Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the comments made by the distinguished Senator from Indiana and my other colleagues. This is the bill. It is over 1,000 pages. I will not ask the distinguished Senator from Indiana whether he has read every page or not. But I daresay that I suppose that, if anybody has, he has, as thoughtful and as studious as he is. But there are very few people in this body who have read this report. It is 1,000 pages long. We got it yesterday. Two Democrats on the conference refused to sign this report because they had very serious concerns about it that they would like the opportunity to discuss. This is the most expensive legislation that we will pass this year in one bill. I intend to vote for it, I think. I want to read it over the next couple of weeks myself. I think I will be supporting it. But I must say it wouldn't be a bad idea if we just took a little time, had a little chance to read it, and discuss whether or not it is the bill we want to vote for. That is all we are asking. I have heard a lot of comments about how this would only take 20 minutes or 15 minutes. I must say when you have a bill like this of 1,000 pages, I can recall many times we have been on the floor--whether it was health reform or many other bills--when someone has risen, and said with indignation, ``We can't pass this because we do not know what is in it.'' I heard that speech from my colleagues on the Republican side probably a half-dozen times in the last Congress. So I do not think it is too much to ask, Mr. President, that we have the opportunity to look at it, read it, hopefully talk about it, have a good discussion, and analyze it. After all, it is the defense of the United States that we are talking about here. We should not minimize it. We certainly should not demean it. And I am not implying that anyone is. But this is a very critical decision. This is something we ought to be careful about. So we just are not prepared tonight, now that everybody is gone and were told that there would be no more votes, to bring this up under any circumstances, especially under a unanimous consent agreement without any debate or any thoughtful deliberation, and without having read this. I can't do that. Not many of my colleagues can do that. So let us just take another breath, take another look, and we will be ready to go when we come back in September. I yield the floor. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the need for water development throughout South Dakota is great. As we prepare to enter the 21st century, all South Dakotans should be able to consider a high quality water supply to be a basic human right, and we should do whatever we can to meet this goal. While considerable progress has been made in providing clean and safe drinking water to residents of my State, much work remains to be done. Fall River County and Perkins County are examples of areas that urgently need to develop new sources of potable water. That is why I am introducing bills today to authorize the construction of the Fall River Water Users District Rural Water System and the Perkins County Rural Water System. The communities that would be served by both systems are comprised of farmers and ranchers who for too long have had to endure substandard, and at times remote, sources of drinking water. The drinking water available in Fall River County, SD, like the water in much of the rest of the State, is contaminated with high levels of nitrates, sulfates, and dissolved solids. Wells have been known to run dry, due to the high frequency of droughts in the region. Many people currently must haul water, sometimes as much as 60 miles round-trip. Similar problems exist in Perkins County, where much of the drinking water fails to meet minimum public health standards, thereby posing a long-term health risk to the citizens of that region. Simply put, this situation is unacceptable and must be remedied. In Fall River County, the Fall River Water Users District was formed to plan and develop a rural water system capable of supplying the water to sustain this community. I and my congressional colleagues have worked hard over the past year with the district to identify a solution that was affordable and could provide adequate amounts of clean water to satisfy the needs of the community. It became apparent that the only feasible option was the authorization of a rural water system that involved the financial and technical participation of the Federal, State, and local governments. My first bill would authorize the construction of a system to bring clean water to the residents of Fall River County. I am absolutely committed to continuing to work with the Fall River County Water Users District, the State and the Federal Government to bring a high quality water supply to Fall River County. Under the second bill I am introducing today, the Perkins County Rural Water System will obtain Missouri River water through the Southwest Pipeline, which is part of the Garrison Diversion Unit in North Dakota. This is an efficient and cost-effective approach that takes advantage of existing water management infrastructure. Clean, safe drinking water will be provided to about 2,500 people who reside in the towns of Lemmon and Bison, and the surrounding areas. It is my hope that my colleagues will join with me in supporting these two pieces of legislation, which will provide safe, clean drinking water to deserving South Dakota families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if the majority leader would allow me to respond, I want to commend him. He has taken on his responsibilities under very difficult circumstances. I cannot imagine a more challenging way with which to begin your new role than to take on the responsibilities midcourse. I must say, Mr. President, he has done it in a way that he can be proud. It has been a joy to work with him. I think we have gotten more done than most people would have expected. I think, in fact, we surprised a few people. And we will continue to do our best to represent our caucuses but also to work to try to represent our country. I look forward to working with him for many months and years to come.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent the majority leader modify his consent to provide for passage of the bill as amended by a substitute amendment, providing for roving wiretaps, and requiring taggants for black powder, that the bill be read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I share the view expressed by the majority leader. I was very hopeful at the beginning of this week that we could have concluded our work to provide yet another opportunity to pass a good piece of legislation dealing with a very important matter by the end of this week. That was not possible. I am disappointed, but we will have to dedicate our effort to ensure that does happen when we get back. I hope we could do it sooner rather than later. I object to this bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, at the close of business today, the Senate will lose a valued and important part of the Democratic floor staff. Today, Kelly Riordan leaves the Senate to pursue a law degree at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. Kelly graduated from Northwestern University and came to the Senate in August of 1989 to work in the mail room for the former Senate majority leader, George Mitchell. She spent much of the following 4 years in Senator Mitchell's office working as a legislative correspondent before she was chosen to join the Democratic floor staff in 1993. Kelly has never forgotten where she comes from. She was born in Livermore Falls, ME, and worked hard for the people of Maine during her time in Senator Mitchell's office. There is no doubt she has made her parents and her family and her State proud through her work here on the Senate floor. She has proven herself to be a hard working and loyal part of the Democratic floor staff. She has become a true friend to many Senators and staff on both sides of the aisle, and we all wish her well as she starts the next chapter of her life. Congratulations, Kelly.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we don't need to rehash all the history on this. I think it is fair to say that there has been a tremendous amount of cooperation this month. I pledged my efforts to the new majority leader when he became leader and indicated that I wanted to work with him. I think that fact has now been well-documented. The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire was in the chair last night, and I applaud him for his willingness to preside at late hours. As he was presiding last night, it seems to me that the cooperation stopped. Before last night, we had another indication of the degree to which we were going to work on both sides to move things along, with the clear understanding on both sides that we had to finish the executive calendar on judgeships this month. The distinguished majority leader said that he would try to help us get that done. I said I would try to work with you to accommodate all of the specific pieces of legislation that need to be addressed so long as we can continue to work in good faith toward those ends. Last night, it stopped. So, Mr. President, we have no choice but to continue to find a way with which to resolve this impasse. We need to finish the four circuit court judges, plus the other district judges that remain on the executive calendar this week. The distinguished Senator from Oklahoma made a good point that there have been holds in the past on individual judges. I will not deny that. But I think it is important that we emphasize that, in 1992, under similar circumstances, the majority at that time, the Democratic majority, confirmed 66 district and circuit judges. On July 1 of this year, not one, zero judges had been confirmed. Now we have confirmed, I believe, 16. So we are making progress. But we can't be expected to allow the balance that we had agreed to to be disrupted. If we can continue to find ways to cooperate and work together, all of the pieces of legislation that the distinguished majority leader mentioned, I think, are possible. Realistically, I don't think we are going to be able to do the VA-HUD bill this week, but I do believe that all of the conference reports and things that the majority leader mentioned are things we ought to be able to work together to achieve before we recess. But we have to get those judges done, as we earlier agreed to do. If we can do the judges, we can do the legislation. That balance is something that I think we have made very clear from the beginning. I hope we can work together to make that happen. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, after 18 months, we are about to pass welfare reform. It has been a long, divisive debate about the direction our Nation will follow on fundamental social policy. The initial bill, approved by the House last year, I think, by virtually any standard, was an extreme piece of legislation. As a result, it enjoyed very little public support. Twice the President vetoed extreme legislation, and that resulted in far more bipartisan cooperation in the ensuing months. It is clear that there is a consensus on many concepts relating to welfare reform. Most of us believe the current system is not working, that welfare must be reformed, that welfare as a way of life must end. There is a consensus about the need for work, that able-bodied people should work, that there should not be welfare for those who are unwilling to work. There is a consensus about the need to allow States flexibility and a recognition that South Dakota is different from New York and different from California. There is a consensus that the lack of child care is a major barrier to work, that States need to provide adequate funds to help parents afford it, that the current law with regard to health and safety standards must be maintained and even improved, and that child care needs to become more available and certainly more affordable. So there are points on which there is common ground and a great deal of agreement. The welfare debate has come a long way since those early months when the President felt compelled to veto that extreme legislation. There have been many areas where bipartisan progress in reducing the barriers that I have just discussed has been made. The debate began on welfare reform with not $1 for child care money, with not $1 for child care to be provided under any circumstances. Now, in this legislation, there is $14 billion to assist parents' efforts to secure child care. The debate began over a House bill with absolutely no guarantee of Medicaid coverage for families under any circumstances. Now families moving from welfare to work will continue to receive health care during a 1-year transition period. We have made bipartisan progress in other areas, too. This bill improves the Nation's child support enforcement system. It improves the Nation's supplemental security program for the disabled children of our country. We dropped the proposals to block grant food stamps and eliminate the national nutrition safety net, and we dropped proposals to block grant child abuse funds, which would have undermined our Nation's child protection system. So, Mr. President, this bill does represent progress. In these areas, and in others, I think it is fair to say that we have come a good distance. But in a democracy everybody has to make their own assessment. We have our own internal comfort zone. We have our own sense of what is right. From phone calls I have received from my State of South Dakota, and letters I received from across the country, the views are as diverse outside Washington as they are here in the Senate. Every Senator, every Representative, and the President of the United States must make his or her own judgment and draw his or her own lines. It is better than when we started. We began having a threshold for which there could be agreement and consensus on items that I have discussed. Thoughtful people will disagree about where we go from here, how we can assess that progress, and whether or not this marks enough progress to stop now. For many, including this Senator, it is a tough call. There is no crystal ball. Nobody can predict with certainty the effect of this bill. It will improve, in some ways, the welfare system that we have right now. I think that is a given. But will it help move welfare recipients to work? We can only hope that it does. Will it ensure that children are protected? We can only hope that it does. Is there a guaranteed safety net for children in the future? On that answer, in my view, Mr. President, the answer is not even hopeful. The answer, in my view, is no. Is this the last point? Is this the only point? There are others. But the fact is that this important issue affecting 100 percent of the future population is not resolved. On that issue, we can do better. We all want reform. We want to require people to work. But we also want to protect children who can't protect themselves. We have to be careful to balance those goals. The need a meaningful safety net for children--a guarantee that they will not pay for the mistakes or circumstances of their parents--ought to be paramount for every one of us as we make our decision tonight. Mr. President, we need vouchers to ensure children's basic needs are met when their parents reach the time limits, and you can't find vouchers in this bill--not to any meaningful extent. We need a contingency for emergencies. When we went through the last recession, this country drew down more than $6 billion in emergency AFDC funds an 18-month period. These were the resources necessary to provide the safety net, especially for children who otherwise had nothing--$6 billion. You know what is in this bill? We have about $2 billion in contingency funds. We may be more than $4 billion underfunded the next time we have a recession in this country. Then what happens? The level of nutrition cuts continue to concern me as well. I am not comfortable reducing food stamp benefits for families with children who pay more than 50 percent of their income in rent. We do not treat the elderly that way, and we should not. And we should not treat children that way, either. Nutrition cuts have nothing to do with work, nothing to do with reforming welfare. It is an attack on the essential nutritional safety net in this country, and we ought to recognize it as that. I support strong work requirements. But the work requirements in this bill are inadequately funded. This is something that we ought to be concerned about, and the Congressional Budget Office says that most States in the country, when this legislation passes, will fail to meet the work requirements. They will not even be close. We all agree that the lack of affordable child care is a barrier to work. The Senate and House bills said mothers with elementary school children could not be sanctioned or terminated from assistance if they don't find child care or cannot afford it, but the conference bill precludes sanctions only for mothers with children under 6. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut addressed this point earlier this afternoon. I am concerned that this is an impossible choice for mothers. A mother's choice is to go to work in order to receive assistance, leaving a child of 7 or 8 alone after school, or not to go to work and lose the help she needs to feed and clothe her child. What a choice. Mr. President, that is not a choice that you and I and the rest of this body can be comfortable with. Frankly, I am very troubled about the treatment of legal immigrants. There is no assistance for illegal immigrants, and perhaps that is appropriate. But this bill attacks legal immigrants. I am not talking about those who cross our borders in the dead of night. Individuals who have followed the rules, paid taxes in this country, and gone to fight in other parts of the world for this country are now going to be told that there is nothing, no help whatsoever, even when they desperately need it through no fault of their own. It was 100 years ago that my grandparents came to this country with the promise of 160 acres of soil. They came with a lot of hopes and dreams about what this country could provide for them and their grandchildren and for all of the Daschles to follow. They came here for freedom. They came here in the belief that this would be a better life. We joked about the Government betting you 160 acres of land that you could not survive it on for 5 years in South Dakota. If you could survive for 5 years, it was yours. They got off the railroad, they built a sod house, and survived. But the Government gave them the opportunity to survive, gave them the license to be Americans, and I am here 100 years later because that happened. We do not have any more land to give, but I sure hope we can still give dreams. I hope that there are still people out there who believe that the freedom that they can find in this great country of ours, for all of the things this country can provide, ought to be ample reason to come to this country and give it their best. But we are saying we are not going to help you; we are going to punish you if you even try. That is not American. My grandparents could not have come with this law in effect 100 years ago. So, Mr. President, it is with some sadness that we have come to the conclusion that we cannot do better than this. But we are going to pass this legislation tonight with the understanding that there are some very severe deficiencies. Is it an improvement over what we passed a year ago? Yes. Can we do better? I think we all know in our heart of hearts that the answer to that is also yes. I hope that we can agree when it is signed into law that we will go back, without much time to waste, and attempt as best as we can to fix those deficiencies so we do not punish children, so we do not send the wrong message to people who want to be Americans, so we recognize that this country is still all that it can be, so we can work together to make it an even better one. I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today, with 19 of my colleagues, I am introducing the Agent Orange Benefits Act of 1996. This legislation is an important step toward easing the burden of innocent, indirect victims of our country's use of agent orange during the Vietnam war. The bill would extend health care and related benefits, including a monthly monetary allowance, to Vietnam veterans' children suffering from spina bifida--a serious neural tube birth defect that requires lifelong care. This bill is a necessary followup to the Agent Orange Act of 1991, which I coauthored with Senators Kerry and Cranston and Representative Lane Evans and which unanimously passed the Senate. Among other things, the Agent Orange Act required the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] to contract with the Institute of Medicine [IOM], which is part of the National Academy of Sciences [NAS], to conduct a scientific review of all evidence pertaining to exposure to agent orange and other herbicides used in Vietnam and the subsequent occurrence of disease and other health-related conditions. The law required an initial report, which was issued by NAS in 1993, followed by biennial updates for 10 years. The first update was published by NAS last March. In accordance with the law, Vietnam veterans are not required to prove exposure to agent orange; the law presumes that all military personnel who served in Vietnam were exposed to agent orange. The Secretary is to provide presumptive disability compensation for diseases suffered by Vietnam veterans whenever he determines, based on all credible evidence, including the congressionally mandated NAS reports, that a positive association exists between exposure and the occurrence of such diseases in humans. For purposes of this law, a positive association must be found to exist whenever credible evidence for an association is equal to or outweighs the credible evidence against the association. We have been struggling for decades to provide compensation and health care for Vietnam veterans--and, if warranted, their children-- for health problems associated with exposure to agent orange. Since 1985, Vietnam veterans have been eligible for free VA health care for conditions believed to be related to exposure to agent orange. Vietnam veterans are also eligible for presumptive disability compensation for several diseases, including chloracne and various cancers, associated with exposure to agent orange or other herbicides used in Vietnam. Most recently, in response to the March NAS report, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs awarded service-connected disability compensation for prostate cancer and acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy. An area of key concern to Vietnam veterans has been what they believe to be a high rate of birth defects in the children born to them since their service in Vietnam. The Agent Orange Act of 1991 specifically mandated that the area of reproductive disorders and birth defects be given special attention to determine whether or not compensatory action is warranted. The March NAS report showed new evidence suggesting a link between exposure to agent orange and the occurrence of spina bifida in Vietnam veterans' children. The report also noted that there is growing evidence, though not as strong as the evidence on spina bifida at this point, suggestive of an increase in other birth defects among Vietnam veterans' children. In response to the NAS report, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs assembled an interdepartmental task force, which consulted with interested veterans' service organizations and experts in spina bifida, to review the NAS findings and make policy recommendations to the Secretary. In May, the Secretary delivered to the President several policy recommendations based on the VA's review of the NAS report. These included recommendations to add prostate cancer and acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy to the list of presumptive diseases, and, if authority were granted, to treat spina bifida in veterans' children in the same manner. The VA does not currently have the authority to provide benefits to veterans' children. Subsequently, President Clinton announced that the administration would propose legislation to provide an appropriate remedy for Vietnam veterans' children who suffer from spina bifida. This bill reflects that effort. Clearly, the Government's responsibility does not end once veterans return from war. Effects of combat, even those passed down through reproductive disorders, are a direct result of our decisions to place our Nation's men and women in harm's way. We have a moral responsibility to help veterans whose children suffer from spina bifida and to meet those children's health care needs. It should be noted that spina bifida is a devastating, irreversible birth defect resulting from the failure of the spine to properly close early in pregnancy. It requires lifelong medical treatment, and the cost of caring for a child with spina bifida can be financially devastating for families. While spina bifida affects approximately one of every 1,000 newborns in the United States, a study of Vietnam veterans that was included in the NAS report showed three spina bifida cases in a group of only 792 infants of Vietnam veterans--a statistically significant result. The Agent Orange Benefits Act of 1996 would provide health care, limited vocational rehabilitation, and a monthly stipend to Vietnam veterans' children with spina bifida based on the severity of each child's condition. It includes the provision of essential medical care and case management services to coordinate health and social services for the child. Unfortunately, the NAS report confirmed what Vietnam veterans have long feared: the Vietnam war continues to claim innocent victims. Nothing can erase the physical and psychological wounds of the war, but, by providing limited benefits to affected children, the Agent Orange Benefits Act of 1996 will allow us to heal some of the lingering scars from Vietnam. The NAS report also serves as a valuable reminder that the impact of any war is felt decades beyond the final shots. Just as reproductive disorders and birth defects in their children have been among Vietnam veterans' greatest health concerns, health problems in their children is of great concern to veterans who served in the Gulf war. We must be prepared to learn from the scientific effort on agent orange and apply these lessons to the effort to discover the true health effects of environmental hazards on the men and women who served in the Gulf and on their children. Based on the NAS report's findings related to spina bifida in the children of Vietnam veterans, the VA is establishing a reproductive outcomes research center to investigate potential environmental hazards of military service. I look forward to seeing those efforts come to fruition, and I am hopeful they will help us provide answers to the many outstanding questions in this area. I applaud the President and Secretary Jesse Brown, along with my colleagues who have been committed to this fight for years, for working together to develop a proposal that adequately addresses the needs of these children and their families, and for providing modest compensation for a wrong that can never fully be righted. With the passage of this legislation, we can begin to fulfill our promise to these most innocent victims and their families. Vietnam veterans' families have suffered for decades and now live with the pain of knowing that their military service may have jeopardized the health and welfare of their children. The very least we can do is ease their burden by providing this limited assistance and care. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a summary of the bill, a letter of support from the administration, and a table from the NAS report that explains the four-tiered classification system for agent orange-related illnesses, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Would the Senator from Texas wish to state her reason for the objection? Mr. President, could we get the attention of the Senator from Texas? Mr. President, I have to say, if we are going to start playing this game--I have been urging my colleagues to cooperate not 1 day, not 2 days, not a week, not 2 weeks, but ever since the majority leader got elected to that position, every day. The majority leader has done an extraordinary job of working with me. But I must tell you, that kind of act is going to end our cooperation pretty fast. That is unreasonable, not acceptable. And to not even respond. I have helped the Senator from Texas as late as last week. I worked very hard to get her legislation passed and sent over to the House. We got it done. We got it done. We would not have gotten it done. And this is the thanks we get, and this is the kind of cooperation we get in return. Mr. President, it is going to be a long 2 days here and, I must say, an even longer month in September if all the cooperation is expected to come from this side. So we are going to have a lot more to say about this. And before we go into any other unanimous-consent agreements we are going to have a good discussion about what kind of reciprocity there is in this institution. But that is very disappointing and very unacceptable. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today, with 19 of my colleagues, I am introducing the Agent Orange Benefits Act of 1996. This legislation is an important step toward easing the burden of innocent, indirect victims of our country's use of agent orange during the Vietnam war. The bill would extend health care and related benefits, including a monthly monetary allowance, to Vietnam veterans' children suffering from spina bifida--a serious neural tube birth defect that requires lifelong care. This bill is a necessary followup to the Agent Orange Act of 1991, which I coauthored with Senators Kerry and Cranston and Representative Lane Evans and which unanimously passed the Senate. Among other things, the Agent Orange Act required the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] to contract with the Institute of Medicine [IOM], which is part of the National Academy of Sciences [NAS], to conduct a scientific review of all evidence pertaining to exposure to agent orange and other herbicides used in Vietnam and the subsequent occurrence of disease and other health-related conditions. The law required an initial report, which was issued by NAS in 1993, followed by biennial updates for 10 years. The first update was published by NAS last March. In accordance with the law, Vietnam veterans are not required to prove exposure to agent orange; the law presumes that all military personnel who served in Vietnam were exposed to agent orange. The Secretary is to provide presumptive disability compensation for diseases suffered by Vietnam veterans whenever he determines, based on all credible evidence, including the congressionally mandated NAS reports, that a positive association exists between exposure and the occurrence of such diseases in humans. For purposes of this law, a positive association must be found to exist whenever credible evidence for an association is equal to or outweighs the credible evidence against the association. We have been struggling for decades to provide compensation and health care for Vietnam veterans--and, if warranted, their children-- for health problems associated with exposure to agent orange. Since 1985, Vietnam veterans have been eligible for free VA health care for conditions believed to be related to exposure to agent orange. Vietnam veterans are also eligible for presumptive disability compensation for several diseases, including chloracne and various cancers, associated with exposure to agent orange or other herbicides used in Vietnam. Most recently, in response to the March NAS report, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs awarded service-connected disability compensation for prostate cancer and acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy. An area of key concern to Vietnam veterans has been what they believe to be a high rate of birth defects in the children born to them since their service in Vietnam. The Agent Orange Act of 1991 specifically mandated that the area of reproductive disorders and birth defects be given special attention to determine whether or not compensatory action is warranted. The March NAS report showed new evidence suggesting a link between exposure to agent orange and the occurrence of spina bifida in Vietnam veterans' children. The report also noted that there is growing evidence, though not as strong as the evidence on spina bifida at this point, suggestive of an increase in other birth defects among Vietnam veterans' children. In response to the NAS report, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs assembled an interdepartmental task force, which consulted with interested veterans' service organizations and experts in spina bifida, to review the NAS findings and make policy recommendations to the Secretary. In May, the Secretary delivered to the President several policy recommendations based on the VA's review of the NAS report. These included recommendations to add prostate cancer and acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy to the list of presumptive diseases, and, if authority were granted, to treat spina bifida in veterans' children in the same manner. The VA does not currently have the authority to provide benefits to veterans' children. Subsequently, President Clinton announced that the administration would propose legislation to provide an appropriate remedy for Vietnam veterans' children who suffer from spina bifida. This bill reflects that effort. Clearly, the Government's responsibility does not end once veterans return from war. Effects of combat, even those passed down through reproductive disorders, are a direct result of our decisions to place our Nation's men and women in harm's way. We have a moral responsibility to help veterans whose children suffer from spina bifida and to meet those children's health care needs. It should be noted that spina bifida is a devastating, irreversible birth defect resulting from the failure of the spine to properly close early in pregnancy. It requires lifelong medical treatment, and the cost of caring for a child with spina bifida can be financially devastating for families. While spina bifida affects approximately one of every 1,000 newborns in the United States, a study of Vietnam veterans that was included in the NAS report showed three spina bifida cases in a group of only 792 infants of Vietnam veterans--a statistically significant result. The Agent Orange Benefits Act of 1996 would provide health care, limited vocational rehabilitation, and a monthly stipend to Vietnam veterans' children with spina bifida based on the severity of each child's condition. It includes the provision of essential medical care and case management services to coordinate health and social services for the child. Unfortunately, the NAS report confirmed what Vietnam veterans have long feared: the Vietnam war continues to claim innocent victims. Nothing can erase the physical and psychological wounds of the war, but, by providing limited benefits to affected children, the Agent Orange Benefits Act of 1996 will allow us to heal some of the lingering scars from Vietnam. The NAS report also serves as a valuable reminder that the impact of any war is felt decades beyond the final shots. Just as reproductive disorders and birth defects in their children have been among Vietnam veterans' greatest health concerns, health problems in their children is of great concern to veterans who served in the Gulf war. We must be prepared to learn from the scientific effort on agent orange and apply these lessons to the effort to discover the true health effects of environmental hazards on the men and women who served in the Gulf and on their children. Based on the NAS report's findings related to spina bifida in the children of Vietnam veterans, the VA is establishing a reproductive outcomes research center to investigate potential environmental hazards of military service. I look forward to seeing those efforts come to fruition, and I am hopeful they will help us provide answers to the many outstanding questions in this area. I applaud the President and Secretary Jesse Brown, along with my colleagues who have been committed to this fight for years, for working together to develop a proposal that adequately addresses the needs of these children and their families, and for providing modest compensation for a wrong that can never fully be righted. With the passage of this legislation, we can begin to fulfill our promise to these most innocent victims and their families. Vietnam veterans' families have suffered for decades and now live with the pain of knowing that their military service may have jeopardized the health and welfare of their children. The very least we can do is ease their burden by providing this limited assistance and care. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a summary of the bill, a letter of support from the administration, and a table from the NAS report that explains the four-tiered classification system for agent orange-related illnesses, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will have more to say about this later on this evening. But let me just take a moment at this point to thank the distinguished majority leader for the effort that he has put forth over the last couple of weeks in particular. Were it not for the cooperation that we were able to demonstrate on both sides, especially from the majority leader, I do not know that we would be here tonight. Let me also compliment the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. No one has been more relentless and more cooperative and more helpful in providing us with ways in which to resolve the many complicated aspects to this negotiated settlement than has the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I thank him, as well as the chair of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Kansas. This has been a very cooperative effort in the last several days. It has taken a lot to get to this point. We are here, and I applaud all of those who had a part to play in it, in particular the majority leader and the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I indicated to both New York Senators my desire to work with the majority leader to ensure that we are able to address their concerns to their satisfaction. I am sure that we can do that, and we will work with the two Senators from New York to make that a part of whatever agreement we reach in conference. Let me also say that with regard to both conferences, the distinguished majority leader has indicated his desire to make these truly bipartisan conferences. He has given me that assurance on the floor on a number of occasions. He has related and reiterated his determination to make that happen privately to me on many occasions. So, indeed, my expectation is that in both of these conferences we will have true bipartisanship in an effort to involve every Member of these delegations. That is the reason we appoint both Democrats and Republicans. I am very hopeful that our work can proceed in a way that will allow us to complete the work on these bills sometime in the very near future. Working together, I am quite sure that can happen. Again, I appreciate his assurances that we will see that bipartisanship through the deliberations of both of these conferences.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just briefly commend the distinguished Senator from New Jersey for his hard work on this issue and for his patience and his cooperation in bringing it to this point. I also wish to thank Senator Craig for working with us all day long in an effort to find a way to resolve the outstanding language differences, and I am very grateful to them as well. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, a report released last week by the General Accounting Office [GAO] concludes that the reformulated gasoline [RFG] program is a cost-effective means of reducing ozone pollution and easing our Nation's vulnerability to oil supply disruptions and related price shocks. Congress ought to pay close attention to the conclusions of this study as it seeks to wean the nation off imported petroleum and further improve air quality throughout the Nation. This independent analysis confirms that the reformulated gasoline program is good for the economy and good for the environment. RFG, which reduces emissions of volatile organic compounds and toxic air pollutants by 15 percent, displaces significant amounts of petroleum, much of which is imported. Given the gasoline price shocks that this country recently experienced and the petroleum displacement goals established by Congress in the 1992 Energy Policy Act, it is time to consider nationwide use of RFG. According to the GAO report, the potential for RFG with oxygenates to displace petroleum consumption is significant. GAO expects that by the year 2000 about 305,000 barrels per day of petroleum will be displaced by oxygenates. This amounts to about 37 percent of the 10 percent petroleum displacement goal established by Congress in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. GAO noted in its report that if all gasoline in the country were reformulated, the Nation could displace 762,000 barrels of petroleum per day by 2000, and thus meet nearly all of the 10 percent petroleum displacement goal. Moreover, despite predictions by the oil industry that RFG would cost consumers over 13 cents per gallon more than conventional gasoline, GAO found that the actual cost to consumers has been negligible. The environmental potential of an expanded RFG program is extraordinary. In the future, RFG will be even cleaner. In the year 2000, the Environmental Protection Agency will implement RFG Phase II, which will require further reductions in emissions of volatile organic compounds and toxic pollutants, as well as reductions of nitrous oxides. Expanding RFG nationwide will bring these clean air benefits to new areas of the country. Moreover, since air pollution is transported over vast distances, adopting a nationwide RFG program will help further reduce pollution in areas already using RFG to lower ozone levels. A nationwide program would achieve these air quality benefits at low cost. GAO concluded that Phase II RFG will be one of the most cost- effective measures available to control low-level ozone pollution. With the additional petroleum displacement benefits associated with nationwide use of RFG, there seems to be no reason why we should not move in that direction. Finally, the GAO report demonstrates that continuing research into ethanol, an oxygenate used in RFG, is critical. GAO confirmed that substantial progress has been made in reducing the cost to produce ethanol. Since 1980, the cost to produce corn-based ethanol has dropped from $2.50 per gallon to about $1.34 per gallon. I hope that my colleagues in Congress will review the findings of the General Accounting Office and continue to support the research and incentives that have proven so successful in lowering the cost of ethanol production and encouraging the development of a strong domestic industry. As GAO has shown, these investments provide important dividends in terms of cleaner air and greater energy independence for the United States.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time not be taken out of the amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I support the agricultural appropriations bill that we are considering today and want to commend the chairman, the Senator from Mississippi, and the ranking member, the Senator from Arkansas, for their work on this important legislation. They and their staffs have spent countless hours under enormous pressure trying to ensure that discretionary agriculture programs are adequately funded. Considering the fiscal constraints with which they have been forced to comply, they have done a commendable job. The appropriations process is never easy, as the committee faces a number of difficult choices. For this reason, the bill does contain some provisions that are troublesome to me. For example, I regret the decision to provide less than full funding for the food safety inspection system at the same time the USDA is implementing the new science-based meat and poultry inspection system, the hazard analysis of critical control points [HACCP]. Also, the potential reduction in Federal outlays for lending programs that benefit our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities could jeopardize the rural economy. These issues deserve further attention. Mr. President, I am not entirely pleased with the shape of this legislation. However, I am hopeful that it can be improved in conference with the House. Therefore, I urge my colleagues' support of the bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it now, both leaders have their leader time to be used for purposes of closing the debate. I will yield 2 minutes of my time to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me begin by congratulating the distinguished Senator from Nebraska for his admirable job in helping to manage this piece of legislation on the Senate floor. I also want to commend the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, Senator Breaux, and so many others on our side who have worked so diligently now over the better part of 18 months in an effort to bring us to this point. I think it is fair to say that everyone of us knows that reform is necessary. We also know after the experience we have had for the last 18 months that there is no easy solution. Democrats offered the ``Work First'' bill that did three things: It required work for benefits. It provided flexibility for States, and it required protection for children. I am disappointed that not one Republican voted for that piece of legislation. Every single Democrat supported welfare reform when it came to the Senate floor--not once, not twice, but on three different occasions. In spite of our failure to convince our Republican colleagues to join us in passing a bill that represented meaningful welfare reform, Democrats have worked with Republicans to improve the pending bill. There are, as a result of our amendments, more resources for child care. There is a greater requirement for States for maintenance of State effort. There is a requirement for access to Medicaid and food assistance, and protection for women from domestic violence. So now at this hour at the end of this debate the question is very simple: Is this bill now good enough to pass? In my view, unfortunately, the answer is no. Too many kids will still be punished. Too many promises about work will remain unfulfilled. Too many opportunities to truly reform welfare will have been lost. The Congressional Budget Office says that most States, even with the bill before us today at this moment, will fail to meet the work requirement. The Congressional Budget Office says there are insufficient funds in this legislation to make a meaningful difference. The bill is heavy on rhetoric, and we have heard a lot of it today and throughout this debate. But in my view, Mr. President, this bill is still too light on real reform. It is either a huge new unfunded mandate to the States, or an admission by Republicans that they really do not expect this bill to work in the first place. But perhaps my biggest concern is the concern that many of us share for children. This bill says that it does not matter how bad things are, how destitute, how sick, or how poor kids may be. Kids of any age--6 months or 6 years--are going to have to fend for themselves. When it comes to kids, when it comes to their safety net, this bill is still too punitive. And I have heard the discussion of a list of other Federal programs that may be provided. But, Mr. President, the emphasis is on ``may.'' We are talking for the most part about discretionary programs here that are in large measure underfunded today. Eight million children in this country do not deserve to be punished. They need to be protected. You can come up with a litany as long as you want of programs that technically are designed to provide assistance. But, if they do not have the resources, if we do not have the safety net, if they do not have the opportunities to access those programs, then, Mr. President, they are meaningless. Finally, the treatment of legal immigrants in this bill is far too harsh. We ought to require more responsibility of sponsors, and the ``Work First'' bill did that. But this bill even cuts off assistance to legal immigrants who are disabled. What kind of message does that send about what kind of people we are? We can do better than this. On a matter so important we have no choice but to do better. This bill must be improved. This bill must protect kids. It must not force the States to solve these problems by themselves. It must provide some empathy for disabled citizens regardless of where they have come from. We can improve it in conference, if the political will is there-- since we are not doing it here. Or, we are not doing it this afternoon. But, because it is not done, the best vote on this bill, the best vote at this time, is to vote ``no.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that excerpts from the CBO report, to which I referred about the States' inability to meet the work rates under the pending bill, be printed in the Record. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Further reserving the right to object, I hope we could agree with this. The majority leader and I have been working. As he made the list, I am quite sure there are at least as many Republican as Democratic amendments, so this is true bipartisanship. There is as much interest in amending this from the Republican side as there is from the Democratic side, so I certainly hope no one would come to any conclusion that it was only the Democrats that were holding this up. But I do believe this unanimous consent works for both sides. It protects Senators to offer their amendments, and it gives us an opportunity to work tonight to address some of them. I hope we could finish the work sometime tomorrow.

Mr. DASCHLE. For clarification purposes, the majority leader did not note, I do not believe, second-degree amendments would have to be relevant, but I am sure that was the intent.

Mr. DASCHLE. And there is no time limit on the amendments for purposes of debate?