Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would have two concerns. One is that some Senators may wish to speak longer than 10 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Second, they may wish to come back and speak again.

Mr. DASCHLE. I wouldn't want it to be precluded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, so long as no Member is precluded a second time or speaking for a period longer than 10 minutes at a later time, and so long as no other Senator is precluded from speaking at all by this unanimous consent request --I think that is the assertion, now, of the majority leader?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we discussed this matter in the caucus. I think it was unanimous in the caucus that committees would not meet this afternoon, because we really need to have attention focused on this issue. I am afraid I am not able to give that agreement to the majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. I think there are Senators who wish to speak longer than 10 minutes. Whether it is at the first opportunity or whether they have the opportunity to come back, that is a concern. But I share the concern expressed by the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE. Would he entertain a unanimous-consent request which would say we would not adjourn without the consent of both leaders tonight? Because I think, if that were the case, then there would be no objection on this side to working through whatever schedule may accommodate speakers on both sides.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is the desire on the part of many of our colleagues to speak longer than the time allotted in the unanimous consent request, and it is certainly the desire of our colleagues not to allow the Senator the opportunity to adjourn the Senate. For that reason, I am compelled to object. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader mentions the defense markup. I also remind him, as he is very aware, there is money in this supplemental for our troops in Bosnia. Time is running out there, too. There is virtually no time left for us to get the supplemental assistance to the troops in Bosnia. It sends a terrible message to them not to address this legislation more successfully than we have. I can't think of anything more important in that regard, not only to address the disaster victims but to address the troops in Bosnia, to address all of those who are waiting for some sign that we understand how difficult their circumstances are, including people defending our country in faraway lands. So, I am compelled to object, and I only hope that at some point in the not-too-distant future, we are going to be able to resolve this matter, because they can't wait any longer.

Mr. DASCHLE. As I indicated earlier, Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of this legislation. So obviously I am very supportive of it. But it should be noted this legislation has not had a hearing, it has not been marked up in the committee. The majority leader--and it is his right to do so--is discharging the committee to bring this bill to the floor. Now, that is an abnormal procedure. That is not something we do every day. Yet the distinguished majority leader has seen fit to bring this bill to the floor without an official markup, and then to amend it with an amendment that we only saw late yesterday. And so it is really not normal legislative procedure to consider a bill of this import, even though there may not be much controversy associated with it, to discharge it, to amend it with an amendment nobody has seen, and to move in this process. So it is not only our concern for the disaster legislation but our concern for process here that makes me skeptical about the approach the distinguished majority leader has chosen to employ in this regard. So I would hope we could work together, if we can once get this disaster bill passed, to take up the bill, but I really hope we can respect the normal order here and allow the committees to move and to consider bills and then report them out, put them on the calendar, and take them up off the calendar as we would in normal circumstances. But I thank the majority leader for his willingness to allow me to comment on that particular bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I was privileged to meet earlier this week with Richard and Janet Cone, owners of Cone Ag-Service, Inc., in Pierre, South Dakota. They were recently designated the South Dakota Small Business Owners of the Year by the Small Business Administration. This award is a testament to the Cones' drive and business acumen over the last 30 years, during which they have provided high quality, liquid fertilizer to South Dakota farmers. Like many small businesses, they began at the kitchen table and have grown into a business that employs eight full-time and six part-time employees. The Cones' success story also includes timely and appropriate assistance from a Federal agency, the Small Business Administration. This agency joined with a local lender to help finance the Cone Ag- Service at a crucial point in its growth, proving that even the best business idea may need financial backing to come to fruition. But, the most important measure of Cone Ag-Service's success is its customers, who loyally return year after year. The Cones can rely upon the word-of-mouth communication by their customers to generate new business. This type of advertising can't be bought with money; rather, it takes a good product and responsive customer service. Nearly 200 years ago, the expedition of Lewis and Clark set in motion a great westward expansion of settlers across America. As many of these pioneers made their way up the Missouri River, one can only imagine what entered their minds as they climbed atop the river bluffs and gazed out over the limitless plains of Dakota Territory. Surely, there was very little to remind them of the comforts they had left behind or of the riches they dreamed lay ahead. But there were opportunities to be found, hidden amidst the prairie grass, and a few adventurous souls dared to settle here and make South Dakota their home. That frontier spirit still runs through the veins of South Dakotans today, but the horizons that await us are no longer hidden. Small businesses like Cone Ag-Service are being created to take advantage of the commercial opportunities our State holds. They are the pioneers of today and I salute them.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is addressed to me. It says: [I want to underscore] . . . the need for the immediate passage of the Supplemental Disaster Relief Appropriations Bill . . . As a city, it now becomes our responsibility to prioritize needs, both short term and long term. As we proceed to do so, it is incredibly difficult to make firm plans without the commitment of Federal emergency dollars. No contracts can be awarded without confirmed sources of revenue for projects which the City cannot accommodate due to lack of dollars. . . . Watertown's economy will be enormously impacted by the devastating floods of 1997. Our very livelihood centers around the agricultural community for 100 miles in all directions. . . . Without immediate assistance for animals killed during the disastrous winter and historic floods, herds will not be revitalized, profits will plunge and dollars for commerce will be few. Fields unable to be planted will equate into diminished dollars long term for businesses on main street. The very economy of Watertown and many affected rural towns like it, are dependent upon the immediate response of Congress. Mr. President, I do not think you can say it any clearer than that. These people need help. They need it now. They do not understand all these complicated, misguided and extraordinarily problematic extraneous matters added to this legislation at the worst possible time. It is not just mayors, it is not just the people living in most of our communities in eastern South Dakota, North Dakota and Minnesota that are struggling. Farmers and ranchers have also expressed themselves in a myriad of ways. Mr. President, 350,000 livestock in South Dakota alone were lost in the storms and flood--350,000. We have never had an experience of that magnitude in my lifetime. We have $145 million in livestock losses alone. Not one dime has been provided or can be provided to indemnify producers for livestock losses until this bill passes. There is no possibility of providing any meaningful relief to livestock producers anywhere in the country until this legislation passes. Mr. President, I have received so many remarkable letters from people all over South Dakota. I want to read excerpts of one, and I ask unanimous consent the entire letter be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to add my comments to those already expressed about how important it is that this legislation be passed, that it be acted upon rapidly, that people understand the extraordinary emergency that we are experiencing, that money is not adequately found in the pipeline today to meet all of the contingencies that are currently affecting communities all through the Midwest. A delay by any other means will send exactly the wrong message to so many people who are waiting for us to act. We know that the legislation in its current form will be vetoed. It is a very dark day in the Senate, and, in my view, it is an extraordinarily unfortunate set of circumstances that today when we have an opportunity to send the right message to all the people who have contacted us, when we have an opportunity to say we do understand, we find many of our colleagues pushing a political agenda that has nothing to do with this legislation at all. Mr. President, I would hope that the Senate would not adjourn until we find a bill signed by the President. I would hope that once this bill is vetoed, we will move a clean bill immediately, send it back to the President immediately, that we will not allow that veto to be any cause for delay in responding as comprehensively as we know how to respond to the needs we find across this country. The balanced budget agreement we all voted on just 2 weeks ago makes a continuing resolution virtually unnecessary. We do not need to have a continuing resolution given the fact that we are working now in good faith on both sides of the aisle to resolve what remaining problems there may be with regard to budgetary policy. And I have every expectation we will be able to pass these appropriations bills and we will pass the reconciliation bill along the lines of the agreement that we have just voted on. We know that there are contentious issues that have to be addressed outside the budget itself. The census sampling question is one that understandably is controversial. But I must say, the National Academy of Sciences was charged with the responsibility of coming up with a way with which to improve upon the accuracy of the census. We know that, because of methods used in 1990 by the Bureau of the Census, we were not even as accurate in 1990 as we were in 1980. And as we examine all the other possibilities for attaining a greater degree of accuracy, the one that is universally accepted is the one subscribed to and incorporated in the policy that is the subject of this controversy right now. This is not something dreamed up by a Democratic or a Republican administration. This is something calculated to be the most accurate response by the National Academy of Sciences. But regardless of how one may view that particular issue, it ought not be in a bill to address the disasters that we face across this country. There are many, many needs that are unmet. We received letters from communities across South Dakota, across North Dakota. Every one of them has made it very clear that the immediate passage of this supplemental is crucial to their economic viability. No contracts can be awarded to repair the sewer system in Watertown, SD, until this bill is passed. I have a letter from the mayor of Watertown, who has asserted once more the extraordinary difficulties that she, as mayor, is facing. I will just read a couple of passages. I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the letter be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me respond very briefly, and I know there are Senators who are seeking recognition. We will differ as to who it was that shut the Government down. I think many of those in the Republican leadership have already admitted themselves that they hold the larger share of the responsibility. The question is, do we need this vehicle, this bill, as the only means by which we can resolve that problem in the future? That, in my view, is the cynical part of this. We know we can resolve it. We know we can find a way with which to deal with shutdowns in Government. We know that we can find other ways to resolve our differences. But to use this must-pass piece of legislation to do it, in my view, is wrong. A lot of our colleagues know it is wrong, and I just hope we can put those issues aside and deal with them at another time and get this legislation passed the way it should be passed. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. If I could respond to the distinguished chairman. He has done an outstanding job, and I appreciate his responsiveness to this particular need. We have had other disasters where cattle were detrimentally affected, and ranchers have been compensated for livestock, but they have never been compensated, as he has indicated, for losses as a result of floods or winter snowstorms. But we have clearly set precedent with regard to the reimbursement of ranchers, and, in fact, that happened in 1992. This legislation is modeled after that particular legislation, and I appreciate greatly his support and the effort he has made to respond to this circumstance as Congress has responded to situations in the past involving livestock. Mr. President, it is not just livestock producers, it is not just communities. People in South Dakota and across the Midwest have been hit across the board in a number of different ways. It has been the coldest winter on record, we have had the most severe blizzards in our history, a 500-year flood, and there were only 2 days in 1997 when a Presidential disaster was not in effect for South Dakota. The winter storms produced winds chills of 90-degrees-below-zero and 70-mile-an- hour winds, 13,000 miles of road were impassable, and lives and livelihoods were threatened in ways we have never seen before. My point in reminding all of my colleagues about this loss, Mr. President, is simply this: There is no patience left out there. They have endured the winter. They have endured the floods. They have endured this long, deliberative process about how we respond in the most effective way to all the problems we have across the country in emergencies and disasters where declarations have been made, but they do not understand this. They do not understand how anyone can take a bill this important and use it for vehicles that have nothing to do with the disaster, nothing to do with an emergency, nothing to do with responding as effectively as we possibly can, given the circumstances that they have had. I do not understand it either, Mr. President, and I just hope that we can collectively respond as soon as the veto is made in a way that will give them more hope and less frustration, more belief in what we as Republicans and Democrats can do to respond more effectively than we are this afternoon. We have to get rid of the extraordinary cynicism that comes so often when people in the country affected by these circumstances watch what we do. We cannot effectively deal with that cynicism so long as cynical uses are made of legislation this important. So, again, let me thank the chairman for his best effort in trying to resolve any of these difficulties. Let me thank the ranking member. Senator Byrd has been extremely responsive and cooperative in all ways, as he is in so many instances. I thank the Members for their efforts. I must say, this is a disaster in and of itself. For us not to be able to respond, for us not to resolve these matters, for us to know that this bill will be vetoed, and do it anyway, is inexcusable and inexplicable. I just hope we can find a way to resolve these matters this week and decide in a mutual fashion that we will get a new bill that will be signed by the President in the shortest possible time. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. The letter is from Nolan Seim: To whom it may concern, We live in the far North West corner of South Dakota. We have had a devastating winter to say the least. This last storm just adding a finishing flair to the proverbial cake. When the winds finally died, we went to check our cattle. . . . We found a horrifying sight; the cows looked as if they were walking snowballs. They had suffocated from ice covering their nostrils. As we went along we found dead calves scattered and tromped into the earth. Some stood like statutes froze over with snow, blinded by the same. Our hearts ached, we spent the day dragging in cold calves that were trying their best to hold on to life. We saved what we could, others just gave up hope, as are we. . . . We implore you to please send some relief our way.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will be brief because I know a lot of Senators want to depart, this will be the only opportunity we will have to express the hope that we could do better than what we have done this week, as good as it has been. The President has indicated tonight that he would be prepared to return the bill, the supplemental bill, to us tonight. There is no reason why, given that we could not vote on it tomorrow and send it back in time for him to sign it before the end of the week, because we are not going to be in--that is the announcement made by the majority leader--many of us believe that we need to vote against adjournment simply because it is our hope to stay in until the President returns the bill, giving us the opportunity to vote on it one more time this week. I thank the majority leader for yielding. I have no objection to the unanimous-consent request.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, let me commend the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts for his comments. Let me say I completely associate myself with his remarks and appreciate his extraordinary leadership on children's health issues in particular. I came to the floor just to respond to the distinguished majority leader. I didn't hear all that he said, but it was reported to me. I know he made comment about the progress we are making on the supplemental appropriations bill. I must say, I am pleased to hear maybe some progress has been made. We have been patient, and I think he would concede that we have been patient. And we have been very tolerant of the extraordinary delay that has existed now for some time in moving this legislation forward. He tried, prior to the time of the Memorial Day recess, to negotiate some settlement, as did the rest of us, and failed to find some way with which to resolve the differences. The problem we have, though, Madam President, is that we continue to send the message that even though people in the Dakotas and Minnesota are losing sleep, even though mayors and city councilmen and business people and homeowners and farmers continue to be exasperated and frustrated with the lack of progress here, it is business as usual on the Senate floor. It is business as usual in the Congress. We send the message that it doesn't seem to matter how grave the circumstances, we are not going to change the way we are doing business here; we will continue to do business as usual. So our message to them was that we don't care how long it takes, this Congress ought to stay here tonight, tomorrow, tomorrow night, the next night until we get an agreement on this conference report, until we can find some way to resolve these differences, until we can say to those people without equivocation, we know it is not business as usual, we know that we have to get something done, we know that you are hurting and we are going to respond. But we are not sending that message when we adjourn, when we don't meet, when we don't make progress on any of the contentious issues for which there has been disagreement now for weeks. When does it end? When do we break some new ground and move the bill on? I am pleased, if the majority leader is accurate, with the report that we could have some resolution to some of these issues this afternoon. At long last, we may be able to send the right message to the people waiting now all this time. But there are 33 States detrimentally affected, probably no States more detrimentally affected than those States in the Midwest, Dakotas and Minnesota. So, clearly, something has to be done. I hope if we are not going to resolve the conference report this afternoon, the majority leader will allow us to stay in, will allow us to continue to address these issues, that we will not accept business as usual, and that we can send as clear a message as possible that we understand how grave this situation is, and we are going to respond just as effectively and as quickly and as completely as we possibly can. That is what the message ought to be. We are going to have a compensation vote again this afternoon, a comptime vote. I must say, I am disappointed. The majority leader talked about it being a two-way street on the supplemental appropriations. I would like it to be a two-way street on comptime. I would like the Republican leadership and our Republican colleagues to take a good look at what we are suggesting as a way with which to resolve this impasse. That has not happened yet. Whether it is the supplemental, comptime or any one of a number of issues, the only way we can demonstrate this two-way street is if we can find some common ground and work together. At least let's recognize today that we will not leave, we will not adjourn, we will not pretend it is business as usual so long as we haven't resolved the outstanding differences on the supplemental bill. I urge the leader to do that, and I hope that he can work with us to ensure that we send that message out to those who are detrimentally affected all across this country and are looking for some hope and some understanding of our appreciation of the seriousness of the problems that they are facing. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will be very brief.

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me just thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his words of support. As he has indicated, even though perhaps it is the upper Midwest that is most detrimentally affected, States all over the country are affected, even in those areas where there hasn't been a disaster, as in the State of Massachusetts. The Senator speaks eloquently about the degree of support and sensitivity that we find across the country for the plight that we have in the Dakotas and Minnesota, particularly. Let me just say, we have had a remarkable degree of response within our caucus. Virtually every Senator has indicated they would be willing to stay tonight and speak for a period of time about the circumstances in their State or the circumstances involving the legislation. Every Senator has expressed a willingness to come to the floor, whether it is 2 or 3 or 5 o'clock in the morning. They have indicated a willingness to be here. Let me thank all of my colleagues for their expressions of interest and participation and my hope that we can participate in a meaningful way, not in a controversial or confrontational way necessarily, but simply providing the rest of the country a better opportunity to understand the extraordinary situation that we are facing and the need for us to respond as quickly as possible, given this late date. So I thank my colleagues. I hope that we get Republican participation. I certainly hope that this notion that we are going to adjourn rather than to have a good debate is nothing but a false rumor and that we will have the opportunity to participate in that colloquy tonight. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.