Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. We have no opposition to moving to the bill, but, obviously, how the bill is considered will be of some interest to us. I know that the leader has indicated he would like to go to the bill and, as I understand it, there may be a cloture vote as early as Friday on the bill itself. Obviously, we still have not been able to resolve our problems relating to campaign finance reform and, in part because of that and also because this is a tax bill and not subject to reconciliation constraints under which we have worked with other tax bills, Democratic Senators, I know, and perhaps some Republicans would appreciate the opportunity to offer amendments. We have an array of amendments on this particular bill that we would like to offer and, of course, perhaps most prominently of all, the non-tax-related matters for which there would be an interest in having a good debate is the campaign finance reform bill. Hopefully, by Friday, we can resolve that matter. But even if we do, the issue would still stand that we would need to be able to offer some amendments. So I am hopeful that we can arrange a way in which that can be accommodated. Subject to how the bill is pending on Friday, we would be subject to another cloture vote for which there would be a significant degree of opposition--hopefully unanimous on our side--so long as the campaign finance reform issue and this tax matter has not been resolved. But we certainly will work with the leader to work through these matters, and we have no objection to bringing the bill up today.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Medicaid Nursing Incentive Act, a bill to provide direct Medicaid reimbursement for nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists. This legislation eliminates a groundless and counterproductive anomaly in Medicaid payment policy. Under current law, State Medicaid programs can exclude certified nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists from Medicaid reimbursement, even though these practitioners are fully trained to provide many of the same services as those provided by primary care physicians. This loophole is both discriminatory and shortsighted; it severs a critical access link for Medicaid beneficiaries. The ultimate goal of this proposal is to enhance the availability of cost-effective primary care to our Nation's most needy citizens. Studies have documented the fact that millions of Americans each year go without the health care services they need, because physicians simply are not available to care for them. This problem plagues rural and urban areas alike, in parts of the country as diverse as south central Los Angeles and Lemmon, SD. Medicaid beneficiaries are particularly vulnerable, since in recent years an increasing number of health professionals have chosen not to care for them or have been unwilling to locate in the inner-city and rural communities where many of the beneficiaries live. Fortunately, there is an exception to this trend: nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists frequently accept patients whom others will not treat and serve in areas where others refuse to work. Studies have shown that nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists provide care that both patients and cost cutters can praise. Their advanced clinical training enables them to assume responsibility for up to 80 percent of the primary care services usually performed by physicians, many times at a lower cost and with a high level of patient satisfaction. Congress has already recognized the expanding contributions of nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists. For more than a decade, CHAMPUS has provided direct payment to nurse practitioners. In 1990, Congress mandated direct payment for nurse practitioner services under the Federal employee health benefits plan. The Medicare Program, which already covers nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialist services in rural areas, was modified under this year's Balance Budget Act to provide coverage for these services in all geographic areas. The bill I am introducing today establishes the same payment policy under Medicaid. Mr. President, the ramifications of this issue extend beyond the Medicaid Program and its beneficiaries: there is a broader lesson here that applies to our search to make cost-effective, high-quality health care services available and accessible to all Americans. One of the cornerstones of this kind of care is the expansion of primary and preventative care, delivered to individuals in convenient, familiar places where they live, work, and go to school. More than 2 million of our Nation's nurses currently provide care in these sites-- in home health agencies, nursing homes, ambulatory care clinics, and schools. In places like South Dakota, nurses are often the only health care professionals available in the small towns and rural counties across the State. These nurses and other nonphysician health professionals play an important role in the delivery of care. And, this role will increase as we move from a system that focuses on the costly treatment of illness to one that emphasizes primary and preventive care and health promotion. But, first, we must reevaluate outdated attitudes and break down barriers that prevent nurses from using the full range of their training and skills in caring for patients. In 1994, the Pew Health Professions Commission concluded that nurse practitioners are not being fully utilized to deliver primary care services. The commission recommended eliminating fiscal discrimination by paying nurse practitioners directly for the services they provide. This step will help nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists expand access to the primary care that so many communities currently lack. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support the measure I am introducing today, recognizing the critical role that nurse practitioners and other nonphysician health professionals play in our health care delivery system, and the increasingly significant contribution they can make in the future. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time to comment on the remarks just made by the senior Senator from Montana. I share his view. Obviously, this is a very significant concern for all of our States and for a lot of Governors and those who are making decisions in their departments of transportation. There are really two approaches. The first approach is for us to reach an agreement to allow campaign finance reform to be set for a certain date early next year. I think there are good-faith negotiations continuing, and I am hopeful they will produce the desired result. But that is the first option. Then we can take up the 6-year bill and complete our work, as I know many of our colleagues, including this Senator, would like to do. The second option is the one that the Senator from Montana alluded to. We can do what the House has already done. We can take up a 6-month bill. We can improve upon the 6-month bill that the House has proposed. I think we could use our allocation, our numbers and be in a much better position to go to conference. But certainly no one should object to moving a 6-month bill if we can't get agreement on a longer bill. So either way, Mr. President, we have an option. We can take up the 6-year bill--hopefully, that is still possible--only if we can get campaign finance reform. Who knows what will happen in conference even with a 6-year bill. But at least the Senate will have acted. Short of that, there is absolutely no reason why we cannot take up a 6-month bill. We could do it on a unanimous-consent basis if we wished, and I hope we could do that as a second option should we not resolve the first. However, I do believe we must act. We must resolve this matter prior to the end of this session. I am confident that, working together, we can find a way to do that. I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Medicaid Nursing Incentive Act, a bill to provide direct Medicaid reimbursement for nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists. This legislation eliminates a groundless and counterproductive anomaly in Medicaid payment policy. Under current law, State Medicaid programs can exclude certified nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists from Medicaid reimbursement, even though these practitioners are fully trained to provide many of the same services as those provided by primary care physicians. This loophole is both discriminatory and shortsighted; it severs a critical access link for Medicaid beneficiaries. The ultimate goal of this proposal is to enhance the availability of cost-effective primary care to our Nation's most needy citizens. Studies have documented the fact that millions of Americans each year go without the health care services they need, because physicians simply are not available to care for them. This problem plagues rural and urban areas alike, in parts of the country as diverse as south central Los Angeles and Lemmon, SD. Medicaid beneficiaries are particularly vulnerable, since in recent years an increasing number of health professionals have chosen not to care for them or have been unwilling to locate in the inner-city and rural communities where many of the beneficiaries live. Fortunately, there is an exception to this trend: nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists frequently accept patients whom others will not treat and serve in areas where others refuse to work. Studies have shown that nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists provide care that both patients and cost cutters can praise. Their advanced clinical training enables them to assume responsibility for up to 80 percent of the primary care services usually performed by physicians, many times at a lower cost and with a high level of patient satisfaction. Congress has already recognized the expanding contributions of nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists. For more than a decade, CHAMPUS has provided direct payment to nurse practitioners. In 1990, Congress mandated direct payment for nurse practitioner services under the Federal employee health benefits plan. The Medicare Program, which already covers nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialist services in rural areas, was modified under this year's Balance Budget Act to provide coverage for these services in all geographic areas. The bill I am introducing today establishes the same payment policy under Medicaid. Mr. President, the ramifications of this issue extend beyond the Medicaid Program and its beneficiaries: there is a broader lesson here that applies to our search to make cost-effective, high-quality health care services available and accessible to all Americans. One of the cornerstones of this kind of care is the expansion of primary and preventative care, delivered to individuals in convenient, familiar places where they live, work, and go to school. More than 2 million of our Nation's nurses currently provide care in these sites-- in home health agencies, nursing homes, ambulatory care clinics, and schools. In places like South Dakota, nurses are often the only health care professionals available in the small towns and rural counties across the State. These nurses and other nonphysician health professionals play an important role in the delivery of care. And, this role will increase as we move from a system that focuses on the costly treatment of illness to one that emphasizes primary and preventive care and health promotion. But, first, we must reevaluate outdated attitudes and break down barriers that prevent nurses from using the full range of their training and skills in caring for patients. In 1994, the Pew Health Professions Commission concluded that nurse practitioners are not being fully utilized to deliver primary care services. The commission recommended eliminating fiscal discrimination by paying nurse practitioners directly for the services they provide. This step will help nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists expand access to the primary care that so many communities currently lack. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support the measure I am introducing today, recognizing the critical role that nurse practitioners and other nonphysician health professionals play in our health care delivery system, and the increasingly significant contribution they can make in the future. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am joining a large bipartisan group of Senators in cosponsoring S. 1311, the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1997. This bill addresses one of the most pressing national security problems we face--Iran's efforts to acquire technology that will enable it to build weapons of mass destruction. Certain Russian entities have engaged in some level of cooperation with Iran, and, while the Russian Government does not appear to be aware of these activities, the effect is the same--putting very dangerous technology in the hands of a regime that intends to destabilize. Mr. President, all Americans share the goal of stopping these technology transfers, but there are clear differences on how to achieve it. The administration has launched an aggressive diplomatic onslaught, pressing the Russian Government to do all it can to halt these activities. Vice President Gore and Secretary of State Albright are fully engaged in this effort. In addition, the President has appointed top diplomat and former Ambassador Frank Wisner as his personal envoy to the Russians on this issue. Ambassador Wisner has made several trips to Russia seeking a crackdown on exports of sensitive technology and has scheduled another visit in several weeks. I am hopeful this legislation will help the administration in its efforts to impress upon the Russians just how seriously the U.S. Congress takes this issue. Diplomacy clearly plays a critical role in these situations, but so does the tough approach laid out in this bill. The sanctions it provides will send a clear message to Russian entities involved in these technology exchanges that they will face heavy costs if they choose to proceed with business as usual. The Senate version of the bill is not without its problems, however. Specifically, the bill does not include a provision allowing the President to waive the bill's sanctions if he finds it necessary to do so on national security grounds. The House version of the legislation does include a waiver, and I am hopeful that any final bill will include one. The President needs this discretion in dealing with this extremely difficult situation. Mr. President, I look forward to continuing to work with the administration and Members on both sides of the aisle to address this critical threat. It is imperative that we all work together in an effort to prevent Iran from acquiring such dangerous and destabilizing technology.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, several years ago, I authored legislation that today allows Vietnam veterans to receive disability compensation for their exposure to Agent Orange and other toxic herbicides. This legislation, known as the Agent Orange Act of 1991, called for the National Academy of Sciences to review scientific and medical information related to the health effects of exposure to Agent Orange. In addition, it provided permanent presumptions of service connection for soft-tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, chloracne, and any additional diseases the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, based on the Academy review and other relevant information, may determine to be associated with such exposure. For more than a decade, many in Congress and the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] debated whether there was a connection between exposure to Agent Orange and other toxic herbicides and the illnesses suffered by Vietnam veterans. There were allegations of bureaucratic attempts to thwart scientific investigations of the issue and alter, bury, or delay Government reports that did exist. Ultimately, independent scientific evidence and a long-term effort to uncover Government information convinced Congress to pass the Agent Orange Act of 1991. With the help and guidance of Senator Rockefeller and many others who cosponsored this legislation in the House and Senate, Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange and other herbicides are beginning to receive the treatment and compensation they deserve. And, with the passage of additional legislation last year, approximately 2,800 children of Vietnam veterans whose exposure to Agent Orange has been linked to their children's diagnosis of spina bifida, a congenital defect in the spine, are now eligible for health care and related services from the VA. Although we have made great strides to determine the cause of illnesses suffered by Vietnam veterans and their children and agreed to provide them with just compensation, we have yet to do the same for those men and women who served in the Persian gulf war. When the first reports of gulf war illness emerged, several of us warned that we needed to be sure that we did not repeat the mistakes that were made with respect to Agent Orange. We needed to act quickly to ask all the appropriate questions and secure timely answers. Whatever our investigation might reveal, we needed to uncover the truth and act accordingly. Our Nation's veterans deserve no less. Unfortunately, the effort to get to the truth has been undermined by actions painfully reminiscent of the Agent Orange experience. I am hopeful, though, that those actions are behind us and that we are now moving ahead with a single-minded commitment to the truth. Countless studies have been conducted to determine whether there is a connection between a wide range of toxins as well as environmental and wartime hazards and the illnesses suffered by Persian Gulf war veterans and their families. Despite these efforts, the actual causes of Persian Gulf war illnesses remain unknown, and many veterans and their families continue to suffer. Mr. President, it is time for Congress, the VA, the Department of Defense [DOD] and the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] to step up their efforts to find the causes of Persian Gulf war illnesses. More importantly, we must provide veterans and their families with proper medical care and compensation regardless of whether we know the particular causes of their illnesses. That is why I am proud to join my friend and colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, in introducing the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of 1991. As ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Rockefeller has been a tireless advocate for all veterans. His commitment and dedication to improving the lives of veterans and their families is well known, and he and his staff on the Veterans' Affairs Committee deserve to be commended for their work in drafting this important legislation. Since the Persian Gulf war ended in 1991, many veterans have been suffering from a variety of symptoms, including extreme fatigue, joint and muscle pain, short-term memory loss, diarrhea, unexplained rashes, night sweats, headaches, and bleeding gums. Many believe that these illnesses may be caused by exposure to a wide range of toxins as well as environmental and wartime hazards. Among the potentially hazardous substances to which United States servicemembers may have been exposed are smoke from oil-well fires set by retreating Iraqi soldiers; pesticides and repellents; depleted uranium used in munitions; infectious diseases; petroleum products; and vaccines to protect against chemical warfare agents. U.S. servicemembers may have also been exposed to chemical warfare agents. For 5 years, the Pentagon had steadfastly insisted that no United States soldiers had been exposed to chemical weapons in Iraq. In June of last year, however, the Pentagon revealed that chemical munitions had been unknowingly destroyed near an ammunition dump at Khamisiyah in southern Iraq and that 20,000 United States troops may have been exposed. In July of this year, the Pentagon changed its assessment again and announced that nearly 100,000 U.S. servicemembers may have actually been exposed to trace levels of poisonous sarin gas. Much like the Agent Orange Act of 1991, the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of 1997 calls for the Department of Veterans Affairs to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the available scientific evidence regarding associations between illnesses suffered by Persian Gulf war veterans and their exposure to toxins or environmental or wartime hazards. Specifically, the Academy would identify the biological, chemical, or other toxic agents or environmental or wartime hazards to which U.S. service members may have been exposed during the Persian Gulf war. The National Academy of Sciences would be required to identify those diagnosed and undiagnosed illnesses among Persian Gulf war veterans. In addition, it would be responsible for reviewing potential treatment for chronic undiagnosed illnesses. As it did under the Agent Orange legislation, the Academy would also be authorized to make recommendations for additional scientific studies regarding the exposure that Persian Gulf war veterans may have had to toxic agents or environmental or wartime hazards. Based upon the assessments of the National Academy of Sciences and any other relevant scientific and medical information, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs would then determine whether a presumption of service connection is warranted for various diagnosed or undiagnosed illnesses. The Secretary would provide compensation when there is a positive association between the illness and exposure to one or more toxic agents or environmental or wartime hazards during the Persian Gulf war. A positive association is regarded as one where credible evidence for the association is equal to or outweighs credible evidence against the association. Like the Agent Orange Act, this legislation provides for ongoing Academy reviews and puts a mechanism in place whereby the Secretary may provide compensation for additional illnesses as the scientific evidence warrants. The bill Senator Rockefeller and I are introducing today also requires the VA to collaborate with the Pentagon to operate a computerized database for the collection, storage, and analysis of information on the diagnosed and undiagnosed illnesses suffered by Persian Gulf war veterans. I should point out that the database would also include information on the treatment veterans receive for chronic undiagnosed illnesses. The VA would be required to continuously compile and analyze the information in this database that is likely to determine the association between the diagnosed and undiagnosed illnesses suffered by veterans and their exposure to toxic agents or environmental or wartime hazards during the Persian Gulf war. In June, the General Accounting Office issued a report stating that, ``although efforts have been made to diagnose veterans' problems and care had been provided to many eligible veterans, neither DOD nor VA has systematically attempted to determine whether ill Gulf War veterans are any better or worse today than when they were first examined.'' The database we are proposing would correct that deficiency. It would permit VA and DOD to determine whether Persian Gulf war veterans are getting better over time and whether they are responding to the treatment they are receiving. The bill we are introducing today also calls for enhanced outreach to those who served in the Persian Gulf war. Specifically, it would require the VA to consult with DOD and HHS to create an ongoing program to provide information to veterans and their families. For example, they would receive information pertaining to the possible health risks to Persian Gulf war veterans who were exposed to toxic agents or environmental or wartime hazards. In addition, veterans would receive valuable information on any services or benefits available to them. Mr. President, as I mentioned previously, we have made great strides to determine the cause of illnesses suffered by Vietnam veterans and their children and agreed to provide them with just compensation. We must now enhance our efforts to help those who served our country during the Persian Gulf war. Passage of this legislation is essential to providing answers to the many questions we have about the causes of Persian Gulf war illnesses. More importantly, it will ensure that our veterans are receiving proper medical care and the compensation they have earned. I again thank Senator Rockefeller for his leadership on this issue and hope my colleagues will support this important legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, several years ago, I authored legislation that today allows Vietnam veterans to receive disability compensation for their exposure to Agent Orange and other toxic herbicides. This legislation, known as the Agent Orange Act of 1991, called for the National Academy of Sciences to review scientific and medical information related to the health effects of exposure to Agent Orange. In addition, it provided permanent presumptions of service connection for soft-tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, chloracne, and any additional diseases the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, based on the Academy review and other relevant information, may determine to be associated with such exposure. For more than a decade, many in Congress and the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] debated whether there was a connection between exposure to Agent Orange and other toxic herbicides and the illnesses suffered by Vietnam veterans. There were allegations of bureaucratic attempts to thwart scientific investigations of the issue and alter, bury, or delay Government reports that did exist. Ultimately, independent scientific evidence and a long-term effort to uncover Government information convinced Congress to pass the Agent Orange Act of 1991. With the help and guidance of Senator Rockefeller and many others who cosponsored this legislation in the House and Senate, Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange and other herbicides are beginning to receive the treatment and compensation they deserve. And, with the passage of additional legislation last year, approximately 2,800 children of Vietnam veterans whose exposure to Agent Orange has been linked to their children's diagnosis of spina bifida, a congenital defect in the spine, are now eligible for health care and related services from the VA. Although we have made great strides to determine the cause of illnesses suffered by Vietnam veterans and their children and agreed to provide them with just compensation, we have yet to do the same for those men and women who served in the Persian gulf war. When the first reports of gulf war illness emerged, several of us warned that we needed to be sure that we did not repeat the mistakes that were made with respect to Agent Orange. We needed to act quickly to ask all the appropriate questions and secure timely answers. Whatever our investigation might reveal, we needed to uncover the truth and act accordingly. Our Nation's veterans deserve no less. Unfortunately, the effort to get to the truth has been undermined by actions painfully reminiscent of the Agent Orange experience. I am hopeful, though, that those actions are behind us and that we are now moving ahead with a single-minded commitment to the truth. Countless studies have been conducted to determine whether there is a connection between a wide range of toxins as well as environmental and wartime hazards and the illnesses suffered by Persian Gulf war veterans and their families. Despite these efforts, the actual causes of Persian Gulf war illnesses remain unknown, and many veterans and their families continue to suffer. Mr. President, it is time for Congress, the VA, the Department of Defense [DOD] and the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] to step up their efforts to find the causes of Persian Gulf war illnesses. More importantly, we must provide veterans and their families with proper medical care and compensation regardless of whether we know the particular causes of their illnesses. That is why I am proud to join my friend and colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, in introducing the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of 1991. As ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Rockefeller has been a tireless advocate for all veterans. His commitment and dedication to improving the lives of veterans and their families is well known, and he and his staff on the Veterans' Affairs Committee deserve to be commended for their work in drafting this important legislation. Since the Persian Gulf war ended in 1991, many veterans have been suffering from a variety of symptoms, including extreme fatigue, joint and muscle pain, short-term memory loss, diarrhea, unexplained rashes, night sweats, headaches, and bleeding gums. Many believe that these illnesses may be caused by exposure to a wide range of toxins as well as environmental and wartime hazards. Among the potentially hazardous substances to which United States servicemembers may have been exposed are smoke from oil-well fires set by retreating Iraqi soldiers; pesticides and repellents; depleted uranium used in munitions; infectious diseases; petroleum products; and vaccines to protect against chemical warfare agents. U.S. servicemembers may have also been exposed to chemical warfare agents. For 5 years, the Pentagon had steadfastly insisted that no United States soldiers had been exposed to chemical weapons in Iraq. In June of last year, however, the Pentagon revealed that chemical munitions had been unknowingly destroyed near an ammunition dump at Khamisiyah in southern Iraq and that 20,000 United States troops may have been exposed. In July of this year, the Pentagon changed its assessment again and announced that nearly 100,000 U.S. servicemembers may have actually been exposed to trace levels of poisonous sarin gas. Much like the Agent Orange Act of 1991, the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of 1997 calls for the Department of Veterans Affairs to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the available scientific evidence regarding associations between illnesses suffered by Persian Gulf war veterans and their exposure to toxins or environmental or wartime hazards. Specifically, the Academy would identify the biological, chemical, or other toxic agents or environmental or wartime hazards to which U.S. service members may have been exposed during the Persian Gulf war. The National Academy of Sciences would be required to identify those diagnosed and undiagnosed illnesses among Persian Gulf war veterans. In addition, it would be responsible for reviewing potential treatment for chronic undiagnosed illnesses. As it did under the Agent Orange legislation, the Academy would also be authorized to make recommendations for additional scientific studies regarding the exposure that Persian Gulf war veterans may have had to toxic agents or environmental or wartime hazards. Based upon the assessments of the National Academy of Sciences and any other relevant scientific and medical information, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs would then determine whether a presumption of service connection is warranted for various diagnosed or undiagnosed illnesses. The Secretary would provide compensation when there is a positive association between the illness and exposure to one or more toxic agents or environmental or wartime hazards during the Persian Gulf war. A positive association is regarded as one where credible evidence for the association is equal to or outweighs credible evidence against the association. Like the Agent Orange Act, this legislation provides for ongoing Academy reviews and puts a mechanism in place whereby the Secretary may provide compensation for additional illnesses as the scientific evidence warrants. The bill Senator Rockefeller and I are introducing today also requires the VA to collaborate with the Pentagon to operate a computerized database for the collection, storage, and analysis of information on the diagnosed and undiagnosed illnesses suffered by Persian Gulf war veterans. I should point out that the database would also include information on the treatment veterans receive for chronic undiagnosed illnesses. The VA would be required to continuously compile and analyze the information in this database that is likely to determine the association between the diagnosed and undiagnosed illnesses suffered by veterans and their exposure to toxic agents or environmental or wartime hazards during the Persian Gulf war. In June, the General Accounting Office issued a report stating that, ``although efforts have been made to diagnose veterans' problems and care had been provided to many eligible veterans, neither DOD nor VA has systematically attempted to determine whether ill Gulf War veterans are any better or worse today than when they were first examined.'' The database we are proposing would correct that deficiency. It would permit VA and DOD to determine whether Persian Gulf war veterans are getting better over time and whether they are responding to the treatment they are receiving. The bill we are introducing today also calls for enhanced outreach to those who served in the Persian Gulf war. Specifically, it would require the VA to consult with DOD and HHS to create an ongoing program to provide information to veterans and their families. For example, they would receive information pertaining to the possible health risks to Persian Gulf war veterans who were exposed to toxic agents or environmental or wartime hazards. In addition, veterans would receive valuable information on any services or benefits available to them. Mr. President, as I mentioned previously, we have made great strides to determine the cause of illnesses suffered by Vietnam veterans and their children and agreed to provide them with just compensation. We must now enhance our efforts to help those who served our country during the Persian Gulf war. Passage of this legislation is essential to providing answers to the many questions we have about the causes of Persian Gulf war illnesses. More importantly, it will ensure that our veterans are receiving proper medical care and the compensation they have earned. I again thank Senator Rockefeller for his leadership on this issue and hope my colleagues will support this important legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if the majority leader would yield, I ask that we make a short quorum call prior to the time he makes the next unanimous-consent request.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for his comments and applaud him for making the effort that he has over the last several days in working with us to see if we can't find a way with which to resolve this impasse. I want to clarify a couple of matters that I think ought to be understood as we work our way through the impasse. The first is that a cloture vote, a victory on cloture on the Chafee amendment may move the ball ahead slightly, but there are scores of Chafee amendments, all of which will be subject to the same cloture vote process, each taking 30 hours. So if you multiply 30 hours times 30 amendments, that is a lot of time, and we don't have a lot of time. It is not only the amendments, but it is the titles themselves, the banking, the finance, the commerce titles that have to be added to the trunk of the bill. They, too, will be subject to cloture and will require a substantial amount of time. So unless we get an agreement, even if the caucus, even if our Democratic caucus would vote for cloture, there are Senators who would oppose moving the ISTEA bill forward without an agreement, which brings us to the need to vote for cloture in any case. So it is with unanimity the Democrats are hoping that we can work with our friends in the majority to see if we can't reach that agreement. As to the agreement, the clarification I wish to make goes along the lines of what the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has just noted, and others. What do we want? Well, we want a date certain. We would like the assurance that the so-called parliamentary tree is not filled; that we have an opportunity, as Senator McCain noted, to offer amendments. We would like to take the bills in sequence--the McCain- Feingold and then perhaps the Lott bill having to do with the labor unions. That would be the desirable approach, a sequence of consideration, first of McCain-Feingold and then of the Lott bill. We recognize that every amendment and the bill itself would be subject to the rules of the Senate which means you have to have 60 votes. It would seem to me that if you don't get 60 votes, you pull the amendment and would move on to another one. If we filed cloture on an amendment or required a 60-vote threshold, you could get through these amendments pretty quickly. If you don't get it, it falls, and we just keep going. Ultimately, if we don't get 60 votes on McCain-Feingold, it falls; it is over. I do not think it would take that long. I think we could work through a procedure that would bring us to some closure on this bill. That is all we can ask. We cannot do anything more than make our best effort to persuade and come up with a parliamentary process that will allow us the right to protect Senators as Members of the minority, whatever the minority may be, on a given issue. And I believe a process like that would work. Senator Lott has been, I think, fair in his willingness to consider almost anything. We have Senators who are unable to agree at this point. But like others before me, I am hopeful that we can get an agreement, that cloture votes will not be necessary, that we can then finish ISTEA, that we can then move on to nominations and another array of issues next week. That is within our grasp, but it will take an agreement. I think it is fair to say that it will not matter how many cloture votes we take, I do not think the votes will be different. A majority of the Senate voted against cloture this morning--a majority. Forty- five Democrats and seven Republicans voted against cloture. A majority, it seems to me, now want to resolve this matter. So I am hopeful, Mr. President, we can do that. I think we can do it. I will stand ready to meet with anybody to come to some conclusion on how we might proceed. But I hope we do not give up. Under the rules, as I understand them, we will go into a recess until 3 o'clock?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that restores employer health coverage to individuals who, throughout their careers, were led to believe their retiree health benefits were secure. These retirees earned their benefits through years of labor and have reached an age when other private coverage is difficult if not impossible to find. The Retiree Health Benefits Protection Act of 1997 reempowers retirees whose employers renege, often without notice, on a commitment they made to retiree security and health. The bill I am offering today melds two measures I first introduced in the 104th Congress. The goal is to restore retirees' rights and options when their former employer takes action to terminate their health benefits. The legislation was drafted to address a serious problem brought to my attention by the retirees of the Morrell meatpacking plant in Sioux Falls, SD. In January 1995, more than 3,300 Morrell retirees in Sioux Falls and around the country were given 1 week's notice that their health benefits were being terminated. Pre-Medicare retirees were offered continued health coverage for only one year under Morrell's group plan, if the retiree assumed the full cost of coverage. When this option lapsed in January 1996, many of these people became uninsured. These retirees, like so many who face this situation, had spent years building the company and taking lower pensions or wages in exchange for the promise of retiree health benefits. This problem is unfortunately not limited to the Morrell retirees. Recent data confirms that a declining share of employers maintain health benefits for their retirees. In fact, the percentage of large employers offering such coverage has dropped by nearly 10 percentage points over the last 5 years. In 1991, 80 percent of large employers provided retiree benefits. As of 1996, 71 percent do. Early retirees age 50-64 who lose their health benefits are especially vulnerable to becoming uninsured, because health insurance is expensive when purchased at an older age, or unavailable as a result of preexisting conditions. The bill I am introducing today would establish a number of protections to address this alarming trend. To minimize unexpected terminations of benefits, my bill would ensure that benefits are terminated or reduced only when evidence shows that retirees were given adequate warning--before their retirement--that their health care benefits were not promised for their lifetimes. If the contract language establishing retiree benefits is silent or ambiguous about the termination of these benefits, my bill would place the burden of proof on the employer to show that the plan allows for the termination or reduction of retiree health benefits. To help protect coverage for retirees and their families until fair settlements are reached, if an employer's decision to terminate benefits is challenged in court, my bill requires the employer to continue to provide retiree health benefits while these benefits are in litigation. To prevent early retirees and their families from being left uninsured, this legislation would extend so-called COBRA benefits to early retirees and their dependents whose employer-sponsored health care benefits are terminated or substantially reduced. Broadly stated, COBRA currently requires employers to offer continuing health coverage for up to 18 months for employees who leave their place of employment. The employee is responsible for the entire cost of the premium, but is allowed to remain in the group policy, thus taking advantage of lower group rates. This legislation would extend the COBRA law to cover early retirees and their families who are more than 18 months away from Medicare eligibility. This bill would not prohibit employers from modifying their retiree health benefits to implement legitimate cost-savings measures, such as utilization review or managed care arrangements. Mr. President, retirees deserve this kind of health security. Workers often give up larger pensions and other benefits in exchange for health benefits. Unfortunately, in the case of the Morrell employees and far too many others, the thanks they get for their sacrifices is that their benefits are taken away with no notice and no compensating increase in their pensions or other benefits. Early retirees often have been with the same company for decades, perhaps all of their adult lives. They rightfully believe that a company they help build will reward their loyalty, honesty, and hard work. It is time for this Congress to address this victimization of retirees by companies that put profits before integrity and cost- cutting before fairness. We should not simply sit back while this system creates another population of uninsured individuals. Instead, we should take this opportunity to preserve private coverage for as many retirees as possible and restore the financial security and freedom they earned and thought they could depend upon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that restores employer health coverage to individuals who, throughout their careers, were led to believe their retiree health benefits were secure. These retirees earned their benefits through years of labor and have reached an age when other private coverage is difficult if not impossible to find. The Retiree Health Benefits Protection Act of 1997 reempowers retirees whose employers renege, often without notice, on a commitment they made to retiree security and health. The bill I am offering today melds two measures I first introduced in the 104th Congress. The goal is to restore retirees' rights and options when their former employer takes action to terminate their health benefits. The legislation was drafted to address a serious problem brought to my attention by the retirees of the Morrell meatpacking plant in Sioux Falls, SD. In January 1995, more than 3,300 Morrell retirees in Sioux Falls and around the country were given 1 week's notice that their health benefits were being terminated. Pre-Medicare retirees were offered continued health coverage for only one year under Morrell's group plan, if the retiree assumed the full cost of coverage. When this option lapsed in January 1996, many of these people became uninsured. These retirees, like so many who face this situation, had spent years building the company and taking lower pensions or wages in exchange for the promise of retiree health benefits. This problem is unfortunately not limited to the Morrell retirees. Recent data confirms that a declining share of employers maintain health benefits for their retirees. In fact, the percentage of large employers offering such coverage has dropped by nearly 10 percentage points over the last 5 years. In 1991, 80 percent of large employers provided retiree benefits. As of 1996, 71 percent do. Early retirees age 50-64 who lose their health benefits are especially vulnerable to becoming uninsured, because health insurance is expensive when purchased at an older age, or unavailable as a result of preexisting conditions. The bill I am introducing today would establish a number of protections to address this alarming trend. To minimize unexpected terminations of benefits, my bill would ensure that benefits are terminated or reduced only when evidence shows that retirees were given adequate warning--before their retirement--that their health care benefits were not promised for their lifetimes. If the contract language establishing retiree benefits is silent or ambiguous about the termination of these benefits, my bill would place the burden of proof on the employer to show that the plan allows for the termination or reduction of retiree health benefits. To help protect coverage for retirees and their families until fair settlements are reached, if an employer's decision to terminate benefits is challenged in court, my bill requires the employer to continue to provide retiree health benefits while these benefits are in litigation. To prevent early retirees and their families from being left uninsured, this legislation would extend so-called COBRA benefits to early retirees and their dependents whose employer-sponsored health care benefits are terminated or substantially reduced. Broadly stated, COBRA currently requires employers to offer continuing health coverage for up to 18 months for employees who leave their place of employment. The employee is responsible for the entire cost of the premium, but is allowed to remain in the group policy, thus taking advantage of lower group rates. This legislation would extend the COBRA law to cover early retirees and their families who are more than 18 months away from Medicare eligibility. This bill would not prohibit employers from modifying their retiree health benefits to implement legitimate cost-savings measures, such as utilization review or managed care arrangements. Mr. President, retirees deserve this kind of health security. Workers often give up larger pensions and other benefits in exchange for health benefits. Unfortunately, in the case of the Morrell employees and far too many others, the thanks they get for their sacrifices is that their benefits are taken away with no notice and no compensating increase in their pensions or other benefits. Early retirees often have been with the same company for decades, perhaps all of their adult lives. They rightfully believe that a company they help build will reward their loyalty, honesty, and hard work. It is time for this Congress to address this victimization of retirees by companies that put profits before integrity and cost- cutting before fairness. We should not simply sit back while this system creates another population of uninsured individuals. Instead, we should take this opportunity to preserve private coverage for as many retirees as possible and restore the financial security and freedom they earned and thought they could depend upon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is my privilege today to honor Richard Johnson of Baltic, SD. Richard recently retired after 43 years of service in the Baltic Fire Department--half of the department's 86 years of existence. His friends describe him as a man who can always be relied upon and who never failed to answer the call when an emergency struck his community. Nearly 20 years ago, a grain elevator exploded in this quiet town in southeastern South Dakota, tragically killing two people, and starting a furious blaze that could be seen for miles. Richard, an assistant manager at the elevator, was the first firefighter on the scene. Fighting large fires is a particular challenge in rural South Dakota, where fire departments depend upon teams of volunteers and often lack adequate supplies of water. On this day, firefighters were called in from all over the region and a pump truck was brought from Sioux Falls to draw water from the Big Sioux River. Together, they worked throughout the afternoon to bring the blaze under control before finally extinguishing it. For all of that long, exhausting afternoon, and for the 3 days of cleanup that followed, Richard was there. These days tell us a lot about Richard. Quiet and reserved, he never asked for the spotlight, but for 43 years he was always there when he was needed. After all his long years of service, it is an honor to recognize his accomplishments before the Senate. Mr. President, September 26 was declared Richard Johnson Day in Baltic, and he was named parade marshal for the Baltic Homecoming Parade held that same day. As part of the celebration, 14 of the 18 fire chiefs Richard served under during those 43 years came to honor him--a testament to the respect Richard earned during his years with the department. I wish Richard the best as he begins his retirement, and hope that he has many happy years together with his friends and his family.

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, the people of our State, and certainly all Catholics of the Sioux Falls diocese, are keeping Bishop Robert Carlson in our hearts and prayers today. Bishop Carlson has been a vibrant leader within our communities and the Catholic Church in South Dakota. His outreach and partnership with social, religious and civic leaders for the past 3 years have been responsible for significant accomplishment. I join with all South Dakotans in wishing him success as he endures his operation for cancer this afternoon. We certainly hope that with all of the good will, our faith, and the many prayers that are with him at this very difficult time, he will fully recover and that we see him back in good health. We have no doubt that he will continue to provide the kind of strong religious and social leadership for which he is so well known. After some rest and recuperation his voice and involvement will be welcome, once again, on an array of issues confronting our country and the church. I wish him well. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Alaska. I have a short tribute I would like to make.

Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate very much the indulgence of the senior Senator from Alaska. I appreciate very much the opportunity to have heard my distinguished colleague from West Virginia, our former leader, who is, in spirit, still our leader.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join with my colleagues in celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month. Hispanic Heritage Month pays a special tribute to a group of Americans that have made important and lasting contributions to this country's political, cultural and intellectual life. Hispanic Americans are people of diverse background. Their forebears came from Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Central and South America, and Spain--at different times and for different reasons. Nonetheless, they share a common culture and a deeply held belief in the American Dream. They came here to share in the freedom and prosperity that we have achieved as a nation and have added greatly to that richness. It is true that Hispanic-Americans faced discrimination in this country. In recent years, however, we have made great strides to eliminate legal and societal barriers to their full integration into American life. Since the passage of laws barring employment discrimination, Hispanics have made great advancements economically and, with the passage of the Voting Rights Act, have increased their participation in the political process. There are currently 17 members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Just recently, a great Hispanic Congressional leader, Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez, announced his retirement to the great sadness of his colleagues. Henry Gonzalez has served as the dean of the Hispanic Caucus and is the former chairman, and now ranking member, of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. I proudly worked with him when I served in the House of Representatives and witnessed for myself his hard work and commitment to doing what is right. Dean Gonzalez has given 36 years of dedicated service to his constituents in Texas, the Hispanic community and the American people. He came to Washington in 1961, after serving in the San Antonio City Council and the Texas State Legislature, and was the first Hispanic Congressman ever elected from the State of Texas. And back in December, 1976, Dean Gonzalez, with 4 other members of Congress, founded the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Dean Gonzalez has served as a leader and trail blazer for Hispanic- Americans and an inspiration to all Americans. He demonstrated to all of us that, as a nation, we are capable of coming together, of overcoming discrimination, and of celebrating the cultural bounty brought by people of all backgrounds. When he leaves the House later this year, I know that he will be sorely missed by his colleagues in the House of Representatives and by those of us in the Senate who had the good fortune to work with him. Dean Gonzalez is just one of many great Hispanic-Americans. I am proud to add my tribute to these Americans and thank them for enriching our social, intellectual and artistic life.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Lenny Oursler is somebody who has been with us here in the Senate for a long time. Tomorrow he will be leaving the Senate to work in the Congressional Affairs Office of the Internal Revenue Service. Lenny began work in the Senate stationery store in September 1981. He began work in the Democratic cloakroom in April of 1987. He has worked over 16 years of Government service, 10 in the cloakroom, and he has been running the cloakroom, now, for the last 5 years. His tasks have been varied, including keeping Senators and staff apprised of floor action, acting as soothsayer in predicting upcoming schedules with amazing accuracy, making sure that all Democrats reach the floor in time to cast their votes, extending his exuberant hotlines with his trademark ``thank you.'' I don't know of anybody who has worked in that capacity who is more respected, and that respect is well earned. He is always available. He frequently works long, long hours and autographs his work with excellence. There will be a large void in the cloakroom that will be clearly difficult to fill. He is well liked by Senators and staff alike. He always has a cheerful disposition, always has something nice to say, a very positive person with an incredible outlook on life. Occasionally he even has a funny story to share that I can repeat. Indeed, the only fault I can think of is that he is a diehard Cubs fan and he may never be broken of that terrible habit. I have been told by some of his friends that on the golf course he has a painfully ugly slice and his most valuable club is a ball retriever. I know that Lenny will miss his family here. I know, too, he is looking forward to the new challenges at IRS. He is looking forward to more predictable and regular hours so he can spend more time with his young sons, Nathan and Benjamin, and wife Sara. I know I speak for all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in wishing him luck and telling Lenny we will truly miss him. I yield the floor and again thank the senior Senator from Alaska.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I could just respond, I appreciate very much the consideration of the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. Let me just say, I regret that we are back into a situation very similar to that which we were in during the debate on campaign finance reform. The leader, as is his right, has chosen to now fill the tree once more. In so doing, it will now require his consent before anybody has the opportunity to offer an amendment. He has the right. That is the prerogative of the majority leader. But he will determine the relevancy of any amendment. I will say that it is our right to provide the unanimous consent required to move off this legislation for any other purpose. We will certainly invoke that right as the situation warrants. I regret that this is necessary. I regret that we could not take these issues up one by one and resolve them, as I know many colleagues on both sides of the aisle would like to do. We are precluded from that. So we are now faced with a very difficult set of circumstances. I am hopeful that we can find a way to address it. The majority leader has indicated this is an important bill. And certainly it is. I give great credit to the chairman and the ranking member for their work in committee to bring us to this point. There is a lot of work that needs to be done, and I hope we can get it done. But it isn't the only important bill. There is another very important bill that we have been precluded from having a good debate on, and that is campaign finance. At least for the moment we are precluded under these circumstances. But, again, I repeat what I have said before. This is a temporary set of circumstances that will be addressed successfully before we move on conclusively. I yield the floor. Again, I thank the senior Senator from West Virginia for his willingness to allow me to make my comments.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is our desire to offer a cloture motion each day this week in an effort to bring to closure the debate on this bill. Now, obviously, it is within the majority leader's right to pull the bill to avoid having the cloture votes on the legislation itself. That certainly is his prerogative. I have indicated that it would be our intention, should that occur, on those legislative vehicles that are not appropriations bills, that we would offer the McCain-Feingold bill to each and every one of them. It really doesn't matter what legislation comes before the Senate, that would be our intention. So I want to put our colleagues on notice that it is our strong desire to finish this debate in a constructive and in a successful way, regardless of whatever pieces of legislation may be brought before the body. Let me also reiterate an offer that I made last week. Last week, I said we would be prepared to take up S. 9, the Lott amendment, independent of this legislation. He has, in the parliamentary usage of the term, filled the tree. He has precluded our opportunity to offer amendments, to have a constructive and a real debate. All we have done so far is debated the overall concept of campaign reform without having had the opportunity to talk about the details and whether or not there may be ways in which to improve it or deal with it in whatever legislative capacity we may so choose. That, in my view, is the essence of a good debate. If you can't offer amendments, you can't really have a good debate about the bill. So we are denied that right. So no one should be mistaken here; we are spending time on the bill, but we are not spending time on quality debate. We are not spending time in a way that will allow us to exchange views on issues that could be the subject of amendment, and until we are, we are forced into a position of having to amend this legislation in other forms and in other scenarios legislatively. Again, I offer that same opportunity to the majority leader that I offered last week. Let's bring up the so-called Lott amendment freestanding. Let's have an opportunity to debate it. Let's offer amendments to it. We have offered that opportunity with the hope that we could break this logjam. We have offered a suggestion along with a promise not to filibuster, not to extend the debate on the so-called Lott amendment. We would be willing to schedule it at a time certain. So there should be no question that, if under those conditions our Republican colleagues choose not to allow us to go to the bill to offer amendments, everyone will see this amendment for what it really is; that is, a poison pill designed to kill campaign reform--nothing else. The Senator from Kentucky has been very open about his willingness to kill the bill, his commitment to do that, and he has every right to employ this tactic. All I am saying is that there is a difference between winning the battle and winning the war. Ultimately, if we spend time on nothing else than campaign finance reform for the remainder of this Congress, we will have other occasions to have a good and meaningful debate about campaign finance reform. So, as I said, we would be voting on cloture now on Wednesday. If the bill is still pending, we will have a vote on Thursday, and we will determine the schedule for the remainder of the time we are in session at a later date. But there should be no mistake, we will continue to fight for this bill and continue to ensure that we reach out to our Republican colleagues to break the logjam in as meaningful a way as we can. I am hopeful that that effort will be successful, and I am hopeful that at some point we can come to some understanding about how that gets done. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me compliment the Senator from Arizona for his extraordinary statement, for his compelling speech just now, and for the statesmanship he has shown all the way through this debate. I also thank the Senator from Wisconsin for the partnership he has shown on this effort from the very beginning. The New York Times, I thought, described it quite well today in articulating what most of us perceive about both of these Senators. They are bipartisan, they seek bipartisan solutions. They recognize the importance of working through these issues, not in a confrontational way, but in a way that builds consensus rather than tears it down. The last offer of the Senator from Arizona, once more, to work with both sides to find a way with which to deal with this issue constructively, is yet another example of that manner. cloture motion We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on S. 25, as modified, the campaign finance reform bill: Thomas A. Daschle, Carl Levin, Joseph I. Lieberman, Wendell Ford, Byron L. Dorgan, Barbara Boxer, Jack Reed, Richard H. Bryan, Daniel K. Akaka, Christopher J. Dodd, Kent Conrad, Robert G. Torricelli, Charles S. Robb, Joe Biden, Dale Bumpers, Carol Moseley-Braun, John Kerry.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time to make a statement on a couple of issues.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have very mixed feelings about the decision announced yesterday at the White House. After nearly four decades of exemplary service to his adopted Nation, Gen. John Shalikashvili will step down as the top soldier of our Nation's military forces. We understand that by statute he is required to do so, but it does not make the reality any less of a disappointment. With his 39 years of distinguished service, General Shali, as he has come to be affectionately known, has earned the respect and admiration of men and women in uniform, the Nation and indeed the whole world. His brand of quiet, steady leadership will be greatly missed. The General Shali story is as unusual as it is remarkable. Born in Warsaw, Poland, on June 27, 1936, John Shalikashvili was just 3 years old when Hitler's tanks rolled into his homeland. Five years later, Stalin's troops invaded Poland from the east. His family fled to Berlin, Germany, after World War II and then later moved to Peoria, IL, when John Shalikashvili was 16 years old. He graduated from Peoria High School in 1954 and received a degree in mechanical engineering from Bradley University 4 years later. General Shali began his extraordinary military career in an ordinary way--as a draftee in 1958. He graduated from officer candidate school a year later and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Army. During the next 23 years, General Shalikashvili served in a variety of command and staff positions before becoming a brigadier general in 1982. In addition to serving on the Army staff, Shali served in Germany as an assistant division commander in the 1st Armored Division. In 1986, he was promoted to major general, and, from 1987 to 1989, he served as Commander of the 9th Infantry Division in Fort Lewis, WA. In 1989, he was promoted to lieutenant general and returned to Germany to serve as the deputy commander in chief of the Seventh Army. Then, in 1991, he was selected to command Operation Provide Comfort, the relief operation that returned hundreds of thousands of Kurdish refugees to northern Iraq. In 1991, he became the Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and later served as the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and the commander in chief of the U.S. European Command from June 1992 until October 1993. On October 25, 1993, Gen. John Shalikashvili completed his rise to the top of the military. President Clinton appointed him to serve as the 13th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In that position, he has served as the principal military adviser to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council. During that tenure as Chairman, Shali was integral to the United States-led efforts to restore democracy in Haiti, enforce sanctions against Iraq, and keep peace in Bosnia. His guidance, his commitment, and dedication truly made a difference in each of these and more than 40 other missions in which our troops participated over the last 4 years. In addition to his extraordinary operational successes, the general has also made significant contributions to improving the Department of Defense. He was instrumental in adjusting our military forces to post- cold-war realities and budget levels, always ensuring that the troops received the best equipment and training in the world. There is not a single soldier in our military today who has not benefited from the concern General Shali has consistently displayed for his or her well-being. His commitment to improving the quality of life for those serving in the Armed Forces has been second to none, and I am sure that they, like the rest of their fellow Americans, salute him. I think his Commander in Chief best expressed the high regard in which General Shali is held. In his comments at General Shali's farewell ceremony yesterday, President Clinton stated: When future students look back upon his time, they will rank John Shali as among the greatest chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff America ever had. Mr. President, on behalf of the U.S. Senate, the men and women in uniform, and millions of his countrymen, I concur with President Clinton's assessment and thank General Shali for his 39 years of service to his country. I wish him and his wife, Joan, the very best as they begin a new chapter in their lives in the State of Washington.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come before the Senate this afternoon to talk briefly about the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty submitted to the Senate by President Clinton last week. This treaty represents another useful and important step toward reducing the spread of nuclear weapons. I stand ready to do all that I can to ensure that the Senate considers the CTBT in a timely manner and votes to allow the United States to join 145 other signatories of this treaty to put an end to nuclear testing. It was on July 16, 1945, at a site called Trinity in the desert near Alamogordo, NM, that the United States conducted the first test of an atomic bomb. In a fraction of a second, the detonation not only released over the isolated test site an amount of energy equivalent to what we consume in the entire United States in 30 seconds--it also changed the world. The nuclear age had loudly begun. For decades to come, humanity would be forced to grapple with the consequences borne out of what occurred at Trinity. Much has happened since that first test in the New Mexico desert. The United States was quickly joined in the nuclear club by Russia and several others. We saw the onset of the cold war and an arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. As each country strove to keep pace with the other, the United States and Russia engaged in a buildup of thousands of nuclear weapons with a destructive power unprecedented in human history. The United States would go on to conduct more than 1,000 additional nuclear tests; and the Russians more than 700. Several other countries would carry out a total of roughly 300 tests of nuclear weapons. The Russians would test the largest weapon ever designed by mankind-- a monstrous device that, in a split second, produced enough energy to power the entire United States for a whole day. At the height of the cold war, the United States and the Russians had deployed between them roughly 60,000 nuclear weapons. Taken together, these frightening developments would make a four decade old comment by the preeminent scientist of the 20th century, Albert Einstein, even more poignant. Einstein played a large role in the conceptual development of the atom bomb. Moreover, in 1939, in a letter he sent to President Roosevelt, Einstein urged the President to begin a nuclear weapons program immediately. Later in life, after observing the early stages of the arms buildup and the development of ever more destructive weapons, Einstein commented, ``I made one great mistake in my life, when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made.'' Fortunately, the outlook has improved markedly since the darkest days of the cold war. The United States and Russia have cooperated repeatedly during the past several years to reduce the nuclear threat. Each country has ratified the START I Treaty. Following President Clinton's lead, the Senate ratified the START II Treaty, and we hope the Russians will follow suit by year's end. If START II is implemented, each side will reduce its strategic arsenal down to about 3,500 deployed weapons. In addition, once START II enters into force, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin pledged to immediately begin negotiations on START III. Under the terms of the Helsinki agreement, START III would establish ceilings of as low as 2,000 strategic weapons. While much has been done to reduce the threat posed by nuclear weapons, much remains to be done. And, President Clinton's submission of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty represents a useful step in the right direction. The CTBT prohibits any test involving a nuclear explosion, regardless of the test's purpose, size, or location. On behalf of the United States, the President was the first to sign this treaty last September. He would subsequently be joined by representatives from more than 140 other nations. We will soon hear from the usual critics of arms control, voicing objections to the treaty that are as predictable as they are likely. They will say the CTBT is unverifiable. They will say that it will lead to the inevitable erosion of our nuclear weapons capability. And, they will be wrong on both counts. Although we will have plenty of time to thoroughly address their objections in the days ahead, I will briefly address each of those criticisms. As to the verifiability of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, this is a familiar refrain uttered by those who oppose arms control agreements in any form. The treaty's verification regime includes a comprehensive international monitoring system composed of hundreds of seismological, radionuclide, hydroacoustic, and infrasound sensors spread out all over the globe. This network is backed up by the ability of Members to conduct onsite inspections of questionable activities. This combination should be more than sufficient to deter would-be cheaters and, if deterrence fails, catch those who try to violate the treaty's restrictions. As to the concern that CTBT will erode our nuclear capability, I have 4.5 billion reasons why that will not be the case this year and tens of billions more reasons in subsequent years. Last week, the administration reached an important agreement with our weapons development labs. These labs are staffed by the world's foremost nuclear weapons experts. The labs stated that if they are provided with $4.5 billion this year and similar amounts in each subsequent year, they will be able to conduct a program that will ensure with a high level of confidence the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons in our stockpile. In short, the cessation of nuclear testing need not erode our nuclear capability. The CTBT is an important step down the path toward a safer world. In simple terms, the United States, the country with one of the largest and certainly the most sophisticated nuclear weapons arsenals in the world, has the most to gain from freezing the competition in place. Countries already possessing nuclear weapons will have a difficult time making qualitative and quantitative improvements to their existing arsenals. And as for countries without nuclear weapons, the CTBT will place an additional hurdle in their path if they seek to develop and deploy such weapons. I do not believe we can rest with the submission, and, hopefully, ratification of this treaty. Many more challenges face us if we are to reduce to acceptable levels the threat posed by nuclear weapons. For example, despite the fact that the cold war ended years ago, the United States and Russia still maintain at least 3,000 strategic nuclear warheads poised and ready to launch at a moment's notice. As noted by former Senator Sam Nunn, one of the most distinguished and insightful defense experts to ever serve in this Chamber, while this practice may have been necessary in the cold war, ``today it represents a dangerous anachronism.'' Moreover, tens of tons of nuclear materials and thousands of nuclear weapons remain outside international controls. Tens of thousands of highly trained employees of the Russian nuclear complex, each armed with the ability to design and build nuclear weapons, go unpaid for months at a time. Future security measures must be designed to speak to these concerns as well. While I will be doing all I can to ensure smooth ratification of the CTBT in the Senate, I will also be attempting to help design measures that speak to these other security problems. Outside experts such as former Senator Nunn, General Lee Butler, the last Commander in Chief of the now-disbanded Strategic Air Command, and Dr. Bruce Blair, a thoughtful arms control expert at the Brookings Institution, have all raised these same concerns and begun to design solutions. It is an important opportunity for the Senate, the Pentagon, and the country to begin to consider them. At Helsinki, the administration acknowledged its awareness of these problems and indicated a commitment to resolve them. Unfortunately, the administration appears to have put the detailed discussion of many of these measures on hold until START II enters force and the START III negotiations begin. I hope the administration would begin exploring these steps today. The only real linkage between START and these other measures is that they both can enhance our security. There is no reason why United States action in one arena should be held in abeyance until the Russians act in another. In summary, Mr. President, I look forward to working with the administration and the other supporters of the CTBT in this body to ensure that the merits of this treaty are fully aired. If that happens, I am confident the CTBT will be ratified, and another step will be taken toward turning back the clock that unfortunately began ticking 52 years ago at a place called Trinity.