Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I listen to the debate on S. 1873, two observations come to my mind. First, it appears that a rigid adherence to ideology seems to be trumping the judgment of this nation's most senior military leaders. Second, advocates of S. 1873 apparently lack confidence in their own publicly stated position. They are insisting that the critical and costly decision about whether we deploy a national missile defense should be based on a single criterion-- technological feasibility--a simplistic test that the bill's supporters are unwilling to use for any other federal program. The Senate should act as it did in May. We should oppose cloture and move on to the Patients' Bill of Rights, campaign finance reform, education, agricultural relief, and the environment--all issues of greater urgency for working families in this country. The proponents of this latest attempt to deploy ballistic missile defenses at all costs have entitled this bill the American Missile Protection Act. But let's be clear, enactment of this bill will provide precious little if any additional protection. If the Senate were to immediately adopt this bill, we would not be a single day closer to actually having a national missile defense. In fact, as stated by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent letters to Congress, deployment of national missile defenses at this time is unnecessary, premature, and could effectively increase the nuclear threats this country faces. Quoting from S. 1873, ``the United States should deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective national missile defense system.'' In the eyes of the sponsors of this bill, the only standard that must be met in deciding whether to deploy defenses is that they be technologically possible. Mr. President, I cannot find a clear definition of effective defenses in S. 1873. That troubles me greatly, though it apparently doesn't trouble the bill's supporters. They are strangely silent when it comes to establishing even the most minimal performance requirements for missile defenses. Many of these bill supporters are the same people who reject important domestic programs such as health care and school construction because they fail to meet their stringent--sometimes logically impossible--set of conditions. This irony is not lost on me, nor should it be lost on the rest of the Senate. As I noted in May when we last debated this bill, the attitude displayed by the proponents of S. 1873 is cavalier even by military spending standards. Some research by the Department of Defense shows that S. 1873 would make history. For the first time ever, we would be committing to deploy a weapons system before it had been developed, let alone thoroughly tested. An additional irony is that most experts believe that a rush to judgment on ballistic missile defenses will not necessarily lead to the deployment of the most effective system. According to General John Shalikashvili, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ``if the decision is made to deploy a national missile defense system in the near term, then the system fielded would provide a very limited capability. If deploying a system in the near term can be avoided, the Defense Department can continue to enhance the technology base and the commensurate capability of the missile defense system that could be fielded on a later deployment schedule.'' In addition to its silence on the effectiveness issue, there is not a word in S. 1873 about the costs of this system. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the deployment of even a very limited system could cost tens of billions of dollars. And given that so much of the necessary technology remains unproven, history tells us the real cost could be much, much more. Despite the hefty price tag and the questionable technology, proponents of this bill essentially say, ``the costs be damned, full speed ahead.'' Yet when it comes to proven proposals to improve our nation's schools, increase the quality of health care, or enhance the environment, the first question out of the mouths of the proponents of S. 1873 is, ``how much does it cost?'' Mr. President, S. 1873 also says absolutely nothing about how a U.S. declaration that it plans to unilaterally deploy national missile defenses will affect existing and future arms control treaties. It should be clear to every one in this chamber that if the United States unilaterally abrogates the ABM Treaty, which is what S. 1873 states we will do, the Russians will effectively end a decades-long effort to reduce strategic nuclear weapons. They will back out of START I. They will not ratify START II. And they will not negotiate START III. In other words, a unilateral U.S. deployment of national missile defenses could end the prospect for reducing Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal from its current level of 9,000 weapons down to as few as 2,000. I find it hard to believe that many of my colleagues are willing to forego the opportunity to eliminate thousands of Russian nuclear weapons today in exchange for the possibility that we might some day be able to deploy a system that can intercept a few missiles. This is much too steep a price to pay for a course of action that at present is unproven, unaffordable, and unnecessary. Supporters of S. 1873 have argued that the Senate should reconsider its position on this issue as a result of three major developments since May--the nuclear weapons tests in India and Pakistan, the Rumsfeld Commission report on the threat posed by ballistic missiles, and North Korea's test of a medium-range ballistic missile. In reality, none of these events suggests we should go forward with premature deployment of national missile defenses. The tests of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan as well as the larger issue of proliferation of nuclear weapons can best and most directly be addressed by swift consideration and ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Adoption of S. 1873 does not directly address this situation and will, in fact, lead to more, not less, nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the majority side of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has not seen fit to conduct a single hearing on this issue, let alone report out this treaty for consideration by the full Senate. As for the remaining two events, I commend to all members of the Senate an excellent letter from General Shelton, this nation's most senior military leader. General Shelton and the rest of the service chiefs take issue with the Rumsfeld Commission's findings and reaffirm their support for the Clinton Administration's current missile defense policy and deployment readiness program. As for the recent Korea missile test, although the letter was written prior to the test, the Chairman's conclusions were explicitly based on the assumption that North Korea would continue the development and testing of their missile program. Quoting General Shelton, the North Korean missile program, ``has been predicted and considered in the current examination.'' Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to reflect on the advice of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and vote against cloture on S. 1873.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. There are a number of Senators, and I will certainly provide the Senator with the information. I wouldn't want to preclude somebody by simply giving him a name off the cuff, but there are some Senators that will address this issue, and I am willing to share that with you.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I had noted earlier today that I hoped we could consider a new strategy, or a new way with which to accommodate the growing array of legislative needs that we, as a caucus, and the Senate need to address. I had intended at some point today to offer a unanimous consent request. I will do so, and then I will speak to it in a moment. At this time I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its consideration today of the Interior appropriations bill, it turn to consideration of Calendar No. 505, the House-passed HMO reform bill, and that the bill become the pending business every day thereafter upon completion of legislative business. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be limited to relevant amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah. I want to explain, again, what transpired just a couple of moments ago with regard to our unanimous consent request. For the information of all Senators, we made the request that the Senate have the opportunity to take up the HMO reform bill, the House- passed HMO reform bill, Calendar No. 505, and that it be the pending business every day after the completion of the legislative business as outlined by the majority leader and the distinguished Senator from Utah today. Why are we suggesting this? We are proposing this because many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that we do not have time to take up a careful consideration of HMO reform; we don't have the ability to consider a number of amendments that ought to be considered with legislation as complex as this. We understand that the Senate has spent days on other bills--150 amendments on the defense bill, over 100 amendments on the highway bill, and over 50 amendments on just about every appropriations bill each. But the Republican leadership has said all we ought to have on HMO reform is three amendments. Why? Because we don't have time. That has been their premise. We don't have time to deal with this issue, but we have time to deal with a missile defense bill that we will debate in the morning, that would commit hundreds of billions of dollars over the course of many years to a missile system that has failed every single time it has been tested to date. The only criteria we would use to evaluate that system is technological feasibility, regardless of cost, regardless of effectiveness, and regardless of its implications for treaties around the world. Our Republican colleagues are asking us to commit to a missile defense system, opposed by the Pentagon, that would commit hundreds of billions of dollars. That is what the vote is about tomorrow, and we have time for it. But we don't have time for dealing directly with the concerns of millions of Americans who day by day are shut out of a health system because their insurance company is playing doctor. We are simply saying, if we don't have time, let's make time. Let's do what others have already done in past Congresses and certainly in other situations where production becomes a problem. Let us add a second shift. Let us address this issue on the second shift. Let's work longer. Let's make more hours. Let's do what we must to complete our work. It is only 6:20, and Senators have already left for the day. We didn't have a vote until 3:30 this afternoon to accommodate Senators who were traveling. Senators have just arrived. I am sure they would be more than willing to stay for a few hours more to debate and to consider carefully the HMO reform bill--6:20 in the evening and people are gone. Tomorrow we start with a vote at 9:30. We will have another vote at 5 o'clock, and we may be gone again. Mr. President, we are simply asking our colleagues to put in a full day's work, to do what others would do under these circumstances--to add a second shift, to work overtime, to complete our work in what days we have left in this session of Congress. We will continue to push for this approach and offer it in a sequence of requests simply to make the point that at 6:20 in the afternoon, our work shouldn't be done. At 6:20 in the afternoon, we shouldn't be leaving. I don't understand why we couldn't have completed our work on campaign finance reform. I don't understand why we shouldn't be on the floor debating that issue right now. But everybody is gone, and the clock keeps ticking and the calendar pages turn, and time runs out. We can run out the clock, but there is no reason why we can't make that clock work harder. There isn't any reason why we can't work longer, and we will make every effort to assure that the Senate does its job. I regret very much that we are not doing it tonight. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I renew my request.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have no intention of offering an amendment at this time. As I understand it, we are waiting for Senator McCain to come to the floor to offer an amendment on campaign finance reform. I hope we could have that debate sometime this afternoon. I hate to see time pass without having the opportunity to talk about the array of issues that are pending before this body. Obviously, campaign finance reform is a matter of great concern to many Senators on both sides of the aisle, and I know Senator McCain and Senator Feingold have indicated their desire to offer an amendment, as I understand it, this afternoon. Senator Lott, now, has expressed a desire to have a vote on campaign finance reform at some point this week. Given Senator Lott's pessimism about its chances for passage, I assume that he believes that he has the necessary votes to defeat the amendment, or to defeat a move to bring cloture on the amendment this week. I will tell you, it will not be the last vote we have on campaign finance reform, because we will offer it again and again. Whether it is Senator Feingold and Senator McCain or others, I think it important that we ultimately have a vote on the issue itself. While we wait on that particular vote and that debate, which I hope will take place sometime soon, I call attention also to the other amendments we wish to offer. We will be offering an amendment on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We believe it is essential that we have the opportunity to come to closure on that important issue as well. It has passed in the House, as has campaign finance reform. They are both now pending in the Senate. We have indicated a willingness to take up the Shays-Meehan bill as it exists, pass it, and send it on for signature. We are not quite prepared to do the same on the Patients' Bill of Rights. We think we can improve on the House-passed bill, and having that debate is very important. In addition to that, we will be offering a series of amendments, as we have noted in the past, on agriculture. I have just returned from South Dakota with a similar impression as others who have returned from their home States about how serious the situation is and how problematic it is becoming for an increasing number of our producers. We will offer an amendment to increase the loan rate. I hope on a bipartisan basis we can support that. We will offer an amendment to provide storage payments to farmers so they are not forced to sell their grain now. We will be offering an amendment to provide for loan deficiency payments for corn silage, something farmers are so desirous of having simply because they are forced to sell grain that is absolutely worthless right now. At least silage will give them an opportunity to feed their livestock. We will be offering other amendments, because we don't believe there is any other choice. Mr. President, one could make the argument that with all of this work to be done, we simply can't consider running the Senate in a business- as-usual fashion. We have to take into account the end of the session, the plethora of legislative needs that are out there, and the agenda that places before us. So we will be offering a proposal. Our proposal is really pretty simple. Our proposal is that we approach the legislative schedule between now and the end of the session in two shifts; that we take the first shift to address the appropriations bills and some of the array of issues that the majority leader has considered scheduling. As I understand it, we will have a vote tomorrow on missile defense. We will have the bankruptcy bill and other bills. But then we propose a second shift. Beginning early in the evening and going until whatever time it takes each night, we would dedicate the Senate to the needs that we haven't addressed and the array of issues that the majority leader says we don't have time for. We do have time for them if we make time. We do have time for them if we actually engage in what businesses do all the time. If they want to increase production, they go to a second shift. The time has come for us to increase production. The time has come for us to recognize that we can't consider the Senate agenda in the remaining time that we have available in a business-as-usual fashion. We have yet to pass a budget. Unbelievable as it may be, regardless of what the law requires, our Republican leadership has renounced the law, has abdicated their responsibilities, and has concluded that they somehow can violate the requirements of the law and not pass a budget resolution. I am not sure how you do that. I am not sure of the legal implications of doing it. But if we are not going to address a budget resolution simply because, as the leadership has noted, we don't have time, then, again, our solution, our suggestion, is that we make time. Let's consider a second shift. Let's consider working overtime. Let's consider doing what we must, as any business, as any manager, would do. With all the work that is before us, let us consider doing what we must and putting in the hours to resolve these issues and complete our work before the end of the session. Mr. President, it is really not very complicated. If we work until a certain time as if we were going to adjourn, then move to the second shift and take up the second agenda, we can complete our work. As I understand it, things like this have been done before, and it is time we do it now. We have very few days left. Less than 6 weeks from now, the Senate is anticipating adjournment. We simply can't adjourn without having addressed and passed campaign finance reform. We can't adjourn without having addressed and passed a Patients' Bill of Rights. We simply can't adjourn without having addressed and passed an array of tools to provide agriculture with the ability to survive. All the issues I have mentioned, and many others, beg our consideration and demand our attention. I hope we can address them in a way that will accommodate the needs of both parties and caucuses and the expectations of the American people. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his good questions. And I yield to the Senator from Connecticut for a question.

Mr. DASCHLE. I think it is a sad commentary that anyone could actually subscribe to the proposition that freedom of speech is directly related to the freedom to spend. The freedom to spend actually blocks out the freedom of speech, because if we are spending more and that becomes in essence the cacophony of voices in a campaign, the real freedom of speech--that is, the substantive debate, the opportunity to conduct meaningful campaigns on the issues--is drowned out. So that in essence is what is happening. More and more money goes into 30-second attack ads, and less and less real speaking to the issues occurs. That in essence is the irony of this whole debate. That is the problem we are facing. We are reducing real freedom of speech with this unlimited freedom to spend.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut for his leadership and tremendous effort that he has put forth to bring us to this point. As to his first question, I hadn't raised until now the point that the Senator made so appropriately. I don't know if there are many Congresses that have spent more time investigating than this one has. This Congress has probably spent more money and more time investigating than any since the early 1970s. And as the Senator from Connecticut so appropriately points out, with all that investigation, there can be no question about the need for some reform. Obviously, there is a question about the need for enforcement and follow through after enforcement with regard to what may or may not have happened, the allegations, all of the information raised in these investigations. But then the question comes, What do we do about it? And we have been asking that question ever since the investigations here in the Senate have ended. What do we do about it? How tragic it would be for us to say, ``Look, we have now exposed all of these problems but we choose to do nothing. We choose to ignore the fact that reform is so critical.'' What does that say to the American people? Look, here are the problems. But, look here, we are not going to do anything about them. So, the Senator from Connecticut raises, I think, the essence of what it is that we, as Senators, need to confront in our minds, in our hearts, about what is important before we close in a mere 6 weeks. We have investigated. We now know without any question, with great authority, there are some serious problems that have to be addressed. To wash our hands of the matter now would be a tragedy of an order that I do not think we have seen in this country. As to what those of you who are watching may do, I hope Senators will receive mail and phone calls and comments from every constituent who has any interest in the democratic process, who understands that without some contact with your Senators there is a real chance they may not change their minds. So, contact is of the essence. I think it ought to be done as soon as possible. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Michigan for a question.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will respond to the Senator from Michigan. Before I do, let me say I wish the entire Chamber had heard what he has just said with regard to what it is we are trying to do and what the implications of this really are. I don't know of anybody in the Senate who has put more force, personally, and more of his own personal credibility, behind this issue than has the Senator from Michigan. I appreciate deeply his commitment. The Senator poses a very understandable question. What is it we are asking here? What do we want? We simply want the opportunity to reflect the will of the majority of the Senate on an issue for which there is a moment of opportunity, from a historical perspective. This is our moment. If we fail in the next 6 weeks, we start all over with a new Congress, with all of the odds stacked as much against us, if not more, than they were this Congress. So what we are saying is let's seize the opportunity, let's seize the moment here and do what the House has already done. On a bipartisan basis, let's work with Republicans and Democrats to pass the Shays-Meehan bill. We will take it in any shape or form we can. I offered, as I know the Senator from Michigan heard, to simply take up the bill that was passed in the House and, on a 1- hour, one-vote basis, let's move it on to the President. Obviously, I recognize the complexity of this legislation. I would be more than happy, as the request suggests, to consider entertaining relevant amendments because there are differences of opinion. Just yesterday, we argued for the need for relevant amendments to the Patients' Bill of Rights. So we are consistent in our request here. Let's have relevant amendments on the Patients' Bill of Rights. Let's have relevant amendments on campaign finance reform, if the minority chooses--the minority in this case being those who oppose campaign reform--to have them. So we are not asking for much. We are simply saying let's seize the moment, as the Senator from Michigan so appropriately described, and let's get on with doing what we were elected to do before it is too late.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Michigan. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois asks a good question. Why we have to ask unanimous consent is because even though it is in this calendar, the calendar of business--I could find the page very easily-- of Wednesday, September 2nd, it is an item of business to be taken up by the Senate. Why? Because it has already passed in the House. But we have to ask unanimous consent because the Republican leadership is unwilling to schedule it. Even though it has now passed in the House, even though there is a majority of Senators who are prepared to support it, there is intransigence on the part of our Republican leadership to bring this bill up. All we can do is hope that perhaps with some persistence and some repetition asking unanimous consent, or offering the bill as an amendment, we can take up what should be a normal course of business given the Senate Calendar.

Mr. DASCHLE. I like the way the Senator from Illinois poses the question because it really brings it down to the essence of what we are asking. He asks how close we are. I would suggest we are 1 hour and one vote close. That is how close we are. I would be willing to settle for an hour of debate on either side and have the vote on Shays-Meehan this afternoon and send it off to the President. What we get when we pass Shays-Meehan, or McCain-Feingold, is we finally get an end to ``soft money''; we finally get some constraints on this outrageous escalation of so-called independent issue ads. We get an array of additional improvements in our systems that constrain and further constrict the money-hungry process from continuing to escalate out of control. That is what we get with one vote and 1 hour.

Mr. DASCHLE. I agree completely with what the Senator just said. In a democracy, it is supposed to be of and by the people. But how can it be of and by the people when you need the millions of dollars it now takes to be a legitimate candidate anywhere in the country? How can you say to people from working families, ``Look, we want you to be engaged, and not only vote and participate, but we would like you to help lead,'' if all we can do in response to their question about what it is going to cost is to admit that it costs millions of dollars that he or she doesn't have? How is it of and by the people when it becomes even more problematic with each cycle of escalating costs, already $37 million more this cycle than last cycle? That isn't democracy. That isn't what the Founding Fathers and what Henry Clay thought about when he thought about this system and what they were going to do to protect it. I yield to the Senator from Illinois for a question.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Massachusetts puts his finger right on the question. What was that vote all about? Did they really hope, as we do, that it will be put on the President's desk for signature some time before we adjourn? Or was there some cynical ploy here to position themselves for election back home with the realization that it wasn't going anywhere? That is why this unanimous consent request is a test. That is why our continued persistence will continue to be the test as to how serious many of our Republican colleagues are, who publicly espouse campaign reform, when it comes to passing a bill. He is also correct in what he said about its implications. This isn't my desk. I am standing at the Democratic whip's desk. But this desk happens to be Henry Clay's desk. Henry Clay sat at this desk over 100 years ago. I must say that in all of the time since he sat at this desk I don't know that our democratic process has ever been in greater jeopardy than it is today. Henry Clay used to sit at this desk and would have incredible debates about the direction this country was going to take. People would stay here overnight. People would be here for days and weeks fighting the issues and the policies of the day because they believed so deeply in the direction our country was going to take. But do you know what happens? What happens is that we get told by our colleagues that ``I cannot be here on Monday. I have to go campaign. I can't be here on Friday. I have to go raise money. In fact, I can't even be here on Tuesday mornings or Thursday afternoons because I have to go raise money.'' Henry Clay must be turning over in his grave. That isn't the U.S. Senate. The money chase? That isn't what he fought his whole life to protect and preserve as one of our finest patriots. We have to live up to that standard. And I swear we are not doing it so long as we are bridled and enslaved by the incredible money chase that goes on day after day relentlessly and gets worse each political season.

Mr. DASCHLE. Well, the Senator from Massachusetts is as much of a legislative strategist as I am, and he and I and others have talked about what our recourse is given the intransigence on the other side. I suppose we have two options that I am aware of. There may be others, but there are two in particular. One we tried this morning--asking consent over and over that this legislation be scheduled. The second is to take it upon ourselves to schedule it by offering it in the form of an amendment to whatever bill may come along. I have noted already publicly, and the Senator from Wisconsin has noted yesterday in a news conference, that those options are available to us and we will use them as we see the need. I hope that will not be necessary. I hope that we can come to some agreement. I hope that we can be reasonable about this and recognize that the House has acted, and that having a vote on Shays-Meehan isn't too much to ask. But those are our options. We aren't going to lay back and just accept the fact that our Republican colleagues would prefer not to deal with this issue. It is too important not to deal with it. It is too much of a priority for too many Americans and for the political system, not to mention the Democratic caucus, for us to ignore it. So we will use those options and others, if they become available to us, because this is as important a bill and important an issue as there is pending before the Senate today.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Massachusetts raises the question, ``What is the response?'' We got it a few minutes ago. We asked very reasonably that we take up this bill next--that we finish the foreign ops appropriations bill, which is critical. We have to get these appropriations bills done. As I have noted, not one of the 13 appropriations bills has been signed into law. Here it is now September. The next fiscal year is less than 4 weeks away, and we have yet to pass one appropriations bill. So we recognize that we have to get our work done in that regard, but we also recognize that there will be gaps, that there are other needs out there, legislatively, and there can be no greater needs than the request we made yesterday about a Patients' Bill of Rights consideration and the request we make today on campaign finance reform. Why? Because the House has already acted on both bills. So the response we got today, as I noted, was disappointing because we are trying to be reasonable. We are suggesting that only relevant amendments be offered. We are suggesting that we lay the bill aside to finish our work on appropriations bills. We would be prepared to suggest other options. In fact, I would even go so far--and I haven't talked to my colleagues about this, so I am premature in making this offer, but just for the record I would be willing to accept a vote, up or down, on the Shays-Meehan bill--no questions asked; no amendments. Let's just have a vote, up or down, on Shays-Meehan and send it to the President if it passes. I would be prepared to do even that. Many colleagues might want to go farther than that. How much time does it take to have one vote? How much time does it take to consider something that has already passed in the House, such as the Shays-Meehan bill? I talked to the Senator from Wisconsin. He is not one of those who is so concerned about pride of authorship that his name has to be on it. He said he would be prepared to take whatever we would do here to get either bill passed. He has taken a very meritorious position on this issue. My point is, in answer to the Senator from Massachusetts, we have tried to be as reasonable about this as we know how to be.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator for his comments. I appreciate the contribution he has made. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts for a question, if he has one.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Wisconsin probably knows better than anybody in this Chamber the implications of doing nothing. No one has worked harder, provided greater leadership, and engendered more respect on both sides of the aisle than the Senator from Wisconsin. He is running, as am I, this year. He knows the race for dollars. He understands the implications of that race. He understands, as well, the average cost of a Senate race right now is over $4 million. He knows, as I do, that we have already surpassed last year's record-breaking levels, last cycle's record-breaking levels in the amount of money required to be successful. He knows, as I do, we will be seeing double-digit figures when it comes to what it will take to wage a successful Senate race anywhere in the country. He knows the implications of that. I must say, Mr. President, you don't need any imagination to recognize just what a devastating effect that has. I was at two fundraising breakfasts this morning, neither for myself. That is exactly what is happening all over this city and across this country--fundraiser after fundraiser, more and more money generated with implications on the legislative and political process. Where does it end? How will we possibly recruit candidates in the future when we tell them: We want you to be a part of the Democratic process, but we want you to cough up $10 million to do so if you are going to be in the U.S. Senate? How can we do that? How can we recruit with a straight face--except for those who have the resources and the wherewithal? How many more millionaires should we have in a representative body of 100 people? We have some very good and diligent and hard-working people of wealth in this country, and I am glad they are here. But I want to make sure that working families are also represented, that we elect people who understand what it takes to earn a paycheck and make ends meet, to send a child to college. I want those people in the Senate as well. How do you do it when you have to raise $10 million? Who do you turn to? So the Senator from Wisconsin very appropriately raises the question, ``What are the implications?'' There are many, many more. We can talk all day long about the implications. Those are just a few.

Mr. DASCHLE. I was aware of that, and I think the Senator from Wisconsin raises a very important point. I actually believe that there are at least 25 percent of the Republican caucus in the Senate who support campaign reform. I just wish they would express themselves, as I know the House already has, in that regard. As I talk to colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they tell me they are supportive of it. They tell me they understand we need to see some change. I just hope that some additional courageous Republican Senators will step forth and join us. All we need are 60 votes; we already have 45 Democratic Senators. As the Senator from Wisconsin knows, we already have several Republican Senators who have expressed support and are willing to continue to support our effort. So a dozen or so additional Republican Senators would put us over the top.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Minnesota raises an important point. As I talked to South Dakotans all over the state this last month of August, I found it remarkable how many people simply said they don't want to have anything to do with the political process anymore. I had many, many Republicans who said they are just sick and tired of what is happening out there. Most of it, they said, relates to the money--the money chase, the implications of more money, the influence of big money on the legislative process. They are tired of it. I think without question they all understand that the rules, the laws, need to be changed. It was remarkable to hear the consistency with which people expressed that point of view to me--Republicans, independents, and Democrats; they all said it. They all indicated with increasing intensity that unless we change the system we could lose it, that unless we change the rules we will become victims of the current ones. That, to me, is the essence of why this is so essential, why it is important that we act now.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I join my colleagues in congratulating today the distinguished Senator from South Carolina. With the previous vote, Senator Thurmond joins the extraordinary Senator Robert C. Byrd, as one of only two U.S. Senators in the history of our Nation to cast 15,000 votes in this institution. People outside of the Senate may not understand how astounding an achievement that is. Let me put it this way: If this were baseball, Senator Thurmond and Senator Byrd would be Mark McGwire and Cal Ripken rolled into one. It is unlikely any of us will ever see their likes again. But this is not baseball. This is something even more fundamental to who we are as Americans. This is the United States Senate. This is the place where we make the laws for a nation dedicated to the rule of law. To serve here is a great honor--and an even greater responsibility. In his 45 years in this body, Senator Thurmond has fought passionately to fulfill that responsibility as he has understood it. His tenacity and dedication to the causes in which he believes are legendary. He fought for 20 years to require warning labels on alcohol. In 1988, thanks to Senator Thurmond's unwavering leadership, the Senate finally voted to do just that. Five years later, in a tragic irony, Senator Thurmond's family experienced the kind of agony known to too many American families. His beloved daughter Nancy was lost, killed by a drunk driver. She was only 22. Nothing can heal the pain of losing someone so dear. But I hope that this distinguished Senator takes some comfort in knowing that, thanks to his tenacity, perhaps another father, somewhere in America, will tuck his own little girl safely into bed tonight, instead of mourning her too-early death at the hands of a drunk driver. Senator Thurmond truly is an institution within an institution. His long and distinguished career is remarkable for its many successes--both in and out of the Senate. In addition to being the longest-serving U.S. Senator in history, he has also served as a senator in the South Carolina State legislature and as Governor of that great State. He has been a senior member of both the Democratic and Republican parties and the Presidential candidate of a third party. How many more people can say that in this country? He volunteered for service in World War II and, on June 5, 1945, at the age of 43, took part in the first drop of the D-Day invasion--the air drop of American troops on Normandy Beach. I am told that Senator Thurmond wanted to parachute onto Normandy Beach. But another officer--who clearly did not know who he was dealing with--decided Senator Thurmond was too old to jump out of an airplane. So he piloted a glider instead, landing, with the rest of his company, behind enemy lines. Senator Thurmond is today a retired major general in the Army reserves. He is also a member of the South Carolina Hall of Fame, and a recipient of more honors and awards than any of us can name, including the prestigious Presidential Medal of Freedom. Years from now, when we look back on this summer, millions of Americans will tell their grandchildren what it was like to watch Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa chase Roger Maris' home run record. If I am lucky enough to have grandchildren, I will tell them about a milestone that was reached this summer for a second time, another record that people thought would remain forever unchallenged--15,000 votes in the U.S. Senate. And I will tell them, ``I was there. I got to work with both of those men. And they were truly amazing.'' So, Mr. President, on this day when Senator Thurmond enters the record books yet again, I congratulate him on behalf of Senate Democrats for his historic achievement. And I thank him for his many contributions to this body and to this Nation. I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.