Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am glad we are finally going to consider President Clinton's nominee for Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman. She deserves a swift confirmation by the United States Senate. Ms. Herman's contributions during her career in public service and in the private sector are truly impressive and make her uniquely qualified to serve as Secretary of Labor. Ms. Herman's commitment to bettering the working and living conditions of her fellow Americans began early in her life, with the support and encouragement of her family. Born in segregated Mobile, Alabama, Ms. Herman grew up in a family dedicated to the struggle for civil rights. Her father, a mortician, sued the Democratic Party to make it more inclusive and became one of Alabama's first black party officials. After graduating from Louisiana's Xavier University, Herman went back home to Mobile to help desegregate her Catholic high school. She also worked in Pascagoula, MS, the hometown of Senator Lott, helping unskilled workers get jobs in the shipyards. Ms. Herman came to Washington in 1977 to work in the Labor Department with Secretary Ray Marshall, where she headed the women's bureau. After working for Secretary Marshall, Ms. Herman entered the private sector, forming her own consulting firm to advise businesses on marketing and minority hiring. In 1988, Herman joined the Rev. Jesse Jackson's second presidential campaign, where she met Ron Brown. With Ron Brown, Ms. Herman worked on President Clinton's 1992 campaign, and was chief executive officer of the Democrats' 1992 convention in New York. After President Clinton was elected in 1992, she became head of the White House public liaison office. Alexis Herman combines graciousness with toughness in a way that allows her to bring diverse groups together and build consensus, promote understanding, and resolve conflicts. It is no surprise that, as they have gotten to know her, more and more individuals, and more and more organizations and institutions, have come to support her nomination. She has strong support from a broad political spectrum, including the business, labor, and civil rights communities, all of whom she has served during her impressive career. It is a testament to her success in building bridges between communities, helping working people, and remaining true to her principles that the people back home have not forgotten her. The Alabama Legislature passed a resolution urging her confirmation, and many Alabamians came to Washington for her hearing. Alexis Herman has demonstrated her abilities to serve as Labor Secretary over the course of her impressive career. I look forward to working with her upon her confirmation, which, I trust, will be accomplished today.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I only do so to commend the distinguished majority leader for his work in bringing us to this point. This has been the subject of extraordinary discussion and negotiation. It would not have been possible were it not for his cooperation and the work by several Senators, including the distinguished chairman of the Labor Committee and the ranking member, who are on the floor at this time. I thank the majority leader for his effort, and I appreciate very much the work to bring us to this point. I have no objection.

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, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. DASCHLE pertaining to the introduction of S. 657 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, current law--grounded in a century-old statute--requires individuals in receipt of disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, to offset by an equal amount any retired military pay for which they are eligible. The offset requirement discriminates unfairly against disabled career soldiers by requiring them, in effect, to fund their own disability benefits. To correct this gross inequity, Senator Jeffords and I are introducing legislation today that would eliminate the offset on a graduated scale based on the inverse of the retiree's disability rating. For example, a veteran who is 80 percent disabled would have to offset his retirement pay by the amount equal to 20 percent of his total VA disability. This compromise would establish the right of a disabled military retiree to receive at least a portion of his earned military retirement. Current law is problematic because it ignores the proper distinction between military retirement and disability compensation entitlements. Whereas the former is paid to recognize a soldier who has dedicated 20 or more of his or her years to our country's defense, the latter is designed to compensate a veteran for injury incurred in the line of duty. Because the two types of compensation serve two entirely different purposes, receipt of one should not displace receipt of the other. Concurrent receipt is fundamentally a fairness issue. The present law simply discriminates against career military personnel. Career military retirees are the only group of Federal retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to receive VA disability pay. The unequal gap between the compensation received by disabled servicemembers who choose different career paths is patently clear. Disabled veterans who choose careers in military service will see, upon retirement, their earned retirement benefits reduced proportionate to their receipt of VA disability payments. Conversely, disabled veterans who elect to leave military service and go into either other Federal employment or the private sector will, upon retirement, continue to receive their full disability payments, along with any earned retirement benefits. This inequity needs to be corrected. Over the past several years, the Congress and the Department of Defense have sought to deal with this issue in a variety of ways. In the past, many attempts to rectify this situation have been accompanied by staggering cost estimates. This legislation represents an effort to ease the offset burden on retired disabled servicemembers while avoiding significant deficit expansion. It is also supported by veterans service organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, the American Legion, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. Although these organizations would prefer a complete elimination of the offset, they all welcome this effort as a step in the right direction. We now have an opportunity to show a measure of our gratitude to all those remarkable men and women who have sacrificed in the name of freedom and democracy. These dedicated servicemembers deserve our special commendation, both for having suffered while serving our country and for continuing to work in the Armed Forces until retirement. It is time for Congress to reverse the law that prohibits career military personnel who are wounded or injured during service to our country from receiving earned retirement benefits. I hope the Senate will consider this legislation expeditiously and end, at long last, this unfairness by finally passing this bill, or something like it, into law in the near future. Mr. President, this legislation represents an honest attempt to correct an injustice that has existed for too long. By allowing disabled veterans to receive military retired pay and veterans disability compensation concurrently, with an offset that is inversely related to the degree of disability, we can restore some fairness to Federal retirement policy in a cost-effective manner. Common sense tells us that this is the right thing to do. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Military Retirement Equity Act of 1997 be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, current law--grounded in a century-old statute--requires individuals in receipt of disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, to offset by an equal amount any retired military pay for which they are eligible. The offset requirement discriminates unfairly against disabled career soldiers by requiring them, in effect, to fund their own disability benefits. To correct this gross inequity, Senator Jeffords and I are introducing legislation today that would eliminate the offset on a graduated scale based on the inverse of the retiree's disability rating. For example, a veteran who is 80 percent disabled would have to offset his retirement pay by the amount equal to 20 percent of his total VA disability. This compromise would establish the right of a disabled military retiree to receive at least a portion of his earned military retirement. Current law is problematic because it ignores the proper distinction between military retirement and disability compensation entitlements. Whereas the former is paid to recognize a soldier who has dedicated 20 or more of his or her years to our country's defense, the latter is designed to compensate a veteran for injury incurred in the line of duty. Because the two types of compensation serve two entirely different purposes, receipt of one should not displace receipt of the other. Concurrent receipt is fundamentally a fairness issue. The present law simply discriminates against career military personnel. Career military retirees are the only group of Federal retirees who are required to waive their retirement pay in order to receive VA disability pay. The unequal gap between the compensation received by disabled servicemembers who choose different career paths is patently clear. Disabled veterans who choose careers in military service will see, upon retirement, their earned retirement benefits reduced proportionate to their receipt of VA disability payments. Conversely, disabled veterans who elect to leave military service and go into either other Federal employment or the private sector will, upon retirement, continue to receive their full disability payments, along with any earned retirement benefits. This inequity needs to be corrected. Over the past several years, the Congress and the Department of Defense have sought to deal with this issue in a variety of ways. In the past, many attempts to rectify this situation have been accompanied by staggering cost estimates. This legislation represents an effort to ease the offset burden on retired disabled servicemembers while avoiding significant deficit expansion. It is also supported by veterans service organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, the American Legion, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. Although these organizations would prefer a complete elimination of the offset, they all welcome this effort as a step in the right direction. We now have an opportunity to show a measure of our gratitude to all those remarkable men and women who have sacrificed in the name of freedom and democracy. These dedicated servicemembers deserve our special commendation, both for having suffered while serving our country and for continuing to work in the Armed Forces until retirement. It is time for Congress to reverse the law that prohibits career military personnel who are wounded or injured during service to our country from receiving earned retirement benefits. I hope the Senate will consider this legislation expeditiously and end, at long last, this unfairness by finally passing this bill, or something like it, into law in the near future. Mr. President, this legislation represents an honest attempt to correct an injustice that has existed for too long. By allowing disabled veterans to receive military retired pay and veterans disability compensation concurrently, with an offset that is inversely related to the degree of disability, we can restore some fairness to Federal retirement policy in a cost-effective manner. Common sense tells us that this is the right thing to do. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Military Retirement Equity Act of 1997 be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me begin by commending the distinguished majority leader for his leadership on this issue and for his eloquent statement earlier today. I think he spoke for a large number of the American people, both Republicans and Democrats in coming to the conclusion he did about this treaty. I rise to commend him and to support him in the decision that he made. I also wish to commend the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, the Senator from Delaware, for his leadership on our side of the aisle. No one could have managed this bill better. And we could not have come to this point were it not for the remarkable commitment he has made in the effort to pass this treaty. I thank him for his leadership in bringing us to this point tonight. Under the terms of article II, section 2 of the Constitution, the Senate alone was granted the power to advise and consent to treaties made by the President. Our Founding Fathers also decided that approval by a simple majority was simply not sufficient for legislation of this magnitude. Instead, they established the requirement that two-thirds of the Senate must support a treaty for it to take effect. This is as it should be. There is no more important or unique power assigned to the Senate by the Constitution than the authority to provide advice and consent on treaties. With this authority, however, comes obligations. Senators must examine a treaty not through a prism of narrow political pursuits, but rather from the perspective of broad national interests. Put simply, the most important question we should ask ourselves when considering the Chemical Weapons Convention, or any other treaty, is, does this make sense for the Nation and are its citizens more secure? Mr. President, after a thorough review of this treaty, its negotiating history, and the 28 conditions added by the Senate, I believe the answer to this question is a resounding and unqualified yes. The Chemical Weapons Convention bans the development, production, stockpiling, and use of toxic chemicals as weapons. A look at the negotiating history of the CWC reveals that this treaty is truly a bipartisan product. Negotiations, as has been mentioned now on several occasions throughout the day, began with President Reagan in the early 1980s. While the bulk of the negotiations and most of the difficult decisions occurred during the Bush administration, President Clinton finished the work started by his two predecessors and submitted the treaty to the Senate for consideration in November of 1993. The Senate's counsel on crucial issues was sought and provided repeatedly throughout the course of the decade-long negotiations. Playing an especially important role in this regard was the Senate's Arms Control Observer Group, a bipartisan gathering of Senators with special interests and expertise in arms control matters. Currently, Senators Stevens and Byrd lead the group. In addition, since the treaty has been before the Senate for nearly 3 years, Members have had ample opportunity to request the information needed to reach their judgment, and more than sufficient time to carry out a thorough examination of the treaty's impact on our national security. During that 3-year period, nearly 20 hearings have been conducted in several different Senate committees, including Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Intelligence, and Judiciary. In addition, the administration has made available over 1,500 pages of documentation on the Chemical Weapons Convention and answered over 300 questions from Senators and their staffs. Moreover, as a result of intensive, around-the-clock negotiating sessions between the administration, Senator Helms and Senator Biden, the resolution of ratification now contains 28 separate conditions on the U.S. Senate's resolution of ratification. That is 28 individual clarifications by the Senate about the terms and conditions under which the U.S. would enter into the Chemical Weapons Convention. These conditions were the product of over 100 hours of discussion. And I am told that the vast majority of the conditions address problems first raised by Republicans. I think it is safe to say that these list of conditions address virtually every legitimate concern that has been raised about the potential impact of the CWC on our national security and economy. Mr. President, we must now evaluate what has been revealed during this process that has spanned three Presidential Administrations and includes numerous hearings, briefings and mounds of documents. What have we determined about the merits of the CWC in the nearly 3\1/2\ years since President Clinton submitted it to us? First, officials from previous Administrations who were involved in the CWC negotiations support the treaty. General Brent Scowcroft, the National Security Advisor to Presidents Reagan and Bush, has said the following: ``The time has come for the Senate to uphold U.S. leadership in combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by providing its consent to the [Chemical Weapons] Convention. And President Bush himself, in a February meeting with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Secretary of State James Baker, noted: ``I . . . strongly support efforts to get this chemical weapons treaty approved. This should be beyond partisanship. I think it is vitally important for the United States to be out front. . . . We don't need chemical weapons, and we ought to get out front and make clear that we are opposed to others having them.'' Second, what are the views of America's chemical manufacturers--the industry that will be most directly affected by the provisions of the CWC? The chemical industry is America's largest export industry, posting $60 billion in export sales last year alone. Opponents of this treaty claim its ratification will lead to onerous and costly restrictions and regulations on this industry as well as the exposure of confidential, proprietary information. The chemical industry has repeatedly refuted these claims; yet, it appears that CWC's critics are so blinded by their ideological zeal to kill all arms control treaties that they cannot take no for an answer. One of the industry's best responses was contained in a letter sent late last year to the distinguished Majority leader, Senator Lott. This letter is an important one, so I will quote it at length: ``The chemical industry has long supported the Chemical Weapons Convention. Our industry participated in negotiating the agreement and in U.S. and international implementation efforts. The treaty contains substantial protections for confidential business information. We know because industry helped to draft these provisions . . . In short, our industry has thoroughly examined and tested this Convention. We have concluded that the benefits of the CWC far outweigh the costs. . . . Indeed, the real price would come from not ratifying the CWC. . . . If the Senate does not vote in favor of the CWC, we stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in overseas sales, putting at risk thousands of good-paying American jobs.'' So says the chemical industry in a letter signed by the CEOs of 53 of America's preeminent chemical manufacturers. Signees include the ARCO Chemical Company, the Ashland Chemical Company, the Bayer Corporation, the B.F. Goodrich Company, the Dow Chemical Company, the Eastman Chemical Company, the E.I. Dupont Company, the Exon Chemical Company and the Monsanto Company. I should also note that these companies issued this statement before we agreed upon the 28 conditions I discussed earlier, several of which would further reduce the possibility that proprietary information from American businesses would fall into the hands of our adversaries. Well, Mr. President, what about the military? After all, it is our men and women in uniform who must face, as they did in Desert Storm, the threat of an attack from lethal chemical weapons. Make no mistake. We are talking about invisible and instantaneous killers. What about our people in the Pentagon who have to make the decisions that may ultimately lead to the exposure of our troops to that insidious threat? General Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: ``The potential benefits of the Chemical Weapons Convention will have a positive impact on the lives of our service people and how the U.S. military fulfills its responsibility to national security.'' In another appearance before the Foreign Relations Committee, General Shalikashvili noted: ``From a military perspective, the Chemical Weapons Convention is clearly in our national interest. The non- proliferation aspects of the convention will retard the spread of chemical weapons and, in so doing, reduce the probability that U.S. forces may encounter chemical weapons in a regional conflict.'' Some may argue that General Shalikashvili is but one general who was appointed by President Clinton. To those skeptics, let me say three things. First, General Shalikashvili's record of service to this country is unparalleled. Second, a comprehensive review of this record will not reveal a single instance where he failed to offer anything but than his objective, untarnished opinion. Third, he is not alone. An April 3 letter to the President states the following: The CWC destroys stockpiles that could threaten our troops; it significantly improves our intelligence capabilities; and it creates new international sanctions to punish those states who remain outside of the treaty. For these reasons, we strongly support the CWC. Mr. President, that letter was sent on behalf of 16 three- and four- star generals and admirals, including Colin Powell, John Vessey, and Norman Schwartzkopf. This letter, in addition to an endorsement by David Jones, means that every occupant in the last 20 years of the position of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, this Nation's highest military office, has come out in support of the CWC. The final group the Senate has heard from in its efforts to weigh the pros and cons of the Chemical Weapons Convention is the intelligence community. The task of verifying this treaty, like other arms control treaties, ultimately falls on the shoulders of the Central Intelligence and the other organizations within the intelligence community. Despite the most comprehensive, intrusive verification regime in the history of arms control, critics of CWC argue that it is unverifiable; if they had their way, the Senate would reject the CWC because the intelligence community will be unable to detect any violations of the treaty itself. But in this case, the perfect is the enemy of the good. While the intelligence community has rightly acknowledged that it cannot detect any production of chemical agents--anywhere or at anytime--it has also said that it can effectively verify the provisions of this treaty. Moreover, the critics' argument ignores the fact that, with or without the Chemical Weapons Convention, our intelligence community will still seek to collect information on efforts by foreign nations to develop and produce chemical weapons. The more important question is whether our intelligence and nonproliferation efforts are helped or hindered by the adoption of the treaty. According to James Woolsey, then director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and since confirmed by George Tenet, acting director of the CIA: The Intelligence community has the broader mission--with or without the treaty--of detecting the existence and assessing the threat from chemical weapons programs of any country. This mission must be carried out regardless of whether we have the additional requirement to assess such activities against the provisions of the treaty. And it is to this broader mission that the CWC can make a significant contribution. The Senate has heard from President Reagan's National Security Advisor, from President Bush, from the leading figures in the chemical industry, from the current chairman of the JCS, three of his predecessors and 14 other three- and four-star generals and admirals, and from the intelligence community. Each of these groups and individuals have looked at the CWC from their unique perspectives and interests and each has reached the same conclusion: the Senate should support this treaty and should do so promptly. Mr. President, I would submit since the Senate received the CWC treaty for its advice and consent, one other group has spoken all too loudly to us: those who commit terrorist acts. In the 3\1/2\ years this treaty has been before the Senate, terrorist incidents have occurred with a sickening and disturbing regularity: the sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway; the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City; the attack on Khobar Towers in Dharan, Saudi Arabia; the suspected bombing of TWA flight 800; the bombing in Olympic Park in Atlanta. Each incident has painfully dramatized the fact that we live in an age where, unfortunately, no one is inoculated against the threat of terrorism. No community stands outside the reach of determined terrorists. As President Clinton noted in a recent address, ``Terrorism has become an equal opportunity destroyer, with no respect for borders.'' This treaty is an opportunity to send a small message to those who threaten our families, our communities and our way of life with their unprovoked acts of violence. The United States Senate has heard what terrorists have to say. Today, with our votes on this treaty, we determine how the United States Senate will respond to these acts. I hope we will send the message that we are going to do all we can to ensure that these deadly chemicals will never be the means terrorists employ to advance their cause. It is time we said to the terrorists, on the issue of chemical weapons, enough is enough. Now the argument will be made that this treaty will not halt terrorism, will not shut down the private laboratories of insane extremists and will not halt the efforts of various rogue nations. To a certain degree, that is probably true. But what this treaty will do is begin the orchestration of a concert of nations--an orchestration of civilized voices that speaks out forcefully against an unambiguous evil. Tonight America has the opportunity to make the moral stand. We are destroying our own chemical stockpiles. We began that cleansing process under President Reagan and it continues today. Why should we oppose a treaty that demands the world to live up to a moral standard that we have already willingly accepted ourselves? Why deprive ourselves of the right to call upon our neighbors to live up to the example that we in the United States are willing to act? In summary, Mr. President, this is a necessary treaty. It has been endorsed by a bipartisan group of Senators who are experts on this issue, by advisors to Presidents Reagan and Bush, and President Clinton, by the U.S. military, by our chemical industry and by our intelligence community. To all of this I would add two final points. First, over 80 percent of the American people have indicated their support for ridding the world of toxic agents by ratifying the CWC. Second, over 70 countries have already ratified this treaty and thereby forsworn the use of chemical weapons. Mr. President, this treaty is going to happen with or without us. I urge the Members of this body to set aside partisan differences, demonstrate leadership to our friends and enemies alike, join with those who have already ratified this treaty and take the first step toward eliminating these evil weapons. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate ratify this treaty.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to use the 5 minutes allocated to each leader for purposes of closing debate in addition to my 15 minutes for the leader in an effort to make my statement at this point in the debate.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, over the past months South Dakota has suffered some of the worst disasters in recent memory. The drifts of snow that have paralyzed our State and killed over 100,000 cattle are at last melting, but their runoff has swelled our lakes and rivers to overflowing and forced thousands to evacuate in the face of devastating floodwaters. Only the hard work of South Dakotans, building dikes and filling sandbags to save the homes of their friends and neighbors, has prevented the serious disaster we are facing from having more catastrophic consequences. I am also proud to say that during these disasters, our bipartisan elected leadership has set politics aside and worked together for the good of our State. Our Democratic President, our Republican Governor, our entire congressional delegation, and every local leader have made overcoming the disaster our first priority. As Governor Bill Janklow of South Dakota stated, ``There is no way that Republican or Democrat politics should come into play when we are dealing with the things that are vital to all the people of this State.'' Together, we believe that meeting the needs of our families and our communities should always come first. This philosophy has served South Dakota well during its time of need, and I am convinced that what has worked in South Dakota can work here in Washington. Recently, we passed the 100th day of this Congress. Since we began this session, 14 million children attended classes in schools that are falling apart, 180,000 babies were born without health care coverage and 51 million workers labored without a pension plan. Unfortunately, this Congress has accomplished nothing to meet these dire needs. It is now time to make good on our pledges of cooperation. Just as South Dakotans have joined together for the good of our State, we in Congress must join together for the good of our country and deliver much-needed relief to America's working families. On the first day of the 105th Congress, I introduced bills to enact the Families First Agenda to raise the incomes of working families, extend affordable health coverage to children, expand the retirement benefits of workers, and make it easier for students of all ages to receive a quality education. Now it is time to roll up our sleeves and get to work. I urge my colleagues to join with me to support America's families. Every day we wait is another day they struggle to make ends meet. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a very important letter I received from Kym Pacheco, a resident of Sioux Falls, SD. It is a heartbreaking letter, and it tells the story of working families better than any words of mine. Despite a 105-hour work week as a truck driver, Kym's husband earns just enough for the family to get by. Each month they struggle to pay their rent and the grocery, gas, and phone bills. ``Mind you,'' she writes, ``none of this includes car repairs, school supplies, clothes, medications, or car insurance. There are no luxuries--week-end vacations, a nice car, trips to McDonald's. What we wouldn't do to be able to take our son to the Black Hills for a week! . . . But we cannot put any money into the savings. We literally live paycheck to paycheck!'' Mr. President, no one in our Nation who works 105 hours a week should live one paycheck away from an empty stomach or a missed rent payment. Families like Kym's work hard but cannot get ahead, and they fear for the future of their children. They have faith that life can be better, but they are depending upon us to give them the help they need. We cannot let them down. As Kym continues, ``There are so many problems in the U.S., but I honestly believe that when our government starts passing laws that actually give families affordable, decent coverage health insurance, decent wages, tax breaks for poor and middle class working families, our country will become better. It would be a start! Our children deserve an opportunity to live better than we did!'' Mr. President, her children do deserve that opportunity, and we can give it to them. Let us accept Kym's challenge. If we put the interests of working families before party politics, we can provide working families with tax breaks for education and ensure that parents can afford to take their children to the doctor. We can ensure that in future years when Kym's children retire they will have financial security. All of this is in our power, but to meet our goal we must work together. I hope my colleagues will join me in this task.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I just want to clarify that the amendments we will offer to strike will be in order Thursday regardless of whether the 10 hours of debate has been completed and that the vote on the agreed-on reservations will occur prior to consideration of the reservations in this agreement.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is right. We talked about the timeframe--which is what this agreement addresses--within which all of the legislation affecting the agreement will be considered. I spoke at some length in describing what the scenario would be, and again repeated it, as I said, at the policy committee this afternoon.

Mr. DASCHLE. If I could say, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has made himself very clear on this point. I agree with him. I think that we ought to use the language that will allow for consideration of final passage after reaching the third reading, which is what the Senator has suggested. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me just say that I think this has again addressed all of the concerns raised. And I appreciate very much everyone's cooperation here. The clock is ticking. We are losing time. We need to get on with consideration of the Kyl bill. And I hope now that we can enter into this unanimous-consent agreement. I yield the floor. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Would the majority leader yield at that point?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, would the distinguished--I do not know who has the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Again, I reiterate, we also had the text of this agreement. The substantive portions of this agreement have all been transmitted to every Democratic office now for some time. It should be in the office of every Senator. Every Democratic Senator and staff should have been well aware of it. We then faxed the specific agreement about an hour ago.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would like to respond, if I could, to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. There were four notifications, I would explain to my dear colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia. First, we had sent out the substance of this agreement about 48 hours ago. So staffs have had this now for the better part of 2 days. Second, we discussed it in the caucus on Tuesday. Third, we had the opportunity to talk to all relevant committee staff and then, of course, to those who had a particular interest in it over the last 24 hours. Then, finally, of course, we have explained it again in a policy committee just about 2\1/2\ hours ago. So I really think that in this case there ought not be any surprises for any of our colleagues if they had an interest. We have really made the effort as this has evolved to bring people along with the understanding of where we are. This is simply a confirmation of what I have been explaining to our caucus now for the better part of a week.

Mr. DASCHLE. I do not know if you were there. If the distinguished Senator will yield again, I do not know that he was there when this segment of it was discussed, but we brought it up at the end of the caucus. I think the Senator may have already left the caucus.

Mr. DASCHLE. At that point I would add 1 hour under the control of Senator Leahy.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to begin my comments on S. 495 with two observations. First, if the United States desires to be an original member of the Chemical Weapons Convention, this body must act to ratify this treaty within the next 7 days. Second, the whole world is watching what we say and do on the CWC--a treaty that I believe is one of the most important arms control agreements this body will consider for many years to come. Having made these observations, one would think the Senate would be moving to immediate consideration of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Instead, the Senate unfortunately finds itself debating S. 495--a bill that its most ardent supporters have characterized in recent days as the conservatives' substitute to the Chemical Weapons Convention. I must tell the Senate that despite these claims, S. 495 is not the Chemical Weapons Convention. In fact, I think it's safe to say S. 495 is not even a distant relative of the Chemical Weapons Convention. And, as former Democratic leader George Mitchell was fond of reminding many of his colleagues at moments like this, saying something repeatedly does not make it so. Mr. President, the Chemical Weapons Convention offers this Nation an oasis of security in an increasingly threatening world. S. 495 offers us a mirage--a mirage, that if pursued, would jeopardize our national security and our economy. First, Mr. President, S. 495 only requires the United States to do what it is already doing under an existing law signed by President Reagan in 1986--destroy our stockpile of chemical weapons. S. 495 does absolutely nothing to force other nations to eliminate their stocks of these deadly materials. Second, the supporters of S. 495 act as if the CWC does not exist at all. S. 495 directs the Secretary of State to negotiate a whole new agreement. The purpose of this new agreement would be to enhance enforcement of an old agreement--the 1925 Geneva protocol. The Geneva protocol merely prohibits the use of chemical weapons. If you care about getting tough on chemical weapons, CWC is the only real answer. CWC bans the development, production, and stockpiling of chemical weapons as well as their use. Third, S. 495 does nothing to address the trade sanctions that would hit the American chemical industry if we fail to ratify the CWC. Everyone needs to understand that this treaty will take effect with or without us on April 29. Without U.S. ratification of the CWC, U.S. firms will immediately have to secure end-user certificates for the export of chemicals. The implications for U.S. business will be as swift as they are costly. Finally, I must note with a bit of irony that, according to legal experts who have examined this bill, S. 495, the so-called Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 1997, may actually weaken existing law in the very same areas it seeks to toughen them up. As a result of exemption clauses in this bill, passage of S. 495 could undercut the very purpose of the bill itself. In closing, Mr. President, I ask the Senate not to pursue this mirage. S. 495 is not a real substitute for the Chemical Weapons Convention. I ask that the Senate reject this false vision and that we then get on with the real debate--consideration of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will yield, the agreement calls for a vote on the Helms amendments, and on the 28 amendments in agreement. It was stated by at least one of our colleagues that it was his hope that these votes would be voice votes, and the majority leader indicated that it was his desire to have a voice vote. But no one is precluded, of course, from calling for a rollcall as is his constitutional right. So the distinguished Senator from West Virginia makes a good point. A Senator is not precluded. It is my hope, working with the majority leader, that we can have voice votes on these matters and that we can move ahead as the agreement anticipates. But certainly it is anyone's right to call for a rollcall on this or any other vote.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate the majority leader's yielding. I heard him thank a number of people, and I want to express my gratitude as well to the majority leader and so many others who have brought us to this point. We have hot-lined this unanimous-consent request. Let me just urge all of my Democratic colleagues to respond as favorably and as quickly as they possibly can. I have very closely examined once more this request, and I must say I think it is fair to all sides. It is not everything we would like, but it is not everything that the Republicans would like either. It is important for purposes of completing our work on time that we get this agreement today, this afternoon. So I urge my Democratic colleagues to support the request and to allow us to enter into an agreement no later than 2:15 this afternoon. So again I thank the majority leader, all of those on our side of the aisle for their great work in bringing us to this point. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last week I introduced the Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997. This bill, which is strongly supported by Members from both sides of the aisle, rechannels existing Federal drug control resources into community, antidrug efforts that are already reducing teenage drug abuse in our towns. We must act now on this issue, because teenage drug abuse is one of the worst problems in America today. Drug abuse encourages crime and gang violence, as well as higher rates of teenage pregnancy, and other social problems. Many of our schools are under siege from the onslaught of drugs. What's more, teenage drug abuse is getting worse. After more than a decade of substantial progress in combating the problem, the trends have reversed since 1991. Marijuana use alone has tripled among 8th graders and more than doubled among 10th and 12th graders. Daily use has increased so dramatically during this period that one in 20 of today's high school seniors uses marijuana daily. And, the marijuana of today--because of the chemical THC content--can be 15 times stronger than the marijuana of the 1970's. Cocaine, crack cocaine, amphetamine stimulants, barbiturates, and heroin are increasingly popular among teenagers. The use of LSD has never been higher. These nationwide statistics are extremely troubling. But, the problems of teenage drug abuse are experienced most vividly in each of our towns and communities. Our sons and daughters face this threat every day in school and on the playground. We need to target our drug reduction efforts to help these teenagers in their own communities. That is why we are introducing the Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997. With little or no Federal funds, many local anti-drug coalitions are already helping some teenagers in their communities. This legislation targets assistance to these coalitions, so that they can reach out to and help more teenagers. In order to receive Federal support, a community must first demonstrate a comprehensive, long-term commitment to addressing teenage drug abuse. This commitment must include a focused mission, the implementation of strategies to reduce drug abuse, and the involvement of all parts of the community--including parents, youth, businesses, media, schools, law enforcement, religious leaders, and others. Moreover, a community must demonstrate that its antidrug effort is an on-going concern that has local support and is self- sustaining. I also support the Drug-Free Communities Act because it is fiscally responsible. It does not increase Federal spending or the deficit. Instead, it simply rechannels existing funds from the $16 billion Federal drug control budget. Even more importantly, the bill requires a financial commitment from the communities involved. Under the bill, the Federal Government will not simply grant money to local communities that meet the criteria that I just mentioned. The qualifying communities must match the Government's funds with resources of their own--up to a cap of $100,000. These matching grants will force the communities to demonstrate an even greater commitment to fighting drug abuse before receiving Federal funds. Finally, the legislation creates an Advisory Commission to oversee the antidrug program. This commission will consist of local community leaders and national and State experts on substance abuse. This composition ensures that the program draws upon national expertise in fighting drug abuse, while remaining responsive to local needs. The Drug-Free Communities Act has attracted the support of more than 150 State and local law enforcement groups, churches, and other organizations. On the national level, it has been endorsed by groups as diverse as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and William Bennett's Empower America. This bill represents a wonderful opportunity to provide meaningful help to community coalitions in South Dakota and nationwide, without expending additional Federal funds. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.