Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I guess I would have to consult with the majority leader in greater detail to know whether each of these amendments is exactly referenced in his unanimous consent list. As I understand it, this is the list that our two sides have been building upon in reaching some agreement on proceeding to the next block of amendments. Obviously, there are other amendments we would want to consider. But this is a block of amendments for which there would be no opposition to addressing as the next block on this side.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object again for two reasons: First, the bill is not here; and, second, because we have not taken up the authorization bill and our colleagues have indicated that is a very important matter. We always attempt to deal with the authorization requirements prior to the time we deal with the appropriations requirements. This unanimous consent request does not allow for that. I ask the majority leader what is wrong with taking up the one appropriations bill that has been sent here by the House. I note that on May 22 the Transportation appropriations bill was received from the House. It is pending in the Senate. I won't ask unanimous consent, but I ask the majority leader whether his intention would be to take up the one House-passed bill that is here. Clearly, we would have no objections to doing that. It is important we make the most use of our time. Because the House-passed appropriations bill having to do with transportation is already here, I am curious as to why we have chosen not to take it up until now and why we wouldn't take it up just as soon as we come back.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President I also want to address the matter concerning Bradley Smith. I know there will be time allocated for his nomination later on this afternoon. I will simply take time as if in morning business using the quorum call to address his nomination at this time. As I have stated before, I have come to the conclusion that I must oppose this nomination. For me, this is not just a vote on a particular nominee with whom I don't agree, this vote is about whether or not we will prove the cynics in America wrong in demonstrating our commitment to strong campaign finance laws. Yesterday morning in the Washington Post, a Republican strategist who advises Governor Bush and the Republican National Committee said the following: There are no rules any more . . . There were few if any to begin with but there are virtually none today. They know it, we know it, everybody knows it. That wasn't Common Cause or Ralph Nader. That was an adviser to Texas Governor George W. Bush. Governor Bush's adviser is right. In many ways, we have entered the post-Federal Election Campaign Act era. It is the Wild West of ``soft money,'' issue advocacy ads and secret donors. The system is broken, and everybody knows it. A vote in favor of this nomination will simply confirm what we already know. It doesn't have to be this way. It shouldn't be this way. I know very few Members of the House and the Senate, of either party, who like our current campaign finance system. I know very few members of either party who prefer raising money to meeting with constituents and working on issues. I know very few members of either party who enjoy the fact that, every time they face reelection, the amount of money that has to be raised to be competitive has risen exponentially. And frankly, I know very few members of either party who don't resent the fact that so many of our legislative activities are scrutinized solely in the context of donations--which groups backed which said of the argument, and whose money prevailed. I am irritated by that. I am frustrated by that. That screen should not be the consideration. Even in the media, it shouldn't be the frame within which we view the debate on issues. But that is exactly how it is framed on the Sunday talk shows and in the newspapers. If we think the current system is unacceptable, that is nothing compared to the way our constituents feel. Our constituents don't like the current campaign finance system. They don't think it puts their interests first. But they also don't think we'll ever really change it. In fact, they are convinced of it. Poll after poll showed the American people responding in single digits--not double digits, but single digits--to the question: Do you think Congress will ever change the campaign finance laws? Overwhelmingly, over 90 percent say no. Today, it seems to me, the Senate can take the first step toward restoring at least a modicum of public trust in American political campaigns. One thing we can do to promote greater confidence in our electoral system is to ask a simple question before we confirm the men and women who will serve on the Federal Election Commission. It seems to me that fundamental question ought to be: whether those who may be interested in serving believe in the laws on the books today? Do you believe you can objectively enforce the laws? We are asked that question every time we are sworn in. Will you uphold the Constitution? It seems to me upholding the Constitution and all the statutes and the compendium of laws that have been created as a result of our fundamental freedoms established in the Constitution is a prerequisite for serving in public office. The men and women who, as Commissioners, would have the courage to issue clearer guidelines about what is permissible, and would have the courage to enforce those guidelines are the people whom we should encourage to serve on this and all bodies. Brad Smith, it is clear to me, does not fit that description. Rather than decrying the weaknesses of our current campaign laws, Mr. Smith has made a career out of criticizing the utility of our federal election law scheme. He has argued for the repeal of the Federal Elections Campaign Act, and he denies that money has a corrupting influence on the political system. Simply put, when it comes to campaign finance laws, Brad Smith is an anarchist. This is not the marshal who will save the day in Dodge City. Confirming Brad Smith is more like asking Billy the Kid to preserve peace. Let's be clear. Putting reform-minded FEC Commissioners in place is not enough by itself. We created the FEC and our inaction has created some of the problems within the FEC with respect to enforcing the laws we have today. Congress has a responsibility to act today to close loopholes, clarify the law, and do everything possible to stem the endless chase of money in which we all engage. We should pass McCain-Feingold immediately. We should end the abuse of section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code immediately. Our Constitution doesn't stand in the way. The only thing standing in the way of our taking these modest steps is the reluctance to tamper with the system that we know and that has gotten us elected, even if we don't like it. We are worried our careers won't survive. It seems to me we should be more worried about whether faith in our system will survive. The trends are ominous. The soft money accounts in both parties' coffers are at record levels. In the first 15 months of the 2000 election cycle, the national Democratic and Republican Party committees have raised over $160 million in soft money. Mr. President, $160 million in corporate, union, and large individual contributions. Is there any real question why Americans are losing faith in our elections system? Every election cycle, the cost of campaigns goes up and the number of people who vote goes down. If we really want to increase voter participation, we have to address that reality. The reality is, there is simply too much money in politics. We all know, whether we admit it or not, that the current system is broken. We have a choice: Do we reduce the influence of special interests money in Washington? Do we want to wink and nod at the few flimsy campaign laws we have? Today we have an opportunity to answer that question. It seems to me that if we defeat Brad Smith's nomination and demand we be presented a nominee who will work with us to regain public confidence in our campaign laws, we will be taking the first step. Then we could pass campaign finance reform, the McCain-Feingold bill, and put an end to the flood of soft money into campaigns once and for all, and then shut down the so-called 527 loophole. Those three steps would go a long way in this election cycle, in this session of Congress, to do the right thing. They are things we can and should do. The currency of politics should be ideas, not cash. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this day marks the retirement of a legend in broadcast journalism in South Dakota. Steve Hemmingsen, who has faithfully delivered news to living rooms in my home state for over twenty-five years, will give his last regular broadcast tonight. There's an old story about Calvin Coolidge, told shortly after he left the White House. He was filling out a standard form, which asked for standard information. Line 1 asked for his name and address. Line 2 asked for his ``Occupation'', for which he answered ``Retired''. Line 3 was titled ``Remarks.'' Mr. Coolidge responded ``Glad of it.'' I hope that Steve Hemmingsen will share that sentiment: glad to be retired from the rigors of his job--but never fully removed from his audience, the thousands of people who have relied on him for their news for more than two decades. Steve grew up just across the border in Minnesota, and after graduating from high school, he landed his first job in broadcasting at the ``Polka Station of the Nation'' in New Ulm. Later, he studied at the Brown Institute and was hired by KELO-TV in 1969. He has been a fixture there and on our nightly news ever since. It has been estimated that since Steve began working the 6:00 and 10:00 pm news at KELO, he has delivered about eighteen thousand newscasts. He's shouldered the responsibility of helping our state get through some of its most trying times--such as the devastating Rapid City flood in 1972, the tragic plane crash that took the lives of Governor George Mickelson and several of South Dakota's economic development leaders in 1993, the horrible tornado in Spencer two years ago and countless South Dakota blizzards. When South Dakotans have faced adversity, Steve's steady voice and calm demeanor brought us up to speed on the latest events and talked us through each crisis we encountered. But Steve has been there through the good times as well. When we celebrated our state's centennial in 1989, Steve reported on the numerous celebrations going on around South Dakota, giving us insight on where our state had been, and where it was going. When Scotland, South Dakota's own Chuck Gemar went into space, Steve helped express the collective sense of pride that was felt throughout the state. You could say that during his career at KELO, Steve's familiar voice was the first that brought news of noteworthy events to the people in South Dakota. Over the last twenty-five years, Steve Hemmingsen has earned the trust of the people of South Dakota. Although Steve and I haven't always seen eye-to-eye on some issues, I have never had a reason to question his dedication as a broadcaster, his fairness as a reporter or his integrity as a person. In my years in public service, I have had the opportunity to work with hundreds of reporters both in South Dakota and across the nation and there is no doubt in my mind that Steve Hemmingsen is one of the best. Today we congratulate him, but tomorrow he will certainly be missed. It brings me great pleasure to join all of KELO-Land in wishing Steve the best as he signs off tonight. The evening news will never be the same.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to talk about a couple of issues. First of all, I commend the distinguished ranking member, Senator Feinstein, and the chair of the appropriations subcommittee for their outstanding work on the legislative appropriations bill. Many of our colleagues have come to the floor already to speak as eloquently as I have heard about the importance of the Capitol Police, about the importance of those who serve us in so many capacities throughout the Capitol and throughout the Capitol complex itself. I want to express my support for this bill and for the statement that it makes about the importance that we as Senators put on the work done by our Capitol Police each and every day. Those of us who are fortunate enough to be in Leadership especially recognize the unique role the Capitol Police play. They are with us almost from the time we leave the house to the time we are dropped off at the house late at night. They are with us publicly. They follow us. They protect us. They provide service to us in the most exemplary and professional manner. I think it would be all too easy for some to misinterpret the ill-advised actions taken thus far by the House in their legislative branch appropriations bill. It was really for that reason many of us felt the need not only to support a good Senate legislative appropriations bill, but to underscore the numbers and the commitment made in the Senate version of this bill by cosponsoring and supporting the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Maryland. We want to say just two words without equivocation to the Capitol Police, to the members of the Congressional Research Service, to the GAO, and to all of those who work so diligently and professionally each and every day: Thank you. Thank you for what you do. Thank you for how you do it. Thank you for setting the example. Thank you for the extraordinary dedication you demonstrate to public service. That is really the message. I will be surprised if we don't see a 100-0 vote in our expression of gratitude and our desire to ensure that they realize how much we appreciate what they do. While we may not say it each and every day, and we may not walk up as we probably should from time to time to a Capitol Police officer, or to one of our floor staff, or to any of those who serve us, maybe in this small way we can say as a body, as Senators, regardless of political or philosophical persuasion, thank you. We express our sincere and heartfelt gratitude to each and every one of you for dedicating your lives to public service, and in some cases dedicating your lives to the safety of others, safety that oftentimes asks too much of police officers and their families, as we saw just 2 years ago. So this is as an important a statement as I think we will make this year regarding our Capitol Police and our staff in many respects, and I am hopeful that it won't go unnoticed. I am hopeful that this will serve as a big exclamation point that we are very grateful, and that we are appreciative in ways that probably are not articulated on a regular basis.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, obviously, I hope the majority leader will work with us to work through these 19 names. As I say, some of them have put their lives on hold now for over a year. It is just intolerable to them, and it should be intolerable to us that we would accept that kind of a practice. I will work with the majority leader and, hopefully, resolve these outstanding problems. I will not object to this request.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, let me just say that there are 19 nominations still pending on the calendar if we are able to adopt this unanimous consent request today. Some of those nominations have been on the calendar for well over a year. I think it is the view of virtually every member of the caucus on our side that to hold nominations that long is cruel. It is wrong. It should not be tolerated. We are in a position to clear all nominations, including those 19. I ask whether the majority leader might be able to clear those as well?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I listened to Senator Craig's remarks about Senator Mitchell's use of cloture in the 103d Congress. As to the cloture numbers the Senator mentioned, yes Senator Mitchell filed cloture 23 times on the first day of an item's consideration but what he failed to mention was that only one of those instances was on a bill. Let me repeat that--in only one instance in the entire 103d Congress did Senator Mitchell file cloture on the first day a bill was considered, and in that instance it was with the bill sponsor's permission. It was Senator Rockefeller and the bill was product liability. In all but four of the other instances the Senate was not in an amendable situation, they were on motions to proceed, conference reports, or attempts to go to conference. There were two instances where Senator Mitchell filed on amendments on their first day, the first was on Senator Kennedy's substitute amendment to the national community service bill and the other was on the Mitchell-Dole Brady gun amendment, in each case a true filibuster was going to be waged. In other words members of the minority had indicated a willingness to try and kill the legislation by extended debate. This has not been the case this Congress', cloture is filed in attempt to stifle the ability of individual Senators to offer amendments and that is the crucial difference that I pointed out last week. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I objected, as I noted I would do yesterday, to taking up a bill that has yet to be acted upon in the House. The regular order is the bill must be approved in the House prior to the time we finish our work on the legislation. I see no need to deal with the same bill twice, to deal with it now and to deal with it again later once the bill is acted upon in the House of Representatives. The distinguished majority leader had noted that there is emergency funding incorporated in this bill. I am sympathetic to that. I won't ask him at this point, but I note I could ask unanimous consent--which I will not do--to take up H.R. 3908, the emergency supplemental bill for the year 2000. The House passed it and urged the Senate to take it up and pass it. The Appropriations Committee had hoped they could take it up and pass it. It was the majority leader's determination not to take it up, not to pass it, but to leave it in committee. I am not as sympathetic as I wish I could be about his desire to deal with these emergency matters when we could easily and quickly and very efficiently deal with emergency funding by simply taking up the bill that is right now on the calendar. Again, that is H.R. 3908. That is, of course, the right of the majority and the right of the majority leader, especially, to make that decision. I am disappointed. Until that House bill comes before the Senate, it is not my intention to have to require the Senate to go through a debate on the same issue twice. That was the reason the rules were written as they were. Constitutionally, appropriations bills must begin in the House of Representatives. We are, in a sense, circumventing the rules of the Congress by allowing these bills to be debated and considered prior to the time the bill comes before the Senate. We will certainly object. We will look forward to the House acting, as we hope they will soon, and not only on this bill but on others. Senator Lott is absolutely right. This legislation should have been reported out it should have been passed in the House by now. It hasn't been. It is disappointing that it hasn't been. That is the only reason we are not taking it up this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, up and down the Missouri River in South Dakota, silt is building up on the river bottom as a result of the operation of federal dams on the river. Water levels are rising as a result, flooding hundreds of homes in the cities of Pierre and Ft. Pierre and causing considerable anguish for these families. Two years ago, Congress enacted legislation authorizing the Corps to conduct a $35 million buyout of affected property to provide much-needed relief to these homeowners. Today, that project is at a standstill. We could start buying homes tomorrow, but the Corps of Engineers is contending that the price of moving forward is releasing more water through the Oahe dam, thereby generating electricity and revenue that will provide an economic justification for the project. City officials in Pierre and Fort Pierre have rejected this idea because raising water levels will cause new flooding in their towns. This problem has been caused because the relocation legislation requires that this project be economically justified. I support that provision. Some might question why a project intended to provide relief to homeowners for damages caused by the federal government must earn more than it pays out. Nonetheless, I believe it is important that all Corps projects should be justified, and I agreed to language requiring an economic justification for this relief project. Nonetheless, I am deeply concerned with the way this language has been interpreted. The only option considered by the Corps for providing an economic justification is raising hydropower revenues. It has ignored a far more appropriate way to justify the project: by relieving the government of potential liability it faces for damage to these homes. In Pierre and Ft. Pierre, groundwater elevations track closely with the elevation of the Missouri River. City officials and homeowners tell me that sometimes just minutes after the Corps begins releasing water from the dam, raising water levels in the river, water begins seeping into basements. For that reason, I am offering an amendment directing the Corps to take into account its responsibility for this damage as part of its economic analysis. It flies in the face of common sense to provide an economic justification for a flood relief project by flooding new parts of these communities. My amendment will put an end to the Corps' insistence that it raise water levels, and allow the project to move forward. I am continuing to work with the Corps on the language for this amendment, and hope that we can reach an agreement that is acceptable to all. Time is running short. In April, I hosted a meeting of over 150 homeowners in Ft. Pierre to discuss this project. They were angry and frustrated. One young mother stood before me in tears, at her wit's end because she must stay with her home in Pierre while her children grow up in another city. She's depending on this buyout to allow her to join her children. Other families have already placed downpayments on new property based upon the Corps' word that this project would begin in April. They now risk losing that money unless the project moves forward. And all residents are watching the construction season slowly slip away, raising the specter that they will be forced to live another year in their flood-damaged homes. The facts make it clear why we need to start this project immediately. My amendment will allow it to move forward. I hope my colleagues will give it their support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that three letters describing the link between the Missouri River and groundwater flooding be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, was it the intention of the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia to yield back his time?

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his graciousness, as is so often the case. I begin by commenting on our two colleagues, Senators Warner and Byrd. Some of the finest security thinkers this Senate has ever produced have chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. I think of the names Russell, Stennis, Nunn, Strom Thurmond. They have all made significant contributions to this Nation's debate on national security. Although he has chaired the Armed Services Committee for less than 2 years, Senator Warner has demonstrated many of the traits that made his predecessors so successful. I have great respect for him. What can one say about Senator Robert C. Byrd? This is a rare and unique occasion for me. I can't remember the last time I was on the opposite side of an issue with Senator Byrd. I admire him immensely. No Member, past or present, has ever displayed a greater love or respect for this institution than has Robert C. Byrd. No Member enjoys greater respect and admiration from his colleagues. No Member is more reluctant than this Member to come to the floor and disagree with Robert C. Byrd. There is another reason this is difficult, besides the high regard I hold for him. The other reason I find this difficult is that I share many of the concerns that led Senators Warner and Byrd to draft this resolution in the first place. As we close this debate, I compliment our extraordinary member, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, for the outstanding job he has done in presenting the arguments over the course of this debate and providing us his leadership. We owe him a major debt of gratitude. I think he shares my view that this debate is not about a number of things. It is not about whether the U.S. military commitment to Kosovo or any region of the world should be open-ended. Supporters of this amendment agree with the supporters of the Byrd-Warner amendment. Every U.S. commitment should be examined regularly by Congress and the President to ensure that it remains in our national interest. This debate is not about whether the U.S. commitment to Kosovo or any other region of the world should be open ended. This debate is not about whether our NATO allies should pay a fair share of any joint operation. We all agree. We have great difficulty reaching unanimity in many areas these days, but we are not in disagreement over that fact. Our allies should be sharing the burden, and, in fact, they are. As my colleagues have already noted in several of their excellent presentations to this body, they are supplying 85 percent of the peacekeeping forces in Kosovo today. They are shouldering the vast majority of the effort on the civilian side. That is not the debate either. We agree that they should pay more than we are paying, and they are. Eighty-seven percent of their pledge to Kosovo's budget has been made by our NATO allies; 63 percent of the pledge to the civilian police force has now been fulfilled by our NATO allies; 75 percent of their pledge on humanitarian assistance has been fulfilled by our NATO allies. They have begun to step up their commitment on reconstruction assistance. Third, this debate is not about whether Congress has a responsibility to exercise its constitutional duties over the power of the purse. I heard the eloquence once more of Robert C. Byrd. We all understand the importance of this responsibility. No one is more adamant and eloquent in pointing out that responsibility than is he. Anyone who does not understand the significance of this responsibility should simply spend a moment or two, an hour or two, a day or two, with Senator Byrd to discuss our founders' deliberations over the importance of vesting the power of the purse in the people's representatives, and all doubts will disappear. This debate is not about whether the Byrd-Warner amendment is constitutionally permissible. This debate is about whether the course of action it espouses is in our Nation's best interest. As much as I respect the two authors of the provisions incorporated in this bill, I join Senator Levin, our Secretary of Defense, our senior military leaders, this administration, and many others who have concluded that it is not. I am deeply concerned about the effect this amendment would have. First and foremost, it would increase the risk to U.S. forces. There is a fragile peace in Kosovo today and no one has spoken more powerfully, eloquently, or compellingly about the ramifications of setting a date certain for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Kosovo than Wesley Clark. General Clark has said that setting a date certain for withdrawal would trigger instability throughout the region and increase violence in the area. I hope everyone will listen, regardless of whether or not he is a constituent of ours; he is the expert. If we do anything as we make these decisions, I think we need to listen to those who are expert in their fields. Triggering instability throughout the region and increasing violence in the area is something about which all Members ought to be concerned. Second, this action rewards Slobodan Milosevic for his ethnic cleansing campaigns and would greatly strengthen him and his supporters in the region. Again, according to General Clark: A U.S. withdrawal would give Mr. Milosevic the victory he could not achieve on the battlefield. What a remarkable statement, that a U.S. withdrawal would give Mr. Milosevic a victory he could not achieve on the battlefield. Third, this would rupture NATO. Passing this amendment would jeopardize the strength and the cohesion of our NATO alliance by casting doubt about the reliability of the United States as a partner. Again, according to General Clark: Our allies would see this as a universal, adverse move that splits 50 years of shared burdens, shared risks, and shared benefits in NATO. Don't just listen to General Clark. NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson put it more directly: The prospect of any NATO ally deciding unilaterally not to take part in a NATO operation causes me great concern. It risks sending a dangerous signal to the Yugoslavian dictator --Milosevic--that NATO is divided and that its biggest and most important ally is pulling up stake. Finally, this action would undermine the U.S. position as a global leader. Unilaterally withdrawing our troops from Kosovo would call into question our relations with Europe and the world. Many will question the willingness of the United States to play a role in bringing democracy and prosperity to troubled regions of the world. I know Senator Byrd and Senator Warner share some of these concerns because they tried to modify their language yesterday. Under other conditions, these concerns would not be insurmountable. Unfortunately, this amendment comes to the Senate in such a way that they are just that. Why? Because Members, under the rules now established by the majority, are prohibited from trying to offer any amendments, alternatives, or substitutes. All we can do is accept this amendment in whole, or reject it in whole. This is not the proper way for the Senate to deal with such an important issue. Supporters of this amendment say it will not force withdrawal of U.S. troops from Kosovo. They argue that the President can prevent a withdrawal by simply certifying by July 15--roughly 8 weeks from now-- that our allies have met a series of rigid, numeric burden-sharing tests. Unfortunately, the Director of the OMB disagrees. Yesterday, in a letter to me he said: Despite progress, the targets are not yet met, nor can I provide assurances that they will be met by July 15th . . . Certification required by the amendment . . . is currently not possible. Listen to the Director of the OMB. He has indicated certification today, tomorrow, or for the foreseeable future is not possible. And even if the burden-sharing requirement of this amendment does not force immediate withdrawal of troops, it sets the stage for withdrawal. Make no mistake, if we pass this amendment, we are lighting a fuse. We may be able to extinguish it in time, but no one in this Senate can guarantee that. Why would we create such a crisis at this point? History shows that lighting a fuse in this region can produce an explosion that engulfs the entire world. That is not ancient history; that is recent history. Even if we are somehow able to extinguish the fuse, in the meantime our troops and our allies are left with the uncertainty about whether we are going to keep our commitment. History also shows that winning the peace can often take some time. Peace is a fragile plant whose roots need time to take hold. Mr. President, 55 years after the end of World War II, 100,000 troops remain in Europe. Never once in 55 years has Congress felt it necessary to ratify that decision. What would have happened had we pulled our troops out of Europe less than 1 year after that war--as this amendment would have us do today in Kosovo? We know Europe would look significantly different today. The probability is the second half of the 20th century would have looked like the first half--in which we fought two World Wars. NATO, the most successful military alliance in the history of the world, would not exist. The emerging new democracies of Eastern Europe would still be behind the Iron Curtain. Congress did not even approve the Marshall Plan until 1947. Why should we be so impatient now? Why should we be so unwilling to give peace and democracy time to take firm root in Kosovo. For 50 years we fought a cold war to bring peace, stability, and democracy in all of Europe. We have finally won that peace. It seems to me that 5,900 troops in Kosovo is a small price to pay to keep it. Just over 1 year ago, leaders from 18 countries came to Washington to celebrate the 50th anniversary of NATO. On that occasion, Senator Warner eloquently said: [NATO] must remain. It must be strong, and U.S. leadership in NATO is absolutely essential. Senator Warner's words were right then and they are right now. If we are to achieve these worthy ends we must strike the Byrd-Warner language. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I will use my leader time and not the time allocated to others for consideration of their remarks. Let me just say the majority leader was able to get some things off his chest. I have not heard all of what he has unloaded this afternoon. But I look forward to reading the Record. I don't know if there is any possible way, in a period of a couple minutes, for us to get everything off of our chests. I will tell you this. The way the Senate is being run is wrong. No majority leader in history has attempted to constrain Senate debate as aggressively as Senator Lott has chosen to do. Now, that is his right. People ask, on many occasions, what my feelings are personally about that. That is his right. He has chosen the way he runs the Senate. I think he is doing that for what many believe is a laudatory reason. He is trying to protect his members so they don't have to vote on tough issues. Let's get it out on the table. If I am going to get everything off my chest, I think he is trying to protect his members. He sees that as his role. I understand that. But no majority leader has ever gone to the extent that he has--no one in history. I defy anybody to come to the floor and challenge that statement. No majority leader has come to the floor to say, before we take up any bill, we will have to limit the entire Senate to relevant amendments. No one has done that. So let's get that straight. I ask any of the 99 colleagues to challenge that statement. No one can. So we start from that. Why do we want to have debate on amendments? Because that is the only ability for the minority to express itself. The majority leader has phrased it very interestingly. He said: I don't want all these amendments to cause trouble. The more they cause trouble, the more in jeopardy the bills will be. He made reference to that regarding the education bill. He didn't want amendments to cause trouble. Cause trouble for whom? What kind of trouble? What are we talking about here? We are talking about the ability of Senators to express themselves, to offer amendments, to have debate. There is an old-fashioned way of dealing with it. It is called a tabling motion. Or you can get elaborate and offer a second-degree amendment. You can do all kinds of things. But to say, ``We are going to come to the floor and do it my way or no way,'' is unacceptable. Over and over and over and over again, we are told that is the way it is going to be. One of our colleagues the other day said it is like the frog sitting in a pot of water who doesn't notice that the water keeps getting hotter and ultimately the frog boils to death. Well, the water continues to heat, and we are slowly boiling to death, procedurally. We just lost another right this afternoon, and it is outrageous-- outrageous. How many more times do we have to limit ourselves to debate on the Senate floor, and how many other ways are we going to limit debate and expression and gag Senators? That is wrong. That is absolutely the wrong way to run the Senate. We hear a lot about cooperation, but I am telling you, there will not be cooperation unless we understand that the minority has to have its rights, too. Those rights have to be respected. I hope, when we are in the majority, we understand the rights of the minority. I will admonish my colleagues to do that. But this is getting to be more and more a second House of Representatives. This is getting to be more and more a gagged body. This has nothing to do with the traditions of the Senate that I admired when I became a Senator. We have gagged Senators on the budget. We have gagged Senators on appropriations. We have gagged Senators on sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. We have gagged Senators on the right to participate in conferences. Do you know that we have not had a conference report this year come back with a kind of conference that we have always historically and traditionally organized as a result of passing legislation? We just don't have real conference committees anymore. I just heard a report in our ranking member's lunch today, where staff reported on virtually every bill that has passed the Senate, where we are meeting at the staff level trying to work things out for the conference report, and Republican staff told Democratic staff: If you don't like it, don't come because that is the way it is going to be. That is cooperation? So I will say to my colleagues on the other side that we are not going to tolerate it anymore. We are not going to accept that anymore. I am going to demand that every single appropriations bill that comes to the Senate before it can be completed be passed in the House first because that is regular order. Let's stay through a recess for a change. I am ready. We are going to require the regular order when it comes to appropriations bills. We are not going to do unanimous consent requests routinely as we have done so easily and quickly in the past. It is over. If there is going to be cooperation, I want to see it on both sides. I want to see some respect for the rights of the minority when we deal with these issues, and I will not allow our members to be gagged. We will have a lot more to say about this, but I am telling you, we have drawn the line. We are not going to be conducting business as we have in the last several months. That is over. That is behind us. We can do it the Senate way, or we are not going to do it at all. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have witnessed an extraordinary political spectacle in the last 24 hours. Yesterday we spent approximately 3 hours in a quorum call because the Republican caucus could not decide how to respond to a simple Sense of the Senate amendment commending the Million Mom March and demanding that this Congress act now to pass sensible gun safety legislation. Today, the Republicans attempted for the second time to rule our amendment out of order. What, I ask, is so disconcerting about the Democratic amendment? Are there really members of this Senate who do not believe that the stalling has gone on too long? Are there really members of this Senate who believe that it is not a national emergency that children are dying in this country every day from gun violence? Are there really members of this Senate who believe that this emergency is too insignificant to command time on the Senate floor? Yesterday, after 3 hours of silence and paralysis, our Republican colleagues decided that they could not simply join us in commending the Million Moms. Instead, they decided to offer their own amendment. Let us not be distracted. We will vote on the Republican amendment, but the vote that matters, the vote that may just prevent more kids from dying, is on the amendment I have offered. Constitutional scholars may disagree about the meaning of the Second Amendment, but I for one believe there is nothing inconsistent about protecting the Second Amendment and closing the gun-show loophole, requiring trigger locks on handguns, or banning juvenile possession of military style assault weapons. Moreover, I agree we should enforce our gun laws. But that is only part of the solution. It is just a basic fact that you can't enforce a loophole. We need a policy of zero loopholes, and zero tolerance. The gun lobby keeps trying to confuse us. They say the debate is either new gun laws or education. They say it is either new gun laws or enforcement of existing laws. But this is not an either/or debate. We need a multifaceted solution to end gun violence. Let's look at what the Republican amendment says: They call for better enforcement of existing gun laws. But they can't resist attacking the Clinton Administration's efforts. They twist statistics to make the case they want. The reality is that the number of firearms offenders sentenced to 5 years or more in federal prison has increased more than 41 percent since 1992. The reality is that federal authorities have worked diligently with state and local authorities, during this Administration, to reduce violent crime in a cooperative and coordinated fashion. The reality is the total number of prosecutions for weapons offenses has increased more than 22 percent since the beginning of this Administration and violent crime has dropped by 35 percent. I think we should commend America's hard-working law enforcement officials for these successes, not vilify them. Sadly, my Republican colleagues do not agree. Next, the Republican Sense of the Senate acknowledges the existence of the Juvenile Justice Conference Committee. And they point to provisions passed by this Senate as part of the Juvenile Justice bill that they support, such as strengthening penalties for gun crimes and illegal gun purchases and prohibiting juveniles who commit felonies from ever possessing a gun. Democrats support these provisions, too. But these measures, by themselves, are not enough. This Senate did better. This Senate passed the Lautenberg amendment to close the gun show loophole. And just a month and a half ago, 53 Senators reaffirmed that the conference report should include this provision. Sadly, my Republican colleagues chose not to include the Lautenberg amendment on their list of priorities. The Republican amendment, however, while it acknowledges the existence of the Juvenile Justice Conference, does not explain why that conference report has yet to come before this Senate. The biggest problem may not be difference over which provisions are most important. The biggest problem may be the fact that special interest politics have prevented this conference from meeting at all. Finally, the Republican amendment concludes that each U.S. Attorney's office should designate a prosecutor to pursue firearms violations, that we should update the national instant criminal background system, and that we should encourage states to impose mandatory minimum sentences for firearm offenses. Again, most Democrats support these measures. But are they enough? We know they are not. Their amendment also concludes that law-abiding citizens have the right to own a firearm for self-defense and recreation. I agree with this statement. I myself am a hunter. But I am also a father and I feel for all the other fathers--and mothers--who have lost a child to gun violence. That is why I introduced this amendment. On the whole, I have decided to vote against this amendment because I disagree too strongly with many of the findings in the Republican Sense of the Senate amendment, and their one-sided nature. However, I must make clear that I support the second amendment, like other constitutional provisions, and believe that the second amendment does not preclude reasonable regulation of the use of firearms. But this Republican amendment does not go far enough and will not stop the violence in our communities. Democrats have offered an amendment that acknowledges the dreadful cost that gun violence is having on our country. We cannot forget that 12 young people are killed every day in America by gunfire. We cannot forget that American children under the age of 15 are 12 times more likely to die from gunfire than children in 25 other industrial countries combined. And we cannot forget that every day we spend in political gridlock is a day we waste solving this terrible problem--a day we do less than we should to stop the killing. That is why the Democratic amendment, in addition to commending the mothers and fathers that gathered across the country this Mother's Day to call for meaningful, common-sense gun policy, insists that Congress act now to improve our gun safety laws. This Senate needs to demonstrate to America's mothers and fathers that we heard their call. This Senate needs to resolve today, as the Democratic amendment demands, that the Juvenile Justice Conference must meet and must pass a conference report that includes the Lautenberg amendment and other critical provisions to limit access to firearms by juveniles, convicted felons, and other prohibited persons. It is the least we should do, and it is long overdue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that vote No. 64 be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am sure I have a little time remaining. Let me just say no one wants to stomp their feet and get red in the face--certainly not me. That is not my style. If it has happened, it is only because the frustration level continues to mount. It is ironic that the majority leader uses the word ``cooperation'' so frequently because that irony has struck me to be the essence of the problem. There is so little opportunity for cooperation when the majority acts in the manner it has throughout this Congress. That is the problem--no cooperation. We are prepared to work through appropriations bills and to work through the authorization bills. He mentioned the need for cooperation. He also mentioned, I might add, the urgency of the emergency funding in these appropriations bills. The House begged the majority leader for cooperation on the emergency supplemental. The administration begged the majority leader for cooperation on the emergency supplemental. Many of us on the Democratic side urged the majority leader to cooperate on the emergency supplemental. But do you know what the majority leader said? I have decided there will not be any cooperation on the emergency supplemental. I have decided it will go piece by piece in appropriations bills, and you take it or leave it. I am not trying to get excited here. But let me just say as softly and as sincerely as I can: That is not cooperation. That is a Senate version of dictatorship that I think is unacceptable. We work by committee. We work by consensus. We work by genuine cooperation. We work by trying to deal with these issues one by one. I could cite many other examples. We want cooperation. We are willing to work with the majority quietly and productively. But we want cooperation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me say for the Record at this moment, in response to the distinguished majority leader, that Senator Byrd and Senator Mitchell never filed cloture to prevent Members from offering amendments--never. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, Senator Levin is not presently on the floor. I know Senator McCain has worked with Senator Levin on this. Maybe I can defer to him. In speaking with Senator Levin, I know he also wanted the opportunity to offer an amendment to the Byrd language. I am sure he would want to be included in any kind of unanimous consent that would allow for amendments. Perhaps we would want to include that as well. Perhaps we could revisit this question after we get the general agreement to accommodate the Senators.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr President, it is a great honor for me to represent the people of South Dakota in the United States Senate. On occasion, I have the opportunity to recognize individual South Dakotans for their accomplishments, and, today, it brings me great pleasure to focus the attention of everyone in this chamber on one of South Dakota's most talented and determined athletes. Rod DeHaven, a native of Huron, South Dakota, and a graduate of South Dakota State University, won the U.S. Olympic Marathon Trials last week in Pittsburgh. Braving eighty degree temperatures and high humidity, Rod fought off the sweltering weather and his competition and completed the race in just over two hours and fifteen minutes. Rod's incredible effort and inspiring victory in Pittsburgh earned him a spot on our Olympic team, and later this year he will travel to Sydney, Australia, to represent the United States in the marathon in the 2000 Olympic games. Anyone who has ever trained for or run a marathon can tell you without equivocation that the work required to put them in a position just to finish the twenty-six mile race is exceptional. Having run my first marathon last year, I can only imagine the extraordinary effort it must take to compete and win at the national and international level. Rod DeHaven--who, in addition to training for marathons and working full-time as a computer programmer--is also raising two young children with his wife, Shelli, clearly has the work ethic it takes to be a great long-distance runner. Last week in Pittsburgh, however, Rod proved that he had much more than just a strong work ethic. In outrunning some of this country's toughest competitors in extremely difficult conditions, he also proved that he has the heart and courage of a champion. Rod learned what it takes to be a champion growing up in South Dakota. As a member of the Huron Tigers cross-country and track teams in the eighties, Rod was a cross country state champion in the fall of 1983, and in track, he was state champion in the mile, two-mile and two-mile relay in both 1983 and 1984. Rod attended college at South Dakota State University where he won the North Central Conference cross country championships as a freshman and the NCAA Division II indoor 1500 meter championship as a sophomore. South Dakota has produced some tremendous long distance runners through the years, and Rod DeHaven is the latest in that great line. In 1964, another young man from South Dakota named Billy Mills stunned the world with his remarkable victory in the 10,000 meters in the Tokyo Olympics. Billy's story became legendary, and it is no surprise that in a state known for hard work, we are now sending another one of our best to compete in one of the Olympic Game's most challenging and difficult events. All of South Dakota is pulling for Rod DeHaven as he heads to Sydney, and we wish him the best of luck as he strives to be the next gold medal winner from our great state.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Of course, it already notes it should be equally divided tomorrow. I appreciate the clarification. Mr. President, let me thank the majority leader for his willingness to proceed in this manner. This is what we had hoped we could achieve. I am delighted now that we have done so. This is far better than to go through the parliamentary motions that were being made. I appreciate the patience and willingness on the part of everyone to accommodate our desire to have this amendment and these votes. We will have them tomorrow, as we had hoped. I look forward to the debate tonight as well as tomorrow. Mr. President, I yield our 2 hours tonight on the Democratic side to Senator Boxer who will manage the time on my behalf. (Mr. BROWNBACK assumed 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, I suggest the absence of a quorum.