Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, more than 7,000 students and thousands of South Dakota farm and ranch families have been impacted through the leadership of one man: Dr. Fred Cholick. Dr. Cholick has served South Dakota's No. 1 industry of agriculture for nearly a quarter of a century. He has been a teacher, a mentor and an advocate for expanded research. For the past 6 years, he has served as Dean of the College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences at South Dakota State University, a land grant university and South Dakota's largest educational institution. He has earned a strong reputation nationally. Through his work, he caught the attention of Kansas State University, where he will become Dean of the College of Agriculture in Manhatten. It is a loss for my home state of South Dakota, but an incredible professional opportunity for Dr. Cholick. When Dr. Cholick became Dean of the College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences in 1998, he instilled a motto for the college: ``Making a Difference.'' It was a bold statement that faculty embraced and, to those students who arrived on campus, it signaled the high expectations of the University and Dr. Cholick. Dr. Cholick is an academic, but he has never been confined to a classroom or laboratory. He has traveled extensively throughout our expansive state, engaging in a constructive dialogue with farmers, ranchers and agri-business men and women. He understands that adapting to the changes in agriculture--brought about by a global economy, breakthroughs in technology and other factors--should be a collaborative effort. While Dr. Cholick is a forceful spokesperson for agriculture, he is an equally good listener, taking in people's ideas and insights in a patient, thoughtful manner. As a young professor and researcher from Oregon State University and Colorado State University, Dr. Cholick made a difference for South Dakota's farmers with his work on spring wheat varieties that can withstand the harsh weather of the Great Plains. He continued that commitment when he headed up the Plant Science Department, continually working to improve seed genetics to create more efficient and effective corn and soybean varieties. South Dakota State University has been enriched by Dr. Cholick's service for 23 years. Beginning next month, he will continue his good work at Kansas State University. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Dr. Cholick for his distinguished career and commitment to our Nation's land grant institutions.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be using my leader time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor again not to pose a unanimous consent request, because we attempted that again last night, but to remind my colleagues that we have proposed to our colleagues on the majority that we would be happy to agree to a unanimous consent that would allow us an up-or-down vote on the amendment that is now the subject of a motion to proceed. We had said we were prepared to do that last Friday. We had said that it is important for us to have a good, vigorous debate about the amendment, but now there is a debate among the majority apparently about several versions of the amendment they want to use. Usually, when someone is in the majority, they come to the floor with a majority draft, hopefully a draft that has been passed out of the committee with careful consideration and thoughtful debate. That has not happened in this case. This amendment never came out of the committee. It was simply put on the calendar and now it is the subject of a debate on the motion to proceed. Even with all of that, we said if they want to have a debate on that amendment, that is fine. Unfortunately, because the majority cannot agree among itself and because it has several versions that it now wants to present to the Senate, versions all to amend the U.S. Constitution, and because, of course, we cannot be limited just to those provisions, there are other amendments that would be offered subject to a simple majority, amendments that could deal with any 1 of the other 17 amendments that are pending. There are 67 different proposals for amending the Constitution currently pending in the 108th Congress. Any 1 of those 67 proposals would be fair game. There are many that have to do with gay marriage. There are many that have to do with flags, victims' rights, freedom of speech, campaign finance. There are a lot of amendments. We could be on amendments for the rest of this month. So this is not what I would imagine most people would prefer, but that is where we find ourselves today. We are prepared to accept the unanimous consent agreement to go to the amendment that has been proposed to the Senate, but that is not apparently what our friends on the other side prefer to do. So we will have the vote on the motion to proceed. The sad thing is there are so many other things that ought to be done. We were briefed just last week in a very sober setting in 407 about our circumstances involving homeland security and the possibilities of additional new threats to our country. Yet the Homeland Security bill languishes. There have been suggestions within our caucus to make a motion to proceed to homeland security, and at some point, I will say now that is a very real possibility that we will move to homeland security because the majority refuses to do so. It is difficult for us to understand why we ought to be in this situation. This is the middle of July. We have yet to take up the Homeland Security appropriations bill, in spite of these warnings of new threats to our country. Why would we not take up that bill? That is just one of the questions, one of the issues, that trouble many of us. The majority leader has promised to vote on reimportation. I do not know when we are going to take up reimportation. We are now through the middle of July. He has indicated that after the vote on the constitutional amendment we are likely to go to the free-trade agreements. So I am not sure when we squeeze in a good debate about whether we can provide lower drug prices to seniors. That, too, could be the motion that could be the subject of debate on a motion to proceed. That is already on the calendar. The majority leader has promised a vote on mental health parity. We thought it would be January or February, then maybe March. Well, here it is now with fewer than 30 days remaining, and in spite of that promise there is no commitment to go to mental health parity. Many of us would love to see a debate and a vote on whether we should negotiate lower prices with the drug companies for seniors. That is on the list. After what happened in the Supreme Court not long ago, there is a real question now about whether we ought to revive the debate on Patients' Bill of Rights. Patients' Bill of Rights ought to be the subject of debate in the Chamber, not to mention all the other appropriations bills, rail security legislation, legislation dealing with our borders, our ports, our railroad tunnels. This continues to be a historic Congress in its inability to do the things the American people would expect of us. I have heard all the charges of obstructionism. They can't get their act together. That is the fact. They are unable to decide among themselves what their priorities are. As a result, the priorities of the Nation languish. We face a real crisis, as I mentioned a moment ago, in our country, involving the rising cost of prescription drugs. Last year, Congress passed a bill that was supposed to solve that crisis. Seven months later it is clear that it is not working and prices are going up as fast as ever. We should not and we must not accept that. We have an obligation to consider new ideas, to search for new solutions. President Roosevelt was fond of saying: Take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly, and try another. But, by all means, try something. A couple of weeks ago my friend Senator Pryor from Arkansas was speaking here. He suggested that we follow a ``do right'' approach to our work. I completely agree. As we tackle issues, we should ask ourselves a simple question: Are we doing right by America? In the case of prescription drugs, I would ask the question: Are we doing right by America's seniors? The answer, unfortunately, is no. According to a report by the AARP, the cost of the most-prescribed brand name prescription drugs has risen above the rate of inflation for each of the past 4 years, steadily eroding the fixed incomes of seniors. Last year the cost of drugs rose three times the rate of inflation. But as bad as that was, this year appears to be even worse. The AARP revealed recently that during the first quarter of 2004, drug prices rose more than 3\1/2\ times the rate of inflation and there is no end in sight. The typical senior will pay $191 more for drugs this year than in 2003. Statistics cannot do justice to the hardship this is placing on Americans. Not long ago my office was contacted by a man whose name is Stan Pitts. Stan's diabetes has left him virtually blind and unable to work. Controlling his illness requires 13 different prescriptions. In all, his monthly drug bill is $1,267. When he could no longer work as a computer technician, Stan went on disability, which paid him $1,162 per month. It is not much, not even enough to cover his drug costs, but it still disqualified him from receiving any other assistance, including food stamps, housing, and Medicare. There are no good answers for Stan today. All he can do is try to balance his needs and his income as long as he can. If he does not take his medicine, his illness will worsen and he will eventually die. If he doesn't pay his rent, he will be out on the street. So he alternates. One month he pays for his medicine. The next month he pays his rent, and so on. This only delays the inevitable. Eventually, he will be evicted and eventually there will be nothing left to sell or exchange to pay his drug bill. That is the future waiting for Stan Pitts, and it will be the future for thousands of more Americans unless we do something. The White House and congressional Republicans seem content to rest on their Medicare and drug card program. Since its introduction 2 months ago, seniors have expressed concern that it is too confusing, it doesn't cover their medications, and it doesn't protect them against price gouging. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that whatever discounts the cards might have provided have already been factored into drug company pricing strategies. In fact, drugmakers have already raised prices so much that the so-called discounts offered by this program will do little more than return the drugs to their original prices. Families USA recently concluded that families are worse off today with the drug card than they were in 2001, when the President took office. Furthermore, the official Web site established to help simplify the program for seniors has only made the problem worse. The prices are actually inaccurate. The information on the Web site is confusing and very unhelpful. Last week we learned that many of the pharmacies listed as participants in fact do not participate at all. Some are no longer in business and their windows are boarded up. Seniors have been thrust into a maze of contradicting information. Even those who navigate it successfully will have few, if any, savings to show for their efforts. One couple from Rapid City who recently wrote me found the whole process, in their words, ``foolish.'' They wrote: This solution is not a benefit to the senior citizens, but instead is an economic boon for the drug companies. . . . So rather than participate in the drug card program, they have started buying their drugs from Canadian pharmacies. They do not like to break the law, but they say they will have no other choice. The drug they need is 60 percent cheaper in Canada than it is here. This family is not alone. Pharmaceutical companies charge American consumers the highest prices in the world. Some medicines cost American patients five times more than they cost patients in other countries. In effect, our citizens are charged a tax simply for being American. As a result, millions of Americans are having trouble affording lifesaving medication. Seniors should not be made to feel like criminals just because they cannot afford a $1,000-per-month drug bill. It is wrong that seniors are left to struggle alone, and what makes it worse is the fact it is totally unnecessary. The good news for America's seniors is we can do right by them. There are low-cost alternatives that dramatically reduce the price of prescription drugs. We know, for instance, that by enabling Americans to reimport medications safely from other industrialized countries we can bring down drug costs immediately. At the same time, we should be able to take advantage of the method the VA has already used to reduce drug costs, and employ the unrivaled purchasing power of the Government to negotiate better prices for 41 million Americans. The administration opposes each of these commonsense measures. Apparently, the White House is so committed to protecting the profits of pharmaceutical companies, it is negotiating trade pacts that would increase the drug costs of other countries. Rather than running up the pharmaceutical costs of other countries, the administration should work with us to lower the price to Americans. The fact is, there is no mystery to the problem of bringing down drug costs. There is no hidden secret; no puzzle to solve. We can do right by our seniors by making a simple choice. Let's put their interests ahead of the demands of the drug companies and HMOs. By taking simple commonsense steps, we can bring the cost of drugs and health care within reach of every American. When we do that, we will know we have done right by America. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, several weeks ago the New York Times ran a story about what people all around the world do when they are starving. What they do, in effect, is to try to trick themselves into thinking that they do have food. According to the World Food Program, there are no more mukhet bushes near the refugee camps in eastern Chad, where more than 200,000 Sudanese refugees have fled. Refugees have extracted what little nutritional value they can from those bushes by eating the toxic berries that grow on them. In Haitian slums, poor families eat dough made of butter, salt, water, and dirt. In Malawi, roadside stands sell roasted mice, and in Mozambique the poor eat grasshoppers when they must, calling them ``flying shrimp.'' In Angola in the early 1990's, a man boiled leather from a family chair and served his family ``lamb soup.'' Women in Eritrea regularly strap flat stones to their stomachs to lessen hunger pangs, and, in a cruel turn of the fable of stone soup we all learned growing up, mothers in many countries boil water with stones, telling children the food is almost ready and hoping they will fall asleep waiting. The New York Times goes on to argue--rightly--that the famines these people suffer through are not caused by a lack of food alone. They are caused by drought, government neglect, or war. The opposite, of course, is also true. Governments that make good policy choices can ease suffering, even in the most brutal situations. That fact underscores the wisdom of the Millennium Challenge Account. The MCA, as it is commonly called, says clearly that governments who prove they are ready for reform and openness can count on the support of the people of the United States. Today the Senate has confirmed the first two members of the board of directors who will oversee the MCA. We all know of Christie Todd Whitman and her experience. The other member whom we confirmed today is Ken Hackett, the president of Catholic Relief Services. I am proud to have nominated Ken for this important position. Ken is uniquely qualified for this job for one reason. He has dedicated his life to fighting for the poorest of the poor--the families who, without Ken and Catholic Relief Services, would be forced to eat leather, poison berries, or dirt. The Millennium Challenge Account is an innovative new tool in fostering global development and combating poverty. By demanding greater responsibility from recipient nations, we can foster reform and growth. At the same time, however, the vast majority of the world's poor will remain prisoners to their governments' bad policies and corruption. We cannot redouble our efforts under the Millennium Challenge Account, only to forget those who remain most in need, those whose only solace is a stone tied to their stomach. The MCA will be one tool--an innovative, new tool--in our fight against poverty. But it is not the only tool. That is why I nominated Ken Hackett for this important board. Ken Hackett will be a strong and clear voice for the poorest of the poor--a voice on this board and within the U.S. Government, much the way he has been at Catholic Relief Services for the last several decades. I thank my colleagues in supporting Ken's nomination for this important board. Voting for him is a vote for hope for the world's poor. It is a vote of confidence for the remarkable work of Catholic Relief Services. And it is a vote for retaining America's leadership to end suffering.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know the majority leader is expected on the floor of the Senate shortly to file cloture on the resolution currently pending. I must say I am baffled by the decisions and actions taken by the majority on occasions such as this. I am baffled because when I left on Friday, I had made a proposal to the majority leader that we were prepared for an up-or-down vote on this resolution, with 2 days of debate, and we would move on, preferably, hopefully, to homeland security. I left with the understanding that would be the order. I find now, for reasons that are still unclear to me, it is the majority that is unwilling to accept that unanimous consent request. We have no objections on our side, none. We could go to that resolution under unanimous consent, with no amendments, with an up-or-down vote. I have told several of our colleagues that would be the order, having had the conversation I did with Senator Frist. So it is an amazing position to be in to come back today and realize that it is the majority that cannot produce the unanimous consent request that would allow us the vote we expected we would have on Friday. Of course, this is on top of the unanimous consent vote we were expecting to have last week with regard to amendments and an ultimate final passage on class action. So we will have wasted a couple of weeks once again. I don't know how many weeks we have wasted this year. I am going to go back and try to find out how many weeks have been totally devoid of any legislative accomplishments. In spite of the fact that we have agreed, I hear all these charges of obstructionism. The obstructionism oftentimes is on the other side. They cannot get their act together. That is clearly the case here. No one should be misled. No one should misunderstand why we are having to deal with a cloture motion on the motion to proceed, because our Republican friends don't have one version, they have now several versions they would like to bring to the Senate floor to have voted on because they cannot agree on one version. That is the truth. It is all the more ironic and troubling because this is legislation that ought to go through the committee, if any should go through. We are treating this as a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. We are amending the U.S. Constitution, and we are bringing language to the floor of the Senate that hasn't had the benefit of consideration in committee, hasn't had the hearings, hasn't had the vote. We are treating it as just another old amendment. This is an amendment that will be added to a document that is precious, that we treasure, that we ought to have respect for. Frankly, to be in a situation like we are in now, to be forced into a debate under these circumstances, is just wrong. I intend to make a unanimous consent request. I will wait until the majority leader comes to the Senate floor to do so, but I will then ask unanimous consent that we have an arrangement like I thought we were scheduled to agree to last Friday; that is, we take up this resolution, we have a good debate, we have a vote, and then we move on. Under these circumstances, we could be at this for weeks, if not months, given all of the other pressing issues we must face. We have yet to deal with appropriations bills. We have just been briefed about the serious threat our country is facing--arguably as great a threat as any we have seen since 9/11--and we have yet to pass a homeland security bill. We have yet to pass the railroad security bill. We have yet to pass legislation to deal with our porous borders, our ports, our railroad tunnels. We have yet to find ways in which to help first responders. But somehow we can add amendment after amendment on gay marriage. Mr. President, this is a matter that Lynne Cheney had right this weekend. The wife of the Vice President said this ought to be left to the States. The wife of the Vice President was right. We ought to listen to her advice and let the States continue to make these decisions, and we ought to get on with the business of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will respond. As I understand it, Senator Frist is not planning to come to the floor in the immediate time period, but I will just say, as the distinguished Senator from Texas knows, a constitutional debate is a different kind of debate on the Senate floor. This is not any other bill. The debate, of course, last week had to do with whether we could use the so-called class action bill as a vehicle to raise other issues that are of great importance to us in statutory form. This is a constitutional amendment, amending the Constitution of the United States, therefore leaving open other amendments relating to the Constitution. Somebody could offer an amendment eliminating the first amendment, modifying the first amendment, and all it takes is 51 votes. Somebody could offer an amendment--as I understand it, Senator Hollings is thinking very seriously about offering an amendment limiting campaign spending. That is actually one amendment that I have supported in the past. That takes 51 votes. Anyone who thinks that whatever amendments would be offered would be simply relevant to marriage I think would be faced with a rude awakening that this could open up the whole Constitution to a series of amendments, and maybe a good discussion about some of these other issues may be warranted. Again, it is a question of time. It is a question of thoughtful consideration about whether we want to amend the Constitution in ways outside of marriage for which there have not been hearings. I am told there was one hearing on this particular text, but most of the hearings that have been held have been held on the general issue of amending the Constitution and defining marriage. There is no argument, in my view, among many of us, most of us, about whether a marriage ought to be between a man and a woman. It ought to. The real question is whether or not we ought to amend the U.S. Constitution, and then if we open it up to amendment, whether we ought to amendment it in other ways as well, including campaign finance reform, maybe victims' rights, maybe limitations on the first amendment. Others have suggested an amendment on flag burning. There are a lot of amendments out there. In fact, I am told in the 108th Congress, just last week I was informed that 67 constitutional amendments have been proposed in this Congress, in the 108th Congress. I am quite sure, of course, that not all of them were offered in the Senate. I can just imagine the array of ideas presented by our colleagues regarding amending the U.S. Constitution. As I say, it takes 51 votes. Ultimately, of course, it takes 67 votes to pass whatever package has been approved. But that is what we get ourselves into. We need to think very carefully. We all say we would support and defend the Constitution each time we are sworn in as a U.S. Senator--support and defend the Constitution. Some of us see this as supporting and defending the Constitution in its most important way. So we do not take lightly these challenges, these situations. I will say again, I think it is regrettable we have not been able to reach a unanimous consent agreement on how to proceed. We are actually going to vote on a motion to proceed without knowing what proceeding means because we do not have any way of knowing how many different ideas for amending the Constitution will be offered. As the Senator from Nevada noted, we could be on this for a long time. I will wait to proffer this request, and if I am not here, I know the distinguished assistant Democratic leader will offer this consent request, but we will be prepared to offer it at the appropriate time. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would object, but I would ask the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee, who has worked harder than anyone I know in this Chamber to try to move the appropriations process forward, if we could not simply do what he is suggesting; that is, bring up the Homeland Security bill this afternoon. We can get agreement to go to the bill. No one has seen this bill. To be limited to a time limit without having had the opportunity to see it--we could even work out an agreement on relevant amendments. We could certainly work out a time agreement on amendments themselves. But there is no question that we could resolve these procedural issues immediately. I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending business and take up the Homeland Security bill at 3 o'clock this afternoon.

Mr. DASCHLE. Actually, I objected to that, and I have offered a counterproposal.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, again, I think we are very close to reaching an agreement here. That is probably the good news that comes in this colloquy. I would object only because I am not sure I understand the implications of the final provision within his unanimous consent request having to do with the budget. There is no budget. We don't have a budget resolution. So I don't know how we can be guided by a budget resolution that doesn't exist. If anybody offers an amendment, my guess is it would be declared out of order, as the distinguished chairman is currently proposing. I don't think that is his intent, but I think that would be the interpretation. And that would, therefore, nullify any opportunity to make any alteration to the bill itself. If a 60-vote point of order is required on any amendment, it negates whatever opportunity there is to amend the bill. I would hope perhaps within the hour we could work through that concern and come back and take up the bill this afternoon and, as the distinguished chairman suggests, finish the bill by early next week. I will talk, of course, with our distinguished ranking member who would certainly need to be consulted before we agreed to do anything on the Senate floor. The distinguished ranking member has also expressed concern about our inability to move forward on this legislation, as well as the ranking member of the subcommittee. But I am pleased that the chairman has responded to our desire to move this legislation. Let's hope before the end of the afternoon we can have an agreement in place and take up the Homeland Security bill. No one could have been upstairs and heard what we heard and not want as much as possible to deal with all of the issues that are confronting us right now. The very least we need to do is to provide the funding necessary for the infrastructure that is already in place, and we have not even done that. So it is time we do it. It is time we recognize the concerns that are out there and deal with the responsibilities we have to fund the Homeland Security Department and all the related departments and not let this legislation languish as we tie ourselves up in procedural knots on legislation that has no place, at least right now, given our circumstances. I will work with the chairman, work with the ranking member. Hopefully, we can come back to the floor sometime this afternoon and reach agreement.

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me again respond to the distinguished Senator from Alaska, chairman of the committee. I don't know why we have to have all these conditions for taking up an important bill like this. What is wrong with coming to the floor, working through the bill, dealing with amendments. I am frustrated, I suppose, by the extraordinary demands put before the Senate. Here it is Thursday afternoon. One of the most important appropriations bills we will confront and we must deal with, the Senator from Alaska, as well intended as I know he is, is asking the Senate to take it up on a Friday, when he knows most people travel, and then resolve it before the end of Monday which is also a travel day. We can argue how productive Fridays and Mondays are. And yes, we ought to be able to work here 5 days a week. That has not been the practice. And certainly if we gave Senators warning, those who have already made travel arrangements could probably cancel those travel arrangements. But here we are. He can't really mean what he has suggested, that he is going to finish an important bill like this over 2 travel days and a weekend. That doesn't work. That certainly wouldn't be recognized by any standard as a good-faith offer. Let's work this bill. Let's get it done. Let's have a debate. Let's have amendments. But let's recognize if we are going to do this, showcasing and posturing for purposes of trying to make it appear as if we are getting the work done is not going to satisfy the Senate. We need to lay this bill down. We need to work through it. We need to get it done. We ought to be doing it rather than playing all these political games with class action and all the other things that are contemplated now by the majority.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Nevada is absolutely right. There are too many on the other side who want the House rules but the 6-year term. If they want the House rules, I would advise them to run for the House. We have rules in the Senate that allow for debate. One of the advantages of being a Senator is, you have an opportunity to offer amendments and have a good debate about issues. That doesn't mean they have to be extended indefinitely. These issues can be resolved and have been. But issues as important as homeland defense and appropriations ought to have an opportunity to be debated, to be vetted, to be discussed, and considered in a thoughtful way. What the Senator has suggested, that somehow we take up the bill this afternoon and, with 2 travel days and a weekend, resolve all of these questions is not reasonable and certainly not realistic.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I acknowledge the Senator from Nevada is absolutely correct. It is mystifying that they would allow a bill as important as this to languish and not appoint the conferees we had every expectation would have been appointed the same day we did it in the Senate. Again, it is another illustration of the hyperbolic rhetoric we get about concern for conference and process, but when given the opportunity, no action is taken. That has been true on Defense, as well as many other bills. It is regrettable. Clearly, this is another illustration of how unfortunate this whole schedule has been. We have wasted another week. We wasted a week with the Defense Appropriations conference report. We could have completed our work on the Homeland Security bill this week. Instead, I don't think we have had a vote. If we have had a vote, except for the nomination, I don't recall it. We had one vote on a nominee and no votes on any legislative substance. We have wasted this week. We will waste next week, and as we continue to languish with all of this legislative work before us, we inexplicably have no opportunity to offer amendments and consider the legislative agenda that would make this a secure country. That is very unfortunate.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois is exactly correct. We would be prepared to accept virtually the same conditions we have agreed to in the past on Defense Appropriations and other legislation. If that is what it takes to expedite consideration of Homeland Security, I think it is critical that we attempt to accommodate the Senate and try to work through this very important legislative priority in an expeditious way. So the Senator from Illinois makes a very good suggestion. This is yet another approach. Let's decide to pick it up on Tuesday and move through the legislation. We can probably finish by the middle or certainly the end of the next week, and get to conference, even though they have not appointed conferees in the House. My hope is when it comes to Homeland Security, given what we have heard today at the briefing, it would be imperative for us to deal with both of these bills in the most expeditious manner.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, that will be, once again, the topic of discussion as I discuss the schedule with the majority leader. There cannot be a higher priority for our country and the Senate than dealing with homeland security issues. Why we have not taken up the railroad security issue is another matter that is troubling to many of us. There are a number of bills related to our security that ought to be addressed, ought to have the highest priority. Certainly, Homeland Security Appropriations, railroad security, a number of other issues continue to sit without consideration. I cannot think of a better time to take it up than this afternoon and tomorrow, but no later than Tuesday; and I think the suggestion made by the Senator from Illinois is a good one. I will make it to the majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes, I will.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am sure the people of South Dakota share the same feeling as the people in Nevada, Illinois and across the country. They want us to do our work and they want us to recognize there are very serious obligations we have that ought to be met. I cannot think of a more serious obligation than to provide for the security of this country. The longer we ignore it, the more we put our country at peril. I think it is critical we address these issues in a bipartisan way, a nonpoliticized way, an expeditious way; and certainly by taking this legislation up next week, we would be doing that. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will object to this request. We have only been on the bill now for a matter of a couple of minutes, literally. We just went to it this morning. The bill has only been laid down. This legislation has not been the subject of one hearing, one amendment in committee. There hasn't been any thoughtful, careful committee consideration on this legislation whatsoever. I am surprised and very troubled by the unanimous consent request made by the majority leader. He knows the minority has been very open in expressing our interest in having a full debate about this legislation, indicating from the very beginning that we will have relevant and nonrelevant amendments. We have been the ones who have attempted to keep the majority on track with regard to committing to bringing the bill before the Senate at all. As people may recall, there have been a number of occasions where the majority has chosen not to bring up the bill, even though that was the regular order, and it was at our insistence time and again that we bring this bill before the Senate because we made a commitment to a number of our colleagues, even though I don't particularly support the bill, and I will get into that in a moment. We would be denying the right of every single Senator to offer amendments, in the truest tradition of the Senate, to say that now, even though this bill has not been the subject of any hearings, has not been the subject of a markup, even though this is the very first moment we have had an opportunity to amend the bill, we are already going to say to all Senators that you have to limit yourself to relevant amendments. We have said from the beginning--in fact, I said it on the floor and at a news conference again yesterday--that it is not our intention to filibuster this legislation. It would be our intention to work with the majority to complete debate on this bill, with the understanding, of course, that we would have an opportunity to offer amendments. This is not the way to get this legislation passed. In fact, I would argue that this is probably an absolute guarantee that it will never get passed, because we will never get cloture on a bill that denies Senators their right to offer amendments regardless of the subject matter. So I strongly object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader knows that it is not the question of numbers that matters; it is the question of relevancy. He is already violating his own request by suggesting that we can do nonrelevant amendments on minimum wage. If we can do that, why have any conditions about relevancy at all? We have already indicated our willingness to work with the majority to complete the work on this bill. Nobody has any desire to filibuster, to artificially extend debate for an indefinite period of time. The majority leader made a comment recently about the dwindling number of days. If he wants to finish this legislation, the only way we are going to do that is by working together. The Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Massachusetts have a very important amendment having to do with temporary workers in this country. I think it is a critical debate. We have already agreed to a very limited time. Why the majority leader would preclude the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Massachusetts from offering this amendment with an expectation that we can resolve it in a very short period of time is a question I cannot answer. But the majority leader himself has said that, obviously, nonrelevant amendments have their place on this bill. He is advocating two nonrelevant amendments as it is. Let's get beyond relevancy and just recognize the importance of allowing Senators the opportunity to debate. I will commit to him an effort to try to resolve this legislation in a meaningful way and in a period of time I think could accommodate Senators, but also would accommodate his goal of completing work in the regular order. I object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will simply offer a counterproposal. I ask the majority leader if he would be prepared to allow the Senate to consider this legislation with 5 nonrelevant amendments and 10 relevant amendments. I make that request.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object, but I repeat the request that the Senate consider 10 relevant and 5 nonrelevant amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask, what is the majority afraid of? This clearly is not a question any longer of time because the majority leader, in one of his many unanimous consent requests, proposed an unlimited number of amendments, as long as they are relevant. We can come up with 100 relevant amendments to a bill this controversial and of this complexity. Let's understand what we are doing. This is a sham. This is a sham. The majority leader, for some reason, wants to deny his own caucus and the minority the right to offer legitimate amendments in the Senate. This may be the first time this majority leader has acquiesced to pressures within his caucus to do this, and that is unfortunate. This happened on many occasions in previous years, and I think if anyone talks with those who have served in his capacity before, I think the lesson learned is that it was to no avail, and it was actually counterproductive. It did exactly the opposite of what the majority attempted to do. For us now to find ourselves in this situation seems a little bit to me like deja vu all over again. We have tried this, and it is going to backfire on this majority and this majority leader, just as it has in past circumstances. So let's be clear, this has nothing to do with finishing this bill. Why, given all of our cooperation to get to this point, the majority would try to shove this down our throats is unclear. But that is exactly how I perceive it. It is a sham. This almost guarantees this bill will not get done, and why they would want to do that is unclear to me. We were prepared, as I said, to limit the number of nonrelevant amendments and the time to debate in the interest of time. No one on this side has a desire to extend debate indefinitely, but let's make sure everybody understands: I have to go home and explain to the people of South Dakota, if this legislation passes, why if in a case where 98 percent of the people who are adversely affected are from my State, the action occurred in my State, and was taken by, let's say, a corporation that may be in violation of South Dakota law cannot go to court in South Dakota. That is basically what this bill does. Why should the people harmed in my State, if 98 percent of those adversely impacted are from South Dakota, and if the law was violated in South Dakota, be forced to go to Federal court, a court that could be located in some other State, to resolve a serious legal question? I find it amazingly ironic that those on the other side who claim to be advocates of States rights would say, no; not in this case. In this case, we are going to take away the rights of the States; we are going to put them at the Federal level. There is a new trend happening on the other side. When it is inconvenient for States to have the power, they seem to find it just fine to move to the Federal level. That is what we are going to be telling the people of this country. Forget about States rights, forget about civil rights, forget about workers' rights. This is special interest legislation at its worst, and it deserves a full debate in the Senate, not the sham that we are going to have under these circumstances filling trees. We have been through that. We have learned the lesson the hard way. We ought to have learned it this time, too. I yield the floor.