Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I respond to the Senator that, yes, indeed, we would be prepared to enter into any short time agreement. We would not have to have amendments. We have had the opportunity to debate this issue, to talk about it. In 1990, when this issue came to the Senate floor, the overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans voted for an increase in the minimum wage, overwhelmingly. It was, ironically, the same amount of money we are talking about now. Now, unfortunately, we have lost more purchasing power than at any time in the last 40 years. We are forced, again, to face the issue. How do we address it if we cannot put it on a calendar in a way that will accommodate a bill in normal parliamentary circumstances? We have no recourse but to offer it as amendments. That is what we will do. We will keep doing it, whether it is on immigration or any one of a number of other bills. Certainly, we would be prepared to enter into any time agreement that will accommodate the schedule of our Republican colleagues, as well as the legislation pending.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I fully support Senator Harkin's amendment to require the INS to have full-time staff in every State. Currently, South Dakota is one of only 3 States that do not have a permanent INS presence. Although South Dakota does not have the problems with immigration faced by States like California, there has been a dramatic growth in immigration, both legal and illegal, into the State and particularly into Sioux Falls. As immigration increases, it has become necessary to step up enforcement of the immigration laws nationwide, including in South Dakota. In addition, citizens and legal residents who need help from the INS need to have an office in South Dakota to serve them. Now, they must journey to either Minnesota or Colorado. That is a huge burden on the residents of South Dakota. Senator Harkin is to be commended for addressing these problems and ensuring that South Dakota will have help from the INS to prevent illegal immigration and to facilitate the needs of legal residents and citizens.

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DASCHLE. I commend the Senator from Massachusetts for bringing to the attention of the Senate the thousands of pieces of correspondence that have been coming into our offices over the last several weeks as a result of the leadership by the able Senator from Massachusetts. It is clear that this has resonated. The letters that the Senator from Massachusetts is reading are indicative, I think, of the correspondence that comes in on the e-mail, that comes in on fax machines, that comes in through the regular mail routes. I think that the Senator does a real service to the Senate in sharing those with us. I know he has a number of others, and I do not want to preclude him from finishing what has been a very informative and helpful session, but I do believe, and I ask the Senator from Massachusetts whether he shares the view, as this issue becomes better understood and as it becomes clear to the American people just what this is all about, there appears to be a momentum that has been brought to this debate that I did not witness before, given the increase in the number of letters and pieces of correspondence we have received. Has it been the experience of the Senator from Massachusetts that the number of letters that have come in on this in recent days has actually increased?

Mr. DASCHLE. I am pleased to be able to respond to the Senator from Massachusetts, that was really the reason I wanted to come out, to address that very point. Obviously, there are some of our Republican friends who would like to make this current debate out to be a choice between having a vote on minimum wage or having a debate on minimum wage and having an opportunity to vote on immigration. That is a false choice, as the Senator knows. There is absolutely no desire on the part of our Democratic colleagues to hold up the vote on the very legitimate question of how we address more effectively illegal immigration in this country. That is the purpose of the bill. I have heard the Senator from Massachusetts say on several occasions we could complete work on that bill in a day and a half. There was not any need to extend out this debate. There was not any need to fill parliamentary trees in an elaborate fashion to deny the opportunity to raise these questions. We were prepared to vote on minimum wage with a half hour of debate. We could have done it last week. That was not done. So it is a false choice. The false choice is that we are being told it is either one or the other. Well, they can delay a vote on minimum wage, but they cannot deny it. Sooner or later, this Senate will have the opportunity, as we know we must, to vote on this moral issue of minimum wage, to vote on this very important, critical opportunity to provide people with a working wage, a realization that it is those economic pressures that drive families apart and give them the kind of extraordinarily difficult challenges that they have to face on a daily basis, because they do not have the economic wherewithal to pay their bills on rent, groceries, heat, and all of the things that every one of us face. So this is a moral issue. The Senator is absolutely right to point this out so ably and eloquently as he has. So it is not a choice we are willing to accept. It is a false choice. We will vote on immigration. We will vote for cloture this afternoon on the amendment. We will ensure that we get to the key issues relating to how we resolve the differences we have with regard to illegal immigration. We will vote on that, and, ultimately, we will have our vote on one of the most important moral and family issues of the day--minimum wage. So I only answer the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts that we recognize the importance of this bill. We recognize the importance of getting on with a debate about the amendments pending, and we will do that. And one day we will have our vote on minimum wage as well. If it is not today, it will be tomorrow, this week, or next week. But we will have our vote.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the distinguished majority leader. The leader is absolutely right. This is all necessary because we are not in a position to agree tonight apparently on when that time certain may be for the minimum wage. I am optimistic, given our conversations in the last few hours, that we might be able to find a way in which to schedule the vote on the minimum wage in the not too distant future. I am very hopeful that that can be done, that we can preclude in the future this kind of unnecessary filling of the tree and the parliamentary procedures involved with it. It is unfortunate, but under the circumstances there may not be an alternative.

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senate family this week lost one of its own, Gayle Cory, the former postmaster of the Senate, who died of cancer on Wednesday evening. Gayle's Senate career spanned 35 years. Beginning as a receptionist with Senator Ed Muskie in 1959, Gayle became the executive assistant to our former majority leader, George Mitchell, before her appointment to the Senate post office. As an officer of the Senate, Gayle reformed and strengthened the operations of the Senate post office, improving service to Members and assuring the strong financial controls so essential as a matter of public trust. The Senate lost a dedicated employee of enormous personal integrity when Gayle resigned in January of 1995. It was not her work, however, that defined Gayle. It was her personal warmth and her generous spirit. Gayle gave of herself and her time to all who asked--colleagues at work, constituents from Maine, citizens from around the entire country. All who turned to Gayle Cory knew they were heard and that she would do her best. She was realistic about people's behavior but optimistic about their potential. Perhaps that is why she dedicated all of her life to public service. Gayle believed that if people were given the opportunity to behave well, most of them would, so she made it her business to create such opportunities for everyone who came into contact with her. Perhaps that is why Gayle was so well loved by so many. She brought out the best in everyone. On behalf of the Senate family, I extend my condolences to Don Cory, Gayle's husband, to her daughters and stepchildren, to her brother, Buzz Fitzgerald, and her sister, Carol. Our prayers and our thoughts are with them.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and our ranking member, the very distinguished Senator from West Virginia, for their work in bringing us to the point we are tonight. This has been a very long, difficult struggle. Seven months, two Government shutdowns and 13 continuing resolutions later, we resolved many of these extraordinarily difficult and contentious issues in a way that I feel has done a real service to the Senate. I commend our colleagues. I commend all of those involved for having finally concluded this effort. I certainly appreciate the effort on both sides. I know others wish to speak, and I now yield the floor. Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.

Mr. DASCHLE. I do not want to delay the vote. I know everybody wants to move on. This issue has two pieces to it. The first is the one the Senator from Massachusetts described, relating to our determination to get a vote on the minimum wage. The other is the opportunity we want to be able to offer amendments. A tree was constructed, parliamentarily, to deny Democrats the opportunity to offer these amendments. That is really what this whole arrangement has been all about--denying Democrats the opportunity to offer amendments. We hope that we can accommodate a way with which to deal with Democratic amendments, and it is only through this process that we are going to be able to do that. So I am sorry that Senators are inconvenienced, but there is no other way, short of an agreement on amendments, that we are going to be able to resolve this matter.

Mr. DASCHLE. We object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me reiterate the desire addressed just now by the senior Senator from Massachusetts. I had indicated to the majority leader that it was not our desire tonight to bring up minimum wage in an effort to expedite some of these other immigration- related amendments. We have that understanding. It may be that we do not have a colleague here tonight to offer the amendments that I anticipated at least on our side. But that was my intention. I want to emphasize, as well, what the Senator from Massachusetts has said so ably. It is our desire to continue to press for a minimum wage amendment and a vote. We will not do it tonight--not under these circumstances. But it is our desire to continue to find a way with which to get an up-or-down vote. We want it sooner rather than later. Let us hope we can do it sometime very soon. But with the understanding that I had with the majority leader, tonight we certainly want to accommodate our colleagues providing an opportunity to offer other amendments. We are prepared to do that tonight. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Teddy Roosevelt said that, ``Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring the safety and continuance of the nation.'' As a result of the translation of that ethic into the legislative process, and the foresight of our political predecessors, the United States today leads the world in efforts to protect the environment. Our laws have become models for other nations' efforts to grapple with their own air and water pollution and wildlife conservation challenges. And, as a result of this commitment to a healthier environment, the United States has succeeded in reversing the course of environmental degradation that we followed for too long. Today, on Earth Day, rivers and lakes are cleaner, waste is being disposed in a more secure and responsible manner, and the air most of us breath contains fewer dangerous pollutants, such as lead. We can rejoice at the progress made. Congress and a number of Republican and Democratic Presidents can and should take credit for this accomplishment. The tangible environmental success this Nation has experienced over the last three decades is one of the reasons I have been so disappointed by the direction of the debate over the environment in the 104th Congress. It is as though too many of us have forgotten the environmental challenges we have faced and overcome since President Nixon create the Environmental Protection Agency and Congress began its legislative journey that produced: The Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, Superfund, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the rest of the laws that make up the canon known as American environmental law. Collectively, that body of law represents one of the most important legacies we will leave our children and grandchildren. I hope the fabric created by those laws will not be stretched and torn. I hope the quality of our environment that results from implementation of those laws will not be sacrificed to short-term political considerations. We need to embrace opportunities to improve and refine the impressive body of environmental law that has been developed over the last three decades. In the spirit of that bipartisan legacy, today--Earth Day--I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to embrace their legislative heritage and work to protect and strengthen it. The contribution of this generation of lawmakers to that impressive body of law should be one of thoughtful improvement, drawing upon the lessons learned from past implementation of those very laws. We should continue to search the fabric of our laws and seek to repair the rips and the frayed ends. We should seek commonsense solutions to our remaining environmental problems. In doing so, we should work to find consensus, as we have even in this partisan year with the passage in the Senate, unanimously, of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the recently enacted small business regulatory reform bill. As we stand here on Earth Day and survey the few months remaining in this legislative session, let us resolve to keep the fabric of American environmental law whole. Let us not turn back the clock on the accomplishments of a generation. In that regard, just on Friday, 41 of our colleagues here in the Senate joined with me in sending a letter to our majority leader and the Speaker, to indicate our strong determination not to roll back the standards affecting clean air; not to weaken the regulations relating to safe drinking water or industrial polluters; not to slow down or stop the cleanup of hazardous waste sites; not to weaken the community right-to-know laws, such as the toxic release inventory; not to abolish protections for endangered species and all the other efforts that are underway. It is our view that we have a sufficient number of votes to extend debate for whatever length of time, if that is required to protect the laws that we have steadfastly supported over the last generation. It is our strong desire, our sincere hope, that extended debate on any of these efforts will not be necessary, that we can work together to resolve our differences and to continue to build upon the impressive record that we have now generated over the last three decades. So, as we stand here on Earth Day, let us again renew our commitment to work together to eliminate those threats to the environment that we see yet today. Let us eliminate the antienvironmental riders from the appropriations bill this week, to demonstrate our commitment to Earth Day, to demonstrate our resolve, continuing to build on the impressive record that we have achieved. On the major environmental laws that are being reauthorized, let us work to find ways in which to strengthen those laws, enact new ones where we identify new ones are needed, and leave future generations with a clean and healthy environment. As Teddy Roosevelt stated nearly a century ago, that is truly our patriotic duty. It is one I believe every Member of this body can and should embrace on this day, on all days. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are in morning business.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to touch on a couple of matters this morning. The first relates to the opportunity that I had during the recent recess to travel to the former Yugoslavia. I was fortunate enough to travel with two colleagues who, in the past, have indicated a great deal of interest in Bosnia and other countries of the former Yugoslavia, the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid, and the senior Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch. Our purpose was really threefold: First, to assess the progress of the Dayton accords; second, to examine, as carefully as we could, the role of the United States military and our Foreign Service personnel in the implementation of those accords; and third, to assess the longer term issues of democratization and privatization as they are developing in the former republics of Yugoslavia. It was with a great deal of sadness that we left on the very day that the Secretary of Commerce lost his life in a plane crash near Dubrovnik. He and I were supposed to have attended a reception the following evening in Zagreb, Croatia. I was extraordinarily saddened and disturbed by the early reports that we were given regarding his accident. There has been no one more dedicated to the causes of economic development in troubled countries than the Secretary of Commerce. There has been no one who has carried the message of new opportunities for U.S. business all over the world more diligently than Secretary Brown. Last week, I addressed my thoughts with regard to the many extraordinary accomplishments of Secretary Brown. I will not do so again this morning except to say that his loss will be mourned and his effort will, again, be realized for what it was: a major achievement in peace, a major achievement in creating new-found opportunities for U.S. businesses abroad, and a major opportunity for countries to continue to find new ways to work and to conduct business with the United States. His peace effort, on behalf of this country and the people of the former Yugoslavia, was deeply appreciated. And I must say, every place we went, it was the first issue to be raised with me by governmental leaders and others who mourned his loss and recognized his contribution. They expressed the hope that his effort would continue, that through other people and in other ways, the extraordinary accomplishments of the Secretary of Commerce would be continued. So, while our trip began on a very sad and somber note, our entire delegation chose to continue with it, in part, to show the people of Bosnia and the entire region that the United States remains committed to the peace and development effort for which Ron Brown gave his life. The Dayton accord has meant a lot of things to a lot of countries and a lot of people, but I think it is fair to say that today in the former Yugoslavia there exists what is termed a ``cold peace.'' We see a lot of opportunity for those who have confronted one another politically and militarily to find peaceful solutions, and there has been progress in that regard. But there is a long, long way to go. As we traveled to all of the countries that comprise the former Yugoslavia--Bosnia, Serbia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Croatia, Slovenia--as well as Albania and Hungary, we could see the tremendous success that has been generated, in part by the courageous new leadership in each of these countries. There can be no better success story thus far in this area than what we witnessed in Slovenia: a dynamic private sector working daily and weekly to become more a part of the West; economic success very evident as we walked the streets; political success, very evident as we listened to the debate. Slovenia may be the first and the strongest, but there are others, too. We were extremely pleased at the progress we saw in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the only country of the former Yugoslavia to make a completely peaceful transition to independence. Without a doubt, their peaceful existence today can be tied directly to a decision made initially by former President George Bush--and later carried out by President Bill Clinton--to send a meager 200 troops along the Macedonian border. There are now 550 U.S. troops stationed there. Were it not for those troops, there is no doubt, in my mind at least, that Macedonia, too, could have been engaged in war. Those troops singlehandedly stopped the conflict that we see so prevalent in so many other areas of the former Yugoslavia. We owe a great debt of gratitude to those brave people who still today patrol the Macedonian border in 10 remote locations for 21 days at a time, patrolling, watching, observing with great diligence the activity along the Macedonian border. The visibility of American peacekeepers in Bosnia and at the Macedonian border--the knowledge that they are there--has served as a very strong warning to all countries in the region that we will not tolerate--we will not tolerate--the conflict that we have seen elsewhere. Because of that presence--I must say, only because of the U.S. presence--we see peace today. In terms of successful transitions toward democracy, much can also be said for Albania, frankly. The work there under President Berisha has been extraordinarily impressive. I must say, of all countries I have ever visited, none has needed democracy and privatization more. Under the Communist regime, the construction of more than 600,000 concrete and steel bunkers is evident regardless of where you are. They are ubiquitous reminders of the paranoia of the past, demonstrated through virtually every aspect of public policy in that country. It is clear the Albanians have suffered a great deal. My generation, those people who were born after the war, feeling the full brunt of Communist rule, a totalitarian dictatorship, could not possibly have imagined what freedom could now entail. But it is freedom they are now enjoying. It is democracy they are now growing. It is free enterprise they are now pursuing. We applaud them in their efforts and find remarkable progress in the very short time that they have had the opportunity to pursue that freedom, to pursue that new future. Perhaps our travels to Slovenia, Albania, and the other republics of the former Yugoslavia made our visit to Bosnia all the more tragic. Bosnia is a beautiful country, with mountains and idyllic scenes of winding streams through small villages of burnt orange tile roofs. The idyllic areas and the extraordinary beauty make all the more tragic the scene there now. In all my travels, and having seen all the pictures we are provided on television and in the newspapers and magazines and books, there is no way one could be prepared for the incredible scene that one witnesses as soon as you get off the airplane in Sarajevo. The devastation cannot be fully appreciated unless you see it with your own eyes. There is no building untouched. Most buildings are virtually blown away, roads completely destroyed, bridges out, buildings without windows, houses without roofs, rubble in virtually every direction. Not only is there devastation, but there is danger. We are told there are more than 3 million landmines planted throughout that country. Almost daily people become victims of these mines. Limbs blown away, lives destroyed, given up because those mines continue to be so dangerous. Unfortunately, it is hard to describe what this conflict has been all about. It is not over political philosophy. It is not over economic determinism. It is over ethnic differences and ultranationalism, fanned in the flames of rhetoric by leaders outside Bosnia. Admira Ismic and Bosko Brekic were two people who felt the full brunt of this ultranationalism and this war between ethnic groups. They lived outside of Sarajevo, both 25 years old. They grew up together, fell in love as high school sweethearts and decided to go to college together in Sarajevo. They were chemistry students, very good students. In 1992, as they became increasingly concerned with the thousands and thousands of weapons raining in on Sarajevo, they, like many others, asked for safe passage out of that war-torn city. They had been given assurances from both sides that they would be given safe passage. They packed their meager belongings as college students, put them on their backs, and began walking down a road and across a bridge. They were only about halfway across the bridge when Bosko was shot in the back. It was not long after that--moments--that Admira was shot, too. They both fell in the middle of that bridge, embracing one another; and there they died. They were left there in the sun on that bridge for 8 days, according to Associated Press reports. Finally, during the middle of the night, because both sides continued to argue as to who was at fault, they were buried right next to the bridge, and there they lay for 3 years. During the week we were there, Admira's and Bosko's bodies were exhumed and moved to another cemetery in Sarajevo. Cemeteries carry a special significance in Bosnia. You see them everywhere. Soccer fields are now cemeteries; city parks are now the sites of thousands and thousands of additional graves. Admira's and Bosko's grave will be among them. They were buried together during the week we were there. Her father expressed both sadness and exhilaration. Sadness that life could be taken from two such young, promising students who could give so much to their country, but exhilaration that, after 3 long years, in peace he could bury them in a permanent location. He said, ``I was worried that I, too, would be killed prior to the time I could accomplish this task.'' Admira and Bosko's story is but one of thousands and thousands of stories just like that. The number of people buried in mass graves now is estimated to be over 300,000--tens of thousands of people amassed together, their families robbed of even the opportunity to mourn for them individually. They are mourned, but not forgotten. Mr. President, now there is peace. There is no more war. The shooting has ended. People are crossing that bridge freely. Life is coming back to the city. One day, in my view, Bosnia and all the other countries that once comprised Yugoslavia can flourish. They can flourish, like Slovenia, like Macedonia. There is no doubt in my mind that with proper political leadership, with the opportunity to continue to experience some stability, indeed, there is a possibility that all of these countries could experience democracy. So, I have four observations in closing, having had the opportunity to travel through this war-torn, yet extraordinarily beautiful area. The first is that this President, this administration, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, and so many others who personally made the contribution to achieve meaningful peace in Dayton deserve a great deal of credit. It was courageous. Everyone recognizes how many times others have tried and failed, but this worked. This worked, in my view, because the United States put its moral, military, and diplomatic strength behind it. We would have failed had the United States not been willing to commit its credibility, its resources, and its talent to the task in spite of the political risks involved. This administration ought to be given our gratitude and the credit it deserves for showing the kind of leadership required at times like this. Second, let me say that we have never been better served by anybody than we are now being served by our U.S. military and Foreign Service personnel. Adm. Leighton Smith, Gen. Bill Nash, our Ambassadors, those who are attempting in what has to be some of the worst circumstances any of our personnel have faced in post-cold-war periods anywhere deserve our thanks. We have not been served better. We were told that in Sarajevo for many months Foreign Service personnel were not only required to work in what were clearly unacceptable circumstances, but they were required to live there, to eat there, to sleep there, to exist there for month after month after month without even the opportunity to leave the Embassy. And yet they did so, demonstrating all the professionalism that we could probably expect, even as they watched this Congress shut the Government down, and as they attempted to explain to those Bosnian nationals who were working for the United States Government, in particular, why we could not pay them. They worked anyway. They carried on their mission as best they could. So it was with our U.S. military. In mud that had to have been 10 inches deep, in tents and in buildings on top of a hill, they tried as best they could to establish a presence from which to carry on their operations. Soldiers told us that one night, after having just constructed their tents and established their infrastructure in this base, 80-mile-per-hour winds blew it down, blew down equipment, blew down tents, blew down virtually everything that was standing. So, again, the next morning, with the determination we have come to expect from the U.S. military, they put it all back, determined to carry out the mission as only the U.S. military can. As we traveled all through Bosnia and all the former Republics of Yugoslavia, the one thing we were told over and over again is that while it may be a 32-country mission, the fact is one country made the difference, one country made it happen, one country made it all possible. One country had the credibility, the stature, the power to bring peace to this region. That one country is well represented by our military and Foreign Service personnel. My third observation is that we must applaud the people of the former Yugoslavia, especially those in Bosnia, for their resiliency, their determination to find peace, tranquility, stability, economic vitality, and, yes, a political opportunity to achieve the same level of democracy as others in the region. That determination could not have been more evident. I thought it was a poignant metaphor to be standing on a hill in Sarajevo overlooking two soccer fields. One soccer field was filled with crosses, thousands and thousands of crosses marking the graves of casualties of the war. The other soccer field was filled with mud and young boys playing soccer, mud on every inch of their bodies, determined to play, recognizing that in the field just next to them lay their former friends and relatives, brothers and sisters. It is that determination, that willingness to survive it all, to confront it all, that we found in great abundance throughout the country. Certainly, we applaud the people in all of these Republics, in all of these countries, struggling to achieve democracy, for their determination and their ability to accomplish what they know they can. Finally, Mr. President, we ask frequently as we traveled through each country, ``Tell us why a skeptical South Dakotan or a skeptical American ought to agree that our presence there is in our best interest. How would you tell him or her that our troops, our personnel ought to be there, and what is it about the American interests that would convince a skeptical American that they should stay, at least through the end of this year?'' I think the answer, as given on so many occasions in such eloquent fashion, simply came down to this: ``Only you can make it happen. Only you can ensure that the progress you are seeing continues.'' A Slovenian perhaps said it best when he looked me in the eye as we were discussing this, and he said, ``Let me tell you very honestly, in the short-term there is nothing in it for you--nothing. But in the long term, you who espouse democracy, who have enjoyed it for 200 years, have the opportunity to see people who have lived for generations under tyranny, under dictatorship, under communism, now breathe freely under democracy. We, the small, struggling republics, could be like you.'' ``What is that worth? How much is that worth to you?'' He said, ``New little countries are like children: They fight sometimes, often unnecessarily. They need a firm hand. They need guidance. They need somebody to watch over them as they struggle to grow. And you--well, you are like a big brother. You are the only one we've got. You can turn away or you can stay. It's up to you.'' Mr. President, let us hope these democracies--these children-- continue to grow. Let us hope that the people of these wonderful little countries continue to experience democracy and free enterprise. Let us hope that as they do, we have the courage and the dedication and the opportunity to make little, weak democracies strong ones. That is what this is all about. Let me say it again, were it not for the courage and the commitment of this administration, our military, and Foreign Service personnel, little countries would have no reason to dream, would have no opportunity to experience what we in this great country experience each and every morning when we wake up. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Washington waiting to speak. I had another statement, but I will wait until she has concluded before I make that statement. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask the majority leader whether or not, to accommodate a couple of our colleagues, who, I think, were working under the understanding that we might be able to stack votes, whether or not it may be possible to stack the next two or three votes so as to accommodate some of those who may have left with that understanding. Would that be possible?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know that we want to have a vote by 4 o'clock so I will divide the time remaining with the distinguished Senator from Delaware. How much time remains?

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 3 minutes to our side and leave the Senator from Delaware the final 3 minutes. Mr. President, given the very short period of time we have remaining, and the fact that all of the arguments have been made, let me simply summarize the case against including MSA's on this bill. Two years ago we all agreed that comprehensive health care reform would not pass. In the last year and a half we have all agreed that we can only pass something which enjoys broad bipartisan support. It was with that understanding and with the remarkable leadership of the Chair of the Labor Committee, the distinguished Senator from Kansas, and the Senator from Massachusetts, we now have a bill that we all agree is the only health reform legislation that can pass this Congress with broad, bipartisan support. This narrowly drafted bill some of the most pressing health problems facing Americans. Portability and coverage for preexisting conditions are two of the most important issues we face. So let there be no mistake, we have an opportunity today to pass something, but we also have an opportunity to kill that very bill with this MSA provision in this amendment. The NFIB clearly stated in a letter dated today, and they have said very clearly, ``We oppose any amendment which will bring about a defeat of the legislation before us.'' They recognize the importance of this moment. They recognize what an opportunity we have before us. We should not blow it. We should not kill this bill. Let us recognize there will be another day to have yet another debate about many other health care issues. But let us not destroy the golden opportunity we have today to pass meaningful legislation, by adding something as controversial as MSA's. We can do better than that. We will do better than that if we can, on a bipartisan basis, strike the MSA portion of the Dole amendment and pass this bill intact, as we know we can. If we do that we can look back on this Congress with some satisfaction that we have done our best under these circumstances to address some of the real health care problems working Americans face. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate is about to reauthorize the special committee's operations for a specific, limited period. It is my understanding, and that of all my colleagues on this side of the aisle, that the special committee will conclude its hearing schedule no later than June 14, 1996, and further, that no other committee of the Senate intends to hold hearings on Whitewater-related matters thereafter. I have also discussed with the majority leader and will commit to him that it is not the intention of Members on this side of the aisle to object to the special committee meeting under the provisions of rule XXVI nor to obstruct the special committee's progress, thereby preventing them from completing their work pursuant to the latest deadlines outlined in this resolution. It is the further understanding on this side that the report of the special committee, required to be submitted to the Senate pursuant to Senate Resolution 120, will be submitted no later than the close of business on June 17, 1996. It is also our understanding that the majority leader does not believe any amendments, motions, or resolutions will be offered in the Senate regarding further extensions of the operations of the special committee beyond June 17, 1996. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished majority leader whether I have correctly stated the situation as he now sees it?