Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will help rural areas affected by severe population loss improve their economic conditions and create high-paying jobs. We are experiencing first-hand the challenge of retaining entire generations in many parts of rural South Dakota as the agricultural crisis deepens and fewer and fewer young people can find economically-rewarding opportunities that give them reason to stay. As a result, young people are being forced to leave the towns in which they grew up for better jobs in urban areas, causing a depressing loss of generational continuity and a foreboding sign for the future of these rural communities. Too often we forget that while the economic growth experienced in our urban areas is a necessary element of a sound national economy, the health and vitality of our rural areas are just as critical to our Nation's economic future, and to its character. If nothing is done to address the out-migration that is currently being experienced by our most rural communities, we will continue to jeopardize the future of rural America. That is why I am introducing legislation to provide these critical rural areas with the resources necessary to create the good jobs that will help young families remain active residents of the rural communities in which they choose to live. The Rural Recovery Act of 1998 would provide a minimum of $250,000 per year to counties and tribes with out-migration levels of fifteen percent or higher, per- capita income levels that are below the national average, and whose exterior borders are not adjacent to a metropolitan area. The legislation authorizes the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to set aside $50 million in Community Development Block Grant funding. The money, which is already included in the agency's budget, will be allocated on a formula basis to rural counties and tribes suffering from out migration and low per-capita income levels. County and tribal governments will be able to use this Federal funding to improve their industrial parks, purchase land for development, build affordable housing and develop economic recovery strategies. All of these important steps will help rural communities address their economic challenges and plan for stable long-term growth and development. While Federal agencies such as the United States Department of Agriculture's Office of Rural Development and the Economic Development Administration do provide aid for rural development purposes, there are no federal programs that provide a steady source of funding for rural areas most affected by severe out migration and low per-capita income. For these areas, the process of encouraging economic growth is arduous. I strongly believe the Rural Recovery Act of 1998 will provide the long term assistance required to aid the coordinated efforts of local community leaders as they begin economic recovery efforts that will ensure a bright future for rural America. In August, Senator Murkowski and I introduced legislation to provide assistance to rural communities that experience extremely high electric power rates. Today, I am pleased that he has agreed to join me in cosponsoring this legislation to assist rural areas with high out- migration and low per-capita incomes. It is important that Congress do whatever it can to assist these economically-challenged rural areas to remain vibrant participants in the American Dream. Senator Murkowski and I expect to combine these bills and introduce them as a single piece of legislation next year. I hope that my colleagues will join Senator Murkowski and I during the 106th Congress to enact these important new policies. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, with my friend and colleague from South Dakota, Tim Johnson, legislation to make several common-sense changes to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. This bill removes an unintended and unjustified barrier blocking certain children from qualifying for the compensation program. It also makes the necessary changes to allow new drugs to be incorporated into the program, including the newly-approved rotavirus vaccine. The Vaccine Act dates back to 1986, when Congress determined that a no-fault alternative to the tort system would best accommodate the dual objectives of ensuring proper compensation to victims of vaccine injuries and fostering continued development and broad-scale availability of lifesaving vaccines. Through the Vaccine Act, children seriously injured by a childhood vaccine can receive compensation for medical care, custodial or residential care, lifetime lost earnings, pain and suffering, and emotional distress--benefits comparable to those awarded through the judicial tort system. Tragically, some children have been unfairly denied the right to petition for benefits under the program because they did not incur $1,000 or more in out-of-pocket medical expenses. At first glance, the eligibility requirement of at least $1,000 in out-of-pocket medical expenses may seem like a reasonable way of deterring individuals from petitioning for benefits if they lack a material claim to compensation. In reality, however, the absence of out-of-pocket health care expenses does not mean a child has not been seriously injured, nor does it suggest they have access to other sources for recoupment of the losses their injury has exacted. Many children, including the children of military personnel, Native American children covered by the Indian Health Service, children with Medicaid coverage, and children covered under employer-sponsored health plans with minimal cost-sharing requirements, do not have high out-of- pocket health care costs. While health insurance may remove the burden of high medical bills, it does not replace lost income or cover custodial and residential care. It cannot compensate for the toll these injuries have taken and will take on the lives of these children. Health care costs are just one component of the compensation for which a seriously injured child is eligible. I know of a Native American child in my own state who was profoundly injured after receiving a diptheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccination. Within hours of receiving the shot, this five-month-old child had a seizure and suffered severe brain damage because of the defective pertussis component of the shot. The doctors tell us that his disabilities will, throughout his lifetime, preclude this little boy from having a normal life. He will never live or work independently. But, because he receives health care from the Indian Health Service (IHS), he is not eligible for any benefits under the vaccine compensation program. Not only is this child barred from compensation for lost income and emotional trauma, he is denied financial support for his injury-related assisted living needs. Through legislation intended to foster continued improvements in public health, the federal government has obstructed this child's right to sue vaccine manufacturers. But the program's gate-keeping mechanism is off the mark. What we are saying--however unintentionally--to this particular child and others like him is: ``Fend for yourself.'' To deny this child the benefits available to other injured children is indefensible. The Vaccine Act contains other safeguards to prevent unjustified requests for compensation. For example, no benefits claim is accepted without a thorough review and significant medical proof of severe injury directly related to a childhood vaccination. The $1,000 threshold is unnecessary. Senator Johnson and I certainly are not alone in calling for the repeal of the $1,000 threshold. In fact, we are in very good company. The Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines voted unanimously to recommend elimination of the $1,000 threshold. I hope this Congress will seize the opportunity to reconcile the intended and actual standards of fairness by which the National Vaccine Compensation Program fulfills its role in the public health system. In so doing, we will make a tremendous difference in the lives of children in desperate need of our support. There is also a disconnect between the Act's intended consequences and its actual effect in regard to enrollment of new vaccines. Several vaccines that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and have met the standards established in the Vaccine Act are still not fully integrated into the program. There are currently several vaccines Congress has approved for taxation and inclusion in the Vaccine Compensation Program that, because of a technical error in the legislation, were not authorized as compensable. This bill will fully integrate those vaccines into the program, and it will ensure that all new vaccines will be automatically compensable once the tax is levied. In addition, it initiates the 75 cents-per-vaccination tax on the rotavirus vaccine, which will ensure compensation for recipients of that vaccine. The rotavirus vaccine was approved by the FDA in August of this year to protect against rotavirus gastroenteritis, which causes about 125 deaths and 50,000 hospitalizations per year among infants in the United States. Initiation of the excise tax will help protect the 4 million children who are expected to receive the vaccine annually. The changes proposed in this bill are not controversial. They are common-sense, and they are overdue. When Congress established the Vaccine Compensation Program, its intent was to protect the rights of victims without jeopardizing an invaluable weapon against childhood illnesses. The underpinning of this program is fairness, a standard that cannot be met until Congress makes these important changes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will help rural areas affected by severe population loss improve their economic conditions and create high-paying jobs. We are experiencing first-hand the challenge of retaining entire generations in many parts of rural South Dakota as the agricultural crisis deepens and fewer and fewer young people can find economically-rewarding opportunities that give them reason to stay. As a result, young people are being forced to leave the towns in which they grew up for better jobs in urban areas, causing a depressing loss of generational continuity and a foreboding sign for the future of these rural communities. Too often we forget that while the economic growth experienced in our urban areas is a necessary element of a sound national economy, the health and vitality of our rural areas are just as critical to our Nation's economic future, and to its character. If nothing is done to address the out-migration that is currently being experienced by our most rural communities, we will continue to jeopardize the future of rural America. That is why I am introducing legislation to provide these critical rural areas with the resources necessary to create the good jobs that will help young families remain active residents of the rural communities in which they choose to live. The Rural Recovery Act of 1998 would provide a minimum of $250,000 per year to counties and tribes with out-migration levels of fifteen percent or higher, per- capita income levels that are below the national average, and whose exterior borders are not adjacent to a metropolitan area. The legislation authorizes the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to set aside $50 million in Community Development Block Grant funding. The money, which is already included in the agency's budget, will be allocated on a formula basis to rural counties and tribes suffering from out migration and low per-capita income levels. County and tribal governments will be able to use this Federal funding to improve their industrial parks, purchase land for development, build affordable housing and develop economic recovery strategies. All of these important steps will help rural communities address their economic challenges and plan for stable long-term growth and development. While Federal agencies such as the United States Department of Agriculture's Office of Rural Development and the Economic Development Administration do provide aid for rural development purposes, there are no federal programs that provide a steady source of funding for rural areas most affected by severe out migration and low per-capita income. For these areas, the process of encouraging economic growth is arduous. I strongly believe the Rural Recovery Act of 1998 will provide the long term assistance required to aid the coordinated efforts of local community leaders as they begin economic recovery efforts that will ensure a bright future for rural America. In August, Senator Murkowski and I introduced legislation to provide assistance to rural communities that experience extremely high electric power rates. Today, I am pleased that he has agreed to join me in cosponsoring this legislation to assist rural areas with high out- migration and low per-capita incomes. It is important that Congress do whatever it can to assist these economically-challenged rural areas to remain vibrant participants in the American Dream. Senator Murkowski and I expect to combine these bills and introduce them as a single piece of legislation next year. I hope that my colleagues will join Senator Murkowski and I during the 106th Congress to enact these important new policies. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I want to congratulate the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) as its 100th anniversary approaches. One of the Nation's leading membership organizations-- representing some 30,000 independent pharmacies across the United States--NCPA will celebrate its 100th anniversary on October 17th. It is an honor to celebrate this landmark with NCPA and recognize professionals who truly exemplify high quality, patient-focused health care. Throughout its 100 years of service, NCPA has been a respected voice in the public policy arena--not only as a highly effective advocate for community pharmacists, but as the link to individual pharmacists with the demonstrated expertise and front-line experience required to help evaluate policy options. I'd like to take a few moments to recognize the enormous contributions of the men and women NCPA represents: local, community pharmacists. They play a critical role in our nation's health care delivery system through careful drug monitoring services, personalized service, coordination with other health providers and services, and community-oriented care. Each year, millions of Americans purchase prescription and non- prescription medications at their local pharmacy, where an on-site pharmacist can help them select the medication that is most appropriate and prevent harmful drug interactions. Pharmacists have the experience and expertise to help consumers face an intimidating array of medication options. They prevent the wasteful spending and pain and suffering associated with drug complications. Community pharmacists provide personalized care, and offer a friendly, neighborhood presence for individuals facing illness and disease. An NCPA membership survey shows that 98 percent of independent pharmacists counsel patients face-to-face on prescription medications and make recommendations on over-the-counter drugs and general health care issues, and 97 percent maintain patient profiles. As more drugs are offered through the mail and without the opportunity to meet personally with a pharmacist, community pharmacists provide reassurance and inspire the confidence of those they serve. Community pharmacists play a crucial role in local health care delivery systems, by coordinating with other health professionals, promoting public health, and educating consumers on pharmaceutical and health issues. Many independent pharmacists report meeting regularly with local physicians on drug therapy and pharmacy services. In addition, they educate and assist their customers with the management of ongoing and chronic conditions such as diabetes and hypertension. Independent community pharmacies are primarily family businesses, and they have roots in America's communities. They are owned by civic leaders who are actively involved in a variety of community-oriented public health, civic, and volunteer projects. Many hold local elected or appointed offices. Public service and commitment to community are hallmarks of independent pharmacy. For all of these reasons, it is my pleasure to pay tribute to independent, community pharmacists and the organization that represents them. Through integrity, expertise and tenacity in the face of dramatic changes in our health care system, community pharmacists have inspired the confidence and trust of millions of Americans. Our Nation is truly well served by them.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know that there is a vote at 3:15. I wanted the opportunity to address the conference report prior to that vote. Let me begin first by complimenting the distinguished Chair for the manner in which he has conducted himself in this debate, as he does with all debate. We may have deep differences of opinion on this particular issue, but in true form he has been a statesman and, I think, a model for all of us in the way he has conducted himself. As I say, I take issue with the bill but certainly not with the manager and the Chair of the committee. He has in so many cases done an outstanding job. Let me also applaud our distinguished ranking member. This will probably be the final bill that he manages. He knows how strongly I feel about him and the friendship that I have and feel toward him. He is one of the finest Members of the Senate who has ever served, in my opinion. We will miss him more than we can ever possibly express. It is with sadness that I acknowledge that this may be his last bill, but it is with a great deal of satisfaction in looking back over the past 12 years in my service with him that I share many fond memories and many extraordinary legislative success stories. The conference report that is before the Senate is one that I believe fails to recognize the extraordinary nature of the circumstances we find ourselves in in the agricultural industry across this country. People on both sides of the aisle acknowledge the seriousness of the crisis. They acknowledge the fact that prices continue to plummet. Many of my colleagues on the Democratic side have indicated that grain prices have already fallen at least 25 percent below the 1997 level. I have asked people in the media and around the country to imagine what would happen if Wall Street prices had fallen in 1 year by 25 percent. How many Wall Street Journal articles would we see? How many front page stories in the daily newspapers would we see if prices plummeted that far? Obviously, there would be tremendous national anxiety about those circumstances. That is exactly what has happened in agriculture. Prices have plummeted by more than 25 percent. There are some who believe that ``business as usual'' is acceptable here. I am not suggesting that our Republican colleagues have approached this matter with that in mind, but I do believe that there is a significant difference of opinion. Unfortunately, it does break partly along partisan lines in recognizing the depth of the problem and in dealing with it prior to the time we leave this year. Livestock producers today are losing somewhere between $100 and $150 per head. A number of States in the Midwest are likely to lose at least 20 percent of our farmers in the coming year, according to state secretaries of agriculture--these are not my figures, but the secretaries of agriculture in the upper Great Plains who are reporting to us that one out of every five farm and ranch families will probably be forced off their farm or ranch as a result of the circumstances we are facing today. In South Dakota, that means perhaps as many as 7,000 producers who will no longer have the livelihood they have right now. Nationwide, we expect an $11.4 billion reduction in farm income. That is over 20 percent. The sad thing is that the Department of Agriculture has just released new figures to suggest that there is no real hope in sight. The fact is, for at least the next 12 months we don't see circumstances improving. The last time the Congress was in a situation similar to this was the mid-eighties. At that time, we had a safety net; we had policy positions that allowed us the opportunity to respond more equitably. Some might argue that maybe we went too far. I don't know, what is too far? All I know is, during that critical timeframe, in 1986 dollars, we committed $26 billion to respond to the disaster. Now a lot of that was not decided in the Senate, because there was a safety net already in place. But it was so bad, we committed $26 billion in ways that would soften the blow and keep farmers and ranchers on the farm. It did. A lot of them dug out, got back in the black, and continued to be productive, tax-paying members of rural communities all across this country. What we are suggesting is, we can't afford $26 billion, we can't afford $20 billion, we can't afford half that amount, $13 billion. All we can probably commit to, given the array of needs that are out there and given our circumstances, is $7 billion. The secretaries of agriculture said, ``That isn't enough, we need $9 billion,'' and wrote in a letter to us just last week, ``We need $9 billion, not $7 billion.'' What do our Republican colleagues propose? Something less than four-- over $3 billion, a fraction of what we did in 1986 when the circumstances were as bad as they are now. Mr. President, what we are saying is that given the fact that we could be out of session sine die--that is, without any real expectation of coming back before the next Congress--and recognizing that in the next Congress there is very little chance of being back in this position in January or February during the cold winter months, perhaps not even in March or April--it could be at least 6 months before we have a chance to really seriously consider this situation again. We are simply saying that we cannot commit only this meager amount of resources to a situation that, in many respects, is every bit as bad if not worse than in 1986. This cannot be the full extent of our response. That is what the President is saying. The President has reluctantly said that he will veto this legislation. He will either veto it today or tomorrow. It will be vetoed this week. So there is no doubt that we are going to be coming back and we are going to have to make a decision as a result of that veto about what we do. Our hope is that our colleagues can come to some resolution quickly. It appears that we are going to have to go through the veto to come back to the table. But, indeed, we will come back. So, Mr. President, that is where I believe we have found ourselves. We must, when we come back, negotiate a relief package that is based at least on several principles that I hope will enjoy broad, bipartisan support. First, we must have strong indemnity-related relief for farmers with no crop, and meaningful income relief for farmers with a crop at low prices. In other words, there are two categories of farmers who are in desperate condition today. In many cases in the South, we have a problem of farmers not having a crop. I know that is especially true in Louisiana, and I suspect it is true in other Southern States as well. In the Northeastern States, we have a problem of having a crop, but absolutely no prices. And so we have circumstances that vary, depending on the geographic area. Whatever it is we do, I hope we can agree that both circumstances have to be addressed. Secondly, income assistance must be linked to 1998 crop year production. We don't know what it is going to be in 1999. We are told it is not going to get any better. So we must focus on the 1998 crop year and target producers, not just anyone with an AMTA or Freedom to Farm contract, but all producers who otherwise will have no hope of finding the kind of financial security or relief that they need to get through these winter months. I hope, Mr. President, that we also could agree, on a bipartisan basis, that losses born by livestock producers who have never had a farm program, and for whom fair trade legislation is critical, could be dealt with successfully as well. There are two things that the Senate did in July that I hope, on a bipartisan basis, we could restore once we come back to the table. The first is country of origin meat labeling. I don't think there is anything that would help more, psychologically as well as financially, than to have the same requirement for meat that we have for virtually every other imported product--labeling. Our farmers and ranchers have said that they believe that, more than anything else, this would improve competition in the retail and wholesale marketplaces. If the American consumer knew what it was they were eating and where it was from, our farmers and ranchers agree almost unanimously that they would be in a much stronger and competitive position. The second is to do something that they talk about almost anywhere I go in the country, but especially in the Dakotas, and my home State of South Dakota in particular, and that is improve price transparency. Increase market reporting of prices paid for livestock, specifically by the big packers of formula contract prices. We all know what is happening right now. Secret contracts are being signed with no appreciation for what the market is. That has a devastating effect on the marketplace. Farmers are left in the dark. It would be like going to buy a car or a pickup, or any kind of product, and not knowing what the price was and not knowing what the comparable prices are in the industry and wondering, based upon your best judgment, whether you were getting a good deal or not. We would not do that were we buying a car. We could not do that if we were buying a house. Yet, every day our farmers and ranchers are expected to pit themselves against the big packers and try to guess, using some crystal ball that they don't have, what the market looks like out there. So they are given a price, and in a very short timeframe, they have to decide whether that is a good deal or not. They are losing $100 to $150 a head right now. So we know what kind of deals they are getting. We need price transparency. The Senate responded favorably to both of those proposals, but unfortunately they were dropped in conference. I am very hopeful that they can be restored. These are steps we can take immediately that will send a clear message that we understand the circumstances that livestock producers are in. And now is the time for us to deal with it, not next spring after we have lost tens of thousands of producers all over the country. Some of these matters that we have debated have a cost-related function. Mr. President, there is no cost to labeling, and there is no cost to mandatory price reporting. Keep in mind, we are suggesting that we would even settle, at least at this point, for a pilot study of those options. Let's analyze what happens when we have full price reporting. Let's analyze what happens when we have meat labeling. We are willing to sunset both of these in 2 to 3 years in an effort to evaluate whether or not they have worked. At least let's get started. I don't think that is too much to ask. So, Mr. President, that is why many of us have taken such a strong position on this conference report. Number one, it is our last shot at providing some meaningful economic assistance to agriculture, and, number two, it is an opportunity that we may not have again for 7 or 8 months. We can't wait that long. Our package--the proposal that we are hoping our colleagues would consider--is fair, and it is balanced among all regions suffering low prices and disaster. It is targeted to the people who need it; that is, producers of 1998 crops. It is fiscally responsible. Price relief is linked to the market price, and it addresses the real needs of agriculture. Mr. President, what time remains? Is time allocated to both sides?

Mr. DASCHLE. How much time remains on my side?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I see no other Democratic Senators on the floor, so I will use the remainder of the time. We believe that our proposal is also fiscally responsible. We link price relief to the market price, and we certainly recognize that it addresses the real problems that we are facing across the board in agriculture. I think our colleagues on the other side have failed to address the dual nature of the crisis --that is, loss of crops and loss of income. I believe they are failing to recognize the severity of the crisis. As I noted earlier, Mr. President, our Secretaries of Agriculture--the Association of State Departments of Agriculture--held an emergency conference last week to propose to us what they believe ought to be done. Frankly, they said both of our relief packages were inadequate. They said that even $7 billion was inadequate, and even all the policy changes we are recommending did not do what they felt was needed to address the level of need they see today. So if $7 billion and all of the policy changes we have recommended doesn't even cut it, $3.5 billion doesn't cut it, either. Over 150 Members of the House voted to send this bill back to conference. I hope that a large number of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will agree to send it back as well. We simply can't leave this Congress without providing essential disaster relief. We must not lose this opportunity. We have a true emergency--an emergency that I think jeopardizes farmers' and ranchers' survival in a myriad of ways, and the survival, frankly, of rural communities all across this country. The loss in income that we are seeing has already started to translate into lost farms and ranches. When I was home recently a friend told me that a banker he knows is going to be forced to foreclose on 35 farms in just one small community in South Dakota alone this winter. The banker is so disturbed by what he is experiencing that he has actually joined a community prayer group just to deal with the stress he is feeling. Another friend who is concerned about the impact that the depressed farm economy is having on communities generally, said that a local cleaning service has laid off all of its employees because they have had no business since the end of July. These stories and many, many more are unfolding across the country. As my colleagues have noted already during this debate, we simply cannot leave until we have successfully dealt with this matter. I hope that we can earnestly come to some closure, successfully recognizing the importance of this issue and dealing with it in as comprehensive a manner as is humanly possible. The stakes are too high. The ramifications of failure are too high. Our only real chance to address this matter now is with this legislation. Mr. President, I urge a ``no'' vote on the conference report. I will support the President's veto. More than enough Members of this Senate have indicated already that they will support the President's veto. When that happens, let's get back to work, and let's deal with this issue successfully. I yield the floor. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to restore to the original owners and operators, the Blunt Reservoir lands in Sully County, South Dakota. The time has come for Congress finally to return these lands to those who owned them and worked them before they were acquired for the Oahe project. It is clear the lands will never be used for their intended purpose and it makes no sense for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue to manage them with the expectation that someday this project ever will be constructed. The history of this project has been one of contention and debate within South Dakota and the federal government. One of the promises made to South Dakota when the Pick-Sloan dams were authorized was that we would be compensated for hosting the dams with the development of abundant irrigation. The centerpiece of that promise was the Oahe Irrigation project, which was to have expanded the agricultural potential of central South Dakota. In anticipation of constructing the Oahe Irrigation project, the Bureau of Reclamation acquired about 25,000 acres of land in Sully County to be used as a reservoir to store water for the irrigation project and for a canal from Pierre to carry the water. Despite taking this initial step, the project became very controversial and, as a result, has never been built. Consequently, instead of constructing the Blunt Reservoir feature of the project, the Bureau of Reclamation has leased these lands to the original owners and operators on a preferential basis and to others on a non-preferential basis, while waiting to see if Congress and the Administration would ever provide the funding necessary to build the project. What has become clear during that time is that the Blunt Reservoir feature of the Oahe project never will be completed. It is senseless to continue to ask the Bureau of Reclamation to manage these lands. We should recognize this fact and take the steps necessary to return the lands to the county tax rolls by restoring them to their former owners and operators. Those who have sacrificed their lands to this ill-fated project should no longer be forced to live with the uncertainty of wondering if they will be forever renting the lands they once owned. One farmer whose family owned Blunt Reservoir land for four generations recently visited me in Washington and told me that under their current circumstances there is little incentive to invest in improving the land. Without the security of ownership, farmers feel more like hired hands than permanent stewards. At times like these, when the very act of farming is a precarious pursuit, we should pursue every means of providing stability to our producers. That is why today I am introducing legislation to deauthorize the Blunt Reservoir feature of the Oahe Irrigation Project in South Dakota, and to transfer to the South Dakota School and Public Lands Commission the preferentially-leased lands. The Commission, in turn, will be required to offer the lands for sale to the original landowners or operators, or their heirs. The legislation also will transfer to the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department the lands associated with this project that are currently leased on a non-preferential basis. The Department will use the lands to help mitigate the wildlife habitat that was inundated by the Pick-Sloan project. Under my legislation, the preferential lessees will be able to purchase the Blunt Reservoir lands they currently are leasing for cash, at a 10% discount from the assessed value, or for a contract-for-deed at the full assessed value. The land also could be purchased with a contract-for-deed if the purchaser makes a down payment of 20% of the value of the land, and pays the balance over 30 years at 3% interest per year. Existing preferential lessees would have 10 years from the date of enactment to decide to purchase the lands, during which time they could continue to lease the lands from the School and Public Lands Commission at the current lease rates. Money gained from the sale of these lands by the School and Public Lands Commission will support education in South Dakota, which has been adversely affected by the replacement of property tax revenue with the perennially inadequate federal payments-in-lieu-of-taxes for these lands and for the Pick- Sloan project lands. It is my hope that in the near future, similar legislation can be developed for the lessees using the Pierre Canal lands that addresses their objectives to purchase the land and the objectives of those who hope to maintain the option of someday developing an irrigation project for the area. Thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to present this legislation to the Senate. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its enactment. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to restore to the original owners and operators, the Blunt Reservoir lands in Sully County, South Dakota. The time has come for Congress finally to return these lands to those who owned them and worked them before they were acquired for the Oahe project. It is clear the lands will never be used for their intended purpose and it makes no sense for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue to manage them with the expectation that someday this project ever will be constructed. The history of this project has been one of contention and debate within South Dakota and the federal government. One of the promises made to South Dakota when the Pick-Sloan dams were authorized was that we would be compensated for hosting the dams with the development of abundant irrigation. The centerpiece of that promise was the Oahe Irrigation project, which was to have expanded the agricultural potential of central South Dakota. In anticipation of constructing the Oahe Irrigation project, the Bureau of Reclamation acquired about 25,000 acres of land in Sully County to be used as a reservoir to store water for the irrigation project and for a canal from Pierre to carry the water. Despite taking this initial step, the project became very controversial and, as a result, has never been built. Consequently, instead of constructing the Blunt Reservoir feature of the project, the Bureau of Reclamation has leased these lands to the original owners and operators on a preferential basis and to others on a non-preferential basis, while waiting to see if Congress and the Administration would ever provide the funding necessary to build the project. What has become clear during that time is that the Blunt Reservoir feature of the Oahe project never will be completed. It is senseless to continue to ask the Bureau of Reclamation to manage these lands. We should recognize this fact and take the steps necessary to return the lands to the county tax rolls by restoring them to their former owners and operators. Those who have sacrificed their lands to this ill-fated project should no longer be forced to live with the uncertainty of wondering if they will be forever renting the lands they once owned. One farmer whose family owned Blunt Reservoir land for four generations recently visited me in Washington and told me that under their current circumstances there is little incentive to invest in improving the land. Without the security of ownership, farmers feel more like hired hands than permanent stewards. At times like these, when the very act of farming is a precarious pursuit, we should pursue every means of providing stability to our producers. That is why today I am introducing legislation to deauthorize the Blunt Reservoir feature of the Oahe Irrigation Project in South Dakota, and to transfer to the South Dakota School and Public Lands Commission the preferentially-leased lands. The Commission, in turn, will be required to offer the lands for sale to the original landowners or operators, or their heirs. The legislation also will transfer to the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department the lands associated with this project that are currently leased on a non-preferential basis. The Department will use the lands to help mitigate the wildlife habitat that was inundated by the Pick-Sloan project. Under my legislation, the preferential lessees will be able to purchase the Blunt Reservoir lands they currently are leasing for cash, at a 10% discount from the assessed value, or for a contract-for-deed at the full assessed value. The land also could be purchased with a contract-for-deed if the purchaser makes a down payment of 20% of the value of the land, and pays the balance over 30 years at 3% interest per year. Existing preferential lessees would have 10 years from the date of enactment to decide to purchase the lands, during which time they could continue to lease the lands from the School and Public Lands Commission at the current lease rates. Money gained from the sale of these lands by the School and Public Lands Commission will support education in South Dakota, which has been adversely affected by the replacement of property tax revenue with the perennially inadequate federal payments-in-lieu-of-taxes for these lands and for the Pick- Sloan project lands. It is my hope that in the near future, similar legislation can be developed for the lessees using the Pierre Canal lands that addresses their objectives to purchase the land and the objectives of those who hope to maintain the option of someday developing an irrigation project for the area. Thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to present this legislation to the Senate. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its enactment. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with Senators Harkin, Cochran, and Thompson concerning the treatment of audiological services under the Federal Employee health Benefits Program, or FEHBP. According to the American Academy of Audiology, hearing loss affects approximately 28 million people in the United States today (about 1 out of every 10 people), and this number is growing as our population ages. This is a matter on which Senator Harkin and I, and also Senator Cochran, have worked for a number of years. It raises significant issues concerning the quality and cost-effectiveness of our hearing care and rehabilitation system, and indeed our entire health care system, and I hope this body soon will consider these issues fully. Section 8 of H.R. 1836 is intended to make clear that FEHBP plans can authorize direct services by, and direct reimbursement to audiologists and other licensed health professionals. I believe the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) should make it clear in their next call letter that audiology services provided directly by an audiologist can be covered.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues for this colloquy.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in support of the conference report on the Higher Education Act. This bipartisan legislation takes important steps to lower interest rates on student loans, recruit and train new teachers, and strengthen and preserve the federal commitment to reducing the cost of obtaining a college education. I commend Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy for their good work and cooperation on this bill. The importance of Higher Education Act cannot be understated. In our increasingly sophisticated economy, access to higher education can be the key to a brighter future for many young people. Our federal student aid programs, including Pell grants, student loans, campus-based aid and other programs have helped millions of students afford a college education. Through these programs, we provide $38 billion in financial assistance to more than 19.4 million students in postsecondary education institutions. The legislation we are sending to the President improves these programs in a number of important ways. The maximum Pell Grant is increased to $4,500 in 1999, stepping up to $5,800 by 2004. Interest rates on student loans are cut from 8.25 percent to 7.46 percent, reducing the total cost to students by $11 billion. Borrowers will also be able to consolidate and refinance their loan balances at the new rate for four months. In addition, the bill creates a new program to provide help to disadvantaged students to make sure they know about higher education opportunities and are in a position to take advantage of them. Other key aspects of this bill are provisions to improve teacher training and recruitment and to expand professional development opportunities for teachers. Grants will be available to develop partnerships between teaching colleges and school districts to improve teaching skills and integrate technology into the classroom. Support will also be available for partnerships that will recruit and train teachers willing to serve in high-need schools. We know that putting students in a classroom with a well-trained, qualified teacher is one of the most effective ways to help them achieve to the best of their abilities. I am particularly pleased that the new law will expand opportunities for distance learning. This will help many people --especially those in rural areas, those with disabilities, and nontraditional students--gain access to programs in which they otherwise might not be able to participate. The conference report retains a proposal, which I cosponsored, to encourage colleges to establish campus-based child care for low-income students. I also support provisions to help reduce binge-drinking on college campuses and reduce campus crime levels. Finally, I strongly support the provision creating a new grant program for Tribal Colleges and Universities. These institutions do a remarkable job of creating educational opportunities for Native Americans. They need and deserve federal support. I call on the Appropriations Committee to fund these programs so that Native American students can have access to a higher education to advance their own skills and help their communities address the many challenges that exist today in Indian country. I also would like to commend the conferees for their efforts to maintain a balance between the Family Federal Education Loan program and the Direct Loan program. There is strong evidence that a healthy competition between these two programs has strengthened both programs and ultimately been good for students, and I believe it is important that we work to maintain this balance. I am disappointed about several aspects of this bill. It is unfortunate that resources were not available to reduce costs further for students and to extend the period for loan consolidation beyond four months. I am also disappointed that Senator Wellstone's amendment, which would have enabled those receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to attend post-secondary programs for 24 months and meet the work requirement, was not included in the final bill. I believe this proposal should be revisited because of the positive impact higher education degrees have been shown to exert on earnings, on access to health insurance, and on children's achievement levels, and because of the increased flexibility it offers for states. In South Dakota, access to higher education is particularly important on the reservations, where very few low-skill jobs are available. College degrees have empowered Native Americans to assume leadership and professional positions in their own tribes, and have enabled many to escape the path of poverty, lack of education and under-employment that traps too many living on the reservations. I appreciate the conference committee's willingness to give Senator Wellstone's proposal careful consideration, and I am hopeful that the awareness raised during this debate will eventually lead to expanded educational opportunities for low-income Americans struggling to become self-sufficient. Despite these reservations, Mr. President, I believe this is a good bill that will continue our efforts to lower the cost barriers to higher education. The Higher Education Act is a vital investment in our Nation's future. By enacting this legislation, we will help millions of young people gain skills and develop their talents, and help our Nation build a strong work force, develop our intellectual capital, and nurture the leaders of the next generation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just respond to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. I have discussed--

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I have discussed the matter with the Senator who has the hold, and I think there will be some effort made to resolve the matter either tonight or tomorrow morning, so we will proceed with every expectation we can come to some resolution soon.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just explain. I support this legislation, and I hope we can come to some resolution here. Obviously, this is an important bill that ought to be passed. The problem is that, once again, we are presented with an untenable circumstance. Colleagues on this side of the aisle, certainly through no fault of the distinguished Senator from Arizona, have been precluded, to date, from offering our Patients' Bill of Rights. We are running out of time. We are running out of vehicles. We are running out of opportunities for us to have the kind of debate that we all have asked for and expected to have by this day. Because we are again put into a difficult position of not knowing how we are going to resolve that outstanding question, recognizing that it is at least as important as this issue, in spite of the fact that I do support S. 442, we are compelled to object today. My hope is that at some point in the not-too-distant future we can resolve the issue of how we will debate the Patients' Bill of Rights, and we will then resolve our ability to bring up the request made by the Senator from Arizona. So I object at this time with the hope that we can find some resolution at some point soon. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. I object on behalf of a number of colleagues.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, over the course of the past several months, I have come to the Senate floor on three occasions to discuss what I believe is the most important national security challenge we face today--reducing the risks associated with the spread and potential use of weapons of mass destruction. The depth and urgency of this challenge were dramatically illustrated in a recent article from Scientific American by Drs. Bruce Blair, Harold Feiveson, and Frank von Hippl. I am quoting from that article: [M]ilitary technicians at a handful of radar stations across northern Russia saw a troubling blip suddenly appear on their screens. A rocket, launched from somewhere off the coast of Norway, was rising rapidly through the night sky. Well aware that a single missile from a U.S. submarine plying those waters could scatter eight nuclear bombs over Moscow within 15 minutes, the radar operators immediately alerted their superiors. The message passed swiftly from Russian military authorities to the Russian President, who holding the electronic case that could order the firing of nuclear missiles in response, hurriedly conferred by telephone with his top advisors. For the first time ever, that nuclear briefcase was activated for emergency use. For a few tense minutes, the trajectory of the mysterious rocket remained unknown to the worried Russian officials. Anxiety mounted when the separation of multiple rocket stages created an impression of a possible attack by several missiles. But the radar crews continued to track their targets, and just a few minutes short of the procedural deadline to respond to an impending nuclear attack, senior military officers determined that the rocket was headed far out to sea and posed no threat to Russia. As I noted, this chilling excerpt was not taken from Tom Clancy's latest techno-thriller. It happened. The event described did not occur during the heart of the Cold War. It happened January 25, 1995. It was not an isolated incident. According to public sources, Russian nuclear missiles have automatically switched to launch mode several times. A look at the record since the January 25, 1995 incident demonstrates that, if anything, our concerns about Russia's early warning system, command and control system, and the morale of the people assigned to operate these systems, have only grown. That record is clear. No longer should anyone believe Russia's nuclear forces are exempt from the neglect and disarray that has been experienced by her conventional forces. A leading member of the Russian parliament, Lev Rokhlin, best summed up this deterioration: ``[Russia's] strategic nuclear forces are headed for extinction. There are no means to maintain the forces.'' The dramatic economic downturn in Russia's economic circumstances will only exacerbate this situation. Some may be tempted to take joy in this situation. They should not. As the event of January 25, 1995 reminds us, U.S. security is dependent on the reliability of Russia's strategic warning and launch control systems. Reasonable people can only ask the obvious question: with the Soviet Union dissolved and the cold war over for nearly seven years, how can the United States and Russia continue to be one bad call away from a nuclear disaster? It is precisely for this reason that last September I sent a letter to the Congressional Budget Office asking them to assess the budget and security consequences of a series of measures designed to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons and the likelihood that they will ever be used. On Friday I received preliminary results from CBO on one means to accomplish this objective--improving Russia's confidence that it is not under attack by providing it with a global awareness of missile launches. CBO reaches several conclusions in its report. First, there are a number of deficiencies in Russia's ground- and satellite-based early- warning systems. According to CBO, ``Russia's early warning radars will not detect all missile attacks, especially missiles launched on shallow trajectories from submarines.'' The situation is similar with respect to Russia's space-based platforms. Quoting CBO, ``Russia's satellite- based early-warning system also has shortcomings . . . CBO has estimated that its [satellite] fleet currently provides coverage of the U.S. missile fields for less than 17 hours a day. Thus, Russia cannot depend on its fleet to detect a U.S. missile launch.'' Second, CBO states that, ``shortcomings in Russia's early-warning system can have a direct effect on the security of the United States.'' Nothing demonstrates this reality better than the Norwegian missile launch. Third, there are a variety of options available to the United States and Russia to address deficiencies in Russia's early warning system. Although CBO rightly asserts that further study is required to ensure that U.S. security is enhanced, not compromised, CBO lays out 5 options for U.S. policymakers. I ask that all of my colleagues take a look at this excellent study. It must be noted at this point that during the recently concluded U.S.-Russia summit, just days before CBO released its analysis to me, the Administration and the Russians reached agreement to implement the first of CBO's 5 options--sharing early warning information on the launch of ballistic missiles and space launch vehicles. I commend the Administration for this initiative. I believe it is a small but useful step. However, it does not fully address the underlying weaknesses in Russia's early warning systems. The proposal will give the Russians access to some of our early warning data but does nothing to improve Russia's own ability to collect and assess this same information. Therefore, much more needs to be done, not only in the area of early warning but elsewhere, if we are to reduce the risk of the spread and use of weapons of mass destruction to an acceptable level. As I stand here today--nearly 8 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War--the United States and Russia still possess nearly 14,000 strategic nuclear weapons and tens of thousands of tactical nuclear weapons. Even more alarming, both sides keep the vast majority of their strategic weapons on a high level of alert, greatly increasing the likelihood of an unauthorized or accidental launch. Russia's current economic and fiscal woes only add to my sense of concern. Numerous press accounts point out that Russia's early warning sensors are aging and incomplete, its command and control system is deteriorating, and the morale of the personnel operating these systems is suffering as a result of lack of pay and difficult working conditions. The Washington Post ran an article just yesterday that illustrates how increasingly dire economic circumstances in Russia affect U.S. security. According to the Post, street protests are popping up all over Russia, including a town called Snezhinsk, home of a nuclear weapons laboratory where workers said they have not been paid for 5 months. I believe reducing the risks posed by weapons of mass destruction in Russia and elsewhere must be our number one national security objective in the post-Cold War era. In this regard, there are 3 initiatives the United States could take immediately that begin to address these risks: de-alerting a portion of the U.S. and Russian strategic and nuclear weapons, ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and pushing for much deeper reductions in nuclear weapons than currently contemplated in START II. However, these measures alone are not enough. We must vigorously pursue other possible avenues, many of which may lie outside the traditional arms control process. Therefore, I have asked the Congressional Budget Office to explore the budgetary and security implications of numerous other ``non-traditional'' proposals. I understand this work is nearing completion and hope to report back to the Senate on CBO's findings before we adjourn. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration in the next session of Congress to fully explore these proposals.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, is it my pleasure today to join my colleagues on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee in supporting S. 2286, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Amendments of 1998. This important bill expands subsidies for snacks in after-school programs, establishes a research program for universal school breakfasts, and makes several administrative changes in the school food service programs, in the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Program and in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). I believe that we have developed a good bill that represents real progress for child nutrition and school food services and I am pleased it has received strong bipartisan support. I'd like to take a few moments to elaborate on a few aspects of the bill that are particularly important to South Dakotans and to all Americans. I am a cosponsor of the Schools for Achievement Act, which would give all children, regardless of income, access to a healthy, free breakfast. While we were unable to find consensus on a way to fund a universal breakfast program, S. 2286 establishes a multi-year free breakfast study. The study will be conducted at several sites, both rural and urban, and will rigorously evaluate impact of free breakfasts. The purpose of authorizing this study is to test whether providing breakfast at school helps children perform better scholastically and improves overall levels of child nutrition. I am confident the school breakfast project will justify consideration of the Schools for Achievement Act. For Congress to have access to the benefits of this study, however, we need to ensure that it will be funded. Funding for the school breakfast research project is uncertain in the House companion bill, because H.R. 3874 includes only authorizing language and relies on the Appropriations Committee to fund the project. As we all are aware, funds available to the Appropriations Committee have been greatly constrained by last year's Balanced Budget Agreement. If funding were unavailable, this research would be delayed, and the intentions of the authorizers would be undermined. We in the Senate have determined that this study should be conducted and have fully paid for it in the context of the Senate bill. I hope the conferees will agree to this position and agree to provide mandatory funding for this project. I would also like to acknowledge that this is a study only. Nothing in this provision would automatically lead to full implementation of a free breakfast program. Congress will need to revisit this issue to determine whether it would be in the best interest of the Nation to take such a step. I believe this is a prudent way to proceed. The liberalized administrative guidelines and expanded funding for after-school snacks are also welcome ideas in South Dakota, where our state government recently made a $700,000 commitment to promoting and increasing after-school care. I strongly support that effort, as well as efforts to improve access to after-school programs nationwide. The legislation before the Senate today is another small step toward better care for our nation's school-age children. Finally, I would like to reassert my support for the programs being reauthorized by this legislation. Federal nutrition programs have a long, successful, track record of providing food, establishing nutrition standards, and collecting health information that have had a dramatic impact on reducing hunger in our country. School lunches are served to 35 million children around the nation. Seven million children receive school breakfasts. Teachers, parents, child care providers and school cooks are educated on the importance of good nutrition and about the necessary components of a healthy diet. Homeless children are served, commodities are distributed, and thousands of school children receive milk. Given the demonstrated effect of improved nutrition on cognition and behavior, the impact of our investment in the nutritional needs of our nation has been profound. I commend the Committee's efforts and look forward to working with my colleagues to enact final legislation to renew these very important child nutrition programs before the year is over.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object. Let me explain, briefly. I share the majority leader's determination to complete work on this legislation. We need to get this bill done before the end of the session. The Senators from Maryland and at least the Democratic Senator from Virginia, as well as the Senators from Illinois, are still attempting to work through some problems relating to the legislation and their respective States. I am hopeful we can come to some successful conclusion in those discussions at an early date, but until that has been completely worked through, we will have to object. I hope that we continue to put the pressure on those who are interested, as we are, in coming to closure on this, to get it done soon. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleagues in support of this sense-of-the-Senate resolution that recognizes the rights of U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico to decide their political future. I publicly commend the distinguished Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Florida for their outstanding leadership in bringing us to this point. Resolutions of this kind and legislation dealing with this particular issue have had a roller-coaster ride in this Congress. Were it not for the tremendous persistence of the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Florida, we would not be here tonight. So I publicly express, on behalf of all of our colleagues, our thanks to them for their leadership, their persistence, and their diligence in bringing us to a point where we hope on a unanimous basis this resolution will at long last be adopted tonight. Very simply, the resolution states that the people of Puerto Rico should be given an opportunity to express their views on the political status of Puerto Rico through some form of plebiscite. President Kennedy once said, ``The most precious and powerful right in the world is the right to vote in an American election.'' The great Mexican patriot, Benito Juarez, once said that ``democracy is the destiny of humanity.'' In the case of Puerto Rico, democracy delayed is democracy denied. The destiny of Puerto Rico's political future should be in the hands of the people of Puerto Rico. Congress should pass legislation that provides the congressional framework to recognize and implement their decision. Our Nation is built on democratic principles of equality, opportunity and the right of self-determination. Yet, American citizens on the island of Puerto Rico lack the rights to express the basic tenet of democracy, a government chosen by the people. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, ``That government is the strongest of which every man feels a part.'' In regard to Puerto Rico, formal recognition of these democratic ideals is long-overdue. Since the end of the Spanish-American War 100 years ago, we have shared a social, economic, and political union with Puerto Rico. In 1917, Congress granted citizenship to Puerto Ricans. In 1952, the people of Puerto Rico took on local self-government. In 1963, President Kennedy called for self-determination for the people of Puerto Rico. More than a quarter of a century later, we are still debating the issue in the Senate as 4 million Americans are denied basic democratic rights. I hope we will all agree that this is simply unacceptable. The people of Puerto Rico have long demonstrated their patriotism to the United States. Tens of thousands have served in the American military. More than 1,200 Puerto Ricans have died in combat to preserve our democratic way of life. Mr. President, I support the right of self-determination for U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico. That is why I am a cosponsor of S. 472, the ``United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act,'' which provides a congressionally recognized framework for U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico to freely decide statehood, independence, or the continuance of the commonwealth under U.S. jurisdiction. As a first step, Congress should adopt this sense-of-the-Senate resolution this year in an effort to resolve the question of Puerto Rico's political status in a fair manner. We must ensure we provide full democratic rights for all American citizens, including those who live in Puerto Rico. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today Democrats in the Senate are introducing a bill--The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1998, which builds on a legacy of success Senate Democrats have had in the area of anti-crime legislation. The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1998 continues successful initiatives in the 1994 Crime Act, reforms the juvenile justice system, combats gang violence, cracks down on the sale and use of illegal drugs, ensures the rights of crime victims, and provides valuable tools to law enforcement officers as they battle international crime and terrorism. While this bill goes a long way to fight crime in our communities and protect our borders, today I want to speak about the horrific and tragic acts of violence that have occurred in no less than 14 of our nation's schools over the past 18 months, most recently as schools were preparing to close for summmer recess, less than 100 miles from our Nation's Capitol--in Richmond, Virginia--and how this bill targets this school-based violent crime. Over the past 18 months, 18 children and four adults have been killed as a result of school shootings. When is it going to stop? The nation had seen enough when two students in Jonesboro, Arkansas, ages 11 and 13, began shooting during a false fire alarm. Four girls and one teacher died on that terrible day in March. Since then, 8 more have fallen prey to these school killings. The number of students who have experienced a violent crime in school continues to rise, with a 23 percent increase between 1989 and 1995. Mr. President, if we are looking for reasons why our schools erupted in gunfire this year, we need only look at the annual survey released recently by the PRIDE organization, a respected non-profit group that works with young people and their families and communities to create drug-free and safe environments. Their annual PRIDE surveys have been used by 5,500 schools, the Office of National Drug Control Policy's Performance Measures of Effectiveness, and this Congress to monitor student drug use. The results of the latest PRIDE survey are appalling. Almost a million students--some as young as 10--carry guns to school. Even worse, half the students carrying guns are also carrying grudges--over half said they had threatened a teacher, and almost two- thirds had threatened to harm another student. What's more, these students are bringing other problems. Nearly two-thirds are monthly users of illicit drugs, such as cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine. According to Dr. Thomas J. Gleaton, one of the authors of the study, this means that, on average, for every classroom in every school building in America, one student showed up with a gun this year. Out of these students, two- thirds were using drugs regularly and carrying grudges. Add together this volatile mix of drugs, guns, and hostility, and the result is what we have seen this year. If you are not moved by the statistics, look at the shootings. Look at the horror visited on those school children in Rhode Island, Oregon, Washington, Arkansas, Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Look at Texas, or Mississippi, Missouri or California, or the tragic events last year in Alaska. This is a national plight afflicting all our communities. As leaders of our nation, we should all be saddened and discouraged by our lack of attention to this critical problem. How many more children must die before we face up to this crisis? How can we provide our children with hope for tomorrow if they fear for their life today? I can think of no other issue closer to the hearts and minds of the American people than the safety of our children. Mr. President, we know some things work to prevent youth violence, and we have included these measures in our bill. This bill will establish partnerships between schools and local law enforcement agencies to put specially trained community-oriented officers in schools. We know from the success of the COPS Program that a positive relationship between the community and law enforcement is critical to successful crime prevention. This approach will also benefit schools by providing additional protection and adult supervision to curb violence in schools. In addition, this bill creates a School Security Technology Center to serve as a national resource to local schools trying to make their schools as safe as possible for students. The PRIDE survey contained some hopeful news as well, Mr. President. While drug use is still dangerously high, this past school year, for the first time in seven years, the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by young people decreased across the board. Students who were heavily involved in after-school activities were more than twice as likely to stay away from drugs than students who never participated in these activities. Mr. President, we should support after-school programs. Let's give our kids coaches and mentors now--and they won't need wardens and judges later. Our bill will protect children from becoming crime victims 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. We recognized the importance of community involvement when we passed a bill that I joined my colleagues in introducing--the Drug-Free Communities Act. That bill recognized that the entire community must become involved to prevent the proliferation of drugs. This year, let's increase our support and encouragement for prevention programs that include parents and children, law enforcement and teachers, mentors and coaches. I wish the events of the last 18 months told a different story, but unfortunately it has become evident that some safeguards are needed. If you doubt that, look at what happened in Greensboro, North Carolina, just four months ago when Carlos Gilmer was accidentally shot and killed at his sixth birthday party after he and his four-year-old playmate found a loaded gun in a purse. No new crime bill program, by itself, will solve this problem of youth violence. But, we can do something. We know some things that work. How will we feel if there is another Jonesboro, or Springfield? How will we look at ourselves if we have not done everything in our power to prevent such a tragedy? Let us act now, so we won't have to face those questions. The Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1998 will go a long way to prevent future acts of school violence. There is much that divides our two parties. But the issue of our children's safety is--or should be--one area on which we can agree. We must protect our children from violence and prevent our children from becoming violent.