establish protected stopover areas during their emigrations. This bill achieves that goal by fostering partnerships between businesses, nongovernmental organizations and other nations to bring together the capital and expertise needed to preserve habitat throughout our hemisphere. As we begin the 106th Congress, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It has been endorsed by the National Audubon Society, the American Bird Conservancy and the Ornithological Council. I believe that it will substantially improve upon our ability to maintain critical habitat in our hemisphere and help to halt the decline of these important species.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for 3 full days now, this Senate has been sitting as a court of impeachment. We are only the second Senate in the history of our nation to sit in judgment of a President, and the first Senate ever to consider impeaching an elected President. Deciding, ultimately, whether to overturn a free and democratic election is almost certainly the most awesome responsibility any of us will ever be called in our public lives to fulfill. But it is not the only responsibility before this Senate, Mr. President. On many other urgent issues--from improving our children's schools, to passing HMO reform, to saving Social Security--the American people are waiting for us to act. They've been waiting--frankly, for too long. So today, on behalf of my fellow Democratic Senators, I am introducing our first bills of the 106th Congress. Our proposals target the real needs of America's families and communities. They are relevant, not revolutionary. If they seem familiar, it's because most of what is in them we first introduced in the last Congress. But they did not pass, despite the support of the American people and, in some cases, by a bipartisan majority of Senators. We offer them again in this Congress because the need for them has not diminished. In fact, it has grown.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for those of us granted the rare privilege of representing our citizens as United States Senators, the convening of a new Congress is a moment filled with hope and optimism. I know this is a sentiment shared by my colleagues who have served here together for many years; I am equally certain it is a feeling in the heart of every new member whom we welcome into the Chamber today. We all choose to enter public service in the belief that small differences made every day somehow contribute in large measure to the betterment of our national life. For me, this has always been a day that represented great promise and potential. And despite the difficult circumstances that confront us on the first day of the 106th Congress, I choose to face the grim task of the impeachment proceedings with a sense of hope and optimism, too. It is my sincere hope that we can continue to be guided in the Senate by a completely nonpartisan approach to our responsibilities--and I pledge the cooperation of the entire Democratic caucus in that effort. We remain optimistic that Republicans and Democrats in the Senate can come together on a sensible plan that adheres to the principles of fairness, expedition and due process. The promise of bipartisan consensus is within our grasp. If we succeed in coming to closure on an acceptable resolution to govern these proceedings, then we have the potential for not only ending this unfortunate episode, but for laying a foundation for rebuilding a working coalition to address the critical policy issues that so demand our absolute attention. But to complete the work at hand, we must first set some things aside. We must set aside our partisan instincts. We should reject any notion of political advantage in this process, and act solely in the national interest. We must set aside feelings of grave disappointment and anger directed at the President for his actions. We must also set aside the resentment many feel over the manner and method of the long investigation that begat these articles of impeachment. Regrettably, we must also set aside--until this matter is resolved-- important legislative work on matters like education, health care, Medicare and Social Security. This, in and of itself, should serve to motivate us to proceed with deliberate dispatch on these articles, accepting not even a day's delay in the coming trial. And finally, we should set aside the rancor and recriminations that have marked these sad deliberations, and rise to a level of dignity and decency that will be judged favorably in history's long light. But we will not set aside our responsibility. We will not defer our duty. Make no mistake: Senate Democrats will follow the Constitution. We intend to abide by the Senate's procedures. We will respect past precedents. We will duly consider these articles. We will insist on fair treatment of the President. And we will hear the evidence presented by the House Republicans who have made these charges. But we should not put process ahead of progress in this matter. We must find a way to resolve this, and move forward. The United States Constitution is a document that continues to reveal an uncanny resiliency after two centuries. It's as if the framers found a formula to adapt to contingencies unseen; and to circumstances unknowable. Their wisdom in drafting the Impeachment clause affords us the opportunity to seize one of the options we are considering today. If we now simply apply some common sense, we will find common ground, and the result will be the common good. I have faith in the Senate, and faith in my colleagues, that we will do so. The Senate may never decisively resolve this maddening legal argument; but we must find a way to end this lingering national torment. As do all my colleagues, I love this country. And I care deeply for this institution, the Senate of the United States. I want to do right by both. Working together, Republican and Democrat, I think we can. Just as we have sworn an oath today to put the Nation's interests above all others, tomorrow when we are sworn as judge and juror, we must do the same. That will require absolute fairness, due process, deliberate speed, and a final resolution of these charges. The Democratic caucus is committed to each and every one of those goals, and is prepared to proceed immediately toward achieving them. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, the statement of managers contains language concerning the proposed HCFA rule that would defer to state law on the issue of physician supervision of nurse anesthetists. As I understand it, this is non-statutory language, and nothing in the bill would prohibit HCFA from moving forward with the publication of the final rule on this issue. I would like to ask my colleague from North Dakota, who is a member of the Committee on Appropriations, is that his understanding of the language as well?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their comments regarding the statement of managers' language on nurse anesthetists, an issue important to all of us, and know we all will follow the issue closely in the months to come.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, then it would be correct that HCFA could base its final decision on data or information that is already available, rather than conducting any new studies. My concern here is to ensure that HCFA is neither discouraged from nor delayed in moving forward in publishing a final rule. It is my understanding that nothing in the report language of this year's Labor/HHS Appropriations bill would prevent HCFA from moving ahead and that any further review of data could follow HCFA's publication of a final rule.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Erskine Bowles will soon leave his post as White House Chief of Staff. He will return to his beloved North Carolina. He returns to his family; his remarkable wife, Crandall, and his exceptional children, Sam, Annie and Bill. If you know Erskine Bowles, you know that his heart has never left them through all his time in Washington. His home and his family are the pride of his life. But as Erskine prepares to leave his post, he has a right to feel deeply proud of all he has accomplished here, as well. In so much of the progress made during President Clinton's Administration, you see the steady hand and clear vision of Erskine Bowles. He came to the Capital little known to most of us. He had no experience in the so-called ``ways'' of Washington. Yet before long, the President realized Erskine was the man for the toughest job in town. The President's confidence in this choice has been soundly ratified. Erskine leaves here a true friend to every one of us in the Democratic Caucus. He has earned the respect and admiration of Senators on both sides of the aisle. Most importantly, he has put the interests of the country ahead of the problems and politics of public life. By giving of himself--his time and his talents--millions of American families are better off today than they would have been had Erskine never come to Washington. Jobless men and women now support growing families. Those workers have higher wages. Those wages have helped fuel a roaring economy. Those families can afford to buy their own homes. Those parents can send their children to college. Those children can share in the promising future that Erskine Bowles helped build. Mr. President, earlier today, we passed a massive budget bill. Some have found fault with that bill in both substance and process. Some of that criticism is justified. But, I, for one, am relieved that during this unfortunate process, the country had Erskine Bowles negotiating the substance. Due in large part to Erskine Bowles, there will be 100,000 new, qualified teachers helping our children get the education they deserve. There is another important provision in the bill worth noting. For tucked in that $500 billion package, there is funding for the operations of the White House. And from the money dedicated to the salaries of the White House staff, Erskine Bowles takes one dollar a year. So as we send that bill to the President for his signature, I will take pride in its support for 100,000 teachers; in its protections for our environment; and for the emergency relief it will bring to our farm families. I will also support it for what it represents: Erskine Bowles' salary--probably the smartest single dollar this government has ever spent. On behalf of all my colleagues, we honor the service of Erskine Bowles, and wish him and his family the very best in the good days that lie ahead.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as the 105th Congress comes to a close, I want to recognize some of the people without whom the Senate simply could not operate--the loyal staff who serve this institution day in and day out with great dedication and pride. The sacrifices staff make are largely unknown to most people outside the Senate, except perhaps their families. When most of us leave for home after a late night, the Official Reporters of Debates, the Parliamentarians, the Bill Clerks, often face several more hours in the office to finish up that day's legislative work. Staff often work around the clock to finalize important legislative measures, such as the omnibus appropriations bill we just passed. Anyone who understands the Senate understands the crucial role staff plays. Today, I want to thank all Senate staff for their service to the Senate and to the Nation. In particular, I want to mention some of the people who are responsible for the daily operations of the Senate. I begin by expressing my gratitude to the office of the Secretary of the Senate. Gary Sisco, Secretary of the Senate, is responsible for some of the most important activities in the Senate such as the Official Reporters of Debates, the Legislative and Bill Clerks, the Disbursing Office, the Information Systems and Computer Staff, the Senate Page School, the Historical Office and many other vital offices in the Senate. He has done a wonderful job of overseeing and improving the delivery and quality of services of those offices. I appreciate the professionalism and even-handedness he has exhibited throughout the 105th Congress. Gary is ably assisted by Jon Lynn Kerchner, Lura Nell Mitchell and Beth Collett. Gregory Casey, who will be leaving the Senate shortly, has demonstrated tireless dedication to the Senate in the execution of his many responsibilities as Sergeant at Arms of the Senate. I'm thankful he didn't have to arrest any of us during his tenure as Sergeant at Arms and I commend him for his excellent management of a very large and complex operation. We will miss Greg and wish him the very best in the challenges that lay ahead. The Sergeant at Arms has been supported by the capable assistance of the Deputy Sergeant at Arms Loretta Symms and Larry Harris, his Administrative Assistant. The Sergeant's office is also assisted by the work of Becky Daugherty, Laura Parker, Carol Kresge, Mallory McCaskill and Laura Rossi. I would like to give special thanks for the hard work and consummate professionalism of Jeri Thomson, the executive assistant for the minority, who has provided invaluable assistance to my Democratic colleagues and to me. I would also like to thank the staff of our Capitol Facilities office, directed by Roy Banks, who keep this building and our offices clean and are always available, often on very short notice, to provide logistical support for the numerous meetings and gatherings we hold in the Capitol. All Senators, I am sure, are grateful for the counsel and support they receive from the staff who work the Senate floor and cloakrooms. That assistance has become even more valuable to me since I became Democratic Leader. Our Democratic floor staff works under the excellent leadership of Marty Paone, the Secretary for the Minority. Under great pressure, often with little time and with little margin for error, Marty has time and again provided wise counsel to all Senate Democrats--and even Republican Senators, on occasion. Despite the pressures, Marty always finds time to respond to questions from Senators and staff alike-- everything from the routine questions about timing of votes to the most complex analysis of parliamentary procedure. The rare combination of a sharp mind, even temperament, and in-depth experience make Marty one of the most valuable officers of the Senate, and I want to thank him and recognize him for that. In the Secretary's office, Marty is ably assisted by Sue Spatz and Nancy Iacomini. Day-to-day management of the floor operation is in the capable and energetic hands of Lula Davis, the Assistant Secretary to the Minority. Lula's ability to juggle multiple tasks--from negotiations over bills that we seek to clear by unanimous consent, to advising Senators and staff on legislative strategy, to acting as informal fashion adviser to many of my colleagues--demonstrates her tireless dedication to making things work around here. Marty and Lula are joined by Democratic Floor Assistants, Gary Myrick and Paul Brown, who have done a wonderful job helping to move legislation and protect Senators' interests. I am profoundly grateful for their dedication, their vigilance and their intellect. They are all ably assisted by Alice Aughtry. Our Democratic Cloakroom staff, Paul Cloutier, Brian Griffin, Brian Erwin and Tricia Engle also provide invaluable assistance in many aspects of our Senate life. Among other things, they field countless queries about what the Senate is doing and when votes will occur, including that age-old question, ``Will there be any more roll call votes tonight?''. They help us stay on schedule and where we are supposed to be, all the while keeping track of the flurry of legislation that moves through here, and keeping most of us entertained. I salute them for their hard work and good humor and thank them for their assistance. It is no exaggeration to say that our ability to navigate the complexities of Senate rules and procedures would be impossible without the assistance of our Parliamentarians. Senate Parliamentarian Bob Dove, with the outstanding assistance of Senior Assistant Parliamentarian Alan Frumin, Assistant Parliamentarian Kevin Kayes, and Parliamentary Assistant Sally Goffinet, provides essential expertise and understanding of Senate procedure. Our growing C-SPAN audience has no doubt become familiar with the commanding voice of Legislative Clerk Scott Bates and his assistant David Tinsley; Bill Clerk Kathie Alvarez has also become a notable presence. Kathie is assisted in her duties as Bill Clerk by Mary Anne Clarkson and John Burnham. Our legislative and bill clerks deserve the thanks and respect of all Senators for their keen attention to detail and their patient professionalism. Journal Clerk William Lackey and his assistants Patrick Keating and Scott Sanborn; Enrolling Clerk Tom Lundregan and his assistant Charlene McDevitt; Executive Clerk David Marcos, 1st Assistant Executive Clerk, Michelle Haynes and assistants Ken Dean and Terry Sauvain; Daily Digest Editor Thomas Pellikaan, Assistant Editor Linda Sebold, and Staff Assistant Kimberly Longsworth, all have my gratitude for their long hours and hard work. I also would like to thank and commend again our official Reporters of Debates for their hard work: Chief Reporter Ronald Kavulick and Coordinator of the Congressional Record, Eileen Milton; Morning Business Editor Lee Brown and Assistant Editor John Merlino; Expert Transcribers Angela Gallacher, Alma Kristoffersen and Bernita Parker; and the Official Reporters of Debates: Jerald Linnell, Raleigh Milton, Joel Breitner, Mary Jane McCarthy, Paul Nelson, Katie-Jane Teel, and Patrick Renzi. I also want to thank our Senate Doorkeepers, directed by Myron Fleming and Krista Beal for the friendly and helpful attitude they bring to their jobs, often in the face of long and uncertain hours. Without their assistance and that of all of our Senate support staff, our work simply could not get done. Last, but certainly not least, Mr. President, I want to thank my own staff--in South Dakota and in Washington--and the staff of the Democratic Leadership Committees, whom I share with Senators Reid, Rockefeller, and Kerry. These bright, talented people are dedicated to the effort to serve the people of South Dakota and the Nation, as well as every Democratic Senator and their staffs. They do a tremendous job, and I owe each of them a debt of gratitude.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as we bring our legislative session to an end, it is appropriate that we pay tribute to an American leader, the outgoing Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus for the 105th Congress, and my friend, Xavier Becerra. Our Nation is fortunate to have an actively engaged Congressional Hispanic Caucus to ensure that more Americans have the opportunity to enjoy the rewards and responsibilities of American citizenship. Their efforts have succeeded in increasing educational opportunities for Hispanic Americans, promoting fairness in our judicial system, and protecting political participation vital to our democracy. Millions of people have benefited from effective leadership provided by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and in particular, by Mr. Becerra. Xavier Becerra was first elected to represent the 30th District of California in November 1992. In 1997, Representative Becerra was elected to serve as Chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Under his chairmanship, educational opportunities for Hispanic Americans have grown considerably: Hispanic Serving Institutions have received record-level funding, bilingual education programs once threatened have been strengthened, nearly $500 million has been allocated for the President's Latino Education Plan, and equal access to technology for students in rural and urban centers has been enhanced through the e-rate program. Chairman Becerra has demonstrated great leadership and distinguished himself as powerful legislative voice in pushing for a positive agenda that includes expanding health care, reducing the naturalization backlog at the INS, promoting fairness in our judicial system, ensuring a fair and accurate census, and protecting voting rights. It has been a privilege for the Democratic Caucus to work with Chairman Becerra and his fellow members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. I am going to miss the leadership of Chairman Xavier Becerra, but I look forward to his continuing friendship and to developing a strong working relationship with the next Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I was stunned and saddened to learn this morning of the death of Christopher Georges. For much of the last four years, Chris reported on Congress for the Wall Street Journal. He died yesterday from complications of lupus. He was not given much time in this world--only 33 years. But he used every minute he was given, and achieved a remarkable amount. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University in 1987 with a degree in government. At Harvard, he was the executive editor of the Harvard Crimson and was named Harvard Journalist of the Year for 1986- 87. He began his journalism career in 1987 as an intern with the Washington Post. He worked on the issues staff of the Dukakis for President campaign in 1987 and 1988. He returned to newspapers, as a clerk for the New York Times. From the Times, Chris moved to CNN's first special investigative unit. After CNN, he was named editor of Washington Monthly magazine. A story he wrote on investigative journalism for Washington Monthly was named one of the ``10 Best of 1992'' by the 1993 Forbes Media Guide. In 1994, he joined the staff of the Wall Street Journal in Washington covering politics, the budget and economic issues. He was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize last year for a series of stories he wrote examining the effects of the new welfare reform laws. It was during his time at the Journal that I got to know Chris. He was a brilliant and fair reporter. He understood public policy as well as anyone in this building. He also had a rare ability to see how what we do in this building affects people outside it. His stories on welfare reform were a case in point. For months, Chris practically lived at housing projects in the Washington area to see how the new laws affected four women as they struggled to make the transition from welfare to work. Chris loved everything about newspapering--the reporting, the storytelling. His abilities, and his fundamental sense of fairness, earned him the respect of people on both sides of the aisle. Chris was brilliant, funny, modest, gentle. He was also incredibly brave. Like many of us, I had no idea how sick Chris was, how savage and debilitating his disease was. He almost never spoke about it. I now know that Chris struggled with his disease for more than half his life, since he was 15 years old. A good friend of Chris's, Gene Sperling, director of the President's National Economic Council, first met Chris when he was 22. He said the first time they stayed up all night working on a project, Chris confided to Gene about his disease. Gene asked Chris what it meant to have lupus. Chris was quiet for a moment, then he said, ``It means I could die young.'' As a teenager, Chris had been a fierce wrestler. He was just as ferocious in his efforts to wrestle his disease into submission. He did not allow it to defeat him. Perhaps because he knew what it meant to suffer, Chris was an unusually compassionate man. He leaves behind an incredible number of friends. I want to extend my condolences to them. I also want to extend my prayers and heartfelt sympathy to Chris's parents, Mary and Jerry Georges of New York City; his sisters, Gigi Georges of Washington; Stephanie Georges Comfort and her husband Chris Comfort of Denver, Colorado and their daughter Katherine. In the last year of his life, Chris Georges got to do the kind of reporting he really wanted to do. It was smart and important, and it illuminated what we do here. Had he lived longer, I'm sure we would have seen more of it. I will miss reading Chris's stories. More than that, I will miss seeing him and talking to him. He was an extraordinary man. In closing, President Clinton this morning also talked about Chris's life and his work. I ask unanimous consent that the President's remarks be printed in the Record as well. Thank you.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as the 105th Congress comes to a close, I take this opportunity to express my appreciation, and I think the appreciation of all Members on our side of the aisle, and particularly the staff of the Democratic Policy Committee, to an individual who has dedicated 27 years to public service and the United States Senate. Marian Bertram, the personable and talented Chief Clerk of the Democratic Policy Committee, is leaving the Senate at the end of this year. Marian, who began her work at the Democratic Policy Committee in 1971, has served four Democratic Leaders--Mike Mansfield, Robert Byrd, George Mitchell and myself. She has an unparalleled knowledge of the legislative process. Since its inception and for many years thereafter, she had the major responsibility of reaching and writing one of the Committee's most popular publications, the Legislative Bulletin. Equally important, she has the vital and demanding responsibility for the production of Voting Records and vote analyses provided to all Democratic members. In addition to her legislative work, Marian assumed the job of Chief Clerk of the Policy Committee in 1989. Through her competence and dedication and command of every detail of the Committee's operation and budget, she makes a major contribution to the smooth running of the Policy Committee. Marian handles this broad range of responsibilities with professional skill, equanimity, and unfailing good humor. She will be dearly missed by her friends and colleagues in the Senate. All of us offer Marian our sincere thanks and every good wish for her continued success. Thank you, Marian Bertram.