Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we all believe that America is the land of opportunity. But the road to opportunity is not always an equal access road. The highway construction industry in particular has kept newcomers, like women and minority-business owners, in the slow lane. There's no reason equal opportunity should be sacrificed when it comes to road building That's why I support the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, or DBE, program and oppose the McConnell amendment. The DBE program was signed into law by President Reagan and reaffirmed by President Bush; it has always enjoyed bipartisan support. Designed to enhance opportunity for all, and not limit it for any--it's a true equal opportunity program. Contrary to arguments made by opponents of the DBE program, the Supreme Court in the Adarand case did not find the DBE program unconstitutional. The Court held only that strict scrutiny should apply to federal affirmative action programs as it does to those implemented by the states. Strict scrutiny requires that there be a compelling government interest in addressing discrimination and that the means chosen to address the discrimination be ``narrowly tailored.'' The DBE program meets both tests. There is clearly a compelling interest in addressing the pervasive discrimination that has characterized the highway construction industry. According to the Supreme Court, ``[t]he unhappy persistence of both the practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups is an unfortunate reality, and the government is not disqualified from acting in response to it.'' The DBE program is also narrowly tailored, meeting the second prong of the Adarand test. The DBE program does not include quotas or set asides--it is a ``goals'' program. The individual States set their own goals that can be above or below the national goal of 10 percent. The DBE program does not set rigid numerical targets that must be met to avoid a penalty nor does it set aside contracts or dollars for certain businesses. Demonstrating conclusively that it is not a quota, the DBE program has no sanctions for failure to meet a goal. Working to make the program even stronger, the Department of Transportation is issuing new regulations that ensure that it is as narrowly tailored as possible. For example, the new regulations provide that the program must give priority to race-neutral measures to reach out to women and minority-owned businesses; must ensure that good faith efforts are enough, even if the bidder has not achieved the goal; must ensure that the goal-setting is based on number of qualified DBEs in the state; and tighten up the certification process so that only qualified DBEs are in the program. The DBE program is not only constitutional, but also is effective and necessary. The program creates jobs--the Department of Transportation estimates that the program directly or indirectly results in more than 100,000 jobs each year. It also serves as a motor for economic development in disadvantaged communities, with more than two billion dollars in construction contracts going to small businesses under the program. Women too have benefited greatly from the program. Since women were included as DBEs, their procurement dollars have grown by approximately 175 percent. But we should not rest on our laurels. The time has not come to end the program, since women and minority-owned businesses are still greatly underrepresented in the highway construction industry. Minorities make up over twenty percent of the population, but minority businesses are only nine percent of all construction firms and those businesses get only five percent of construction receipts. Women own a third of all small businesses but receive less than three percent of federal procurement contract dollars. In my state of South Dakota, there are seven DBEs qualified as prime contractors and 75 DBE subcontractors. Their contribution to South Dakota's economy and to their own communities goes beyond just the jobs they create and the business they generate. They are inspiring a new generation of small business owners to believe that they, too, will be able to drive on the road to opportunity. That's why we need to keep this program--because we need to ensure that that road to opportunity is the wide open road that America is known for. Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. President, I rise to express my views on the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, and to explain why I have decided to vote against Senator McConnell's amendment, which would eliminate that program. This was not an easy decision for me to make. In attempting to analyze the constitutionality of the DBE program, we are dealing with a complicated area of the law, where many issues remain unsettled. But just as importantly, the outcome of this vote will affect hundreds of thousands of hard working Americans, of all races and of both sexes. I have always opposed laws that establish quotas. I am going to vote against this amendment because I am convinced that the DBE program does not create quotas. There is substantial flexibility built into the program for states to set their own goals based on local conditions. If they fail to meet their own goals, there is no federal sanction or enforcement mechanism. The Secretary of Transportation may waive the national goal of 10% for any reason, and presumably would do so if the collective efforts of the states did not add up to 10% of all ISTEA funds expended. All that convinces me that the percentage stated, while troubling is a goal not a quota. But I am still troubled by the fact that this law establishes goals based on gender and racial classifications. Any law that confers some benefit based on gender or race can cause unfair results; those who are not members of the enumerated categories, the non-beneficiaries of the program, are being denied absolutely equal treatment. We should all hesitate before enacting such a provision. Indeed, the Supreme Court's Adarand decision now requires us to engage in a careful analysis before enacting such a provision. In Adarand the Supreme Court held that Congress may only enact racial classifications that are narrowly tailored to further a compelling interest. This standard of review, known as ``strict scrutiny'', is difficult to meet, but in her opinion for the Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor emphasized that federal affirmative action programs could and would be upheld where Congress was acting in response to the practice and lingering effects of discrimination. I am voting against the McConnell amendment in spite of my reservations because I am convinced that discrimination persists in the transportation construction industry and in related industries, and because I believe that the DBE program is narrowly tailored to attack the ongoing practice of that discrimination. The program therefore is both justifiable as sound policy and in compliance with the Supreme Court's Adarand decision. We have before us ample evidence of historic and more importantly ongoing discrimination in the relevant industries, not just the transportation construction industry but also in the surrounding economic structure of lenders, suppliers, surety companies, and trade unions. Much of this evidence appears in the record before Congress; Congressional committees have received testimony describing this discrimination, and on many occasions committees of the House and the Senate have concluded that barriers still remain to equal participation by women and minorities. In May of 1996, the Department of Justice published in the Federal Register an extensive survey of evidence showing how discrimination works to preclude minorities from obtaining the experience and capital needed to form and develop a business, and how discriminatory barriers deprive existing minority firms of full and fair contracting opportunities. That report found ``powerful and persuasive [evidence] that the discriminatory barriers facing minority-owned businesses are not vague and amorphous manifestations of historical and social discrimination. Rather, they are real and concrete, and reflect ongoing patterns and practices of exclusion, as well as the tangible, lingering effects of prior discriminatory conduct.'' Discrimination by trade unions and private employers has prevented minorities from getting the requisite experience and opportunity to move on to self-employment. Dozens of studies and lawsuits cited in the report demonstrate gross disparities over the years in these sectors of the economy, often caused by proven racial discrimination. Similarly, minorities have often been shut out of lending and bonding markets: a recent study in Denver found that African-Americans were 3 times more likely to be rejected for business loans than whites, and Hispanics were 1.5 times as high. Contracting itself too often remains a ``closed network''; prime contractors maintain their long-standing relationships with their subcontractors, and the new entrant minority or women-owned firms are excluded. In my view, this evidence of discrimination is sufficient to establish the compelling interest required by the Adarand decision. But let's move beyond dry statistics for a moment and consider the people behind these numbers. Earlier I referred to the burdens that gender and racial classifications can impose on innocent parties. Our decision today is so difficult because we must compare that inequity to the harm caused to other, equally innocent people, by discriminatory business practices. The companies now benefitting from the DBE program are not inferior; we have heard no complaints about the quality of their work. Yet without the program many of them never would have received an opportunity to win contracts. I have met with these small-business owners, and they are rightfully proud of their accomplishments, and grateful for the opportunity this program gives them. Just as I am satisfied that ISTEA's DBE program serves a compelling interest, so too am I convinced that the program is narrowly tailored to further that interest, as required by the Adarand decision. My belief that the DBE program will survive court scrutiny is bolstered by the new regulations that the Department of Transportation will be finalizing in several months. From my discussions with the Transportation Secretary and my staff's discussions with Transportation Department attorneys, it appears to me that the staff at that agency have been doing an excellent job poring over court decisions as well as comments from interested parties. The new regulations will adhere very strictly to the narrowly tailored test, and the result will be a DBE program that considers gender and racial characteristics without becoming quotas. For example, states will be given a great deal more flexibility in determining how to calculate their goals, based on the availability of qualified DBEs in the relevant industries. These formulae are designed to focus on the extent to which discrimination in the contracting industry has actually reduced opportunities for DBEs, and to determine how much DBE participation there would be in the absence of discrimination. Under the rules someone who is not himself financially disadvantaged will not be able to qualify for the DBE program, regardless of how small his company is. Anyone will be able to start a proceeding to prove that an individual owning a DBE is not actually socially and economically disadvantaged. On the other hand, anyone not presumed to be socially or economically disadvantaged would be able to apply for DBE status based on special circumstances. Finally, the DBE program makes extensive use of gender and race-neutral alternatives, as well as waivers. I have listed only some of the more important regulations that have helped convince me that the DBE program will be narrowly tailored to further a compelling interest when it is implemented. Although I am satisfied that the DBE program can survive the courts' scrutiny, I still recognize that innocent people may be burdened by the program's effect on their livelihoods. Our obligation, and the obligation of the Executive Branch, is to minimize these unfair results in the design and implementation of the DBE program, and to strive for a day when we will not feel the need to incorporate even gender or racial goals into our laws at all.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing on behalf of my colleagues, Senators Murray, Moseley-Braun, Kennedy, Dodd, Boxer, Breaux, Robb, Levin, Lautenberg, Glenn, Kerry, Feinstein, Reid, Reed, Bryan and myself, legislation that puts the spotlight directly on our efforts to strengthen and modernize our nation's public schools. We recognize that a strong public education system is the key to America's future. Our economic prosperity, our position as a world leader, our system of law, and our very democracy require that all of our children have access to the best possible education. We have heard a lot over the last 20 years about the things that are wrong with education in this country, and there's no question that we need to do some things better. We just learned the other day, for example, that our 12th graders are behind the rest of the world in math and science achievement. That is unacceptable and must be corrected. But there are signs that we have been able to make some progress. Our fourth-graders are well above the average in mathematics and near the top in science. And there are innovative programs springing up around the country that are taking advantage of federal funds to make remarkable changes in the way public schools are run. The City of Chicago, for example, has taken dramatic steps including ending social promotions, raising their standards, and providing extra help to make sure that children can achieve those standards. Parents and community members are more involved , and, while it's too early to see results in terms of test scores, there are dramatic improvements in attendance. Those who are involved are amazed at their progress. Despite many local improvements, our schools still face many challenges. Student enrollments are at record high levels and are expected to increase over the next decade. This growth, combined with aging buildings and the demand of technology, is straining many school facilities. Growing enrollments and teacher retirements also mean that more than 2 million new teachers will be needed over the next decade. The quality of those teachers will have a significant impact on student achievement levels. Recent advancements require better integration of technology in our public schools and better training for instructors in using technology effectively in the classroom. While many schools have implemented reforms and student performance is improving in some communities, too many children, particularly those from low-income families, are still not learning up to their potential. The legislation we are introducing today--the RESULTS Act--will addresses these issues in 5 ways: (1) We create a new tax credit to help communities offset the cost of school construction and modernization; (2) We provide funds to help communities reduce class sizes in grades 1 through 3 by hiring and training 100,000 new teachers; (3) We help communities establish additional after-school programs for school-aged children; (4) We advance the federal commitment to integrate technology into the classroom and provide resources to train teachers to use that technology effectively; and (5) We include the President's initiative to provide grants to high- poverty urban and rural school districts that are serious about carrying out standards-based reforms, such as those occurring in Chicago, to improve student achievement. Mr. President, Democrats recognize that the federal government has an important role to play in encouraging all Americans--including parents, teachers, business and community leaders, and elected officials at all levels of government--to work in partnership to strengthen and revitalize our public schools. Our nation's commitment to a strong system of public education has made our country great. We renew that commitment today with this plan to prepare our students to lead this country into the 21st Century. I thank my colleagues who have worked with me to demonstrate our resolve to modernize and strengthen our public schools and invite our colleagues across the aisle to make the same commitment and join us to enact the important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a title-by-title explanation of the bill, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing on behalf of my colleagues, Senators Murray, Moseley-Braun, Kennedy, Dodd, Boxer, Breaux, Robb, Levin, Lautenberg, Glenn, Kerry, Feinstein, Reid, Reed, Bryan and myself, legislation that puts the spotlight directly on our efforts to strengthen and modernize our nation's public schools. We recognize that a strong public education system is the key to America's future. Our economic prosperity, our position as a world leader, our system of law, and our very democracy require that all of our children have access to the best possible education. We have heard a lot over the last 20 years about the things that are wrong with education in this country, and there's no question that we need to do some things better. We just learned the other day, for example, that our 12th graders are behind the rest of the world in math and science achievement. That is unacceptable and must be corrected. But there are signs that we have been able to make some progress. Our fourth-graders are well above the average in mathematics and near the top in science. And there are innovative programs springing up around the country that are taking advantage of federal funds to make remarkable changes in the way public schools are run. The City of Chicago, for example, has taken dramatic steps including ending social promotions, raising their standards, and providing extra help to make sure that children can achieve those standards. Parents and community members are more involved , and, while it's too early to see results in terms of test scores, there are dramatic improvements in attendance. Those who are involved are amazed at their progress. Despite many local improvements, our schools still face many challenges. Student enrollments are at record high levels and are expected to increase over the next decade. This growth, combined with aging buildings and the demand of technology, is straining many school facilities. Growing enrollments and teacher retirements also mean that more than 2 million new teachers will be needed over the next decade. The quality of those teachers will have a significant impact on student achievement levels. Recent advancements require better integration of technology in our public schools and better training for instructors in using technology effectively in the classroom. While many schools have implemented reforms and student performance is improving in some communities, too many children, particularly those from low-income families, are still not learning up to their potential. The legislation we are introducing today--the RESULTS Act--will addresses these issues in 5 ways: (1) We create a new tax credit to help communities offset the cost of school construction and modernization; (2) We provide funds to help communities reduce class sizes in grades 1 through 3 by hiring and training 100,000 new teachers; (3) We help communities establish additional after-school programs for school-aged children; (4) We advance the federal commitment to integrate technology into the classroom and provide resources to train teachers to use that technology effectively; and (5) We include the President's initiative to provide grants to high- poverty urban and rural school districts that are serious about carrying out standards-based reforms, such as those occurring in Chicago, to improve student achievement. Mr. President, Democrats recognize that the federal government has an important role to play in encouraging all Americans--including parents, teachers, business and community leaders, and elected officials at all levels of government--to work in partnership to strengthen and revitalize our public schools. Our nation's commitment to a strong system of public education has made our country great. We renew that commitment today with this plan to prepare our students to lead this country into the 21st Century. I thank my colleagues who have worked with me to demonstrate our resolve to modernize and strengthen our public schools and invite our colleagues across the aisle to make the same commitment and join us to enact the important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a title-by-title explanation of the bill, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. In deciding that we needed to design a better, more rational classification system, I was moved by the fact that under the current system we are classifying an enormous amount of information each and every year. For example, in 1996 alone, the Federal Government created 386,562 Top Secret, 3,467,856 Secret, and 1,830,044 Confidential items: a total of 5,789,625 classification actions.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Government Secrecy Commission has learned from history and issued much more prudent proposals. Some individuals have raised constitutional concerns regarding this legislation, but the Government Secrecy Act (S. 712) respects the President's constitutional prerogatives by maintaining the authority of the President to establish categories of classified information and procedures for classifying information. The precedent for Congressional action has already been established by the Atomic Energy Act, the Espionage Act, and the National Security Act.

Mr. DASCHLE. One of the most striking aspects of the Commission report is the lack of Congressional involvement in the secrecy system. Apart from the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Atomic Energy Act, which only applies to atomic secrets, there are few statutes dealing with these issues. If secrecy is a form of regulation, then this legislation will serve a similar purpose to the Administrative Procedure Act for the secrecy system. And there has been little Congressional oversight. I believe the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy, which Senator Moynihan chaired, is only the second statutory examination of the secrecy system.

Mr. DASCHLE. Greater Congressional oversight of classification policy is long overdue. For too long, classification and declassification policy have been both developed and implemented by bureaucrats, often anonymously. Consideration of the Government Secrecy Act, S.712, will promote an open discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of secrecy, a discussion which is not limited to the views of those who are charged with implementing classification policy.

Mr. DASCHLE. In addition to costing the taxpayer billions annually, this excessive government secrecy leads to a host of other problems. Secrecy hampers the exchange of information within the government, leads to public mistrust, and makes leaking classified information the norm. I think it would be useful at this point to note that this legislation will not require the disclosure of a single document or fact deemed vital to our national security. Instead, this legislation will prevent the government from stamping ``Classified'' on information that is not sensitive. The Clinton administration has made significant reforms to open government information. For example, last month, Secretary of Energy Federico Pena announced that he would seek to end the practice that considered all atomic weapons information as ``born classified'' and instead would only classify ``where there is a compelling national security interest''. The Department of Energy is to be commended for its efforts in recent years to make available information concerning nuclear tests conducted in this country and their effects on human health and the environment. This is a useful step. However, as the statistics I cited above for 1996 make clear, there is still much more to be done.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Majority Leader for raising this important issue and am pleased to join him as a co-sponsor of the Government Secrecy Act. I look forward to working with him, the other co-sponsors of the bill, and the relevant committees to move this legislation early in this session. Although some modifications to this legislation may be necessary, I think we can all agree that a democratic government depends on an informed public. This legislation will greatly improve access to government information. By reducing the number of secrets, this legislation will enhance the public's access while at the same time enabling the government to better protect information which is truly sensitive. As the Majority Leader mentioned, for the past five decades, the secrecy system has been governed by a series of six Executive Orders, none of which has created a stable system that protects only that information deemed vital to the national security of the United States.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to recognize a very special constituent of mine, Anna Trebil. Today--Friday, February 27, 1998--is Anna's 100th birthday. Born and raised in Sanborn County, South Dakota, Anna is a true South Dakotan. She is a pioneer and a valued community member. She has lived her entire life in the state and currently resides in Mitchell, South Dakota. Having never spent a day of her life in the hospital, Anna has been blessed with outstanding health which has contributed greatly to her strong and enduring spirit. I join her children, her 7 grandchildren, her great grandchild and her many friends in wishing Anna Trebil a very happy 100th birthday.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader. I think he just clarified it. I just came from our Policy Committee luncheon. The question was asked about votes tomorrow. I assured them it was the majority leader's expectation that there would be votes, and I think he just confirmed that it is his expectation that we will see votes on Friday. At what point could we expect to see votes on Monday?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Let me thank the majority leader for his efforts in scheduling this legislation. As I think everyone knows, this has been a matter of great priority for many of us. We are very pleased that now we are able to move ahead with the debate and consideration of this important legislation. We do not want to miss the construction cycle, and, certainly, by passing the legislation at an early date, we ought to be in a position to send a clear indication as to what our intentions are with regard to highway funding for the foreseeable future in time to meet the construction season. We hope that our House colleagues will also be sensitized to the importance of moving this legislation ahead quickly. Obviously, this legislation will go to conference. That will take some time. Even if we can expeditiously consider it now, it will be some time before we are prepared to send it over to the President. The sooner we can do that the better. It is for that reason that I hope we can avoid debate on extraneous amendments and legislation that may not be directly germane to the issues that fall within the consideration of this title and of this bill. It is for that reason that it is not our intention to offer campaign reform legislation to this bill or other forms of legislation that might be of high priority to the Democratic caucus. I will say, with regard to campaign reform legislation, there is no doubt at some point that it will be our intention to revisit the question, revisit the issue, but not on this bill, not at this time. Our hope now is that we can expeditiously consider it so we can get the legislation passed in time to assist States in planning for resources and the allegation of the available funding that will be made as a result of the completion of this legislation. So, I thank again the leader and all colleagues involved for bringing us to this point. I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in his statement earlier today, he made a number of comments, and I want to describe them at this point. His first comment on the overall agreement says that the agreement: . . . gave expression to a fundamental commitment that is set forth in the resolutions of the Security Council, mainly that UNSCOM must have immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to all sites in Iraq for the purpose of carrying out its mandate. The memorandum of understanding at high political level reaffirms and reiterates that commitment. In other words, what Chairman Butler has said is that his highest priority is to assure that we have this unrestricted, unfettered access to all sites in Iraq. Having now examined the details of the memorandum of understanding incorporated within the agreement, Chairman Butler concludes that the commitment is intact. With regard to the UNSCOM role in the context of the agreement, he said: I view it [the agreement] as strengthening UNSCOM in the conduct of its work in Iraq. With regard to UNSCOM's access to presidential sites, he noted: The arrangements that are made for that access, set forth principally in paragraph 4 of the memorandum of understanding, have been the subject of some misunderstanding and, regrettably, some misrepresentation. I want to make clear that those arrangements are entirely satisfactory to me and the organization that I lead. With regard to the role of diplomats in the inspection effort, Chairman Butler said the following: With the establishment of a special inspection group within UNSCOM, to be led by a chief inspector of UNSCOM, to which diplomatic observers will be added to insure concerns that Iraq has expressed and the council has acknowledged with respect to the particular dignity of those sites, we will be able to do our work. Putting it in simple language, Chairman Butler has noted that adding a diplomatic contingent to the inspection effort will not hinder UNSCOM in fulfilling its mission. With regard to the concern about unclear lines of authority as UNSCOM performs its duties, he said the following: These lines of authority and reporting are clear, and I find them entirely satisfactory. Going beyond that, quite frankly, I find it a positive additional resource which will now be put at our disposal to enable us to do the work in those designated sites within Iraq. Chairman Butler also adds a note of caution regarding implementation of this agreement, as have the President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, and many Members of Congress: that the proof will be in the testing. If Iraq implements the agreement, weapons inspectors will, for the first time, have unrestricted, unconditional access to all suspect sites in Iraq, with no limits on the numbers of visits or deadlines to complete their work. If Iraq does not cooperate and we need to take action, we are in a stronger position internationally than ever. Again, if Iraq fails to comply, our response will be swift, strong and certain. Chairman Butler concludes that this is a strong agreement. I share his view. This agreement allows us to complete our work. This agreement, backed up by the use or the threat of force, would allow us the access that we did not have before. Mr. President, I don't know how much clearer one can say it than that. Chairman Butler has concluded that this agreement does the job-- as long as the Iraqis comply. Now, the question is, will Saddam Hussein be willing to live by his word? Will he provide the access he committed to in this MOU? If not, it's back to business, it's the use of force, it's a swift response militarily and by whatever other means may be necessary. So, Mr. President, I think we need to get on with it. Let's take the necessary steps to get the inspection teams to Iraq and inspect these sites. Let's clarify, to whatever extent may be required, whether these sites contain material that needs to be destroyed. Let us continue the overall assessment of compliance on the part of Iraq. We are in a position to do that now. This agreement allows us to pursue our work. I applaud those responsible and will continue to monitor this situation with every expectation that, one way or the other, we will get the job done. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Arrangements Between U.N. and Iraq for Inspections of Controversial Sites In Iraq (By Richard Butler, Chairman, U.N. Special Commission) Butler: . . . level, it gave expression to a fundamental commitment that is set forth in the resolutions of the Security Council, mainly that UNSCOM must have immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to all sites in Iraq for the purpose of carrying out its mandate. The memorandum of understanding at high political level reaffirms and reiterates that commitment. Thirdly, it follows logically from those two facts that, as far as I am concerned, I welcome it. I view it as strengthening UNSCOM in the conduct of its work in Iraq. There is some detail in the memorandum of understanding with respect to the specific object that was addressed-- namely, access for UNSCOM to presidential sites within Iraq. The arrangements that are made for that access, set forth principally in paragraph 4 of the memorandum of understanding, have been the subject of some understanding and, regrettably, some misrepresentation. I want to make clear that those arrangements are entirely satisfactory to me and the organization that I lead. They will give us access to the presidential sites in Iraq, which have now been described accurately as a consequence of the work of the UN mapping team, and presented yesterday to the Security Council. With the establishment of a special inspection group within UNSCOM, to be led by a chief inspector of UNSCOM, to which diplomatic observers will be added to insure concerns that Iraq has expressed and the council has acknowledged with respect to the particular dignity of those sites, we will be able to do our work. I welcome very much in addition the appointment of a new commissioner of the special commission, who will have particular responsibility for the work of inspection of those sites, and who will work very closely with me. With respect to the reporting and scientific analysis responsibilities arising out of the inspection of those sites, the analysis will be conducted by UNSCOM, and the reporting will be done from the new commissioner of UNSCOM to me, and I in the usual way to the Security Council through the secretary-general. These lines of authority and reporting are clear, and I find them entirely satisfactory. Going beyond that, quite frankly, I find it a positive additional resource which will now be put at our disposal to enable us to do the work in those designated sites within Iraq. So under these circumstances, I have to say to you that I am aware of some of the reports that suggest that this has weakened UNSCOM. I disagree. Some have gone further to say that it's the beginning of the end of UNSCOM. I view that much as the legendary reports of Mark Twain's death when he was still alive. He said they were somewhat exaggerated. Now, this is a strong agreement. It's an agreement where I suggest to you you should not look so much at the fine print, although that's fine by me, but not so much at the fine print, but the thumbprint. the thumbprint--prints--on this agreement are those of the secretary-general of the United Nations and the president of Iraq, with whom he consulted personally on this agreement. I look forward to implementing it as soon as possible, and, as many have said, to going out into the field and to testing in practice what is written on paper. I earnestly hope that Iraq will give as the full cooperation that it has pledged to give in this agreement, and under those circumstances, I hope that we would be able to complete the disarmament portion of our work in Iraq and put all of what remains under long-term monitoring in a relatively short time. Now Fred, I must just quickly divert to a report from Baghdad in which a UN official in Baghdad made some remarks about the conduct of our Chilean staff--that is, the helicopter crews provided to us by Chile. I just want to say that I regret those remarks. They were an unauthorized statement for which--which was not in fact--which was not factual. I have, in fact, received within this house an apology for those remarks. I didn't require that it was made, and I gratefully received it. The main point I would want to make to you in addition to saying that those remarks, which you may have seen, but I felt the need to address is that they are not factual. What is factual is that the work that is done for us by the 40 Chilean air force personnel who fly our helicopters is simply outstanding. They are diligent and courageous young men. They're indispensable to the work we do in Iraq. And I want to reiterate my deep gratitude to the government of Chile for continuing to make those persons available to us. Thank you.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, yesterday, I came to the floor to discuss the agreement that has been achieved between the UN and Iraq with regard to access to suspect sites in Iraq. At that time, I indicated that clarifications over the course of the last 48 hours had increased our confidence about the degree to which we think the agreement can be successful. I want to talk a bit more about that agreement now, given the comments just made this morning by UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler. His statement helps clarify even further the degree to which the agreement may be as successful as we had hoped it would. As I stated yesterday, what we are seeking could not be more clear. We are simply seeking unconditional, unfettered access to all suspect sites, as called for in prior Security Council resolutions. We also noted yesterday that diplomacy, backed by the threat to use overwhelming force, has brought us closer to that goal. The comments made over the last 24 hours by UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler are of immense help in clarifying the important details of the agreement, some of which we have not had access to until now. As the process of clarification continues, there is a growing sense of just what we have achieved here. The perspective of UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler, whose track record of toughness with Iraq is legendary, is especially valuable. I want to take just a moment to highlight some portions of Chairman Butler's take on UNSCOM's role in the agreement. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the remarks of Chairman Butler be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join my colleagues, Senator Dorgan, Senator Conrad and Senator Johnson, in introducing legislation to clarify that licensed pharmacists are not subject to a surety bond requirement under the Medicare program. This bill will help ensure continued access to durable medical equipment (DME) in rural areas for those covered by Medicare. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires that all DME suppliers purchase a surety to qualify for a supplier number. The minimum amount for the bond is $50,000. The Health Care Financing Administration has estimated that these bonds will cost about $788 per year for each supplier. Many South Dakota pharmacists do not take in sufficient revenue from Medicare DME sales to support the purchase of a bond. Therefore, the surety bond requirement in the Balanced Budget Act could severely compromise the availability of services for Medicare patients in rural areas. The surety bond requirement was established as an important way to combat Medicare fraud and abuse. I remain in strong support of efforts to combat fraud and abuse, because they are crucial to protecting and strengthening the Medicare program. Because the ultimate aim of fraud and abuse measures is to improve Medicare, they should be applied in ways that are consistent with the goal of quality health care and should not jeopardize access to necessary services and supplies. This legislation retains the surety bond requirement for many DME suppliers, but it exempts licensed pharmacists. This policy is not only logical in terms of fairness to these pharmacists; it is the right thing to do for the beneficiaries who depend on their services. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment to title XVIII of the Social Security Act. It will lift an unreasonable burden from small pharmacists without jeopardizing fraud and abuse prevention efforts, and it will enable pharmacists to continue to provide quality health care services in their local communities.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join my colleagues, Senator Dorgan, Senator Conrad and Senator Johnson, in introducing legislation to clarify that licensed pharmacists are not subject to a surety bond requirement under the Medicare program. This bill will help ensure continued access to durable medical equipment (DME) in rural areas for those covered by Medicare. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires that all DME suppliers purchase a surety to qualify for a supplier number. The minimum amount for the bond is $50,000. The Health Care Financing Administration has estimated that these bonds will cost about $788 per year for each supplier. Many South Dakota pharmacists do not take in sufficient revenue from Medicare DME sales to support the purchase of a bond. Therefore, the surety bond requirement in the Balanced Budget Act could severely compromise the availability of services for Medicare patients in rural areas. The surety bond requirement was established as an important way to combat Medicare fraud and abuse. I remain in strong support of efforts to combat fraud and abuse, because they are crucial to protecting and strengthening the Medicare program. Because the ultimate aim of fraud and abuse measures is to improve Medicare, they should be applied in ways that are consistent with the goal of quality health care and should not jeopardize access to necessary services and supplies. This legislation retains the surety bond requirement for many DME suppliers, but it exempts licensed pharmacists. This policy is not only logical in terms of fairness to these pharmacists; it is the right thing to do for the beneficiaries who depend on their services. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment to title XVIII of the Social Security Act. It will lift an unreasonable burden from small pharmacists without jeopardizing fraud and abuse prevention efforts, and it will enable pharmacists to continue to provide quality health care services in their local communities.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to address the evolving situation relating to Iraq and talk briefly about the circumstances surrounding the agreement reached between Secretary General Annan and Iraq as we know them now. I am concerned about some of the comments made in the media and on the floor about the situation in Iraq. I think it is important to review the situation as the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, National Security Adviser and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have laid out in the last 24 hours. First, with respect to what we are seeking, from the outset of this crisis the fundamental goal of the United States has been very simple. The goal has simply been to assure that UNSCOM has unconditional and unfettered access to all suspect sites as called for in the U.N. Security Council resolutions. Period; that's it. All we needed was simply an opportunity to visit sites that we think are suspect. We were denied that, which triggered this whole affair, beginning, as everyone now knows, several months ago. Diplomacy, backed by the threat to use overwhelming force if required, has moved us forward and closer to achieving that goal. There can be no doubt that the presence of a military force of the magnitude that is currently in the gulf had everything to do with the fact that we now have an agreement. General Secretary Annan has said that. Others have noted it. There is no question that the combination of diplomacy and military force gave us the opportunity to bring about this agreement over the last 72 hours. Iraq precipitated this crisis, as we all know, by trying to avoid its obligations under the Security Council resolutions. It attempted to dictate to the international community where UNSCOM could hold inspections, the manner in which they could be conducted, and the length of time that they would continue. Iraq's effort has failed. We were clear about what we were seeking: Unfettered access. Iraq objected. Iraq obfuscated. Iraq clearly was at fault in not allowing access to the sites in question. Diplomacy was used, force backed up that diplomacy, and the results are now in hand. Let's look at what we have achieved with this agreement. The government of Iraq has made a written commitment to provide immediate, unrestricted, unconditional access for the UNSCOM inspectors to all suspected sites. So, regardless of the rhetoric, regardless of whether it was framed in exactly the way we might have it framed, what matters is the bottom line. What matters is what is now to be the order. And the order is very clear. The order is to provide immediate, unrestricted, unconditional access for inspectors to all suspected sites. If fully implemented, this commitment will allow UNSCOM to fulfill its mission: First, to find and destroy all of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; second, to find and destroy the missiles that could deliver these weapons; and, third, to institute a system for long-term monitoring to make sure Iraq doesn't do it again. This commitment applies to all sites anywhere in the country, including eight so-called ``Presidential Sites'' that have now been precisely delineated, as well as the so-called sensitive sites that until now Iraq has tried to claim were off limits to UNSCOM. Any and all of these sites are subject to repeat visits. There are no deadlines to complete the work. In short, for the first time Iraq has committed explicitly to open every site throughout the country to weapons inspectors. Again, that has been our bottom line. That will continue to be our bottom line. And we now have it in writing that Iraq will agree. For the eight ``Presidential Sites'', the agreement allows diplomats to accompany the UNSCOM inspectors, and that is acceptable if the inspectors are free to conduct rigorous and professional inspections. All other sites will be open to inspection under the existing UNSCOM procedures. The Secretary General has assured us that UNSCOM Chairman Butler remains in charge of UNSCOM and all weapons inspections. He has also made that abundantly clear to the Iraqis themselves. Questions have been raised about the Memorandum Of Understanding between Annan and Iraq. There are issues that still need clarification and we want to clarify them, notably with respect to the inspection procedures for the eight ``Presidential Sites''. The United States has made clear that we expect all aspects of this agreement to reinforce the fundamental requirement that the investigators be permitted to carry out their inspections in a rigorous and professional manner. We have received important assurances from the Secretary General that clarify aspects of the MOU, notably with regard to the eight ``Presidential Sites''. UNSCOM and Chairman Butler will preserve their independence. The special team for the ``Presidential Sites'' will be part of UNSCOM. The team leader will be an UNSCOM Commissioner who is an expert in Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, chosen by the Secretary General and UNSCOM Chairman Butler. The special team leader will report to Chairman Butler. The diplomats will be observers only, with UNSCOM retaining operational control. Procedures for these inspections will be developed by UNSCOM and the Secretary General, not by Iraq. And, as has been the case since 1991, Chairman Butler will continue to report to the Security Council through the Secretary General. So, the more clarification we get, the better the agreement looks, the clearer the understanding we have about the success of this effort. The bottom line is that we have access in Iraq that we didn't have last week at this time. So what is next? We support a U.N. Security Council resolution that will make it clear to Iraq that any violation of its commitments would have the most serious consequences. That would be a useful but not necessary signal from the international community. We also need to test and verify Saddam's intent. In the days and weeks ahead, UNSCOM must robustly test and verify this commitment. It is one thing to have it in language. It is one thing rhetorically to agree. It's another thing to allow it to occur. Failure to allow UNSCOM to get on with its job would have serious consequences. The United States will keep its military forces in the gulf at a high state of preparedness while we see if Iraq lives up to its commitment that it has signed. The United States remains resolved to secure, by whatever means necessary, Iraq's full compliance with its commitment to destroy its weapons of mass destruction. So again, it will be diplomacy backed up by force. So long as diplomacy works, force will not be necessary. At the very moment diplomacy appears not to be working, force will be employed. So, let there be no mistake. This is not a question of breathing room. This is not a question of simply delaying and somehow, then, obviating the need for the use of force should it be required. It will be there. Iraq's commitments are an important step forward, but only if matched by its compliance. They have made an important step forward in word. Now they must step forward in deed. As the President has said, ``the proof is in the testing.'' This agreement can be a win-win. Either Iraq implements the agreement or it does not. If it does, the weapons inspectors will for the first time have unrestricted, unconditional access to all suspect sites in Iraq with no limits on the numbers of visits or deadlines to complete their work. If Iraq does not cooperate and we need to take action, we are in a stronger position internationally than ever. After two crises provoked by Iraq in 4 months, the international community has certainly lost its patience and will not stomach another bout of Iraqi defiance. And there will be no doubt in anyone's mind about who will be responsible for those consequences. This agreement is backed up by an immediate test that Saddam Hussein will either clearly pass or clearly fail. Our response will be swift. It will be strong. It will be certain. So, Mr. President, we have made great progress on paper over the last 72 hours. Again, I give credit to the United Nations Secretary General Annan, to the administration, to all of those responsible for bringing us to this point. I respect the President's decision and believe it was the correct one, to keep our forces there, because, as we say, there is only one option for Saddam Hussein: Comply with his agreement. Allow access. Allow us the opportunity to complete our work. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Parliamentary inquiry. There are still some questions as to what we are about to vote on. Let me state it, and I would appreciate it if the Presiding Officer could clarify whether or not my understanding is correct. We are about to vote on tabling the McCain-Feingold amendment as modified by the Snowe amendment; is that correct?

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, would the majority leader be able to describe the first amendment and the second amendment?

Mr. DASCHLE. So the majority leader has offered two amendments to the pending amendment?

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank you for the explanation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, what is the current order?

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to raise one of the most critical issues facing this nation today, nuclear weapons security, and to call the Senate's attention to one of the most intelligent and courageous people involved in the debate surrounding this issue, General Lee Butler. At a National Press Club appearance earlier this month, General Butler delivered an eloquent address entitled, ``The Risks Of Nuclear Deterrence: From Superpowers To Rogue Leaders.'' His major conclusion was that, ``. . . as a nation we have no greater responsibility than to bring the nuclear era to a close. Our present policies, plans, and postures governing nuclear weapons make us prisoners still to an age of intolerable danger.'' For those unfamiliar with General Butler, let me provide some background on this distinguished American that should add some context to his remarks. After graduating from the Air Force Academy, General Butler spent the next 33 years advancing through the ranks of the U.S. Air Force. In 1991, he was promoted to Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Strategic Air Command and, shortly thereafter, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Strategic Command. In this last post, General Butler was responsible for the overall U.S. strategy for deterring a nuclear war and, if deterrence fails, fighting such a war. It is safe to say that very few Americans know as much as General Butler when it comes to nuclear weapons and their role in our national security posture--from the concrete, such as the physics of these weapons, to the more abstract, such as deterrence theory. When General Butler speaks about nuclear deterrence, people should listen. In his National Press Club address, General Butler spoke of the lessons he has drawn from over 30 years of ``intimate involvement with nuclear weapons.'' I ask that his full statement be included in the Record following my remarks.