Tom Daschle

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, I am very pleased to join with Senator Lott in sponsoring this resolution honoring the 50th anniversary of Israel's founding. I had the privilege of speaking last week at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Founders Reunion in Washington. In my remarks, I quoted from one of the sages of the Torah, who told us more than 200 years ago that God could have created plants that would grow into loaves of bread. Instead, He created wheat for us to grow and mill and transform into bread. Why? Because He wanted us to be able to take part in the miracle of creation. And, just as the founders of the Holocaust Museum can take pride in their contribution to the creation of that memorial, so too can Israelis take great pride in their contributions to the creation of the modern State of Israel. In my remarks to the Holocaust Museum founders, I also cited Elie Wiesel's view that: ``Survivors are understood by survivors only. They speak in code. All outsiders could do was come close to the gates.'' That is what the Holocaust Memorial Museum allows us to do: to come close to the gates; to see; to grieve; and, finally, to learn, so that we can pass the knowledge on, from generation to generation, about what can happen when intolerance and hatred are allowed to spread unchecked. One of the greatest benefits of the Holocaust Museum is that it helps its millions of visitors understand why there must be an Israel. The Holocaust Museum is evidence of the fact that out of the unspeakable horror of the Holocaust has come the miracle of the creation of the State of Israel to provide a homeland for Jews around the world. Out of this tragedy has come the modern-day State of Israel, the 20th century version of the 3,000-year old historic Kingdom of Israel. We are introducing this resolution today to celebrate and commemorate the 50th anniversary of Israel's founding and to offer the Senate's congratulations on reaching this important landmark. Mr. President, fifty years is not considered long relative to the lifespan of an England, a China or an India. In the case of Israel, however, it is an eternity when we factor in the obstacles it has faced during these fifty years. Throughout its existence, Israel has faced an array of enemies dedicated to its destruction. It has been forced to fight six wars, battle against countless terrorist acts, survive economically in the face of widespread economic boycotts, and make its way in the world despite international criticism against it. This resolution commemorates not only Israel's ability to survive these odds, but also its ability to thrive and prosper in the face of these constraints and to maintain its adherence to democracy and the rule of law. Israel today is a dynamic, vibrant society committed to the same values and principles as the United States. Another important reason we are offering this resolution is to reiterate the strength of the partnership between the U.S. and Israel-- a partnership based on shared values, interests and goals. Israel is a trusted ally and an important strategic partner. I would like to make the resolution's four resolved clauses part of my statement offering my best wishes to Israel on this important occasion. The measure resolves that the United States recognizes the historic significance of the fiftieth anniversary of the re-establishment of the sovereign and independent modern State of Israel. It commends the people of Israel for their remarkable achievements in building a new state and a pluralistic democratic society in the Middle East in the face of terrorism, hostility and belligerence by many of her neighbors. It reaffirms the bonds of friendship and cooperation which have existed between the United States and Israel for the past half-century and which have been significant for both countries. And it extends the warmest congratulations and best wishes to the State of Israel and her people for a peaceful and prosperous and successful future. Mr. President, I urge all Senators to join me in sending our congratulations to Israel on this noteworthy day.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues in introducing the Medicare Home Health Equity Act of 1998. The Balanced Budget Act (BBA) included numerous changes to Medicare that were necessary to extend the solvency of the trust fund and increase the program's integrity. It was extremely important legislation that I strongly supported, but there was no way to know the impact of every provision it included. One provision of the BBA in particular, the interim payment system for home health care, locks in place inequities between regions of the country, efficient and inefficient providers, and new and older agencies. I am concerned about the impact of that provision on my state of South Dakota. In South Dakota, the interim payment system has raised significant concern. The interim payment system bases each agency's per patient cost limit largely on its per beneficiary cost in 1994. My concern is that South Dakota's cost per beneficiary and number of visits per patient were well below the national average in 1994. Many of the home health agencies in the state have expanded the geographic area they serve since 1994 and have added services that formerly were not available in the more rural parts of the state. Some of these agencies are the sole providers in our most rural counties. I have heard from Hand County Home Health Agency which primarily serves women, age 85 and older, with little family nearby and with difficult health conditions. Since 1994, the Hand County Home Health Agency has kept its costs down, but has added new services such as physical therapy and has expanded the geographic area to serve areas that no other provider covers. The agency has told me that they have to consider discontinuing the new services they cover or decreasing the geographic area they serve. Neither of these options seems acceptable to me. The interim payment system also creates problems between new and older agencies. In the same geographic area, where there is a new provider and an old agency, the new provider's limit will be based on the national median reimbursement. This results in significant discrepancies in reimbursement and ultimately the services that agencies can afford to deliver within the same area and market. Ultimately the impact of this payment system falls on beneficiaries, and this must be foremost in our minds. Senator Collins' bill would go a long way to addressing the access, quality, and equity issues that have been raised by the interim payment system in South Dakota. I am pleased to join her in beginning the dialogue on this issue that I hope will lead to construction changes for home health care patients in South Dakota and across the nation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues in introducing the Medicare Home Health Equity Act of 1998. The Balanced Budget Act (BBA) included numerous changes to Medicare that were necessary to extend the solvency of the trust fund and increase the program's integrity. It was extremely important legislation that I strongly supported, but there was no way to know the impact of every provision it included. One provision of the BBA in particular, the interim payment system for home health care, locks in place inequities between regions of the country, efficient and inefficient providers, and new and older agencies. I am concerned about the impact of that provision on my state of South Dakota. In South Dakota, the interim payment system has raised significant concern. The interim payment system bases each agency's per patient cost limit largely on its per beneficiary cost in 1994. My concern is that South Dakota's cost per beneficiary and number of visits per patient were well below the national average in 1994. Many of the home health agencies in the state have expanded the geographic area they serve since 1994 and have added services that formerly were not available in the more rural parts of the state. Some of these agencies are the sole providers in our most rural counties. I have heard from Hand County Home Health Agency which primarily serves women, age 85 and older, with little family nearby and with difficult health conditions. Since 1994, the Hand County Home Health Agency has kept its costs down, but has added new services such as physical therapy and has expanded the geographic area to serve areas that no other provider covers. The agency has told me that they have to consider discontinuing the new services they cover or decreasing the geographic area they serve. Neither of these options seems acceptable to me. The interim payment system also creates problems between new and older agencies. In the same geographic area, where there is a new provider and an old agency, the new provider's limit will be based on the national median reimbursement. This results in significant discrepancies in reimbursement and ultimately the services that agencies can afford to deliver within the same area and market. Ultimately the impact of this payment system falls on beneficiaries, and this must be foremost in our minds. Senator Collins' bill would go a long way to addressing the access, quality, and equity issues that have been raised by the interim payment system in South Dakota. I am pleased to join her in beginning the dialogue on this issue that I hope will lead to construction changes for home health care patients in South Dakota and across the nation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this conference report contains many important provisions that deserve the support of the Senate. It authorizes Congress, at long last, to pay our overdue debt to the United Nations. It clears the way for comprehensive UN reform. The bill also includes a much-needed, major restructuring of our nation's foreign affairs agencies. In the years since the Cold War ended, the maps of the world have been redrawn. The reorganization plan in this bill would enable us to redraw our foreign affairs structure to match the new, post-Cold War reality. It is the product of careful and detailed negotiations, and enjoys broad, bipartisan support. Despite these important provisions, I regret that I will vote against this conference report, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise. The reason I oppose this report is because, in addition to its positive provisions, it also contains an extreme and extraneous provision the Senate has considered and rejected many times in the past. This provision--the so-called ``Mexico City language''--would do serious damage to international family planning efforts--including efforts that have nothing to do with promoting abortion and that, in fact, help to prevent abortions. It would do serious damage to one of the ideals on which our own nation was founded, freedom of speech and expression. The Mexico City language would bar any agency that receives international family- planning assistance from the U.S. from using their own funds to pay for abortions, or to lobby for abortions. Let me repeat: This bill does not tell agencies it cannot use U.S. funds for these services. That is already prohibited under existing law. This bill tells agencies in other nations that they may not use their own funds to pay for, or lobby for, abortions, without losing all U.S. family-planning assistance. This goes far beyond what the current law prescribes. This body has rejected this kind of restriction in the past because we agreed it is inappropriate to place such limitations on how organizations in other nations may use their own money. Mr. President, it is still inappropriate for us to do so. But it is important to note that the Mexico City language is not simply the language this body has previously rejected. In 2 important ways, it is even more extreme. First, this Mexico City provision will cut funds for international family-planning services. The conference report mandates that family planning agencies in other nations may not receive one dollar in U.S. family-planning assistance unless and until they certify that they will not perform abortions with their own funds. It is true that the President may waive this restriction. But if he does so, U.S. aid for international family-planning programs for that year would be limited to $356 million--$44 million less than we are now spending. Second, this new version of the Mexico City language includes a provision that not only prohibits funding for any organization that lobbies to change abortions laws in other nations, as the former version did. It goes far beyond that prohibition to forbid recipients of U.S. funds from making any public statements about abortion. They are forbidden, Mr. President, even from expressing concerns about the dangers of illegal abortions. And the President has no authority to waive this provision. The Secretary of State has rightly labeled this restriction a ``gag rule.'' In no way would this provision improve the lives of women and children around the world, nor would it reduce the incidence of abortion. Instead, this gag rule would violate one of our country's most hallowed principles, the principle of freedom of speech. What kind of message would we be sending to the rest of the world if violate our founding principles? That those principles are not inalienable after all? That they may have worked 200 years ago, but they are not applicable in a modern world? Surely, at a time when struggling new democracies all over the world are looking for guidance and inspiration, these are not messages we want to send. But the greatest danger of these extreme and extraneous provisions is that they will not improve the lives of women and children anywhere, nor will they prevent abortions anywhere. In fact, they will have the opposite effect. They will make it more difficult for women to plan their own families. U.S. support of international family planning programs have immeasurably improved the lives of women in developing countries. By helping women limit the size of their families, we have enabled women to make the educational and economic gains that are essential if they, and their children, are to live longer and healthier lives. The number of women of childbearing age is increasing by 24 million every year. Now is not the time for this nation to cut back on our commitment to programs that enable women to plan their families--programs that actually reduce the incidence of abortion. And make no mistake, Mr. President, that would be one of the consequences if we pass this conference report. There would, inevitably, be an increase in the number of abortions. That is not something I want to see, and I know that every member of this body agrees with me on this point. Finally, Mr. President, it is important to note the context in which we are considering this conference report, and the implications it has for another important piece of legislation the Senate has already passed--the supplemental funding for the U.S. contribution to the International Monetary Fund. Last month, the Senate approved these funds overwhelmingly. The vote was 84-16. The size of that margin indicates the importance Senators attach to an adequately-funded IMF. Unfortunately, a small but vocal minority of members in the other body have expressed reluctance to vote on the IMF funding unless we give into their demands on the Mexico City issue. They are, in effect, holding hostage an important bill with significant national security implications, a bill that has broad, bipartisan support in the Senate, in order to force their way on a completely unrelated issue. The IMF appropriation is an insurance policy for the world economy and for countless American exporting businesses and farmers whose livelihoods depend on strong markets in Asia, Latin America, and other regions of the world. It is inappropriate and dangerous to link passage of IMF with the Mexico City restrictions. The longer we delay passage of the IMF funds, the more we expose our businesses, workers, and farmers to the risks and uncertainties of world financial markets. For all of these reasons, Mr. President, the Mexico City provision does not belong in either the State Department authorization bill, or the IMF supplemental. If the other body wishes to implement the Mexico City restrictions, it should debate those restrictions in the context in which they belong--in a comprehensive foreign aid authorization bill. They should not hold hostage every high-priority piece of foreign policy legislation moving through the Congress. It is imperative that the Senate defeat this conference report to demonstrate that we will not support such efforts at linkage either in this instance or in the future. I urge my colleagues to vote against the conference agreement.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I would like to share with my colleagues a development that is occurring in my region with an organization that has long been an agent of change. The Missouri Basin Municipal Power Agency is a joint action agency that provides affordable electricity, through its 58 municipal utility members, to over 200,000 consumers in my home state of South Dakota, and to citizens of North Dakota, Minnesota and Iowa. The agency was formed in 1960 to coordinate municipalities' efforts to negotiate the purchase of power and energy from the Federal government. In 1970, the Federal government informed public power systems in the region that their growing power supply needs could no longer be met through the Federal hydropower program. Missouri Basin stepped in and met the supplemental power supply of its member communities by participating in, among other arrangements, the Laramie River Station coal-fired plant, one of the cleanest coal plants in the country. Over the years, the agency has played a vital role in meeting the energy needs of the region. The agency has promoted integrated resource planning, carried out an aggressive tree planting program, and continued to provide its customers with affordable, reliable electricity. Faced with a changing electricity market, Missouri Basin this month changed its name to Missouri River Energy Services, signaling its readiness to embrace a new era in which utilities will provide many added services and benefits for their customers. Missouri River Energy Services is rising to meet this challenge admirably. I appreciate the work Missouri River Energy Services has done for our communities and wish the agency the best of luck as it helps forge the future of the electricity industry. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Would the Chair inform us as to the current status regarding time?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I am the last speaker on our side, and then we have one speaker left on the Republican side. It is with that understanding that I will yield such time now as I may consume. First of all, let me begin by commending the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts for his eloquence again just now and for his remarkable leadership on this debate for the last several days. He has been our quarterback, and he has been a real inspiration to many of us. I thank him, and I thank all of our colleagues who have done so much to contribute to this debate, who have done so in a civil way, who have done so in an enlightened way, who have done so with every good intention about raising the level of debate and talking about these critical issues, recognizing the significant difference of opinion that exists between our parties on this important matter of national concern. This debate started out as really a difference of opinion on how we commit about $1.6 billion in resources to education. I have noted in the past that I have great admiration for the Senator from Georgia and his interest in pursuing ways in which to improve to education. I differ with him strongly on this particular issue. We have noted on many occasions as we have made reference to his approach that the original design of this legislation did little to address the real problems we have in education. We have argued on this floor on many occasions whether, with $1.6 billion, we should give tax relief largely to those in the most successful quintile of our economic strata. I am told about $37 in tax benefits would go to the top 20 percent of income earners in our country. The question is, is that the best way for our Federal Government to commit these hard-earned tax dollars? Should we provide that kind of tax relief, as laudable as the intentions might be and as a different an approach as it might be? Certainly we want to encourage saving. Certainly we want to find ways to reduce the overall cost to all American families of education. The question is, is this the right way? Is this the best way? There are those who have argued that if you do not favor the status quo, that this is the approach we ought to be subscribing to. Mr. President, I have to say, probably of all the things that have been said on the Senate floor with regard to this issue and this debate, this is the one which perhaps I feel most vehement opposition to. I am an ardent opponent of the status quo in many respects. I oppose simply accepting our current situation as fact. We know that there are things we can do, that we must do. In an information age, we cannot be content to simply sit back and say, yes, this is the best we can do. We can't be content when we are not number one when it comes to math and science. We can't be content when we know that there are people who are not getting a good education because we have not made the right commitments. I defy anyone to challenge those of us who believe there is a better way than the underlying bill that somehow we are defending the status quo, because that could not be further from the truth. As evidence of that, I guess I would suggest, No. 1, that you look at the array of amendments that we have offered that would have changed the status quo, beginning with, first and foremost, the single most consequential reduction in property tax that we have considered on the Senate floor, at least in my lifetime. As much as $10 billion in potential property tax relief could have been part of this legislation. In my state of South Dakota, we could have reduced property taxes by as much as $25 million. If we had passed the Moseley-Braun amendment, we could have relieved the burden on state and local taxes, including property taxes, by $10 billion. We didn't have the votes. The majority voted against reducing property taxes by $10 billion. I want to change the status quo. That would have done it. That would have done it, in addition to recognizing the fact that three out of four school districts in this country have at least one school that is in dire need of repair. I spoke to people in a school district not long ago who shared with me the fact that, when the winds in South Dakota exceed 40 miles an hour, the school has to be evacuated. When the winds in South Dakota exceed 40 miles an hour, they have to go home. We had a chimney that fell through the third floor of one of our schools in Hartford, SD. I could go on and on. The fact is, we have an incredible problem with regard to infrastructure. While we legitimately commit, as we must, to highways, to bridges, to airports, and to the array of infrastructure challenges we have--and I am a strong supporter of the effort to do that--we ought to be committing to infrastructure for the most important part of our population, our children. You want to change the status quo? We should have voted to support the Moseley-Braun amendment. You want to support change in the status quo? We should have supported the after- school program supported and offered by the distinguished Senator from California. You want to change the status quo? We should have recognized that we have to go out and find over 100,000 new teachers in the next 3 years. That is real change in the status quo. Now our Republican colleagues have come back with proposals of their own to change the status quo. As the senior Senator from Massachusetts has just acknowledged, the real question now is, do we privatize public education? Because that is exactly what we will do if this bill passes and is signed into law. We would privatize public education. So while we started out with a bill that promised to do very little, we have ended up with one that would do real damage. We've gone from doing almost nothing for public education to doing serious damage to the fundamental appreciation of the importance in democracy of education as we have known it for 200 years. We do damage. If this legislation was ever signed into law, we would do serious damage, because we would abolish the promise of universal education for the people of the United States as we have known it. This promise has been largely responsible for the democracy that we have enjoyed with all of its richness. We would abolish all remedial education for disadvantaged children. We would abolish safe and drug-free schools. We would abolish the opportunities for schools to come to the people of the United States asking for assistance to acquire new technology in their classroom. We would abolish Goals 2000, which would set some goals for the whole country to achieve as we recognize the importance of the information age. We would abolish teacher training in math and science. We would abolish magnet schools. We would abolish school-to-work. We would abolish the ability to use voluntary national achievement tests in order to empower parents to find out just how their students are doing. The abolition of all of those tools and more are incorporated in what we are about to pass tonight. Mr. President, this is a lost opportunity. Yes. But far more than that, during the debate on this bill, we have gone from doing little to doing damage--damage to our public educational system, damage to the opportunities that children all over this country ought to have when they walk into a classroom. We would abolish the national role in public education. So the question tonight that we must ask ourselves is, do we support the continued role of public education, recognizing, as we do, the need to move beyond the status quo and fundamentally and radically find ways in which to improve upon the tradition of public education in this country? Do we do that? Or do we privatize education? Do we privatize it and take away whatever role the people of the United States have when we consider our educational challenges in the years ahead? That is the question. I hope our colleagues will vote a resounding no on final passage of this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today is a holy day, Yom Hashoah. It is a day set aside every year to remember the victims of the Holocaust. I had the privilege of starting this Yom Hashoah morning with an extraordinary group of people, the Founders of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Founders are men and women from across America who have given at least $1 million to the Holocaust Museum. This week, as we mark the fifth anniversary of the opening of the museum, it seems an especially appropriate time to recognize the incredible gift the Founders, and all the museum's supporters, have given our nation. We are indebted to them all--particularly to Miles Lerman, chairman of the museum council, and Ruth Mandel, the council's vice chair, and to my dear friend Abe Pollin, the chairman of this year's Founders Reunion. One of the sages of the Torah told us more than 200 years ago that God could have created plants that would grow loaves of bread. Instead, he created wheat for us to grow and mill and transform into bread. Why? Because He wanted us to be able to take part in the miracle of creation. That is what the Holocaust Museum Founders have done. They used stone and steel and sacred artifacts, rather than wheat. But they have unquestionably experienced the miracle of creation. Simon Dubrow, the great Jewish historian, was one of the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust. He was killed in the Latvian ghetto of Riga by a Gestapo officer who had once been his student. His dying words were ``Schreibt und farschreibt.'' ``Write and record.'' He believed to the end that truth and memory ultimately would triumph over the evil of the Holocaust. Through the leadership and generosity of the Holocaust Museum Founders, his prediction has come true. Many in Congress remain in awe of the fact that the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum has raised $320 million since its inception. That's a part of the museum's story that isn't fully known or appreciated. The Holocaust Museum has not only demonstrated that public/private partnerships can work--it has set the standard for such partnerships. Much has changed since that bitter cold, rainy day 5 years ago when the Holocaust Museum was dedicated. Before the museum opened, I understand that the most optimistic estimates were that 700,000 people a year would walk through its doors. That first year, and every year since, I am now told, 2 million visitors have come to the museum--5,000 people every day. Before the museum opened, I well remember that there were some who questioned whether it should be built on the National Mall, since the Holocaust did not take place in our country. Today, the Holocaust Memorial Museum is a fundamental part of this city. Not only does it belong on the Mall, but it gives a deeper meaning to the other great memorials there. Ask anyone who has been through the museum and they will tell you. The Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial have never looked so beautiful--and freedom and democracy have never seemed as precious--as they do when you emerge from the darkness of that extraordinary building. Elie Weisel has said, ``Survivors are understood by survivors only. They speak in code. All outsiders could do was come close to the gates.'' That is what the Holocaust Memorial Museum allows us to do: to come close to the gates; to see; to grieve; and, finally, to learn, so that we can pass the knowledge on from, generation to generation, about what can happen when intolerance and hatred are allowed to spread unchecked. Elie Weisel is right. We cannot walk on the shoes of the victims, or the survivors. But we can see their shoes--that heartbreaking room full of dress shoes and work boots and baby shoes. And it is one of the many paradoxes of the museum, that in looking at something as simple as those shoes, we can begin to feel the profound tragedy of that terrible time. Anyone who has been there knows, the Holocaust Museum is not an easy place to visit. The images in it are not images of beauty, but of incomprehensible evil. People always spend longer in the museum than they expect. And they leave shattered. But they also leave changed. It is one of the few museums in the world that has the capacity to change people fundamentally. It teaches many lessons. One of the most profound lessons is about the horrors that can be unleashed when we deny the basic humanity of even one person. Another is what can happen to democracy when we are not vigilant in its protection. The museum also teaches us about the necessity of leadership dedicated to preventing intolerance, hatred and oppression. For members of Congress, that is an especially important lesson. And the presence of the museum on the mall is a constant reminder of it. Perhaps the most dramatic example of its influence on Congress was 2 years ago, when we debated how the United States should respond to the horrors in Bosnia. There were times during that debate when it was as if the victims of the Holocaust were looking down from the Senate galleries, reminding us of the moral imperative: Never again. I doubt we would have felt their presence so strongly, had it not been for the museum. But evil is not always as obvious as it was in Bosnia, or Rwanda, or Pol Pot's Cambodia. The Holocaust Museum reminds us that the early warning signs are more subtle--and, often, closer to home. That lesson is particularly important for people who are entrusted to write the laws that guide this great nation. When you walk down that first long, dark corridor, and see the step- by-step dismantling of German democracy, you understand in a deeper way why we must never again allow books to be burned, or laws to be written that permit discrimination and expropriation. The last time I visited the museum I stopped on the way out to read what people had written in the ``comments'' book. None of the comments was very long. The museum has a way of leaving many people without words for a while. Among the short messages, there were two that especially stood out. Both were written in what appeared to be the handwriting of teenage girls. One said, ``The museum taught me the meaning of democracy.'' The other said simply, ``I will remember this for the rest of my life.'' What an extraordinary gift the Founders have given those young women, and everyone else who has visited these first 5 years! I understand the museum is now taking advantage of the Internet and other new technologies so that people in my home state of South Dakota, and all over the world, can ``visit,'' even if they can't come to Washington. I've been told the website gets 100,000 hits a day! That's most impressive. By reaching out in this way, the museum is not only fulfilling our moral responsibility to ``write and record'' the story of the Holocaust and its victims. It is also creating a stronger America. And, in the process, it is redefining what museums, and public-private partnerships can be, and what they can accomplish. The poem that is written on the wall behind the shoes declares, ``We are the shoes. We are the last witnesses.'' In the 5 years since the museum opened, 10 million new witnesses have been created--one for every person who perished in the Holocaust. Five years from now, there will be 10 million more. And, like the young woman who signed the book, each of them will be remembered for the rest of their lives. The Founders, and all the supporters of the Holocaust Museum, have indeed taken part in the creation of something very, very rare. Today, on this holy day of Yom Hashoah, as we remember the victims of the Holocaust, the Congress and the people of the United States thank them.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be yielded and that we proceed to the regular order.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I look forward to the opportunity that we now have today and tomorrow to debate one of the most important issues facing our country. I applaud all of those involved, Senator Coverdell, and others on our side, who have dedicated themselves to finding solutions. I must say that while we offer solutions and while we mutually recognize the importance of the issue, I do not really know of an issue that probably divides us more philosophically at this point than does education. Our Republican colleagues, in large measure, believe there is not a role at the Federal level for educational priorities, that it really is an issue that ought to be left to the local level, to public school districts, and to others. Democrats, on the other hand, believe that there ought to be a role for every level of government, that the people of the United States have an interest and a need to ensure that our educational priorities and our educational challenges are met with every tool available to us in order to be able to compete effectively in the information age. So that difference in philosophical approach brings us to the point where we are today, with two very different proposals on how we might best address education. One provides what I would describe as a minimal tax reduction--$7 per tax return if your children are in public school and about $37 if your children are in private school--to the parents of children attending school today, a $1.6 billion plan that does not go very far when you simply spread it out over the many, many families in America who have children in public and private elementary and secondary school today. The other is our approach which allows a more targeted investment in some of the very specific needs that we have in education today. I do not think there is much difference of opinion with regard to the recognition that a strong public education system is key to America's future. I would even argue that most of our Republican colleagues would share that view even though they are more likely to be more supportive, it appears, of private educational approaches than public. Economic prosperity, our position as a world leader, our very democracy all depend on providing educational opportunity to children. We know that. We also know that in a new global information economy, knowledge and work force skills have become an extremely important factor in economic growth. So at the dawn of the global information economy, it is appropriate to give opportunities to communities facing conflicting pressures from rising enrollments and aging infrastructure and demands by taxpayers for State and local relief. It is appropriate to find ways in which to provide communities with new tools to manage these conflicting pressures. We recognize that managing these pressures better would be good for society, good for the economy, and good for national security. We have heard a lot about what is wrong with public education. For example, our 12th graders are behind the rest of the world in math and science. We all agree that is unacceptable. But there are some signs of progress. Our fourth graders are well above the average in mathematics and near the top in science. Innovative programs are being implemented around the country today. Chicago has implemented a broad, districtwide reform program that ends social promotions, that raises standards, and that provides extra help through weekend and summer school programs. Parents and other individuals and communities all over the country are more involved in many aspects of schools than they have ever been before. So there are some good signs. Schools in low-income neighborhoods in New York and other places are implementing programs like Success for All and are getting some dramatic results. The bottom line is that, with all of the effort underway at the local level, do we abandon our public schools? Do we abandon the partnership that the people of the United States have had in ensuring, from a national perspective, that our public schools have the opportunities to meet the challenges of the information age? Do we all agree that it should be a fundamental right that all children have the opportunity to develop their God-given talents, that our country's future depends on it? I hope we can. We all know the reality. The reality is that student enrollment is at a record level and expected to grow dramatically over the next decade. The second reality is that the teacher core is aging; we may not be able to keep up in recruiting what needs there will be in every classroom in the country--a qualified teacher--to keep student-teacher ratios somewhere close to where they are today. The reality is that schools will need to hire more than 2 million new teachers over the next decade. The reality is that school buildings are aging. The reality is that the General Accounting Office has now reported to the U.S. Senate and to the American people that there is a $112 billion backlog in construction funding needed to address deteriorating buildings--$112 billion. And this does not include funds to provide additional classrooms for enrollment growth, reduce class sizes, or put more technology in classrooms. This just says, given where we are right now, given the current enrollment--let us not talk about increases in enrollment, let us not talk about what it is going to take to put technology in classes--given current enrollment, we have a $112 billion backlog in construction. We talk about infrastructure backlogs. We talk about the deficits we have--our trade deficit, our infrastructure deficit in highways and bridges and roads, the deficit that we have had for so long with regard to our budget--now fortunately resolved, at least for now--but could there be a more important deficit for which this country needs to be concerned than the deficit we have in our schools and in the educational system that directly affects the quality of education our students get? Addressing these problems demands a cooperative and concerted effort at every level of government. I have too many communities in rural South Dakota that recognize everything I have said. But they say to me directly, ``We simply can't acquire the resources necessary to meet the challenges that we know are out there. And, frankly, we don't know what we're going to do.'' They tell us that this is a national concern and ought to be addressed as a national issue. If it is addressed as a national issue, the people of the United States have to be concerted in their effort to find ways to deal with these problems more effectively. The American people want action. You name the poll, conservative or liberal--the polls will tell us that education is one of the highest priorities in our country today. Only 1 percent of the Federal budget is spent on primary and secondary education, and that includes special education--1 percent. So, Madam President, it isn't that we are breaking the budget with what we spend. It isn't that we simply have taken money away from other things to put in education. When you have a $112 billion deficit on just infrastructure for education, and are only spending 1 percent of the budget, the question is, what should we do? What opportunities can be afforded to address this in a more balanced and more prudent way? As we contended with that question over some period of time and with virtual unanimity, Democratic Senators have introduced S. 1708, the bill we call the RESULTS Act, to show what we think should be done to improve public education. Our bill does a number of things, and I want to outline them very briefly. First, it reduces the class size in the early grades and helps communities hire 100,000 qualified teachers. We have already seen what hiring more cops does in neighborhoods. I was just in South Dakota for virtually 2 weeks, and I was amazed at the reports that I am getting, at the tremendous effect community police have had. We have added new community police to the work force in so many communities in my State. If it is so good for preventing crime and dealing with crime in neighborhoods, what could be better than to say we have also got to do it in education? We have to find a way to ensure that this dramatic shortage we are going to have with teachers all over the country can be addressed in an effective way. Let's hire 100,000 qualified teachers over the next couple of years. Once we have hired those teachers, the second thing we do is to say let's build and modernize 5,000 public schools. We have a series of charts, that I will get to in a minute, that help us address these things. But let's modernize some schools, 5,000 of them; set that as our goal. Let's provide after-school care for half a million children. Let's provide more computers for classrooms across the country and training for teachers who were just hired. Let's establish an educational opportunity grant program for high poverty urban and rural areas that are serious about bringing about real reform. I was never so pleased as when I saw this morning in the Washington Post where a school in Fairfax County has decided to use the multimillion-dollar investment they have, 12 months a year, to improve education in ways they are not doing today. The article went on to say that there are about 2,700 schools around the country that are doing the same thing. I say it is about time. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues have chosen not to address those issues. They don't deal with these problems. The Republican budget resolution states explicitly that no funding for any of the President's education initiatives shall be authorized--that s explicitly in the budget. It provides $2 billion less than what the President has proposed for education and training in next year's budget. It actually denies help to reduce class sizes and hire the 100,000 teachers I mentioned a moment ago. It actually denies help to communities to build or modernize public schools. It denies additional after-school care to help children learn more and reduce juvenile crime. It denies the incentive to help high poverty communities adopt serious comprehensive reform. Instead, unfortunately, my colleagues continue to insist that vouchers to private schools and block grant proposals that absolutely remove any opportunity for the entire country to be engaged in a national investment in education be provided. In short, they do virtually nothing, to improve public education today. I reiterate, you can make the case that all this ought to be done at the local level. You can make the case that somehow Rochford and Ipswich and Rosholt and Warner and Buffalo and Faith and Wall, SD, don't need any help from the people of the United States as they try to figure out ways in which to address the incredible array of problems that they have. But we are not willing to admit that. We believe strongly that we have to have a comprehensive agenda in education. We have to address this terrible problem we have in infrastructure. We have to recognize that this teacher shortage is real. We have to find ways with which to acknowledge the information age and access better technical innovation. We can do that. We can pass the RESULTS Act. I hope we will do that. Of all the things I hope we can talk about in some detail, I want to focus on one of those today, with the hope that maybe we can come back and address some of the others at another time. I want to talk briefly about this matter of infrastructure, because I do believe that when it comes to the array of priorities we have, perhaps the biggest concern I have right now, as we look at the challenges we face, is infrastructure. We are proposing in our legislation--and we will offer an amendment tomorrow--to provide interest-free school modernization bonds to improve public education across the country. It is a new, cost- effective financing option for communities. And I emphasize ``option.'' There are no mandates. Schools don't have to use this. But as they contemplate whether or not they can afford a new school, a new facility, modernization, they will now have the knowledge, if this legislation passes, that we will assist them, we will reduce their tax load, we will reduce the amount of exposure they have as they make their commitments. We will do that with them. So this is really a tax reduction effort of a different kind. The way we do it is pretty simple. We simply say, if you make a commitment to new infrastructure, we are going to help you make it more cost effective. We will make it more cost efficient, more palatable from a cost point of view, by paying the interest. You pay the principal; we will pay the interest. The interest is sometimes up to half of the overall cost. The overall bonding authority is about $22 billion. To take a typical scenario where you have conventional bond financing, a $15 million project would require an additional $7.5 million of interest. In this typical project, we would be paying $7.5 million, or about one-third, as a national commitment and the local communities would pay $15 million. So the interest-free school modernization effort would have a profound effect on a local decision. Now, as most people know, local decisions involving bond issues sometimes require a 60 percent vote, and in many cases even a 67 percent vote, or two-thirds, is required. I can't tell you how many times bond issues in South Dakota have failed on the basis of 1 percent or 2 percent. An overwhelming majority have passed them, but they have fallen short of the 60 or 67 percent required in order to meet the local legal requirements. I am convinced this would put us over the top in many of those cases. Why do we even worry about it? Why should we be concerned about whether the bond issues go over the top? This chart lays it out fairly well: 74 percent of the Nation's public schools today are more than 25 years old; nearly a third are more than 50 years old. We have modern businesses, modern Senate office buildings, and we have schools in which our children are expected to learn that are today more than 50 years old. Now, they don't have the resources we have in the U.S. Capitol, a building that is 200 years old. If they did, I would not be concerned. It isn't the age of the buildings, if they are well built, but what kind of buildings are they? Well, this second line answers that question: Fourteen million kids today are in schools needing major renovation or replacement--14 million; 12 million children are in schools with leaking roofs and/or ineffective or defective plumbing; 10 million kids are in schools with inadequate lighting; 7 million kids are in schools with safety code violations, such as the presence of asbestos, lead paint, and an array of other environmental problems. We want our kids to learn and we say that education is a priority. We say we are willing to make the investment. We say that there can't be anything more important than our children. But then we tell our children that we want you to learn in a building that is out of date, that needs renovation, that may have toxic chemicals in the classroom, that has poor lighting and, God forbid, poor plumbing. But we want you to learn because you are important to us. The real problem is that, in the future, this is going to be exacerbated dramatically. Public school enrollment will increase by 13 percent in the next 10 years. And 6,000 new schools are going to need to be built at an estimated cost of $73 billion just to maintain current class size, just to say that if we are going to keep the 25-to- 1 student-teacher ratio, we have to build 6,000 new schools. The question comes, if we need a 60 or 67 percent vote at a local level and we say it is all your responsibility, we don't care whether you have the resources or not, this just isn't going to happen, Madam President. Forty-five percent of the school districts are already using 3,621 trailers and makeshift classrooms. If you have not been in one of those classrooms when it is 85 degrees outside, I invite you to participate. It is as dramatic a lesson in the extraordinary problems our teachers and students are facing as they try to learn as anything I have seen. The enrollment here is pretty clear. All of the blue we see on this map shows where we see dramatic increases in enrollment. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that in every one of those States we have some very serious educational infrastructure problems that we have to address. Madam President, it really comes down to this. State and local taxes as a share of income have already risen 10 percent in the past two decades. The estimated $112 billion backlog and the $73 billion cost of new schools will place an increasing burden on State and local taxpayers, even though these taxes have gone up. By dramatically cutting the cost of school repairs and construction to communities, interest-free bonds will provide badly needed property and sales tax relief to working families. This isn't just an education proposal, this is a tax relief proposal. If you think property taxes are too high, if you think local taxes are too high, then you are going to want to support this amendment because this is a way to reduce local property taxes, local taxes to fund the educational demands that we are going to have in virtually every State in the country. The State courts are already mandating new infrastructure. They are requiring that we remedy the financing inequities. Courts in 11 States have ruled that the school financing systems are unconstitutional. In nearly every case, States have complied by raising property or sales taxes to finance school improvements. What does that tell you if the courts are already mandating what we are trying to do voluntarily? They are saying that you have to find a better way to finance schools because what you have is not working. Litigation is pending in 16 other States already. Madam President, it is pretty simple. Americans have looked at this proposal. Three-fourths of the voters in this country--75 percent-- favor Federal aid to communities for school repair and modernization. Fifty percent of the voters consider overcrowded schools a major problem. Almost 80 percent believe public school renovation and modernization is a higher Federal priority than highway construction. I supported the highway bill, and I continue to do so. I think it was a good piece of legislation. But if we are going to make a commitment to highway infrastructure and transportation infrastructure in this country, where is the same enthusiasm for ensuring that we have the educational infrastructure? Madam President, 73 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of independents strongly support a Federal commitment, a commitment by the people of the United States, to education and infrastructure modernization. We will have an opportunity to have more debate and further discussion and consideration of these Democratic proposals. I do hope that, as these votes are presented to our body tomorrow, we will see the wisdom of making these investments, and that we will put our money where our mouth is when we make the commitment and tell our children that we are going to help you be educated, that you are our highest priority, that you truly deserve to have the kind of opportunities to learn in an environment that is conducive to learning. That is what this is about. I just hope our colleagues will weigh it carefully and support these Democratic amendments as they are offered during this debate. I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and I be permitted to speak on the bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from North Dakota will yield for just a moment, I would like to be added as a cosponsor. I commend both Senators from North Dakota for the resolution and will certainly want to work with them to see that it will be adopted unanimously. As he has noted, the Grand Forks journalistic community stood proud. Grand Forks, I think, perhaps more than anybody else, felt the full force of the natural disasters last year. For this paper to be so recognized, for it to have the opportunity to receive international recognition as a result of their effort is certainly appropriate and ought to be applauded. While many other newspapers did not win the Pulitzer Prize, I think it goes without saying that there are other newspaper efforts that were made last year that also deserve recognition for the tremendous work they did under very, very difficult circumstances. Again, I commend the Senator from North Dakota for his effort. I hope we adopt the resolution. I certainly congratulate the newspaper. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, last week an American giant announced his plans to retire. Obviously, that description has more than one connotation. Bob Crandall is a giant in his industry and a remarkable pioneer. Few, if any, leaders in aviation can match his impressive record of achievement. The American airlines he joined is vastly different than the one he will soon leave. In a time of great economic turbulence in aviation industry, Mr. Crandall navigated his company and the industry itself to new heights and vastly new horizons. As a result, we are all beneficiaries. We know this man as an innovator. A person who understood that competition was not only good, it was essential. As a frequent flyer, I and millions of other Americans have benefited from the program he conceived to bring down costs and encourage loyal customers. We know him, too, as a financial manager of incomparable depth. American has been a consistent leader in profits and fiscal management. His stockholders have benefited from an array of innovations including code-sharing and the hub and spoke system in routing that has now been adopted by virtually every airline in the business. My wife, Linda, and I have known Bob for some time now. We have no doubt that this man of many interests and so much energy is far from retiring. There will be new challenges and most likely, more pioneering. Whatever future he may now be planning, we wish him well. We congratulate and thank him for what he has been and how much he has done. Bob Crandall is an American original. I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the New York Times of April 16th regarding Mr. Crandall's retirement be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, how am I recorded?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to also congratulate the distinguished chair and ranking member for the great job they did and commend everyone for their cooperation. We were able to finish tonight almost on time, in large measure because of the cooperation. I appreciate that. We come to a different conclusion about the final result, but there is no doubt about the cooperation and effort and leadership demonstrated by the chair and the ranking member.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate will soon voice its opinion on the FY1999 Budget Resolution. The debate on this year's resolution offered the American people an excellent opportunity to observe each party's fiscal priorities. A budget resolution is essentially a fiscal roadmap to the future. Within the confines of scarce resources, a budget resolution forces real choices upon the Democratic and Republican parties. Earlier in the debate, Senate Democrats offered their vision for America's future. Our plan put Social Security first, lived within the spending ceilings established in last year's budget agreement, and contained key domestic investments and targeted tax cuts for working families. Our budget did all of these things plus one more. According to the non- partisan Congressional Budget Office, it maintained balance in 1999 and produced a unified budget surplus for as long as CBO is willing to project. Before taking a look forward and describing our budget priorities for the future, I would like to take a brief look back. Just over 5 years ago when President Clinton took office, the budget deficit stood at a whopping $290 billion--the highest level in this nation's history. What's worse, the deficit was projected to grow to over $500 billion by the end of the decade if nothing was done to attack this insidious problem. Fortunately, the President and the Democratic Congress, without the assistance of a single Republican vote, took action. Together we passed legislation in 1993 that began to both stem the flow of red ink and target investments and tax cuts toward working Americans and their families. Our political opponents harshly criticized our approach. Although I will not name the names of those who went on record predicting failure for our economic policies, it is not an exaggeration to say that many were predicting a disaster of near biblical proportions. It can also be said that many who publicly predicted economic ruin in 1993 are still here today, and many who bravely cast their vote for this package in the face of this cascade of criticism are not. And today the results are clear to all. The economic plan Democrats passed 5 years ago produced the largest amount of deficit reduction in our history. The 1993 plan put us in position for what we accomplished this year--the first unified balanced budget in 30 years. Our plan also provided the foundation for what most economists are calling the strongest economy in a generation. About 15 million new jobs have been created since its enactment. The unemployment rate is 4.6 percent--a 25-year low. The core inflation rate is 2.2 percent--the lowest level since 1965. And real average hourly earnings have increased by 2.3 percent in 1997 alone--the fastest annual growth rate since 1976. These positive indicators moved Goldman Sachs, a distinguished Wall Street investment firm, to conclude in their March 1998 report on the U.S. economy: ``the current U.S. economic environment is the best ever-- steady growth without inflation. As the expansion turns seven years old this month, there is still no recession in sight . . . On the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation.'' The Democratic record on deficit reduction and economic growth is clear. Our prescriptions for both have produced unprecedented success. And today we come before the Senate with our plan for the future. This plan builds on our past success and is based on four key principles. First, we will keep the unified budget in balance in 1999 and as far into the future as the Congressional Budget Office is willing to project. Second, our plan generates unified budget surpluses of $143 billion over the period 1999 to 2003 and sets the full amount aside to shore up Social Security. Third, the Democratic plan gets the CBO seal of approval. According to CBO, it complies fully with the spending caps established in last year's budget agreement. Fourth, in stark contrast to the Republican budget we have been considering on the Senate floor this week, our plan provides funding for key domestic investments and targeted tax relief for working families and businesses. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans defeated this proposal earlier this evening. I would like to take a moment now to discuss briefly the Republican fiscal prescription and how it differs from the plan we offered earlier. These differences are most visible and most important in the area of education. The Democratic budget proposes providing funds to help local school districts hire an additional 100,000 well- prepared teachers. This initiative would reduce class size in grades 1 through 3 from an average of 22 to 18. The Republican budget rejects this proposal. The Democratic budget proposes federal tax credits for local school districts that build and renovate public schools. The Republican budget does not even mention school construction. The Democratic budget proposes increasing discretionary funding for key education and training programs, including a $2.2 billion increase in 1999 alone. This funding increase supports the High Hopes initiative, after-school learning programs, and educational opportunity zones. The Republican budget freezes spending on most important education programs. As a result, about 450,000 kids will be denied access to safe after-school learning centers. About 30,000 kids will be denied access to Head Start. And about 6,500 middle schools will not have drug and violence prevention coordinators. The story is similar on child care and basic research. Within the overall context of a balanced budget, Democrats are proposing important initiatives in each of these areas. And the Republicans? Well, they just say no. No to education. No to child care. And no to basic research. The final, but important, difference between the Democratic and Republican budgets is each side's approach to ending tobacco's hideous hold on young people in this country. The Democratic budget contains a comprehensive proposal to end Joe Camel's reign over America's teenagers. Our budget fully funds anti-youth smoking initiatives, tobacco-related medical research, smoking cessation programs, and public service advertising to counter the tobacco's targeting of our kids. The Republican budget does none of these. It would be bad enough if the Republican budget stopped there. Unfortunately for this generation of teenagers and those that follow, it does not. The Republican budget goes even farther. It establishes a supermajority requirement for any future legislation that attempts to tackle teen smoking in a comprehensive manner. If this Republican budget as currently constructed is adopted, a minority of this body will be able to dictate whether and how the Congress should reduce the power of tobacco companies and weaken the industry's hold on our kids. In other words, the Republican budget stacks the deck against meaningful tobacco reform. In closing, Mr. President, the Democratic approach to tackling this nation's fiscal and economic problems has delivered results unmatched in recent history. Record deficit reduction and economic growth. Our budget plan for the future would continue this progress. It would maintain fiscal discipline while investing in key domestic initiatives such as education, child care and basic research. And the Democratic budget is the only plan that allows Congress to construct a comprehensive approach to reducing teen smoking and provides the resources to do so. At the same time, the Republican budget before us rejects many of these principles. Therefore Mr. President, it is for all of these reasons that I ask my colleagues to just say no to this Republican budget. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I also want to acknowledge the efforts made by the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, in resolving this minor problem. I appreciate very much his efforts to do what he did. I will say, however, that we have been working in good faith on both sides to try to move this along. Regular order is called, but also Senators deserve the right to be recognized when they seek recognition for purposes of clarification of their vote, so there is a need to be sensitive on both sides in a request of the Chair. I know that the Chair was accommodating or attempting to accommodate Senators. I also join with the majority leader in asking the five remaining authors to work with us to see if we might reduce the number of rollcalls necessary. We are very close now, and I thank my colleagues on this side for cooperating thus far. Let's see if we can get it down to a couple, fewer than what we have right now. We can finish this within the hour, and I hope we can receive just a little more cooperation to make that happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to compensate the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe for losses the tribe suffered when the Oahe dam was constructed in central South Dakota and over 100,000 acres of tribal land was flooded. Its passage will help the tribe rebuild their infrastructure and their economy, which was seriously crippled by the Oahe project during the 1950s. It is extraordinary that it has taken four decades to reach this point. The importance of passing this long-overdue legislation as soon as possible cannot be stated too strongly. This legislation was developed with the assistance of Chairman Gregg Bourland and Council Member Louis Dubray of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. Both men have worked tirelessly to bring us to this point and I am grateful for their assistance. This legislation represents one element of their progressive vision for providing the members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe with greater opportunities for economic development and to fulfill the debts owed to the tribe by the federal government. The Cheyenne River Sioux Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act is the companion bill to the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act, which passed by unanimous consent in November of 1997, and the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act of 1996, which passed the Congress unanimously in 1996. The bill is based on an extensive analysis of the impact of the Pick- Sloan Dam Projects on the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, which was performed by the Robert McLaughlin Company. The McLaughlin report was reviewed by the General Accounting Office, which found that the losses suffered by the tribe justify the establishment of a $290 million trust fund, which is the amount called for in this legislation. It represents an important step in our continuing effort to fairly compensate the tribes of South Dakota for the sacrifices they made decades ago for the construction of the dams along the Missouri River and will further the goal of improving the lives of Native Americans living on those reservations. To fully appreciate the need for this legislation, it is important for the committee to understand the historic events that are prologue to its development. The Oahe dam was constructed in South Dakota pursuant to the Flood Control Act (58 Stat. 887) of 1944. That legislation authorized implementation of the Missouri River Basin Pick- Sloan Plan for water development and flood control for downstream states. The Oahe dam flooded 104,000 acres of tribal land, forcing the relocation of roughly 30 percent of the tribe's population, including four entire communities. Equally as important, the tribe lost 80 percent of its fertile river bottom lands--lands that represented the basis for the tribal economy. Prior to the flooding, the tribe relied on these lands for firewood and building material, game, wild fruits and berries, as well as cover from the severe storms that characterize winters in South Dakota and shelter from the heat of the prairie summer. Indian ranchers no longer had places to shelter their cattle in the wintertime, causing a significant loss in the value of their operations. The loss of these important river bottom lands can be felt today. Last year, during the extreme winter of 1996-1997, the tribe lost roughly 30,000 head of livestock, including 25,000 head of cattle. Without adequate natural shelter, the remaining Indian ranchers along this stretch of river can expect to continue to have difficulty scratching out a living in future years when the winter turns particularly hard. Mr. President, the damage caused by the Pick-Sloan projects touched every aspect of life on the Cheyenne River reservation. Ninety percent of the timber on the reservation was wiped out, causing shortages of building material and firewood. Wildlife, once abundant in the river bottom, became more scarce. The entire lifestyle of the tribe changed as it was forced to relocate much of its people from the lush river bottom lands to the windswept prairie. Most Americans, if not all, are familiar with the many broken promises of the United States Government to Native Americans during the 1800's. For Indian tribes located along the Missouri River in the State of South Dakota, the United States Government still has not met its responsibilities for compensation for losses suffered as a result of the construction of the Pick-Sloan dams. This proposed legislation is intended to correct that situation as it applies to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. We cannot, of course, remake the lost lands and return the tribe to its former existence. We can, however, help provide the resources necessary to the tribe to improve the infrastructure on the Cheyenne River reservation. This, in turn, will enhance opportunities for economic development which will benefit all members of the tribe. Perhaps most importantly, it will fulfill part of our commitment to improve the lives of Native Americans--in this case the Cheyenne River Sioux. I strongly urge my colleagues to approve this legislation this year. Providing compensation to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe for past harm inflicted by the federal government is long-overdue and any further delay only compounds that harm. I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide a refundable tax credit to farmers for the restoration and conservation of wetlands. We have learned over the years the extraordinary value that wetlands can provide as habitat for plants and waterfowl, as a filter for water and as a buffer against flooding. At the same time, anyone who has ever owned a farm in South Dakota with what we call prairie potholes can appreciate the frustration wetlands can generate, making it logistically difficult to till the field efficiently and, of course, impossible to grow crops on lands that are flooded. To add insult to injury, farmers often need to pay property taxes on these wetlands, even though they provide no financial return. As a nation, we have recognized the dilemma this presents and have taken steps in the past to provide farmers with a means of obtaining some value for their efforts to protect wetlands. For years the Department of Agriculture has allowed farmers to enroll wetlands into the Wetland Reserve Program, while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has worked with conservation groups to provide farmers with long-term easement options. Recently, Congress enacted legislation I sponsored to allow farmers to enroll wetlands in the Conservation Reserve Program. Unfortunately, due to the funding caps, many farmers cannot enroll their wetlands into the CRP while others are reluctant to use the WRP or U.S. Fish and Wildlife easements. Consequently, despite these efforts, many wetlands throughout this country continue to present farmers with a challenge: ensuring their protection without any compensation. In addition, over the last century, many wetlands have been drained, filled or otherwise degraded. These areas represent a vast reservoir of potentially important wetlands that could provide useful environmental functions if fully restored. The time has come for Congress to establish a more comprehensive set of incentives to both restore degraded wetlands and ensure their long-term protection. Under the legislation I am introducing today, owners of wetlands, farmed wetlands and prior-converted croplands that are surrounded by or immediately adjacent to actively farmed cropland in the same ownership are eligible for a tax credit. To take advantage of this credit, farmers must restore to fully functioning condition their farmed wetlands or prior converted croplands condition according to a restoration plan approved by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. A tax credit equal to the restoration costs will be available under this bill. To protect the water quality of wildlife values, a maximum of three associated acres of non-wetland may be eligible for the credit for every acre of wetland. To ensure that the federal government does not pay twice to protect the same wetlands, those enrolled in CRP or WRP are not eligible for this credit. The bill provides a tax credit equal to 50% to 70% of the soil- specific Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) rental rate for eligible wetland and associated non-wetland acres, plus any certification fee. This may be taken in each year of the conservation agreement in which the eligible land is not used for agricultural production or drained, dredged, filled, leveled, or otherwise manipulated for that purpose. A farmer who enters into an agreement to conserve the eligible wetland and associated non-wetland acres for a period of not less than 10 years will receive 50% of the annual CRP rental rate; a farmer who agrees to conserve the wetland for not less than 20 years will receive 60% of the annual CRP rental rate; and a farmer who agrees to conserve the wetland for 30 years will receive 70% of the annual CRP rental rate. Certification of compliance with the agreement must be made at least every 5 years. As a long-term alternative to the conservation credit, farmers may opt for an easement credit, which would be equal to the fair market value of the land in agricultural use, as determined by a certified appraisal. This would be based on the charitable donation by the landowner of a deed restriction, granted in perpetuity on the use which may be made of the eligible land to a qualified conservation organization, exclusively for conservation purposes. The full credit may be taken in the year in which the deed restriction is recorded. Mr. President, Americans increasingly are becoming aware of the tremendous environmental benefits that wetlands provide. From critical waterfowl habitat to reducing the severity of flooding, wetlands are a critical component of our landscape. What may not be as widely appreciated is the nature of the farmer's role in protecting this resource. The time has come for us to both acknowledge the contributions made by farmers to the conservation of wetlands and provide them with appropriate incentive to preserve them. Farmers should not be penalized for doing the right thing. This legislation will take a giant step toward making available fair and reasonable compensation for their efforts in this regard. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. It represents an idea that is popular with conservation organizations as well as producers, and I am hopeful that Congress will enact it in the very near future. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide a refundable tax credit to farmers for the restoration and conservation of wetlands. We have learned over the years the extraordinary value that wetlands can provide as habitat for plants and waterfowl, as a filter for water and as a buffer against flooding. At the same time, anyone who has ever owned a farm in South Dakota with what we call prairie potholes can appreciate the frustration wetlands can generate, making it logistically difficult to till the field efficiently and, of course, impossible to grow crops on lands that are flooded. To add insult to injury, farmers often need to pay property taxes on these wetlands, even though they provide no financial return. As a nation, we have recognized the dilemma this presents and have taken steps in the past to provide farmers with a means of obtaining some value for their efforts to protect wetlands. For years the Department of Agriculture has allowed farmers to enroll wetlands into the Wetland Reserve Program, while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has worked with conservation groups to provide farmers with long-term easement options. Recently, Congress enacted legislation I sponsored to allow farmers to enroll wetlands in the Conservation Reserve Program. Unfortunately, due to the funding caps, many farmers cannot enroll their wetlands into the CRP while others are reluctant to use the WRP or U.S. Fish and Wildlife easements. Consequently, despite these efforts, many wetlands throughout this country continue to present farmers with a challenge: ensuring their protection without any compensation. In addition, over the last century, many wetlands have been drained, filled or otherwise degraded. These areas represent a vast reservoir of potentially important wetlands that could provide useful environmental functions if fully restored. The time has come for Congress to establish a more comprehensive set of incentives to both restore degraded wetlands and ensure their long-term protection. Under the legislation I am introducing today, owners of wetlands, farmed wetlands and prior-converted croplands that are surrounded by or immediately adjacent to actively farmed cropland in the same ownership are eligible for a tax credit. To take advantage of this credit, farmers must restore to fully functioning condition their farmed wetlands or prior converted croplands condition according to a restoration plan approved by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. A tax credit equal to the restoration costs will be available under this bill. To protect the water quality of wildlife values, a maximum of three associated acres of non-wetland may be eligible for the credit for every acre of wetland. To ensure that the federal government does not pay twice to protect the same wetlands, those enrolled in CRP or WRP are not eligible for this credit. The bill provides a tax credit equal to 50% to 70% of the soil- specific Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) rental rate for eligible wetland and associated non-wetland acres, plus any certification fee. This may be taken in each year of the conservation agreement in which the eligible land is not used for agricultural production or drained, dredged, filled, leveled, or otherwise manipulated for that purpose. A farmer who enters into an agreement to conserve the eligible wetland and associated non-wetland acres for a period of not less than 10 years will receive 50% of the annual CRP rental rate; a farmer who agrees to conserve the wetland for not less than 20 years will receive 60% of the annual CRP rental rate; and a farmer who agrees to conserve the wetland for 30 years will receive 70% of the annual CRP rental rate. Certification of compliance with the agreement must be made at least every 5 years. As a long-term alternative to the conservation credit, farmers may opt for an easement credit, which would be equal to the fair market value of the land in agricultural use, as determined by a certified appraisal. This would be based on the charitable donation by the landowner of a deed restriction, granted in perpetuity on the use which may be made of the eligible land to a qualified conservation organization, exclusively for conservation purposes. The full credit may be taken in the year in which the deed restriction is recorded. Mr. President, Americans increasingly are becoming aware of the tremendous environmental benefits that wetlands provide. From critical waterfowl habitat to reducing the severity of flooding, wetlands are a critical component of our landscape. What may not be as widely appreciated is the nature of the farmer's role in protecting this resource. The time has come for us to both acknowledge the contributions made by farmers to the conservation of wetlands and provide them with appropriate incentive to preserve them. Farmers should not be penalized for doing the right thing. This legislation will take a giant step toward making available fair and reasonable compensation for their efforts in this regard. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. It represents an idea that is popular with conservation organizations as well as producers, and I am hopeful that Congress will enact it in the very near future. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to compensate the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe for losses the tribe suffered when the Oahe dam was constructed in central South Dakota and over 100,000 acres of tribal land was flooded. Its passage will help the tribe rebuild their infrastructure and their economy, which was seriously crippled by the Oahe project during the 1950s. It is extraordinary that it has taken four decades to reach this point. The importance of passing this long-overdue legislation as soon as possible cannot be stated too strongly. This legislation was developed with the assistance of Chairman Gregg Bourland and Council Member Louis Dubray of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. Both men have worked tirelessly to bring us to this point and I am grateful for their assistance. This legislation represents one element of their progressive vision for providing the members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe with greater opportunities for economic development and to fulfill the debts owed to the tribe by the federal government. The Cheyenne River Sioux Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act is the companion bill to the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act, which passed by unanimous consent in November of 1997, and the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act of 1996, which passed the Congress unanimously in 1996. The bill is based on an extensive analysis of the impact of the Pick- Sloan Dam Projects on the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, which was performed by the Robert McLaughlin Company. The McLaughlin report was reviewed by the General Accounting Office, which found that the losses suffered by the tribe justify the establishment of a $290 million trust fund, which is the amount called for in this legislation. It represents an important step in our continuing effort to fairly compensate the tribes of South Dakota for the sacrifices they made decades ago for the construction of the dams along the Missouri River and will further the goal of improving the lives of Native Americans living on those reservations. To fully appreciate the need for this legislation, it is important for the committee to understand the historic events that are prologue to its development. The Oahe dam was constructed in South Dakota pursuant to the Flood Control Act (58 Stat. 887) of 1944. That legislation authorized implementation of the Missouri River Basin Pick- Sloan Plan for water development and flood control for downstream states. The Oahe dam flooded 104,000 acres of tribal land, forcing the relocation of roughly 30 percent of the tribe's population, including four entire communities. Equally as important, the tribe lost 80 percent of its fertile river bottom lands--lands that represented the basis for the tribal economy. Prior to the flooding, the tribe relied on these lands for firewood and building material, game, wild fruits and berries, as well as cover from the severe storms that characterize winters in South Dakota and shelter from the heat of the prairie summer. Indian ranchers no longer had places to shelter their cattle in the wintertime, causing a significant loss in the value of their operations. The loss of these important river bottom lands can be felt today. Last year, during the extreme winter of 1996-1997, the tribe lost roughly 30,000 head of livestock, including 25,000 head of cattle. Without adequate natural shelter, the remaining Indian ranchers along this stretch of river can expect to continue to have difficulty scratching out a living in future years when the winter turns particularly hard. Mr. President, the damage caused by the Pick-Sloan projects touched every aspect of life on the Cheyenne River reservation. Ninety percent of the timber on the reservation was wiped out, causing shortages of building material and firewood. Wildlife, once abundant in the river bottom, became more scarce. The entire lifestyle of the tribe changed as it was forced to relocate much of its people from the lush river bottom lands to the windswept prairie. Most Americans, if not all, are familiar with the many broken promises of the United States Government to Native Americans during the 1800's. For Indian tribes located along the Missouri River in the State of South Dakota, the United States Government still has not met its responsibilities for compensation for losses suffered as a result of the construction of the Pick-Sloan dams. This proposed legislation is intended to correct that situation as it applies to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. We cannot, of course, remake the lost lands and return the tribe to its former existence. We can, however, help provide the resources necessary to the tribe to improve the infrastructure on the Cheyenne River reservation. This, in turn, will enhance opportunities for economic development which will benefit all members of the tribe. Perhaps most importantly, it will fulfill part of our commitment to improve the lives of Native Americans--in this case the Cheyenne River Sioux. I strongly urge my colleagues to approve this legislation this year. Providing compensation to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe for past harm inflicted by the federal government is long-overdue and any further delay only compounds that harm. I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the bill be printed in the Record.