Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois has raised an important question. On the issue of bankruptcy, the answer is absolutely yes. My initial position on bankruptcy was, we ought to have the opportunity to offer amendments, relevant or nonrelevant. We ought to use regular order--I should say that. We ought to use the regular order of the Senate in taking up a bill. That is what my suggestion was. The majority leader said: No, we cannot do that. So I said: What about offering at least five amendments that may not be directly related to bankruptcy but are important to Democrats? He said: No, we can't do that. I said: What about offering three amendments that are important to Democrats that may not be directly related to bankruptcy, requiring that all Senators file all relevant amendments prior to a certain time? I am told now the majority leader cannot do that. So, inch by inch, step by step, the majority wants to rob you and rob every single Member on this side of the aisle of your right to be a full partner in the Senate. We all want to be able to move legislation. I will agree with some, disagree with others. Ultimately, if the Senator from Illinois is right and we are able to close the gap on bankruptcy with some good amendments, I will be supportive of that legislation. I expect to be. But I also expect you will have a right to offer an amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will yield for a question.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I share the majority leader's desire to finish this legislation. I have indicated publicly I want to work with him to find a way to resolve the matters that are outstanding so we can get to final passage. It is regrettable that the tree was filled before a single amendment could be debated and disposed. The majority leader and I have had conversations in the past, and he is, I am sure, sensitive to the knowledge that this tactic compels Democrats to oppose cloture in order to protect the right of Members to offer an amendment. Filling the tree actually frustrates the majority leader's stated intention of speedy passage. We could have had a number of amendments today. That has been precluded now because we are in this situation where Senators are prohibited from offering amendments. It is pointless to fill the tree now. We could have allowed amendments for at least 2 days while cloture ripened. If amendments and a good debate and votes were allowed, I think we could have built support for cloture. Under the circumstances, however, there will continue to be a pent-up frustration due to the inability on the part of Senators on both sides of the aisle to offer amendments. In a sense, filling the tree plays into the hands of the opponents of the legislation. Democrats can never support preemptive filling of the tree or preemptive filing of cloture because I think, in large measure, it is a real affront to the rights of every Senator who wishes to play a part in any debate in this body. While I oppose many of the amendments that could be contemplated and could be offered, I support a Senator's right to offer them. The majority leader said today he believed he only filled the tree once before in 1999. In fact, this is the seventh time this year he has resorted to this approach. There were six previous occasions: March 8, 1999, S. 280, the Education Flexibility Act; April 22, 1999, Social Security lockbox; April 27, 1999, the Y2K Act; April 30, 1999, S. 557, Social Security lockbox; June 15, 1999, Social Security lockbox; and July 16, 1999, Social Security lockbox. In addition, of course, the majority leader has twice preemptively filed cloture on measures immediately after calling them up and then moved to other business in order to prevent amendments or debate. That occurred on June 16, 1999, on H.R. 1259, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Act, and on September 21, 1999, on S. 625, the Bankruptcy Reform Act. After using these coercive tactics on all of these occasions, I would hope we might learn that they do not work. We do not operate under the rules of the House. We must insist on Senators' rights to offer amendments, even if we ultimately will reject those amendments. That is not to say that dilatory tactics that go on and on are something that I will support. I will support cloture at some point. But I also support strongly the right of a Senator on the other side of the aisle or a Senator on this side of the aisle to offer an amendment, relevant or not relevant, at least initially. I respect the Senator's decisions as I always do. I just differ with him in this case. It seems to me if we want to kill this bill, this is the way to do it. If we want to pass the bill, then it seems to me the majority of Democrats will join with the majority of Republicans in finding a way with which to deal with these amendments and ultimately pass this legislation. We can do it, but if we are going to do it, we have to take down this tree. It has to happen sooner rather than later so we do not waste any more time than we have already. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me make the majority leader an offer. He says, if there is a way to work this out, we can do it. I think he could get 30 Democratic votes, maybe even 40, on cloture on Friday if we tear down the tree and allow amendments to be offered. We are talking about two things. We are talking about a Member's right to offer amendments, but we are also talking about the worthiness of the amendment on this particular issue, as the majority leader has stated now on several occasions, rightfully so. I would be willing to join with the majority leader in doing one of two things. Our predecessors came up with some ingenious ways with which leadership can deal with amendments they don't want to see added--tabling motions and second degree amendments. I would be willing to work with the majority leader on tabling motions and on second degrees in order to deal with amendments that he and I do not believe are meritorious. And I can already see the wheels turning. He is thinking: Well, there's going to be a difference between what he thinks and I think. But I believe we can work that out. I think we could have an understanding, even ahead of time, about what that means. But it would give Senator Hollings, it would give Senator Wellstone, it would give Senator Ashcroft, it would give everyone who has an amendment the opportunity to offer amendments. The relevant ones, the pertinent ones, we ought to support. The ones that are not in keeping with the spirit of this legislation, we might choose to oppose. I am prepared to work with the majority leader to see if we might find a way to accommodate that. I want to see this bill pass. The President has insisted that we do all that we can to pass it. Our ranking member and the chairman have done all that they can to get us to this point. It passed by voice vote out of the Finance Committee. There ought to be a way we can get this done, if not in the timeframe that the majority leader has suggested, certainly in not too long a period after that. But I have to oppose cloture under these circumstances. And there will not be, I would hope, a Democratic defection on cloture because we are not talking now about CBI; we are talking about a Member's right to offer an amendment. And I hope there isn't a Democrat who will say that that right isn't worth protecting under any circumstances. So that is my offer. I am prepared to sit down this afternoon. We can find a way to do this. This isn't it. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, there is a great sadness hanging over the Senate today. I come to the floor to share in our personal thoughts and recollections of a wonderful man. We have all lost a dear friend. John Chafee was an extraordinary man, someone respected and loved and admired on both sides of the aisle. I think all of us are stunned and deeply saddened by this loss. John Chafee was one of the most reasonable and, increasingly, one of the most respected and important voices in the Senate. The fact that his voice has been silenced is a loss not only to the people of Rhode Island but to the people of our country. He was a public servant in the fullest and finest sense. He was a soldier, a State representative, a Governor, a Secretary of the Navy, and a Senator. There aren't many people who have served or who are serving who dedicated themselves more to public life and to public service and did so with such integrity, such conviction, as did John Chafee. Few will leave a more significant legacy. It has been noted on the floor that John was an accomplished wrestler in high school. Whatever talents he had physically, intellectually John continued to wrestle with ideas throughout his life. Ideas mattered to John Chafee. He didn't care whether they were liberal or conservative ideas, Republican or Democratic ideas. He didn't care whether they were his ideas or someone else's. John Chafee loved ideas and wrestled with them daily. There was certainly nothing doctrinaire about him. He was a man of deep political conviction and unusual political courage. It seems fitting that the last desk he occupied on the Senate floor was once used by another independent and equally principled voice: Senator Margaret Chase Smith. His achievements in education, in the environment, on health care, on maritime issues, and for the people of Rhode Island will live on long after those of us who served with him are gone. As ranking member and as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, no one was more instrumental in passage of the major environmental legislation of the latter part of this century than was John Chafee. The clean air and water laws, the efforts he made on the construction of important public projects throughout America, were his ideas. They were his accomplishments. But it seems to me that of all of the bridges John Chafee helped build, it wasn't a bridge across a river as much as it was the bridge that spanned political divisions that represents his greatest achievement. John Chafee knew how to build bridges. He built them here every day when he came to work. They spanned the divisions based on race and gender and ethnicity and income and generation and every other sort of arbitrary decision we all too often tend to make. The blue-blooded son of a Rhode Island family, he was a man of uncommon gift and privilege. Yet he had such a common touch. He believed in the concept of noblesse oblige. He believed that to those to whom much is given, much is expected. And he kept that faith, that dictum. In an interview with the New York Times in June of 1995, John Chafee worried aloud about the possible effects of the cuts of Medicaid then being proposed. He said: There are not many lobbyists around here for poor children or poor women. Today, sadly, there is one less lobbyist in the Senate for poor women and children, one less leader, one less friend, one less advocate, one less giant. It is right that we offer praise and admiration for John Chafee today. He more than earned it. But it seems to me the best tribute we can offer our friend is to try to fill the considerable void he leaves now, to try, as he did, to build bridges instead of walls, to try a little harder to respect each other's opinions and see things from each other's perspective, to speak for the people and principles he championed so eloquently for more than 40 years as a public servant from the State of Rhode Island. John Chafee deserves at least that much from us. He was an extraordinary man. He was an extraordinary inspiration. Each of us can be proud to say we knew him and could call him our friend. Our hearts and our prayers go out to Virginia and to all the Chafee children and grandchildren. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that Calendar No. 159, Marsha Berzon, and Calendar No. 208, Richard Paez, be added.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, on behalf of a number of colleagues on this side, I will be compelled to object at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today has been designated by the Senate as a ``Day of National Concern about Young People and Gun Violence.'' Sadly, thus far, the Senate seems indifferent to that fact. Despite repeated acts of gun violence, the conference on the juvenile justice bill, which was convened 77 days ago, has yet to complete its business. While the conference is stalled, more and more children are losing their lives. Every day in the United States, 12 children under the age of 19 are killed with guns--1 child every 2 hours. Every day, three children commit suicide using a firearm. Every day, approximately six children are murdered by gunfire. Between 1979 and 1997, gunfire killed nearly 80,000 children and teens in America, more than the total number of soldiers lost in the Vietnam war. In fact, homicide is the third leading cause of death among children ages 5 to 14. That is why Senator Murray and others worked so hard to pass the resolution that declared today, this day, the ``Day of National Concern about Young People and Gun Violence.'' The good news is that the number of children dying from gunfire has declined. Moreover, children across the country are engaged in positive endeavors to rid their communities of violence and to encourage their friends to find peaceful ways to settle disputes. This week, the Democrats in the House of Representatives hosted 300 teenagers from across the country for a conference entitled ``Voices Against Violence.'' At this conference, teens discussed their concerns about violence and explored ideas for addressing this pressing problem. Senate Democrats believe we, in the Senate, must join America's children and do our part to stem that violence. That is why we fought so hard to pass a comprehensive juvenile justice bill that included common sense gun safety provisions, money for programs designed to prevent violence before it occurs, and measures to ensure that those few kids who are truly dangerous are punished appropriately. On May 20th the Senate passed the juvenile justice bill, and on June 17th the House passed their juvenile justice bill. After waiting weeks, on August 5th--77 days ago--the juvenile justice conference had its first and only meeting. Yesterday marked the 6-month anniversary of the Columbine tragedy, and it is time for the stalling to stop. The Y2K legislation conference report was produced 14 days after the Senate passed the bill, and the Republican tax cut conference report was produced only 5 days after the Senate voted on that package. Why don't we have the same commitment to producing legislation to combat youth violence? The conference should be working around the clock to produce a bill the President can sign before the end of this session. We ought to use this day and every day to ensure that this juvenile justice bill is passed and to ensure that we live up to the expectations of all who said on the day when we passed the ``Day of National Concern about Young People and Gun Violence" legislation that it was more than just words, it was more than just a rhetorical commitment, it meant sincerely that the Senate was serious about addressing this issue. Indeed, we remind our colleagues that thus far, our children have waited too long. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. There are two parts to the majority leader's request. The first is that he move to proceed to Calendar No. 300, S. 1692, which is the partial-birth abortion bill. The second is the unanimous- consent agreement involving the request by a number of Senators to be heard. I have no objection to Senators being heard. I question why we need to move to proceed to Calendar No. 300, when we simply could do so by a unanimous-consent request, thereby not taking off the table and off of consideration the campaign finance reform bill. I will, therefore, ask unanimous consent that we simply allow the partial-birth abortion bill to be taken up, thereby precluding the need to vote on the motion to proceed and thereby protecting the current position of the campaign finance reform bill. I personally would love to have the full debate that we were promised on campaign finance reform. The amendments are pending. There ought to be a vote on the Reid amendment. I would like to have a vote on my amendment. Even though we did not get cloture, we ought to have that debate. There are other Senators who have yet to be heard on this issue. We have not had the 5 days committed. We have not had the opportunity to vote on these issues. I ask unanimous consent that we simply take up partial-birth abortion so we can return to this issue once that issue has been resolved.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from California raises a good point. The attitude appears to be: I am going to take my ball and go home anytime it doesn't go my way. I will just take my ball and go home. Well, I think that is wrong. We ought not to go home. This is too important an issue. We ought to be here, have the debate and the votes, and get this job done right. The American people expect better than this. They are not getting it with this decision; they are not getting it with the motion to proceed; they are not getting it with our denial to have a good vote and debate about some of these pending amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Michigan is exactly right. If we would proceed to the partial-birth abortion bill by unanimous consent, the pending issue would continue to be campaign finance reform. By moving to proceed to the partial-birth abortion bill, we then relegate the campaign finance reform bill back to the calendar. That is what we want to avoid. That is unnecessary. I think the American people are trying to sort this out and figure why we are doing this. The reason we are doing this is not because they want to take up partial-birth abortion alone; it is because they don't want to continue the debate on campaign finance reform. That is what this action actually telegraphs to the American people.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Michigan is exactly right. We are not passing judgment on the issue of partial-birth abortion; there will be people on either side of it. But what we are united about, regardless of how one feels on partial-birth abortion--at least on this side of the aisle--is that every single Democrat believes we ought to stay on this bill. Every single Democrat wants to assure that we don't violate the understanding that the Senate had about how long we would be on this legislation, and whether or not we would be able to proceed with amendments and have a good debate. So you are absolutely right. There is no question, by going to unanimous consent, we preclude the need to move off of this bill and put the bill back on the calendar. We don't want that to happen.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Michigan is exactly right. The vote on the motion to proceed will be a vote to take away our opportunity to continue to debate campaign finance reform. If you vote for the motion to proceed, you are voting against campaign reform; you are voting against maintaining our rights to stay on that bill and resolve it this afternoon, tomorrow, or the next day.

Mr. DASCHLE. Right. This is more than procedure; this vote is whether or not you want to stay on campaign finance reform and finish it. This is whether or not you are for campaign finance reform. That is what this vote is all about. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am very troubled by the majority leader's decision. There is no reason why we have to move to proceed to the partial-birth abortion bill. It is a bill that I will probably end up supporting. So this decision about whether or not we support or oppose partial-birth abortion, we will have a good debate about that and amendments will be offered. This is a question of whether or not we are going to keep our word, whether or not we are going to have the opportunity to finish the debate on campaign finance reform, whether or not we are going to have the opportunity to offer amendments. That is what this is about. So nobody ought to be misled. Do we finish our business? Do we follow through with commitments? Do we have a good debate or not? The majority leader said no. No, we won't have a debate on campaign finance reform. No, we won't keep the commitments made with regard to how long this bill will be debated. That is wrong. A number of us--unanimously on this side and some on that side--want to make sure the Record clearly indicates our anger, our disappointment, and our determination to come back to this issue.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to call attention to the fact that with this vote Senator Patrick Leahy has reached a historic achievement in having cast his 10,000th rollcall vote. (Applause, Senators rising.) I join my colleagues in congratulating Senator Leahy on his historic achievement. In the history of our Nation, only 1,851 Americans have ever served in the U.S. Senate, and have achieved this level. And only 21 have cast 10,000 rollcall votes. It is perhaps no coincidence that--at the very moment Senator Leahy was casting his 10,000th vote in this chamber--baseball's home run king, Hank Aaron, was being honored on the other side of the Capitol. Patrick Leahy and Henry Aaron are both ``heavy hitters''--in their own fields. They are both men whose names will be recorded forever in the history books. The greatest compliment one Senator can pay another is to call him or her ``a Senator's Senator.'' It is not a term that is used loosely. It is a term that must be earned. To be a ``Senators' Senator,'' you have to love the Senate. You have to love its history and traditions. Most of all, you have to love what it represents; you have to love democracy. You have to love it enough to be willing to fight for it, to sacrifice for it, and sometimes, to bend for it. Patrick Leahy is such a man. I am proud to serve with him in this Senate. And I am even more proud to count him as a friend. I first came to this Senate in 1987. Those were hard times in rural America. The farm economy was in a deep recession. In South Dakota and across the country, people were being forced to sell farms that had been in their families for generations. That same year, Patrick Leahy became chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. And I became its newest member. It was on the Agriculture Committee that I first came to know Senator Leahy. It was there that I first saw the qualities and characteristics which I now recognize as the hallmarks of his extraordinary career. Patrick Leahy cares deeply about people, and about protecting America's natural resources. Under his leadership, issues that had historically been considered ``second tier'' issues--such as nutrition and the environemnt--were elevated in importance. He helped bridge differences between farmers and environmentalists. Patrick Leahy is a consensus builder. That is another thing I learned from watching him. Nearly every major piece of legislation reported out of the Agriculture Committee during his years as chairman was reported out with strong bipartisan support. He worked closely, first under Senator Dole, and then later under Senator Lugar, to build that support. Patrick Leahy is committed to making government work better. In his first term as chairman, Senator Leahy managed two of the ten measures cited by Time magazine as landmark legacies of the 100th Congress. The first was the Hunger Prevention Act; the second was the Agriculture Credit Act, the most comprehensive reform of the farm credit system in 50 years. That bill not only saved the farm credit system from bankruptcy; it saved millions of family farmers from disaster. I learned a lot from watching Patrick Leahy about how to be a leader, about how to reach across the aisle and build a bipartisan consensus. He grew up in Montpelier, Vermont's capital, left to go to Georgetown Law School, and returned home to practice law. He began his political career in 1966 when he was elected the Chittenden County State's attorney. Eight years later, at the age of 34, he was selected by the National District Attorneys Association as one of the three outstanding prosecutors in the United States. That same year, he was elected to the Senate. He remains the youngest Senator, and the only Democratic Senator, ever sent to this body by the people of the Green Mountain State. In 1998, he was reelected with 72 percent of the vote, one of the largest margins of victory in any Senate race last year. It is not simply the number of votes which he has cast which makes him the kind of Senator he is and the man whom we congratulate today; it is also the nature of those votes, the serious reflection that accompanied them, and sometimes the courage it took to cast them. Over the years, Senator Leahy has frequently spoken out against proposals he knew were popular but believed were unconstitutional. For the last 3 years, as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, he has been an outspoken and articulate advocate for the right of Federal judicial nominees to have a fair vote, and the responsibility of this Senate to grant them that right. On the Appropriations Committee's subcommitee, Senator Leahy has been a leader in the global effort to ban antipersonnel mines. In 1992, he wrote the first law by any government banning the export of these weapons and played a key role in pushing for an international treaty banning their use. Now 122 nations have signed that treaty. He has also used his leadership position to fight the global spread of infectious diseases, and to prohibit American aid to police forces that have records of human rights violations. Patrick Leahy is a quiet, thoughtful man with great intellectual curiosity and a great sense of humor. He is also one of the most forward-looking people I know. He was one of the first Senators to go online and establish a home page on the World Wide Web. He frequently holds town meetings with Vermonters on the Internet. This year, he was awarded the John Peter and Anna Catherine Zenger Award ``for outstanding contributions in support of press freedom and the people's right to know,'' only the second time since 1954 that it has gone to a government leader. In the 25 years he has served here, Patrick Leahy has lost a little bit of the hair he came with, but he has gained an extraordinary amount of wisdom and skill. He has shared those gifts with America, and we are better and stronger because of it. Besides his 10,000 rollcall votes, there is at least one other accomplishment for which Senator Leahy will go down in the history books. We all know Patrick Leahy is one of the world's biggest ``Dead Heads.'' He is one of the biggest fans of the legendary band, the Grateful Dead. Several years ago, he invited Jerry Garcia and several other members of the band to have lunch in the Senate dining room. People were already doing double and triple takes--and then Senator Thurmond walked in. Ever the bridge builder, Senator Leahy rushed over to Senator Thurmond and said, ``Please join us. There is someone I want you to meet.'' If Patrick Leahy can help bridge that divide between Jerry Garcia and Strom Thurmond, there is hope for all of us. There is no telling what else he can do in the Senate in the remaining time that he will be here. I hope it is for years and years and thousands of votes to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that we recognize the Senator from Vermont for a couple of minutes to respond.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak out of order for no more than 5 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send two cloture motions to the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.