Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think the unanimous-consent request is still pending. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, let me just say the Senator from New York has said on several occasions now that this has not been the subject of any hearings. The Labor Committee has dealt with this issue at more than seven hearings, hearings that have brought people in from around the country, talking about this particular problem and about how serious it is. There has been one meeting in the subcommittee of the Finance Committee on his bill. So let's talk about hearings. Let's talk about the array of people who have come forth and said, ``Why are you waiting? Why aren't you moving ahead with this legislation?'' I don't have an answer to that. Our caucus is attempting to promote the opportunity for all people to be heard on this issue. The Senator from New York also made mention of the fact that his bill deals with mastectomy, and it is a very important contribution. I applaud Senator Feinstein and others for making the effort, as they have, to get to this point. But his legislation is very, very narrowly focused. He said he supports clinical trials. We want to give him the opportunity to vote for it. He says he supports access to specialists. We want to give him the opportunity to vote for it. He wants to protect the information, the records of patients. Let's give him and others a chance to vote for it. That is what our bill does. It goes way beyond simply the right, that a woman surely should have, to be more confident about her ability to get the proper treatment when in a situation as sensitive as a mastectomy. But let's provide them the protection through clinical trials. Let's ensure that they can see necessary specialists. Let's ensure that their records are going to be protected. Let's do it all. Let's not do half a job, let's do the whole job. That is what we are talking about here. So I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for the Conference Report on S. 1150, the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, and to thank Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin for the tremendous effort they have devoted to this important legislation. Immediate passage of the conference report is critical for agriculture research funding, crop insurance, and nutrition funding for legal immigrants. The legislation represents desperately needed investment in agricultural research, essential to the continuing production of safe, plentiful, diverse, and affordable food and fiber. Furthermore, failure to pass this legislation will result in massive reductions in crop insurance delivery around the country, especially in high risk areas such as the Northern Great Plains. Not only will terminated policies expose farmers to tremendous risk of crop loss due to events beyond their control, such as weather, but without crop insurance, producers will not be able to take out operating loans essential to planting crops. This will hit young, beginning farmers hardest, which is terrible for agriculture--losing these young producers truly threatens the future of the industry. When the last farm bill was passed, farmers nationwide were promised increased access to risk management tools. This promise was made in exchange for the elimination of a wide range of commodity and disaster programs that had, until then, provided producers some protection against the potentially devastating shocks that occur in agriculture. Last year, the Dakotas were devastated by extended below freezing temperatures, winter storms that dumped record levels of snow, and spring flooding worse than anyone living had ever seen. Even with the benefit of crop insurance we lost hundreds of producers and farms that had been in families for over 100 years. I cannot imagine what would be left of the agriculture industry in South Dakota today had we not at least had the benefit of crop insurance last year. The northeast region of South Dakota is currently experiencing severe flooding that is not likely to subside for some time. This is in an area that has been characterized by good farm land for as long as anyone can remember. No one could have anticipated that the farms in these counties and so many of the roads that connect them would be under water today. A strong and affordable crop insurance program will be critical to producers in this area who are struggling to stay in business. Without it, there would be an exodus from this part of my state, which would destroy the economy of the entire region. It is in all of our interest to provide our nation's agriculture producers with the means to insulate their businesses and the local economies of which they are an essential part against conditions like those we experienced statewide last year, and that our northeast corner is fighting now. I also want to stress the tremendous importance of the research reauthorization in this conference report. We owe much of the credit for this country's agricultural success to our network of land grant institutions, state agriculture experiment stations, USDA's Agricultural Research Service, and hundreds of county extension offices. These entities work together in a wide range of ways to produce cutting-edge research and then convert it into improved practices and technology meaningful to producers. This report places increased emphasis on collaboration among institutions and disciplines, and encourages pursuit of goals benefiting more than one region or state. The land grant university in my state, South Dakota State University, currently has a highly regarded record of strong interdisciplinary and multi-state cooperative work. I am extremely proud of the fine research and extension SDSU produces, and I am pleased that this legislation will foster their efforts. It helps level the playing field for small schools competing for limited research funds, and it is sensitive to the relative importance of formula funds for institutions in agrarian states with low populations. I am pleased that this legislation preserves existing programs that target emerging and critical issues such as the Fund for Rural America. The Fund for Rural America was designed to provide immediate, flexible, and applied research and support to people in rural areas who are adjusting to rapid changes in the agricultural sector since the last farm bill. The Fund also promotes value-added processing, which is vital to successful rural economic development. Our rural communities must capture more of the revenue their locally produced commodities ultimately generate. Value-added processing keeps that revenue local, which will be critical to the future of those communities. In conclusion, I cannot overemphasize the importance of this legislation and its prompt passage. If we are to maintain our place in the world as a leader in agriculture production and technology, we absolutely must invest in agriculture research today. If we are to have a vital and diverse agriculture sector in the future, we also must ensure producers have access to reliable and affordable risk management tools like the federal crop insurance program. The overwhelming bipartisan support for the agriculture conference report is a tribute to the commitment Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin have made to assuring passage of this critical legislation. I urge my colleagues to approve the report in its current form.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland for her eloquent statement. I appreciate her leadership. Her statement this morning is one that I wish the whole country could hear. Her leadership and her willingness to be involved in this issue is critical to all of us. And I appreciate so much her eloquence and the studious way in which she has pursued this matter.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland for her eloquent statement. I appreciate her leadership. Her statement this morning is one that I wish the whole country could hear. Her leadership and her willingness to be involved in this issue is critical to all of us. And I appreciate so much her eloquence and the studious way in which she has pursued this matter.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I tell the Senator from Massachusetts that, just last week, a family from South Dakota told me that if there is one thing the U.S. Senate should do this year--this year--it is pass the Patient Protection Act. It is to deal with the problems they are having with managed care. And it is to deal with the recognition that there is a growing problem out there. In poll after poll after poll, the American people are saying: We don't care what else you do, do this and do it this year. So I think it is very clear that the intensity level is as high as it can be. People care about this issue, and they recognize the problem. People know how difficult it is today to face managed care organizations that, in large measure, are not addressing these problems as they should. So the Senator from Massachusetts raises the right question. Do the American people want us to address this issue? The answer is not only yes, but yes with an exclamation point.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend both the chairman and the Democratic manager for their work on this bill over the last couple of days. I commend them for all that they have done. I think we will see a very strong vote as final passage is recorded this afternoon. It is largely to their credit. I particularly want to commend my colleague Senator Kerrey for the tremendous job that he has done over the course of now more than 12 months of work in an effort that has led to the point where we will pass what has been, at times, a very controversial issue. To see the overwhelming vote today is a tribute to him and to the leadership that he showed on the Commission and on the floor, and certainly in the committee. While I have made no reservations about the difficulty many of us have with regard to the offset, an offset that I hope can be addressed in conference, an offset that will cost the Treasury and U.S. taxpayers some $46 billion--if it is possible to say ``except for that,'' I will say: Except for that, this legislation is a major accomplishment that deserves the support on both sides of the aisle. The other day, I was visiting on the Capitol steps with a group of high school students from Spearfish, SD. When I told them the Senate would vote this week on IRS reform, they actually burst into wild applause. That is not the usual reaction I get when I talk with people back home about what Congress is up to. So, today they will be pleased to learn that their cheers were heard and that we are changing the IRS as we know it. Fortunately, the students didn't ask about the history of the IRS reform bill, because they already knew from their studies how a bill is supposed to become law. It might have been difficult to explain why this bill has taken such an unusual route. We could have and should have passed IRS reform 6 months ago. The House did. They passed it 426 to 4 last November. The IRS reform legislation was the last thing we attempted to pass in the Senate last year and the first bill Democrats tried to pass when we reconvened in January. But in the last 6 months, between the time the House passed the bill and now, 120 million Americans filed tax returns without the benefit of the protections of this bill, 2 million taxpayers received audit notices, many millions more received collection notices, and not one of them had the protections of this bill either. That is unfortunate and, in my view, unnecessary. But that is behind us. Despite the slow road this bill has traveled, I am glad that we are finally able to vote on it today. So are those high school students from Spearfish, whom I talked to out on the Capitol steps on Tuesday. So are America's 120 million taxpayers. The bill fundamentally changes the management and operation of the IRS. I will support this bill because it will make the IRS more accountable to, and respectful of, taxpayers. It will help transform the culture of the IRS to make customer service a top priority, the same as it is in the best-run private businesses. Charles Rossotti, the new IRS Commissioner, has created a plan to do all of that. This bill gives him the tools he needs to carry out that plan and really begin shaking things up within that very troubled agency. This bill creates an outside board of directors for the IRS, who will ensure that the agency adopts practices that restore the balance of power between law-abiding taxpayers and the IRS employees. It explicitly bans the use of tax collection quotas as a tool for evaluating the effectiveness both of individual IRS employees and of whole divisions within the agency. This is a big step in the right direction. From now on, tax auditors will now be judged by the quality of the service they provide, not the quantity of money they collect. Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. But the sort of heavyhanded tactics that have been used by the IRS against some private citizens and businesses should absolutely never be tolerated. Under this bill, they will not be. One of the ironies about the 6-month delay is that, while we have more answers about some things, we are now faced with a bigger question that didn't exist back in November. Last year, the Congress made a stand for fiscal responsibility by enacting a plan that would balance the Federal budget for the first time in 30 years. Speeches extolling the virtues of fiscal restraint echoed through this Chamber. And I ask my colleagues, is this bill consistent with the spirit of last year's historic balanced budget agreement? Is it consistent with our commitment to use the budget surplus to save Social Security first? Regrettably, the answer, as I noted a moment ago, is no. Since this bill left the House, its price tag has more than tripled, and instead of paying for the added costs, the Senate has chosen, as it did so often in the days before the balanced Budget Act, to fudge it. This bill plugs the deficit hole in the first 10 years by creating an even bigger one--an estimated $46 billion hole in the second 10 years. As if this were not irresponsible enough, it creates that deficit by providing a new tax break that can only be used by people making more than $100,000 a year. We know from recent experience how hard it is to balance the budget. We know there is no free lunch. So, who is it that will end up paying for this smoke-and-mirrors gimmick? The 95 percent of Americans making less than $100,000 a year? That is who, unfortunately, will be left paying that bill--the same people who are depending upon these budget surpluses to preserve their Social Security and Medicare benefits in the next century. This bill was supposed to be about protecting taxpayers, not fleecing them when they are not looking or before they are even born. I will vote for this bill because the IRS is in dire need of reform. We have kept the new Commissioner waiting long enough for the authority he needs to do the job. More to the point, we have kept the American people waiting long enough for a new and better IRS. But I implore our conferees, don't ignore the funding problem in this bill. Fix it, so that the bill provides protection for taxpayers in the fullest sense of the word. The American people want us to make the IRS more accountable. This bill will do that. At the same time, we must remember there is another important issue the American people want us to address. That is: What are we going to do to help families earn more money and keep more of the money they earn? That is why those high school students from Spearfish cheered. They assumed that, by passing an IRS reform bill, we are doing something that will improve the financial circumstances of working families. That is what the people in South Dakota and across the country really want Congress to do. If we don't do that, any ``bounce'' we get from this bill will be very short-lived. Last year, we agreed on a 5-year plan to balance the Federal budget and at the same time invest in the citizens and the future of this great Nation. We are now in the process of crafting a budget that is the first real test of our ability to live within that agreement. In the coming weeks, as we debate the budget, let us keep our word on education and on child care and on health care. Last year we lightened the tax load on middle-class families by creating a new $500 child tax credit and a $1,500 tax credit for college expenses. In the coming weeks, as we debate the budget, let us further that commitment to tax fairness, not walk away from it. This year, for the first time in 30 years, we will actually have a balanced Federal budget. In the coming weeks, as we debate the budget, let us remember how hard it has been to eliminate the deficit and what good has come from this fiscal discipline. Let us do nothing that would send us back to where we were 5 years ago, when we were looking at $300-billion-a-year deficits for as far as the eye could see. The IRS bill is long overdue, but it is only a start. What the American people also want us to do is, they want us to provide them with some assurance that if they work hard and play by the rules, they will be able to make a decent life for themselves and their families. So let us pass this bill. And, in what little time we have remaining in this Congress, let us work together to keep the commitment we made last year to the issues and the matters and the priorities that really can make a difference in people's lives. If we do that, the next time one of us is visiting on the steps of the Capitol with some young people from our State, we will be able to tell them something else they can cheer a lot about. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the majority leader has spoken well about the difficulty of this agreement. This was, I told him, one of the more difficult, if not the most difficult we have had in some time. I could name 30 Senators on this side of the aisle who have very important amendments, who are very concerned about the lack of an opportunity to offer these amendments on this bill or on other bills. So I, first, thank them for their cooperation and for their support in allowing us to move forward, as we are tonight. I believe there must come a time when this pent-up demand to offer some of this legislation has to be addressed. I will be speaking with the majority leader about that as we go through the schedule for the next couple of weeks. I might say, a major factor--and I have indicated this to the majority leader--in our ability to reach this agreement was his assurance that we were also going to take up, in a timely way, some other very critical pieces of legislation this agreement allows us to take up. First and foremost is a crop insurance and research bill that I have assured my colleagues will be taken up, if at all possible, this week. We don't know how long the amendment process will take. But the majority leader has assured me it is the next bill. So I thank him for that and, as I have indicated to him privately and I will say again publicly, that was a major consideration. Another was our strong desire to get on with the consideration of the tobacco bill. The majority leader has assured me that we will do that as well. So we have an array of matters that must be addressed. It was in keeping with our understanding of the workload this month that a lot of our Democratic colleagues were willing to concede the recognition of the importance of this particular agreement. Let me address what I hope is not a misunderstanding. I don't know of any particular agreement with regard to the bill referred to by the distinguished Senator from New York, except to say that I am very sympathetic with what he is attempting to do. Many of our colleagues on this side of the aisle will wish to be heard on that bill and will wish to offer amendments. So I will work with the majority leader to schedule some time for us to consider this bill, and we will do our best to accommodate all Senators as they are called upon to debate and offer their amendments. But we will negotiate in good faith and attempt to come up with the best agreement we can.

Mr. DASCHLE. I only have two final points, Mr. President. The first is that this is the 6-month anniversary of the passage of this legislation in the House of Representatives. We cannot afford to wait any longer. We must pass this bill. The urgency is recognized by this agreement. I appreciate that very much. The final point is that there are a number of Senators who, in good faith, will be offering amendments they truly believe are relevant. I don't know how one defines the relevance of amendments, but I hope we can work with our Parliamentarian and with the Presiding Officers to accommodate our colleagues, as relevance is contemplated and defined. This is a very important matter for a lot of Senators. This is a rare vehicle that they will have to offer legislation. I am hopeful we can accommodate as many Senators as possible with relevant amendments. Again, I thank all cooperating Senators and appreciate, once more, the chance to resolve this matter with the majority leader. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on behalf of colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, I, too, rise to congratulate our distinguished colleague on this remarkable achievement. Just to remind Senators, Senator Byrd began building this unsurpassed record more than 39 years ago. On January 8, 1959, Senator Byrd cast his first vote in the U.S. Senate. Fittingly, it was a vote on Senate procedure. On April 27, 1990, Senator Byrd cast his 12,134 vote, earning him the record for greatest number of rollcall votes in Senate history. On July 27, 1995, he became the first Senator in history to cast 14,000 votes, and now he has built on his record number of rollcall votes to be the first person in Senate history to cast 15,000 votes. To place this record in some historical context, Senator Byrd cast the first of his 15,000 votes with Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson here in the chamber with him. When he cast his first vote, Hawaii had not yet become a State, and the United States had not yet put a man in space. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this record is Senator Byrd's lifetime attendance record. Over 39 plus years, Senator Byrd has stood in this well or voted from his chair on 98.7 percent of the votes cast. Every one of my colleagues knows the day-to-day pressures of Senate life. We all attend countless hearings and meetings with constituents. We travel thousands of miles to our States and within our States and sometimes attend overseas fact-finding missions like the one just returned from Bosnia. Sometimes these commitments do not match the uncertain schedule of the Senate. But for more than 39 years, Senator Byrd has managed to run the Senate as Majority Leader. He has chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee. He has studied and written volumes on the history of the Senate. He has earned his place as the unrivaled expert on Senate rules. And he has become perhaps the most popular political figure in West Virginia history, all while making nearly 99 out of 100 rollcall votes on the Senate floor. Not just votes on important treaties or landmark legislation, but countless Monday and Friday votes and late night rollcalls on routine procedural motions. Mr. President, future historians will write about Senator Byrd's remarkable impact on this chamber as an orator, a parliamentary expert, a Senate historian, a legislative tactician, and a remarkable leader. He has achieved a number of records in both West Virginia and Senate history. He has held more legislative offices than anyone else in the history of his State. He is the longest-serving Senator in the history of his State. And he has held more leadership positions in the U.S. Senate than any other Senator in history. For all his grand achievements, Senator Byrd has performed the most basic requirement of a Senator more times than any other Senator in history. But we recognize and respect the senior Senator from West Virginia for the quality as well as the quantity of his service in the Senate. During his 15,000 Senate votes, Senator Byrd has been here observing history, participating in history, and now occupies an important new place in the history of this institution. Again, I commend him. I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the time has come for the Senate to take appropriate steps to ensure that our work force is equipped to meet the challenges we will face in the next century. Today, high-skill, high- wage jobs are being created faster than they can be filled. This is not because of a labor shortage. Instead we are suffering from a ``skill shortage.'' Not enough workers in this country possess the skills necessary to fill these jobs. In order to keep our economy strong and growing, our people must receive the education and training they need to become productive employees in the 21st century. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 1997 (WIPA) is the first step in providing the education and training job seekers need to compete for high-wage jobs. This bill would consolidate many narrowly- focused federal vocational education, adult education and job training programs that currently provide a disjointed approach to job training and job placement. Through the establishment of ``one-stop'' customer service centers, job seekers will have a central point of entry to job training programs. These one-stop centers will also offer ``individual training accounts'' allowing job seekers to choose their preferred type of education and job training programs to better accommodate their individual skills or interests. Finally, one-stop centers will provide applicants and employers alike with a centralized source of information about training and employment opportunities available in the area. WIPA's goal of streamlining our many training programs bears great similarity to legislation I introduced in January, 1997, called the Working Americans Opportunity Act. Reforming and improving our nation's job training system has long been a Democratic priority. I am glad to see strong, bipartisan support for WIPA and look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to enact this important legislation. The passage of this legislation is of particular importance to the people of South Dakota, where we have recently experienced large scale layoffs in Huron with the closing of the Dakota Pork processing plant, and in Lead with cutbacks at the Homestake Gold mine. People in my home state have been drastically affected by these layoffs. It is my hope that these programs will enable them to receive the training they need to compete for the high-wage jobs of tomorrow. I believe it is very important that any investment we make in education and training produces positive, measurable results. That's why I am pleased this bill ensures that each training provider and agency administering state and local programs is held to a higher level of accountability than in the past. These agencies will be responsible for monitoring and reporting job placement, job retention and average earnings for program graduates. If a program is not performing up to acceptable standards, it will no longer be eligible to receive public funding. It is of particular importance that we act quickly on this bill. Unless it is signed into law by June 1, the Department of Labor will not be able to implement Youth Opportunity Grants. This grant program invests money in poverty-stricken areas to help youth who have left school to get year-round jobs. Appropriations for these grants are contingent on the authorization of the Workforce Investment Partnership Act. This worthwhile program deserves a chance to be implemented as it was intended. By working in a bipartisan way to reform vocational education and job training programs, I believe that we can, during this Congress, create opportunities for American workers that will help to keep our economy strong for the next century.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin and Senator Boxer both be accorded 2 minutes prior to the time we have a final vote on the conference report.

Mr. DASCHLE. Before we move to adoption of the conference report, two colleagues have asked for a very short time frame to express themselves on a particular provision. And I ask they be accorded that time before we go to a final vote.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will yield the floor in just a moment. But let me, while he is on the floor, congratulate the distinguished Senator from Delaware for his magnificent leadership over the course of the last several days. I said to him privately, and I will say it at this point for the Record, that this was one of his finest hours. This was a time when we needed his leadership, when we needed his expertise, when we could count on him to guide us through this very difficult period. He has done so, as he does on so many occasions, with eloquence, with passion, with expertise, and with a degree of credibility that I think suits this Senate and suits him extraordinarily well. I congratulate him on his achievement. I congratulate the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and others who have had so much to say with regard to our achievement tonight. This, indeed, is a very historic moment. I am honored to be a part of it. I am honored to serve with colleagues who led us so well during this debate. I again congratulate each and every one of them. I yield the floor. Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to take just a moment on the passage of this important resolution to thank Stewart Balderson for his nearly four decades of distinguished service, as has been referenced in the resolution, and wish him well as he begins the next chapter of his life. Stuart Balderson truly is an institution within an institution. He began his career in the Senate finance office when he was 22--and Lyndon Johnson was still the Majority Leader. He has stayed there for 38 years--through the tenure of 12 Senate Secretaries--working in every department: payroll, accounting, retirement and benefits, and legislative budgeting. In 1980, he assumed the top position in that office, Financial Clerk of the United States Senate. I first came to the Senate in 1973, as a staffer for another South Dakota Senator. As anyone who has ever worked here knows, the finance office is one of the first offices you visit after you're hired. You go there to fill out your W4 and your insurance forms and other necessary pieces of paper. From that day until today, I have been impressed with the efficient and friendly service in that office. And I believe that is a direct reflection of the man who has run it so well, and for so long. I am not alone in my admiration. In 1992, Stuart Balderson was named ``Congressional Staffer of the Year,'' by Roll Call newspaper. He was given the award at the Senate Staff Club Dinner Dance. That night, in his acceptance speech, he said of this Senate, ``I love the institution, and I work very, very hard for its financial integrity.'' He went on to regale his fellow diners with his recollections of what the Senate was like back in 1960, when he came here. He recalled how giants like Everett Dirksen, Hubert Humphrey and Sam Ervin used to drop by the finance office just to chat. There was a real ``sense of family'' on the Hill back then, he said. Everyone knew everyone. He said he also remembered thinking that he would ``never get anywhere here, because it looked to me like everyone had been here forever, and wouldn't leave until they died at their desks. ``But, I quickly found out,'' he added, ``that these people were the sources of knowledge and wisdom, and I found myself calling on them constantly.'' Clearly, Stuart Balderson was wrong in thinking he'd never go anywhere in the Senate finance office. But he was right about another thing: The dedicated men and women who have served this Senate for years truly are sources of knowledge and wisdom--for all of us. They are our institutional memory, and our connection to a different time--a time when people on the Hill focused less, perhaps, on party labels, and more on common goals. Over the years, Stuart Balderson has earned his place among those sages. I know I speak for countless Senators and Senate staffers when I say, we will miss his professionalism, and dedication, and his ever-friendly manner. We thank him for his many years of impeccable service to this great institution. And we wish him all the best on his retirement. I yield the floor. I thank my colleague.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, law enforcement agencies in every state rely increasingly on criminal history record information. Suspected criminals cross state lines and move between communities, creating an unprecedented need for greater cooperation between the 50 states and between states and the federal government to share this information. It is imperative that each state be able to take advantage of emerging technologies that make this cooperation possible. It is for that reason that I am pleased to cosponsor the State Grant Program for Criminal Justice Identification, Information and Communication. This legislation will help states upgrade their criminal justice information and identification operations, assist in integrating those operations, and make those operations compatible with the FBI's communication technology. Revolutionary technological improvements in communication systems allow localities separated by great distances to share information instantaneously. This communication between law enforcement agencies can make the difference between locating suspects and getting them off the streets, or leaving them free to commit more crimes. I believe we have a responsibility to ensure that states have full access to new criminal history record technologies. This legislation will provide the federal financial assistance and leadership that the states need by establishing a $1.25 billion, 5-year, comprehensive federal assistance program to provide grants to every state for criminal justice identification, information and communications technologies and systems. In addition, grants provided under this legislation will assist states as they upgrade their fingerprint and other identification technologies so that they are compatible with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) criminal history record information systems. The FBI will soon implement 2 major information and identification initiatives, the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and NCIC 2000, that could dramatically improve the access law enforcement agencies have to criminal history record information. IAFIS, in particular, will greatly enhance the exchange of information between the FBI and the states, providing rapid electronic submission and transfer of fingerprint and criminal history information. The states will need the funding assistance provided by this legislation to obtain the equipment necessary to derive full benefit from these new systems. In recent years, Congress has recognized the urgent need to secure the safety of our streets for our children and our families, and this has led to the enactment of federal initiatives, such as sexual offender registries, domestic violence initiatives, the National Child Protection Act, and the Brady National Instant Background Check System. Although these initiatives have done a great deal to protect adults and children in communities nationwide, additional steps need to be taken. The State Grant Program for Criminal Justice Identification, Information and Communication will provide assistance to states so they can take that next step. Criminal tracking programs have been far more effective in identifying and apprehending dangerous criminals than any other programs in recent memory, but we have an opportunity to make these tracking programs much more effective. As technology continues to improve this country's communication systems, we must make sure the states are not left behind. If the states cannot access these systems, or do not have the funding to obtain them, then this revolutionary technology will be of little help. By enacting the State Grant Program for Criminal Justice Identification, Information and Communication, we have the opportunity to improve the cooperation between law enforcement agencies nationwide. This will be instrumental in getting criminals off the streets and away from our children, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, drug trafficking, money laundering and drug use in prisons are significant problems that will continue to worsen unless local, state and federal governments can work more closely together to determine viable solutions. Drug trafficking and money laundering can negatively affect our society in many different ways, and the use of illegal drugs by prison inmates dramatically deceases any chance they have of getting their lives back on track after their release. Local, state and federal governments are already hard at work to determine solutions to these corrosive problems, and I am very pleased to join Senators Leahy, Cleland, Feinstein, and Kohl in introducing The Money Laundering Enforcement and Combating Drugs in Prison Act of 1998, which will provide state and federal governments with additional tools to fight drug trafficking, money laundering and drug use in prisons. This legislation will complement the Administration's comprehensive 10-year National Drug Control Strategy by providing federal prosecutors with additional means to seize assets linked to illegal criminal and drug activity and prevent drug kingpins and others from engaging in money laundering. Initiatives such as the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act, and the Administration's highly effective radio and TV ads currently airing in 12 pilot cities are sending the kind of anti-drug messages that must reach our young people. The Money Laundering Enforcement and Combating Drugs in Prison Act of 1998 adds to these efforts by reducing the demand for drugs by allowing states to use federal prison grant funds to test and treat drug-addicted inmates and parolees. This legislation will greatly enhance the efforts of prosecutors to force international criminals out of hiding by reducing their ability to shield themselves behind foreign banking laws or use other procedural tricks. Moreover, the bill will ensure that defendants arrested overseas will no longer be able to take advantage of U.S. courts to fight against extradition to this country. It would allow federal prosecutors to temporarily seize U.S. assets owned by individuals arrested overseas and thus dramatically improve the ability of law enforcement agencies to shut down drug trafficking operation based outside the United States. Drug kingpins have little regard for nation boundaries, and our nations laws must provide us with the flexibility necessary to combat them. Studies prove that an overwhelming majority of incarcerated individuals have been heavily influenced by drugs or alcohol, and those who are illegal drug or alcohol abusers are the most likely to be repeat offenders. If we want to stem the increase in our nation's prison population, we must determine which inmates are addicted to drugs or alcohol, reduce the availability of drugs in prisons and ensure inmates have access to the treatment they need while incarcerated. This legislation will help states meet all these goals by allowing them to use as much--or as little--of the federal prison funds they receive for drug testing and intervention and to develop a strategy to reduce drug trafficking in prisons. State and federal governments are waging a battle against drug kingpins, and the Money Laundering Enforcement and Combating Drugs in Prison Act of 1998 will provide much-needed assistance to these ongoing efforts. By enacting this bill, I believe we will make great strides toward removing dangerous criminals and illegal drugs from our neighborhoods. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last night, Senator Robert C. Byrd was awarded the Congressional Award Program's highest honor, the Leadership Award. This award is given to someone who has exhibited extraordinary leadership in support of programs which benefit our Nation's youth and the Congressional Award Program. We all know Senator Byrd as a skilled legislator, master of the Senate's rules and procedures, award-winning historian of the United States Senate, a man of great honor and personal integrity, a fine example of true leadership, a colleague, and a friend. We may not be fully aware of his tireless efforts on behalf of the children of this country. The Leadership Award is presented each year to individuals who have displayed outstanding commitment to improving the lives of young Americans and who have provided critical support to the Congressional Award program in its efforts to make the Award a national opportunity for all of our young people. Senator Byrd knows only too well the hardships many of our children face: plagued by poverty, challenged by a culture which all too often fails to glorify the values essential to a civil society, facing violence not present when we grew up, a world without the kinds of heroes that inspired Senator Byrd to personal achievement and a life of service to others. As he so clearly articulated last night at the Congressional Award's annual dinner and program, heroes fuel in us a desire for personal development. And Senator Byrd found out that he is a hero to many. Grant Hill, NBA basketball star, talked of the great honor of competing against Michael Jordan, and the equally great honor of meeting Senator Byrd, ``the Michael Jordan of the Senate.'' Mr. Hill was awarded the Horizon Award, which gives special recognition to individuals from the private sector who have contributed to expanding opportunities for young Americans through personal contributions to youth programs, and who have set exceptional examples for young people through their success in life. Congress grants only two medals: The Congressional Medal of Honor and the Congressional Award. The Congressional Award was established by Congress through P.L. 96-114. Senator Byrd was a member of the first Congressional Award Joint Leadership Commission and helped set the standards for this bipartisan program which is available to young people aged 14-23. To earn an award, participants must set and achieve individually challenging goals in volunteer community service, personal development, physical fitness and expeditions. Please join me in extending our congratulations to Senator Byrd for being the 1998 recipient of the Congressional Award's Leadership Award, and for receiving yet again another first: being named the ``Michael Jordan of the Senate.''

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to commend an outstanding group of students from South Dakota who have participated in the We the People . . . The Citizen and The Constitution program across our state this year. The We the People . . . program is an annual nationwide competition sponsored by the Center for Civic Education. The We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The We the People . . . program has provided curricular materials at upper elementary, middle and high school levels for more than 75,000 teachers and 24 million students nationwide. This program is designed to help students achieve a reasoned commitment to the fundamental values and principles that bind Americans together as a people. The program also fosters civic dispositions on traits of public and private character conducive to effective and responsible participation in politics and government. Students from Marion High School, Harding County High School, Hot Springs High School, Rutland High School, and Spearfish High School showed a tremendous amount of talent and exhibited a great deal of diligent study in a state competition last month in Pierre, South Dakota. Students participated in simulated congressional hearings as the culminating state activity for the We the People . . . program. Each class, working in cooperative teams, prepared and presented statements before a panel of subject experts who acted as congressional committee members and posed challenging questions about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our democratic system. The format provided students an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge of constitutional principles and their understanding of civic responsibility. These teams had the support and guidance of their teacher and local advisors, which is essential in such a challenging competition. Curt Sage and Principal Mark Rockafellow from Marion High School, Paul Rystrom and Principal Allen Dvorak from Rutland High School, Marty Wood and Principal Gary Peters from Hot Springs High School, and John Pfitzer and Principal Charles Maxon from Harding County High School are to be commended for their involvement and for providing an educational environment in their schools that encourages teachers and students alike to participate in this type of program. The Spearfish High School team won the state competition and will be visiting Washington next week to compete in the national competition. The Spearfish team is well prepared for what will be an exciting and competitive final round here in Washington on May 2-4. The members of the Spearfish team representing South Dakota in the national finals are: Melissa Bauman, Tricia Beringer, Toni Bickford, Andy Binder, Pam Blair, Chelsea Collins, Christian Colaiacoro, Nicole Dana, Jason Delahoyde, Jacob Dell, Justin Huck, Lucas Humbracht, Sara Jensen, Brandy Lensegrav, Wade McDonald, Justin Nicholas, Eric Nies, Kirby Sand, Jason Schoental, Becky Stokes, Amy Sylvester, Mikayla Tetrault, Jonathon Watson, and James Williams. I am very proud of their accomplishments and wish them well in the national competition. I would also like to recognize their teachers, Patrick Gainey and Tom Freece, for their tireless efforts over many months in working with these talented students. The district coordinator, Lennis Larson, also contributed a significant amount of time and effort in working with all South Dakota schools who participate in the program. I commend all the South Dakotans Constitutional scholars who have participated and worked so hard. Our South Dakota student team from Spearfish is currently conducting research and preparing for the upcoming national competition. I wish the students and teacher the best of luck at the We the People . . . national finals, and I look forward to meeting them when they visit Capitol Hill and the Senate.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the question of whether to expand the NATO alliance is one of the most important foreign policy decisions this Senate has been called upon to make since the fall of the Berlin Wall. We will make history with this vote. So it would seem appropriate to consult history before we cast it. That's what I did the other day. I re-read some of the debate that took place in this chamber 49 years ago, when our predecessors, in the tumultuous years following the Second World War, had the courage and foresight to commit our own nation to this alliance. One of the chief supporters was Arthur Vandenberg, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Vandenberg, a Republican from Michigan, predicted that NATO would become ``the greatest war deterrent in history.'' History has proven him right. Because of NATO, a region that produced two cataclysmic wars in this century has now known a half-century of peace and stability. Those of us who were born after the Second World War tend to take that for granted. But in fact, it is a remarkable accomplishment. Just as the map of Europe was redrawn at the end of World War II, it has been redrawn again with the end of the Cold War. Nations that once marched in lockstep with totalitarian dictatorships have been transformed into struggling young democracies. It is time for us to redefine NATO to match the new map, the new reality, of this post-Cold War world. Enlarging NATO's circle of security to include the new democracies of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic is not only in the best interests of those nations. It is in the best interests of the entire European continent. And, it is in the national security interest of the United States. For these reasons, I intend to vote for ratification of the treaty expanding NATO. And I urge my colleagues to do so as well. I do not underestimate the seriousness of this action, nor do I take lightly the thoughtful arguments some of my fellow Senators have made against ratification of this treaty. As I see it, there are essentially four such arguments. In making my own decision, I have wrestled with each of them. And I would like to share with you some of my thoughts on them. First, though, I want to read something from a man who has thought very deeply about these arguments, and about the future of Europe: the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel. President Havel is among the most articulate supporters of the treaty we are now considering. ``As I follow the debate over whether NATO should be enlarged,'' he has written, ``I have the strong sense that the arguments are often purely mechanical, somehow missing the real meaning of the alliance. ``The process of expansion must be accompanied by something much deeper: a refined definition of the purpose, mission and identity of NATO. ``The alliance,'' he continues, ``should urgently remind itself that it is first and foremost an instrument of democracy intended to defend mutually held and created political and spiritual values. ``It must see itself not as a pact of nations against a more of less obvious enemy, but as a guarantor of Euro-American civilization, and thus a pillar of global security.'' Does NATO exist to defend a fixed list of nations, chosen 49 years ago, against an enemy that no longer exists? Or does it need to respond to the new threats we face by including, under NATO's collective security umbrella, the three countries that have demonstrated not only a deep commitment to democracy, but a willingness to defend it? That is the fundamental question in this debate. The answer, in my view, is yes. We should expand NATO to include the new democracies of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. There are, as I said, four other questions as well. They also deserve serious reflection. The first is: What effect would expanding NATO to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have on Russia's relations with the West--particularly its relations with the United States? Russia clearly would prefer that we not expand NATO. Given their history, that is understandable. Russia lost 20 million people in the Second World War. Despite assurances from NATO that no troops or nuclear weapons will be stationed in the three new member nations, there are those in Russia who remain fearful of an expanded NATO, and others who are trying to exploit those fears to weaken the hands of Russian democratic reformers. This is troubling, because it is clearly in our national interest to see Russia fully engaged with the West. There is evidence, however, that Russian leaders wish to continue that engagement. Russia's willingness last year to sign the NATO-Russia Founding Act is one example of Russia's commitment to improved relations with the West. Perhaps an even better example is Russia's continued active participation in the international peacekeeping effort in Bosnia. Some of my colleagues cite fear of antagonizing Russia as a reason to reject this treaty. While I respect their opinion, I do not believe this concern warrants such action, and I cite as evidence Russia's own actions. We must remember what Secretary of State Albright calls the ``productive paradox'' at the core of NATO. That is, by demonstrating that we are willing to defend our allies, we dramatically reduce the chances that we will ever actually have to commit troops to do so. This has been true in the past, and I believe it will remain true in the future. A second question we must address is the price of enlargement. It is important that we be clear from the very start: There are costs associated with expanding NATO. And, while most of these costs will be borne by the new member nations, some of the costs will fall to existing members of the alliance, including the United States. The initial estimates of the costs to the US were quite high. Two things have happened in the last year, however, to reduce projections of those costs. First, NATO invited three members to join the alliance instead of four, the number on which earlier estimates were based. Second, and more significant, the military committee of NATO conducted a thorough analysis of the three potential new members and found that their military infrastructures were in better shape than had been assumed. As a result, the cost of bringing them in line with NATO standards is projected to be considerably less. The new, more accurate estimates put the cost to US at an average of $40 million a year for 10 years. I am not suggesting for a minute that this is a small amount. It's not. But compare it to the price of some pieces of military hardware. One Blackhawk helicopter costs $10 million. One Harrier jump jet costs $27 million. One F-15 Eagle fighter costs $43 million. One Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile costs $53 million. And one B-2 bomber costs $2 billion--five times more than the entire 10-year cost of expanding NATO. No, $400 million over 10 years is not a small amount. But if it can help extend stability and security in central and eastern Europe, it is not a bad bargain. It is also important to note, Mr. President, that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will be compelled to modernize their defenses-- whether or not they join NATO. If that modernization takes place within NATO's framework, however, we avoid the risk of re-nationalizing militaries that have caused so much instability in Europe in the past. The third question we must consider is if, in expanding NATO, we are simply drawing new lines in the sand, and thus creating the potential for new conflicts. Again, I want to quote President Havel, who has also considered the consequences of refusing to erase the old lines. ``If this way of thinking prevails,'' he warns, ``it will turn the alliance into a hopelessly antiquated club of Cold War veterans.'' We can't allow that to happen. It is not this Senate, or the NATO alliance, that erased the old dividing lines of Yalta. History erased those lines. The power of freedom and democracy erased those lines. We must not maintain an obsolete line in Europe because we are afraid of drawing a new line. We must not let fear of an old enemy keep us from embracing a new ally. Hitler and Stalin helped draw the line that placed Poland and Hungary and the Czech Republic on the wrong side of freedom in 1944. By admitting these nations to NATO, we are erasing that line. Finally, there is a fourth question that some have raised in this debate. That is, when will we next consider expanding NATO? And which nations should we consider? I believe that question is premature. We should remain open-minded. But we haven't yet approved the first expansion. We need to see this process through and carefully and thoroughly evaluate it before we can make any sort of informed decision about admitting additional new members to the alliance. I see no reason why we should commit ourselves to a fixed timetable or list of additional entrants now. The danger in Europe today does not come from a totalitarian superpower. The danger in Europe today comes from aggressive nationalism and terrorism and the spread and misuse of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. By bringing Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO's circle of security and democracy, we will strengthen the bulkhead against these destructive forces. We will bolster NATO's fighting capacity by adding 200,000 troops. We will add geographically significant territory to the alliance. We will increase NATO's understanding of these new threats, and thus its ability to head them off. And all of this, Mr. President, is in the United States' national security interest. When the Berlin Wall fell, it answered the prayers of millions of people all over the world. It also created a new landscape in Europe. Extending NATO membership to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will help ensure that democracy and freedom fill that landscape, rather than old hatreds and outdated ideologies. In his first speech as President of Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel described his dream for his country. ``I dream,'' he said, ``of a republic independent, free, and democratic, of a republic economically prosperous and yet socially just, in short, of a humane republic which serves the individual and which therefore holds the hope that the individual will serve it in turn.'' In the years since the Berlin Wall collapsed, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic all have made great strides toward achieving that dream. They have demonstrated that they meet NATO's standards for membership, and that they can contribute to the alliance in a meaningful way. For all these reasons, I will vote to expand the NATO Treaty to include these three new democracies, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.