Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time that I have consumed in the presentation of my remarks be taken from my leader time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am dumbfounded that we are tonight debating whether or not we should, for the first time in history, pay the attorney's fees for an individual who was properly indicted and properly prosecuted. Is the U.S. Congress going to start reimbursing every Federal defendant who is acquitted? If the answer is no, then I must question why are we being asked to do so in this case. There is no argument about reimbursing fees for those who are not indicted. The only argument is about paying the fees for one individual who was, again, properly indicted and properly prosecuted. Unfortunately, instead of addressing the issues the American people are really concerned about--job security, personal security, retirement security--some of our Republican colleagues have decided to raise this issue in a blatant attempt to score political points in a Presidential election year. They are willing to spend $500,000 of taxpayer dollars in an attempt to embarrass the White House. In this era of tight budgets and competing priorities, we cannot afford to waste that kind of money to pay for Republican attack ads from the Senate floor. There is absolutely no precedent for this legislation to pay Billy Dale's legal expenses. We have never agreed to pay the legal expenses for anyone who is indicted. The Independent Counsel Act provides for the reimbursement of legal expenses for a person who is not indicted. Billy Dale, however, was indicted and was prosecuted by the Justice Department, not the independent counsel. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence that Billy Dale was indicted unfairly. Mr. Dale never filed any motions or raised any legal objections to his indictment, and I am unaware of any finding by any court that the indictment was somehow improper or motivated by political purpose. Nor have we held any hearings on the matter. There is no factual basis for violating the Senate precedent and giving half a million dollars to Billy Dale or anyone else. There are also undisputed facts about this matter that I find somewhat disturbing. We know that Mr. Dale deposited over 50 Travel Office checks worth approximately $54,000 into his personal account over a 3-year period of time. He never told anyone in the Travel Office or in the Bush or Clinton White Houses about these secret deposits. These deposits only came to light because of a FBI investigation, not because Mr. Dale disclosed this information. We know that Mr. Dale offered to plead guilty to a felony before the trial. That is fact. We know that Mr. Dale admitted that it was ``a terrible decision on my part.'' We know that at the end of the trial, the judge ruled that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to convict Dale of all charges brought against him. In the end, the jury acquitted Mr. Dale of the charges, but that does not mean the taxpayers should pay his legal expenses. If we gave a half a million dollars to every defendant who was acquitted, I am sure we would have people lining up for criminal trials in every courthouse in America. The fact is, we have never reimbursed anyone who was indicted, even if they were later acquitted by a jury. So why do my Republican colleagues seek special treatment for Mr. Dale? Why should Mr. Dale be treated differently than every other criminal defendant in America? It seems to me that he is being treated differently because my Republican colleagues are using the Travel Office matter for purely political purposes. Of course, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that Mr. Dale deserves to be reimbursed and that Democrats are blocking reimbursement for political reasons. To put an end to partisan bickering over the issues, we Democrats have offered a very reasonable amendment. And let me just commend the distinguished Senators from Michigan and Nevada for their tenacity and for their willingness to bring this issue to the floor in a way that is certainly eminently reasonable, that recognizes past precedent, that recognizes the importance of a procedure that has been used over and over again in circumstances just like this. Let us send, as they suggest in their proposal, this issue to the neutral arbiter, the U.S. Claims Court, to determine whether it is appropriate to reimburse Mr. Dale. Why not do what we have done in the past? Why not use the procedure that we have in law that will allow us a fair and objective hearing, a fair and objective analysis as to whether or not this ought to be done? The claims court can hold hearings to obtain all the facts outside of the world of partisan politics 2 months before a Presidential election and render a recommendation that will not be tainted by partisan motivations and bias. The claims court has extensive experience in resolving these types of claims. The Parliamentarian has already indicated that the provision to reimburse Mr. Dale is a private relief provision. There is a law in place that allows the Senate to send requests for private relief to the claims court so the court can decide whether the relief is sought in a legal way and is legally appropriate. Mr. President, this is a fair and well-established method for resolving a dispute. It has worked before. Passage of this amendment would allow the Senate to make a decision based on legal rather than political considerations. If the claims court recommends reimbursement for Mr. Dale, then the public would know what he actually deserves, and we will not worry that he is the beneficiary of some political windfall. We are willing to live by the decision made by the claims court. On the other hand, if the court would rule that Mr. Dale does not deserve to be reimbursed, then he will not be given a half a million dollars of taxpayers' money improperly. There is one-half million dollars at stake. The public deserves a neutral determination on this issue, and there is an important Senate precedent at stake. We owe it to this institution to act carefully and thoughtfully, even in the heat of a Presidential election year. Again, let me commend my colleagues, and for all these reasons, I urge all of our colleagues to join them in favor of the amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. I would like about 10 minutes, so perhaps we could take an hour on the Republican side and a half hour on the Democratic side.

Mr. DASCHLE. How much time does the Senator from Utah need?

Mr. DASCHLE. Could we ask unanimous consent that the time for the amendment be divided two-thirds/one-third, providing the Republicans with an hour, the Democrats with half an hour, beginning at 8:45, with a vote to be held tomorrow morning.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to use my leader time for whatever time I may consume.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there has been so much misinformation about what this does and does not do, so many claims about the effect it has on certain groups and places of employment, that I would not be surprised that people are confused and very concerned. As we vote, I think we ought to try to clear the air as much as possible as to what this does. This bill simply rectifies a significant omission in our job discrimination laws, period. It simply prohibits anyone from using sexual orientation as the basis for hiring, firing, promotion, or pay. ENDA allows no special privileges, period. It grants no special rights to any group of people. It simply ensures that no one will be denied the opportunity to support him or herself financially because of discrimination on the job. This is a matter of simple fairness and common sense. In terms of fairness, no one should be denied employment on the basis of a characteristic that does not relate to his or her ability to get the job done. This principle is already embodied in our civil rights laws. It protects religious institutions. Churches, synagogues, and related institutions will not be forced to change their hiring practices by this bill, nor will it apply to the military or to small businesses with fewer than 15 employees. This is a narrowly crafted bill that simply upholds the basic American principle that employees should be judged by the work they do. It deserves our support. I ask my colleagues, prior to the time we vote, how many times have we heard the same arguments raised against minorities in other segments of our society, against African Americans, against the disabled, against women? The same arguments that I just heard presented to our colleagues on the Senate floor moments ago were used in the 1960's, in the 1970's, and in the 1980's. We have heard them all. I ask my colleagues, who today would come to the floor to roll back the rights now that we provided African Americans? Who would come to the floor to roll back the rights we have given women? Who would propose now we roll back the rights for the disabled? Every time we come to the floor, we pronounce our advocacy of freedom. We talk about how free this democracy is, how great it is for all of us to enjoy the magnificent freedom that we enjoy beyond that of anybody else. If this is true, then we will support the freedom guaranteed in this legislation, too. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me join with my colleagues in our congratulations to Gregory Casey for his appointment and our best wishes to him and his family in these very important new circumstances he faces. There are a number of people that have already spoken to his intelligence, ability, and his contribution to the Senate. I have had the opportunity to work with him as a member of the Ethics Committee and have watched with great admiration as he has taken on each of his difficult tasks in working with the Senators from Idaho. So I know I speak for all of my colleagues on this side in wishing him our sincere congratulations. Isaac Bassett, who worked in this great Chamber for 64 years, up until 1894, left a diary of many thousands of pages. When he was appointed to his last position, he came to the floor and said there is no higher calling than that of public service in the U.S. Senate. I think Greg Casey appreciates that, understands that, and in the tradition of Isaac Bassett, and many of us who have had the great fortune to follow him, we look forward to working with him in a new role. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I am told by staff that this is the best estimate the Congressional Budget Office has been able to derive in consultation with the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. DASCHLE. It is an estimate.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is not correct. The distinguished chairman of the committee misstates, I think, the report by the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Sciences has indicated that, in the category 2 determination, there is a greater association of spina bifida victims in cases involving veterans affected by agent orange than in the nonexposed population. That is, there is a greater likelihood that spina bifida has occurred as a result of that exposure than there is not.

Mr. DASCHLE. Well, the law requires us to base it on the National Academy of Sciences' report, which is based on several studies. The National Academy of Sciences is required, under the law of 1991, to review the scientific literature and evidence to provide us with an assessment of the health-related difficulties that may be in evidence as a result of exposure in Vietnam, including those especially related to children. In accordance with the law, the National Academy of Sciences has now said that spina bifida is one disease where a clear association can be drawn. In working with the National Academy of Sciences, the Congressional Budget Office, and the VA, there has been an estimate provided, for budgetary purposes, of the number of children who would be directly affected. That estimate is the one I gave earlier. That is only an estimate, but it is the best estimate, given the circumstances and the studies that have now been done. I don't believe it is a very significant matter for us to be debating the question as to whether it is 2,500, or 2,800, or 3,200. The estimate was made the way CBO estimates are normally made. The real question is: What do you do when you have a veteran exposed to agent orange, who now has a child with spina bifida? What the law says is that we give the veteran and his or her family the benefit of the doubt. In following through with the law, the Department of Veterans Affairs has done just that.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is not correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. The basis of the assumptions is, as I said earlier, that the law requires the National Academy of Sciences to review all of the outstanding information, all of the scientific data that is available currently, including but not limited to the Ranch Hand study, assess that data and make a determination based upon that assessment as to whether an association exists. By law, they are required to do that. By law, they have. Having done that, by law, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the President, and 26 of us in the Senate--as well as more in the House-- are now responding. The law required that we give the benefit of the doubt to the veteran. Now, there have been those who have historically opposed that presumptive disability compensation in the law. But it is the law. What we are now saying is that the law must extend to the children, as it has been extended to agent orange victims in the past, over the objections, I might add, of a few of my colleagues. Again, Public Law 102-4 has been passed; it is the law, and it is our responsibility to live up to our commitments. I might also add, in response to the distinguished chairman's comment about a hearing, the National Academy of Sciences' report linking agent orange exposure to spina bifida was issued in March. The President announced his commitment to a legislative solution in May. The request for committee hearings on the NAS findings was issued 2\1/2\ months ago and was never answered--over 2\1/2\ months ago. We never had any commitment to a hearing. Now, there is a hearing scheduled for sometime this month, but not on the exploration of issues dealing with this amendment. There has been ample time and notification to deal with this issue. There has been absolutely no response. I know the distinguished Senator from Wyoming has a very busy schedule, and I don't, in any way, imply that he is not interested and has not been personally kind to me in many of the requests that I have made of him. But on this issue I think the record speaks for itself. There has not been committee attention given to this issue this entire year. Now, suddenly scheduling an unrelated hearing--unrelated hearing--2 weeks before adjournment is not going to allow us to address this issue. We know what the law says, and we know what the National Academy of Sciences' report has concluded. We know that there is an association. All we are simply doing here is saying let's make sure that the VA has the ability to follow through with what the law requires in providing the benefits to veterans and their families under these very, very difficult circumstances, albeit very limited, perhaps to as few as 2,500 cases. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we introduced the legislation this summer, sometime in July.

Mr. DASCHLE. Well, Mr. President, I just say that, obviously, you don't need a bill to hold hearings on something that was already announced all the way back last March. Last March, the National Academy of Sciences made their announcement and the Secretary and the President made their decisions in May. I would think that alone would trigger hearings and some response on the part of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. That was not done. So, obviously, our only recourse was to follow through with the legislation that we introduced.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I remind my dear friend that he voted to cause this to be the new procedure in March 1995. He voted to overrule the Chair when the Chair ruled that you could not legislate on an appropriations bill. He was one of those who said no; that we think now that appropriations bills are appropriate vehicles with which to legislate. So he set the precedent. We are simply saying we are willing to live now with that precedent. With respect to this case, I thank him for doing so. But he was the one who did it. I do not think this is necessarily a good practice. But in this case I am very grateful to him for having voted for it so I can offer this amendment and not be called on a point of order.

Mr. DASCHLE. I was certainly not involved in any discussion of that kind. That is news to me.

Mr. DASCHLE. I sure am. I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Missouri has raised the question because it confirms really what the National Academy of Sciences also says. It says that the evidence today does not suggest a direct, unequivocal cause-and-effect relationship-- and the law specifically does not require one. All the National Academy of Sciences says is that there is more evidence to suggest that there is a relationship than there is evidence to suggest that there is not. The National Academy of Sciences is that body to which we turn for the best assessment as to what the relationship is so that the Secretary and we may determine what our actions ought to be based upon the available scientific data. Based upon that and only that, we are concluding once more, as we have done on so many occasions, that the presumption must go to the veteran--not to the Government, not to the chemical companies, not to anybody else but to the veteran. We have to assume that if there is some doubt and if the weight of evidence suggests that there is more data in favor of the relationship than there is not, the benefit of the doubt ought to go to the veteran and his family. We have done that on compensation. We have done that on medical care. And now we are doing it on a very narrow focus: spina bifida today in children of victims of agent orange in the first place. That is what we are saying. As the Senator from Missouri knows, we debate the same issue with respect to tobacco constantly--you have Senators here who raise the issue of tobacco, and there is a debate about how much data suggests a direct link. But you still have companies that suggest there is no link. I am one who does not agree with that. But yet we base our policy on the linkage that exists, the overwhelming evidence that does exist that there is a connection between exposure and a disease. So we are doing now with agent orange once more--providing a link based upon the scientific link that we have described in the law itself and that is supported by evidence from the Centers for Disease Control studies, the ranch hand study, and other evidence.

Mr. DASCHLE. I can tell the Senator from Missouri that they are not receiving any assistance today from the VA.

Mr. DASCHLE. That would depend, of course, on what their circumstances are. If they are Medicaid eligible, they might be eligible for a small amount of assistance in health from Medicaid, but there is virtually no assistance, as the Senator knows, through Medicaid for the number of different obstacles that I described in my earlier remarks that a child faces as they have to address the many complications outside of just the health complications for which they must endure every day. There is no assistance there. So I cannot tell the Senator today how much Medicaid assistance they may be getting, how much assistance they may be getting through AFDC. That is not the issue. The issue is, what is the VA doing? And the answer to that question is zero, nothing. They cannot do anything. That is the purpose of this amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, that agreement is acceptable on this side. I think we can accommodate that schedule. I know Senator Byrd wanted to have some time, and this will accommodate his interests. So I hope that we can agree.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be very brief because I note the distinguished ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee has been here for some time and wants to be heard on the matter. Let me just respond to three issues raised by the distinguished Senator from Missouri. First of all, as to the matter of the offset, let me emphasize, Gardner has not been used. Gardner has not been used. That is, the offset has not been allocated. The reason it has not been allocated is that we have not passed a reconciliation bill. No reconciliation bill has passed which delineates its usage. So, clearly, that funding has not been allocated. It is available. I do not think there is any question about that. I ask my colleagues to show me where, in what reconciliation bill, we have delineated the utilization of Gardner. Second, let us not debate Ranch Hand all over again. The Ranch Hand Study and many other studies were debated, and we made our decisions based upon the evidence available in 1991. We passed the Agent Orange Act overwhelmingly, virtually unanimously, in 1991. That battle was fought 5 years ago--beginning even longer ago. That law, now on the books 5 years, simply says when there is a positive association, when there is a connection that has been made by the National Academy of Sciences, that connection be recognized by the VA and be dealt with; we have dealt with all of the other diseases that have now been officially connected. There are a number of those diseases that fall in category 1 and category 2. Chloracne is in that category. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is in that category. Soft-tissue sarcoma, Hodgkin's disease, porphyria cutanea tarda, multiple myeloma, respiratory cancers of the lung, larynx and trachea, prostate cancer, acute and sub-acute peripheral neuropathy--all of those are in categories 1 and 2. If we do not act on this amendment in a favorable way, the only category 1 or 2 disease that will not be on the list officially recognized will be spina bifida. We will be saying spina bifida is different than all the diseases I have just listed here. We are going to say that we are going to not abide by the law, not abide by the guidance given by the National Academy of Sciences. We are going to say we know better than the National Academy of Sciences. We are going to say that even though we asked for evidence related to birth defects, we are not interested in facing the consequences of that evidence. I hope we do not make that mistake. I hope we do what we have done in every one of these other cases. With respect to every one of these diseases, we have acknowledged the connection, we have made the commitment to our veterans experiencing these diseases. The time to do it for spina bifida is this morning, is today. Let us get it done. I yield the floor.