Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, can the President inform the Senate as to what the current unanimous-consent agreement allows with regard to remaining time on our side?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to reiterate why we believe this amendment is important. Fundamentally, it goes to the heart of what it is that we as Democrats believe we are here for: protecting working families, investing in children, and doing that in a meaningful way without reducing the overall commitment to deficit reduction one iota. That is really what this amendment does. It provides the kind of commitment we need for working families, and the commitment especially we need for children. But it also recognizes the need for deficit reduction because children and working families are directly affected by that as well. We do so by restoring some of the cuts that were made in areas that directly affect children in the most significant way--children dependent upon child care, so that working families can meet their obligations at the workplace; Head Start for children who depend upon a program that has now been in use for more than 30 years, clearly which has shown to be one of the most important ways with which to prepare children to be better students and to be more able to cope with all of the challenges in early life. We also protect young adults interested in national service. These young people are committing themselves to their country in a way that makes a significant contribution to our country through national service and community assistance, and at the same time to generate the ability to go back to college or to go to college in the first place to advance their education in as many ways as they can. We also recognize that women, infants, and children of all ages really depend upon adequate nutrition. If they do not have adequate nutrition, they really do not have the ability to ensure good health. If we learned anything in the debate over the last couple of years about health care, it is that perhaps the best investment we can make is an investment in preventive care. Making sure people stay healthy is the best way to ensure that they are not going to need expensive care later on. That is exactly what the Women, Infants and Children Program does. It assures adequate nutrition, adequate nutrition assures adequate good health, and with good health we assure the opportunities for young people and for women to be productive citizens in this country. Aid to schools, of course, is something that we have long felt is perhaps the single best investment this country can make. As we look at the real defense of this country, as we look at ways to maximize the security and the strength of this Nation, there is no better way to do it than to ensure that our schools have the resources they need to prepare young children to be good adults later on. Obviously, we have gone through some very disappointing days last week, in that we thought we were going to have a good debate as early as last Thursday on this very issue, whether we ought to be able to protect 1 million children who are affected by all of these programs. We were denied that debate. And, unfortunately, as well, the majority has now offered a and would further the attack on some of these programs directly affecting kids and families. So we are anxious to debate priorities as we go about the difficult task of balancing the budget. But I hope that we would not replace a vote on the priorities we place on kids and families with a vote on cutting the deficit further. We really ought to accomplish both things. We recognize the importance of deficit reduction. We recognize the importance of investment in children and families. That balance is really what we are trying to strike in the first place. We agree that the deficit has to be reduced. We agree that the $15.3 billion that bill now provides is a significant reduction and ought to be supported. Where we apparently disagree is whether or not we could take some of the funding in the out years for FEMA, funding that goes beyond what even the House has proposed, and use it to direct resources to people who are really dealing with emergencies right now. It is an emergency if you are a young family and cannot get child care. In some cases it is going to be an emergency if some of these schools do not get impact aid funding or some of the money that they are counting on in this year's budget to ensure that they meet their obligations later on. So it is really a very fundamental question of providing the delicate balance between addressing those concerns, the investments in the families of 1 million children, and investing, as well, in meaningful deficit reduction over the course of the next 24 months. We also, of course, had an opportunity to address the issue of billionaires who renounce their citizenship in order to avoid paying taxes on their fortunes. I am very pleased that the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has indicated his determination to ultimately resolve this issue. I think the Senate will go on record one way or another, hopefully sooner rather than later, that that is not something that we support; that we recognize that, as we are trying to make very tough decisions about priorities and about kids and where the resources ought to go, to say no to child care, no to Head Start, no to AmeriCorps, but yes to billionaires who renounce their citizenship is not a set of priorities I think anybody in this Chamber is very comfortable with. So we want to find a way to deal with that issue, as well. I applaud the effort that others have made to talk about priorities as we deal with the rescission package and the offsets required for FEMA. I hope, as we go through this whole debate, we will be very cognizant of the need to ensure a proper balance between that investment and meaningful deficit reduction. We want some bipartisan cooperation here, as well. We want to ensure that our amendment is adequately debated, that we have a vote on this amendment; not one in the second degree, not on some substitute, but an up-or-down vote on this amendment, so we can say, without equivocation, these are our priorities, unaffected by whatever additional amendments others may want to offer. We want to have a clear statement of priorities and a clear statement of intent with regard to what our investment truly is. We are at a crossroads. I think that crossroads, to a certain extent, is going to be affected by decisions we make on this particular bill. We can choose to work together and find ways with which to ensure that Democrat concerns can be addressed as well as Republican concerns. But second-degree amendments used to prevent us from having an up-or- down vote on something we hold to be very important sends the wrong message, I believe, about our desire to work together to accommodate both sides as we take up very serious legislation. We have legitimate amendments that reflect our thoughts about the direction our country should take on balancing the budget. Whether it is in this bill or whether it is in bills that will be taken up at a later date, I hope that the majority would allow votes to be cast on each and every one of these issues. We have a difference of opinion with the majority over how best to cut $1.3 billion. We have about $1.2 trillion to go as we balance the budget over the course of the next 7 years. We are not going to get there unless we work together. The approach taken by the majority on this bill so far does not bode well. The overwhelming majority, if not all of our colleagues, on the Democratic side support the amendment that we have laid down. Let there be no mistake. This was not done at the behest of the President of the United States, as has been suggested. This proposal was the response of our caucus. We feel compelled to stand up for children. We feel compelled to speak up for working families. If the other side moves to table our amendment and has the votes, there will be others offered to address the needs of working families by cutting other less urgent priorities. But we are willing to offer them in a deliberate process that can be performed expeditiously, and I hope the majority would respect that. If, on the other hand, our amendment would be agreed to, we could complete our work on this bill even more expeditiously. And I hope that remains a possibility. I hope that Republicans and Democrats could agree that, indeed, we must reduce the deficit, indeed we must find ways with which to maximize the opportunities to fund FEMA, but I think we would also agree that respecting the investment that we have made in our commitment to kids and our commitment to schools and our commitment to working families ought to be respected, as well. So, we really have a choice here, Mr. President. I hope that we could support both the need to ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Administration has the resources necessary to continue its extraordinary work in providing emergency assistance to communities all over the country, and I hope that we could also move ahead with meaningful deficit reduction. But I also hope that in addition to those two priorities, what I have said about our commitment to investment in kids in education could be at the top of the list as well. There have been calls on the other side of the aisle to privatize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the majority leader's amendment is the first step in laying that groundwork by cutting the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That is another issue. I hope that those of us who are opposed to taking that draconian approach toward public broadcasting will have the opportunity to debate it up or down. But the issue here is not public broadcasting; it is not anything other than what we have listed on this chart. The issue here is child care; it is Head Start; it is giving kids an opportunity to earn college access and college tuition by participating in national service; it is ensuring we have good preventive care; it is ensuring that we have the kind of investments in schools that we really need if, indeed, we are serious about maintaining the commitment to schools to maximize their educational opportunities to the children who walk in the doors each and every day. So those really are the issues here, Mr. President. We hope that people understand the need to restore the child care opportunities for 5,000 children, as we have listed. It tells working families that we want them to continue to work and to generate all the income their talents will allow and we are going to assist them in their child care needs. Without child care, many low-income parents may find themselves on welfare. Our amendment will enable those parents to continue work. We had an opportunity just last week to meet a couple who participated in a news conference with us on minimum wage. It was a couple from Pennsylvania who had been on welfare who came to the conclusion less than a year ago that they were not going to allow themselves to be dependent anymore, who decided they were going to go out and find jobs, and find the kinds of opportunities in the private sector we have been admonishing them to go out and find. Unfortunately, all they could find were minimum-wage jobs or something slightly above minimum wage. I think, in one case, one of the jobs they had paid $5 an hour rather than $4.25. They did not have health insurance. They time. They have no way with which to address their children's illness. They try to keep their health care bills low, but they said, ``It was so much easier when we were on welfare. We had Medicaid. We could go into the hospital and we knew at least we had minimal coverage. We had income that was almost as good as what we have right now, and we did not have to worry about child care.'' That is exactly the dilemma a lot of young families are facing. They do not want to be on welfare. They want to find alternatives. What we are trying to tell them is if you go out and do the right thing, we are going to reward work. We want to reward work by making sure that your income at the end of a hard-working week is not going to relegate you to poverty, even though you may be struggling. We know that you have to go out and find perhaps a second job, and we are willing to accept that. But if you go out and make sure you do what we expect you to do, that is, not rely upon welfare to meet your needs, we want to the extent we can help you with meaningful child care, and with meaningful pay for the work that you do each and every day. We want to send you the message that we are glad that you made the decision not to be on welfare and that you are going to continue to be productive citizens within your community by working at jobs that we hope will begin paying more. But that is really the issue here with regard to taking care of their children, with regard to educating their children, with regard to providing them with adequate nutrition, with regard to ensuring that once their children go to school that they have the necessary resources to be taught and to be as competitive in the United States as they need to be, given the competition in other countries. So, Mr. President, that is really what our message is. We want to make work pay. We want to make work pay by providing meaningful opportunities for children who may need child care support. We want to provide meaningful opportunities for children who are beneficiaries of the Head Start Program. And we also, as I said, want to help 36,000 young people who will benefit from national service by the continuation of a program that, in our view, has worked exceedingly well in the very short period of time that we have seen it in operation. If our amendment is not adopted, a promise will be broken to tens of thousands of young Americans, the communities they serve, and the charitable groups they help. These organizations and communities have now been told we are going to have this program there; it is going to work; you can count on people assisting you as you go through the difficult decisions you have to with regard to how you are going to cope with your budget and how you are going to address many of the operational challenges that you face every day. This program is really a partnership, a partnership with communities, a partnership with organizations, a partnership with young people who recognize that when there is an expectation that assistance can be provided for college that, indeed, the reciprocal responsibility is to ensure that those children and those young people understand that there is a commitment required of them, as well. So national service is something I hope is around for a long period of time, a program that I believe deserves our full support. Simply to eliminate it, to forget its success already, would be very shortsighted, indeed. In fact, I hope that Republicans can join us, as they have in the past, in recognizing just what a tremendous opportunity it is for a lot of young people. So, Mr. President, I think the message is very clear; it is pretty simple. The message is simply that we want to do what everybody here says we ought to do, and that is reduce the deficit to the extent that we can; provide the funds necessary to ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Administration is given the adequate funds necessary to continue in their role; but then, third, we also recognize the very delicate balance that we have in providing the investment that we need to provide in ensuring the continuity of a lot of the services that we now provide schools, children, and working families. So I hope that as we make our decision about this amendment, we understand that there is a need to maintain that balance; we understand that it sends exactly the wrong message to say no, we are going to have to cut child care, Head Start, cut funding for something as valuable as national service, but somehow we are going to protect those expatriates who renounce their citizenship in order to save tax dollars. We should not say that we are going to protect the billionaires, but we are not going to protect the children. I know that there are many people in this Chamber who would support that notion, but I think it sends the wrong message if we are on record as willing to allow the billionaire expatriates to avoid paying taxes and yet vote to cut successful children's programs as dramatically as this. So I hope, Mr. President, we can be cognizant of the message our vote on this amendment will send. We want to ensure that deficit reduction, that FEMA funding, and that investments in kids and working families are all protected. This amendment does that. It does that by restoring some of the balance that was lost, especially in the House, restored in part in the Senate Appropriations Committee, and now can be restored almost in its entirety by voting in favor of the amendment we are offering now. We will have more to say about it certainly tomorrow morning and in the coming debate over perhaps the course of the next day or so. I hope we can convince our Republican colleagues that this is an amendment worthy of their support. I would like to see a strong bipartisan message that Republicans and Democrats support the commitment we have made to kids, the commitment we have made to working families. I certainly hope that before the end of this debate, Republicans and Democrats can demonstrate that support and vote in favor of this amendment. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

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. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have had a good debate now for the last couple of days on the issue of rescissions and the need to provide supplemental funding for the Federal Emergency Management Administration, FEMA. What we have not had a good debate about, however, is about priorities, and about values, what it is we ought to do with the resources, as limited as they are, that we have available. It is our view we ought to have a debate of that kind, and we ought to consider where it is we want to put resources, how it is we want to direct those resources to affect the greatest number of people and do the most good. That is what this amendment intends to do. This amendment recognizes that there really is a twofold purpose in what it is we are trying to do with this bill. We are obviously trying to ensure that FEMA has the adequate resources necessary to continue the extraordinary job that they do in providing emergency assistance to communities all over the country. But we are also very sensitive to the need to continue to move ahead with meaningful deficit reduction. This session of Congress has been devoted in large measure to procedural questions about how it is we bring down the debt. I am very disappointed by the fact that, frankly, our best procedural effort to do that in a meaningful way, a budget resolution, which is required from the Budget Committee tomorrow, will not occur at the time required by law. While we talked about procedure, the majority has been unwilling so far to use the procedure we already have to do exactly what we say we need to do. Therefore, Mr. President, I am disappointed that we have failed to produce the budget resolution necessary to accomplish what we say we really need here. Mr. President, the issue of priorities, as we consider deficit reduction, brings Members to the floor on many occasions. Again, it does this morning. We recognize while we need to reduce the deficit, we also recognize that the long-term deficit is going to be determined in part by the needs of Americans who may depend upon the Federal Government, and by the ability they have to go out and become meaningful, productive, taxpaying citizens. The only way we can ensure working families have the capacity to be productive, taxpaying citizens, is that we invest in their future with what limited resources we have. The amendment that I am proposing this morning--and supported, I would say, by the overwhelming majority if not all of our colleagues on the Democratic side--is an amendment that simply says ``Whatever else we do to reduce the deficit, the one thing we ought to do is to be cognizant of how important it is that we protect our children and the investment that we need to make in children.'' This amendment would simply allow Members to tell 1 million children across the country that it is our intention to help them, that it is our commitment to them and to deficit reduction, both, that we hope to articulate in this amendment. Our legislation would provide protection for 5,000 children when it comes to child care. We want to tell working families that we want them to go out there and do the best they can to generate the income that their talents will allow, and we will try to assist where it can be provided with the child care needs they have, in order to be a productive and an involved working citizen. Child care is the first installment of a multiple array of tools that can help working families do their job better. The same in Head Start. We want to protect 9,000 children in the Head Start Program who otherwise will be cut off, who otherwise will not have the opportunity to begin their early childhood development in a meaningful way, and to ensure that when the time comes they can become good students, good working people and good family members. That is what Head Start does. And we are hoping to protect the 9,000 people who otherwise will be cut out, without the advantages of this amendment. We are also telling those young adults, those young Americans who want very much to be able to go to college and at the same time help their country, that we remember them as we change our deficit priorities. We want to tell 36,000 young people that it is important to go out through national service and develop the capacity they need, to go to college, to learn skills, to do the things necessary to become important and taxpaying citizens in this country. No one denies the incredible impact that the Women, Infants, and Children Program has. We will tell 70,000 mothers and children that we will help them as well, not by increasing the deficit. I emphasize here that this amendment is completely paid for by shifting priorities to allow Congress to reduce the deficit but protect women, infants, and children in the program that has demonstrated a remarkable capacity to assist young families as they begin to meet the challenges of life. We also recognize that school is critical. If we are going to invest properly in families, in working families, we have to ensure that our investment in education is adequately provided. Aid to schools, impact aid, is of critical importance. And under the pending bill, $16 million overall will be lost. In my State of South Dakota, over one-half million dollars would be lost. The impact that will have on schools that rely upon this funding, as I indicated We want to say, without equivocation, when it comes to priorities, education is at the top of the list. Only the educated are free. Only the free can participate adequately in democracy. Only if we ensure adequate educational investment can we ensure the freedom that we so dearly love in this country. Aid to schools, and providing better schools for almost 1 million students is what this amendment does as well. Mr. President, I will have much more to say about the amendment and about what we are attempting to do later on this morning. Let me emphasize how important this amendment is. How important it is that we provide adequate funding for FEMA. How important it is that we provide meaningful deficit reduction, but at the same time that we meet those two objectives. It is critical that we protect 1 million children who otherwise would be cut out of needed assistance. Mr. President, I will return to the floor shortly to say more about the amendment and about our intentions with regard to this investment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, relating to the debate that we began this morning, let me say that I hope we can renew our debate about priorities as we approach the last week of this particular session before the Easter recess. It was a debate about priorities and a debate about the need for deficit reduction and a debate about how we get there. An amendment that I offered today achieves exactly the same level of deficit reduction as the level proposed in the committee-reported rescissions bill, but it does so without damaging our children's educational and health care needs. What the amendment was designed to do, without adding one penny to the deficit, in a way that was completely paid for, was to create a better balance between the requirements laid out in the original rescissions package and the objectives that we all have with regard to distributing the burden of deficit reduction fairly. On the list of priorities we say we all share, education is high. But certainly that was not reflected to the degree that it should be if, indeed, our priorities are as we say they are. We all had hoped we could have a good debate this afternoon with regard to those priorities, with regard to our Nation's values, the values of families, but we were not given that opportunity, and for that I am very deeply disappointed. The majority leader, as is his right, offered a second-degree amendment that really does not address this issue of education and the needs of working families. Obviously, there are many ways in which to continue to work at meaningful deficit reduction, but that really was not the sole purpose of the amendment on our side. What we were attempting to say is that you can have good and constructive debate about how we ought to reduce the deficit, and that part of that debate ought to be about the values and the tremendous priorities that we have invested in in the past, with regard to education and children. We wanted to call upon the Senate to reconsider how we treat working families with children. The response, unfortunately, that we received was a proposal to gut our amendment and have the bill pulled entirely. I do not know what the other side may be afraid of here, but it seems to me that support for our amendment is very loud and very clear. The support, again announced on the west side of the Capitol this morning in very clear terms, was that we ought to recognize that we have priorities that stand not as mutually exclusive but clearly in tandem-- meaningful deficit reduction at the same time we have meaningful investments in the priorities that this country ought to insist upon. Since we stood up for working families of 1 million children, telephones have been ringing off the hook in the Senate offices across the Capitol. Our amendment is building support because it addresses the need to reduce the deficit at the same time it restores funds that are needed for working families. If this amendment is not adopted, America's children will pay the price in terms of their education, their housing, their health care, and their child care. We need to invest in our future, and our amendment says going after children's programs first is wrong. We also need to ensure that we properly fund the Federal Emergency Management Administration so that we meet emergency needs caused by recent natural disasters. Our amendment does that. It is also completely paid for. It restores the $1.3 billion simply by taking what is viewed as excessive funding for FEMA in the years beyond 1996 and dedicating that money, as it should be dedicated, to the investment in children. The total rescission under this substitute is identical to the level in the pending Senate bill--$15.1 billion, including the money allocated to the Shelby amendment. The substitute provides FEMA with exactly the same level of funding as the House bill--$5.36 billion. If our colleagues dispute the level of funding in our amendment, they are also disputing the Republican leadership in the other body, because the figure is identical on both sides of the Capitol. One million children should not be left out or ignored as we continue the duel on priorities that we have here--priorities that recognize their interests, future needs, and their interest in inheriting a country that is not as deficit-laden as it is today. So we can do both. I hope that as we work through this rescissions bill, and certainly through the budget priorities we will be debating as we consider a budget resolution later on, we can recognize the need to do both in a meaningful and bipartisan way. That is what this amendment attempts to do. That is what I hope the Senate will do. That is what I hope we have the opportunity to do next week.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once called Mount Rushmore ``the shrine of American democracy.'' Because of his love of that shrine, it is especially fitting that, as we approach the 50th anniversary of FDR's death on April 12, the new memorial that is being built now in our Nation's Capital to honor President Roosevelt will be carved, like Mount Rushmore, out of South Dakota stone. There is another reason that South Dakota rock is being used for the memorial. It is, as geologists will tell you, quite simply one of the most beautiful granites in the world. It is called carnelian granite, named for the warm, mahagony color of the rock. It has been quarried in Milbank, in the northeast corner of South Dakota, since 1908. Because of its rich color and brilliant shine, Milbank granite has been used for public monuments in nearly every State and Canada. In Pierre, the capital of South Dakota, it was used in 1912 to build our statehouse. In Washington, it was used to build the National Catholic Shrine and the poignant memorial to the women who fought in the war in Vietnam. The Roosevelt Monument, which will be completed in spring 1997, will use 135,000 square feet of Milbank granite. That is about as much granite as you would need to construct an 80-story building. The memorial will depict 12 pivotal years in America's history through a series of four rooms, each devoted to one of FDR's four terms in office. The granite from my home State will form the walls of those rooms, into which will be carved President Roosevelt's own inspiring words. Among the bronze sculptures to inhabit the rooms will be a statue of Eleanor Roosevelt, a champion of women's rights, who had a profound effect on FDR and on this Nation. Like Theodore Roosevelt before him, Franklin Roosevelt was always a little awe-struck by the stark beauty of the American West, and particularly South Dakota. In 1944, he suggested that the United Nations be located in the Black Hills of South Dakota so that world leaders might ponder the profound solitude and the magnificence of the Earth as they faced tough issues. South Dakota is a land of awe-inspiring geological resources: the Black Hills, the Badlands, vast caves and glacial deposits, and of course, the 2\1/2\ billion-year-old Milbank granite. Among the oldest rocks in the world, the South Dakota granite will produce a tribute of geological, almost infinite, duration to an extraordinary President who led this Nation through the depths of the Depression and the horrors of the Second World War to a far better place. In 1936 when FDR came to Mount Rushmore to preside at the dedication of Jefferson's likeness, he said ``we can mediate and wonder what our descendants will think about us 10,000 years from now when they see this mountain.'' We in South Dakota are proud that future generations will gaze upon the rock of South Dakota when they reflect on the lasting contributions to American society of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It is especially appropriate that we honor President Roosevelt now. There are people in Washington who truly hope and aspire to the great things that President Roosevelt had wanted and to which he dedicated his life. But the fundamental ideals in which President Roosevelt believed--fairness, genuine opportunity for all Americans--go beyond Democratic and may have on the floor of the Senate as late as this afternoon. Those beliefs, those strong feelings about the directions this country should take, are every bit as enduring as the hard South Dakota granite. And, like that granite, they will endure long after we are gone.

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 am disappointed with the news that we will not have the opportunity to vote on the conference report. I do not think there is any doubt that when the conference report passes, it will pass overwhelmingly. There is no need to file a cloture petition. There is not one Democrat holding up the conference report this afternoon--not one. Whenever we have that vote, it will be overwhelming. Cloture will be invoked overwhelmingly. I doubt that even one Democrat will oppose cloture. So to go for a cloture motion at this point is really meaningless. There is no need for it. No one is holding up the conference report. Cloture is designed to break a filibuster. There is no filibuster. We have not even had a good chance to discuss it, much less filibuster it. So for anyone to misunderstand what is happening here would be a very significant mistake. The fact is, we are on the floor this afternoon and we are prepared to work. I had hoped that by now we would be in the middle of a good debate about protecting children. I thought we would have a good opportunity here to talk about helping 1 million children with the Democratic amendment that was offered this morning. That is what this debate was supposed to be all about today. The fact that that debate is not being held is, in and of itself, a very significant disappointment. Because the majority leader saw fit to offer a second-degree to our amendment, I also feel very disappointed. The fact is that we ought to have an opportunity for an up-or-down vote on that amendment itself. If the Republicans have alternatives, we ought to discuss those. But we will save that argument for another day. It was the majority leader's decision to take that legislation off the table and then to put the conference report before the Senate for consideration this afternoon. All we were suggesting as part of that consideration is to deal with the matter the Finance Committee had taken up, and that was to eliminate a tax break providing millions of dollars of benefits to some of the wealthiest people in this country. The headline in the Washington Post says it all: ``Tax Break for Wealthy Expatriates Sparks Class Warfare Charges: `Confiscatory Tax' on Rich Who Leave U.S. Denounced.'' What kind of class are we protecting here, for heavens sake? What kind of class warfare is this? The real class warfare is occurring by many Republicans who will not even allow us to have a vote on the minimum wage issue. That is class warfare; an unwillingness to provide those at the lowest rung of the economic ladder with a meaningful income. That, in my view, is what class warfare is all about. Every Republican and Democrat ought to be opposed to providing expatriates a huge tax handout. There should not be any question about that. But let there be no mistake: As strongly as we feel about this, as strongly as we want to address this issue, we are prepared to set it aside, to have a vote at a time certain next week so that we can move along the legislation dealing with the deductibility for the self- employed. We want that to happen. We are going to vote for cloture on Monday. We are going to support it on Monday or Tuesday, whenever the leader decides to bring it up. And it is our desire to move this legislation along as quickly as possible. So there is a nice ring, perhaps, to the indignation on the other side, but the fact is that ring rings pretty hollow when the truth is laid out. The fact of the matter is, very clearly, Democrats want just as much as Republicans to pass this legislation. We offered a vote in relation to both Senator D'Amato's and Senator Kennedy's amendments on Tuesday morning and to pass the conference report today. So the record ought to be very clear about this. We were going to break the logjam the Republicans caused yesterday with the D'Amato amendment. We were going to break the logjam that was created, in part, by the determination by some Republicans to protect the wealthiest among us, and we were prepared to have the votes next week, Monday and Tuesday, just as quickly as we could work out an arrangement for both Democrats and Republicans. That is not going to happen, and I am disappointed. It is only 1:30. We should not have the afternoon off. We ought to have the ability to debate why we are leaving 1 million children unprotected as a result of the rescissions made in the supplemental that has been pending before the Senate all week. We ought to talk about the ramifications of 5,000 kids being denied opportunities to get adequate child care and hundreds of thousands of children who they should because we are rescinding the funds that provide those opportunities. Those are the kinds of debates we needed to have this afternoon. It is very unfortunate that we will not be given that chance. Let me say one more time, without equivocation so that everyone understands, we want the legislation to provide tax deductibility for the self-insured to pass this afternoon. We are prepared to vote right now. We will bring people back and vote as often as we need to to make that point clear, if that is required. But there ought not be any mistake. No one on this side of the aisle is holding that provision up. We want it this afternoon. We will take it on Monday, we will take it whenever it is offered, but it is going to happen, and it is going to happen with overwhelming Democratic support. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. No, we could not do that.

Mr. DASCHLE. Sure. We can work on that. We have been.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct, start at 10 o'clock. We could get a time agreement. I know people are going to want to make travel schedules tomorrow, but we could finish perhaps at 2 o'clock in the afternoon.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I guess I would remind our colleagues the reason we are here at 10:15 is we spent the entire day working on an amendment offered by the Senator from New York, on an amendment that had nothing to do with the supplemental. I am sure the bulk of the amendments thus far have been offered in good faith by Members on both sides of the aisle. I would be prepared to lay down the amendment that we have been talking about now for a couple of days tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. We could have a good debate on it. I think we could narrow the list, as we have been able to do in the past, to try to come up with a list that we could dispose of in due course. But certainly I would be prepared to work out a time agreement on the amendment tomorrow and continue our work.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today we have an opportunity to articulate in this rescission bill policy relating to timber salvage sales. It is my hope that the Senate will send a clear message to the Forest Service that considerably more timber salvage needs to be harvested in the forthcoming year. As many of my colleagues know, the timber harvest on national forests has declined considerably during the last few years. In some cases, this has been due to problems encountered in the Pacific Northwest, as the logging practices of the 1980's led to inevitable clashes between the timber industry and environmental organizations, and the conflict was thrown into the Federal court system, which halted much of the timber activity in that region. Ultimately, through the development by the Clinton administration of a legally defensible compromise, some light is now evident at the end of the tunnel. Nonetheless, progress has not been as rapid as the timber industry would have liked. And that is understandable. The pipeline of timber sales in the Pacific Northwest largely dried up during this period of litigation, and it has been slow to recover. Simultaneously, drought, insects and disease have taken a toll on other forests, resulting in considerable dead and dying timber and the associated fire danger throughout the west. The frequency and intensity of forest fires experienced last year were grim testament to the unacceptable situation that now exists. And, at the same time, the Forest Service's timber program budget has shrunk, reducing its ability to harvest this timber in a timely fashion. On many national forests, the actual harvest levels are well below the levels that have been determined by the Forest Service to be sustainable. We now are faced with developing and instituting an appropriate remedy. Serious steps should be taken to identify salvage timber and harvest it in an expedited fashion. By doing so, we can at least attempt to mitigate fire damage and begin to provide needed relief to timber-dependent communities. Without question, the Gorton amendment to the rescission bill would move more timber and expedite the salvage program. My concern is that the Gorton amendment, in its understandable preoccupation with encouraging greater timber sales, would waive environmental laws. Given the large amount of timber that could be harvested under this amendment, and the possible affects of this harvesting on fish and wildlife habitat, I am uncomfortable with the wholesale waiver of environmental statutes. In some cases, these laws have hindered the ability of the Forest Service to implement a responsible timber program. Congress is actively taking steps through the committees of jurisdiction to address these circumstances. Senator Craig has introduced legislation to establish a more deliberate and timely process for dealing with forest health problems. I am working with him to move this bill through the appropriate committees and to the floor this year, so that we can begin to address forest health in a systematic, deliberate, thorough and effective manner. In addition, Senator Kempthorne intends to produce legislation to reform the Endangered Species Act. I would not be surprised if both of these bills are enacted during this session of Congress. I believe that enactment of authorizing legislation is the appropriate way to change the scope or applicability of environmental laws--not ad hoc amendment of this rescission bill. Therefore, I support the amendment offered by Senator Murray which, among other things, will expedite timber sales by streamlining the appeals process and by limiting consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to 30 days. Under the Murray amendment, salvage sales cannot be held up solely because the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service claims that they do not have adequate information. Also, a presumption is established that timber sales offered under Option Nine in the Pacific Northwest meet all environmental requirements. These measures should significantly improve the availability of timber in that region and throughout the country. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and hope that, if we adopt it today, it will be included in the final bill that is sent to the President for enactment into law.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise to ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

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, let me join with the others who have risen in support of this important nomination. I want to thank the majority leader for bringing this matter to the floor at this time. This is a very important and timely issue for a lot of reasons. Obviously, there are many extraordinary decisions that the Senate and Congress must make over the course of the next several months, and we need the leadership that Congressman Glickman can provide in this regard. There are many who would like to begin working with him very earnestly, at the earliest possible date, to begin the process of developing another 5-year farm bill. We need to get on with that. We need to recognize how important it is that this farm bill be passed expeditiously. Certainly, the sooner we can get this nomination confirmed, the better. I am excited about this nomination for a lot of reasons. I believe that Dan Glickman is perhaps one of the most qualified people to be nominated for this position, at least in recent memory. He understands the importance of agriculture, of rural America, of all of the challenges that we face as we consider the transition that rural America is now experiencing. He is extraordinary at creative bipartisan consensus on policy issues, as well as on the strategy regarding a number of the legislative matters that will come before the Senate. I believe that his bipartisan consensus building skills will serve everyone well. Dan Glickman has served in the Congress for a long time. As a member of the House Agriculture Committee, he has been the leader on countless legislative issues relating to farm bills and agriculture. He deserves our support. We all recognize the leadership he has provided. He deserves the kind of consideration that he is being given this evening. Mr. President, I think it is also important to note that Dan Glickman is one of the most accessible people I know. He is willing to go the extra mile, to talk with people, to be available as questions arise, both on and off the hill. He is willing to travel. He is willing to go out into the far reaches of this country to address in the most meaningful and considered way the broad range of issues that the Secretary of Agriculture must consider. He is an outstanding legislator who is ready to lead on a whole range of issues that I know will be on his desk in the not-too-distant future. He has been an advocate of increasing trade with other countries. While he had specific reservations about the most recent trade agreement, Dan Glickman understands how important trade is, how important it is that we reach out to other countries and create new markets. He recognizes, as well, the value of the new market development that we need to improve farm prices. He recognizes that value-added markets are really the key to long-term agricultural development. We cannot look to the farm bill to create artificial price mechanisms. We have to go out and build the markets both internationally and domestically. last several months with Dan on this point. I am pleased at his enthusiastic response to the desire that many share with regard to building value-added markets in the future. Dan Glickman also understands the importance of the next generation of agriculture. He knows that the farm community is getting older, that the farm community is getting to the point where, indeed, we must look to the next generation for the long-term future and viability of agriculture. He knows we have to help young farmers. He knows that the only way to do that is to provide a better price. Dan Glickman also understands the importance of conservation. Conservation has been an issue that he has worked on for many years. He realizes the importance of the CRP program and the efforts that we made to address soil erosion. He understands the importance of research in providing for the efforts to conserve our soil and to do more in the realm of providing for long-term environmentally sound responses to the agricultural practices of the past. So, Dan Glickman is a very futuristic individual. He understands that we made an investment that ought to be protected, but he understands, as well, the need to refocus that investment as warranted. Mr. President, it is with great enthusiasm that I come to the floor this evening to support his nomination, to again reiterate my view that there are few people that have come to the Senate in support or in recognition of the need for agricultural policy that have been as qualified as this person is. Dan Glickman deserves strong bipartisan support. Given the remarks made by the majority leader and others in the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am confident that there will be overwhelming support demonstrated in our vote for him tomorrow. Once he becomes Secretary, I look forward to working with him. I know for the next couple of years his plate will be full and his agenda will be long, but, I think there also will be a good deal of willingness on both sides of the aisle to work with him to ensure that he is successful. Our country depends upon the talents of a Dan Glickman. Our future in agriculture depends upon his leadership. It is critical that we cooperate with Dan as he continues to provide that leadership. Mr. President, I hope that we can demonstrate with enthusiasm tomorrow how strongly we feel about this nomination, how hopeful we are about his success and how determined we can be about our willingness to cooperate as he begins his task. I yield the floor. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

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, this year we are going to be involved in a very significant debate about the Conservation Reserve Program. From time to time, I want to address the Senate on various agricultural- related issues. Perhaps one of the most important of all is the Conservation Reserve Program. It has touched nearly every facet of life in rural States, including that of the distinguished Presiding Officer. It has reduced soil erosion, it has substantially increased wildlife habitat, it has improved water quality, and it has reduced crop surpluses. As I look back at the many programs that Congress has contemplated, considered, and ultimately enacted in the last 10 years, I think one would be hard pressed to find a program that has worked better than the CRP. No program has more effectively invested Federal dollars in natural resources than has the CRP. As a consequence of the program's tremendous success, it enjoys broad support from agricultural groups, conservation groups, environmental groups, and virtually everybody else in rural America. Mr. President, 2.1 million of the 36.4 million acres enrolled in the CRP are located in my State. In South Dakota, the erosion rate on CRP land fell from 12 tons an acre to just over 1 ton an acre over the last 10 years--a dramatic reduction in destructive and wasteful erosion. All told, the CRP has generated a reduction of soil erosion in my State alone of over 22 million tons. Nationwide, soil erosion has decreased by 19 tons per acre. So the program has had an even greater effect in other States than it has had in South Dakota. Chart 1 shows where the bulk of the success has been. The red depicts those areas where we have seen significant soil erosion reduction--the Mountain States, the southern plains, and the northern plains, which includes, of course, South Dakota. We have seen about 126 million tons of soil erosion reduction in the Mountain States; 145 million tons of soil erosion reduction in our area of the country; and in the southern plains, we have seen the greatest success story of all, 170 million tons in soil erosion reduction. So in every part of the country, we have seen a substantial degree of progress in reduction of soil erosion. But if you look more carefully at the chart you will see that where the greatest potential lies for soil erosion, where we saw the greatest consequences of soil erosion in the past, we have now seen the greatest progress. That really, in one picture alone, depicts what I consider to be the success story of CRP over the last 10 years. Simply looking at the topsoil savings really does not tell the whole story, however. Costs to society of impaired water quality from farmland erosion are $208 billion a year. We are substantially preserving and improving water quality through the CRP because it idles so much highly erodible land. The CRP has also had a significant positive effect on several species that were endangered. The prairie chicken and the sharp-tailed grouse were threatened and endangered species. Those have come back to flourish as a result of the efforts in CRP. More than 85 percent of the CRP acres have now been planted to grasses. The CRP also has fostered tree plantings on 3,600 square miles. That, Mr. President, is the equivalent of Yosemite and Glacier National Parks combined. In a sense, with the CRP, we have actually created the equivalent of two new national parks, if you just consider the effect in tree plantings alone. So the program has created a substantial new incentive to plant trees and, obviously, when trees are planted, it is far less likely that the enrolled land will come back into production in the future. In my State, of course, pheasants are very prominent, and we are very proud of the fact that we are probably the pheasant capital of the world. We have attracted 128,000 hunters in 1993 who spent more than $50 million in our rural communities. More than $13 billion in resource-based benefits to society have been generated by the CRP over the life of the program. So I guess the short summary is, Mr. President, if you look at endangered species, if you look at the tree plantings, if you look at the consequences for recreation and tourism--and in my State, something I love personally to do, the opportunities for more pheasant, goose, and duck hunting--CRP has vastly expanded the opportunities to do the kinds of things that we go out West to do each and every year. CRP has also had significant consequences with regard to reductions in Federal spending. We have saved the Federal Treasury $16 million in subsidy payments just in 1 year alone by removing the marginal lands from production. We save money in large measure because the CRP gives farmers an opportunity to do something other than plant for the program on their highly erodible acres. It is no longer necessary for producers to plant their erodible land just to get deficiency payments, to get disaster payments, or to get whatever other payments the Federal Government may have. Now, CRP gives them an ecologically and economically sound alternative. In South Dakota, nearly 1.5 million cropland base acres were enrolled into the CRP. If commodities had been planted on this land, taxpayers would have paid crop subsidy payments on these acres, and the figure would have been millions of dollars more than what it is right now. Chart 2 depicts really the anticipated result of what would happen if we lost the CRP in the future. The post contract CRP land uses have been the subject of a good deal of discussion. What we see here is that all of the green would be what we anticipate going back into production. There would be plant to crop, 43 percent; cash rent to other farmers, 13 percent; annual set-asides, 4 percent; and, of course, some would go into the 0/92 program. In essence, you have a good percentage of current CRP acreage that would go back into the same kind of production activity that we experienced in the mid-1980's, that massive production was one of the primary causes of the cataclysmic economic situation that rural America experienced in the mid-1980's. The contracts begin to expire this year, and over half of the CRP contracts will expire by 1997. All will expire by the year 2001. Only 63 percent of contract holders now plan to return the CRP acres. That is this green that I have mentioned. Only 9 percent would voluntarily keep their land in wildlife habitat or trees. That is something we hope to expand dramatically. Obviously, 9 percent is a good start, but we have to go a lot further than 9 percent if, indeed, the CRP will have the lasting benefits that we all hope it will have. The third chart depicts, Mr. President, the effect of the CRP on the actual farm program itself. prices may actually fall by 36 cents. The effects of CRP on farm program expenditures and prices are even more impressive in the aggregate. This chart depicts the millions of dollars we can save with the continuation of the CRP. As you can see, continued enrollment of 50 percent of the CRP acres are depicted in the purple; 100 percent in the red. For example, if in 1996, 100 percent of the CRP acres are reenrolled, as we hope they will be, we could actually save about $100 million in farm program expenditures. But the real savings come in the outyears. The program could generate savings in the years 2000 and 2001 of over $1.5 billion a year. As you can plainly see, a substantial amount of savings is generated as a result of the CRP. I am very hopeful that people will understand that CRP generates those savings, in large measure, because the program effectively helps manage the supply of many program crops. If we lose this supply management tool, sorghum prices would fall 36 cents; barley prices would fall 53 cents; corn prices would fall 6 cents; and oats prices would fall 17 cents. Without the CRP, we would, once again, be forced to consider more dramatic efforts to try to bring balance to commodity prices by increasing farm program benefits and outlays. CRP can certainly be improved, Mr. President. We want rental rate reform. We want expanded economic uses of CRP acreage, including limited haying and grazing. We want partial field enrollments. We want management to control noxious weeds. We want competitive bids for enrollment. We want sensible reform. And I think we can build a strong, bipartisan consensus in support of continuing the CRP and reforming it to ensure that its benefits will grow in the future. I know that there are those who are here to resume debate and consideration of amendments on the Reid-Nickles legislation. At this time I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leadership time this morning to talk about a couple of issues, if I may.