Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I add to that request 5 minutes for Senator Lieberman.

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I allocate 5 minutes of my time under the previous agreement to the following Senators: Senator Dodd, Senator Kerry, Senator Harkin, Senator Wellstone, Senator Bayh, and Senator Feingold. That will be 5 minutes each.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I ask for one minor modification. With reference to either of the leaders, I suggest we add ``or designee,'' or ``a leader designee.''

Mr. DASCHLE. If I could respond to the Senator's inquiry, if it could accommodate some of those Senators who need more time, we still have more time on the bill. I am happy to authorize the use of whatever additional time allocated to me to those Senators who may require some additional time to further explain their amendment, keeping, therefore, the 10 minutes in the unanimous consent request if that accommodates the Senators.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator be recognized for 30 seconds.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the life and work of Gerald Clifford, an important and influential South Dakotan and Oglala Sioux tribal member who recently passed away after courageously battling a debilitating illness. Gerald Clifford, with whom I worked for many years, was a leader and a driving force for change among Native Americans in South Dakota and across the country. He was a champion for rural water development in southwestern South Dakota and a strong advocate for Indian education and Indian self-determination. Earlier this week, Mr. Clifford began his journey to the spirit world at the young age of sixty. I express my heartfelt condolences to Gerald's family and relatives during this difficult time. My prayers and thoughts are with them. The void left by Gerald's passing was felt especially deeply today, as his life was celebrated at a funeral service in Manderson, South Dakota, on the Pine Ridge Indian reservation. While the work of this body required my presence in Washington today, I do want to honor and remember Gerald here in the Senate for his many outstanding contributions to his community and state. Over the years, Gerald and I worked together on a number of projects. And I can tell you for a fact: he is a tenacious advocate for his causes and never gives up. Never. I had the honor and pleasure of working closely with Gerald on the construction of the Mini Wiconi Rural Water System. In his role as director of the Mini Wiconi project, Gerald accepted the daunting challenge of bringing the state of South Dakota, three South Dakota tribes and local non-Indian communities together to achieve a common vision. The project bridged historically-vast political and cultural gaps to bring the precious resources of clean water to rural communities and remote reservations areas. Even after many South Dakotans had lost hope of ever seeing the Mini Wiconi water project finished, Gerald kept working at it. He shepherded the Mini Wiconi project during the last several years, a critical period in its construction, fulfilled the promise of clean water for many, and laid a strong foundation for completing the project in the foreseeable future. Gerald managed this project with skill and with diplomacy, and I am proud to have been able to work with him to accomplish our mutual goal. His contribution will be felt for decades to come. Gerald made many other contributions to his people and his state in addition to Mini Wiconi. I would like to highlight just a few examples that provide a snapshot of the magnitude of this involvement in efforts to benefit the people of South Dakota and our nation. Gerald Clifford was first and foremost an articulate and impassioned advocate for justice for his people. No one who knew Gerald could ever question the intensity or sincerity of his commitment to this overriding goal. Gerald also understood the critical importance of education as a means of improving the quality of life for Indian people, working hard to promote tribally-controlled education, particularly tribal colleges and universities, and contributing to the initiation and development in the early 1970's of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) and the tribal college movement. He was also among the first to have assisted in the creation of tribally-controlled entities, such as the Coalition of Indian-Controlled School Boards. Through this work, he helped provide educational opportunities for 26,000 students at the nation's thirty-three tribal colleges and universities, and opened a major educational pathway for many generations to come. Gerald Clifford was a highly respected leader of the American Indian people. He was elected by Great Plains tribal leaders and tribal peers to serve as the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) Aberdeen area Vice-President. As their voice on Capital Hill, Gerald helped many tribes in South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska and throughout the mid- West. Gerald was a dominant presence at the forefront of the many struggles that the Aberdeen area tribes faced over the past four decades. It was through his focused dedication and skilled advocacy that Indian people have prevailed in the face of numerous adversities placed in their way. Gerald served as an elder, mentor, colleague and friend to so many young Indian men and women, imparting many of his outstanding qualities to this and future generations of tribal leaders. Earlier this year, I addressed the National Congress of American Indians general assembly while Gerald was in Washington fighting hard on issues that meant so much to him. Later, I learned that he was forced to return to South Dakota prematurely because he was struggling with his health. As a result, I was unable to see him. I will always regret that I did not get to visit with Gerald during his last visit here. Gerald fought illness with courage, determination and indomitable spirit. Even as he was ailing, he was not deterred from the pursuit of his work. He continued to fight for Indian people and for the causes that cared so much about. He never gave up. In passing, Gerald Clifford left a large, significant and important legacy. He truly will be missed, but his work will live on, enriching the lives of South Dakotans for generations

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to voice my support for perhaps the most important amendment--on one of the most important bills--the Senate will consider this year. National missile defense is one of the most critical defense issue facing this nation. It is probably one of the more politically charged issues as well. Despite political sensitivity and, frankly, political risk, Senator Durbin has looked carefully at the facts, and at the arguments on all sides of this issue. His amendment reflects a balanced measured approach that I believe should be endorsed by both supporters and opponents of a missile defense system. The Senate should adopt the Durbin amendment for two reasons: What it doesn't say. And what it does say. What the amendment doesn't say is whether a missile defense system is a good idea, or a bad idea. Frankly, I believe we do not have enough information yet to make that call. The Durbin amendment actually presumes a NMD system will be deployed. But it does not address the issue of whether it should be deployed. What the Durbin amendment does say, it says well. Simply put, this amendment says that before we commit $60 billion--or more--to deploy a national missile defense system, we must be confident the system will work. Nothing more, nothing less. Americans have a right to know that their tax dollars aren't being wasted on a system that cannot work. And we have a responsibility to provide them with that assurance. The Durbin amendment says that before a national missile defense system can be declared operational, the system must be tested against measures our enemies can be expected to take to defeat it, and the Secretary of Defense must prepare a report for Congress on the ability of the NMD system to defeat these countermeasures. The amendment also reconvenes the Welch panel, an independent review panel chaired by General Welch, to assess countermeasure issues and deliver a report on findings to both the Defense Department and the Congress. Why are such assurances needed? Deployment of a national missile defense system would signal a dramatic change in the deterrent strategy this Nation has followed successfully for over 40 years. Moving to new strategy dependent on defenses is not without risks. Missle defense deployment requires enormous public commitment--not unlike our effort to put a man on the Moon. While success can never be guaranteed, American people have a right to know that success is possible--before we commit $60 billion, or more, to it. The President must have confidence the system will work. Also, critically important, our adversaries must know a national defense system will work. A deterrent is not effective if enemies can be confident it may not, or will not, work. If tests demonstrate for the world that the United States has a strong missile defense system, our adversaries are much less likely to want to test our defenses. Another reason assurances are needed: Increasing number of studies that raise questions about whether current missile defense testing program can provide future leaders with adequate level of confidence. Philip Coyle III, the Pentagon's Director of Operational Testing and Evaluation, issued a report to Congress earlier this year. The report concluded the pre-deployment tests will not be conducted ``in a realistic enough manner to support acquisition decisions.'' A recent report by MIT found that relatively simple countermeasures could defeat the planned NMD system--and that current testing is not capable of evaluating the operational effectiveness of the system against likely countermeasures. This is a critical deficiency. Technical experts warn that any emerging ``missile state'' that is capable of deploying a long-range ballistic missile is also capable of building countermeasures that could defeat a NMD system. The intelligence community released a report last year on ``Foreign Missile Development and the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States through 2015.'' The report warned that emerging ``missile states'' could develop countermeasures such as decoy balloons by the time they flight test their first long-range missiles. They could also acquire countermeasure technologies from Russia and China--both of whom possess such technologies, and both of whom strongly oppose a U.S. NMD system. Reasons to oppose amendment? I can think of only one reason to oppose this amendment: Belief that we should deploy an NMD system at any cost. Regardless of whether the system can work. Regardless of the cost to American taxpayers. Regardless of the effects deployment could have on our relationships with our allies. Regardless of how it might escalate an international nuclear arms race. Regardless of everything. I understand that there are some who feel this way. Frankly, I cannot understand this sort of thinking. They wouldn't buy a car before test- driving it. Why in the world would they buy a $60 billion defense system before knowing that it can work? A missile defense system that undermines our Nation politically, economically, and strategically--without strengthening our defense--is no defense at all. The American people have a right to know that--if we deploy a national missile defense system--it will work. The Durban amendment will take a big step toward providing them with that assurance. We should adopt it.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, while the majority leader and I have profound differences of opinion with regard to the estate tax and what to do with estate tax policy, I have been very appreciative of his willingness to work with us to accommodate the opportunity for Senators to offer amendments, which is what this agreement will allow. This is a fair agreement. This isn't everything that our caucus or our colleagues have indicated they would like. There are far more amendments than this agreement will allow. But I underscore a comment just made by the majority leader. This is not going to be the last word on tax policy in this session of Congress. There will be other opportunities. I will do my utmost to accommodate Senators who have amendments they want to offer, if they are not going to be offered as part of this agreement. I thank all of my caucus for their willingness to accommodate this agreement and for the opportunity to work through a very difficult set of procedural circumstances. This is far better than the old way that we were likely to be subscribing to, which is a cloture vote denying amendments of any kind, and maybe even denying an ultimate result. This will allow an ultimate result. I hope we can have a good debate. I hope we can deal with these issues in a way that will afford us a real opportunity to consider alternatives. I think this agreement allows that. I appreciate very much the majority leader's willingness to work with us. I appreciate especially the indulgence and the cooperation of all members of the Democratic caucus. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read some of the names of those who lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today. July 12, 1999: Craig Briskey, 15, Atlanta, GA; Deleane Briskey, 33, Atlanta, GA; Torsha Briskey, 16, Atlanta, GA; Darius Cox, 31, Baltimore, MD; Willie Dampier, 31, Lansing, MI; Albert Fain, 25, Cincinnati, OH; Victor Gonzalez, 20, Holyoke, MA; Larry W. Gray, 52, Memphis, TN; Arvell Henderson, 28, St. Louis, MO; Essie Hugley, 37, Atlanta, GA; Wardell L. Jackson, 19, Chicago, IL; William Kuhn, 25, Pittsburgh, PA; Antoine Lucas, 9, Atlanta, GA; David Antonio Lucas, 13, Atlanta, GA; Edgar McDaniel, 34, Atlanta, GA; Sims Miller, 32, St. Louis, MO; Erica Reyes, 20, Holyoke, MA; Darryl Solomon, 28, Detroit, MI; James Sweeden, 48, Dallas, TX; Anthony White, Detroit, MI; Darrell Lewis White, 28, Memphis, TN; Unidentified male, 15, Chicago, IL. Deleane Brisky from Atlanta was one of six people I mentioned who was shot and killed one year ago today. On that day, her ex-boyfriend burst into her home, killed her, her sister and four of her six children. The gunman then shot and wounded her 11-year-old son Santonio, who was hiding in a closet, before turning the gun on himself. The time has come to enact sensible gun legislation. These people, who lost their lives in tragic acts of gun violence, are a reminder of why we need to take action now.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reclaiming the floor, let me end by saying again, I am disappointed. I note the Senator from New Hampshire offered a sense-of-the-Senate resolution relating to Social Security on the Commerce-State-Justice bill in the last Congress. There was no concern then about whether it was relevant or not. Our distinguished majority leader offered an amendment relating to prayer in schools and at memorial services on the juvenile justice bill last year. Again, there was no concern about relevance. Senator Helms offered an amendment that some of us may recall having to do with a patent for the Daughters of the Confederacy on the community service bill. He also offered a Lithuanian independence resolution on the Clean Air Act. Senator Nickles offered an amendment to require a supermajority for tax increases on the unemployment insurance extension. Senator Roth has offered tax cuts on appropriations bills. There is a lot of interesting history having to do with relevance and amendments that may or may not pertain directly to the bill under Senate consideration. That is all we are asking. What is even more noteworthy is the fact that we are willing to limit ourselves to 10 amendments with time limits. You can't do much better than that. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we could accommodate our distinguished colleagues in the past when they have offered amendments, certainly they should accommodate us. That is why the relevancy issue is so important here. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. It is the position of this Senator that the term ``relevant'' fits the amendments that we have attempted to offer. Of course, the reason why our colleagues don't want to deal with these issues is not because they are not relevant. It is because they don't want to vote on immigration issues. They don't want to vote on education. They don't want to vote on technology-related job training. They have a take-it-or-leave-it approach to consideration of important legislation such as this. We can go back to the time when they were in the minority. Relevance was never a question then for them. Then relevance was something they considered and accorded the right of every Senator, just as we are now advocating. We are talking about relevance. We are talking about the importance of relevant amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am more than happy to deal with relevant amendments. Of course, as the Senator from New Hampshire knows, according to the strict definition of the word ``relevance,'' our amendments would have to be related specifically to H-1B. He is unwilling to talk about relevant amendments as we understand it in the English language. Under the common understanding of the English language, ``relevance'' would allow the consideration of an immigration-related amendment during the H-1B debate because the H-1B bill is an immigration bill. It would allow technology-related education amendments to be considered relevant to the H-1B bill in this context. Certainly, technology-related job training amendments would be ``relevant'' under our common understanding of that term, but you can hide behind those specific defenses if you like. Again, I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely right. He said it so eloquently. This is a relevance issue. Whether or not we continue to allow immigrants who come in to meet certain skill demands in this country is directly relevant to whether or not we are going to have an educated workforce. It is directly relevant to whether or not we are going to put the resources forward to train American workers in order to ensure that we might someday fill these jobs with workers from this country. If that is not relevant, I really don't know what is. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE. Does the Senator from New Hampshire not think these issues are relevant?

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished senior Senator from Montana for making the point again, with his unanimous consent request this morning, that we are simply asking for a date certain. I am concerned that this issue, as was discussed and reported yesterday, could slip into September. If it slips into September, it might not be considered at all. In September there will be little opportunity to confront what we know is going to be a difficult challenge for us in terms of procedural factors in the consideration of this legislation. So I have a very deep concern about this legislation slipping. This needs to be done this month. It ought to be done this week. We are going to continue to press for its consideration. I applaud the Senator from Montana in his willingness to do it. There is an array of legislation that has been left undone. We will call attention to those issues as often as we can to encourage and to welcome the involvement and participation on the other side. Another issue is the H-1B bill. It has been languishing now for a long period of time. I have expressed a willingness to cut down the amendments that we know are pending on the H-1B bill from the scores, maybe even over 100 amendments that could be offered to 10 amendments with time limits-- with time limits. We would be willing to consider the H-1B bill with a time limit on each amendment, taking it up as soon as possible, in an effort to get that legislation passed as well. For whatever reason, the majority has continued to refuse to allow us consideration of the H-1B legislation as well. The Patients' Bill of Rights, the prescription drug bill, the minimum wage bill, education amendments, the juvenile justice legislation-- there is a legislative landfill, that gets larger and larger, in large measure because of the reluctance and outright opposition on the part of some of our colleagues on the other side to deal with these issues in a constructive manner in order that we may complete them yet this year.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from New Hampshire for a question.

Mr. DASCHLE. So, Mr. President, I again ask unanimous consent that upon the disposition of the Interior appropriations bill, the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 2045, the H-1B visa bill, that it be considered under the following time agreement: One managers' amendment; that there be 10 relevant amendments per each leader in order to the bill; that relevant amendments shall include those related to H-1B, technology-related job training, education and access, and/or immigration; that debate on those amendments shall be limited to 30 minutes, equally divided in the usual form, and that relevant second- degree amendments be in order; that upon the disposition of the amendments, the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on final passage. The unanimous consent request would allow us to complete the H-1B bill in one day--one day. So I am hoping our colleagues will agree to this. I ask that unanimous consent at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, to respond, I don't know what would be nonrelevant about technology-related job training. Is that relevant to H-1B? Of course, it is. I don't know what would be nonrelevant about technology-related education amendments. What could be nonrelevant about a technology-related education and access amendments? What is nonrelevant about immigration amendments? We are talking about the possibility of allowing 200,000 new immigrants to enter our country to work. We want to offer amendments we feel are relevant to H-1B, and we are not allowed. Senators want to be Senators. In the Senate, we offer amendments to bills. We want to get this legislation passed as well. In the true tradition of the Senate, we ought to be able to offer amendments, relevant amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the assistant Democratic leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. The assistant Democratic leader has made a very important point. The list I referred to certainly is not all inclusive. He listed one important omission; that is the export administration bill. In fact, I do not know of anyone who has put more time in trying to get that bill scheduled than the assistant Democratic leader. I thank him publicly for his willingness to try to find a way with which to bring this legislation up. He is absolutely right. As we consider our huge deficit in our balance of payments, it is the only real black eye we have in an otherwise extraordinary economic record. As we consider that, I cannot think of anything more important than ensuring we stay competitive in the international marketplace today. There is no better way to do that than to address export enhancement legislation, as the assistant Democratic leader has noted. I also say to the assistant Democratic leader, today, again, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue, has called upon the Senate to act. He has called upon the Senate to act on PNTR immediately. I am sure he would also call upon the Senate to act on the export administration bill. But there is a growing crescendo of people out there concerned that this is a Senate which has done little, which has blocked the people's business, not enacted it. Prescription drugs, the Patients' Bill of Rights, the minimum wage, effective gun legislation, China PNTR, and H- 1B--all of those ought to be done. All of those ought to be done this month. We will have very little time left when we get back after the August recess. So we have to make every day count. We want to work with the majority to make that happen. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

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