Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators on our side, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senators on this side of the aisle, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object. I only reserve the right to object so that we can accommodate Senator Kerrey, who also seeks recognition for purposes unrelated to the Intelligence Committee bill. If there is no objection to that, I have no objection to the unanimous- consent request of the Senator from Missouri. The request is this: I ask unanimous-consent that Senator Kerrey be recognized following Senator Bond.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am very honored, very grateful and, I must say, humbled by the generous remarks of the very distinguished Senator from West Virginia, my friend, Senator Byrd. I can't think of a more pleasant way to ease my way into the half-century realization than to listen to the eloquence of this masterful speaker and legislator. I cannot think of a better gift to be given than the respect shown to me by Senator Byrd in the way that he has just expressed. It has now been my good fortune to serve in the Senate for 10 years. As I continue to serve, my respect for him, the education I receive from him, the opportunities that I have in serving with him continue to excite me and provide what I consider to be some of the greatest experiences that I share in the Senate. Someone once said that life has no blessing like that of a good friend. If that is indeed true, then I have been richly blessed by my friends on both sides of the aisle in the U.S. Senate, but among them, there is no friendship for which I have greater pride and for which I treasure more than the friendship that I have been blessed to receive from the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. So, I thank him for his kind words, for his eloquence, for the respect that he has shown me and also for being such an extraordinary instructor, not only to me, but to all the Members of the Senate as he continues to serve in such a magnificent way as the senior Senator from the State of West Virginia. I yield the floor. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is a distinct honor for me to congratulate the ladies auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 2966 in Scotland, SD. On Saturday, members of the ladies auxiliary will be celebrating their 50th anniversary. This year marks five decades of outstanding service and support by the auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars and to the Scotland community. The ladies auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 2966 received its charter on January 3, 1947. A group of 16 women were among the organization's charter members. I ask that their names be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, when comprehensive health reform failed in 1994, we were left with the legacy of a major unmet challenge-- providing secure health care coverage to millions of uninsured Americans. Despite the inability of Congress to enact comprehensive health reform, many of my colleagues and I continue to work to achieve that goal, albeit incrementally. The Kennedy-Kassebaum bill was part of that effort, as were the provisions of the recent budget agreement that made $24 billion available to states to cover uninsured children. As part of this ongoing effort, last week I introduced legislation that would restore rights and protections to early retirees who are abruptly dropped from their employer's health plan. Today I am introducing legislation to help individuals who do not have employer- sponsored coverage and who, because of a previous or current health condition, are unable to obtain private non-group health insurance. While today many people without employer-sponsored insurance can purchase health coverage in the individual insurance market, those with health problems --conditions as common as asthma or migraine headaches and as controllable as hypertension or allergies--may not be able to find an insurer willing to cover them at any price. As many as 4 million Americans fall into this abyss, known by the insurance industry as the ``medically uninsurable.'' Many Americans felt that we had solved that problem when we enacted the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. I have received phone calls and letters from men and women in South Dakota and around the country who thought that enactment of the Kennedy/Kassebaum legislation meant they could not be denied private health insurance. Unfortunately, that is not the case. While the Kennedy/Kassebaum bill makes it easier for some groups to maintain their coverage if they switch jobs or become unemployed, it does not improve health insurance affordability or access to coverage for individuals who have not been part of the employer-sponsored insurance system. Kennedy-Kassebaum does not require insurers to cover self-employed individuals unless they were previously enrolled under a group health plan. Moreover, insurance companies still can deny coverage to workers whose employers do not provide employee health benefits. The reality is that if you do not have employer-sponsored insurance and have, or have had, any of a number of health problems, you're probably out of luck. Too many insurance companies continue to cherry-pick the healthiest of us and leave unprotected those most in need of insurance. This is not only regrettable for those left without coverage, it is shortsighted. Uninsured individuals often end up needing expensive emergency room care and extended inpatient convalescence because they were unable to afford the early, relatively inexpensive care necessary to prevent these serious problems. The unnecessary costs associated with the treatment of preventable diseases are passed on to the insured population through higher hospital charges and insurance premiums. The uninsured suffer needless health problems, while the insured pay more for everyone's health care. Ironically, insurers then point to these higher premiums when they try to justify their exclusionary underwriting practices, compounding the problem. This is the unfortunate legacy of our inability to enact comprehensive reform and it is why we need to continue to pursue every means available to provide reasonably priced health insurance to all Americans, even if we have to do it one step at a time. The legislation I am introducing today would allow individuals who have been denied coverage for medical reasons to purchase private coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. While FEHBP insurers could charge high-risk individuals up to 150 percent of the premium paid by federal employees--to account for differences in the risk of insuring the two populations--these previously uninsured individuals would have access to insurance and in every other respect would be treated the same as federal employees. The bill is structured to prevent any cost shifting to Federal employees. The two populations would be accounted for separately, while eligible non-Federal individuals would be able to enroll in the program without jumping through elaborate administrative hoops. To allay the concerns of those who may fear the creation of a new entitlement, despite the fact that we're talking about private coverage paid for by private citizens, the FEHBP buy-in will sunset after 10 years. I'm confident that what we'll learn from this demonstration is that private insurers can cover high-risk individuals without disrupting the private insurance market. One thing is certain. The status quo isn't working. When health insurance is reserved for only the healthy, the system is not working efficiently for any of us. We must stop perpetuating a system that relegates certain individuals to permanently uninsured status if they are unlucky enough to become sick at a time when coverage was not in their name or was beyond their financial reach. This bill empowers a disenfranchised group of individuals to purchase private health insurance. They are willing to pay a fair price for it-- all they need is an insurer who will offer it. Through FEHBP this legislation provides that opportunity. This legislation is not a comprehensive solution to our health insurance challenges. Filling this gap won't bring health care costs under long-term control; it won't eliminate the billions of dollars lost to waste, fraud and abuse; and it won't create a system that uniformly reflects consumers' values regarding disease prevention, high quality care, privacy and access to treatment. Ultimately, we still need a critical and comprehensive reevaluation and reform of the two- tiered, patchwork health care financing and delivery system we've erected over the years. However, this bill represents one long overdue step, and I hope Congress will enact it in the near future. There is no excuse for sitting on our heels while the health insurance system excludes the very people who need coverage most. If filling gaps is the only way we can move forward at this time to help early retirees and individuals with health problems gain access to coverage, then let's get on with it and begin to fill in those gaps. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, when comprehensive health reform failed in 1994, we were left with the legacy of a major unmet challenge-- providing secure health care coverage to millions of uninsured Americans. Despite the inability of Congress to enact comprehensive health reform, many of my colleagues and I continue to work to achieve that goal, albeit incrementally. The Kennedy-Kassebaum bill was part of that effort, as were the provisions of the recent budget agreement that made $24 billion available to states to cover uninsured children. As part of this ongoing effort, last week I introduced legislation that would restore rights and protections to early retirees who are abruptly dropped from their employer's health plan. Today I am introducing legislation to help individuals who do not have employer- sponsored coverage and who, because of a previous or current health condition, are unable to obtain private non-group health insurance. While today many people without employer-sponsored insurance can purchase health coverage in the individual insurance market, those with health problems --conditions as common as asthma or migraine headaches and as controllable as hypertension or allergies--may not be able to find an insurer willing to cover them at any price. As many as 4 million Americans fall into this abyss, known by the insurance industry as the ``medically uninsurable.'' Many Americans felt that we had solved that problem when we enacted the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. I have received phone calls and letters from men and women in South Dakota and around the country who thought that enactment of the Kennedy/Kassebaum legislation meant they could not be denied private health insurance. Unfortunately, that is not the case. While the Kennedy/Kassebaum bill makes it easier for some groups to maintain their coverage if they switch jobs or become unemployed, it does not improve health insurance affordability or access to coverage for individuals who have not been part of the employer-sponsored insurance system. Kennedy-Kassebaum does not require insurers to cover self-employed individuals unless they were previously enrolled under a group health plan. Moreover, insurance companies still can deny coverage to workers whose employers do not provide employee health benefits. The reality is that if you do not have employer-sponsored insurance and have, or have had, any of a number of health problems, you're probably out of luck. Too many insurance companies continue to cherry-pick the healthiest of us and leave unprotected those most in need of insurance. This is not only regrettable for those left without coverage, it is shortsighted. Uninsured individuals often end up needing expensive emergency room care and extended inpatient convalescence because they were unable to afford the early, relatively inexpensive care necessary to prevent these serious problems. The unnecessary costs associated with the treatment of preventable diseases are passed on to the insured population through higher hospital charges and insurance premiums. The uninsured suffer needless health problems, while the insured pay more for everyone's health care. Ironically, insurers then point to these higher premiums when they try to justify their exclusionary underwriting practices, compounding the problem. This is the unfortunate legacy of our inability to enact comprehensive reform and it is why we need to continue to pursue every means available to provide reasonably priced health insurance to all Americans, even if we have to do it one step at a time. The legislation I am introducing today would allow individuals who have been denied coverage for medical reasons to purchase private coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. While FEHBP insurers could charge high-risk individuals up to 150 percent of the premium paid by federal employees--to account for differences in the risk of insuring the two populations--these previously uninsured individuals would have access to insurance and in every other respect would be treated the same as federal employees. The bill is structured to prevent any cost shifting to Federal employees. The two populations would be accounted for separately, while eligible non-Federal individuals would be able to enroll in the program without jumping through elaborate administrative hoops. To allay the concerns of those who may fear the creation of a new entitlement, despite the fact that we're talking about private coverage paid for by private citizens, the FEHBP buy-in will sunset after 10 years. I'm confident that what we'll learn from this demonstration is that private insurers can cover high-risk individuals without disrupting the private insurance market. One thing is certain. The status quo isn't working. When health insurance is reserved for only the healthy, the system is not working efficiently for any of us. We must stop perpetuating a system that relegates certain individuals to permanently uninsured status if they are unlucky enough to become sick at a time when coverage was not in their name or was beyond their financial reach. This bill empowers a disenfranchised group of individuals to purchase private health insurance. They are willing to pay a fair price for it-- all they need is an insurer who will offer it. Through FEHBP this legislation provides that opportunity. This legislation is not a comprehensive solution to our health insurance challenges. Filling this gap won't bring health care costs under long-term control; it won't eliminate the billions of dollars lost to waste, fraud and abuse; and it won't create a system that uniformly reflects consumers' values regarding disease prevention, high quality care, privacy and access to treatment. Ultimately, we still need a critical and comprehensive reevaluation and reform of the two- tiered, patchwork health care financing and delivery system we've erected over the years. However, this bill represents one long overdue step, and I hope Congress will enact it in the near future. There is no excuse for sitting on our heels while the health insurance system excludes the very people who need coverage most. If filling gaps is the only way we can move forward at this time to help early retirees and individuals with health problems gain access to coverage, then let's get on with it and begin to fill in those gaps. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will just ask for the information of our colleagues whether this might be an appropriate time to inform our colleagues that we are not prepared at this point to talk about the weekend, but that they should be prepared to stay here this weekend, given the uncertainty of the schedule. Would the majority leader care to comment on that?

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, 35 years ago today, the people of Massachusetts made the very wise decision to send Edward M. Kennedy to Congress. For 35 years, Ted Kennedy has fought for their interests--and for the interests of all working people. It is said that some people seek public office to be someone; others seek it in order to do something. Ted Kennedy is a pre-eminent example of the latter. For 35 years, he has fought unwaveringly to improve the living standards of working families and to make sure that, in America, if you're sick, you can see a doctor--no matter how much money you have, or how little. He has used his great, booming voice to speak for those who have no voice, and he has never wavered in his principles. Ted Kennedy does not change his politics with the season. He is a man of principle. At the same time, he is a pragmatist who wants, more than anything, to get things done. I will never forget how he looked after the balanced budget agreement was signed and the new children's health care program was created. He came into my office. His Irish eyes were smiling. To everyone he passed he said, ``Isn't it wonderful?'' He looked so much like a proud new father--I half-expected him to start handing out cigars. When he spoke about that victory, he didn't talk about how many votes his plan had gotten. He talked about how many children it would help. In 35 years, he has never forgotten the reason he is here. It's not about strategy, or abstract policy. It's about people. The struggle to create the children's health plan also illustrates another of the basic truths about Ted Kennedy. There are those who view my friend as an inflexible liberal. While he would claim the liberal label with pride, Ted Kennedy is one of the most flexible people in this Chamber. Ask his friend, Orrin Hatch. People call them the Odd Couple. I'll let my colleagues decide for themselves who is Felix Unger, and who is Oscar Madison. Ted Kennedy takes his work seriously, but he doesn't take himself too seriously. His staff Christmas parties and his costumes are legendary on the Hill. But not many people off the Hill know that one year he came as Milli--or was it Vanilli?--and last year he and Vicki appeared as 2 of the 101 dalmations. Sometimes when I am on this floor, I look up to the gallery to see the people who have come here to see this great institution at work. I can always tell when Ted Kennedy has walked on to the floor by the reactions of the people in the gallery. Invariably, people will sit up. Someone will lean over and whisper to the person next to them, ``Look, Ted Kennedy.'' He is, undoubtedly, the best known and most recognized Member of this body. Yet, he remains a modest man. He is a worker among workers. No one in our caucus works harder. He's often the first one to work in the morning, and the last person to leave at night. No job is too small for Ted Kennedy. At the same time, no challenge is too big. He comes from a family that understands the American dream. And he is determined to keep that dream alive for a new generation of Americans. Senator Kennedy's family also understands heartbreak. Carved into the desk in which he sits are the names of his two brothers who sat there before him, John and Robert. Two brothers who were taken from him, and us, because of their commitment to public service. Many people--perhaps most people--who had suffered such loss might withdraw from public service, in fear or anger. They might conclude, rightly, that their family had given enough. But not Ted Kennedy. He has stayed here and he worked. To some of us, he is an inspiration. To others, he is, frankly, an irritation. But he is the same sort of irritation that the speck of sand is to the oyster. Because of him, we have produced pearls. We passed the Kennedy-Kassebaum Health Care Portability Act and the Children's Health Care Act. We raised the minimum wage. As long as here is here, I know that Ted Kennedy will continue to fight for better health care for all Americans, for educational opportunity, and economic justice. If history is any guide, he will move this body, and this Nation, forward on all those fronts. I am proud to call him my colleague and my friend. I congratulate him today on 35 years of service in the Senate to his State and to his country. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to a key institution in my State, the South Dakota Community Foundation [SDCF], which celebrates its 10th anniversary on November 11, 1997. This statewide community foundation is a model of how private funds are raised within communities to support projects that enable those communities to enter the 21st century in a competitive position--people helping themselves. As with many success stories, the SDCF was launched by a group of people with the vision of raising and investing funds with the goal of creating an environment in which South Dakota communities can revitalize themselves. This vision was embraced by the critical early stage investors providing seed funding, yielding, as we do in our farmland, a rich harvest 10 years later. I must take my hat off to the vision and drive of then-South Dakota State senator and now SDCF executive director, Bernie Christenson, and the active support by our late Governor, George Mickelson. I regret George is not alive to see the legacy of his actions in 1987, but his spirit lives with us through this foundation and in every one of the communities it helps. That seed funding for the SDCF came from the 3M Foundation, McKnight Foundation and the South Dakota Legislature. I congratulate the leaders of those 3 institutions. The success of the SDCF is also a testament to former South Dakota native, former 3M CEO, and McKnight Foundation founder, William McKnight. We can all learn from William McKnight about the value of giving back to the community and institutions that helped shape our lives. The State of South Dakota and the 3M Foundation each contributed $2 million, and the McKnight Foundation committed up to $3 million in a challenge grant. Less than 13 months later, Bernie and George had raised $3 million to meet that first challenge; the foundation was off and running with a $10 million fund. Ten years after its creation, the South Dakota Community Foundation has reached the $20 million mark and administers these funds through a wide range of unrestricted, designated and donor-advised funds. This has been accomplished over the years through the leadership, commitment, and hard work of Bernie Christenson, an administrative assistant, and countless board members, including the current board president, Paul Christen. I am pleased that the Northwest Area Foundation has joined its neighboring twin cities-based foundations, 3M and McKnight, in providing funds to the South Dakota Community Foundation. In a letter sent last year to northwest area president, Karl Stauber, I strongly urged support for the SDCF plan to challenge communities to join SDCF in raising capital to endow small community loan funds that would be used to help existing businesses expand and to assist entrepreneurs in starting new businesses, with the goal of long-term community revitalization. Bernie and my staff coordinated a short tour of South Dakota communities and projects for Karl late last year. It is important for foundations as well as federal agencies to get out from behind the desk and see close up the commitment and innovation flourishing in our communities. Just before closing down the foundation grantmaking for a year of strategic planning, Northwest Area Foundation committed its support to this project and 10 communities have now stepped up to the challenge and matched the foundation funds with their own. I am reminded of a letter President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent to South Dakota Governor Harlan Bushfield in 1939 on the occasion of South Dakota's 50th anniversary of its entry into the Union. President Roosevelt said, ``The 50 years that have elapsed since South Dakota became a State have witnessed the end of one period of pioneering and the ushering in of another.'' Mr. President, nearly 60 years after Franklin Roosevelt wrote that letter, we in the Northern Great Plains are in a transition toward yet another era, confronted now by tremendous global economic forces and declining Federal support for key economic development activities and institutions. These public/private partnerships exemplified by the South Dakota Community Foundation--lean but effective in its management, guided by local development officials, and supported by individual, corporate, and foundation investors--are critical institutions in helping the Northern Great Plains make this transition. I pledge to lend my active support and encouragement to the South Dakota Community Foundation so we can return to Brookings, SD in another 10 years and celebrate continued community vitality.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thought I would just take a moment while we were negotiating here on the next vote and our schedule, to comment briefly on the cloture vote that we have just taken. It is clear that within our caucus there are varying positions with regard to the Coverdell bill. Obviously, it is our desire to accommodate all of our colleagues as we attempt to work through those positions, for we recognize the importance of a good debate about the issue. The bill, as we all know, was brought to the floor in an unusual set of circumstances. It passed the House and was not sent to the Finance Committee as most tax legislation is. It was sent directly to the desk and pulled from the desk for consideration. And a cloture motion was filed immediately, precluding Senators' rights to offer amendments, including relevant amendments. So it was on the basis of procedure, and our inability to offer amendments, that many of my colleagues have chosen to oppose cloture this morning. It is my hope that we can work with our colleagues to come up with an agreement that will allow the consideration of amendments. Democrats need to protect their rights to offer amendments regardless of the legislation, but especially on matters relating to tax matters. And that is, in essence, the concern that we express in our opposition to cloture this morning. Let's have a good debate. Let's offer amendments. Let's have an opportunity to consider alternatives. But let's ensure that the normal process, the regular order, is adhered to as we take up matters of this import. So that is, in essence, the situation we find ourselves in this morning. On the basis of procedure, given our inability to offer amendments to the bill, many of our colleagues found it necessary to oppose cloture. It is my hope that over the course of the next couple of days we can come to some resolution with regard to amendments and therefore have the kind of debate we should have--the opportunity to discuss this issue and consider the bill in more detail. I believe that ultimately we can resolve this impasse. I thank Senators for giving me the opportunity to provide that explanation. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to waive rule XXII to use a couple minutes of my leader time.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for his efforts and for the leadership he has shown in keeping everybody at the table as long as he has in order for this to be accomplished. Let me also thank Senators McCain and Feingold for their diligence in working as long as they have to get us to this point. Finally, let me thank Senator McConnell for his involvement and his participation in allowing us to reach this agreement. As Democratic leader I can say with great enthusiasm that we are pleased that we have now reached this point. I also feel the need to express my public gratitude to Senators in the Democratic caucus for their willingness to be united in demonstrating the importance of this issue. This is not better necessarily for Democrats or Republicans. But in our view, this is a very big victory for the country. This will give us an opportunity to have a good debate as we have discussed, and I look forward to that opportunity sometime prior to the first week in March. Let me say, Mr. President, as a result of this agreement, I personally will oppose any other effort to bring this issue up prior to the time agreed to, because I believe we have necessary work to be done, and I believe that it is in the interest in keeping with this agreement that we now turn to those other matters. I expect a full-fledged debate with plenty of opportunity to offer amendments. Given this agreement, now I have every assurance and confidence that will happen. So, again, Mr. President, let me reiterate my public gratitude to all those involved for the successful agreement that we have announced this afternoon. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish quickly to respond. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader mentioned several other pieces of legislation that have urgency to them. Our position has been all along that on those occasions where there is urgent legislation, we want to work with the majority to expeditiously move those bills through the process. One in particular is the 6-month ISTEA bill. We have indicated that we are more than ready to respond to the bipartisan Governors' request stated yesterday in a letter that we pass a 6-month ISTEA bill. Members of the House leadership have said they will only accept a short-term bill. The House short-term bill is currently on the calendar. I hope we can take that House-passed bill, amend it with any improvements the Senate deems appropriate, and quickly to deal with the urgent matter of reauthorizing expired safety programs and the urgent matter of providing contract authority that the 6-month legislation addresses. So we are more than willing to work with our colleagues on such matters of urgency. This tax bill, however, would not be called urgent. It may be, as the Senator has indicated, a popular bill. But there are other popular tax bills that didn't get in the budget reconciliation package last summer that many Senators want to revisit. This happens to be one of them. We have a whole host of other tax provisions that we think the Senate, if we are going to have a tax bill, ought to at least give some thought to reconsideration. So again we are certainly ready to work with our colleagues, and I am willing to work with the majority leader to see if we can't resolve that matter. But I am very hopeful and determined to ensure that we do come to some final agreement on a procedure on campaign finance, and, like the majority leader, I stand willing to work with those who have been very much involved in the issue to see if we can do that this week. I will not object. The PRESIDING OFFICER [Ms. Collins]. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I sought recognition.

Mr. DASCHLE. I do, Madam President. But I would be happy to allow the distinguished Senator from Texas to complete his remarks.

Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate the accommodation of the Senator from Texas. Madam President, just very briefly, because the distinguished majority leader made some comments relating to the ISTEA bill, let me just say as succinctly as I can, there is a difference between desirable outcome and an essential outcome. A 6-year bill certainly is desirable. I have long favored a 6-year bill with my full support. But a 6-month bill is now essential. House leaders have said they are not taking up the desirable bill. They are taking up the essential bill-- the 6-month bill that bridges the two legislative sessions to accommodate our Nation's highway, transit and safety needs. We have come to the recognition, given our current circumstances, that the essential bill may be all we can do. So I do think it is important as we consider these bills to recognize that there is a difference between essential and desirable. We recognize the importance of getting the essential work done. That is the reason we would support this afternoon taking up that bill. I again appreciate the accommodation of the Senator from Texas. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on behalf of the South Dakota congressional delegation and Gov. Bill Janklow, I am today introducing the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and the State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Act. This proposal, which is the culmination of more than 2 years of discussion with Governor Janklow and his staff, South Dakota tribal leaders, representatives of South Dakota sportsmen groups and affected citizens, lays out a plan for resolving some of the environmental and jurisdictional problems created by the construction of the main stem dams nearly 40 years ago. Land transfers and their attendant jurisdictional implications are serious issues with real world ramifications, and it has been the Governor's and my goal throughout this process to achieve consensus on how to proceed. The introduction of this legislation is one more step on the path to that consensus. I would like to take this opportunity to outline the bill, explain how we got to this point and suggest where we might go from here. More than a half century ago, Congress set in motion a series of events that resulted in an extraordinary loss of land and wildlife habitat by the State of South Dakota, tribes, and individual landowners along the Missouri River. This loss of land and the accompanying fractionation of jurisdiction has fueled extensive and costly litigation over the regulation of hunting and fishing along the river. Moreover, the Federal Government has never mitigated the impact of the dams on critical wildlife habitat, as it is required to do by the 1958 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The legislation I am introducing today is an attempt to settle those issues without further litigation, to provide a means to fairly compensate the State of South Dakota and the tribes for the loss of habitat, and to expand public hunting opportunities for sportsmen. This bill would not have been possible without the efforts of many South Dakotans. Governor Janklow and I have worked closely together for over 2 years to craft this compromise. Many tribal leaders in the State have provided constructive input throughout this process. In particular, I would like to acknowledge Chairman Michael Jandreau of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and Chairman Gregg Bourland of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe for their wise advice, friendship and guidance. Senator Johnson and Congressman Thune have approached this often contentious project with open minds. It is significant that Senator Johnson is a cosponsor of this bill and that Representative Thune will introduce a companion measure in the House of Representatives. I would also like to thank John Cooper, the secretary of the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department, for the enormous amount of time he spent holding public meetings and diligently working with all interested parties to sketch out the broad contours of this compromise as well as to craft the small details. His patience and imagination have been critical to the successful development of this legislation. Finally, our draft proposal was discussed with representatives of the United Sportsmen and South Dakota Wildlife Federation. Both groups made constructive comments about the draft, and I appreciate their endorsement of the bill we are introducing today. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and the State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Act establishes trust funds to compensate the State and the tribes for the terrestrial wildlife habitat that was lost due to construction of the mainstem Missouri River dams. It transfers to the Interior Department to be held in trust for the tribes the lands that were acquired for the Pick-Sloan project and that remain above the exclusive flood pool. The tribes will be able to regulate hunting and fishing on those lands for all who wish to use them, as long as they accept the conditions of the bill, which include protecting the ability of the heirs and assignees of Indian and non-Indian ranchers who lost land to the construction of the dams to graze on those lands and reaching agreement with the State on rules governing fishing on the Missouri River within reservation boundaries. Unless otherwise agreed to by the tribes and the State, recreation areas currently operated by the corps within the boundaries of the Indian reservations will be transferred into trust for those tribes to manage, while recreation areas located outside of the boundaries of Indian reservations will be leased to the State. Since there is insufficient Federal project land in South Dakota on which to perform the necessary wildlife habitat mitigation, this legislation would authorize the tribes and the State to spend revenues from the trust funds on other projects related to wildlife conservation and public access to habitat throughout the State. The result should be expanded opportunity for South Dakota hunters. Through the trust funds, the tribes and State will have a steady source of funding with which to implement formal wildlife habitat mitigation plans. To supplement those plans, the tribes and State will be able to use revenues from the trust funds to implement plans developed in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to lease private lands for the protection of important habitat, including habitat for threatened and endangered species. Private landowners who participate in this program will be required to provide public access for sportsmen during hunting season. The South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department estimates that over 200,000 acres of private land will be enrolled in this program, significantly expanding public hunting opportunities for sportsmen throughout the State. The tribes and the State will be able to use proceeds from the trust funds to operate the recreation areas. The tribes and the State will be able to use the funds to develop, maintain and protect wildlife habitat and recreation areas along the Missouri River. And, the tribes will be able to use revenues from the fund to protect native American cultural sites threatened by the operation of the Pick- Sloan project. To understand the approach taken by this legislation, it is necessary to understand the events that were prologue to its development. In response to a series of major floods along the upper Missouri River in the early part of this century, Congress enacted the Flood Control Act of 1944, which called for implementation of a plan developed by General Pick of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and William Sloan of the Bureau of Reclamation, known as the Pick-Sloan plan, to establish a series of dams along the river. By authorizing the construction of these massive earthen dams, this law played a critical role in shaping the future development of the State and of the downstream States that benefited from meaningful flood control. By hosting these dams, South Dakota has provided valuable storage of water in the region, preventing flooding, and allowing development along the river in downstream States all the way to the Mississippi River. The sacrifices South Dakota made for this purpose, however, can be counted in the loss of roughly a quarter of a million acres of the most productive, unique, and irreplaceable cottonwood forests and river bottomland in the upper Great Plains. Land that once provided habitat and critical wintering cover for nearly 400 species of wildlife is now submerged. The remains of those cottonwood forests can be seen today from the banks of the mainstem reservoirs, their dead tops sticking out of the water reminding all of us what was once such an integral element of the upper Great Plains ecosystem. The effects of that loss also can be felt today. Last winter, South Dakota suffered through some of the most severe weather in recent memory. Wildlife throughout the State, unable to find sufficient cover, froze to death in vast numbers. At the time the Pick-Sloan project was being constructed, Congress passed the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958. That law officially recognized the severe loss of wildlife habitat that could accompany the construction of water projects and, as a result, required the Federal construction agency--in this case the Corps of Engineers-- to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State wildlife agency for the purposes of determining the possible damage to wildlife resources and for the purposes of determining means and measures that should be adopted to prevent the loss of or damage to such wildlife resources, as well as to provide concurrently for the development and improvement of such resources. This requirement applied to any Federal project not yet 60 percent complete at the time of enactment. In South Dakota, this meant the Oahe and Big Bend dams. Despite the requirements of the 1958 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Federal Government has never adequately mitigated the loss of habitat that accompanied those projects. It may be impossible to completely recreate the unique habitat that once existed along the Missouri River. However, the Federal Government does bear the responsibility to the State and tribes of South Dakota to do whatever it can to mitigate that loss. Between 1960 and 1982, the corps developed seven major plans to mitigate the lost wildlife habitat. However, since each of those plans proposed the politically unpopular fee title acquisition of land and since the corps did not forward any of these plans to Congress for authorization, none was ever implemented. In 1982, the Corps of Engineers developed a new plan, known as the Post-Authorization Mitigation Report for Fish and Wildlife Mitigation, Lake Oahe and Sharpe, SD. This plan, which called for mitigating only a fraction of the habitat that was lost, was unique in that it did not rely on acquisition of land in fee title, but rather made existing project lands available for mitigation work. An unsteady history of implementation of the 1982 plan began in 1989. In 1990, funding was cut off and then eventually restored. The corps again terminated funding for the project in 1995, only to restore it in the face of delegation opposition. It has become clear that wildlife habitat mitigation for Lakes Oahe and Sharpe are not high priorities for the Corps of Engineers. While I recognize that this is attributable in some measure to the levels of funding provided that agency by Congress, that does not excuse the Federal Government of its responsibility to mitigate the lost habitat. Another important feature of the legislation being introduced today deals with the management of the Corps of Engineers' recreation areas in the State. In partial compensation for South Dakota's sacrifice of prime lands to the construction of the dams, Congress had intended that considerable irrigation development would occur along the Missouri River. While irrigation development has fallen far short of expectations, today roughly 5.1 million residents and nonresidents benefit by using the reservoirs for camping, fishing, boating, hunting, and general recreation. Despite the use that these reservoirs enjoy, there is serious concern over the corp's ability to continue to maintain its extensive network of recreation areas along the river. Adjusted for inflation, the corps' budget for this purpose has shrunk by 30 percent since 1993. Prospects for reversing this trend are poor, making the challenge of funding both wildlife habitat mitigation and recreation area maintenance more and more daunting in the future. That is why this legislation would transfer those recreation areas to the tribes and the State and why the trust funds would be used to provide a predictable source of funding to meet the needs of the 5.1 million people who use those facilities. There is solid precedent for the establishment of dedicated trust funds to compensate the tribes and the State for losses suffered as a result of these projects. In 1992 Congress enacted the Standing Rock and Three Affiliated Tribes Infrastructure Compensation Act, establishing a trust fund to compensate the tribes for infrastructure losses suffered as a result of construction of the dams. That trust fund was capitalized with funding equal to 25 percent of the annual revenues to the Western Area Power Administration from sales of hydropower generated by the mainstem dams of the Missouri River. In 1996, Congress unanimously passed the Crow Creek Infrastructure Compensation Act, establishing a similar fund, and I expect Congress to pass a similar bill for the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe in the near future. In short, Congress has recognized the appropriateness of linking legitimate compensation for losses resulting from the construction of the dams to the power revenues those dams generate. The legislation I am introducing today adopts that same principle. As I mentioned, the development of this legislation has involved extensive discussion and negotiation among many interested parties throughout the State. The bill has undergone five drafts over the course of nearly 10 months. A number of public meetings have been held to discuss the bill, and Governor Janklow and I have received, considered, and responded to, comments and suggestions from interested members of the public. The tribes expressed a strong desire to protect their jurisdiction over the hunting and fishing of tribal members. The legislation adopts a cooperative State-tribal enforcement system based on a previous Memorandum of Agreement reached between the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department--a system that respects and protects tribal sovereignty. To transfer the land to trust status and to keep the land in trust, the tribes would implement an enforcement system whereby both the State and the tribes would be able to arrest violators of fish and game rules on the waters of the Missouri River within Indian reservation boundaries, with tribal members prosecuted in tribal or Federal court and non-Indians prosecuted in State or Federal court. This protects tribal jurisdiction over tribal members and should maximize the effectiveness of fish and game enforcement efforts along the river. Also, under the bill, participating tribes will be able to establish seasons and bag limits for hunting on the lands that will be transferred into trust and to enforce those rules against all those who will hunt on those lands--an opportunity they are denied currently. In response to concerns expressed by the tribes about the effect of the bill on treaty rights and water rights, language has been included in the bill stating that both treaty rights and water rights will be protected. A number of counties expressed concern that they would lose their 75- percent share of revenues from leases the corps currently holds on the transferred lands. Under the bill, the Department of the Interior will be responsible for maintaining those leases. To ensure that the counties are not penalized by the transfer of the land to trust status the bill directs the Department of the Interior to pay the affected counties 100 percent of the revenues from leases on the lands. Sportsmen commented that the State should obtain new lands to mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat. The bill transfers the 20,000 acre Bureau of Reclamation's Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal lands to the State for that purpose. Since the land will be transferred in fee title, the State will pay the county taxes on that land. Non-Indian ranchers and Indian allottees who lost land or whose ancestors lost land to the construction of the dams, urged that the bill clarify that heirs or assignees be granted the right to graze on the lands taken from them or their ancestors, that access easements be guaranteed, and that any tribe or agency requiring fencing be responsible for installing and maintaining it. This legislation safeguards that grazing opportunity. Those with easements and rights-of-way on land that would be transferred to the Interior Department, such as the electric utilities, asked that language be added to protect those easements and rights-of- way. Broad language has been added to preserve existing easements on any lands transferred to the Interior Department to be held in trust for the tribes and on any recreation areas leased to the State. The Corps of Engineers needs to ensure that it retain its ability to operate the reservoirs. The bill protects its ability to do so. Despite these modifications, not every concern or comment could be addressed. Some South Dakota tribes that do not border the river have expressed frustration that they were not included in this legislation. It has been our intention from the beginning of this process to include all eligible tribes in this legislation. Since the 1958 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act calls for the Federal Government to mitigate the loss of habitat that occurred due to construction of the Oahe and Big Bend dams, all the tribes that lost habitat due to the construction of those projects qualify for mitigation under Federal law and have been invited to participate in this bill. Two eligible tribes--the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe--have decided not to be part of this arrangement at this point. I respect their decisions, and they are not included in the legislation. In summary, Mr. President, the State of South Dakota, the Federal Government, the tribes, the wildlife and all who use these reservoirs for hunting, fishing, and recreation will benefit from this bill. It provides for a fair resolution to the environmental and jurisdictional problems created by the construction of the main stem dams nearly 40 years ago. I am hopeful that the appropriate congressional committees will schedule action on this legislation as soon as possible so that further testimony can be heard and necessary refinements can be made. Our goal is to enact a bill that will allow meaningful wildlife habitat mitigation to begin, resolve the regulatory issues relating to hunting and fishing along the Missouri River, provide the public with well- maintained recreation areas along the Missouri River and expand hunting opportunities long into the future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Lugar, Senator Harkin, and their staffs for the tremendous effort they have devoted to the research reauthorization bill over the past several months, and congratulate them for the legislation we have before us today. We owe much of the credit for this country's agricultural success to our network of land grant institutions, State agriculture experiment stations, USDA's Agricultural Research Service, and hundreds of county extension offices. These entities work together in a wide range of ways to produce cutting-edge research and then convert it into improved practices and technology meaningful to producers. It is important to strengthen this network further. This bill places increased emphasis on collaboration among institutions and disciplines, and encourages pursuit of goals benefiting more than one region or State. It emphasizes priority-setting so resources can be targeted to emerging and critical issues when necessary, and establishes new mechanisms for ensuring accountability. Specifically, I am pleased that the bill preserves existing programs that share these objectives, such as the Fund for Rural America. As you know, the fund was designed to provide immediate, flexible, and applied research and support to people in rural areas who are adjusting to rapid changes in the agricultural sector since the last farm bill. The Fund for Rural America promotes value-added processing, which is vital to successful rural economic development. Our rural communities must capture more of the revenue their locally produced commodities ultimately generate. Value-added processing keeps that revenue local, which will be critical to the future of those communities. I am pleased to say also that this bill treats smaller institutions fairly. It significantly levels the playing field for small schools competing for limited research funds, and it is sensitive to the relative importance of formula funds for institutions in agrarian States with low populations. Finally, I had hoped we would be able to address the problems with the CRP haying and grazing program, but I recognize that consensus on a specific remedy remains elusive. I do hope we will be more successful on this front in the near future because the current system is creating both severe difficulties for the people managing those lands and growing uneasiness among all groups interested in CRP's success. I urge the committee to continue working on this issue. This bill is a positive step forward. Federal investment in agricultural research, extension, and education is one of the most important duties of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and, again, I commend Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin for their commitment to this effort.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on behalf of the South Dakota congressional delegation and Gov. Bill Janklow, I am today introducing the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and the State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Act. This proposal, which is the culmination of more than 2 years of discussion with Governor Janklow and his staff, South Dakota tribal leaders, representatives of South Dakota sportsmen groups and affected citizens, lays out a plan for resolving some of the environmental and jurisdictional problems created by the construction of the main stem dams nearly 40 years ago. Land transfers and their attendant jurisdictional implications are serious issues with real world ramifications, and it has been the Governor's and my goal throughout this process to achieve consensus on how to proceed. The introduction of this legislation is one more step on the path to that consensus. I would like to take this opportunity to outline the bill, explain how we got to this point and suggest where we might go from here. More than a half century ago, Congress set in motion a series of events that resulted in an extraordinary loss of land and wildlife habitat by the State of South Dakota, tribes, and individual landowners along the Missouri River. This loss of land and the accompanying fractionation of jurisdiction has fueled extensive and costly litigation over the regulation of hunting and fishing along the river. Moreover, the Federal Government has never mitigated the impact of the dams on critical wildlife habitat, as it is required to do by the 1958 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The legislation I am introducing today is an attempt to settle those issues without further litigation, to provide a means to fairly compensate the State of South Dakota and the tribes for the loss of habitat, and to expand public hunting opportunities for sportsmen. This bill would not have been possible without the efforts of many South Dakotans. Governor Janklow and I have worked closely together for over 2 years to craft this compromise. Many tribal leaders in the State have provided constructive input throughout this process. In particular, I would like to acknowledge Chairman Michael Jandreau of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and Chairman Gregg Bourland of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe for their wise advice, friendship and guidance. Senator Johnson and Congressman Thune have approached this often contentious project with open minds. It is significant that Senator Johnson is a cosponsor of this bill and that Representative Thune will introduce a companion measure in the House of Representatives. I would also like to thank John Cooper, the secretary of the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department, for the enormous amount of time he spent holding public meetings and diligently working with all interested parties to sketch out the broad contours of this compromise as well as to craft the small details. His patience and imagination have been critical to the successful development of this legislation. Finally, our draft proposal was discussed with representatives of the United Sportsmen and South Dakota Wildlife Federation. Both groups made constructive comments about the draft, and I appreciate their endorsement of the bill we are introducing today. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and the State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Act establishes trust funds to compensate the State and the tribes for the terrestrial wildlife habitat that was lost due to construction of the mainstem Missouri River dams. It transfers to the Interior Department to be held in trust for the tribes the lands that were acquired for the Pick-Sloan project and that remain above the exclusive flood pool. The tribes will be able to regulate hunting and fishing on those lands for all who wish to use them, as long as they accept the conditions of the bill, which include protecting the ability of the heirs and assignees of Indian and non-Indian ranchers who lost land to the construction of the dams to graze on those lands and reaching agreement with the State on rules governing fishing on the Missouri River within reservation boundaries. Unless otherwise agreed to by the tribes and the State, recreation areas currently operated by the corps within the boundaries of the Indian reservations will be transferred into trust for those tribes to manage, while recreation areas located outside of the boundaries of Indian reservations will be leased to the State. Since there is insufficient Federal project land in South Dakota on which to perform the necessary wildlife habitat mitigation, this legislation would authorize the tribes and the State to spend revenues from the trust funds on other projects related to wildlife conservation and public access to habitat throughout the State. The result should be expanded opportunity for South Dakota hunters. Through the trust funds, the tribes and State will have a steady source of funding with which to implement formal wildlife habitat mitigation plans. To supplement those plans, the tribes and State will be able to use revenues from the trust funds to implement plans developed in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to lease private lands for the protection of important habitat, including habitat for threatened and endangered species. Private landowners who participate in this program will be required to provide public access for sportsmen during hunting season. The South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department estimates that over 200,000 acres of private land will be enrolled in this program, significantly expanding public hunting opportunities for sportsmen throughout the State. The tribes and the State will be able to use proceeds from the trust funds to operate the recreation areas. The tribes and the State will be able to use the funds to develop, maintain and protect wildlife habitat and recreation areas along the Missouri River. And, the tribes will be able to use revenues from the fund to protect native American cultural sites threatened by the operation of the Pick- Sloan project. To understand the approach taken by this legislation, it is necessary to understand the events that were prologue to its development. In response to a series of major floods along the upper Missouri River in the early part of this century, Congress enacted the Flood Control Act of 1944, which called for implementation of a plan developed by General Pick of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and William Sloan of the Bureau of Reclamation, known as the Pick-Sloan plan, to establish a series of dams along the river. By authorizing the construction of these massive earthen dams, this law played a critical role in shaping the future development of the State and of the downstream States that benefited from meaningful flood control. By hosting these dams, South Dakota has provided valuable storage of water in the region, preventing flooding, and allowing development along the river in downstream States all the way to the Mississippi River. The sacrifices South Dakota made for this purpose, however, can be counted in the loss of roughly a quarter of a million acres of the most productive, unique, and irreplaceable cottonwood forests and river bottomland in the upper Great Plains. Land that once provided habitat and critical wintering cover for nearly 400 species of wildlife is now submerged. The remains of those cottonwood forests can be seen today from the banks of the mainstem reservoirs, their dead tops sticking out of the water reminding all of us what was once such an integral element of the upper Great Plains ecosystem. The effects of that loss also can be felt today. Last winter, South Dakota suffered through some of the most severe weather in recent memory. Wildlife throughout the State, unable to find sufficient cover, froze to death in vast numbers. At the time the Pick-Sloan project was being constructed, Congress passed the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958. That law officially recognized the severe loss of wildlife habitat that could accompany the construction of water projects and, as a result, required the Federal construction agency--in this case the Corps of Engineers-- to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State wildlife agency for the purposes of determining the possible damage to wildlife resources and for the purposes of determining means and measures that should be adopted to prevent the loss of or damage to such wildlife resources, as well as to provide concurrently for the development and improvement of such resources. This requirement applied to any Federal project not yet 60 percent complete at the time of enactment. In South Dakota, this meant the Oahe and Big Bend dams. Despite the requirements of the 1958 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Federal Government has never adequately mitigated the loss of habitat that accompanied those projects. It may be impossible to completely recreate the unique habitat that once existed along the Missouri River. However, the Federal Government does bear the responsibility to the State and tribes of South Dakota to do whatever it can to mitigate that loss. Between 1960 and 1982, the corps developed seven major plans to mitigate the lost wildlife habitat. However, since each of those plans proposed the politically unpopular fee title acquisition of land and since the corps did not forward any of these plans to Congress for authorization, none was ever implemented. In 1982, the Corps of Engineers developed a new plan, known as the Post-Authorization Mitigation Report for Fish and Wildlife Mitigation, Lake Oahe and Sharpe, SD. This plan, which called for mitigating only a fraction of the habitat that was lost, was unique in that it did not rely on acquisition of land in fee title, but rather made existing project lands available for mitigation work. An unsteady history of implementation of the 1982 plan began in 1989. In 1990, funding was cut off and then eventually restored. The corps again terminated funding for the project in 1995, only to restore it in the face of delegation opposition. It has become clear that wildlife habitat mitigation for Lakes Oahe and Sharpe are not high priorities for the Corps of Engineers. While I recognize that this is attributable in some measure to the levels of funding provided that agency by Congress, that does not excuse the Federal Government of its responsibility to mitigate the lost habitat. Another important feature of the legislation being introduced today deals with the management of the Corps of Engineers' recreation areas in the State. In partial compensation for South Dakota's sacrifice of prime lands to the construction of the dams, Congress had intended that considerable irrigation development would occur along the Missouri River. While irrigation development has fallen far short of expectations, today roughly 5.1 million residents and nonresidents benefit by using the reservoirs for camping, fishing, boating, hunting, and general recreation. Despite the use that these reservoirs enjoy, there is serious concern over the corp's ability to continue to maintain its extensive network of recreation areas along the river. Adjusted for inflation, the corps' budget for this purpose has shrunk by 30 percent since 1993. Prospects for reversing this trend are poor, making the challenge of funding both wildlife habitat mitigation and recreation area maintenance more and more daunting in the future. That is why this legislation would transfer those recreation areas to the tribes and the State and why the trust funds would be used to provide a predictable source of funding to meet the needs of the 5.1 million people who use those facilities. There is solid precedent for the establishment of dedicated trust funds to compensate the tribes and the State for losses suffered as a result of these projects. In 1992 Congress enacted the Standing Rock and Three Affiliated Tribes Infrastructure Compensation Act, establishing a trust fund to compensate the tribes for infrastructure losses suffered as a result of construction of the dams. That trust fund was capitalized with funding equal to 25 percent of the annual revenues to the Western Area Power Administration from sales of hydropower generated by the mainstem dams of the Missouri River. In 1996, Congress unanimously passed the Crow Creek Infrastructure Compensation Act, establishing a similar fund, and I expect Congress to pass a similar bill for the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe in the near future. In short, Congress has recognized the appropriateness of linking legitimate compensation for losses resulting from the construction of the dams to the power revenues those dams generate. The legislation I am introducing today adopts that same principle. As I mentioned, the development of this legislation has involved extensive discussion and negotiation among many interested parties throughout the State. The bill has undergone five drafts over the course of nearly 10 months. A number of public meetings have been held to discuss the bill, and Governor Janklow and I have received, considered, and responded to, comments and suggestions from interested members of the public. The tribes expressed a strong desire to protect their jurisdiction over the hunting and fishing of tribal members. The legislation adopts a cooperative State-tribal enforcement system based on a previous Memorandum of Agreement reached between the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department--a system that respects and protects tribal sovereignty. To transfer the land to trust status and to keep the land in trust, the tribes would implement an enforcement system whereby both the State and the tribes would be able to arrest violators of fish and game rules on the waters of the Missouri River within Indian reservation boundaries, with tribal members prosecuted in tribal or Federal court and non-Indians prosecuted in State or Federal court. This protects tribal jurisdiction over tribal members and should maximize the effectiveness of fish and game enforcement efforts along the river. Also, under the bill, participating tribes will be able to establish seasons and bag limits for hunting on the lands that will be transferred into trust and to enforce those rules against all those who will hunt on those lands--an opportunity they are denied currently. In response to concerns expressed by the tribes about the effect of the bill on treaty rights and water rights, language has been included in the bill stating that both treaty rights and water rights will be protected. A number of counties expressed concern that they would lose their 75- percent share of revenues from leases the corps currently holds on the transferred lands. Under the bill, the Department of the Interior will be responsible for maintaining those leases. To ensure that the counties are not penalized by the transfer of the land to trust status the bill directs the Department of the Interior to pay the affected counties 100 percent of the revenues from leases on the lands. Sportsmen commented that the State should obtain new lands to mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat. The bill transfers the 20,000 acre Bureau of Reclamation's Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal lands to the State for that purpose. Since the land will be transferred in fee title, the State will pay the county taxes on that land. Non-Indian ranchers and Indian allottees who lost land or whose ancestors lost land to the construction of the dams, urged that the bill clarify that heirs or assignees be granted the right to graze on the lands taken from them or their ancestors, that access easements be guaranteed, and that any tribe or agency requiring fencing be responsible for installing and maintaining it. This legislation safeguards that grazing opportunity. Those with easements and rights-of-way on land that would be transferred to the Interior Department, such as the electric utilities, asked that language be added to protect those easements and rights-of- way. Broad language has been added to preserve existing easements on any lands transferred to the Interior Department to be held in trust for the tribes and on any recreation areas leased to the State. The Corps of Engineers needs to ensure that it retain its ability to operate the reservoirs. The bill protects its ability to do so. Despite these modifications, not every concern or comment could be addressed. Some South Dakota tribes that do not border the river have expressed frustration that they were not included in this legislation. It has been our intention from the beginning of this process to include all eligible tribes in this legislation. Since the 1958 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act calls for the Federal Government to mitigate the loss of habitat that occurred due to construction of the Oahe and Big Bend dams, all the tribes that lost habitat due to the construction of those projects qualify for mitigation under Federal law and have been invited to participate in this bill. Two eligible tribes--the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe--have decided not to be part of this arrangement at this point. I respect their decisions, and they are not included in the legislation. In summary, Mr. President, the State of South Dakota, the Federal Government, the tribes, the wildlife and all who use these reservoirs for hunting, fishing, and recreation will benefit from this bill. It provides for a fair resolution to the environmental and jurisdictional problems created by the construction of the main stem dams nearly 40 years ago. I am hopeful that the appropriate congressional committees will schedule action on this legislation as soon as possible so that further testimony can be heard and necessary refinements can be made. Our goal is to enact a bill that will allow meaningful wildlife habitat mitigation to begin, resolve the regulatory issues relating to hunting and fishing along the Missouri River, provide the public with well- maintained recreation areas along the Missouri River and expand hunting opportunities long into the future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for the purposes of scheduling, could I inquire of the majority leader, is this the last vote anticipated tonight, given the schedule?