Tom Daschle

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, the day after the tragic bombing in Oklahoma City, when it became more evident that the terrorist attack was launched by Americans, President Clinton said he would seek prompt action on counterterrorism proposals he had already made, and promised to develop additional tools for Federal law enforcement to use. Yesterday evening, the President hosted a meeting of the bipartisan congressional leadership to present his proposals and ask for timely, bipartisan consideration and enactment. The President's proposals result from the well-considered experience of Federal law enforcement officials. They are designed to provide the additional legal authority Government needs to effectively combat terrorism, whether domestic or foreign. These additional authorities will give Federal law enforcement agencies tools to combat terrorism more effectively without undermining or curtailing the constitutional rights of law-abiding American citizens. Briefly, the proposal would extend the authority the FBI now has in national security cases to access credit reports and financial data for counterterrorism investigations. The same standards as now apply in routine criminal cases would be used in counterterrorism cases for the orders that permit the FBI to use pen registers and trap-and-trace devices in investigations. These devices are not wiretaps; they simply capture phone numbers dialed, like a caller ID device that many people use in their own homes. It would require hotel and motel operators and common carriers to provide records to the FBI for national security cases as they now routinely do for State and local law enforcement purposes. It would fully fund the costs of implementing the digital telephony law, so that the ability of law enforcement to carry out court- authorized electronic surveillance would not be impeded by the shift to digital transmissions. It would add 1,000 additional agents, prosecutors, and other personnel to increase the resources devoted to counterterrorism investigations, and establish an interagency counterterrorism center that would make sure the information and expertise of all Federal law enforcement agencies in this field are properly integrated in investigations. It includes practical issues such as the requirement that chemical taggants be included in the raw materials from which explosive charges are created. This is essential to tracing the sources of such explosions as the one in Oklahoma City in the future. Additionally, the proposal would enhance the penalties for crimes related to explosives, and directed against Federal employees. The proposal has been released by the White House, so all my colleagues have the opportunity to review these proposals in detail. In addition, the President asked that we approve the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, legislation which is primarily directed at foreign terrorists. This package of proposals, along with the existing legislation, are carefully designed to give additional tools to law enforcement without weakening in any way the constitutional rights of any American. The President has been particularly clear that we will fight against terrorists at home and abroad with all constitutional tools. Anything less would give the terrorists the victory over us that they seek: They would have destroyed the fundamental rule of law in our country. As Americans, we all understand that we cannot and must not allow the cowardly attack on civilian Federal workers to incite us to such anger that we take shortcuts with American citizens' rights. The President's proposals are sound, moderate, and effective. They reflect the advice of practical, hands-on law enforcement agents who have experience in this field. They deserve careful and thorough review by the Congress, and they deserve timely enactment. It had been the President's hope, and mine as well, that on this matter, where there is truly broad agreement across partisan lines, the Congress could work in a bipartisan fashion to enact this package of security enhancements in the not too distant future. I also hoped that we could have a bipartisan, narrowly tailored package of proposals that could be enacted without divisive debates over controversial issues of long standing. I believe that the American people expect us to put partisanship and political advantage aside and respond with unity to the immediate and urgent needs of Federal law enforcement agencies. Last night, at the meeting with the President, there was every indication that there would be a bipartisan, focused proposal on which Congress and the President could agree to move us forward in the effort to combat terrorism. Each of us in attendance pledged our support toward that end. Regrettably, today the majority leader introduced a bill that threatens to slow our progress and mire the Senate in divisive, partisan, rhetorical debate. Americans know that we can and undoubtedly will debate matters such as habeus corpus reform later this year. We have debated the issue in virtually every Congress in the past decade. But that debate involves persons who are already incarcerated with no chance for parole and who no longer pose a threat to society. I think this is a time when we should instead be concentrating on measures that will have an effect on those who may be planning an attack, and from whom we are not at all safe, as the bombing in Oklahoma City so dramatically proved last week. I sincerely hope prompt action on these needed law enforcement tools will not be held hostage to political priorities. I believe Americans expect more of us. I know the Federal workers who lost their lives and their children certainly deserve that and more.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate your recognition. I would like to use my leader time to make a statement on the pending resolution prior to the time to take our vote.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 7 days ago, a brutal attack on a Federal office building in Oklahoma City left over 80 people dead, more than 400 injured, and a city and Nation shaken to its core. On Sunday, the Nation observed a day of mourning. All Americans joined President Clinton, the families of victims, and the people of Oklahoma City in thought and prayer at the memorial service. With them, we thanked and honored the brave men and women who have aided in the rescue efforts at the bomb site. It was an added tragedy to learn Sunday that one of the rescuers, a nurse, lost her own life in the course of helping others. The swift and efficient work of FBI and other Federal law enforcement in apprehending suspects reinforces the well-earned reputation of those agencies. Terrorists must know that no matter who they are, domestic or foreign, there is no place to hide from the reach of our law. President Clinton has made clear that those who committed this act will be pursued, found, convicted, and punished to the full extent of the law. He has the support of every law-biding American in that determination. An act of terror--the intentional murder of innocent men, women, and small children--shattered the sense of security that Americans have enjoyed in an increasingly violent world. Our world has made us all vulnerable to the deranged and to the enraged. No one's security can be guaranteed against people determined to attack, to kill, to pursue their mad plans, Security cannot be guaranteed against those who have no concern for human life. But that does not mean we are doomed to give in to the forces of insanity or mad rage. The human world has always been one of risks and dangers. Throughout human history, violence has erupted in wars and between individuals; human beings have been at risk from the forces of nature, from disease and accident. Today's violence and terrorism come into our homes through television images. They have an impact that written reports of battles and tornadoes could never have. No sooner had Wednesday's bombing been reported than scores of faked bomb threats began to be received from coast to coast. Federal buildings in Kansas City; Miami; Portland, OR; Dayton and Steubenville, OH; Casper, WY, and Boise, ID, were closed. In Omaha, the Zorinsky Federal Building was closed, and its day center emptied, by a bomb threat. Television and wire service stories reported all these threats and others. No wonder Americans all over the country immediately felt at risk. The immediacy of live television, the awful images of wounded, bleeding, shaking people staggering out of the Federal building in Oklahoma City made every American watching a participant in this hideous tragedy. No one who saw the small children covered with blood, dazed and bewildered, will ever forget their eyes. The deaths and injuries, have brutalized families all across America. A young woman from Spearfish, SD, serving in the Air Force, is among the missing. Married just 4 days before the bombing, she left her duty station at Tinker Air Force Base on Wednesday morning to go to the Social Security office in the Federal building in Oklahoma City to register her married name, and she has not been found. Her father, David Koch of Rapid City, her high school classmates from the 1993 graduating class at Spearfish High, and all who knew her have been devastated by this terrorist attack. That is true for literally hundreds of families and people nationwide. The immediacy of television brings us closer together as a Nation mourning national tragedies, but it also makes each of us feel less safe, less secure in our daily lives. We should not let ourselves forget that outbreaks of insane violence have occurred before. In 1927, for instance, a Michigan farmer unable to pay his property taxes bombed a school full of children, killing more than 40, because he blamed the construction of the school for his high property taxes. Incidents like that were not as frequent in a smaller, younger nation. But they did not occur and despite the fact that they occurred, Americans in every generation remained true to the constitutional structure of Government that has given us the world's most free society. We need to remember this fact, as my colleagues from Oklahoma said so eloquently this morning, of our history in the face of the Oklahoma City tragedy. This act of terrorism will have achieved a purpose if it robs Americans of their sense of security. It will have achieved a purpose if it leads us to respond irrationally. It will have achieved a purpose if public discourse turns to invective. The deaths and injuries caused by the bombing of the Federal building must not be allowed to rip apart the fabric of our society. The resolution the Senate is about to pass expresses the outrage and sadness of the Senate and the American people with respect to the bombing in Oklahoma City. It commends all those involved in the rescue efforts and the investigation. It offers our sincere condolences to all those who lost family members and friends in, and all those who were injured by, the bombing. I want to clarify one point with respect to the resolution. It states correctly that the law authorizes the death penalty for terrorist murderers. Although the death penalty is not a sentencing option for those convicted of the World Trade Center bombing, the 1994 crime bill, which was enacted after the World Trade Center bombing, does provide for the death penalty in cases such as the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City. The resolution also expresses support for the President's and the Attorney General's statements that Federal prosecutors will seek the maximum punishment allowed by law for those convicted of the bombing. While some Senators support the death penalty for certain crimes and others oppose the death penalty as a matter of principle, there is a strong belief among all Senators that the apprehension, prosecution, and punishment of those who commit heinous crimes such as this one should be pursued as aggressively as possible. That belief is reflected in the strong support for this resolution. Of course, words can never express the depth of our emotions at a time like this. Furthermore, our national response must be multifaceted. We have to relearn the hard fact that our technologically advanced society has created new ways to make us vulnerable. And it will never be possible to develop enough technological security to make us invulnerable. Metal detectors and x-ray machines, and electronic ID cards all have their place in necessary security actions. But the bombing in Oklahoma City proves that you need not even enter a building to blow it up. At the same time, we must become more vigilant and more aware. The number of bombing incidents in the United States has gone up more than fourfold in the last decade. In 1983, the FBI reported 683 bombing incidents. In 1993, the last year for which complete figures are available, the FBI reported 2,980 bombing incidents. Few Americans realize this, but in an increasingly violent and fragmented world, we cannot afford to be complacent. There are some steps we can take to respond more forcefully and pro-actively to the threat of terrorism, whether it is home-grown or comes from abroad. intelligence resources that may help detect potential terrorist attacks before they can be consummated. We should take up and pass President Clinton's anti-terrorism proposals. We should determine what additional tools the FBI and other law enforcement agencies may need to carry out their missions. We should examine proposals for improved visa tracking of overseas visitors to the United States, so that those who overstay their visa time cannot simply vanish into society without a trace. We should take steps to alter our asylum procedures, so that those legitimately seeking political refuge can be admitted, while those using asylum backlogs as a pretext are not allowed to stay indefinitely, but let us remember, as well, that this tragedy was not the work of overseas terrorists, but of Americans, people who enjoyed the great freedom our Nation offers. We have become accustomed to seeing terrorist attacks in other parts of the world--Bosnia, the Middle East, Europe, and Latin America. Americans have seen hundreds of smoke-stained people streaming out of the World Trade Center Buildings in New York City. In response, we have been quick to explain that the causes are nationalism, or religious fanaticism, or some other belief system with which Americans have nothing in common. Americans have always been quick to seek reasons to explain what happens in the world around them. But there are events so monstrous, so evil, that they cannot be explained away. No human reasons can account for the minds that could conceive, or the hands that could carry out, this deed. Nevertheless, it is natural and healthy for each of us to question and try to understand how this could have happened, and to think-- beyond laws--about what we as a society might do to reverse the trends of violence and intolerance in America. It is imperative that we find ways for Americans from diverse backgrounds with sometimes very divergent points of view to live harmoniously. The first step toward that goal is for us to talk to each other. We must find better ways to do that. We must restore civility to private, and especially public, discourse. We should not permit our political or racial or ethnic or other differences to blind us to each other's truths. If we listen to one another, we are likely to find our differences are not as great as some of the intemperate rhetoric makes them appear. We are likely to remember that what divides us is much less important than what unites us as a nation. We will never eliminate all our differences, but we will learn that we can live with them. Each of us--as parents, neighbors, teachers, elected officials, candidates for office, journalists--has an affirmative responsibility to promote that kind of environment. The bombing in Oklahoma City is the result of evil, misguided people. We do not yet know what their motivation was; we can only speculate. But we can ask ourselves if our increasingly hateful public discourse is falling on ears receptive to hate, if it is providing a context for hands ready to undertake hateful acts. No one believes that the actions of any man are the fault of the speech of anther, but people are inspired and uplifted by words and ideas. We saw that at the memorial service in Oklahoma City. Words and ideas can and do inspire and uplift. But they can mislead and delude. All of us who speak and act in the public arena have an obligation to bear that in mind, for every time we speak, in effect, we are making a choice about what kind of environment we promote. The privilege of serving our community carries with it the obligation not to damage that community. Americans now can and must do what earlier generations of Americans have done. We must mourn with the families of victims and pray for all the shattered lives and hopes. We must identify changes in the law that have the promise of making us safer. And we must continue to live our lives, saddened by the enormous loss, but rededicated to the social contract that binds us together and allows all of us from different backgrounds, with different ideas, to live together in peace.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the life and career of Senator John C. Stennis, who passed away earlier this week. Senator Stennis served in this Chamber for 41 years. His work here included Senate Appropriations Committees and as President pro tempore of this body. Among his legislative achievements was his ability to bend and flow with the times. Once a staunch segregationist, Senator Stennis cast his vote for the Voting Rights Act of 1982. One area in which he never changed, however, was in upholding the safety and security of this great country. Senator Stennis warned against overextending our military capacity. He also warned against wasteful defense spending. But he never wavered in his support of the country's national defense and ensuring that it maintained the military capacity to guarantee our freedoms and our liberties. During his four decades in the U.S. Senate, Senator Stennis was always an abiding example of integrity and fortitude. His respect for the institution of the Senate and the law of the United States made him an early opponent of the excesses and abuses of Senator Joe McCarthy. As a result, he and Senator Sam Ervin were named as the two Democratic members on the Watkins committee that investigated the recklessness of Senator McCarthy and led to his censorship. In July 1965, the Senate created the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, the forerunner of our current Select Committee on Ethics. This was a controversial creation, and everyone knew that whoever chaired it would be in a difficult position. The Senate had traditionally relied upon the voters of a State to discipline a Senator for improper behavior, and institutional discipline is a painful problem in an institution that depends on the collegiality of its Members. The only logical choice for this important and difficult leadership position was Senator Stennis. The Mississippi Senator became so successful and so respected in this position that the committee quickly became known as the ``Stennis Committee.'' Mr. President, the career of Senator John C. Stennis was marked, not only with legislative triumphs, but with numerous personal triumphs over personal adversity. In 1973, he was shot by robbers in front of his house and left for dead. In 1983, his beloved wife of 52 years, Coy Hines Stennis passed away. In 1984, a battle with cancer resulted in the loss of one of his legs and confined him to a wheelchair. While in the hospital recuperating from the surgery, he was visited by the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan. President Reagan later said that he had dreaded going to the hospital that day, for he feared the impact such a life-altering operation would have on a fiercely independent man like Senator Stennis. But the President explained, ``when I left, it was I who had been strengthened.'' He had been strengthened by the Senator's confidence, his faith, and his optimism. Those qualities defined Senator Stennis' outlook on life. On his Senate desk he kept a plaque that simply read: ``Look Ahead.'' ``That's my philosophy,'' he explained. Don't waste time lamenting the past. ``You have got to look ahead. I realize that life's not altogether what you make it. But that's part of it, what you make it yourself.'' Senator Stennis made for himself a wonderful life, and the Senate and the country can be grateful for it. When he retired from the Senate in January 1989, Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd called it ``the end of an era.'' And indeed it was. Perhaps a greater compliment came from a Republican Member of Congress from Mississippi, who said, ``We'll miss him. Even if he's a Democrat, he's a great man.'' As the Senate Democratic leader, I say that is a great statement, even from a Republican. In 1988, Congress established the John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training at Mississippi State University. The center covers a range of historical projects, including an excellent oral history program. When a congressional historian approached him about an oral history of his own life and career, Senator Stennis initially opposed the idea, saying it would be too self-aggrandizing. The historian proceeded to explain that it was not only an honor, it was his duty to record for posterity his personal account of the historic events and decisions in which he had been involved. ``Well, sir,'' responded Senator Stennis, ``If you say its my duty, then I must do it, because I've always done my duty.'' Indeed he did. It was not only his legislative accomplishments--and they were many-- for which we so loved and remember him, it was also his commitment to God and country. No person who has ever served in the U.S. Senate was ever quicker to tell you what was wrong with this country. But no person was ever quicker to tell you what was right about it, either. Mr. President, Linda and I extend our most heartfelt condolences to the family of John C. Stennis: we share their grief and their loss. But we also thank them for sharing him with us, and I thank the people of Mississippi for selecting him to serve in the Senate for seven terms. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 206 years ago yesterday--April 6, 1789, U.S. Senate achieved a quorum and got down to business for the first time. This is a fitting occasion to commemorate both the history of the Senate and the Senator who has become the Senate's foremost historian. All of us have heard Robert C. Byrd expound upon the history of this institution, about the Constitutional Convention that created it, and about its antecedents, the British Parliament and Roman Senate. In addition, he has regularly applied his historical knowledge to current floor debates. If anyone questions the need for studying history, the senior Senator from West Virginia has offered living proof of its worth. Those Members new to the Senate and those viewers recently addicted to C-SPAN-II might understandably assume that Senator Byrd spent his early years in the Nation's finest schools pursuing a rich classical education. Robert C. Byrd enjoyed none of those early advantages. On Armistice Day, November 11, 1918, shortly before his first birthday, his mother fell victim to that year's devastating influenza epidemic. Unable to cope alone, his father gave the child to an aunt and uncle who raised him in the hardscrabble coal fields of southern West Virginia. Although he graduated at the head of his high school class, the hardships and poverty of those Depression-era years in the early 1930's made college a luxury about which he could only dream. His early life was one of unremitting labor, as a grocery clerk, a butcher, and a shipyard welder. In 1946, he won a seat in the West Virginia Legislature, the first step toward a rich and productive career of public service. Sixteen years after graduating from high school, Robert Byrd enrolled in college while serving in the State legislature. Driving great distances between campus and capitol, he managed to complete 70 credit hours of straight-A course work while building an impressive legislative record. In 1952, he won a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Although without a college degree, he was admitted to law school with the understanding that he maintain at least a B average. In 1963, at age 45, and nearly 5 years into his Senate career, Robert Byrd became the first and only person to earn a law degree while serving as a U.S. Senator. Not surprisingly, he earned that degree cum laude. As he worked his way up the Senate leadership ladder--party secretary, party whip, party floor leader, President pro tempore, Appropriations Committee chairman--he systematically pursued his study of the Senate's rules, precedents, and history; of the American Constitution; of the history of England and of ancient Rome. Blessed with a keen intelligence, a photographic memory, and seemingly limitless energy, he devoured countless volumes by such authors as Plutarch, Tacitus, Montesquieu, Gibbon, Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, and many more. Consequently, it should have come as no surprise to his colleagues in the Senate Chamber on a quiet Friday afternoon in March 1980, when he delivered the first in what would become a series of 100 richly textured addresses on the Senate's history and traditions. His speeches appeared serially in the Congressional Record and were later combined into a magnificent four-volume series published by the Government Printing Office. I urge all who hear or read what I say here today to explore these volumes, as I have. Today I would like to take a few minutes to outline their rewarding content. Senator Byrd's first volume takes the form of a chronological history of the United States from the point of view of the Senate. In it, he describes the events, personalities, and issues that affected the Senate from 1789 to 1989. Here are just a few examples: He outlines the remarkable achievements of the First Congress, which fleshed out the form of our Federal Government by establishing the Federal judiciary, adopting the Bill of Rights, and providing sources of revenue. He demonstrates that conflict between the President and Congress did not begin in the 20th century by recounting the dramatic tale of Andrew Jackson's struggles with the Senate over the Second Bank of the United States. For the only time in its history, the Senate in 1834 actually passed a resolution censuring a Chief Executive, although 3 years later Thomas Hart Benton succeeded in persuading the Senate to expunge that action, thus vindicating the aging Jackson before his presidential term expired. Senator Byrd relates the story of how Senators came to be elected by direct popular vote after more than a century of being selected by the State legislatures. He traces the flaws in the original process and the efforts made to improve it before a constitutional amendment finally entrusted the citizens of each State with the choice of their Senators. He also describes the later reforms included in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 that set the stage for the operation of the Senate we know today. Unlike most histories of the United States, Senator Byrd views the Nation's great landmark events, like the Civil War, World War I, the Progressive Era, the Great Depression, and World War II, through the eyes of the Senate. He describes the way the body responded to each, showing how the Civil War, for example, stimulated such civilian legislation as the Pacific Railroad Act and the Land-Grant College Act. Senator Byrd's second volume takes a topical approach to the Senate's history, discussing the way the institution has used its powers to approve treaties, confirm nominations, and conduct impeachment trials. Made up of individual chapters on such topics as Senate leadership, organization, and officers, this book provides essential background on many matters that we still debate today. A chapter on congressional salaries, for example, tells us that the subject has been controversial throughout the Nation's history, with a public outcry forcing Congress to rescind a salary increase on more than one occasion. The four chapters on extended debate that discuss the development of filibusters and the evolution of the cloture rule offer perspective on the way delaying tactics have been used in Senate debates and the techniques that have been gradually developed to counteract them. A chapter describing the history of the Senate Chaplain helped us earlier this year when questions arose regarding whether the House and Senate needed their own chaplains. The chapter not only explained the origin of the office but related that in the 1850's the House and the Senate for a time stopped electing official Chaplains and the opening prayer. The Senate's experiment lasted only 2 years, as the practice became a burden on the Washington ministers who participated. The House, too, soon returned to electing an official Chaplain. Because of his interest in preserving the quality of senatorial oratory, Senator Byrd pored over countless speeches delivered by Senators since the 1830's to select a sampling of more than 40 for the third volume of his history, ``Classic Speeches.'' This collection gives a flavor of the best of 19th-century rhetoric, combined with examples of addresses from this century that have been carefully crafted by the speaker to be affecting and persuasive. Samples range from old favorites like Daniel Webster's ``Seventh of March'' 1850 address on ``The Constitution and the Union'' and moments of high drama like Jefferson Davis' emotional 1861 farewell to the Senate after Mississippi seceded from the Union, to an example of campaign oratory by Stephen A. Douglas from the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates. From this century, Senator Byrd's, varied choices include Robert M. LaFollette's impassioned 1917 plea for ``Free Speech in Wartime,'' Richard Nixon's televised ``Checkers'' speech during his 1952 Vice-Presidential campaign, and Everett M. Dirksen's moving exhortation to his party colleagues to vote for cloture on the 1964 civil rights bill. An introductory note preceding each speech provides biographical information about the speaker and places the event in historical context. While some of these addresses deal with topics like slavery that are no longer current, many of the broader themes, like the relative roles of the State and Federal governments, remain lively topics of debate even now. The fourth volume of the history is a statistical appendix that not only offers a collection of fascinating facts about the Senate but is constantly useful in helping us to place events in historical context. How many former Senators have ever served as Secretary of the Treasury? Twenty-five. Who was the oldest Senator ever to serve? Theodore Francis Green at 93 years and 3 months. One Member today is close to reaching or exceeding that record. How many incumbent Senators have been nominated for President? I suspect quite a few of our current Members might be disappointed to learn that the total is only 14, of whom only 2 won election. How often have Vice Presidents cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate? No one has yet matched the record 29 such votes cast by the first Vice President, John Adams. And in these days of budget cutting, how has the number of Senate employees fluctuated over the years? It has not always increased, as some may believe. Has the number of cloture votes taken by the Senate in each Congress increased in recent years? The philosopher George Santayana said that ``those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' By this he means that a knowledge of history can keep people from making the same mistakes over again, and from reinventing the wheel. That is a legitimate concern for Members of the U.S. Senate entrusted as we are with enacting the laws of the Nation. But Senator Byrd has demonstrated that there are many other compelling reasons for Senators to know their history. He has reminded us that we are driven by a document that was written in the 18th century and that has been amended only 27 times--most recently by an amendment drafted more than 200 years ago by the principal author of the Constitution, James Madison. Senator Byrd's history has shown that the Senate's original constitutional powers and missions remain remarkably intact. It retains its original influence over the enactment of legislation, the confirmation of nominations, and the ratification of treaties. The formal rules of the Senate are few in number and have undergone only seven general revisions in their more than two centuries of operation. The precedents of the Senate are more voluminous, representing the practical application of those rules, and the strategies and tactics employed by generations of legislators to achieve their objectives. The precedents are simply another form of history: what was done in the past, why it was done, and how it affects what we do today and tomorrow. As Senator Byrd's speeches have illuminated, some of these precedents date back to an era when Senators wore powdered wigs and knee breeches. Others from the days when the Nation was divided in Civil War. Others from the great Depression, the World Wars, and the cold war. Although these epochs are receding in time, the precedents set by Senators who served in those earlier eras still guide our daily business, just as what we do today will guide the future. The Senate, as Robert C. Byrd has repeatedly pointed out, is a continuing body, with at least two-thirds of its Members continuing through each election, and with its rules and procedures continuing uninterrupted from one Congress to the next. As an institution, we value our traditions--from the 19th century furnishings to the spittoons and snuff boxes here in the Chamber that link us to our past. Great Senators also left a legacy for their successors. We sit at their desks in the Chamber, pass their portraits and statues in the Halls. As part of his four-volume history, Senator Byrd has provided us with a collection of their most memorable speeches. He has helped us recall their examples, as we defend and amend their past legislative handiwork. Those of us who serve today wish to leave our own imprints on this institution for those who follow us in the next century. We want to be remembered for solving the problems that confronted us, and for leaving the United States as strong or stronger than when we entered it. The Senator from West Virginia has amply accomplished that in his many legislative roles and as the chronicler of the Senate's rich history. There could be no more fitting way to commemorate this singular anniversary date than to reflect for a moment on our indebtedness to this wise, learned, and deeply respected colleague. On the occasion of the Senate's bicentennial in 1989, Robert C. Byrd offered the following historical assessment. His words should be inscribed over the entrance to this Chamber. Each of us should commit them to memory. He said: After two hundred years, [the Senate] is still the anchor of the Republic, the morning and evening star in the American constitutional constellation. * * * It has weathered the storms of adversity, withstood the barbs of cynics and the attacks of critics, and provided stability and strength to the Nation during periods of civil strife and uncertainty, panics and depressions. In war and peace, it has been the sure refuge and protector of the rights of a political minority. And, today, the Senate still stands--the great forum of constitutional American liberty!

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Dole, I send a resolution to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for almost 100 days now, we have been hearing about the Contract With America--here in Washington and in my home State of South Dakota. This week we get their contact with America. Every time you open a newspaper or turn on your TV or your radio--or even your computer--some Republican is speaking in superlatives about what is happening in Congress. Not everyone shares that enthusiasm. One of the most astute assessments I have heard of the Republicans' 100 days was offered last week by a Capitol tour guide. When someone asked him what had passed so far in this Congress, he said, ``About 12 weeks.'' I can tell you a lot more has happened in South Dakota during those 12 weeks. Farmers and ranchers, who have been gearing up for the spring planting and helping their livestock through the calving season, are grappling with the harsh realities of low commodity and livestock prices, hoping there will be enough to support their families. On Main Streets in cities and towns across South Dakota, small business owners and employees are working longer and harder just to maintain their incomes. In other words, life is going on in South Dakota, and people are trying to move forward, looking toward change in Washington to help them realize their dreams. The tradition of scrutinizing the first 100 days really began, as you know, with President Franklin Roosevelt. Most students of government still consider the first 100 days of the New Deal to be the most successful in the history of the Federal Government. And no wonder. By the end of President Roosevelt's first 100 days, Congress had passed an extraordinary package of 15 bills that fundamentally changed the relationship between business and Government, and individuals and Government. It was an agenda that was firmly rooted in FDR's belief, as he said, that ``the future lies with those wise political leaders who realize that the great public is interested more in good government than in politics.'' That is a sentiment you won't find in the Republicans' Contract With America. For it was politics pure and simple--the 1994 election and a mountain of polling data--that gave us the so-called contract. like so many in this new Republican majority, who promise easy solutions to hard problems. He could easily be speaking of today's Republican majority when he commented on their predecessors more than 60 years ago. ``Let me warn you and let me warn the Nation,'' he said, ``against the smooth evasions of those who say, `Of course we agree with all these things. ```We believe in Social Security. We believe in work for the unemployed. We believe in saving homes. Cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things. But we do not like the way the present administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them. We will do more of them. We will do them better. And most of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything.''' Does this sound familiar? It should. That is the Big Lie on which the contract is constructed: ``We can balance the budget. We can increase military spending. We can give more tax breaks to the rich. And it will not cost anybody anything. In fact, you and your family are going to get money back.'' Clearly, the promise to fundamentally change the Federal Government sounded very good to some people last November. But were they voting for the Republican contract? The fact is, they were not. Less than 5 percent of Americans had even heard of the contract on Election Day. Even now, polls show that the more people hear about the contract, the more nervous they get. And with good reason. To paraphrase Pogo, we have met the enemy in the Republicans' contract, and it is us. It is not big-money special interests the Contract targets-- Republicans have invited the lobbyists into their offices to rewrite the laws. The enemy in the Republican contract is not even the infamous waste, fraud, and abuse. It is working families and their children in South Dakota and across the Nation. They can wrap it up in new spinmeister packaging, but the struggle at the center of the contract is the same struggle that has defined the difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties for generations. It is the struggle between the rich and the rest of us. We do not have any billionaires in South Dakota who will benefit from the tax loophole Republicans are fighting to protect that allow billionaires to renounce their citizenship to avoid paying taxes on the fortunes they have made in our country. We do not have a lot of powerful corporate lobbyists who have gained unprecedented access to the Congress. What we do have in South Dakota are hard-working families who wamt change, who want more opportunities for themselves, and a better future for their children. Republicans were on the wrong side of this struggle before, and they are on the wrong side now. We have heard a lot about the casualties of the contract, but the biggest casualty is not a person or a group. It is Americans' sense of values--our sense of fairness. Most of all, it is our fragile but essential belief that if we work hard, we can make a better life for ourselves and our kids. This ethic, this belief, was ingrained in all South Dakotans. This belief, this value, is essential to our survival as a democracy. De Tocqueville wrote that it is our values, even more than our laws, that enable Americans to maintain this democracy, and that fundamental insight into our character remains true to this day. If people do not know the difference between right and wrong, all the prisons in the world will not keep us safe. If children come to school with no sense of discipline, no respect for authority, the best teachers and, the best computers in the world will not make a difference. And if young people grow up in a society that does not reward honest work, no welfare reform plan in the world will work. We cannot solve our problems with a law or a check--or even the threat of no check. If we want to restore the American dream, we have got to restore American values. And that means strengthening America's families. Families are where values are taught and learned. But teaching values takes time. It takes time. And time is something that most families have less of every year. I hear this every time I go home. One story this year that didn't get perhaps quite as much attention as it deserved was a series of strikes by autoworkers who were protesting mandatory 50- and 60-hour workweeks. The workers said the extra pay just wasn't worth the price they were paying in burnout and in time spent away from their families. The conflict many workers feel between trying to be both good providers and good parents was best summed up by a single mother at a GM factory in Michigan who had just put her son in counseling and just learned that her 18-year-old daughter was pregnant. You know what she said? She said, ``I keep thinking that maybe if I'd been able to spend more time with them this wouldn't have happened.'' That is a conflict more parents live with each year. From the late 1960's to the late 1980's, the average workyear for American workers increased by 163 hours. You know what that is? That's an extra month each year. Today, fewer than one-third of American families have time to eat even one meal a day together. And nearly 7 million children--including half a million pre-school kids--spend at least part of each day all alone. Why are parents spending less time with their kids? The answer is simple: In spite of an unprecedented effort by the Clinton administration to create more than 6 million new jobs, the real income of most Americans is declining. Each year, it takes more people working more hours in a family just to afford the basic. Eighty percent of America's families have not seen their incomes rise since the 1970's. Eighty percent. And this is true despite huge increases in two-income and even three-income families. Even in the 1990's, the richest one-third of Americans are getting richer, while incomes for everyone else keep falling. And let me tell you, that is fundamentally wrong. And Democrats must fight it. Not long ago I had a young father tell me, ``Either I can spend time with my family or support them--but not both.'' Those are not conditions for teaching moral values. They are an invitation to moral anarchy. And the extreme agenda of the new majority--despite all its pious and populist rhetoric--is almost certain to make matters worse. Because it is designed to reward the rich and the well-connected at the expense of America's middle-class families. That is wrong and Democrats must fight it, make no mistake: The new Republican agenda is worse than indifferent to the needs of working families. It is downright hostile to them. It is trickle-down economics with a vengeance. And if it is enacted, it will destroy much of the middle class. If you doubt it, just look at some of the tax changes Republicans are proposing: One of the more moderate members of the Republican party is proposing that we repeal income taxes on stock profits. In other words, let's tax only wages. And some Republicans want to protect the tax loophole that allows billionaires to renounce their U.S. citizenship to avoid paying taxes on the fortunes they have made in this country. You know, when George Washington found out that Benedict Arnold was a traitor he probably thought about a lot of things. He probably thought about flogging him. He probably thought about hanging him. He probably thought about taking everything he owned. But I guarantee you one thing he never thought about was giving him a tax break. What kind of contract is that? Of course, many of us feel that the contract is more noteworthy for what it leaves out than for what little it actually does. The contract offers no blueprint to create more jobs or better-paying jobs. And, it offers no plan to fix any of the other problems that are undermining Americans' economic security. Quite the opposite, the Republican agenda makes it harder for people to climb the economic ladder by gutting worker training programs and college loans. Under the Republican contract, 27,165 South Dakota college students will pay cannot afford the higher priced loans will simply drop out. It makes it harder for poor families to escape welfare by blocking any increase in the minimum wage. The Republican agenda leaves virtually every American family at risk of financial ruin by refusing to reform health care. For some, the past 100 days simply means that more people are without health insurance in South Dakota and a lot of people--and hoping they do not end up like some of their neighbors--the 1,200 retirees of the Morrell meatpacking company in Sioux Falls, who suddenly lost their health benefits 2 months ago. And, the contract undermines our effort to enforce laws protecting Americans from polluted air and water, from spoiled meat and killer toys and a whole host of other dangers. The big winners in the contract are the lobbyists and special interests, who Republicans have invited--quite literally--into committee rooms to write the laws as they choose. The big losers, of course, are working families, who are going to end up picking up the tab for the special interests--the same as they did in the 1980's. That is wrong, too, and Democrats will fight it. The biggest problem with the contract is not simply that it threatens to bankrupt working families economically. It is also morally bankrupt. Democrats have a responsibility to challenge not just the details of the contract, but the underlying values as well. We need to raise our voices, particularly in the face of the extreme new agenda of the Republican Party. We need to find new ways, new technologies, to communicate our basic beliefs, and, we need to expand the debate to include values that matter to working families. Values like fairness and tolerance, genuine opportunity, and generational progress. More important, we need to make sure that our values shape our public policy. Too often, government policies do not reflect our nation's values. Sometimes they have actually exacerbate the conditions they were created to eliminate. No matter how noble their original purpose, when we try to protect failed programs, we undermine the credibility of government and thus the ability of government to help the people who deserve help. So, making sure our values shape our public policies mean, first of all, acknowledging when something is not working. Making sure our values shape our public policies also means reforming our welfare system so that it rewards work. It means encouraging families to be strong and to stay strong. Making sure our values shape our public policies means we need truth-in-sentencing laws. We need to hold people responsible for their actions. And we need to protect people from crime in the first place. President Clinton and a Democratic Congress last year passed a tough new crime bill that puts 100,000 more police on the street, including 77 in my home State. Now Republicans want to gut that bill. That is dead wrong. And Democrats will fight it. Making sure our values shape our public policies means we need to listen to average people, not campaign contributors. In Washington and in every State capitol in this country, holy wars are being waged with unholy amounts of money. People don't know where the buck stops anymore. They only know it stops the debate. And this is wrong. And Democrats will fight it--by pushing for real campaign finance reform--in this session of Congress. Making sure our values shape our public policies means helping workers learn new skills so they can keep their job or get a new one. Not long ago, Speaker Gingrich called unemployment insurance ``vacation pay for freeloaders.'' Republicans may think that makes a good sound bite, but it's small and insensitive. If we value work, then let us treat workers with dignity. Give them the tools and training they need to earn their own way, and they will not need unemployment insurance or anything else from government. Finally, making sure our values shape our public policies means helping middle-class pay for college with affordable loans or the sweat equity that comes from national service. In asking Congress to do these things, Democrats are only asking the Republican majority to do what the American people expect them to do: to lead. Their refusal to even discuss our proposals makes it clear that Republicans do not oppose the way we Democrats have done the job of fighting for working families and children. They are fundamentally opposed to the job being done at all. I said at the beginning of my remarks that the American people did not vote for the Republican contract because most had not even heard of it. Instead, they were voting to continue the original Contract With America. They voted to make America a place, once again, where people still believe in values like tolerance and fairness, and parents still have the time to teach those values to their children. America can be what America was, a place where you can get ahead if you work hard. We can make America that kind of place again. But it's going to take more than angry demagoguery and more than the mad dash of 100 days. Americans understand that. Because leaders like Franklin Roosevelt taught us. President Roosevelt led this Nation through a depression and a world war. He knew that good government is government which unites this country, not divides it. It is government that offers hope, not fear--that proposes real solutions where there are real problems. He led, so others were willing to follow. As a former history professor, Newt Gingrich should remember the words of his favorite President who said that ``the only limit to our realization will be our doubts of today.'' While Democrats do not advocate going back to the programs of the New Deal, we believe that the values that shaped that agenda are as valid today as they have ever been. The realization of tomorrow must be built from the realization of strong national leadership today, the kind of leadership the American people have turned to throughout our history, and to which future generations must turn, not just for 100 days, but for that many years, and more.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I think the distinguished Senator from New York will be interested in speaking to the amendment prior to the time we vote, but I am sure there could be some relatively brief time agreement that we could work out to accommodate him, and others, who may yet want to speak. But I do not think it will take that long. I suggest we do that.

Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will let me consult with the distinguished Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, to see how much time he may require, we can resolve this matter very soon.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I said before the vote, it was not our desire to hold up this bill. I will reiterate my sincere desire to work with the majority leader in finding an agreement. What I hope we might be able to do, perhaps, is to maybe run two tracks, get some debate and offer some of these amendments. We could maybe work out some short time agreements and have a good debate, rather than just putting the Senate in a quorum call, and then work simultaneously to see if I agree with the majority leader. We are close and perhaps we can find a way to accommodate many of the concerns raised on both sides of the aisle. But perhaps at the same time we might be able to accommodate some Senators who have been waiting patiently to be able to offer amendments. If we could do that, perhaps that might even accelerate our progress. I reiterate my sincere desire, and I think the desire on this side, to work in earnest and try to accommodate everyone and successfully complete this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last night, the majority leader and I announced that we had a tentative agreement with regard to the pending legislation. We had hoped that as a result of our negotiations, which have been conducted in good faith on both sides, it would lead, hopefully, to an opportunity to come to some closure in the not-too- distant future on this important matter. Unfortunately, as a result of differences on both sides of the aisle with regard to the agreement, amendments are likely which would significantly alter the result of the negotiations that have been ongoing. As a result, the real prospect that the agreement could be successfully concluded in debate on the floor this afternoon becomes increasingly unlikely. I am disappointed because I feel it was an effort made on the part of many Senators--Republicans and Democrats--to bridge our differences to accomplish what we all want. The amendment that I have had pending has now been pending for a week. Unfortunately, we have not had the opportunity during these negotiations to vote on it or on any other Democratic amendment. We have been hopeful that over the course of the last several days, we could have come to some conclusion about the agreement or about at least a time limit relating to the amendments, and come to some conclusion this week in one way or the other. That now does not look possible. But the fact is, because we have not been given an opportunity to have votes on these amendments, we will come to the cloture vote this afternoon not having had one vote on one Democratic amendment. As a result, I urge my colleagues to protect our right to offer these amendments. I urge my colleagues to recall how important it is that the amendments that we have offered over the course of the last couple of weeks dealing directly with the concerns that have been raised on this floor now for more than 7 days, that we have the opportunity to have good debates about those issues prior to the time we come to closure on this vote. As I have said on several occasions, we really have three goals here: The first goal is to ensure the Federal Emergency Management Administration is adequately funded. The second goal is to ensure that we provide the necessary deficit reduction that this rescissions package will allow, and we are now at a point of $15 billion in the total deficit reduction package. And the third goal was one that all of us on this side of the aisle feel especially strongly about. That is, if we are going to do it, we should do it right. If we are going to do it, we should ensure that we do not eat the seed corn. We should ensure that as we remember our priorities, we remember our kids and working families who are struggling to ensure that they can be productive citizens in this country. Those are the three goals. Our whole effort, the amendment that we have pending, is designed to accomplish those three goals. Without that amendment, unfortunately, all we do is accomplish the first two goals. We provide adequate funding for FEMA. We provide for necessary deficit reduction, but we do it at the expense of kids. We do it at the expense of people who are counting on these investments so they can be the productive, working people that they want to be. That is what this debate was about. So this cloture vote is very important. It is a cloture vote that will allow Members the opportunity to accomplish all three goals. Without defeating cloture we will not have that protection. I want to emphasize as loudly and as plainly as I possibly can, our desire is not to hold up this bill. Our hope is that we do not have to hold up this bill. Our hope is that before we leave here, Democrats and Republicans can come to time agreements on amendments. We will have up- or-down votes on the amendments that are proposed on this side and do so in a way that will allow Members to get our business accomplished. We will finish, we will have final passage, and we can all go home satisfied, however the votes may fall. We only hope we will be given the opportunity to have up-or-down votes on these issues because that is critical to the degree of enthusiasm, the degree of support that we ultimately will have for the bill itself. I think it is very clear that for a lot of different reasons, we have not been given a right today to offer those amendments, and it is equally as clear that, unless we block cloture this afternoon, we will not have that right after 2 o'clock today. So, Mr. President, I come to the floor to express regret. In good faith we have not been able to accomplish what I sincerely had hoped we could accomplish. Having said that, we now must accomplish what our original intent was, which was try to protect all three goals as we move toward final passage of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to weigh carefully their decision on this cloture motion. I hope that we can defeat it, not in the interest of extending debate, not in the interest of prolonging this issue any longer than we have to, but in the interest of accomplishing the three goals and protecting our rights to offer amendments and improve legislation as these occasions arise. So, Mr. President, to accommodate my colleagues who have amendments to the bill, it is important at this point, from a parliamentary procedure motion only, to withdraw my amendment to allow others to offer the amendments that they will so offer. I will certainly come back at a later time and describe, as we intend to, the importance of the amendments that will make in the composite what our amendment was originally designed to do as it was laid down last Friday. We will do that at a date or at a time later, perhaps today. Amendment No. 445 Withdrawn

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, at this time I withdraw my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the Senator begin his remarks, and in the meantime we will try to work out an agreement. Amendment No. 448 to Amendment No. 420 (Purpose: To state the sense of the Senate regarding tax avoidance by certain former citizens of the United States)

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have consulted with colleagues on this side and I think as a result of our discussions in recent minutes that we will be able to enter into a fairly short-time agreement on this particular amendment. Whatever length of time the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts would like to speak I think will be all the time required on this side. We would be prepared to vote.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I fully agree with the views expressed by my fellow Democratic colleagues. We cannot give the WIC program to the drug companies and allow them to turn WIC into a formula for profit. WIC is one of America's most effective child nutrition programs and I intend to fight any efforts of the House to repeal the WIC program. Senator Harkin led the fight against the practices of one infant formula company that sold powdered formula to third-world countries. Low-income families would mix the formula with contaminated water and the formula would do more harm than good. I ask Senator Harkin what are his views on competitive bidding?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me also thank all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation in the effort that has been made to bring us to this point. It has been a long day. There have been a lot of people who have been responsible for bringing us to this point, and I want to publicly commend them and thank them for that effort. We still have some very big decisions to make on amendments that are going to be offered. I appreciate everyone's willingness to accommodate a debate on each one of these issues, but I do think that we are getting close, and I think that it is an agreement we can all support. Obviously, people are going to come down on either side of the issue when we come to final passage, but I think this accommodates Senators in a way that allows us to get to that point. So I think it is a good agreement, and I hope that we can work through the amendments and get to final passage sometime tonight. I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I concur with the information that has just been provided by the distinguished majority leader. Let me say, as I understand it, at some point he will be putting into the Record the summary of our progress so far in our negotiations. I think it certainly accurate to say that there is complete agreement on the add-backs. We have a number of issues that we have to raise with our caucus. That caucus will take place at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning, and I urge all Senators to be there for this very important discussion. Whether or not we have any amendments will be dependent upon our discussion there. We have come a long way in the last day or so, and as the distinguished majority leader has indicated, there have been a lot of good-faith discussions on both sides of the aisle. I am pleased with our progress, but I think we are now at a point where this ought to be subject to a good discussion within our caucus. And we will be prepared to talk more about the specifics of this compromise as soon as that caucus is complete. But I do hope we can finish our work as a result of our negotiations. And I am confident that, as a result of our progress, we are much closer tonight.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, yesterday, my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Pressler, stated on the Senate floor that the administration was working through my office to block consideration of S. 652, the telecommunications bill. This statement was flat out wrong, and while Senator Pressler subsequently corrected his statement for the Congressional Record, the press has reported the inaccuracy. This issue is sufficiently important that the mistake needs to be pointed out. I have spoken with the Vice President concerning telecommunications reform legislation. The Vice President stated, as he apparently indicated to Senator Pressler, that the administration would like to see the bill improved in a couple of different areas. However, the Vice President did not ask, nor did I offer, to block consideration of the bill. I am committed to passing a telecommunications reform bill, I am eager to see the benefits of technology and communications services-- the so-called information superhighway--extended to all parts of this country, especially rural areas like my own State of South Dakota. The telecommunications bill is sweeping legislation addressing complex problems, and highly technical subjects. While I have taken no steps to block the bill from coming to the floor, I sympathize with those of my colleagues who desire the opportunity and time to study it. With the Senate schedule set for the balance of the week, and with the time provided by the upcoming Easter recess, Senators will have the chance to evaluate the proposal in detail prior to its coming to the floor. Again, let me reiterate, I have not sought to block consideration of S. 652. Our ranking member on the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, stands ready to proceed. Indeed, as Senator Pressler noted, every Democrat on the Commerce Committee voted for the bill at markup. I believe my intentions in regards to this matter are clear. I simply take this opportunity to reinforce my position that a telecommunications reform bill is among the most important legislation the Senate will consider this year.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I want to take a moment to commemorate the long and distinguished life of my dear friend, Richard H. Reiners, an outstanding American, who passed away earlier this year. Dick Reiners was born September 24, 1907, on a small farm east of Lennox, home north of Worthing, SD. Throughout his life he was dedicated to his family, his community, and the land on which he lived. As a father and husband, Dick epitomized the term, family values. He was faithful, honest, and loyal, and he passed those values onto his children and grandchildren. As a member of the community, Dick was constantly active in improving the quality of people's lives. He served on numerous boards, including his church, his children's school district, the Farmers Home Administration, and the South Dakota Farmers Union. He was also actively involved in politics and labored tirelessly for the people he believed in. As a farmer, Dick held a reverence for the land and its capacity for production. He was a hard worker and an eternal optimist. Dick spoke his mind. He never gave up. He was always a kind and thoughtful man. During my travels as a U.S. Senator, I am constantly humbled by the people of my State--people like Dick Reiners and the basic principles by which they live their lives: a love of family, an obligation to community service, and a strong commitment to an honest day's work. Those who knew Dick Reiners learned much from him, and I am honored to say that he was my friend. He will not be forgotten.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask the Senator from Iowa whether it is his intent to seek 40 minutes in addition to that 26 minutes? I have not yielded back the 26 minutes, so I want to protect that in case other Senators may be interested in coming to the floor to speak on the amendment.