Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute today to a very distinguished Member who is retiring this year. I am referring to Senator William S. Cohen, who, as we all know, has made the decision to leave the Senate at the end of this session of Congress. I think it is fair to say that with unanimity we all agree that this man will be missed. Since he was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1972 and later, in 1978, to the Senate, Bill Cohen has shown a genuine commitment to public service. Bill Cohen has made unique contributions as a man with great knowledge of, and a deep respect for, the power of language. He has been a champion of the cause of making political discourse more civil and has promoted civility within this body through his daily interaction with each of us. The author or coauthor of eight books, he has graced the Senate with elegant speeches on some of the most important issues of our time. They have also, on more than one occasion, served as a stern warning of the cost of straying from principle. I recall when Senator Cohen stood on this floor 5 years ago during the debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1991. He quoted to us from Richard Wright's book, ``Native Son'' to remind us of the cost of this Nation's terrible legacy of discrimination. ``It's like living in a jail,'' said one of the characters, a young African-American boy. ``Half the time I feel I'm on the outside of the world peeping in through a knothole in the fence.'' That day Bill Cohen reminded us how racism eats away at the human spirit and turns hope to despair. His willingness to stand firm against a storm of partisan pressure ensured that all Americans would take one more step toward a world free of discrimination. Bill Cohen has shown that willingness in other key situations, too. As a young Representative in 1974, he was one of few members who crossed party lines to hold the President accountable for his actions, and he was the sole Republican vote against last year's Republican budget reconciliation package. He has also been a leader in terms of bipartisan initiatives, especially in the area of defense, where he has developed special expertise. Throughout his career, he has been a strong supporter of important arms control measures and has worked to build bipartisan coalitions to implement them. As he leaves us after nearly 25 years, I think it is only fitting to say farewell to one of our most literary Senators with an appropriate quotation. It was John Steinbeck who wrote in his novel ``East of Eden'' that a successful person was one, ``whose effective life was devoted to making men brave and dignified and good in a time when they were poor and frightened and when ugly forces were loose in the world to utilize their fears.'' Bill Cohen is indeed a successful person. We wish him great success in his future. We hope that he returns many times for he has many friends here on both sides of the aisle. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The day Sam Nunn cast his 10,000th vote, I mentioned that his first vote, on January 23, 1973, was to confirm a nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Defense. Since then, Senator Sam Nunn has become the Senate's leading authority on defense policies. He has served as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee from 1987 to 1994. He has introduced or cosponsored the most important legislation and the most important military and defense issues of the last two decades, including Defense reorganization, reducing the threat of nuclear war, Pentagon procurement reform, base closing, and restructuring of military pay and benefits. He has earned the respect of virtually every colleague with whom he has served--Republican, Democrat, conservative and liberal, Presidents, Vice Presidents, Members of the House. He has earned, also, the thanks of every American throughout this country for his efforts to ensure the integrity and mission of our military establishment in the face of many of history's most significant challenges. Every administration since the 1970's has consulted him on military matters and considered him for top-level positions in their administrations. Senator Nunn's career has neither been confined to nor consumed by military and defense issues, however. In the Senate, he has played monumental roles in laying the groundwork for national service, deficit reduction, and on efforts to redirect our national economic and tax policies. He has applied his talents and energy to a multitude of issues whenever they were required. I must say that America is better for it. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague, my advisor, my friend, Senator Sam Nunn, on his remarkable career, and I thank him for his service to this institution and to this country. Unfortunately, it is also time to say goodbye and wish him well in his future endeavors. We will miss him in the Senate, but I must say that we expect him to be very visible, very active, very involved, very engaged, both in public policy and in matters relating to private enterprise, for many, many years and decades ahead. I hope that, should he have the opportunity to serve in other capacities in government, he will take them--not for his benefit, but for ours. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senate and the American people will greatly regret the absence of Senator Exon from this Chamber upon his retirement at the end of Congress. I cannot think of anyone in this body who reflects the concerns of America's heartland and the commonsense approach to problems so prevalent in that part of the country better than the senior Senator from Nebraska. I am very pleased to have been able to call him a friend now for a long, long time. I have always felt a special bond with Senator Exon because he, too, was born and raised in South Dakota. His parents were active in the South Dakota Democratic Party. I do not know if that accounts for his outstanding career in the Senate, but I know it did not hurt. Senator Exon has given a lifetime of public service. He served in the Army in World War II and afterward became a successful businessman and proud father of three. In the 1970's, he was elected twice as Governor of Nebraska, serving longer than any other person in the State's history. He was elected three times to the U.S. Senate, and through his hard work and dedication, he has earned the affection and the trust of the people of Nebraska who know him best. Reflecting his rural upbringing, Jim Exon, without a doubt, is one of the most knowledgeable Members of this body on agricultural issues. As a Governor and certainly as a Senator, he has always had his hand on the pulse of rural America. I have turned to him on numerous occasions for advice and counsel, and will not hesitate to pick up the phone in the future on these same issues. Jim Exon is also well-known for his command of budgetary issues. By the time he came to the Senate, Senator Exon had already established a proven record of fiscal responsibility. As Governor of Nebraska, he balanced that State's books time and again. Therefore, when he assumed his Senate duties and a seat on the Budget Committee, he did not enter the Nation's budget battles unprepared or unarmed. After observing him closely in my time in the Senate, I can confidently say that Senator Exon stands second to none in his knowledge of the Federal budget and its impact on working Americans everywhere. As Senate Democratic leader, I have repeatedly drawn on his experience and wisdom for guidance in the many fiscal battles that have come to define this Congress. As ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Exon has been my most valuable ally and adviser as we developed a plan to balance the budget without compromising the priorities we stand for. He has never wavered in his commitment to balance the budget fairly. Most of all, Senator Jim Exon will be remembered as having served the people of Nebraska and all Americans with dignity, diligence, and integrity. As a soldier, Governor, as a Senator and as a friend, he has exemplified all these virtues and many more. His love for the Senate is exceeded only by his love for his family and the beautiful State of Nebraska, and I might add the not-so- successful team in the last weeks, the Nebraska Cornhuskers. I know that troubled him, and he has lost a great deal of sleep over that during the last week, and I am sure his fortunes will turn. Both he and I have had the good fortune now to serve in this wonderful body for some time. I can say in all sincerity I will miss him a great deal. I wish Senator Jim Exon, his wife, Pat, and their family the very best in the years ahead. Mr. President, at times like this you wish you could find other ways with which to express gratitude and friendship and the best of health to those who are retiring. Oftentimes, we wait too long to come to the floor to make these expressions of great affection and admiration for the public servants who come here every day. I could talk at some length about Senator Exon, as I now will about Senator Sam Nunn. They are men from whom I have learned a great deal, men of remarkable decency, men respected on both sides of the aisle, men with a sense of humor and a sense of devotion to country.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. On behalf of a number of my colleagues, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to make a couple of statements this afternoon in regard to our departing colleagues. Let me begin by talking about a fellow South Dakotan.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the time has come that, I daresay, every Member in this Chamber, Republican as well as Democrat, hoped would never come. With the end of the 104th Congress, we must say goodbye to ``The Judge''--Senator Howell Heflin. Since he was first elected to the Senate in 1978, the senior Senator from Alabama has always shown himself to be a southern gentleman of the first order. His word is his bond; his integrity and dedication to public service is without question; and his love of country and devotion for the U.S. Senate is apparent to all who know him. During his 18 years in the Senate, Senator Heflin has been respectfully called the ``spokesman for Southern agriculture'' for his efforts to improve the life and work of America's farmers and to preserve his State's valuable agricultural heritage. He is also commonly and warmly referred to as ``The Judge,'' not only for his years of service as the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, but for his efforts in State court reform, his extraordinary leadership in fighting crime and drug abuse, and his service on both the Senate Judiciary and Ethics Committees. Dozens of times I have observed my colleagues seek his advice on how to vote on legal issues. Mr. President, I would like to add another characterization of ``The Judge''--I think of Senator Heflin as ``Mr. Alabama.'' No Senator has more cherished or more ably respesented his or her State than the senior senator from Alabama. He has magnificently and skillfully combined the national interest with the interest of his State through his support of Federal agricultural programs, America's space program, and the maintenance of a first-rate defense. Only in 1 year during his 18 years in the Senate did he fail to visit each of the 67 counties in his State in order to do what he says he likes best--``talk to the home folks.'' The people of Alabama, obviously, appreciated his work and his service. Never once did he poll less than 61 percent of the vote in any election. I will always remember ``The Judge.'' I will always remember him as a ``public servant who served with dignity, integrity and diligence, worthy of the confidence and trust that Alabamians placed'' in him. And I miss him. I will miss his folksy, southern humor. His stories of ``Sockless Sam.'' His depictions of friends and foes alike--in his 1990 campaign, he did not run against a mere Republican, he ran against a ``Gucci-shoed, Mercedes-driving, Jacuzzi-soaking, Perrier-drinking, Grey Poupon Republican.'' Now the time has come. I say thank you and congratulations to Senator Heflin on a remarkable career in the Senate. I wish him all the best, and to his wonderful wife, ``Mike,'' as they embark on the next phase of their lives--their return to Tuscumbia, which, ``Mr. Alabama'' has called ``a wonderful little town to be from and best little town in America to go him to.'' I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. DASCHLE. I have yielded the floor. But I would be happy to participate in a colloquy with my distinguished colleague.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will say this, as I have said on many occasions. We abhor the practice. If we can save the life of a baby, we should do so. If in any way, as graphic as the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania chooses to be with regard to this procedure, it impairs his wife, his daughter, my wife, my daughter, he and I would come to the same conclusion, I guarantee it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will not be long. I know a number of others wish to be heard on this issue. I haven't had the opportunity to listen to all of the debate, but I know that it is a matter of great weight, great concern for each one of our colleagues. I, frankly, question why we are debating and voting on this bill so close to the election. I would have hoped that we could have depoliticized this issue. But, obviously, it has taken on very major political overtones. Being this close to an election, I think it is probably impossible to keep it from being politicized. But it is a very important question that ultimately has to be resolved. So much of the debate, in my view, was unnecessary. So much of the debate that I have heard on the Senate floor over the last couple of days has dealt with whether or not we can support the procedure that has been so graphically described, with depictions of all kinds, from charts to the language on the Senate floor, whether in some way we can condone that particular practice. Mr. President, I don't know of anybody in this Chamber that condones the practice. I am sure that my colleagues on this side of the aisle, and perhaps some on the other side, have made this point: No one condones the practice. No one stands here to defend the practice. No one, in any way, would want to encourage the practice. And so all of the talk and all of the graphic descriptions, in this Senator's view, are unnecessary, because we all know how abhorrent it is. We all know how extraordinarily detestable it is. The question is, as abhorrent and as difficult to witness it is, to hear described, is there ever a time when the procedure, regardless of whether it has been accurately described or not, should be used? I am told that physicians differ substantially about that question. I am told that there are occasions, as rare as we might find them, that a mother's life and-or permanent health could be impaired if this procedure is not used. I am lucky enough to be a husband and a father. I have had the good fortune to have a healthy wife and healthy daughters. Mr. President, I cannot tell my wife and I cannot tell my daughters that I am going to condemn you to permanent impairment, that I am going to condemn you to a life of permanent poor health, that I am going to condemn you because I find this procedure so wrenching, that you are going to have to subject yourself to permanent paralysis, or to a life that may never allow for another child as long as you live. Mr. President, I cannot ask my daughter to do that. I cannot ask my wife to do that. That is what this issue is about, Mr. President. It isn't whether or not we abhor the procedure. We do. It isn't whether or not we should allow this to be elective. It should not be elective. The question is: Are there occasions when, in order to save our daughter's health or our daughter's life, we find it necessary? We ought to be reasonable people and able to come together to find some compromise in allowing for a lasting solution outlawing elective procedures, outlawing this detestable practice whenever it is done for convenience but recognizing at the same time that a daughter's life and a daughter's health is worth giving her the opportunity to use whatever measure necessary to protect her. I have heard the argument that it is never necessary; that it is not necessary to do this. Well, if it is never necessary, this procedure will never be used. That is the logical conclusion one could make. If it is not necessary, don't worry. It will not be used. Mr. President, I hope that once this veto is sustained, that we can sit down quietly without politics, without emotion, and recognize that somehow we have to come together on this issue. We have to deal with those rare circumstances that are not elective that allow us to save the life and the health of young women involved. I think we can do that. Unfortunately, it is not now possible this afternoon. But someday, somehow, working together it must happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time for the statement I am about to make.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I know that a number of our colleagues this morning and this afternoon called attention to the retirement of our colleague, the senior Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Pell. I want to commend Senator Helms and the others for their comments and identify with the remarks made earlier today by the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. There are few people who can claim the record, the respect, or the admiration of all of their colleagues as can Senator Pell. Senator Pell, as most people know, came to the Senate in 1960. Someone entering the Senate today, in order to have the same record in terms of numbers of years served, would retire in the year 2033. Thirty-six years from now, our country--and perhaps this body--will be much different, and I daresay 36 years from now, there will still be those who will recall the contribution and, again, the remarkable record of this very gentle man. Senator Pell came during turbulent times. He became a U.S. Senator under then President Kennedy, served under President Johnson, President Nixon, President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President Bush, and now President Clinton. He has seen leadership of all kinds, Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, good and bad. Through all of this, his gentle nature, his remarkable ability to find common ground, his willingness to reach out to all sides in an effort to govern is something we can all be thankful for. He has a deep-seated belief in good Government, in democracy, and knows what it takes in this democracy to govern well. I don't recall how many times, but I can recall many occasions when Senator Pell would lecture us in our caucus about how ill-advised people are to pursue negative campaigns in Senate elections. He would remind us of that time and again. In spite of all the advice he got to be a negative campaigner, he adamantly refused. In spite of all that advice, and perhaps because of his determination to override that advice, he won every election by more than 60 percent of the vote. I think, in large measure, that is because the people of Rhode Island know him the best. We know him, but they know him better. They know his decency, they know his commitment to them and to all of us, and they know of his record. They are proud in so many ways for all that he has done for them and for our country in the time that he served. So it is with regret that we note his departure in this Congress. It is with a great deal of gratitude that many of us have been able to call him our friend. It is with admiration that we look at his record and aspire to the heights and to the accomplishments that it represents. We thank him for his friendship. We wish him and Nuala well in their life ahead. In my view, there are still opportunities for Senator Pell to serve his country. I hope that that might happen. But regardless of what the future holds, no one can take away the 36 years of accomplishment, the 36 years of contribution to democracy, to the strength of this country, to the breadth and depth of the affection and love he has for it. Madam President, he will be missed. We don't wish him farewell. We only wish him Godspeed as he continues in his role--whatever it may be. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would waive for 1-year penalties on small businesses that fail to pay their taxes to the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] electronically. In July of this year, millions of small business owners received a letter from the IRS announcing that, beginning January 1, 1997, business tax payments would have to be made via electronic funds transfer. This letter sent shock waves through the small business community in South Dakota. The letter was vague and provided little information on how the new deposit requirement would work. In meetings, letters, and phone calls, South Dakotans have posed many questions to me that the IRS letter did not answer: ``How much will this cost my business?''; ``Will I have to purchase new equipment to make these electronic transfers?''; and ``Will the IRS be taking the money directly out of my account?'' As you may recall, this new requirement was adopted as part of a package of revenue offsets for the North American Free-Trade Agreement. The Treasury Department was directed to draw up regulations phasing in the requirement, which will raise money by eliminating the float banks accrue on the delay between the time they receive tax deposits from businesses and the time they transfer this money to the Treasury. All businesses with $47 million or more in annual payroll taxes are already required to pay by electronic funds transfer. The new, lower threshold is estimated to bring 1.3 million small- and medium-sized businesses into the program for the first time. As a result of protests registered by many small businesses, the IRS decided to delay for 6 months the 10 percent penalty on firms failing to begin making deposits electronically by January 1, 1997. Not satisfied with this step, Congress recently passed an outright 6 month delay in the electronic filing requirement as part of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996. I strongly supported this amendment. However, I believe that these 1.3 million businesses should be given further time to comply without the threat of financial penalties. Electronic funds transfer may well prove to be the most efficient system of payment for all concerned, including small businesses. Once they learn the advantages of the new system, these firms may well come to prefer it to the existing one, which requires a special kind of coupon and a lot of paperwork. But this is a new procedure, and many small employers are not sure what it will entail. That is why I believe we should enact a temporary waiver of penalties. The bill I am introducing today would suspend penalties for noncompliance for 1 year, until July 1, 1998. I believe this step is necessary to provide time for small businesses to be properly educated about the easiest, least burdensome, and most cost-efficient way to comply. In my view, whenever possible the IRS should avoid taking an adversarial approach toward the small business community, and, for that matter, any taxpayers. At every opportunity, the IRS should seek to help taxpayers comply with their obligations. I believe that, by removing the threat of penalties for a short while longer, this legislation will help the IRS fulfill this important part of its mission. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I today am introducing legislation that would take a small but significant step toward improving the productivity of American businesses and workers. My bill would permit certain employee stock ownership plans [ESOP's] to be beneficiaries of charitable remainder trusts under estate tax law. We have all heard stories about closely held companies being sold and broken up in order to raise cash to pay a large estate tax bill to the Internal Revenue Service. Not infrequently, a company that has been built over a period of decades is dismantled, cutting adrift employees with years of service. My bill would provide a way for an owner of a nonpublicly traded company to benefit company employees without having the estate tax stand in the way. It would permit the owner under certain circumstances to donate his or her shares to the company's ESOP through the use of a charitable/ESOP remainder trust. If carried out in accordance with the restrictions set forth in the bill, the transfer would be eligible for an estate tax deduction. By being transferred to an ESOP, the stock would be allocated directly to company employees. The legislation includes a number of safeguards against abuse. First, stock transferred to an ESOP in this fashion could not be used to benefit any ESOP participant who was related to the decedent or who owned more than 5 percent of the company. This safeguard is aimed at ensuring that no estate tax deduction would be available where the transfer benefited the decedent's family members or the company's major stockholders. Second, the bill would require that the transferred stock be allocated to ESOP participants over time. This would provide an incentive for employees to continue to build the business. It would also prevent the creation of instant windfalls for employees that could encourage them to terminate employment. Any owner of a non-publicly traded company would be free to take advantage of this legislation to preserve a business beyond his or her death. I believe that quite a few family and closely held businesses will find the legislation of interest, as these firms tend to be run by people who take an interest in their employees and would like to see their companies make a continuing contribution to their communities. I salute these entrepreneurs and propose this modest legislation in an effort to help them realize that goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I today am introducing legislation that would take a small but significant step toward improving the productivity of American businesses and workers. My bill would permit certain employee stock ownership plans [ESOP's] to be beneficiaries of charitable remainder trusts under estate tax law. We have all heard stories about closely held companies being sold and broken up in order to raise cash to pay a large estate tax bill to the Internal Revenue Service. Not infrequently, a company that has been built over a period of decades is dismantled, cutting adrift employees with years of service. My bill would provide a way for an owner of a nonpublicly traded company to benefit company employees without having the estate tax stand in the way. It would permit the owner under certain circumstances to donate his or her shares to the company's ESOP through the use of a charitable/ESOP remainder trust. If carried out in accordance with the restrictions set forth in the bill, the transfer would be eligible for an estate tax deduction. By being transferred to an ESOP, the stock would be allocated directly to company employees. The legislation includes a number of safeguards against abuse. First, stock transferred to an ESOP in this fashion could not be used to benefit any ESOP participant who was related to the decedent or who owned more than 5 percent of the company. This safeguard is aimed at ensuring that no estate tax deduction would be available where the transfer benefited the decedent's family members or the company's major stockholders. Second, the bill would require that the transferred stock be allocated to ESOP participants over time. This would provide an incentive for employees to continue to build the business. It would also prevent the creation of instant windfalls for employees that could encourage them to terminate employment. Any owner of a non-publicly traded company would be free to take advantage of this legislation to preserve a business beyond his or her death. I believe that quite a few family and closely held businesses will find the legislation of interest, as these firms tend to be run by people who take an interest in their employees and would like to see their companies make a continuing contribution to their communities. I salute these entrepreneurs and propose this modest legislation in an effort to help them realize that goal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise to say thank you to a woman who has been a good friend of the Senate, a good friend to Linda and me, and most importantly a good ambassador for our country, Jan Paulk. Fifteen years ago, when then majority leader Howard Baker created the Senate's Office of Interparliamentary Services, he asked Jan to head it. She has been doing that job and doing it well ever since. You might say Jan is the Senate's youngest institution. I am sure I speak for all of my colleagues when I say we will miss Jan's professionalism when she leaves us soon to take on a new challenge as head of Tulane University's new Asia Foreign Leadership Program. Jan grew up in Russellville, AR, population 8,000. She first came to Washington as a high school senior. She had won an essay contest at her high school. First prize was a trip to Washington and $100 in spending money. She knew the first time she saw Washington that she wanted to make a career here in Government. She did return after college to work for Senator William Fulbright, first as a file clerk and then an assistant scheduler. She left Washington briefly to earn a master's degree in theater from Columbia University. To anyone who mistakenly suggests that theater was a successful diversion, Jan is quick to point out that there is a lot of theater in politics. Jan returned to the Senate in 1971 as editor for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and spent 3 years editing the landmark war powers hearings. In 1974, she was put in charge of travel and protocol for the committee, and in 1981, when Senator Baker created the Office of Interparliamentary Services to handle those same functions for the entire Senate, he asked Jan to head it. As director of Interparliamentary Services, Jan has overseen the Senate's official foreign travel--a tough job that requires the stamina of an advance person, the poise of an Ambassador. She and her small IPS staff handle every detail, from arranging the transportation to coordinating with host governments to making sure Senators understand local customs. Jan's work has taken her to more than 100 countries in every continent on Earth where she has represented not only this body but this Nation as well. She visited the former Soviet Union in 1975 with Senators Hubert Humphrey and Hugh Scott, the first time a congressional delegation had ever visited the Soviet Union at the invitation of the Supreme Soviet. She visited China in 1979 with Senators Frank Church and Jacob Javits. She visited the gulf states just before the gulf war, and she returned just after the war while oilfields were still burning. And in June 1994, Jan coordinated the largest ever overseas delegation when 22 Senators traveled to Normandy to commemorate the 50th anniversary of D- day. One trip I will always remember is the trip to Bosnia last April when Jan arranged for me and Senators Hatch and Reid to attend functions and to visit the land that we had not yet visited following the war. We went to assess progress in implementing the Dayton peace accords. What promised from the start to be a difficult trip became immeasurably more difficult the morning we were to leave when the plane carrying Secretary Ron Brown and 34 others slammed into the ground in Dubrovnik. Jan's professionalism helped us get through that trip. And in caring on, we were able to show the world that America's commitment to peace in the former Yugoslavia is unwavering. Closer to home, she has helped welcome every head of State who has visited the Senate over the last 19 years. In her 27 years in the Senate, Jan Paulk has worked for Democrats and she has worked for Republicans. She has served both with equal professionalism and skill. Most of all, she has served her Nation, and, for that, we are all grateful. Linda and I and all of our colleagues, I know, wish Jan the very best in her new challenge. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there are a number of reasons we are grateful to see the end of the 104th Congress, but one reason I regret this ending is that it also marks the end of Paul Simon's distinguished career in Congress. I have had the privilege of working with Paul Simon in both the House and in the Senate. I have found him always to be an honest and decent man who loves his country very deeply. Perhaps what stands out about Paul Simon the most after his bow tie--and I must say we have all improved our looks and image substantially this afternoon by adopting his practice of wearing a bow tie--is his strongly developed sense of moral leadership. His parents were both Lutheran missionaries, his father, I am told, an idealist and his mother a pragmatist who handled all the family's expenses. From their combined influence, he grew into what he described as a pay-as-you-go Democrat. As a young man, Paul Simon did not want to be in government. He wanted to keep an eye on it and write about it. In 1948, he bought the struggling Troy, IL, Tribune, and at 19 became the Nation's youngest newspaper editor-publisher. He eventually built that paper into a chain of 14 newspapers. He interrupted his journalism career in an Army counterintelligence unit monitoring Soviet activities in Eastern Europe from 1951 to 1953. When he returned to journalism in 1954, he tried unsuccessfully to recruit candidates to run for public office. After hearing ``no'' one too many times, he finally decided at the age of 25 to run for the Illinois State Legislature. That was the beginning of a long and very distinguished career. Paul Simon served four 2-year terms in the Illinois House and two 4- year terms in the Senate. He provided constituents with detailed reports on spending long before the passage of the disclosure laws. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1974 and reelected four times. He joined the Senate in 1984. Fortunately for students of politics and for history, the old newspaper reporter in him never stopped working. Senator Simon is the author of 14 books and countless articles. In 1987, when he announced his candidacy for President, Paul Simon said, ``I seek the Presidency with a firm sense of who I am, what I stand for, and what I can and will do to advance the cause of this great Nation.'' It is that same strong sense of who he is and what he stands for that has made Paul Simon such an invaluable asset to this body and to our Nation. It was in part the leadership of this pay-as-you-go Democrat that helped this Nation understand that we have a job to do in balancing the budget and that we have to do it the right way, without ripping apart America's safety net. I, and I know all of my colleagues, will miss Senator Simon's good humor. Unfortunately, I suspect I will not miss his good counsel because I am confident that Senator Simon will continue in his new career to write and to keep us on the right track, just as he has one way or the other for all of these years.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would waive for 1-year penalties on small businesses that fail to pay their taxes to the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] electronically. In July of this year, millions of small business owners received a letter from the IRS announcing that, beginning January 1, 1997, business tax payments would have to be made via electronic funds transfer. This letter sent shock waves through the small business community in South Dakota. The letter was vague and provided little information on how the new deposit requirement would work. In meetings, letters, and phone calls, South Dakotans have posed many questions to me that the IRS letter did not answer: ``How much will this cost my business?''; ``Will I have to purchase new equipment to make these electronic transfers?''; and ``Will the IRS be taking the money directly out of my account?'' As you may recall, this new requirement was adopted as part of a package of revenue offsets for the North American Free-Trade Agreement. The Treasury Department was directed to draw up regulations phasing in the requirement, which will raise money by eliminating the float banks accrue on the delay between the time they receive tax deposits from businesses and the time they transfer this money to the Treasury. All businesses with $47 million or more in annual payroll taxes are already required to pay by electronic funds transfer. The new, lower threshold is estimated to bring 1.3 million small- and medium-sized businesses into the program for the first time. As a result of protests registered by many small businesses, the IRS decided to delay for 6 months the 10 percent penalty on firms failing to begin making deposits electronically by January 1, 1997. Not satisfied with this step, Congress recently passed an outright 6 month delay in the electronic filing requirement as part of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996. I strongly supported this amendment. However, I believe that these 1.3 million businesses should be given further time to comply without the threat of financial penalties. Electronic funds transfer may well prove to be the most efficient system of payment for all concerned, including small businesses. Once they learn the advantages of the new system, these firms may well come to prefer it to the existing one, which requires a special kind of coupon and a lot of paperwork. But this is a new procedure, and many small employers are not sure what it will entail. That is why I believe we should enact a temporary waiver of penalties. The bill I am introducing today would suspend penalties for noncompliance for 1 year, until July 1, 1998. I believe this step is necessary to provide time for small businesses to be properly educated about the easiest, least burdensome, and most cost-efficient way to comply. In my view, whenever possible the IRS should avoid taking an adversarial approach toward the small business community, and, for that matter, any taxpayers. At every opportunity, the IRS should seek to help taxpayers comply with their obligations. I believe that, by removing the threat of penalties for a short while longer, this legislation will help the IRS fulfill this important part of its mission. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, to say that the senior Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, has influenced us all is an understatement. Our dress today is a recognition of his influence on all of us and our great admiration for him personally. I would like to announce that following the vote many of us will participate in a tribute to Senator Simon. I invite all of our colleagues to join Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Mack, and many of us in that tribute. We will not do it now. We will do it later. In the meantime, we will all enjoy wearing these great bow ties.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate is considering the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act of 1995. This measure, which is sponsored by Congressman Tim Johnson, is very important to South Dakota and the Crow Creek Tribe. I commend the Senate Indian Affairs Committee for its leadership in promoting the bill's companion measure, S. 1264, which I introduced. I also want to publicly thank the members of the Crow Creek Tribe for their many years of hard work. The tribe has worked closely with Congressman Johnson and I to shape this legislation that will help realize, at long last, the goals outlined in the Big Bend Act over 30 years ago. This bill will provide for the development of certain tribal infrastructure projects funded by a trust fund set up for the Crow Creek Tribe within the Department of the Treasury. The trust fund would be capitalized within 1 to 2 years from a percentage of hydropower revenues and would be capped at $27.5 million. The tribe would then receive the interest from the fund and use it for economic development purposes according to a plan prepared in conjunction with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. It is instructive to review the long historic journey that has brought us to this point. The Flood Control Act of 1944 created five massive earthen dams on the Missouri River. This public works project, known as the Pick-Sloan Plan, provides the region with flood control, irrigation and hydropower. Four of the Pick-Sloan dams are located in South Dakota. The impact of the Pick-Sloan plan on the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe has been devastating. The Big Bend and Fort Randall dams created losses to the Crow Creek Tribe for which they have not been adequately compensated. Over 15,000 acres of the tribe's most fertile and productive land, the Missouri River wooded bottomlands, were inundated as a result of the Fort Randall and Big Bend components of the Pick- Sloan project. By and through the Big Bend Act of 1962, Congress directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior to take certain actions to alleviate the problems caused by the dislocation of communities and inundation of tribal resources. These directives were either carried out inadequately or not carried out at all. Congress established precedent for H.R. 2512 in 1992 with the passage of the Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act, which I cosponsored. At that time, Congress determined that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had failed to provide adequate compensation to the tribes when their land was acquired for the Pick-Sloan projects. There is little question that the tribes bore an inordinate share of the cost of implementing the Pick-Sloan program. The Secretary of the Interior established the Joint Tribal Advisory Committee to resolve the inequities and find ways to finance the compensation of tribal claims. As a result, the Three Affiliated Tribes and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act set up a recovery fund financed entirely from a percentage of Pick-Sloan power revenues. The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Fund Act of 1995 is the next step in honoring commitments made when the Pick-Sloan dams were constructed in a fiscally sound manner while giving local entites the latitude to determine their own development priorities. This legislation not only benefits the tribe, but the entire State of South Dakota, since a sound infrastructure is essential to regional economic development. This legislation has broad support in South Dakota. Gov. Bill Janklow strongly endorses this proposal to develop the infrastructure at the Crow Creek Indian reservation. Mr. President, the impact of the Pick-Sloan projects have been devastating to other Missouri River tribes as well. I look forward to working with the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe to address their claims.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise in support of this important and much-needed bill. Law enforcement officers in my state of South Dakota know firsthand the serious impact the use of methamphetamines or ``meth'' has had on the State. Easily made from legally available chemicals--indeed, instructions for manufacturing the drug can be found on the Internet--meth is relatively cheap because local manufacturing eliminates the need for illegal smuggling. Highly addictive and capable of producing sharp personality alterations, violent episodes, and brain damage in users, the drug imposes a tremendous cost on our communities, families and law enforcement resources. Methamphetamines have been linked with several violent crimes in South Dakota. In the last year, a contract-killing and a murder-suicide were both attributable to use of this drug. The DEA has registered an increase in the percentage of arrests due to meth in South Dakota from around 20 percent of the total arrest rate to 70 percent. And users often harm themselves as well. From 1991 through 1994, emergency room episodes caused by use of this drug increased 256 percent nationwide. This bill addresses this emerging drug epidemic by increasing Federal penalties and strengthening Federal laws against production, trafficking and use of methamphetamines; increasing penalties for illicit possession and trafficking of precursor chemicals and equipment used to make the drug; increasing reporting requirements and restrictions on legitimate sales of products containing these precursor chemicals to prevent their diversion to illegal use; and strengthening provisions against illegal importation of methamphetamine and precursor chemicals. I urge my colleagues to provide needed tools to our law enforcement officers by joining the fight against this dangerous drug. We should and we must pass this bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask, upon conclusion of the Senator's remarks, I be recognized for purposes of offering an amendment.