Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in the Republican budget resolution, there is only one explicit tax provision. It is not, as many Americans might guess, a measure to provide tax relief. Rather, it is a tax increase, and an egregious one at that. It is egregious because it targets those on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, the families that are working harder than ever and yet are still struggling to support themselves and their families. This provision would reduce payments under the Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC] by $17 billion over 7 years. More than 12 million low- income working families would see their tax bills go up by more than $1,500--and the money they have left over for food, housing, clothing and medical care go down. Make no mistake, however. The Republicans do plan further action on taxes. They plan to take the savings they achieve from cutting tax credits to low-income working families, cutting education, cutting Medicare--and use those savings to fund a tax cut which will largely benefit the wealthiest members of our society. Some of my Republican colleagues have argued that they are not raising taxes on low-income workers, that they are merely reducing the rate of growth in the EITC program. This semantic exercise does not change one simple fact--this budget resolution will mean fewer dollars in the pockets of these workers. As we debate the proper level of funding for the earned income tax credit, we should remember that the number we set will have a very real impact on millions of American families and over 31,000 families in my State. I'd like to introduce you to two South Dakota families to illustrate my point. Karen Olson and Paul Lovestrand are a married couple who live in Rapid City, which is located in the western part of my home State. They have three small children--aged 4 years, 2 years, and 7 months. Paul works 60 hours per week as a baker at the Sixth Street Bakery and Deli, Karen works two part-time jobs--catering for the same deli and cleaning a dentist's office. Despite their hard work, Karen and Paul do not have any savings. They have qualified for the EITC for the past 2 years, receiving $600 this year. Karen and Paul relied on their EITC payment to cover the cost of a needed plumbing job and a repair to the steps of their house that was required by their insurance company. Without the EITC, they would have had to cut back in other areas to pay these repair bills. Nancy and Ted Lewis also live in Rapid City. They are married with two small children--aged 3 years and 6 months. Both Nancy and Ted are college-educated, but they have had trouble finding work since moving to Rapid City nearly 3 years ago. Ted holds down two jobs--he teaches English at Western Dakota Technical Institute and works at a sign- making store. Nancy is trained as an art teacher, but cannot find work that would pay more than the cost of child care. For the past 3 years, Nancy and Ted have qualified for the EITC, receiving the maximum amount this year. They have relied on their EITC payments for major car repairs, children's clothing and overdue bills. The EITC also allowed them to repay a loan they took out when Ted was between jobs and rent money was scarce. Karen and Paul and Nancy and Ted are playing by the rules. They are working hard and raising their children in a stable family environment. But even though they are doing everything right, their wages are not high enough to provide for all of their families' needs. For years, Democrats and Republicans have agreed that the Federal Government should give families like Karen and Paul's and Nancy and Ted's a helping hand. By lessening their tax burden, the EITC makes it a little easier for them to make ends meet. In other words, the EITC rewards those who choose work over welfare. But now my Republican colleagues have decided that the EITC program is out of control and fraught with fraud and error. These excuses are being used to justify a cut in funds for the program that President Ronald Reagan called ``the best antipoverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of the Congress.'' A quick look at these arguments shows they are without merit. First, the program is not out of control because it is growing at the rate set by the Congress. In 1993, an expansion of the EITC was approved. Once this expansion is fully phased in next year, the rate of growth level out so as to correspond to the rate of inflation and population growth. Indeed, the credit will decline as a percentage of GDP beginning in 1997. Second, the claims of some Senators that a whopping 35 to 45 percent of all EITC payments by the IRS are made erroneously are simply not true. It is true that an IRS study of 1,000 returns filed electronically in January 1994 found that approximately 25 percent of the EITC benefits claimed were in error. The IRS concluded that many of these errors were unintentional but that some significant fraud also existed. What the critics will not tell you, however, is that the Clinton administration has acted swiftly and aggressively to correct this problem. Specifically, 12 measures to simplify the EITC and reduce erroneous or undeserved claims have already been adopted. The critics conveniently leave out another very important fact. The study that they rely on was conducted before any of the administration's anti-error provisions were put in place. Mr. President, there can be no justification for this rollback of the EITC, other than a desire on the part of my Republican colleagues to find ways to pay for their tax cut plan, which will largely benefit the wealthy. Putting the burden of paying for that ill-advised plan on low- income families is simply inexcusable.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Exon-Daschle amendment would reorder and re-balance the spending priorities in this proposed budget. Specifically, the amendment would shift funding from a proposed tax cut for the wealthiest Americans to several key programs upon which our national interests depend. The Exon amendment would restore $100 billion to Medicare, $30 billion to education, $17 billion to the earned income tax credit, $3 billion to veterans' programs, and $10 billion to agricultural programs. The amendment would also exclude the proposed sale of the country's Power Marketing Administrations, including the Western Area Power Administration, from the budget. All of these are important priorities for our Nation and, especially, for rural America. This amendment, like the amendments we offered yesterday, are completely paid for. It does not add one penny to the deficit. Yesterday I spoke of the importance of the restoration of Medicare funding, and, earlier today, I referred to the importance of the earned income tax credit. So, today, I will focus on the other elements of this amendment. First, the amendment would restore $30 billion in education funds. The underlying budget resolution proposes to balance the budget at the expense of educating our youth. That is unacceptable. It is myopic, and it is a false economy. The next generation cannot afford to be shortchanged in this manner. Educational investments are one of the best investments this country can make, especially as our youth prepare for the 21st century. This amendment, which provides $30 billion to restore funding for critical education programs, will help young Americans and their families by restoring funding in student loans and education programs. The $30 billion restores funding for the student loan in-school interest subsidy and other critical programs such as Title 1, Pell grants, Impact Aid, special education, and Safe and Drug-free Schools. Impact Aid is especially important to South Dakota. Last year the program received a $70 million reduction in fiscal year 1995 funding. Further reductions are intolerable. These funds--which represent the money the Federal Government is obligated to pay to reimburse local school districts for Federal displacement of the local tax State, and hundreds of schools throughout the country, that depend on Impact Aid to meet our children's basic educational needs. The Impact Aid program provides critical dollars to over 50 schools in South Dakota. These payments are not a Government subsidy. Quite simply, their purpose is to compensate school districts for the loss of taxable revenue from what once was local taxable land. The message in the continued trend of decreased funding is that Congress has decided we do not need to uphold our obligation to the school districts that rely so greatly on these funds. In the McLaughlin school district in South Dakota the Impact Aid funds represent approximately 37 percent of the school's budget; in the Lake Andes school district, 20 to 25 percent of their budget comes from Impact Aid monies; 30 percent of the Dupree school's general fund revenue budget is generated by Impact Aid funds; in Smee, South Dakota, if Impact Aids funds continue to dwindle, they will be unable to operate; in Pollock, South Dakota, they would have to close their doors if this funding is eliminated. The list goes on and on, Mr. President. This means that teacher pay, books, facilities, desks, buses--everything it takes to run a school-- is dependent on whether this Congress lives up to the commitment that was made to these schools when the lands in their districts were taken. I simply ask this question of my colleagues. Is it fair to eliminate a program that was designed to help alleviate a very clear Federal burden that was imposed on certain local communities and school districts because the Federal Government decided to acquire land in their particular district? The answer is no. This is a Federal responsibility, not a Federal subsidy. The Exon-Daschle amendment would also restore $3 billion in funding for veterans' programs, including veterans' health care. In light of the budget's proposed Medicare cuts, the cuts in VA funding are especially egregious, for reduced Medicare funding will undoubtedly lead to increased pressure on, and a shift in costs to, the VA health care system. As my colleagues know, the VA health care system is an already overburdened and underfunded one, so I fail to understand how the majority justifies this proposal. The $3 billion in this amendment would ease some of that pressure and help us ensure that our fundamental commitment to the men and women who have served this Nation is fulfilled. To do otherwise sends exactly the wrong message to veterans and the men and women who currently serve in the Armed Forces. While Senator Exon and I will talk more about the budget resolution's treatment of agriculture tomorrow, when we will offer an amendment to restore some of the agricultural funding cut in the Republican budget, I want to take a moment to speak on that issue today. This amendment would restore $10 billion of the agricultural funding cut in the budget proposal. The amendment directs the funding where it is most needed--to farmers who struggle each year to stay on the farm, to keep producing America's food and fiber supply, and to families who strike a rough patch when there is job loss or other bad luck, people trying to put food on the table and keep their families together. The Republican budget, on the other hand, raids rural America to aid the comfortable. The Republican budget proposal would cut $45.9 billion out of the Agriculture Department over the next 7 years. That is likely to translate to around $12 billion in direct cuts to farm programs. It is a 20-percent cut in farm spending. It will contribute to the further deterioration of the economic and social fabric of rural America. No other sector of American life is being asked to absorb such a hit. We can not have a prosperous urban America riding on the back of an impoverished farm America. Yet that is what Republican budget cuts will provide. Farmers in South Dakota would see a devastating decline in their income of over $57 million. Other rural States will suffer similar pain. This budget is short-sighted for rural America and self- interested for the best-off. It is not a balanced, fair proposal. It is not a budget that sustains the American tradition of building a strong farm sector, a tradition that has enjoyed bipartisan support until this Republican majority. Finally, this amendment would prevent the budget resolution from counting the sale of the power marketing administrations and other assets toward deficit reduction. This would remove the incentive to sell the Power Marketing Administrations [PMAs] in order to balance the budget, and would help ensure that decision is made on the basis of what would be the best policy for the United States. Since the sale of PMA's makes no economic sense, this amendment would substantially hinder their sale. I have been concerned because the Clinton administration has announced plans to sell three of the five PMA's, including the Western Area Power Administration [WAPA], which markets power from the main stem dams on the Missouri River to South Dakota utilities and cooperatives. The administration has stated it intends to sell WAPA in 1998. Despite the fact that the administration stated in the budget that ``the proposal will provide customer protection from significant rate increases,'' I am deeply concerned that if this plan is approved by Congress and goes forward, then significant rate increases will be inevitable, affecting consumers and the overall economies of rural states such as South Dakota. The PMA's are an example of a Government program that works well. South Dakota, the Western Area Power Administration, which markets power from the main stem dams along the Missouri River, has ensured a consistent and affordable supply of electricity. The program is being run on a sound financial basis, as it recovers all expenses relating to its annual operation and the initial construction expenses, with interest. By providing low-cost power, the PMA's have substantially assisted in the economic development of many States. Any one-time savings from the sale of WAPA would be offset by long term revenue losses. The administration and the Republicans expect a one-time budget savings from the sale, that over the long-run, will not save the Federal Government any money at all. Since the operational and capital costs of the program are more than paid back currently, the sale simply allows the Federal Government to collect the debt faster. But since the debt is being paid back with interest now, there is no long-term financial benefit to the Government. Long-term revenue losses from the sale offset the near-term revenue gains. Some claim that the power marketing administrations can be sold without causing substantial rate increases. In reality, today's rates are set at the lowest possible level, while still ensuring that the debt is paid off. If the power marketing administrations are sold, then it is likely that rates will increase substantially. Those who buy the PMA's will attempt to maximize the return on their investment. And electric rates for existing Federal power customers will rise as a result. Some predict rate increases as much as 300 percent for some communities. This sale will not only affect the economy of South Dakota or a few western States. Power marketing administrations sell power in 34 States across the country. I would ask all of my colleagues from these States to consider the impact of the sale of PMA's before they cast their vote. In conclusion, Mr. President, we need to reduce the deficit. No one argues that point. This amendment restores essential funding--upholding our obligation to rural America, children, and the elderly--and is completely offset with the reserve fund set aside by the GOP to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. Again, the amendment does not contribute one penny to the deficit. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the words of the distinguished Senator from Indiana. If you listened, you heard one thing that is completely unrelated to what is addressed in this amendment. To listen to the Senator from Indiana, you would think that this amendment was going to add somehow to the deficit; that it was going to somehow change the parameters of this budget resolution; that somehow it was going to move back the date of the balanced budget goal to a time beyond 2002. Mr. President, that has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are now considering in this amendment. There is no disagreement on a balanced budget. There is no disagreement, at least for most of us, on what date we ought to set for a balanced budget. But there are fundamental disagreements. The President has laid down his budget. The Republicans, as is their budgets are 60 percent the same. But there is a fundamental difference in priorities in the remaining 40 percent of this budget. This amendment and, indeed, this entire debate, is about modifying this budget to reflect those priorities. It is about a fundamental difference in how and where we ought to invest our resources. What the Republicans are suggesting is that, if we do the things the chairman has proposed, somehow there will be a $170 billion pool from which to provide a tax cut at a later date. There is no doubt about that. Everyone has acknowledged that is what we are talking about, a tax cut that will substantially benefit those at the upper end of the income scale. We are saying that we cannot accept that tradeoff. We are saying that it is wrong for seniors to pay $6,400 per couple in additional out-of- pocket health expenses to finance a tax cut for upper income Americans. We are saying that it is wrong for working families to pay $1,400 more for this tax cut. We are saying that it is wrong for students to pay $3,000 more over the course of their college careers to pay for a tax cut. These are the issues our amendment addresses. The people who are the hardest hit and who are going to feel it the most are the senior citizens. A $256 billion cut in Medicare over the next 7 years will affect 37 million people, resulting in $900 a year more in additional health care expenses per beneficiary, $3,200 over the course of the 7 years. For what? So that the wealthiest 1.1 million people in this country can get a $20,000-a-year tax cut. Those people making more than $350,000 a year will get $20,000 back in taxes. This graph says it clearly. We are not talking about increases in the debt. We are not talking about altering the glidepath or our balanced budget goal. We are talking about the fact that the Republicans want to provide a tax cut for wealthy citizens, while the Democrats are concerned about paying for that tax cut with Medicare cuts. This is the essence of the difference between their approach and our approach, especially when you consider the fact that 97 percent of those who are dependent upon Medicare make less than $50,000 a year. We cannot accept that Medicare cuts will pay for tax cuts for affluent Americans. The $256 billion Medicare cut, resulting in a $900- a-year increase in out-of-pocket costs to beneficiaries, is especially troubling when you see how limited most seniors' economic resources are. Nonseniors, people under the age of 65, only spend about 8 percent of their income on health care. Seniors, on the other hand, pay 21 percent of their income on health expenses. In other words, they pay almost three times more each year on health care than nonseniors. There is a lot of debate about how we are affecting the growth of Medicare spending. Let's be clear about this. The Republicans say they are allowing Medicare costs to increase--that all they are doing is cutting back on the program's growth. I hope everyone understands the effect their proposal will have on the Medicare program. It is very important that everyone appreciate the reasons for Medicare's explosion in costs. There are two basic reasons. First, the demographics of our country continue to change in positive ways. We are seeing more and more people over the age 65, more and more people who are living long enough to enjoy their retirement. Therefore, more and more people are relying on Medicare. That is not some management problem. This represents a tremendous new opportunity for our older Americans to enjoy the benefits of their retirement years. And more Medicare beneficiaries are living longer and longer. The over age 85 group is the fastest growing population of Medicare beneficiaries. Second, more and better health care technology is allowing people to live longer and healthier lives. The Medicare program is expected to grow about 8.3 percent per year, taking into account these demographic trends, new technology, and general increases in the cost of living. In the private sector, which has a younger, healthier population that needs fewer health care services, we see slightly lower total growth in health care costs. What the Republicans would like to do through this budget is dramatically cut back the growth in Medicare while private sector health care costs continue to grow at a rate of 7.2 percent. The impact that will have on seniors could not be more clear. Millions of seniors today depend upon Medicare for their health care and can now walk into a hospital or clinic with the confidence that they are going to be treated when they are ill. Under this budget, they will no longer have the confidence that Medicare will be there when they need it. A lot of people are not going to have the care they deserve, in large measure because of the dramatic reduction in the availability of resources for Medicare. We simply cannot allow that to happen. The situation is much the same with respect to Medicaid. The demographic trends and new technology affect Medicaid much as they affect Medicare. I think we all have to realize that, unless we are really prepared to tackle meaningful health reform and address the proliferation in technology, the ramification of these demographic trends in our Nation, and the explosion in general health care costs, it is extremely difficult to do anything meaningful to produce the kinds of savings that the Republicans are proposing. The bottom line is this. Whose side are we on? Are we on the side of senior citizens? Are we on the side of kids? Are we on the side of working families? Or are we on the side of those who want to raise more money so we can cut taxes for the wealthy by $20,000? This could be one of the most, if not the most, important votes on health care in this session of Congress. The decision we will make in less than 10 minutes is about whose side we are on, about whether or not senior citizens are going to be confident in their ability to get the kind of health care they need for as long as they live. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are about to vote on the first amendment in this budget resolution debate. Let me say, as far as most of us on this side of the aisle are concerned, it is not a serious vote. This is purely political gamesmanship. It is a rite of every budget year. Democrats did it when Presidents Reagan and Bush were in office, and now our Republican colleagues are taking their turn. This is not a serious vote. This vote has nothing to do with the budget resolution that is on the floor of the Senate. The Budget Committee has reported its resolution. That is the operative document. That is the document that will guide congressional action. That is the document Senate Democrats find defective, and are seeking to improve with a series of amendments that we will be offering over the course of the next 3 or 4 days. The budget resolution is a congressional document. It is not presented to the President, and it does not require his signature. It is our internal guideline. The next stage will involve the President for he must sign or veto the reconciliation bill. The President has already indicated his willingness to work toward a common solution, a bipartisan solution. But he has been very clear about the conditions which must be met. The Republicans must abandon their tax cut that favors the very rich. If there is to be a tax cut, it must be targeted to the middle class, and it must be paid for. Second, the Republicans must rescind their tax increase on working Americans. We simply cannot accept a tax increase of $1,500 per year on those people who are struggling just to stay off welfare. Third, the Republicans must restore their cuts to education. Asking college students to pay an additional $3,000 a year is simply wrong. Fourth, any changes in Medicare must take place in the context of overall health care reform. We have said that over and over again. A $256 billion cut in Medicare is draconian. The stock market yesterday went down 82 points, and a lot of us have been convinced that is simply senior citizens selling their stock to pay for Medicare insurance in the next several years. Those conditions are the reality of the budget. Those issues will be the [[Page S6961]] ones that define this budget year. Those are the issues that count with all Americans. But this current vote has nothing to do with reality. It is a meaningless political gesture. In light of this, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. I suggest we not dignify this vote by taking it seriously. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, now that we have had what we consider to be the first political vote, I hope we will have the opportunity to thoroughly debate what we consider to be not only political questions but the very important substance. Let me emphasis what this debate is not about. It is not about the balanced budget because I think people on both sides of the aisle feel strongly that indeed we need a balanced budget. It is not about whether we must make tough choices. Indeed, we must make tough choices. It is not about agreeing on a time certain. I believe the year 2002 is a valid date. This debate is about how we spend the limited resources we have between now and the year 2002; about where this country ought to invest its money. This year the budget process has proceeded with virtually no consultation between Democrats and Republicans. For all the talk of bipartisanship, there was none when this resolution was drawn. Not surprisingly, the committee has produced a budget resolution that is extreme, unreasonable, unfair, and unacceptable. The closer one looks, the worse it gets. It is evident that the priorities that it reflects do not reflect the priorities of the American people, or the fairness the American people expect. It is wrong to begin with a tax giveaway to the wealthiest people in this country. It is doubly wrong to help finance it with a tax hike on the lowest income working people in the country. To impose a tax hike on those earning the lowest incomes in order to help pay for a tax break for the wealthiest Americans turns common sense and fairness on its head. It is not just wrong. It is perverse. It directly contradicts all the pro-work, anti-welfare rhetoric extolled by so many. It sends exactly the wrong signal to Americans. Instead of saying work pays, it undercuts the value of the work ethic for all working Americans, not just those who are eligible for the credit. The signal here is not to welfare families to shape up and get on a payroll. The signal here is to the well-off and the well- connected. This budget tells them they will get their tax cut. It tells working people they are out of luck. We have had too many Republican so-called tax cuts that turn out to be a tax increase or a tax wash for working people and a big tax break for those at the top. Americans are waking up to the hidden promise in a Republican tax cut. They are learning that it is a promise as believable as the check is in the mail. Senate Democrats believe there are important priorities that are not reflected in this budget at all. Those priorities are education, health care, and the needs of working people. This budget resolution cuts education, slashes health care for seniors, and discourages work for low-income people. It is an extreme set of priorities. It undermines the very things that give people hope and security in order to finance another trickle-down tax cut. Democrats say at least these three things should be corrected. If they can be corrected, we can produce a sound, workable, bipartisan budget that we must have ultimately--a budget that will be put into effect, backed by legislation that will make the necessary changes, and a budget that will produce the long-promised balance in the years ahead. [[Page S6967]] First, and the direct attention of this particular amendment. Medicare and Medicaid savings must come in the context of broad health care reform. Anything else is just a guarantee that costs will be shifted to the private sector. Second, working people should not see a tax hike, by whatever name, when their wages barely raise them above the poverty level. We should be encouraging work over welfare, not penalizing it. Work should pay. Third, this is precisely the wrong time to make education more expensive and further beyond reach for the children of middle-class families. All three of these priorities can be protected and should be protected. But first, there must be bipartisan agreement that we do not need to create new tax loopholes. Our purpose ought to be to reach a balanced budget, not to fulfil the tax wish list of our richest corporate and private taxpayers. About half the budget savings in the Republican budget come from Medicare and Medicaid. It is good that finally, after resisting health care reform last year in any form, after resisting even incremental reform, after repeatedly opposing anything remotely like a reduction in costs, Republicans have admitted, in this resolution, that health care costs are driving the Federal budget. But it is bad that they have chosen to deal with this reality--a fact Democrats have been pointing out for at least 3 years--by simply capping spending and shifting costs to beneficiaries. I agree with what Senator Dole said last year, ``* * * if you only spend so much money on health care and you run out of money, you either have to ration or raise taxes, or find some way to find more money.'' So what is the Republican answer to health care? Impose a cap on Medicaid and shift the whole burden back on the States. That is the proposal. That means that when it is time to ration or raise taxes or find more money, it will be the States that will be forced to do it. The budget proposal to reduce Medicaid costs by $176 billion will not only burden the taxpayers of our States, it will threaten coverage for more than 800,000 low-income elderly and disabled people. Medicaid is the only source of assistance for the frail elderly who need long-term nursing home care and who do not have the $38,000 a year that such care typically costs. Medicaid now provides for 1.6 million persons in nursing homes, and nearly 1.1 million receiving home health care. Those funds are not likely to be made up by the States, because the States are hard-pressed to meet their current Medicaid costs. Instead of seeking to control costs in the system--the only way to ultimately slow health care spending--the Republican budget would shift costs. The Republican budget proposes a precise Medicare savings figure-- $256 billion--without an iota of detail as to how it is to be achieved. There is no way to save $256 billion and cover more people--as Medicare must, since our population is aging and more people become eligible for Medicare each year--without shifting costs to others. Those others will be Medicare beneficiaries themselves. This proposal would mean dramatically higher costs, fewer benefits and a worsening quality of care. The Republican Medicare reductions are the largest Medicare cut in history. At least half the burden of those cuts will fall on recipients. The chairman of the committee that approved this reduction has already endorsed the idea of increasing the part B Medicare premium to 31 percent of the program's costs. That, alone, will mean nearly $500 in additional out-of-pocket costs to Medicare recipients by 2002. It has been calculated that those on Medicare will see a cut of $900 in benefits by the year 2002. The $256 billion in savings will be paid for by them--to the tune of $3,500 each between now and then. The budget resolution does not spell out where the so-called savings will come from. But, coincidentally, the savings raise the same amount of money as all the CBO proposals for savings already compiled. So, taking those as a benchmark, we can see the outlines of what will be cut and who will pay for it. Nearly 83 percent of Medicare benefits go to persons with incomes of $25,000 or less. Only 3 percent of Medicare costs are paid in behalf of persons with incomes over $50,000. So whatever additional costs there are, they will be borne disproportionately by those with the least ability to pay. The net effect of this is simple: Extra Medicare costs will eat up Social Security cost-of-living increases. The Republican promise to protect Social Security is hollow. One in four Social Security recipients rely exclusively on Social Security benefits for income. For these people--among the lowest-income of our retirees--there will be no more COLA's, because they will all be swallowed up by rising out-of- pocket Medicare payments., The effects of cost-shifting in health care have been long studied and are well known. When providers like hospitals and physicians see repayments from one source cut, costs are shifted to those who will pay--privately insured individuals. If even one-third of the proposed Medicare reductions are passed along to privately insured payers, it will amount to a hidden tax of $40 to $50 billion on businesses and families in the next 7 years. Instead of reforming the system to control costs, it would be the same old shell game of cost-shuffling, only on a much larger scale. It is wrong to threaten the health care security of retired Americans to finance a tax cut for the wealthiest corporations and individuals. It is wrong to slash at the health care safety net of the low-income elderly and disabled to finance a tax cut that will restore some of the most egregious corporate loopholes of the 1980's. The Republican budget does more than that. In a stunning display of indifference to real hardship in American families, the Republican budget would cut $21 billion out of the earned income tax credit. The earned income tax credit does not go to anyone who does not work. It goes only to those who are doing their best to stay off welfare by working at whatever job they can find, and by earning whatever an employer is willing to pay. It is perverse to tell a woman to get off welfare and work and then to turn around and reduce the one work incentive program that actually helps work pay. It is contrary to common sense to dramatically cut back an incentive to work so that we can afford to give a tax cut to some of the most well-off households and businesses in the country. The Republican budget also cuts educational funding by $60 billion. Student aid alone is slashed by $14 billion. Under the Republican budget, students will have to pay higher loan origination fees and higher interest rates 6 months after they graduate. They will graduate with a degree and a heavier debt load because the in-school interest subsidy will be cut. Who uses the student loan program? Not the children of the wealthy, whose parents can afford to pay yearly tuition costs. It is the children of middle-income working families who rely on loan assistance to get the higher education in the first place. Today, more than ever, how much education a person has dictates the standard of living he or she will enjoy throughout life. Every extra year of schooling adds an average of 8 percent to one's income throughout life. Equally important is that economic growth depends upon better education in our work force. A recent study found that increases in workers' education produced twice the productivity growth as investment in new equipment. A survey of over 3,000 private companies employing 20 or more workers found that a 10-percent increase in workers' education led to an average 8.6-percent rise in productivity; a 10-percent increase in capital stock--equipment, buildings, and machinery--led to a 3.4- percent rise in productivity. Anyone who cares about the future economic growth of our country knows that as American companies become more productive, they compete better and find more markets. Anything that helps our firms compete successfully in a global economy ought to be supported and encouraged, not cut back. Yet, that is exactly what the Republican budget does. It cuts education by $60 billion over the next 7 years, potentially cutting out an enormous promise [[Page S6968]] of higher productivity and economic growth for our private sector. It is wrong to reduce our Nation's commitment to education by the equivalent of 25 percent when education is more critical now than it has ever been before. It is wrong to reduce our commitment to a better standard of living for our children in order to finance a tax cut for those who already enjoy high living standards. It is wrong to cut back on the door to opportunity in our society. It is the wrong priority. Despite assertions that the Republican budget would go after corporate welfare, there is not a single corporate welfare cut in this budget resolution. Instead, we are being asked to squeeze Medicare recipients, to burden new graduates with an extra $3,000 or so in debt, and deny the lowest- paid, hardest-working Americans a tax credit. Republicans cannot find corporate welfare so these are the priority cuts they have aimed at instead. I do not think that reflects American values or American priorities, Mr. President. Senate Democrats will respond to these misguided priorities in this budget resolution with a series of amendments designed to correct them. Our amendments will preserve the goal of balancing the budget by the year 2002. Each of our amendments will be fully paid for. Saving Medicare and student aid will not add a penny to the budget deficit. Our amendments will use the different offsets to preserve the priorities that we think are important because we agree that it is necessary to make the choices in order to balance the budget. We just think that a tax cut is exactly the wrong choice. We think that the budget ought to reflect the priorities of working Americans. We believe our amendments reflect those priorities and deserve broad support. And beginning with this amendment, we hope Republicans will join us in coming to a better set of priorities, a more realistic set of assumptions, and a clear message to the American people that we are on their side. I yield the floor. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. If the Senator will yield, the Senator is correct. I think it would be very helpful for all Senators to share with us their intentions with regard to amendments as soon as possible. We already have a list we are compiling. We would be happy to share it with you. I think it is our intention following the amendment relating to Medicare to offer an amendment relating to education, and following that an amendment relating to the EIPC. There will be an amendment relating to Medicare, and EIPC, and education. So the order for our side will be that, and we will be able to give you more information as we go through the list.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I share the understanding of the distinguished majority leader with regard to the schedule for the next couple of days. Even though there is only one rollcall vote tomorrow, we have a very important debate that will begin immediately after that vote. It will be on the issue of Medicare. And I urge my colleagues to use this time to the fullest benefit. That time will be lost, if we do not use it tomorrow. It is very important that all of our colleagues appreciate the time that we have available to us tomorrow and Monday to debate this important issue. So I encourage our participation, and certainly hope that you will take full advantage of the hours that are available to us following the disposition of the first vote at 10:45 in the morning. We will have another vote on Monday. It will be on the Medicare amendment, and between now and then I would hope that all of our colleagues will fully avail themselves of the opportunity that we now have to debate this amendment to the fullest extent possible. So I think this is a good agreement that gets us off to a good start. I would certainly hope that between Friday morning and Monday afternoon we have no quorum calls, and that we use every moment available to us to participate in the debate on the Medicare amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member. Let me say, I did not have the opportunity to hear all of his remarks, but let me commend the distinguished Senator from Arkansas for what I have heard him say. Let me associate myself with each and every one of his words. He speaks from the heart, and he certainly speaks for all Members in representing what we hope will be the ultimate goal of this committee as we begin this ever once more. This resolution provides a sum of $950,000 for the purpose of completing the work on the Whitewater matter. I think it needs to be emphasized again, as we consider the funding, that this resolution includes every issue related to Whitewater that has any credence whatever. There ought not be any question about its work, its scope, and the effort undertaken after today by the Banking Committee. The funding will expire on February 29 of next year. It is an adequate amount to fund and an ample allowance of time to permit comprehensive and thorough hearings, while providing also for the completion of this issue. In the 103d Congress, the Senate voted on March 17, 1994, on a bipartisan vote of 8 to 0, to authorize hearings on the Whitewater matter. Senate Resolution 229, adopted in June of last year, authorized a first round of hearings which were subsequently held by the Banking Committee. The new resolution creates a special committee, administered by the Banking Committee, to conduct the final round of these hearings. The committee will be comprised of the full membership the Banking Committee, with the addition of one Republican and one Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee. Chairman D'Amato will also chair this special committee. Senator Sarbanes will serve as the ranking member. Last year, the Banking Committee heard from a substantial number of witnesses and took thousands of pages of testimony. Last year's hearings were thorough, fair, and bipartisan. They are the model which this year's hearings must emulate. The majority, which conducted the hearings last year, were fair and judicious in their approach. The new majority in this Senate has the obligation to follow that record in exactly the same manner. It is important to be thorough and comprehensive, because the American people have a right to know all the facts about this matter; but it is equally important that hearings be fair and responsible. We must all strive to remember and draw the distinction between an unproven allegation and a known, verifiable fact. What is at stake is the integrity and credibility of the U.S. Senate. The last Senate recognized this by voting unanimously to authorize hearings when questions were raised that deserved examination. This Senate should follow that example. [[Page S6782]] The Senate has the constitutional obligation to see that the facts are brought out. It has the moral obligation to do so fully and impartially. If we do less, we risk reinforcing the unfortunate impression that Senators care more about partisanship than about conducting the Nation's business in the best interests of all the people. The President has said that in an era of attack politics, the best way to put this matter behind America is to address the facts candidly. He is entirely right. The administration cooperated fully and extensively with hearings last year and stands ready to do so again this year. Last year, the President ordered his administration to cooperate and all parties did so. Every document request was honored. Every question raised by the committee was answered. Americans have the right to know the facts of Whitewater. But Americans care about other matters which are also on the Senate agenda a great deal more than they do about this. Americans are now facing a budget which seeks to dramatically alter Medicare and student aid programs, as well as virtually every other thing the Government does. They are anxious about the future, because so many millions of Americans are either Medicare enrollees or have parents who are Medicare enrollees. They are anxious to see the Senate begin the debate over the budget soon. Americans expect the Senate to devote the bulk of our efforts to the issues that are of most importance to the majority of American people. I agree. That should be our priority. Today, no issue is more critical than resolving the budget debate. Mr. President, I urge prompt action on this resolution. I hope it allows for completion of this matter with fairness and impartiality, so that Senators can focus their attention on the issues that deserve it most, the problems facing the American people. I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to S 395, the Alaska Power Administration Sale Act, to make explicit that this legislation does not in any way set a precedent for the sale of any other Federal power marketing administrations. My colleague from Alaska makes a strong case for the sale of the Alaska Power Administration. As I understand the situation, the congressional delegation and the Governor of Alaska support the sale, and the proposal enjoys broad public support. As we concentrate on this bill and this sale, it is important to keep in mind that there is a broader discussion taking place in the Congress over the sale of other Federal power administrations, and the case for those sales is by no means as clear cut as that in Alaska. While the privatization of the Alaska PMA is supported in Alaska, there is strong public opposition to the sale of PMA's located in the lower 48 States. Moreover, the sale of the Alaska PMA involves a relatively small sum of money, only $83 million. This is a manageable investment for the State. It ensures that Alaskans will be able to purchase the PMA assets and that the purchase will not cause rates to rise substantially. This is not the case with the proposed sale of PMA's in the lower 48 States, where far greater sums of money are at stake and where the sale likely would lead to significant rate increases. In South Dakota, the Western Area Power Administration, which markets power from the main stem dams along the Missouri River, has ensured a consistent and affordable supply of electricity. The program is being run on a sound financial basis, as it recovers all expenses relating to its annual operation and the initial construction expenses, with interest. Under the current system, rates are set at the lowest possible cost, consistent with sound business principles, and to ensure that these financial objectives are met. If this power marketing administration is sold, then it is likely that rates will increase substantially. The assets could well be purchased by out-of-State financial interests, who likely will set rates to maximize profit. Electric rates for existing Federal power customers will rise as a result. South Dakotans and customers from other States served by power marketing administrations will pay higher costs for power, and much of that money will go to the out-of-State financial interests who bankroll these purchases. The Western Area Power Administration is a program that works. It provides affordable power to states like South Dakota, and it does so without any subsidy. The Federal Government gets a return on its investment. In short, it is an unquestioned success. It is a program that we should hold up as an example of how the Federal Government can work for the people and the national economy. In conclusion, Mr. President, the sale of the Alaska Power Administration should not be viewed as a precedent for the sale of other power administrations. The situation in Alaska is unique. It is very different from the situation with the other PMA's, such as Western, where there is strong public opposition to the sale and where Senators are on record opposing the sale. I have received well over 10,000 letters in opposition to this sale and 2 in favor of it. And while sheer numbers can never determine the merits of any program, I am inclined to believe that people generally know what is best for themselves. Given the almost certain rate increases that would accompany the sale of the Western Area Power Administration and others in the lower 48, and the potential for out-of-State ownership and, thus, the export of State resources, it is not a policy that I can support. I hope that my colleagues will be willing to recognize that the Alaska sale does not set any sort of precedent for the sale of other power marketing administrations, and support my amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator for yielding. I just ask for a moment to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Vermont, as well as the other Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy. Obviously, Vermont has had a very good experience with flow control. It has been able to promote programs for recycling and disposal of household hazardous waste. This amendment recognizes that fact and address the issue of flow control as it pertains to these Vermont programs. It recognizes that Vermont may be unique in this regard and gives that state the opportunity to continue to make those programs work. That is all we are saying with this amendment. Let us give Vermont a little more flexibility. Let us defer to that State with regard to flow control, if it is going to be able to respond to this issue effectively. So I applaud the Senator's amendment. I certainly hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support it. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am fortunate to come from a State with beautiful land in this country. States like South Dakota have a special interest in the legislation before the Senate today, as it will directly affect their future. The legislation, S. 534, amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide important authority for States and local governments to better control the transportation of municipal solid waste between and within States. The time has come to enact this legislation. States and local government are facing increasing challenges in the responsible regulation of municipal waste management. Interstate shipments of waste have been growing in recent years. Between 1990 and 1992, interstate shipments of waste grew by 4 million tons--a 25% increase. Currently, about 15 million tons of municipal waste is transported between States for treatment and disposal, much of it from densely populated regions to less populated areas. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that unless Congress acts on this issue, States and local governments can have no meaningful role in controlling the movement of waste into and within their borders. The combination of increasing interstate shipments of municipal waste and recent Supreme Court decisions understandably has created concern among States like South Dakota, who fear that without authority to restrict unwanted imports of municipal waste, they will become the dumping ground for other, more heavily populated areas. In addition, Congress has a responsibility to help protect the investments made by towns across America in municipal waste management facilities--investments that have been placed in jeopardy by the Supreme Court's recent Carbone decision. The temptation can be great to ship waste to the more remote regions of our country. But some of these lands are fragile and are home to some of our country's greatest natural assets. In South Dakota alone, the geological wonderland of the Badlands, the expansive prairie, and the majestic Black Hills are examples of areas that deserve protection from the designs of anyone who would use them for waste disposal. The responsibility for disposing trash produced by large urban areas should be confronted and met by the citizens and community leaders who live there. Rural States should never be considered as a waste management option, unless they willingly choose to make their land available for that purpose. In the end, the choice must belong to the State and local governments that would bear the long-term environmental consequences of waste disposal. This bill addresses the rights and responsibilities of States and local governments to achieve their own environmental and economic objectives. It is about State and local self-determination. The interstate waste provisions of this bill represent a delicate balance between States that import and export waste. It is a step in the right direction because it encourages States to take responsibility for managing the waste they generate, rather than sending it elsewhere. Out of sight and out of mind will not work when it comes to management of municipal solid waste, particularly if it means leaving it within the sight and on the minds of those who do not want it. Reduce, reuse, and recycle is a better solution. It represents a philosophy that more States will have to adopt as a result of this bill. Like most legislation, this bill will not completely satisfy the objectives of every State or local government. Some States, like South Dakota, would like, and I believe deserve, even greater authority to prevent imports of waste. Other States, which with an interest in exporting municipal waste, would prefer to see fewer restrictions. Likewise, I am aware that while there are cities and towns that would prefer to have greater and more enduring authority to regulate flow control, there are Members of this body who feel that the free and unfettered competition of the marketplace should be given a greater opportunity to determine the flow of municipal waste. This bill strikes a reasonable balance between these competing interests, one that I believe is essential if we are to move forward and enact meaningful legislation. It gives States and local governments the ability to promote their own environmental goals and meet important financial obligations. We must pilot a course of responsible stewardship of our resources. This bill gives States and cities the power to do just that, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important and timely legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, earlier today Senator McConnell suggested on the Senate floor that the President's trip to Moscow has been a wasted effort--that there has not been a shred of progress made there. I do not want anyone who may have been listening to that statement to be misled by it, for, in my view, it simply is not accurate. It is important to review the reasons President Clinton went to Moscow and to assess his trip to Moscow--which is not yet over--with those goals in mind. The President went to Moscow to honor the sacrifices of the Russian people to defeat the Nazis and fascism in World War II. Russians lost approximately 20 million people in that war--more than any other Nation. With the end of the cold war, this is the United States first opportunity to convey our appreciation. Our policy's to seek better relations not only with the Russian Government, but with the Russian people as well to help democracy take root there. The President also went to Moscow to pursue discussion on key issues. The United States expectations were low, and our progress has exceeded those expectations. Among the accomplishments so far--and I emphasize that the trip continues tomorrow--are: First, with respect to European Security, the Russians agreed to implement two Partnership for Peace agreements that are important to realize our goal of a comprehensive system of security in Europe. Second, on the issue of theater missile defenses. The Russians agreed to a Statement of Principles that preserves the ABM Treaty and enables us to proceed with deployment of theater missile defense systems. Third, the Russians agreed not to provide a gas centrifuge enrichment facility to Iran and to continue to review and discuss the proposed sale of light-water reactors. That review will be through a special group created at the March ministerial meeting of Secretary Christopher and Foreign Minister Kozyrev. Fourth, President Clinton secured an agreement with respect to nuclear materials to enable both countries to cooperate to ensure the safe storage of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons materials. Finally, agreement was reached on a statement to guide economic relations between the two countries that is important to our efforts to keep the Russian economic reforms on track. So, in my view, a substantial degree of progress has been made with regard to Iran, with regard to the ABM Treaty, with regard to a number of issues relating to European security. And, as I indicated, the trip continues. That list of substantive accomplishments is impressive; to expect more from one trip is, frankly, unrealistic. Overall, the progress is indicative of the continuing interest of both countries to cooperate where we can and manage our differences constructively. We should not judge this relationship or this meeting against an arbitrary scorecard, and we must not forget that this is not the old Soviet Union. This is a process to develop our relationship with the new Russia--again, not just its government, but also its people; to build on the potential that resides within that relationship that must be rooted in democracy and a mature and balanced dialog. It is an important relationship, and the President is wise to invest in it. I applaud his efforts, and the fact that he has accomplished as much as he has in the last 2 days. If you asked me to summarize in a word or two what happened today, I would say that we advanced the security interests of the people of the United States and the people of Russia. I should also note that, regarding Chechnya, the President spoke out strongly and publicly against Russian action in Chechnya at an event at Moscow State University. He has made clear to President Yeltsin and to the Russian people the United States position. Tomorrow he will meet with opposition leaders and with the family of Fred Cuny, the American aid worker still missing in Chechnya. So I would say the President certainly went to Russia knowing we have serious differences with Russia, but committed to the essential process of supporting democratic roots and institutions in Russia and developing our relationship with the Russian people. The list of accomplishments is impressive, and the trip continues. I only hope that in the interest of ensuring the greatest degree of success, at least until he returns, we give him the greatest benefit of the doubt, that we offer him our support, that we send the right message to the Russian people that we stand behind this President as he negotiates, as he continues to confront the many very perplexing issues that we must address in our complicated relationship with the people of Russia and certainly Russian leadership. So, again, I must say I think in 2 days it is remarkable the President has developed the list of accomplishments he has. I hope we could continue to add to that list in the remaining time the President spends in Russia. It was a trip well spent. It was a trip I think we can look on with some satisfaction. I hope as the President continues to travel we can demonstrate our support for him and for his efforts, and wish him well as he continues. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as this morning business.

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, I want to commend so many Senators on both sides of the aisle for their efforts over the last couple of weeks on product liability. This has been a vigorous debate, and a debate that obviously has required a good deal of compromise and concession on both sides. I believe there was another opportunity that we could have had to reach greater consensus on the bill, and I am sorry we missed that opportunity in the final days of this debate. But I do believe that as a result of the decisions made by this body over clear. The message is this: Members of the Senate are not willing to accept the extreme measures that have been proposed by the House. If those more extreme measures are added to the bill in conference, it is very unlikely that anything will ultimately pass. It is critical, as we look to the conference report, that we keep this bill modest, that we not load it up with expansionist amendments, that we seek to ensure that what has been passed is all that comes back to the Senate. I will say unequivocally that I believe this legislation will again be in trouble if it comes back vastly different from what it is right now. Many of us felt very strongly we could have improved upon this bill, especially with regard to punitive limits and with regard to the limitations on joint and several liability. For many of us who opposed the bill, there were provisions that we supported and would have liked to have been able to vote for, but, unfortunately, we could not resolve the issues that, in our view, were still too onerous to support. But let me say, in spite of the fact that there was a very strong vote, that vote is directly dependent upon the degree to which the more extreme measures that were initially added are kept off the bill. We do not want to see them when this comes back. We will continue to fight this in a consequential way if they do come back, and I hope that that message was loud and clear. I was very pleased with the comments made by both Senators Rockefeller and Gorton yesterday as they commented about what they expect to see in conference. Senator Gorton said that he does not think there is one semicolon that is negotiable, and I think that is an accurate reflection of where the Senate stands. So, indeed, we passed a piece of legislation today that may reflect the views of three-fifths of the Senate, but I think that it is a very tenuous victory, depending upon what may or may not occur in the conference report. So we look to that at some point in the future. But I must say that while those on both sides of the aisle who supported the legislation can claim victory, I think it is also important that they appreciate how tenuous that victory is and how important it is that we come back to the floor with something meaningful, something narrow and focused, and something that directly addresses the concerns raised on this floor for the last 2 weeks. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I wish the President a good morning. I want to comment briefly on the series of votes that we will be taking this morning. As the distinguished acting majority leader indicated, there will be a cloture vote this morning. I think in that regard it is important for people to understand the current circumstances. Senator Dole has offered an amendment. Senator Rockefeller and Senator Gorton have also offered an amendment, a substitute. We will have the opportunity at some point to vote on those. I would hope people will vote against cloture again this morning simply to preserve the options that we think are going to be very important, if indeed we reach a compromise here. I think we are getting closer now in the last 48 hours to meaningful compromise. In that regard, let me specifically single out the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his remarkable efforts to bring people together, to attempt to find a way to resolve the outstanding differences. He and the distinguished Senator from Washington, Senator Gorton, have done an extraordinary job in the last couple of days in addressing many of the concerns that people have raised. I think we are now beginning to come together in a way that will accommodate some of the concerns that have been raised during the last couple of weeks. I know that others, as well, have concluded that a compromise is within reach. My distinguished colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, has also been working on ways to accommodate some of these concerns and bring all sides together. days talked with people on both sides of the aisle in an effort to try to reach a compromise on punitive damages, on joint and several liability, on the statute of repose. I think we are at a point now where we may be able to resolve these outstanding issues in a way that will facilitate a compromise and ultimately bring Members to a resolution on this issue. In order to allow the Senator time to discuss this particular compromise, I would like to yield the balance of my leader time to Senator Breaux. Again, I commend Senator Breaux for his effort in this regard. I believe that he may have found a way with which to bridge the differences and provide Members with an opportunity to resolve the many outstanding issues that still exist. With that, Mr. President, I yield the balance of my time to Senator Breaux.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today marks the 50th anniversary of V-E Day, the day that saw the end of the Second World War in Europe. From its European beginning on September 1, 1939, with Hitler's invasion of Poland, to the surrender of the German armies in Italy, on April 29, 1945, the war that was supposed to usher in the 1,000-Year Reich ended after 6 years of death, genocide, and destruction on a scale never seen before or since. The outcome of the war changed our world profoundly, with effects that still resonate today. It left the United States the sole undamaged world power. With that status came responsibilities that most Americans had not imagined at the outset. In the 50 postwar years, those responsibilities have demanded more in American treasure and lives than from any other participant. European and Japanese cities suffered the destruction of repeated artillery fire and massive carpet bombing. European civilians found themselves uprooted, fleeing desperately from their historic hometowns as massive armies moved back and forth across frontiers. But Americans paid a price, too. By 1990, it is estimated that the total cost of the Second World War to the United States had reached $4.6 trillion--including the postwar cost of veterans care and benefits. The cost of caring for our veterans is a cost of war, and should be recognized as such, lest we forget, decades later, the price of [[Page S6235]] war in the form of our greatest treasure--our young men and women who served. In total, more than 16 million American men and women served their Nation in World War II. More than 291,000 paid the ultimate price on the field of combat; 113,000 others died of wounds, accidents, illness--all the risks and dangers that attend service in wartime. All told, more than 405,000 American lives were cut short by the war. Another 670,000 Americans were casualties in that war--men and women who returned with their health damaged, their bodies scarred, their lives changed. Tens of thousands from every State in the Nation served in the Second World War. South Dakota, one of the Nation's least populous States, sent an estimated 60,000 men and women to fight. A postwar review in 1950 estimated that more than 10 percent of the South Dakotans who served earned citations for personal bravery, military valor, and, in three case, the highest military honor our Nation grants, the award for service ``above and beyond the call of duty,'' the Congressional Medal of Honor. The Medal of Honor is the decoration of which Harry Truman said he would rather have earned than be President. Two of the three South Dakotans who won the Medal of Honor served in the Pacific War and returned home after the war. One, Joe Foss, became Governor of South Dakota. The third South Dakotan awarded the Medal of Honor served in the European theater. He died there, having established a record that is outstanding, even compared with his peers. Capt. Arlo L. Olson, of Toronto, South Dakota, served in the Italian campaign in 1943. For 26 grueling days in the mountainous terrain northeast of Naples, he led his company by foot across the Volturno River into enemy-held territory, directly into enemy machine gun emplacement in some of the roughest fighting experienced by any American units in the war. He was shot on October 27, 1943, but refused medical treatment until his men had been taken care of. He died as he was being carried down Monte San Nicola. The citations honoring South Dakotans are stirring. Harold G. Howey, in July 1943 in Sicily, faced a cliff fortified by the enemy and fought his way to the top under intense enemy fire despite his wounds. He won the Distinguished Service Cross and the Bronze Star Medal for his actions. David Colombe of Winner leapt into a German foxhole, armed only with a knife, seized an enemy rifle and worked his way behind enemy lines, demoralizing the withdrawing soldiers with heavy fire and leading to the collapse of their defense. His Distinguished Service Cross was well earned. Like other Americans, South Dakotans were captured. Melvin McNickle, one of the famous McNickle brothers of Doland, both of whom earned the Legion of Merit, maintained morale and discipline and preserved the lives of his fellow internees for 2 years in Stalag Luft III in Germany. The hometowns of the men and women from South Dakota who fought in the war span the length and breadth of the State. They came from Sioux Falls and Rapid City, Aberdeen and Buffalo, Belle Fourche and Doland, Milbank and Spearfish. They bore names that reflect the history of our State--Jorgenson, Novotny, Lauer, Kilbride, Rossow, Thompson, Fischer, Haag, Labesky, McGregor, Adams, Bianchi, Soissons, Zweifel--the people who settled South Dakota and became proud Americans from every corner of the Earth. Many of them fought on ground their fathers had called home. South Dakotans take special pride in the heroism and courage of those like David Colombe of Winner, Vincent Hunts Horse of Wounded Knee--who won the Silver Star for the part he played in helping the United States Army capture Gondorf in Germany--and Sampson One Skunk, who took part in the raid on Dieppe in 1942 and the first attack on Anzio, and won the Silver Star for his exploits. They are part of a proud and honorable tradition of native Americans who have served courageously and honorably in every U.S. conflict, from the Revolutionary War onward. Last year Congress finally approved legislation to establish a national memorial acknowledging and honoring the heroism and service of native Americans in combat. The Native American Veterans' Memorial will pay an overdue tribute to those who served their Nation, even when their Nation did not serve them--to those who fought under the U.S. flag before they were even granted citizenship themselves in 1924. Our Lakota-speaking people played an additional role in the Second World War, one that is now as well known as it deserves to be. They, like Navajo and Choctaw speaking native Americans, were the famous code talkers of the war--the people who manned the radio communications in native languages that no code-breaker or cipher specialist could decode, because language has no breakable code. There is a monument in Phoenix, AZ, to the code talkers of the Navajo Nation. But there were others besides them. The Lakota speakers of the Sioux Nations of South Dakota and neighboring States were responsible for the safety and lives of thousands of their fellow Americans in combat. Philip LaBlanc, of Rapid City, served with the 1st Cavalry Division from 1942 to 1945. Others--Baptiste Pumpkinseed, Oglala or Redbud Sioux, Eddie Eagle Boy of the Cheyenne River Sioux, Guy Rondell of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Dakota Nation, John Bear King of Standing Rock--all of them and their comrades manned radio communications networks, using Lakota, to advise of enemy troop movements, numbers of enemy guns, information crucial to saving the lives of other Americans. These men worked 24 hours around the clock in headphones when the action was heaviest, without rest or sleep. Most famously, they served in the Pacific theater, but there were code talkers in the Italian and German theaters in Europe as well. Their work saved the lives of countless other Americans. Along with the Navajo and Choctaw code talkers, the Lakota code talkers deserve their own page in our national memory of the world war. Philip LaBlanc himself served for 3 years without a single furlough. He left theater operations only after being hit and wounded by enemy gunfire. As well as the men who manned the combat fronts in the war, the Second World War was the first one in which American women played a significant role. They did so both at home and abroad. Although the myth is that the enemy declared total war, it was America who, in fact, declared total war. While Hitler imported slave laborers from Eastern Europe to work for the German housewife, American women ran the factories that were the arsenal of democracy. American women enlisted in support battalions of all kinds on active duty as well. South Dakotan women were no exception. Edith Bolan of Rapid City raised three children, and worked as a welder during the war. It was her task to crawl into the small spaces that men could not reach to put the finishing touches on Navy ships. She made casings for bombs. She led the life that so many other American women, from coast to coast, experienced in the war. Those who served on the homefront did not get the medals and citations of those serving in combat. But their work and dedication were every bit as important to the final victory. So was the work of the women closer to the frontlines. Loretta Hartrich, a native of Sioux Falls, served with the Red Cross in the so-called clubmobiles that traveled with the frontline troops, serving coffee, doughnuts, and morale to the men at the front. The clubmobiles were often in harm's way, and the women who ran them risked death and entrapment when a fast-moving front shifted. Loretta remembers being asked to sing the ``Indian Love Call'' and having every repetition of ``when I'm calling you'' punctuated by German artillery. American women served as nurses in rear units and on the front, landing on Normandy 4 days after the first Allied troops. They served in communications, administrative, and intelligence work throughout the duration of the war, and they, too, have earned the proud title of veteran. Today, those once-young men and women are the proud veterans of service in what many have called the last good war. I understand what those words are meant to convey, but for [[Page S6236]] those who saw active duty, who saw friends die, who felt the sheer brutality of heavy artillery attack or the random terror of combat on unknown, rough terrain against a well-trained and ruthless opponent, there was no good war. Our cause was good, and it triumphed. But we triumphed at terrible personal cost to those Americans who served. Some of our Senate colleagues served, and some bear the outward scars. Senator Inouye, of Hawaii, served with the most decorated unit in the military in Italy campaign, and paid a high price for his valor. Senator Dole served in Italy with great honor at enormous personal price. The veterans of the war who still serve in Congress were honored last week at a ceremony at the National Archives. I am proud to serve in the Senate with all of them, and I express my sense of respect for their service, my gratitude as a citizen for their sacrifices, and my great pride, as an American, for the spirit they and their colleagues in arms showed the world more than 50 years ago. Great celebrations have occurred in the old Allied capitals in Europe to celebrate V-E Day. Another great celebration will be held in Moscow, to celebrate the end of what the Russians call the Great Patriotic War. In America, there are no huge celebrations. We were the arsenal of democracy in that war, the productive force without which it might not have been won by the Allies. Our people suffered death and injury far from home, for causes and quarrels in which they had no direct stake. The distance of 50 years does not erase the genuine hardship, difficulties, and pain they suffered or the price many of them paid. It was not a good war because there are no good wars for those in the line of fire. Like every war, it was vicious, uncaring of life, random in its accidents and mistakes, brutal for its participants. And yet Americans served, and did so with distinction. We ought to take pause to take great pride in the kind of people we are, and to honor the memories of those who paid the ultimate price. Those who served have done more for their fellow citizens and for the future than any words can describe. They are American heroes, one and all, and we salute them. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of V-E Day, I am proud to submit a resolution honoring a special group of World War II veterans, the code talkers of the Lakota and Dakota tribes. In the early days of World War II, American radio codes were continually being broken by Japanese cryptographers, placing American lives at great risk. That changed with the code talkers, who used their native American Indian languages to communicate and relay critical communications. It was a code the Japanese could not decipher. The heroic efforts of the Lakota and Dakota code talkers saved many lives. And it was just one of the many ways in which native Americans served their Nation with great honor and distinction and valor during World War II. On December 1941, there were approximately 5,000 American Indians in the armed service. By the end of the war, more than 44,500 American Indians served in uniform. Indeed, more than 10 percent of all native Americans, alive at the time served in World War II. In 1982, Congress and a Presidential proclamation recognized the heroic contributions of the Navajo code talkers and their communication efforts during World War II. Today, let us also recognize the patriotic efforts of the Lakota code talkers who served in the same line of duty. And let us say to them ``pilamayapelo,'' thank you. I yield the floor. So the resolution was agreed to.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, are we still in morning business?

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, since the terrible bombing in Oklahoma City more than 2 weeks ago, we have been forced to consider what the society should do in self-defense against potentially deadly maniacs who think that killing defenseless people is a way to send a political message or effect political change. This is an enduring challenge for a democracy. We have faced it before. There is no easy answer. We cannot afford to give the terrorists what they want to achieve-- the subversion of our free institutions--in the effort to prevent their terrorist acts. But we cannot remain complacent in the face of determined threats either. The President has sent to Congress his proposal to give Federal law enforcement additional resources and tools to use in combating domestic and international terrorism on American soil. It includes commonsense expansion of FBI investigative authorities in counterterrorism cases, such as access to credit reports and travel and hotel records, which are routinely available to State and local law enforcement authorities in criminal investigations. It will speed the process of adding chemical taggants to explosives, as well as moving more aggressively into taggant and related explosives research. It will expand the FBI's ability to use trace-and-track devices and pen registers to capture the phone numbers dialed from or coming in to a particular telephone. It does not abandon the requirement of American law that no phone may be tapped without an explicit warrant, issued only when there is probable cause to suspect criminal activity. The package of proposals includes added penalties and some broader Federal felony offenses, whose purpose is to conform the law with respect to explosives to the existing law that covers firearms. Coupled with the President's earlier antiterrorism bill directed at international terrorism, this is a sound step to respond to a national threat without throwing overboard the civil rights of law-abiding citizens. The consensus of those who work in this field is that, although the cold war is over, the war against terrorism is just beginning. Experts make some chilling--and compelling--arguments. In the century preceding the Oklahoma City bombing, although terrorist groups were numerous, and although horrible murders, kidnapings, and other crimes by them were frequent, there were fewer than a dozen terrorist attacks that cost more than 100 lives. There is reason to fear, according to experts, that this trend is shifting. Where once terrorists would take hostages and threaten the lives of 1 or 2 or 20 people if their demands were not met, they no longer issue specific demands. They take fewer and fewer hostages. Instead, they attack more soft targets, where civilian casualties are bound to be higher. They are aiming less at a particular demand and more at terrorizing the entire society. They build more car bombs and undertake more suicide attacks; they attack civilians in crowds--airplanes, subways, and office buildings. They make fewer explicit demands, but their broader demands are more apocalyptic. If this trend continues, instead of a cold war atmosphere of threat and counterthreat, of massive nuclear stockpiles poised to strike each other's targets, we face the prospect of random violence--impossible to predict, impossible to counter, impossible to explain. A civilized society can live with many fears. We lived with the fear of nuclear holocaust for almost 50 years, yet our society became freer throughout that time. The great advances in civil rights and protections against Government were postwar. But no civilized society will survive the threat of random terror. It cannot. We must be able to feel secure as we travel to our workplaces each day, as we sit at our desks or man our service counters--that we will end the day predictably, by going home, making dinner, performing the normal pattern of tasks and duties we face. If we ever reach the point where randomized terror can paralyze us, can make Americans distrust each other--distrust the safety of the next few hours--the terrorists will have won, because we will be what they want us to be: an atomized nation, without community, without security, without anything except fear for immediate individual survival. That is where these people want to take us. We have to combat this, without becoming savages, without losing our perspective, without succumbing to paralyzing fear. It is not going to be easy. If the experts are right, and apocalyptic terrorism is what the future holds, we will face challenges our system has never before been forced to face. We will have to ask ourselves questions that we have never before raised. A growing number of terrorist groups believe they are fighting a holy war. That change has changed the nature of what they are prepared to do, the risks they themselves are prepared to run, and the damage they are prepared to inflict. This change presents us, as a society, with a challenge as well. Americans are of diverse faiths, but we are among the We respect the faith of others, and we respect the demands of their religion. Our respect for religious belief is not enshrined only in our first amendment. It is an instinctive American habit not to second- guess the faith of your neighbor. And yet, if terrorism comes claiming religious sanction, we have to face it. And this bill will help us. Since 1990, 40 percent of all terrorist acts worldwide have been committed explicitly against American targets. That is, in large part, because the success of our society is a standing refutation of the beliefs of many of these groups. Unless our system can be destroyed, their vision cannot be vindicated. This is believed by domestic groups as well as groups overseas. Reports that some Americans think they have to shoot down military helicopters on routine training missions are surfacing. A Member of Congress has even proposed requiring Federal law enforcement agents to be formally deputized by local authorities before they can carry out their responsibilities. Reports of threats against local officials have discouraged involvement in local government meetings in some regions. I do not believe that words alone cause terrorist acts. I do not think anyone seriously believes so. But I do believe that a culture is comprised of many factors, feeding into its hopes and fears, and I do believe that a culture changes as the factors feeding its hopes and playing on its fears change. When people in the mainstream become careless with words, they breach barriers that create a new set of assumptions. Barriers, once breached, are permeable in both directions. The lunacy of the fringe enters the mainstream even as the careless or calculated words of the mainstream create a new defining normalcy. Senator Moynihan has spoken about a society that redefines deviancy. Those aggressively seeking to make their mark on our society should examine how they are defining normalcy. We are warned by the Tokyo subway bombing earlier this year that weapons of mass destruction need not be explosives. Easily manufactured chemical and biological weapons can be as deadly and effective when the goal is to terrorize a community. Before it collapsed, the Soviet Union operated the largest biological warfare production facility in the world, employing 15,000 scientists. These people had developed a form of bubonic plague that was resistant to 26 antibiotics, a form of fast-spreading meningitis, agents that could be introduced into water systems or into the air in climate- controlled buildings. Today, these people face the economic collapse of the system that supported them as highly paid and privileged specialists. All they need to re-create their deadly work is carried in their own brains. The temptation to sell that knowledge outside of Russian borders cannot be ignored at a time when the value of their monthly wages has fallen to less than $70. Again, this threat is not limited to international terrorists. In August 1994, our own FBI arrested two members of a group calling itself the Patriots' Council in Minneapolis. This group was concocting ricin, a neurotoxin that can be produced from the common castor bean plant. An equally deadly potential is the contamination of a conventional bomb with radioactivity. Since May 1994, there have been 39 separate incidents of nuclear materials diversion in Eastern and Southern Europe. It is not necessary for radioactive material to be made into an explosive device like a bomb. The contamination of a conventional bomb with radioactive materials is simpler; its terrifying effect would be as great. These threats are not speculative. Unfortunately, they are all too real. We cannot and must not succumb to the temptation of regarding everyone with oddball notions as a potential threat. But, unfortunately, neither can we write off all oddballs as harmless. It is the goal of the President's counterterrorism approach that we be able to make the distinctions between the harmless and the potentially dangerous before the dangerous are able to strike again, not afterward. I believe it is a balanced package of proposals that does not go too far. We should pass this legislation promptly, without detouring into the partisan political minefields some have suggested. Curtailing the appellate rights of prisoners on death row is not going to change the murderous intentions of terrorist groups. The extraneous politically motivated inclusion of these kinds of provisions does a disservice to the cause of counterterrorism. It does not move us forward; it is intentionally and purposefully divisive. I very much regret that this is on the agenda of some in the wake of a national tragedy. I would hope that these issues could be abandoned for the time being, out of respect for the families of the victims of the Oklahoma bombing and so that we may enact the necessary counterterrorism legislation expeditiously. We have plenty of time for politics later. This is a time that demands unity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.