Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. No objection. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I would like to propound the unanimous-consent request on the CR. I think we are prepared to enter into that arrangement. And I would like to work through the remaining amendments on Commerce, State, Justice. I think we have come to the point where we might be able to put most amendments in a package and dispose of that bill. And if we could work out some understanding of Labor, HHS, I think we could even do a voice vote on that one. So we are prepared to cooperate. And I think the first step would be the passage of the UC on the CR.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I do not know why that language would have to be offered on this legislation. It is not germane to the Justice-State-Commerce bill. It is not germane to the CR. We are willing to try to accommodate the Senator if we can have some time to look at the language and find out whether this is in keeping with past precedent. We want to be sure that we are not cutting new ground here. And I think perhaps over a period of time we might be able to resolve this matter. We cannot do it now. There is no way we can agree to any time agreement until many of us have had a chance to look at it. So it will probably be some time prior to the time we can give any assurance to the Senator from New Hampshire. But we will certainly look at it and see if there is a way to do it in spite of the fact we do not think it belongs on this piece of legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE. It is clearly germane because it is in terms of spending money for purposes of introducing troops into Bosnia. Now, that is clearly germane to a continuing resolution which involves spending money. And it is clearly topical and timely in light of the rather intense discussion that is going on about moving American troops into Bosnia. It does seem appropriate that this body should speak on that issue before it occurs.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, is there an understanding as to how long we will be debating the Specter amendment? Could we get a time agreement on that?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will agree to that time agreement, and I think 10 minutes on each side is adequate. I will only modify it with the one additional request, that the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, be recognized to offer the next amendment following the disposition of the Specter amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. Then we have to object until I have had the opportunity to consult with our manager.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will not object with the understanding it has been cleared on our side. Is that the understanding of the Senator from Pennsylvania?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment that has been offered by Senator Pryor. Like Arkansas, south Dakota is a rural State that has faced the challenge of rebuilding distressed communities and stemming the tide of outward migration. I support the Pryor amendment for a number of reasons. Senator Pryor's amendment is reasonable and prudent. We recognize the need for spending cuts to meet deficit reduction targets. Senator Pryor's amendment simply asks the Senate to support the House's funding level of $348.5 million, a 22 percent cut from fiscal year 1995. Second, EDA has proven to be a solid investment over the years. EDA grants have resulted in the creation or retention of 2.8 million jobs in the Nation's most distressed areas, areas where, quite frankly, the private sector was not creating jobs. In fact, EDA resources are used as a catalyst to leverage private sector investments, which turn into long-term growth. EDA has demonstrated a remarkable ability to attract private sector capital. In the last 30 years, for every Federal dollar invested, more than $3 in outside investment has been leveraged. The third reason to support this amendment is because many of the Nation's smaller counties and communities rely on EDA help for local planning efforts. In South Dakota, a number of the smaller communities cannot afford a full-time economic development director. In many instances, these are the communities that need the most help. EDA funding has allowed local planning districts to travel to small towns across rural America, identify local leaders, and help them execute plans for infrastructure development or industrial recruitment. Finally, EDA has taken steps to reduce bureaucratic overhead without sacrificing customer service. In 1994, overhead at EDA was just 4.6 percent. Regulations in the Federal Register have been cut by 60 percent. EDA has delegated more responsibility to its regional offices. And, EDA will be reducing its staff from 350 people to 309 in fiscal year 1996. Mr. President, the budget resolution and 13 appropriations bills we have been considering in recent weeks have forced the Senate to make hard choices about what our country's priorities should be. If our current budget can include $245 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy, why can it not include another $249 million for EDA? Let us be clear-- Senator Pryor's amendment requests that the Senate support a Federal investment that is less than 2 percent of what is being set aside for this country's top income earners. Is providing tax relief for this group 100 times more important than helping distressed communities battling base closures, defense downsizings, and depressed prices for commodities? Are tax cuts for the wealthy 100 times more important than creating 2.8 million jobs, keeping people off unemployment lines and out of welfare offices? While our colleagues on the other side of the aisle point to a decline in values, they are missing the point. Strong values are built on the self-respect and economic stability that come with a good job. A strong sense of community is fostered by shared economic hope for the future. There is no greater sense of values and community than in the rural areas of South Dakota. These towns are hungry to innovate and adapt to the changing economy. They are deeply committed to making economic development projects work so they can preserve their way of life. EDA gives us the efficient investment tools to help communities make this happen. And it does so while paying its own way. Taxes received by the Federal Government from EDA investments exceed Federal funds provided to the agency. Our vote today on the Pryor amendment will reflect this body's priorities. Do we cut EDA funding to pay for tax cuts? Or do we invest in our future wisely and give distressed communities the tools they need to put more Americans to work. Mr. President, EDA is the right priority, and it works. I urge my colleagues to support the Pryor amendment. zebra mussel

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this Sunday will mark the 10th anniversary of Farm Aid. This remarkable organization, born of the farm crisis of the 1980's, has stood on the front lines with America's family farmers as farming, ranching and the rural way of life have been under attack. Through the vision and effort of founders Willie Nelson, Neil Young, and John Mellencamp, millions of dollars have been raised to assist farm families beset by disaster, fund legal assistance programs for rural citizens and increase national and international awareness of the plight of America's family farmer. At the same time we are celebrating the achievements of Farm Aid, the Republican-controlled Congress is making the deepest cuts to farm programs in history--at the same time they are funding tax breaks for the wealthiest citizens in the country. Make no mistake, a workable farm program cannot be crafted under a mandate to cut $13.4 [[Page S 14700]] billion from farm programs. This legislation could result in a farm crisis far worse than the one that gave birth to Farm Aid. The 1995 farm bill is far too important to be sacrificed this way. That's why several of my colleagues have joined me in introducing the Farm Security Act, an alternative way to reform farm programs and secure a safety net for our farmers. We have developed a commodity support proposal that would allow market-based income support, target benefits to our smaller producers, and simplify programs. Unlike the Republican plan, our plan offers real reform. We didn't just cut funding levels by providing less of the same old programs that are already too complicated, too rigid and too inadequate. The goal of farm programs should be to give America's farmers and rural communities a fair shake. Farmers do not want a handout. They do not want welfare. They want a program that reflects the principles that launched Farm Aid 10 years ago: a helping hand that lets them grow the best food and fiber in the world with minimal bureaucracy and with a good return on their financial and labor investments. Today, however, farm programs have become, in the minds of some people who have never milked a cow or plowed a field, a sacrificial lamb that can be offered up to fund new defense programs and unreasonable tax breaks. For many farm families across the country, the organizations supported by Farm Aid have been all that stood between them and disaster. The counseling, educational and legal services these groups provide have helped farm families navigate some very difficult times. In my State of South Dakota, Dakota Rural Action, a Farm Aid-supported group, has been an effective voice for family farmers and rural communities. Through grassroots organization, educational programming on issues from land stewardship to meatpacker concentration, and effective policy advocacy, they have brought the voices of farmers to the halls of Congress. I am deeply concerned about how rural communities across the Nation continue to whither as more and more farmers are driven off their land and young people find it increasingly difficult to begin farming. Now that the majority in Congress has threatened to pull the rug out from under our farmers again, Farm Aid and the groups it supports will be needed more than ever to provide support and leadership for our rural communities. The strengths of rural America have always been hard work, fair play and commitment to community. I applaud the efforts of Farm Aid to facilitate these goals and secure a bright future for America's farmers and ranchers. There is a reason why the Midwest is called America's Heartland. It is because our farmers, ranchers and rural citizens truly represent the heart and soul of America. If we continue to take for granted the men and women who live on the land and produce our food, we will lose an important piece of our national soul.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The majority leader did not mention the Middle East facilitation bill. Is that on the list?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am not sure I heard the entire request. I apologize to the Senator from Texas. We would certainly have no objection to opening statements at this point. Because no one has had the opportunity to see these amendments, we have had requests on our side that prior to the time we agree to any kind of unanimous-consent agreement which would [[Page S 14491]] involve these amendments that Senators have the opportunity to look at them. So, we would have to object to anything beyond the opportunity to make opening statements at this point.

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to use a few minutes of leader time prior to the vote. Mr. President, I want to commend Senators Specter and Harkin for the effort they have made to do what they could with this piece of legislation. At the same time, I think everyone needs to be put on notice that this bill will be vetoed. I believe that there is no other alternative but to veto this legislation. Frankly, while we have given some thought to trying, in as many ways as we could, to improve the legislation, in our view, it is beyond improvement. They have done the best they could. But this problem started when we passed the budget in the first place. This problem started when the allocation to Health and Human Services was provided in the budget resolution and by the Appropriations Committee. As the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Specter, stated, the allocation ``is totally insufficient.'' It cuts $9 billion from the President's request. So there is no other word to describe this piece of legislation, in my view, than the word ``extreme.'' Cuts in health, education, job training, and all of the cuts that are provided in this piece of legislation will devastate kids, young people, and destroy the opportunities for families and workers, all in the name of providing a tax cut that we do not need this year. The majority has proposed $245 billion in tax cuts. In order to finance those tax breaks that benefit our wealthiest citizens, they have proposed the extreme measures in this bill. As I stated, over $9 billion is cut from the President's request in this legislation in areas that directly affect the strength, [[Page S 14448]] health, vitality and the future of children and families. It deserves a veto. In addition to the cuts that are devastating in all the ways that I have already described, the bill before us contains a legislative provision that has no business in this appropriations bill. We have been forced to consider, once more, the striker replacement legislation. This legislation was considered in committee and considered again earlier on the floor that will, without a doubt, provoke extended debate on this bill if it is not removed from the bill. Overturning the Executive order banning the replacement of striking workers by Federal contractors is wrong. I believe the vast majority of the Senate knows that it is wrong. It does not deserve to be in this bill. It ought to be taken out. And whether or not we ultimately are able to come to any conclusion about health and human services appropriations legislation directly affecting all of the programs for education, drug-free schools, for summer jobs, for the real heart and soul of what we try to do each and every year to give strength and vitality to young kids, will be hung up, in part, because of a minority view that striker replacement deserves to be in this legislation. It is wrong, it does not deserve to be there, and it ought to be taken out. So, Mr. President, this bill will be vetoed. It will be vetoed because 50,000 children are going to be cut from Head Start. It will be vetoed because 650,000 disadvantaged kids will be denied educational opportunities. It will be vetoed because millions of kids all over this country are going to lose the chance to go to safe and drug-free schools, and are going to lose the opportunity to be educated about the need to avoid drugs. It will be vetoed because we are going to deny 600,000 kids summer jobs. It will be vetoed because 500,000 dislocated workers are going to be abandoned and not given the help they need to find new jobs. It will be vetoed because 96 percent of the funding for substance abuse prevention is wiped out in this bill. Mr. President, this is an extreme bill. We ought to vote against it. But if, God forbid, it passes, it will be vetoed. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I have consulted with a number of my colleagues, some of whom are on the floor, and there is a concern on this side that we have not had an opportunity to have some hearings and discuss this matter in greater detail. The hope was that over the course of whatever period of time we will have more of an opportunity to look at it. As a result of that concern, then we will object at this time. [[Page S 14346]]

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I share the concerns expressed by Senator Kerrey. Obviously there will be some real variances between smaller, rural communities and our larger, metropolitan areas. Nonetheless, we need to continue to provide a realistic incentive for developers to build projects in areas that are experiencing a shortage of affordable housing. I would also urge the committee to review the current mechanism.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered by Senator Jeffords, which would make $100 million available for participation by the United States in the Montreal Protocol Facilitation Fund and the Climate Change Action Plan green programs. This funding is critical if we are to protect the ozone layer from further erosion and continue our progress in helping American industry become more energy-efficient. The Montreal Protocol Facilitation Fund helps implement the international phaseout of CFC's--chemicals that deplete the ozone layer. In turn, it helps make the lives of every American safer and healthier, protecting us from radiation that causes skin cancer. To date, the Fund has provided over $300 million for almost 900 activities in 80 developing countries around the world. These projects have resulted in the elimination of over 55,000 tons of ozone-depleting chemicals--representing roughly 25 percent of the developing nation's ozone-depleting chemical use. Why does this effort merit the Senate's support? Let me suggest two reasons. First, developing countries are rapidly industrializing, making choices about the technologies they will employ to improve their standard of living. The choices they make will affect the health of everyone who inhabits this planet, and Americans are no exception. Developing countries can profit from the lessons of more developed countries and avoid the environmentally damaging mistakes that have already been made. Or, they can follow the path of least short-term resistance and make the current ozone depletion problem even worse. If developing nations chose to industrialize using ozone-destroying CFC's, then all countries could suffer, since the ozone hole will continue to grow. Second, American businesses benefit from the global market for ozone- friendly equipment created by this international effort. To date, U.S. companies have sold millions of dollars' worth of equipment designed to prevent the release of ozone-destroying compounds as a result of the program. Clearly, further investment by the United States in this program is very much in our interest. In addition to eliminating funding for the Montreal Protocol Facilitation Fund, the VA-HUD appropriations bill cuts $90 million from the Climate Change Action Plan green programs. The Jeffords amendment would restore most of this funding. The cuts in this account primarily affect EPA's green programs. The Green Lights Program, for example, provides information, training, technical reports, and other assistance, but not direct financial assistance, to companies to encourage them to invest in highly energy- efficient lighting, heating, and cooling technologies designed to save energy. In my view, these programs represent the type of public/private initiative we should be encouraging--a government and industry partnership that protects the environment and reduces our consumption of energy, thereby making domestic industries more competitive. Green Lights is so popular that businesses throughout the country have signed up. Nearly 2,000 businesses and other institutions participate in the program today. In my home State of South Dakota, Gateway 2000 and the State government both are participating in the Green Lights Program. It has been a great success, saving energy, reducing costs, and cutting pollution. Mr. President, I commend Senator Jeffords for offering this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote to restore the funding for the Montreal Protocol Facilitation Fund and the Climate Change Action Plan green programs.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senate consideration of the fiscal year 1996 VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill provides an appropriate opportunity to raise an issue involving the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and Watertown, SD, that merits our attention. Fifteen years ago, acting upon the recommendation of the EPA, Watertown installed a infiltration/percolation [I/P] pond for the treatment of its wastewater. At the time, local officials were assured by the EPA that the community would be compensated for any future modification or repair of the system that might be needed for it to remain operational. That EPA pledge was a significant factor in the City's decision to install the I/P technology. Unfortunately, the I/P system has not functioned as advertised. Since 1982, Watertown has invested more than $8 million in its wastewater treatment facility in an effort to make it work properly. Despite these modifications, all of which were endorsed by the EPA, the system has never functioned to EPA's satisfaction. As a result, Watertown has failed to meet EPA regulations since 1988, and community officials continue to work with the EPA and the Justice Department to bring their wastewater treatment plant into compliance with the Clean Water Act and other regulations. Watertown will need to make major capital investments to reach this end. I am informed that $15 million will be required for treatment plant improvements and an additional $10 million for sewer collection improvements. While Watertown is one of the largest cities in my state, it has a population of less than 20,000. The scope of this problem greatly exceeds the availability of local resources to resolve it. Nonetheless, the community is determined to be part of the solution. Watertown Mayor Brenda Barger and other local leaders have already pledged $3 million toward this project and will be exploring revenue bonds and other long-term debt financing mechanisms to secure additional revenues. While the community's determination to participate in the solution of their wastewater treatment dilemma is commendable, the responsibility should not be theirs alone. The commitment that the federal government made to this community should not be ignored. It bears emphasis that Watertown's decision to install its I/P system was based on assurances from EPA that the technology would work. Fifteen years ago, EPA provided what amounted to a guarantee of the technology. Local and Federal officials shared in the genesis of this problem and, therefore, it deserves a joint local/federal solution. Last May, I wrote the Senate Appropriations Committee to request federal funding to help upgrade the Watertown wastewater treatment plant. While the federal government could be held accountable for full funding of this project, it is worth noting that Watertown recognizes its responsibility in this matter and has worked hard to secure significant local funding sources. It is a reasonable request that this appropriations bill include funding for the City of Watertown. The Federal government was part of the fateful decision to go the I/P route. Moreover, in past years this bill has included funding for communities that installed I/P systems at the recommendation of the EPA. Complicity and precedent argued for Federal participation in the search for a solution. Absent such assistance, Watertown will be unable to solve its wastewater treatment facility problems. Mr. President, the final version of the fiscal year 1996 VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill should include a substantial level of federal funding for the replacement of Watertown, South Dakota's wastewater treatment facility. I will continue to work with the managers of this bill to seek a fair resolution to this issue and hope that before this process is completed, a solution can be worked out. yellow creek

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, before discussing the fiscal year 1996 Foreign Operations appropriations bill, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the support the chairman and the ranking member have given microenterprise lending programs in the past. Their leadership in this regard has made it possible for microenterprise programs to improve the lives of millions of poor people around the world. [[Page S 14075]] Mr. President, I understand the fiscal year 1996 Foreign Operations appropriations bill, as approved by the Appropriations Committee, does not designate a specific level of support for microenterprise poverty programs.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate knowing that the committee continues to support microenterprise programs and included bill language protecting development assistance from disproportional cuts. As a longtime proponent of microenterprise programs, I would like to encourage the chairman and the ranking member to do everything they can to maintain appropriate funding for these programs when they go to conference with the House. I would also encourage Senate conferees to insist on conference report language reflecting that commitment as well as encouraging AID to allocate one-half of microenterprise resources to poverty lending programs that provide loans of less than $300 and to channel up to $39 million through central mechanisms structured to meet the goals of nongovernmental organizations like the Grameen Trust.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is also my understanding that the committee included language in the bill that requires a proportional allocation for accounts consistent with levels enacted in fiscal year 1995.