Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this morning, several of our colleagues are traveling to Lowell, MA to say goodbye to one of our own, Senator Paul Tsongas. They carry with them the thoughts and prayers of every Senator. Whether or not we knew him personally, whether we served in this Chamber with him or came after him, we are all indebted to Paul Tsongas for the lessons he taught us in his too brief time here, and his too brief life. Paul Tsongas taught us important lessons about how to balance compassion and fiscal reality. He taught us, by example, how to reach beyond party labels to something bigger. He taught us about how to live with purpose. And, in the end, he taught us something about how to die with dignity. Paul Tsongas was the son of immigrants. His parents owned a dry- cleaning shop in Lowell, MA. Paul Tsongas spent every afternoon and every Saturday working behind the counter in his family's business. It was there, he said, that he learned the dignity of work. Like many Americans of his generation, Paul Tsongas answered President Kennedy's call to join the Peace Corps. His experience in Ethiopia first sparked his interest in public service. He was elected to the House in 1974 and to the Senate in 1978. He was a young man when he came here, only 38 years old. His disciplined yet open mind and his capacity for original thought brought him deserved attention quickly. Paul Tsongas was a man of ideas and vision. He was a man of good humor who wasn't afraid to laugh at himself. In a town in which decibel levels are too often mistaken for conviction, Paul Tsongas stood out for his low-key, reasoned approach to lawmaking. It was an approach that served him--and our Nation--well. Senator Tsongas accomplished more in one term than many Senators who served here much longer. Paul Tsongas was 42 years old when he was diagnosed with lymphoma. He decided to step down after only one term in order to spend more time with his family--his wife, Niki, and their young daughters, Ashley, Katina, and Molly. Having lost his own mother when he was only 6, he knew how important it was that his own children know their father. You have to ``pour yourself into your children,'' he explained, ``so that when you're not around, you're still around.'' Paul Tsongas won his battle against cancer. He came back to establish the Concord Coalition with another of our former colleagues, Senator Warren Rudman, and even to run for President in 1992. In a newspaper interview that year, he was asked why he would spend his time on a long-shot bid for the White House. He replied, ``I guess my answer is kind of syrupy. I survived, and there is an obligation that goes with that . . . I have an obligation to give something back.'' Paul Tsongas was a man of unusual courage. He fought until the end-- even through pain and disappointment--to fulfill that obligation, to give something back. And, in the opinion of this Senator, he succeeded. Senator Tsongas's determination to tell the truth, even when it was not popular, earned him a nickname. Some called him ``St. Paul.'' Now St. Paul has gone on to meet St. Peter. And I suspect he is still working, trying to arrange some divine intervention to help us balance the budget. Years ago, when Paul Tsongas still sat in this Chamber, he spoke to a reporter about his hopes for his political career. He admitted that he might like to be President, if the opportunity were given to him. But, he said, ``if it turns out that my job in this business is to help provide direction--if that's what I end up being remembered for while someone else carries the ball--well, I could live with that. With a severe pang every once in a while, but I could live with that.'' Paul Tsongas gave us a sense of direction. He lived with purpose and passion. And we will all miss him. Today, our thoughts and prayers go out to Senator Tsongas immediate family, to his twin sister, Thaleia Schlesinger and stepsister Victoria Peters, and to those who remember him as we remember him today. And we thank him for that.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today we recognize the date upon which slavery finally came to an end in the United States, June 19, 1865, also known as Juneteenth Independence Day. It was only on this day that slaves in the Southwest finally learned of the end of slavery. Since that time, for over 130 years, the descendants of slaves have celebrated this day in honor of the many unfortunate people who lived and suffered under slavery. Their suffering can never be repaired, but their memory can serve to ensure that no such inhumanity is ever perpetrated again on American soil. We commemorate Juneteenth Independence Day to honor the struggles of these slaves and former slaves, to acknowledge their suffering and so that we may never forget even the worst aspects of our Nation's history. But this day and this joint resolution in honor of the end of slavery should also make us feel proud, proud that we as a nation have come so far toward advancing the goals of freedom and justice for all of our citizens. While we must continue ever forward in the search for justice, we should be thankful that the tireless efforts of vigilant Americans have enabled us to achieve a society built on democratic principles and the recognition that all men and women are created equal.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished majority leader. I, too, want to congratulate Alan on his honor. It is certainly well-deserved. He has made many of us look good as we sat in the chair of the Presiding Officer time and again, late at night and early in the morning. He turns around in his own tactful and subtle way and gives us the instructions to pass on to our colleagues as the Presiding Officer. So it is not only his knowledge but his demeanor that has meant a lot to me. We respect him. He knows he has a lot of friends as Members who have come to rely upon him because of that respect. And today we call attention to his 21 years contributing to the Senate in the Parliamentarian's Office in such a professional way. We congratulate him, and we thank him for his service. We thank Senator Lott, Senator Byrd, and others who have seen fit to offer this resolution today.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] asked me to submit his statement in support of William Cohen for Secretary of Defense. As with the earlier vote on the nomination of Madeleine Albright to be Secretary of State, he is necessarily absent for this vote because of responsibilities he has in leading a trade mission from his State of West Virginia to Asia. He regrets not being here to cast his own vote for his former colleague, Senator Cohen, and asks that his support for this outstanding nominee be noted. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] asked me to submit his statement in support of Madeleine Albright for Secretary of State. He is necessarily absent for the vote today because of responsibilities he has in leading a trade mission from his State of West Virginia to Asia. He regrets not being here to cast his own vote for Ms. Albright, and asks that his enthusiastic support for this outstanding individual be noted. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I know there are a number of colleagues who wish to be recognized, and I will be very brief. I wanted to accommodate all of those in the short timeframe that we had prior to the votes, so I withheld comment at that time. I congratulate both of our new members of the Cabinet on the strong support they received through the votes taken this afternoon. In the case of Madeleine Albright, I have had the opportunity to inform her of the Senate's vote and to personally congratulate her. Let me say how pleased I am with the overwhelming sentiment expressed by the Senate on both sides of the aisle. Madeleine Albright is unquestionably qualified to be Secretary of State. She is one of our best foreign policy minds, particularly given the extraordinary experience she has had in so many roles in her past. As a professor at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service, Ambassador to the United Nations, serving as a counselor to the President on foreign policy, Madeleine Albright, as much as anybody else, has had the opportunity to be in the forefront of foreign policy in this administration. This vote, obviously, was quite historic. Madeleine Albright stands now as the first woman to be confirmed as Secretary of State in our Nation's history. I cannot think of a more appropriate honor to be bestowed on a woman of this caliber and with this degree of credibility. I commend her and commend the administration for nominating her for this most important position. We stand ready to work with her in all the challenges that she now faces in all parts of the world given the heavy responsibility that she will face her new role as Secretary of State. I hope that we can demonstrate that politics will stop at the water's edge, as it has this afternoon in her confirmation. I look forward to working with her. And, again, let me publicly congratulate her on this historic occasion and on the overwhelming support demonstrated for her confirmation in the vote just taken. The same could be said of our new Secretary of Defense. From the very outset of his 20-plus year service in Congress, Bill Cohen has demonstrated ability, independence, and extraordinary good judgment on a range of defense and intelligence issues. Through his work on the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees, Senator Cohen has become a real giant in the formulation of public policy and someone to whom many of us have gone for counsel, advice, and direction as we have faced many very difficult issues. He has stood on this very Senate floor on many occasions to express himself clearly and unequivocally on the issues confronting this body that require very careful judgment. I also congratulate Senator Cohen for his clear and very decisive response to a question on the importance of the Chemical Weapons Convention. He made a compelling case for this vital treaty. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle were listening to the comments made by our new Secretary of Defense on the importance of the Chemical Weapons Convention. His record in this Congress, including his testimony before the Armed Services Committee this morning, indicate why Bill Cohen is an extraordinary choice as our new Secretary of Defense. I look forward to working with him. I know that, again, on a bipartisan basis, Bill Cohen begins his tenure as our new Secretary with an appreciation for the friendships that he has created and the standing that he continues to have in our body with colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Finally, let me just say, for just a moment, how pleased I was that the majority leader marked the important new record set by our distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia earlier today. Senator Byrd, having served 38 years and 10 days in the Senate, has now become the fourth longest-serving Senator in U.S. history behind Senators Hayden, Thurmond, and Stennis. He is a remarkable legislator. Many of us have called attention to his many, many records in this body now for some time. I want to be among those to honor him once more, and to call attention to this most historic occasion. Again, let me congratulate Senator Byrd on this important day, and again call attention to this milestone, and commend the many, many citizens of West Virginia who have shown such good judgment to send Robert C. Byrd to the U.S. Senate not once, not twice, but on seven different occasions. I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for the legislation Senators Grassley and Dorgan are introducing today. The bill addresses one of the most pressing problems facing many family farms, and I am proud to cosponsor it. Last fall, the IRS released a technical memorandum calling into question the tax treatment of deferred crop sales. Released during the harvest just as farmers were making marketing decisions, this apparent shift in policy created enormous confusion in the farm community. I say apparent shift in policy because, strictly speaking, the technical advice memorandum applies only to one taxpayer; the IRS has yet to issue a formal revenue ruling on the matter as guidance for all taxpayers. It has been a long-standing and common practice for farmers to sell their crops on a deferred basis. Farmers often delay their receipts from commodity sales into future years in order to maximize their marketing opportunities and average their incomes over good and bad years. The legal basis for these deferred contracts dates at least as far back as an IRS revenue ruling issued in 1958. Congress has repeatedly expressed its intention that smaller farms be permitted to manage their affairs on a cash-basis system of accounting. If implemented, the policy described in the IRS memorandum would have the effect of eliminating this important tool for many family farmers. In my view, the IRS has mistakenly interpreted tax law and legislative history in arriving at the conclusion that deferred contract receipts are a ``preference'' for purposes of calculating alternative minimum tax liability. I and a number of my colleagues communicated this directly to the Secretary of the Treasury last month, and he agreed to support legislation to correct the problem. Mr. President, I would hope that we could obtain agreement on both sides of the aisle to pass this legislation as promptly as possible. Doing so could save many families tens of thousands of dollars this winter--money they never anticipated owing to the government. On November 21st of last year, I asked the Treasury Department to either suspend the application or narrow the scope of the IRS memorandum in order to prevent this from happening. Today, I would like to call publicly on the IRS to reconsider its resistance to my request. The Treasury Department supports our effort to fix this problem legislatively, and half of the Senate is cosponsoring the Grassley- Dorgan bill. Why force taxpayers to pay money this winter that they in good faith never thought they owed, and then place them in the position of having to file an amended return to get their money back when the legislation passes later this year? Surely, there must be a better way, and, in the interest of taxpayer service, I urge the IRS to try to find it. Let's not forget that farmers are the backbone of rural America and one of the foundations of our economy. Family farmers tell me often of the hardships they face in managing businesses that are often as unpredictable as the weather. The apparent change in IRS policy on deferred commodity contracts does not help matters. I congratulate Senators Grassley and Dorgan on their legislation and look forward to working with them to secure its speedy passage.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for the legislation Senators Grassley and Dorgan are introducing today. The bill addresses one of the most pressing problems facing many family farms, and I am proud to cosponsor it. Last fall, the IRS released a technical memorandum calling into question the tax treatment of deferred crop sales. Released during the harvest just as farmers were making marketing decisions, this apparent shift in policy created enormous confusion in the farm community. I say apparent shift in policy because, strictly speaking, the technical advice memorandum applies only to one taxpayer; the IRS has yet to issue a formal revenue ruling on the matter as guidance for all taxpayers. It has been a long-standing and common practice for farmers to sell their crops on a deferred basis. Farmers often delay their receipts from commodity sales into future years in order to maximize their marketing opportunities and average their incomes over good and bad years. The legal basis for these deferred contracts dates at least as far back as an IRS revenue ruling issued in 1958. Congress has repeatedly expressed its intention that smaller farms be permitted to manage their affairs on a cash-basis system of accounting. If implemented, the policy described in the IRS memorandum would have the effect of eliminating this important tool for many family farmers. In my view, the IRS has mistakenly interpreted tax law and legislative history in arriving at the conclusion that deferred contract receipts are a ``preference'' for purposes of calculating alternative minimum tax liability. I and a number of my colleagues communicated this directly to the Secretary of the Treasury last month, and he agreed to support legislation to correct the problem. Mr. President, I would hope that we could obtain agreement on both sides of the aisle to pass this legislation as promptly as possible. Doing so could save many families tens of thousands of dollars this winter--money they never anticipated owing to the government. On November 21st of last year, I asked the Treasury Department to either suspend the application or narrow the scope of the IRS memorandum in order to prevent this from happening. Today, I would like to call publicly on the IRS to reconsider its resistance to my request. The Treasury Department supports our effort to fix this problem legislatively, and half of the Senate is cosponsoring the Grassley- Dorgan bill. Why force taxpayers to pay money this winter that they in good faith never thought they owed, and then place them in the position of having to file an amended return to get their money back when the legislation passes later this year? Surely, there must be a better way, and, in the interest of taxpayer service, I urge the IRS to try to find it. Let's not forget that farmers are the backbone of rural America and one of the foundations of our economy. Family farmers tell me often of the hardships they face in managing businesses that are often as unpredictable as the weather. The apparent change in IRS policy on deferred commodity contracts does not help matters. I congratulate Senators Grassley and Dorgan on their legislation and look forward to working with them to secure its speedy passage.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I note to those Senators who may not have been told, there are no votes tomorrow or votes on Friday. I ask the leader if he can clarify that.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I thank the majority leader for his comments with regard to the schedule and also for his cooperation in moving these two nominations as quickly as we have. I think the widespread support for both nominees is a real indication of the kind of support both colleagues have, and also a real indication of the kind of leadership demonstrated on the Republican side of the aisle when it comes to these nominations. This is in keeping with the comments made earlier by the majority leader. I appreciate his cooperation very much. I yield to Senator Robb at this time and reserve my right to the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust Fund of 1997. This legislation is the companion bill to the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act of 1996, which was signed by President Clinton on October 1, 1996. When the Senate considered the Crow Creek Sioux bill last fall, I told my colleagues it is important to enact legislation to address similar claims by the Lower Brule Sioux and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes. The introduction of this legislation is intended to start that process for the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. I intend to introduce similar legislation for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe later in this session. The need for this legislation is great. In 1944, Congress passed the Flood Control Act, authorizing the Pick-Sloan Plan to build five dams on the Missouri River. Four of the Pick-Sloan dams are located in South Dakota. While the Pick-Sloan Project has been instrumental in providing the region with irrigation, hydropower and flood control capabilities, its construction took a serious toll on many Native American tribes, who were forced to cede land to the project and suffer the turmoil associated with relocating entire communities. Like many of the tribes along the Missouri River, the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe shouldered a disproportionate amount of the cost to implement the Pick-Sloan project. Three decades ago, the Big Bend and Fort Randall dams flooded more than 22,000 acres of the Lower Brule Sioux land. Over 70 percent of the tribe's residents were forced to settle elsewhere. The tribe suffered the loss of fertile and productive land along the river that provided many of the tribe's basic staples, including wood for fuel and construction, edible plants, and wildlife habitat that supported the game on which the tribe relied for food. This land, which once played such an important role in the day-to-day lives of the tribal members, now lies underneath the Missouri River reservoirs. The tribe was never adequately compensated for this extraordinary loss. It was not until 1992 that Congress formally acknowledged the federal government's failure to provide the tribes with adequate compensation. The passage of the Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act, which I cosponsored, established a recovery fund to compensate these tribes. This fund is financed entirely from Pick-Sloan power revenues, and payments to the fund are structured in such a way that they will not result in rate increases to power customers. This is appropriate and fair. As with any well-run business, the revenues from the project should be used to pay its costs. With the legislation that I am introducing today, we have an opportunity to finally compensate the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe for the sacrifices it has had to bear since being relocated forcibly decades ago. We have an opportunity to mitigate the effects of dislocating the tribal communities and inundating the natural resources that the tribe depended upon for its survival. This legislation will help the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe build new facilities and improve existing infrastructure. Hopefully, by doing so, it will improve the lives of tribal residents in a meaningful and lasting way and promote greater economic self-sufficiency. Under this legislation, a fund similar to the Crow Creek Sioux Infrastructure Development Trust Fund will be established for the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. The trust fund will be capitalized from hydropower revenues until the fund accumulates $39.3 million--a figure well documented by Dr. Michael Lawson in his study of the history of this issue entitled An Analysis of the Impact of Pick-Sloan Dam Projects on the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. The tribe will be able to use the interest generated from the fund to finance its own economic development priorities according to a plan prepared in conjunction with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. Mr. President, in conclusion I want to emphasize the broad support this legislation enjoys in South Dakota. Senator Tim Johnson is a cosponsor and Governor Bill Janklow has endorsed this bill. Establishing this fund for the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe benefits the entire state of South Dakota, as well as the tribal members. It will spur greater economic activity within the state and help the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe establish the infrastructure necessary to participate more fully in the region's economy. It is my hope that my colleagues will join with me in supporting this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing two bipartisan bills to help prevent the tragic occurrence of alcohol-related birth defects, including both fetal alcohol syndrome [FAS] and fetal alcohol effects [FAE]. I speak on behalf of all cosponsors when I say we are hopeful we can move these two simple, but important pieces of legislation this year. Recent estimates indicate that up to 12,000 children are born each year in the United States with FAS. Thousands more are born with FAE. It is estimated that the incidence of FAS may be as high as one per 100 in some Native American communities. FAS and FAE are devastating, complex birth defects. Many people fail to realize that FAS is the leading cause of mental retardation. Too many women remain uninformed about the real dangers of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. In fact, at least one recently published popular pregnancy book actually recommends a drink or two to relax later in pregnancy. And, unfortunately, misconceptions about the impact of alcohol intake during pregnancy are not limited to the general public. For many years it was widely, though mistakenly, believed in the medical community that moderate alcohol consumption during pregnancy was beneficial. These misperceptions are not only frightening, but life threatening. Children born to women who drink alcohol during pregnancy have a 50 percent higher infant mortality rate than the children of women who abstain. Fortunately, several medical and nursing schools have begun offering a course specifically on FAS and FAE. I remain hopeful that medical professionals will continue to learn more about how to appropriately counsel women who are pregnant or are considering pregnancy and how to recognize and diagnose children who may be suffering from FAS or FAE. The costs associated with caring for the individual with FAS and FAE are staggering. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the lifetime cost of treating an individual with FAS is almost $1.4 million. The total costs in terms of health care and social services to treat all Americans with FAS was estimated to be $2.7 billion 1995. This is an extraordinary and unnecessary expense, especially when one considers that all alcohol-related birth defects are 100% preventable. The first step eliminating this devastating disease is raising the public's consciousness about FAS/FAE. Although great strides have been made in this regard, much more work remains to be done. The Comprehensive Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Prevention Act attempts to fill in the gaps in our current FAS/FAE prevention system. In contains four major components, representing the provisions of the original legislation that have not yet been enacted. These provisions include the initiation of a coordinated education and public awareness campaign; increased support for basic and applied epidemiologic research into the causes, treatment and prevention of FAS/FAE; widespread dissemination of FAS/FAE diagnostic criteria; and the establishment of an inter-agency task force to coordinate the wide range of federal efforts in combating FAS/FAE. A prevention strategy cannot succeed in the absence of increases access to comprehensive treatment programs for pregnant addicted women. Many pregnant substance abusers are denied treatment because facilities specifically exclude them, or they cannot find or afford adequate child care for their existing children while they receive residential treatment. To make matters worse, while Medicaid covers some services associated with substance abuse, like outpatient treatment and detoxification, it fails to cover non-hospital based residential treatment, which is considered by most health care professionals to be the most effective method of overcoming addiction. The Medicaid Substance Abuse Treatment Act would create an optional Medicaid benefit that would permit coverage of non-hospital based residential alcohol and drug treatment for Medicaid-eligible pregnant women and their children. This would assure a stable source of funding for states that wish to establish these programs. The bill has three primary objectives. First, it would facilitate the participation of pregnant women who are substance abusers in alcohol and drug treatment programs. Second, by increasing the availability of comprehensive and effective treatment programs for pregnant women and, thus, improving a woman's ability to bear health children, it would help combat the serious and ever-growing problem of drug-impaired infants and children, many of whom are also born with FAS or FAE. Third, it would address the unique situation of pregnant, addicted Native American and Alaska Native women in Indian Health Service areas. Mr. President, the cost of prevention is substantially less than the downstream costs in money and human capital of caring for children and adults who have been impaired due to prenatal exposure to alcohol and drugs. These prevention and treatment services are an investment that yields substantial long-term dividends--both on a societal level, as costs and efforts associated with taking care of children born with alcohol-related birth defects decline and on a individual level, as mothers plagued by alcohol and drug addiction are given the means to heal themselves and give their unborn children a healthier start in life. FAS and FAE represent a national tragedy that reaches across economic and social boundaries. With researchers from Columbia University reporting that at least one of every five pregnant women uses alcohol and/or other drugs during pregnancy, the demand for a comprehensive and determined response to this devastating problem is clear. I welcome the support of my colleagues on these important bills.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today Senator Hollings and I are introducing the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 1997. I want to thank Senators Kennedy, Milulski, Moseley-Braun, Boxer, Feinstein, Levin, Inouye, Murray, Johnson, Bryan, Sarbanes, Ford and Landrieu, for joining us as original cosponsors. We welcome the support of all of our colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, for this important legislation. Our bill is a companion to H.R. 135, which was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives DeLauro, Dingell, and Roukema on January 7, 1997. I bring this bill to the Senate both to put an end to the relatively new practice of forcing women to have mastectomies on an outpatient basis and to begin a discussion on how to develop and maintain policies that protect patients and ensure continued access to affordable high quality medical care. Every 3 minutes another woman is diagnosed with breast cancer. This year alone, more than 180,000 women will find out they have breast cancer. This disease strikes at the core of American families, taking our mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters on an often terrifying tour of our health care system. The Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act seeks to make the journey less worrisome by requiring insurance companies to provide at least a minimum amount of inpatient hospital care for patients undergoing mastectomies or lymph node dissections for the treatment of breast cancer. The language is modeled after last year's carefully drafted and unanimously supported compromise agreement that established a similar policy to end the practice of drive-through deliveries. The bill was designed in part to counter a consulting firm's recommendation to its insurance company clients that both mastectomies and lymph node dissections be performed on an outpatients basis. As a result, some surgeons have been forced to send patients home still groggy from anesthesia and with drainage tubes in place. Yet, with few exceptions, hospitalization following major breast cancer surgery is necessary not only to control pain and manage postoperative care, but also to provide a supportive environment for women who have undergone an undeniably traumatic and challenging surgery. Under this targeted legislation, women would be guaranteed at least 48 hours of impatient care following a mastectomy, and a minimum of 24 hours following lymph node dissection for the treatment of breast cancer. patients and their physicians--not insurance companies--could jointly decide whether it is appropriate for the patient to leave the hospital earlier. These timeframes, which were designed in consultation with surgeons who specialize in this area, reflect the minimum amount of inpatient care thought to be necessary following these procedures. It is our hope that insurers would choose to make an investment in the future health of their enrollees by allowing coverage for as long as the provider determines to be medically appropriate to ensure a proper recovery. I would also like to call to your attention Senator Kennedy's forthcoming bill that will require insurance companies who cover mastectomies to also cover reconstruction surgery. Too often, women and their physicians are faced with having to justify to the insurance carrier the clear need for reconstruction surgery following amputation of a diseased breast. This is wrong. Women who have undergone difficult and disfiguring surgery for breast cancer should not have to undergo additional hardship while simply seeking to made physically whole again. Senator Kennedy's bill, which I will cosponsor, will address this important issue. While these bills respond to ill-conceived policies that we believe have dangerous implications for women with breast cancer, let them serve as reminders of our broken health care system. Addressing health insurance problems relating to quality of care and patient protection issues on a piecemeal basis may be our only way to accomplish meaningful reforms in this increasingly important area. With one in eight women likely to develop breast cancer, it is increasingly likely that all of our families will be in some way affected by this devastating disease. Let us take this small step to ensure the experience is not aggravated by unnecessarily difficult encounters with the companies that have agreed under contract to stand by us not only in health but also in sickness. This bill is strongly supported by the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the National Alliance of Breast Cancer Organizations, the American College of Surgeons, the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, the Y-Me National Breast Cancer Organization, the American Cancer Society, Families USA, and the Women's Legal Defense Fund. Together, I am hopeful that we can put critical health care decisions back in the hands of breast cancer patients and their physicians. Mr. President, I ask that the full text of the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act be inserted following may remarks.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bipartisan bills to help prevent the tragic occurrence of alcohol-related birth defects, including both fetal alcohol syndrome [FAS] and fetal alcohol effects [FAE]. I speak on behalf of all cosponsors when I say we are hopeful we can move these two simple, but important, pieces of legislation this year. FAS and FAE are devastating, complex birth defects. Many people fail to realize that FAS is the leading cause of mental retardation. Too many women remain uninformed about the real dangers of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. And, unfortunately, misconceptions about the impact of alcohol intake during pregnancy are not limited to the general public. Even some health care providers are unaware of the danger of drinking during pregnancy, and for many years it was widely held that moderate alcohol consumption during pregnancy was beneficial. I am happy to report that several medical schools have begun teaching their students about FAS and FAE, and I remain hopeful that medical professionals will continue to learn more about how to appropriately diagnose and counsel women who are pregnant or are considering pregnancy. Recent estimates indicate that up to 12,000 children are born each year in the United States with FAS. Thousands more are born with FAE. It is estimated that the incidence of FAS may be as high as one per 100 in some Native American communities. The costs associated with caring for individuals with FAS are staggering. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the lifetime cost of treating an individual with FAS is almost $1.4 million. The total cost in terms of health care and social services to treat all Americans with FAS was estimated to be $2.7 billion in 1995. This is an extraordinary and unnecessary expense, especially when one considers that all alcohol-related birth defects are 100 percent preventable. The first step toward illuminating this devastating disease is raising the public's consciousness about FAS/FAE. Although great strides have been made in this regard, much more work remains to be done. The Comprehensive Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Prevention Act attempts to fill in the gaps in our current FAS/FAE prevention system. It contains four major components, representing the provisions of the original legislation that have not yet been enacted. These provisions include the initiation of a coordinated education and public awareness campaign; increased support for basic and applied epidemiologic research into the causes, treatment and prevention of FAS/FAE; widespread dissemination of FAS/FAE diagnostic criteria; and the establishment of an interagency task force to coordinate the wide range of Federal efforts in combating FAS/FAE. A prevention strategy cannot succeed in the absence of increased access to comprehensive treatment programs for pregnant addicted women. Many pregnant substance abusers are denied treatment because facilities refuse to accept them, or the women cannot accept treatment because they lack adequate child care for their existing children while they receive treatment. In fact, many treatment programs specifically exclude pregnant women or women with children. To make matters worse, while Medicaid covers some services associated with substance abuse, like outpatient treatment and detoxification, it rails to cover non- hospital based residential treatment, which is considered by most health care professionals to be the most effective method of overcoming addiction. The Medicaid Substance Abuse Treatment Act would permit coverage of residential alcohol and drug treatment for pregnant women and certain family members under the Medicaid program, thereby assuring a stable source of funding for States that wish to establish these programs. The bill has three primary objectives. First, it would facilitate the participation of pregnant women who are substance abusers in alcohol and drug treatment programs. Second, by increasing the availability of comprehensive and effective treatment programs for pregnant women and, thus, improving a woman's chances of bearing healthy children, it would help combat the serious and ever-growing problem of drug-impaired infants and children, many of whom are born with FAS and FAE. Third, it would address the unique situation of pregnant addicted Native American and Alaska Native women in Indian Health Service areas. Mr. President, the cost of prevention is substantially less than the downstream costs in money and human capital of caring of children and adults who have been impaired due to prenatal exposure to alcohol and drugs. These prevention and treatment services are an investment that yields substantial long-term dividends--both on a societal level, as costs and efforts associated with taking care of children born with alcohol-related birth defects decline, and on an individual level, as mothers plagued by alcohol and drug addiction are given the means to heal themselves and give their unborn children a healthier start in life. FAS and FAE represent a national tragedy that reaches across economic and social boundaries. With researchers from Columbia University reporting that at least one of every five pregnant women uses alcohol and/or other drugs during pregnancy, the demand for a comprehensive and determined response to this devastating problem is clear. I welcome the support of my colleagues on these important bills. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as we begin the first session of the 105th Congress, American families are asking some difficult questions, most of which seek answers affecting their lives directly. How am I going to put my kids through college? How do we pay the doctor bills if the kids get sick? Will I have enough money when I choose to retire? Our challenges this year ought to be to provide the answers to those questions. As we do, we all recognize the limits of Government, and we should all recognize the unlimited potential of achievement through bipartisanship. Everything important which we accomplished in the last Congress--health care reform, the minimum wage increase, mental health equity--was accomplished only when we realized that only by reaching across the aisle in an effective way, passing legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support, could we ultimately send the right message to the American people--that we hear them and we want to respond to the problems affecting their daily lives. If we remember that lesson and pick up in this Congress where we left off in the last one, then we can make this not only a productive Congress, but a historic one. We can, in this Congress, pass a budget for the remainder of this century, a plan that eliminates the deficit and invests in our people and their potential, so that the 21st century will be another American century. If we work together, we can answer those questions that worry Americans most, but we must find a way to do what the President said yesterday and what I heard the leader talk about just now--work together. Cooperation is in the best interest of the American people, and, frankly, it is in our own self-interest. Good Government is still good politics. Since the election, there has been a good deal of rhetoric from both sides of the aisle, from both Houses of Congress, from the White House, expressing an interest in dealing with the 105th Congress in ways that are dissimilar to those dealt with in the 104th. We have heard the rhetoric. Now we have to demonstrate with our deeds whether or not that rhetoric will be true, whether or not the sincerity of our rhetoric will actually match the sincerity of our work. We can use the issues that we will lay out and describe today as wedge issues, issues that divide us; or we can use those same issues as issues that unite us. That will be our choice. Again, today, there will be rhetoric. Again, today, we will hear from both sides about the importance of trying to find common ground. The question is, will we find it? And if we do, how will we? Today, I offer the Senate Democrats' priority legislation for the 105th Congress. This is our agenda. The Families First agenda is neither radical nor revolutionary. Instead, it is moderate. In our view, it is achievable. Our agenda starts with the fundamental premise that our political system can't work if people believe the system is rigged against them. Yet, more and more Americans believe that. More and more Americans have chosen not to go to the polls. At the very time we need more involvement, their response to what they see is to stay away--and not without reason. So we are proposing as our first bill comprehensive campaign finance reform. The problem with the current system isn't limited to soft money or hard money, corporate money or PAC money, your money or my money; the problem is that there is too much money, period. And it is getting worse with every election. The truth is, there are no limits anymore, given the Supreme Court decisions. I have enormous respect for Senators Feingold and McCain. There is much in their proposal that I admire and I think we should adopt. In my opinion, their bill should provide a way with which we come together to find common ground. But it does not go as far as I would like it to. We need to limit spending, special interest influence, and level the playing field for all candidates. S. 11 establishes voluntary spending limits, and it gives candidates incentives to live within those limits. It reduces television and postal rates. It also restrains soft money and PAC contributions. It toughens restrictions on foreign contributions and extends election laws to cover so-called independent expenditures. I know that any talk of spending limits raises constitutional questions. So, in addition, Senator Hollings and I will offer a constitutional amendment that will allow Congress to set reasonable limits on how much people can give and spend in Federal elections. I hope, Mr. President, that we will even consider proposing the issue to the Supreme Court again. There was an article recently in the op-ed pages of the Washington Post, stating that a case could be made that what we need to do is revisit this in this Supreme Court, to test the constitutional limits they have proposed in Buckley versus Valeo. Whether we accept the decisions made in Buckley versus Valeo, and other subsequent decisions, however we decide to do this, the question is this: Can we get campaign spending under control? I believe the answer is yes. I believe we must do that in this, the 105th Congress. In the last 10 years of debate on campaign finance reform, Congress has produced 6,742 pages of hearings; 3,361 floor speeches, not including this one; 2,748 pages of CRS reports; 1,063 pages of committee reports; 113 Senate votes dealing with campaign finance reform, and 1 bipartisan Federal commission. We have had 522 witnesses; 49 days of testimony; 29 sets of hearings by 8 different congressional committees; 17 filibusters; 8 cloture votes on 1 bill; 1 Senator carried to the floor by the Sergeant at Arms and forced to vote on campaign finance reform, and 15 reports by 6 different congressional committees. That is just in the last decade. There is only one thing left to do: Enact campaign finance reform now. Now. We should do it in the first 100 days of this Congress so that the new rules are in place by the next election. Mr. President, that is S. 11, our very first bill, and it is first because I speak with virtual unanimity within our caucus about the need to address this issue. I know there are concerns expressed and felt deeply by Members of the other side. This ought not be the wedge issue I described a moment ago. This ought to be a bridge issue. Let us build that bridge to allow us success in dealing with it soon. Our second bill is aimed at increasing the income of American families and the competitiveness of American business by investing in education. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 60 percent of all jobs created between now and the year 2005 will require education beyond high school. Yet, every year fewer families can afford the tuition. In the last 10 years, the cost of public college education has increased 23 percent. It is even worse in private colleges: 36 percent. For the average family, the cost of sending one child to college is now 14 percent of total family income. The average debt load for a South Dakota college student is up by one-third just since 1991. Eighty-five percent of South Dakota's college students today are on financial aid. That is right; 85 percent rely on college aid in order to go to school in my home State of South Dakota. Our bill, the Education for the 21st Century Act, includes the President's proposal to create a $1,500 Hope scholarship for the first 2 years of college. The Hope scholarship is a refundable tax credit. It will pay for more than the full college cost of tuition at most community colleges, or it can be used as a substantial downpayment at a more expensive 4-year school. Our bill also includes the President's proposed $10,000 per year higher education tax deduction for families with incomes up to $100,000. In addition, we propose a new partnership to help communities repair and replace schools that are overcrowded, obsolete, and even dangerous. According to the General Accounting Office, one-third of all schools today in this country need extensive repair or replacement. Over 30 percent of the schools in this country are unsafe today for children to inhabit and obtain the education they deserve. Sixty percent of schools have at least one major problem, like a leaky roof or crumbling walls. Schools have always been and should remain a local and State responsibility--and I emphasize that. But the enormity of the problem, an estimated $112 billion nationwide, demands a partnership that includes a role by the people of the United States at the Federal level. Our bill reduces the interest rates for new school construction and repair by up to 50 percent. The interest rate reduction is equal to subsidizing $1 out of every $4 in construction and renovation spending. We support the President's proposal to make sure that every child can read--and read well--once those schools are built and repaired, by the time he or she finishes third grade. One of the best predictors of whether a child will eventually graduate from high school is whether he or she can read by the end of the third grade. Yet 40 percent of fourth graders--40 percent--fail to attain even the basic level of reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress test. Isn't that amazing? Four out of every 10 children today when they reach fourth grade cannot read at the level that will largely determine their ability to learn for the rest of the years they are in elementary school. Let us resolve in this Congress to increase those numbers dramatically. Let us accept the President's America Reads challenge. Let us also make sure that our young people master the new literacy by connecting every school in America to the information superhighway by the year 2002. This is our education bill. We applaud our Republican colleagues for joining us in the last weeks of the last Congress to support education, and we look forward to working with them to pass these proposals as well. Our third bill builds on an important, bipartisan victory from the last Congress, the Kennedy-Kassebaum health bill. Kennedy-Kassebaum was a huge step in the right direction. Yet, a record number of Americans, over 40 million, are still without health insurance, and that includes 10 million American children. In my State of South Dakota alone, more than 17,000 children have no public or private health insurance. In fact, children are one of the fastest growing groups of uninsured. Each year more and more children lose private health coverage. And this trend is almost certain to continue as employers continue to reduce their health insurance costs by dropping dependent coverage for their workers. These are not children of America's poorest families. Fortunately, they have Medicaid. A majority of uninsured children are from two- parent families where one or both parents work full time. It is unconscionable that a parent could work 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year and still not be able to buy basic health coverage for his or her children. So today we are introducing a bill to make private coverage for children available to working families. The Children's Health Coverage Act of 1997 will provide tax credits to help working families purchase private coverage for their uninsured children. Our bill includes coverage for pregnant women because we know that the quality of prenatal care can have lifelong effects. The tax credit would cover most of a private health insurance premium for the lowest-income families and decrease on a sliding scale for families with higher incomes. To stimulate competition for children's health insurance, we require that insurance companies that do business with the Federal Government-- through Medicare or Medicaid or the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan--to develop children's-only policies. We seek to build upon, not replace, the current employer-based health insurance system. Our bill, therefore, includes provisions to deter employers from dropping coverage for children of workers who qualify for this new credit. Insuring children is good social policy, but it is also good economic policy. It costs about $20 for a doctor's visit to treat a child with strep throat but thousands of dollars to hospitalize a child whose untreated strep throat eventually develops into rheumatic fever. Studies show that having a regular source of care cuts child health care costs significantly. So the modest cost of this program will pay for itself many times over and reduce health care costs down the line. Some of my colleagues favor a slightly different approach. Senators Kennedy and Kerry favor providing families with vouchers rather than tax credits to pay for their children's health care. These are differences in strategy only, Mr. President. I could support that approach, as I could the approach I just described. Democrats are united in their determination to take this next modest step in health care reform. The United States is the only major industrialized country in the world that does not guarantee health coverage for children. Let us work together in this Congress to erase that ignoble distinction. Our fourth bill seeks to increase Americans' retirement security. More than 51 million Americans today--half the private work force--do not have a pension. Only one-fifth of South Dakota's small business employees currently have pension plans. Last year, in the bill that contained the minimum wage increase, we passed laws that help expand pension coverage to an additional 10 million workers. But so much more remains to be done. Because of a loophole, more than 32,000 large pension plans covering 23 million Americans--and containing more than $1 trillion in assets--are still not effectively audited. The Retirement Security Act we are introducing today strengthens the accounting requirements for those funds. Our bill also requires employers to diversify the savings of employee investments in 401(k) plans just as they must for more traditional kinds of plans so the bankruptcy of one company cannot devastate a pension plan. For multiemployer plans, which typically cover union members, our bill increases the Federal guarantee available should a plan become insolvent. The benefit level has remained flat since the creation of the program in 1980. Five million workers with pensions change jobs every year. Our bill provides those workers with new protections so they don't lose the money they have invested in a pension when they change jobs or leave behind an investment whose value will erode over time. It will do that by reducing by 2 years the time it takes for a worker to become vested. In addition, we will build on some of the pension reforms we passed last year. Last year, by eliminating a lot of the red tape, we made it easier for small businesses to offer pension plans. This year, let's make it easier still by providing them with start-up costs. Last year, Congress removed the restriction that kept spouses who don't work outside the home from taking full advantage of IRA savings opportunities if the other spouse was covered by an employer's pension plan. This year, we want to remove that restriction for spouses who do work outside the home. Last year, we made it easier for women to collect pension benefits they are legally owed through a spouse or former spouse. Yet, 60 percent of women working in the private sector still lack pension plans. And, women's pensions benefits, on average, are only about half of men's benefits. Let's get rid of those inequities. We are committed to keeping Social Security and Medicare solvent--and we will. But Social Security and Medicare were never intended to serve as retirement plans, only supplements to such plans. Let's agree in this Congress to give Americans the tools they need to retire with dignity. We can do it, if we work together. Our fifth bill is aimed at two of the deadliest epidemics affecting young people. Those are the twin epidemics of drug abuse and violence. Crime and drug use among adults are down. But juvenile crime and drug abuse is accelerating. Over the last decade, drug-related juvenile crime in this country more than doubled. And youth violence-- particularly homicide committed with guns--skyrocketed. We must reverse these deadly trends. Income security and retirement security don't really matter if we don't have personal security--if we're constantly afraid for ourselves and our families. Our Youth Violence, Crime and Drug Abuse Prevention bill includes three main parts. First, we will build on the successes of the 1994 Crime Act by continuing the COPS program for two additional years and putting 25,000 more cops on the beat. Second, our bill invests in crime and drug abuse prevention. It extends the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. It expands existing drug courts, and creates new juvenile drug courts for first-time, non- violent drug offenders. Anyone convicted in drug court has a choice: mandatory treatment, or mandatory jail. Our bill also offers incentives for private industry to invest in research and development in medicines to treat heroin and cocaine addiction. And, it reauthorizes the Office of National Drug Control Policy; if we're going to fight a war, we need a ``war room.'' Prevention and treatment are essential. But for youthful offenders who are repeat, hardened criminals--for those who commit the most heinous acts--it's time to make the punishment fit the crime. That's the third part of our bill. Our bill changes federal law so that violent juvenile offenders no longer are automatically released when they turn 21. We require all juvenile offenders to pay restitution to the victims of their crimes, and ensure victims' rights to speak at sentencing. We give States the resources to hire more prosecutors for juvenile courts. And create special juvenile gun courts where juvenile gun offenders can be tried and sentenced on an expedited basis. Our bill toughens penalties for possession of a firearm in connection with a violent or drug-trafficking crime. It extends to 10 years the statute of limitations for all crimes of violence and drug trafficking. And it eliminates the statute of limitations for all murders. Finally, we propose tougher penalties for gang-related crimes. The sixth bill we are introducing today is the Cattle Industry Improvement Act. Cattle prices are lower than they've been in years. If prices don't rebound in the immediate future, farm foreclosures, job layoffs by agriculture-related businesses and bank failures could occur across rural America. A special committee appointed last year by the Department of Agriculture to look into the causes of the low cattle prices confirmed what many ranchers had long suspected: Low cattle prices appear to be tied in some cases to unfair competition posed by the largest beef processors. Our bill enables USDA to make changes in the cattle market to give all producers--large and small--a chance to make an honest living and compete fairly in the marketplace. It requires the Secretary to define and prohibit noncompetitive practices. It mandates price reporting for all sales transactions to ensure a fair and honest price discovery system. Our bill also calls for a review of Federal lending practices to determine if the Government is contributing to meatpacker concentration. In addition, it directs the President and the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services to formulate a plan for consolidating and streamlining the entire food inspection system. And it requires the USDA to develop a system for labeling United States meat and meat products. Companies will be encouraged to voluntarily label their products as originating from United States livestock producers. The ultimate result of stifled competition in any market is always higher prices for consumers. Let's act together to make sure competition in the cattle industry remains fair and open. These are the top six priorities for Senate Democrats as we begin this new session of Congress: Campaign finance reform, education, children's health care, pension security, juvenile crime and drug abuse, and a strong rural America. We are also introducing a number of other bills today. Our Working Americans Opportunity Act streamlines and improves Federal worker training programs to keep pace with our changing economy. We consolidate more than 150 Federal job training programs over 14 agencies. And we put training dollars directly into workers' hands through a voucher system to give people more choices, and more control over their own futures. We're also proposing a Targeted Investment Incentive and Economic Growth Act. This country does not need and cannot afford another across-the-board tax cut that provides a windfall for the wealthy. Instead, we propose targeted tax changes to both raise the rate of economic growth and spread its benefits to increasing numbers of Americans. We will encourage investment in small businesses and innovation by allowing gains on the sale of small business stock to be deferred if they are fully reinvested in other qualifying small business equities. And by expanding the 50 percent exclusion on gains from the sale of small business stock held for at least five years that we enacted in 1993. In addition, our bill will stimulate investment in other activities that propel job creation and family incomes, such as worker training by companies, employee ownership, and infrastructure. It will also free up capital for investment and promote retirement security by giving people more flexibility in the way they manage the gains on their homes and family farms and businesses. Our Brownfields and Environmental Clean-Up Act will help clean up and develop thousands of abandoned and contaminated industrial sites, or ``brownfields,'' across America. Our bill helps States and communities evaluate these sites. It limits potential liability for buyers who buy these brownfields in good faith, so they don't end up paying for someone else's mistakes. And it provides grants to State and local governments to create low-interest loans for current owners and prospective developers. It is not a substitute for Superfund reform, but a companion to it. There are an estimated 100,000 brownfields in the U.S. Most already have well-developed infrastructure of utilities and transportation. By restoring these lands, we can conserve precious farmland and open space, and create new jobs and opportunities where they're needed most. Our Working Families Child Care Act increases the availability of good, affordable child care. For too many families today, child care is simply not available in their community. Or, the child care that is available is not what they need--be that infant care or before and after school care. For other families, child care may be available but completely unaffordable. The cost of child care is often the most expensive--or second most expensive--monthly bill a family incurs, following rent or mortgage payments. And for those families who are lucky enough to find affordable child care, the type of care that is available may be of extremely poor quality. I hope we can work together in a bipartisan manner to address the child care needs of today's working families. Also in our package is a bill to make America's agricultural safety net whole again by correcting some of the problems with the Farm Act we passed last year. Our bill expands crop revenue insurance. It removes caps on commodity marketing loans, and establishes loan rates as a percentage of the average market price. And it encourages farmer-owned, value-added processing facilities. Finally, we are offering the Paycheck Fairness Act to address the continuing wage disparities between men and women. With more and more families relying partly or entirely on women's earnings, America simply can no longer afford this often glaring inequity. If there was a mandate in the last elections, it was a mandate for bipartisan cooperation. The American people want us to work together, as we did in the closing days of the last Congress, to find answers to their questions. We can break the grip of special-interest money on the political process. Family incomes have been stagnant too long. We can get them moving in the right direction again. We make 2 years of college the new standard for education in this country. We can guarantee that every child in America is able to see a doctor--and save on health care costs in the long run. We can significantly increase the number of Americans who are able to retire with dignity and security. We can make our communities safer and preserve rural America. We can help small businesses to create the jobs of the 21st century and help workers acquire the skills that will be demanded by those jobs. We can do all of this, and more, if we work together. Democrats are ready to start today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me begin by thanking the Senator from Oklahoma for the tone of his comments. I did not have the opportunity to hear them all, but in keeping with the expressions of the majority leader and others who have indicated a desire to find ways with which to create greater harmony and greater opportunity for the country through increased bipartisanship, I appreciate very much his comments today.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, before I begin talking about the bills, let me make an initial comment about yesterday. We all witnessed a stirring ceremony as President Clinton and Vice President Gore were sworn in to a second term in office. President Clinton is the first Democratic President to earn a second term since Franklin Roosevelt. This is truly a historic event. Anyone who witnessed the inaugural ceremony knows that, despite the cold weather, this quadrennial rite of American democracy was warmed by great pageantry, bipartisan good will, and a strong sense of national purpose and unity. Yesterday's inaugural ceremony lasted a few minutes, but many weeks of hard work preceded the event. Everything from construction of the inaugural platform to ticket dispersal, security, and the traditional lunch in Statuary Hall, plus thousands of other tasks, required a great deal of preparation and attention to detail. On behalf of Senate Democrats, I join with Senator Lott and express my gratitude to the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies; in particular, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Ford, for all of their efforts toward making this such a successful inaugural event. Senators Ford and Warner and the other members of the committee put in long hours under very tight deadlines. Time that they might have preferred to spend with family or in their home States attending to constituent matters was sacrificed for the benefit of all Americans who enjoyed this inauguration. Senator Warner was chairman of the Joint Inaugural Committee this year. He brought to this duty the same diligence, resolve, and reverence for the congressional rules and traditions that he brings to his job as chairman of the Senate Rules Committee. This was his first inaugural ceremony as chairman, and he should be commended for a job well done. This is the fifth time Senator Ford has served as chairman or vice chairman of the Inaugural Committee. Like everything he does as Senate Democratic whip, ranking member of the Rules Committee, and senior Senator from Kentucky, Senator Ford once again approached the responsibility with great humor and tenacity and a deep respect for our best American tradition. Senator Ford is as dependable and dedicated a public servant as anyone who has ever served in this great institution, and all Americans owe a debt of gratitude to the citizens of Kentucky, who have asked him to serve in the U.S. Senate. I also express my thanks to the other members of the committee for their hard work. A special thanks goes to the leader, as well as to others in the House who made this whole event the success that it was yesterday. Many officers and employees of the House and Senate, along with representatives from the executive branch, assisted these congressional leaders in this enormous but ultimately successful task. All who contributed to this historic event should be proud of their efforts and know that their country on this day after the inaugural is very grateful.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send two resolutions to the desk and ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc, agreed to en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and their adoption appear separately in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me also thank all of our colleagues. I want to thank our colleagues for their cooperation and the great participation we have had in getting us to this point as quickly as we have. I thank, as well, the majority leader for his cooperation on the work we have been able to achieve in getting to this point. I think these committees represent a very fair and accurate presentation of ratios as it relates to the membership of the Senate, and I am very pleased with the way our negotiations turned out.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the majority leader and I have had a number of conversations about this particular issue, and I have discussed the matter in great detail with the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. He shares the view, given the agenda and given the legal need to ensure the representation as is required by law, that only on a one-time interim basis an additional Armed Services Committee member needs to be placed on the committee. As the majority leader has indicated, this is one time and one time only. This is an interim assignment. We intend to work with him to bring the committee size down to its legal, permanent size in the ensuing Congresses. So I urge people to recognize the intention here, and that is to accommodate the chair and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee and to accommodate their agenda. I am certainly in agreement with this approach and appreciate the opportunity to work through this particular matter as we have.