Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, that is the entire text of the amendment. I have spoken on this issue on several occasions, so I don't need to restate many of the thoughts that were already expressed. Obviously, this is an issue that will unfortunately divide us in some respects. But I don't think the question of honoring President Reagan should divide us at all. There is no doubt that we, on a bipartisan basis, should seek ways in which to honor former leaders and former Presidents. Frankly, I am not all that troubled about whether they are still living and very much a part of our country and society in roles of leadership, as is the case with President Reagan. I do think there have been a number of questions legitimately raised about whether this is the most appropriate way with which to honor our former President, and the appropriateness of renaming Washington National Airport has been the subject of a good deal of discussion over the last several days. Senator Robb and others have pointed out that Washington National Airport was transferred to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority in 1986 under a 50-year lease. The Airports Authority and other local authorities under that lease have been given all jurisdiction relating to matters pertaining to the airport. Some have noted that imposing this change in name will require countless businesses to make, in some cases, substantial investments and commitments financially that they have already noted could be very prohibitive. Some asked as well whether it is appropriate, given the fact that the International Trade Center in Washington will be named after our former President, Ronald Reagan in May. This is the single most expensive Federal building ever erected and is second only to the Pentagon in size. The naming of this building will provide us with a sufficient opportunity to call attention to Ronald Reagan's commitments and contributions to this country. That isn't the only matter that will be raised with regard to renaming or naming of facilities. A new Nimitz-class aircraft carrier will be named after the former President as soon as it is completed. So we have the International Trade Center to be named in May and the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier in the near future. We have clearly demonstrated that we are prepared to honor this former President on a bipartisan basis. Many people have questioned whether or not the Greater Washington Board of Trade's views about renaming Washington National Airport ought to be considered. In a letter to Congressman Shuster, the Washington Board of Trade noted that this change ``would be very confusing to air travelers, visitors, and local residents alike.'' The imposition of the Federal Government on local jurisdiction has also been raised. Perhaps no one spoke more forcefully and passionately about the importance of local control, about the importance of local decisionmaking, about the importance of giving more power to the local level, than President Reagan. Yet, we find the chairman of the Arlington County Board in opposition to this name change. Christopher Zimmerman, the chairman of the Arlington County Board, noted, ``Memorializing President Reagan by imposing a name change, against the wishes of the local business community, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, and local jurisdictions which it serves, would certainly go against the spirit and intent of the President's actions while in office.'' The chairman of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, also questions whether Congress could impose the change legally without the authority's consent, given the contractual arrangements under which we are now operating. Alexandria Mayor Kerry Donley is concerned that the name change could affect nearby businesses and suggested that Congress ``leave well enough alone.'' The city council of Alexandria also urges Congress to ``retain the present name of Washington National Airport, which honors the ``Father of our Nation' and our first President, George Washington.'' Linwood Holton, who served as the chairman of the Airports Authority when the Federal Government leased Washington National Airport in 1986, also opposes renaming it. He argues that the purpose of the lease was to achieve ``local control, management, operation and development of the airport,'' and that this bill is not ``consistent with either the literal terms or the purpose of that lease agreement'' and ``would be detrimental to the airport and its users and affect the traveling public in ways currently not intended by the drafters of this legislation.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Mr. Holton's letter sent by Mr. Holton to Congressman Moran which describes the concern in greater detail be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, this is very similar of course to the offer made last week. I guess I will just ask: What is wrong with regular order? What is wrong with bringing a bill to the Senate floor, having a good debate, allowing the opportunity to offer amendments, and proceed under the rules of the Senate? Why do we need this gag rule with regard to this piece of legislation? Many of us are confused about that. And, unfortunately, many of the objections raised are being, in my view, misinterpreted by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. All we want is an opportunity to offer amendments and to have a good debate. Some have suggested that this opposition is cynical. I don't know that the opposition expressed in the last several days by local officials including the mayor of Alexandria, Kerry Donley, by the Chairman of the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, Chris Zimmerman, by the former Governor of Virginia, Linwood Holton, are cynical in their opposition to this piece of legislation. We are simply raising concerns about whether or not this is the right thing to do. But that again argues, it seems to me, that we need the opportunity to have a good debate. This should not be done in 2 hours and with just one amendment. I give the distinguished Senator credit for his persistence and his determination to see this legislation through--but as I understand it, the one amendment to be offered by our Republican colleague is the one that literally takes the name ``Washington'' out of the title and instead puts in the name ``Reagan.'' We ought to have a discussion about that. I suggest that perhaps there are other airports that should be considered to be renamed rather than Washington National Airport. For instance, it seems to me that Dulles International Airport might be a better candidate. We could have two airports named after two Presidents in the Washington area, ``Washington'' and ``Reagan,'' without affecting the first President of the United States. But we ought to have an opportunity to debate it. We ought to have an opportunity to discuss it and consider other amendments. We have suggested as well that nothing would honor this former Ronald Reagan more than the opportunity to directly address a concern that he raised while he was President: the need to reform the IRS. Legislation to do just that passed 426 to 4 in the House of Representatives last year. We ought to pass it unanimously here in the Senate before more and more Americans are adversely affected by actions taken by IRS. Since we failed to act last November, one and a half million Americans have been adversely affected by actions taken by the IRS. So let's deal with that legislation. Let's offer that as an amendment in tribute. We could even refer to it as the ``Ronald Reagan IRS reform amendment.'' I would just hope that we don't proceed as the first order of business imposing a gag rule on the Senate not allowing the opportunity for regular order, not having an opportunity to debate, to listen and respond to local officials. How ironic that in the name of Ronald Reagan we carelessly demonstrate a lack of sensitivity to the local officials that Ronald Reagan said ought to be paramount in governmental decisionmaking. Unfortunately, we are attempting to override the objections that local decisionmakers have about what name should be placed at Washington National Airport. Do we really want to do that? Again, how ironic it would be if we did. So, Madam President, for all those reasons I would simply ask unanimous consent that the Senator's request be modified to provide for three first-degree amendments to be in order per side during the consideration of that bill.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, regrettably, under those circumstances I would have to object to the distinguished Senator's request as well.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I sympathize with the majority leader's problem and tell him that I share the same frustration. I have had Senators come to me this week who indicated that they can't be here on a particular day this week. I have noted, while we will try to accommodate those problems this week, that people need to be here. They need to be prepared to vote. They need to recognize that we have very limited time and that we have a lot of work ahead of us. We are not going to be able to do it if all we have is Wednesday afternoon. But that in essence seems to be the attitude: we will try to do all of our work on Wednesday afternoons. That isn't going to work around here. Whether you are in the minority or the majority, we have a lot of things we know we must do. We can't afford the luxury of having more and more of these scheduling conflicts and relegate the Nation's business and the Senate's business to Wednesday afternoon. So I want to assure the majority leader of my determination to see that we put in a full week, that we get the work done, and that we try to accomplish all that I know he and the rest of us would like to accomplish this year. I thank him for yielding.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, and I will be compelled to object at this time, for several reasons. First, there are a number of Democratic Senators who want the opportunity--to have a right to offer perhaps more than one amendment. There may or may not be opposition to this legislation, but there certainly is cause for some consideration of aspects to this issue that may not be as evident as we consider the prospect of a bill of this nature today: The costs associated with it; the process that we use in naming national or important public facilities; people have raised the question of whether it is appropriate for us to take the name Washington off of the name of this particular airport--ironically, the same month that we celebrate President Washington's birthday. So we celebrate not only one but two birthdays in February. The name Washington is very prominent in February, as is President Reagan's of course. Some have even asked whether the Reagan family wants this to be done. So, Mr. President, there are a lot of very legitimate questions. As I say, there are a number of Democratic Senators who may or may not be in support of this legislation, following the exploration of many of these issues. So I do not think it would be in our best interests to proceed today. I have had some discussions with the distinguished majority leader about the matter, and will continue to do so in an effort to resolve these questions and try to find a way with which to assure that this issue is fully explored and debated without unnecessary delay. So, on the basis of all of those relevant issues, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the majority leader for his remarks just now. No one, or few, I suppose, can match the eloquence of Margaret Thatcher, especially as she talks about one of those partners in leadership that she shared so much with in the time that she led Britain to the heights that it achieved during her tenure as Prime Minister. I am quite sure that with unanimity, this Senate wishes to honor our former President. So the majority leader's wish will come true; we will honor President Reagan. In fact, as he noted, we will honor him quite certainly, regardless of what happens to the airport. We will honor him by naming after him the largest nondefense building in the country, a Government building, a beautiful building, a building that will last for centuries, a building dedicated to permanence and a building with great meaning, I think, to all of us as we pass down Pennsylvania Avenue today. It is an extraordinary new accomplishment, architecturally and in many other ways. We have already made the decision to name that superior piece of architecture after our former President, Ronald Reagan. So let no one be misguided by the remarks today. We honor President Reagan. No one should also be misled with regard to our intentions. There was comment made that we are blocking this legislation. If we were blocking it, Mr. President, we would not have agreed for it to pass out of committee unanimously. If we were blocking it, we would have demanded hearings and we would have used whatever procedural devices at our disposal in the committee. We have not chosen to do that. We are not blocking it today. We have no reservations about bringing it up. We are simply not willing to support a unanimous consent request that limits us to one amendment. Finally, let me say the majority leader noted that we are not taking Washington's name off the airport. The only amendment our Republican colleagues wish to offer has as its stated purpose, and I will quote, ``to rename the Washington National Airport located in the District of Columbia and Virginia as `Ronald Reagan National Airport.' '' So if that doesn't take Washington's name off the airport, I don't know what does. That is exactly what it does on line 5, page 1. It says: From here on after approved June 29, 1940, the airport known as Washington National Airport shall hereafter be known and designated as ``Ronald Reagan National Airport.'' So, quite clearly, let no one, regardless of what one may think about honoring our former President Ronald Reagan, quite clearly we are doing it by removing the name of the first President of the United States, George Washington. Now, we may want to do that, but that clearly is the design, that is the intent of this legislation, and that is why we think it is in our interest to explore it, to talk about it. It isn't mutually exclusive. We can find ways to honor our former President, and we can find ways to ensure that we do it correctly and do it with all of the facts on the table. That is all we are asking. Let's do it with eyes wide open, knowing the ramifications, knowing exactly what it is we are doing and then pursuing the best course after that. I think we can do that. I pledge my assistance in working with the majority leader and our Republican colleagues to do it. But we are not ready yet. I am sure at some point soon we will be, but let's proceed in a positive way, not criticizing one another as we start out this effort, but finding the best way with which to resolve these questions. I am sure that can be done, and with that optimism, I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, when the first session of the 105th Congress ended last November, a group of young men and women also ended their term as United States Senate Pages. Today, I rise on behalf of the Senate to say ``thank you'' to these young people. Pages are an integral part of our daily life here in the Senate, and I salute them for their tireless service, and would like to express the appreciation of the Senate for their fine work. Many people, Senators included, may not fully appreciate the rigorous nature of page life. Their daily routine is not an easy one, and is one that begins early each morning. Senate pages rise early in order to attend classes. Upon concluding class work, the pages make their way to the Capitol to prepare for the day's session. Preparing the Senate Chamber for a day's session entails securing and placing on each Senator's desk the appropriate legislative documents that will be under discussion during the session, as well as securing supplemental documents that become available throughout the day. Pages are on the go constantly, and are called upon to perform a variety of tasks--in addition to their tasks associated with preparing the Senate chamber for daily sessions. These might include obtaining documents requested by individual Senators, running errands between the Capitol and the Senate office buildings, as well as assisting Cloakroom personnel at the regularly scheduled conference luncheons. Once the Senate has concluded business for the day, the pages return to their dorm and prepare for the next day's classes and, we hope, get some much-needed sleep. While a day in the life of a page is filled from morning to night, each page continually discharges his or her tasks efficiently and cheerfully. In the first session of the 105th Congress, these young people witnessed the enactment of a balanced budget agreement ironed out between the Administration and the Congress that will soon result in a balanced budget. This historic event was the result of months of negotiations and required both sides, Democrats and Republicans, to be willing to accede on policy issues of importance to each side--the give and take of the legislative process. Mr. President, our country's future lies with the generation of those young people who sit to the left and right of the Presiding officer. I hope that some of what the pages have witnessed here will inspire them to pursue a career of public service. As they have returned to their hometowns, perhaps they have taken with them an appreciation and better understanding of our system of government and the importance of the legislative process. Perhaps in the years ahead, one or more of that group will return here to serve as members of the Senate. Again, I say goodbye to the pages and hope that they all enjoyed their experience in the United States Senate. Speaking on behalf of my Democratic colleagues and all members of the Senate, we wish for them a bright and successful future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the names of the 1997 Fall Senate pages be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I welcome back the majority leader and again wish him a happy New Year and commend him for his leadership. During the past 3 months, when we have not been here, I have seen him on several public appearances and, as always, he has been articulate and very forthcoming with regard to the schedule and our plans for the coming weeks. I welcome the opportunity to work closely with him as we pursue our national agenda, and appreciate very much the cooperation he has already demonstrated in helping senators make plans both in terms of days, as well as weeks, ahead. I trust the past 3 months have been productive and enjoyable, Mr. President, and I expect it has provided us with rest and the perspective to fulfill our obligations now. It is obvious we return under very difficult circumstances. Allegations have been made against the President and have been vehemently denied. The legal process continues, flawed as it may be. While the circumstances may be extraordinary, the work of this Government must go on. The American system is uniquely constructed to withstand the winds of controversy and crisis which howl throughout history, and this moment is no exception. Important matters are at hand, dealing with both foreign and domestic policy, and the American people have a right to insist that their leaders continue to give those matters their full attention. Congress has a clear responsibility--a duty and an obligation--to go about our work on behalf of the American people. Despite allegations, investigations, and obvious distractions, our country would be ill- served if we were to allow interruption in the steady function of Government or the remarkable progress that we have made on matters of great importance to our Nation. Democratic Senators begin this year with a true sense of accomplishment over what we have achieved and a sense of purpose directed toward the challenges ahead. We need to continue the economic momentum born of the 1993 budget plan, a momentum that will propel us in 1998 to the first balanced budget in over 30 years, and our first opportunity in our lifetime to reduce the accumulated debt. South Dakotans, like all Americans, have made clear their expectations. Having just returned from home, my conversations with South Dakotans remain clear and well understood. South Dakotans have urged us to work together, to continue to demonstrate that democracy can be both responsive and effective in addressing the challenges that lie ahead. They say, build on the extraordinary budgetary and economic record of the last 5 years, pay off the debt, solve the Social Security and Medicare problems we face. Remember that 42 million of us have no health insurance--find a way to solve that national embarrassment. Remember, above all, in this new age of information, that education, beginning virtually at birth, is one of the most important responsibilities of government at every level. There is so much to be done: Improve wages and child care, fix our political finance system that is broken and in great need of repair, be a leader to the world. New and old democracies around the world look to us for leadership, and there is no one else. In Iraq and Bosnia, in Europe and Asia, America's leadership is needed now more than ever. That is the message given to me by South Dakotans back home over and over again. Their wisdom dictates our collective response. Now is the time to go to work. As the majority leader has already indicated, we have very few days in this session of Congress. We must approach our work with urgency and with energy. We must make the most of each one. Over the past few months, Democrats in the Senate and House, working with the administration, have built a legislative agenda that addresses many of the challenges our country must face. It will build on the themes that we hear tonight in the State of the Union Message. It represents the legislative embodiment of the priorities contained in the President's budget to be submitted next week. So, again, I look forward to working closely with the majority leader. We will all certainly work with our Republican colleagues, because we believe this can be a most productive session. We begin today by extending a hand of partnership and a sincere hope for real success. I thank, again, the majority leader for offering me the opportunity to respond to his kind remarks. I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues for joining me in this discussion and for their acknowledgment that this is an injustice that must be corrected. I look forward to working with them to make sure we provide the same resources for Indian children as we do for other children in this country.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the flaw in the statute is that it provides IV-E assistance only to children placed by State courts or agencies with whom States have agreements. In doing so, the law has left out Indian children living in tribal areas who are placed in foster care and adoptive homes by tribal courts. A relatively small number of tribes--50, or 10 percent of the total number of federally recognized tribes--has been able to work out tribal/State agreements whereby foster care payments are made for children placed by tribal courts. These agreements do not provide the full services of the title IV-E program, as they by and large do not include training and administrative funding for tribal governments. A major impediment to reaching even these less-than-ideal tribal/State agreements is that State governments retain liability under the agreements, something that States are reluctant to do. The result is that Indian children--often the poorest of the poor in our Nation--are sometimes placed in unsubsidized homes without necessary foster care services. This should not be the case. Other children in this Nation who meet the eligibility requirements are eligible for the services of the open-ended Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Entitlement Program. State governments have benefited from large amounts of Federal administrative and training funds for their foster care/adoption assistance programs. Tribal governments and Indian children have not. The legislation being considered today is designed to improve services and encourage permanent placements for children. Indian children living in tribal areas, however, have not benefited to the same extent as other children under the current program, and we should ensure that that discrepancy is eliminated. The IV-E program provides help to fund the basics, such as food, shelter, clothing, and school supplies for the children, but this program does not include Indian children. We need to get our priorities in order, and help all children, especially those with special needs, including Indian children. I understand the primary reason for not including an amendment to make Indian children in tribal areas and tribal government eligible for the IV-E program is that no offset was provided for the cost.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate an issue which, I believe, needs to be addressed. Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, Federal payments for foster care and adoption assistance, does not provide equitable foster care and adoption services for Indian children living in tribal areas. I had hoped we might be able to amend this bill, which is designed to better serve children in need of permanent, loving homes, to include children living in tribal areas. However, it appears that we will be unable to do that at this time. Nonetheless, it is clear that the funding that provides services to Indian children is sufficient to address the compelling needs of children not equivalent to that provided for services to children not living on reservations, and for that reason, I would like to engage in a discussion about how we might address this issue.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Would this bill have any effect on the existing jurisdiction of State commissions over new or incumbent local exchange carriers, or providers of commercial mobile radio services?

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator for his clarification of this matter.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I concur in what the majority leader just said. This is an important issue to the administration. They called again this afternoon to confirm it was going to pass.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I just want to call attention to this resolution. I think the President pro tempore deserves the accolades, the attention that this resolution provides. Many of us have watched with great admiration as he has conducted his responsibilities as President pro tempore. He has been doing it now for over 100 years. (Laughter.) And we are just grateful that he continues to do it with such aplomb. We thank him and we appreciate, as the resolution notes, his ``courteous, dignified, and [extraordinarily] impartial'' approaches to his responsibilities. And we thank him for that. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the Senate Resolution 160, introduced earlier today.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am very grateful for the generous remarks of the distinguished majority leader. I, too, have enjoyed this relationship, and I believe over the long run this has been a very productive one. We have been able to do a number of things that I look back on with great satisfaction and great pride. I think there are more opportunities like that, and I know the majority leader shares our view that in the end we have to govern. There is a time for politics and there is a time for leadership. I believe he has demonstrated very able leadership on many occasions; some courage, as well. He has addressed the many responsibilities that he holds. I look forward to working with him in the second session of the 105th Congress and appreciate very much his friendship and the relationship we have had.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I could just comment on that, as well. I want to thank the majority leader for his virtually tireless effort, over the last couple of days in particular, to clear the Executive Calendar. We had at one point well over 100 nominations pending on the calendar and we have it down now to just a handful. That would not have happened without his effort. None of these are easy. Some are easier than others. I wish we could have done them all. In some cases it is a responsibility of those on this side for not having been able to address some of these nominations. I appreciate very much the effort made by the majority leader in the last couple of days to successfully complete the work of Executive Calendar. I think, by and large because of his efforts, we have done so.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me also commend, as Senator Ford did, our floor staffs on both sides. The Senator has expressed his gratitude to my staff in the leader's office. I do so as well. They have just been remarkable all year long. But whether it is in the leader's office or here on the floor, it has made my job one that has been so much easier as a result of their efforts and their knowledge of the way our process works. They bring to work each day an extensive experience but, more than experience, an attitude that I think epitomizes the kind of quality of people that we have. So I thank our staff. I thank our leadership team. I thank the caucus. I am very grateful once more to celebrate what I consider to be good teamwork all the way around. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Kentucky for his very generous comments. I am not worthy of his remarks. I appreciate very much the kindness that he has shown me in all the years that we have worked together but in particular the last three. I couldn't be a luckier leader than I am to have the ability to work as closely as I can and do with the distinguished minority whip. It has been a real joy for me. This has not been an easy year for him. As the ranking member of the Rules Committee, he had to deal with a very, very contentious issue with the seating of Senator Landrieu. He has had an array of challenges presented to him, and each and every time I had the confidence and the good fortune to know that he was going to successfully work through those challenges and difficulties with the kind of ability and tenacity and extraordinary work that he does so routinely. So I thank him for his work. I thank him for his friendship and the tremendous effort that he has put forward in making our caucus what it is today. I truly believe that any leader is only as good as the team he has to work with. I have the good fortune to have, in my view, one of the best teams the Democratic caucus has ever had in leadership. And he is the preeminent example of what I am referring to. He is respected so widely and so enthusiastically that it goes without saying that when it comes to respect and when it comes to the extraordinary admiration that his colleagues have for him, Wendell Ford is in a class by himself.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, I object.