Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Vermont speaks with a wealth of experience that goes well beyond what this Senator has had in his 12 years in the Senate. But like him, I have not seen this practice used with the frequency and the amazing degree of persistence demonstrated by the majority leader to cut off debate, to gag the Senate, to stop an open opportunity for us to debate key issues, complicated issues such as this. The Senator is right, this experience is one that I think really bears a great deal of explanation to the American people. Why on key issue after issue--why on education, why on tobacco, why on all these issues that we face this year--does the Senate majority persist in precluding a good opportunity to have the kind of debate the American people expect and want and need. The Senator from Vermont is absolutely right. This is not the Senate's brightest moment. This is a very, very disappointing episode in what has been a pattern all year long, and it is disappointing not only to us but the American people. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely right.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair for the clarification. Let me just say, the Senator from Illinois is absolutely right, he was asking if I agreed with his characterization of the way this Senate has performed. Sometime this year, our Republican colleagues will be asked, ``Tell us what you did on tobacco.'' They will say nothing. Our Republican colleagues will be asked, ``Tell us what you did on campaign reform.'' Our colleagues will say nothing. Our Republican colleagues will be asked, ``Well, tell us what you did on education; what did you do to build infrastructure; what did you do to reduce class size?'' And our Republican colleagues will have to say nothing. Our Republican colleagues are going to be asked, ``Well, tell us what did you do, then, on trying to address one of the most important health care questions our country is facing today in managed care?'' And, again, our Republican colleagues will say nothing. Mr. President, the list continues to grow. Why? Because they appear to be afraid of a debate, appear to be afraid to take this issue to its successful conclusion. If we don't go along, we don't do anything on that particular issue. That isn't the way this Senate is supposed to perform. I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today, Democrats are offering identical bills in the House and the Senate--the ``Retirement Accessibility, Security and Portability Act of 1998''--to make the prospect of retirement less frightening for millions of American workers. Right now, just under half of all American workers have pension plans, and the number is far worse for women and low- and moderate-income workers. Our plan would increase the number of Americans with pensions by making it easier and cheaper for small businesses to set up pension funds. It would create a new system to help workers who have no pension coverage to build their own retirement savings through direct contributions from their paychecks into an IRA. Our plan would make it easier for workers to take their pensions with them from one job to the next. This is incredibly important in an economy where the average worker will change careers an average of 7 times. Our plan would increase pension security to ensure retirees will actually have a pension when they leave the work force. And, it would help close the huge pension gap that now exists between men and women and that leaves far too many older women who are widowed or divorced living in near-poverty. Mr. President, I talk frequently to people all the time who are worried they won't be able to afford the ``luxury'' of retirement. I say, we can't afford the luxury of ignoring the coming retirement crisis. Retirement shouldn't mean an economic freefall. And it doesn't have to. The first of the baby boomers turns 50 this year. We still have time to make the changes that will allow us to enjoy a secure retirement. But it will take change from individuals, employers and from the government. That's what this bill provides. This bill would expand pension coverage and access to more Americans by establishing an easy-to-administer defined benefit plan option for small businesses known as the SMART Plan; providing a maximum credit of $1,000 to help small business cover the cost of setting up new pension plans; and modifying new rules for the ``SIMPLE'' and 401(k) plans to encourage the provision of pensions to low-to-moderate income employees. This bill would encourage pension portability by requiring faster vesting of employers' matching contributions under defined contribution plans, including 401(k) plans, so that employees would have rights to the contributions after the least 3 years of employment; allowing rollovers between 401(k) and similar plans set up by non-profit organizations, including 403(b) plans; and allowing participants in plans set up by state and local governments to roll over their account balances to IRAs. This bill would protect and strengthen pensions by establishing greater safeguards to prevent corporations from raiding their employees' pension plans; creating stricter requirements for audits of plan assets and how companies are investing these assets; prohibiting employers from making credit card loans against pension assets; and providing pension plan participants with regular and informative benefit statements so they can monitor the activity and value of their pension assets. In addition, this bill would reduce the wide gap in pension coverage between men and women, as well as provide greater protections for older women by creating new safeguards to ensure that pension benefits are not overlooked when a couple divides assets upon divorce; a new option for federal workers to provide a greater benefit for women who outlive their husbands; protections for low-income women against the loss of their Social Security benefits; a new women's pension information hotline; and a requirement that additional hours taken under the Family and Medical leave Act are credited to one's pension plan for purposes of participation and vesting in their plan benefits. In 1994, President Clinton signed a bill protecting the pensions of more than 40 million American workers and retirees against risky investments and corporate raids. In 1996, he signed additional legislation cutting red tape and start-up costs for pension plans, so more small businesses could create retirement plans for their workers. Before 1998 is over, we intend to give the President another retirement security bill to sign. This Congress has done precious little so far to address the concerns of America's working families. passing this bill--increasing Americans' retirement security--would do a lot to fill that void. We urge our Republican colleagues to join us in passing it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today, Democrats are offering identical bills in the House and the Senate--the ``Retirement Accessibility, Security and Portability Act of 1998''--to make the prospect of retirement less frightening for millions of American workers. Right now, just under half of all American workers have pension plans, and the number is far worse for women and low- and moderate-income workers. Our plan would increase the number of Americans with pensions by making it easier and cheaper for small businesses to set up pension funds. It would create a new system to help workers who have no pension coverage to build their own retirement savings through direct contributions from their paychecks into an IRA. Our plan would make it easier for workers to take their pensions with them from one job to the next. This is incredibly important in an economy where the average worker will change careers an average of 7 times. Our plan would increase pension security to ensure retirees will actually have a pension when they leave the work force. And, it would help close the huge pension gap that now exists between men and women and that leaves far too many older women who are widowed or divorced living in near-poverty. Mr. President, I talk frequently to people all the time who are worried they won't be able to afford the ``luxury'' of retirement. I say, we can't afford the luxury of ignoring the coming retirement crisis. Retirement shouldn't mean an economic freefall. And it doesn't have to. The first of the baby boomers turns 50 this year. We still have time to make the changes that will allow us to enjoy a secure retirement. But it will take change from individuals, employers and from the government. That's what this bill provides. This bill would expand pension coverage and access to more Americans by establishing an easy-to-administer defined benefit plan option for small businesses known as the SMART Plan; providing a maximum credit of $1,000 to help small business cover the cost of setting up new pension plans; and modifying new rules for the ``SIMPLE'' and 401(k) plans to encourage the provision of pensions to low-to-moderate income employees. This bill would encourage pension portability by requiring faster vesting of employers' matching contributions under defined contribution plans, including 401(k) plans, so that employees would have rights to the contributions after the least 3 years of employment; allowing rollovers between 401(k) and similar plans set up by non-profit organizations, including 403(b) plans; and allowing participants in plans set up by state and local governments to roll over their account balances to IRAs. This bill would protect and strengthen pensions by establishing greater safeguards to prevent corporations from raiding their employees' pension plans; creating stricter requirements for audits of plan assets and how companies are investing these assets; prohibiting employers from making credit card loans against pension assets; and providing pension plan participants with regular and informative benefit statements so they can monitor the activity and value of their pension assets. In addition, this bill would reduce the wide gap in pension coverage between men and women, as well as provide greater protections for older women by creating new safeguards to ensure that pension benefits are not overlooked when a couple divides assets upon divorce; a new option for federal workers to provide a greater benefit for women who outlive their husbands; protections for low-income women against the loss of their Social Security benefits; a new women's pension information hotline; and a requirement that additional hours taken under the Family and Medical leave Act are credited to one's pension plan for purposes of participation and vesting in their plan benefits. In 1994, President Clinton signed a bill protecting the pensions of more than 40 million American workers and retirees against risky investments and corporate raids. In 1996, he signed additional legislation cutting red tape and start-up costs for pension plans, so more small businesses could create retirement plans for their workers. Before 1998 is over, we intend to give the President another retirement security bill to sign. This Congress has done precious little so far to address the concerns of America's working families. passing this bill--increasing Americans' retirement security--would do a lot to fill that void. We urge our Republican colleagues to join us in passing it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise to salute Lisa Kaufman of Freeman, South Dakota--an outstanding young woman who has been honored as South Dakota's first place winner in the eleventh annual National Peace Essay Contest sponsored by the United States Institute of Peace. More than 5,000 students in the 50 states participated in this year's contest. Students wrote about the way in which war crimes and human rights violations are accounted for in various international conflicts. Ms. Kaufman was chosen to represent South Dakota in a special program for state-level winners here in Washington this past week, where she participated in a three-day simulation of high-level discussions with the goal of finding the best way to address war crimes and human rights violations to ensure a stable peace in Cambodia. She has received a college scholarship to reward her achievement. I also commend Ms. Vernetta Waltner, the faculty coordinator for the contest at the Freeman Academy, for her involvement and for encouraging participation in this type of program. I am pleased that Ms. Kaufman and our next generation of leaders are helping build peace to promote freedom and justice among nations and peoples. Their commitment and dedication is a lesson to us all. The title of Ms. Kaufman's essay is ``Justice Leads to Peace.'' She richly deserves public recognition for her accomplishment, and I am proud to ask unanimous consent that her winning essay be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to join the majority leader in this tribute this evening and in cosponsoring the amendment to name the 1999 defense authorization bill after the distinguished chairman. Senator Thurmond joined the Armed Services Committee in January 1959, during the 86th Congress. He has served continuously for 40 years on the committee since then, a truly remarkable achievement. When Senator Thurmond joined the committee, its membership, included a number of Senators who would go on to greatness, and whose names would become synonymous with a strong national defense: Richard Russell, John Stennis, Henry Jackson, to name a few. Over the past 40 years, Senator Thurmond's name has become synonymous with a strong national defense. A lot has certainly changed over the 40 years that our chairman has been on that committee. One of the first bills the committee addressed in 1959 was a bill to extend the draft. Today, of course, we rely on volunteers--both men and women--to man the force. When Senator Thurmond joined the committee, the cold war was raging, and the flash points of the Cuban missile crisis was just a few years away. Today, of course, with the collapse of the Soviet empire, the cold war is largely a matter for the history books, and the military is repositioning itself to meet the challenges of the next century. During Senator Thurmond's tenure on the Armed Services Committee, our Nation's military has responded to the challenges of every sort in every corner of the globe: Western Europe, Vietnam, Middle East, the Caribbean basin, the Persian Gulf, and today in Central Europe. His steadfast commitment to national defense, and to the men and women in uniform, has been instrumental in ensuring that our military has always been ready to answer the call whenever and wherever needed. From the day he was first commissioned as a Reserve second lieutenant in 1924 until today where he serves as the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, Strom Thurmond has dedicated his life to national service and America's military. I don't know of a more fitting tribute or a more fitting way with which to say thank you to this leader, to this patriot than to name the defense authorization bill after him tonight. On behalf of all of our colleagues, I congratulate our chairman, Strom Thurmond. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as a cosponsor of the amendment before us. This amendment would further reduce the Secretary of Defense's ability to close and realign bases without the consent of Congress. The amendment also expresses the sense of the Senate that Congress should not authorize additional rounds of base closure until we have ceased operations at bases already marked for closure. I have listened carefully to the arguments of those opposed to this amendment. In the immortal words of that great pop philosopher Yogi Berra, it feels like deja vu all over again. If memory serves me correctly, on this very bill last year, many of these same Senators used many of the same arguments we are hearing today. After listening to last year's debate, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected their arguments. Little has changed in the intervening period. I believe the Senate should follow the same course this year. Since 1988, Congress has authorized four rounds of base closure. As a result of these authorizations, operations will be ended at 97 major military installations in this country--nearly 20 percent of all U.S. bases. In addition, activities will be curtailed at hundreds of other military bases around the country. These closures and consolidations will take until 2001 to complete. As they did last year, opponents of this amendment argue that we have not done enough. They argue that we need to close more bases. They assert that previous rounds of base closure have produced billions in savings and that future rounds will do the same. And they again rely upon incomplete and questionable data from the Pentagon to back them up. Last year, I joined with Senator Lott, the distinguished Majority Leader, and Senator Dorgan in pointing to base closure studies by the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office that raised significant doubts about the Pentagon's data. After listening to our arguments, the Senate, by a vote of 66 to 33, adopted language offered by the Republican leader and myself requiring the Defense Department to submit a comprehensive report on base closure and to have GAO and CBO review this report. The Pentagon recently issued its four-volume report on base realignment and closure. Unfortunately, this report appears to be as short on new information as it is long in word count. Despite the fact that the report runs nearly 2000 pages, it fails to provide some of the basic information required under the legislation adopted by Congress last year. Moreover, since the Department chose to release its report just a short time ago, GAO and CBO have been unable to complete their review prior to the Senate's consideration of this amendment. Nonetheless, these organizations have already provided us with a considerable amount of information about the Pentagon's data on excess capacity and base closure savings. First, let me briefly address the Defense Department's assertion that significant excess capacity remains. As the Cold War was winding down in the late-1980s, the Defense Department properly decided to reexamine our military strategy and force requirements. The Pentagon conducted a rigorous analysis called the Bottom-Up Review. This review spelled out the numbers and types of military forces this Nation would need to meet the security challenges of the 1990s and beyond. In order to minimize disruptions, this review set precise future targets on such force components as military personnel for each service, combat ships, and fighting aircraft. Unfortunately, the Defense Department has never seen fit to produce a similar master plan on military bases. Despite the fact that the Pentagon has stated since the late 1980s the approximate number and types of forces it will need well into the next decade, it has never chosen to specify the number and types of bases necessary to house this force. Instead, DoD continues to make the case for base closures using questionable calculations of excess capacity. We made this point last year, and it remains valid today. According to a May 1, 1998 letter from GAO, ``precise measures of excess capacity are often lacking, and we have noted that DoD needs a strategic plan to guide the downsizing of its infrastructure.'' As for savings from base closures, both GAO and CBO have issued reports that call into question the reliability of the Pentagon data offered up by the proponents of this amendment. According to GAO's most definitive base closure report, ``the exact amount of actual savings realized from [base closings] is uncertain.'' GAO goes on to say that the Defense Department's cost and savings estimates were, ``not of budget quality and rigor.'' CBO stated, ``[it] is unable to confirm or assess DoD's estimates of cost and savings because the Department is unable to report actual spending and savings for [base closure] actions.'' In other words, both GAO and CBO have raised significant questions about the accuracy of the Pentagon's accounting system for base closures. Mr. President, this is an extremely important issue. The outcome of this debate will have important consequences for both our national security and the scores of communities across this country that host military facilities. I remain concerned about the impact that additional base closures could have on our national defense. Once the Pentagon closes a major military installation, that facility is gone forever. The Defense Department cannot simply reopen the doors to a military base it has closed should a new military threat arise. This debate will also have a major impact on our communities. Ellsworth Air Force Base in my home state is an excellent example. This facility and the people who run it have served this Nation well for 50 years. Given the far-reaching ramifications of closing additional bases, it is critical that Congress make informed decisions when deciding on the future of key facilities like Ellsworth and many others across this country. Despite the best efforts of myself and the Majority Leader in last year's Defense Authorization bill to gain the necessary knowledge, numerous important questions remain unanswered. In addition to firming up the cost data, the Pentagon must provide the Congress with rigorous analysis that spells out the number and types of bases it will need for the base force. Once the Pentagon has done its homework, it will be appropriate for Congress to consider taking action. I look forward to working constructively with the Department of Defense in the months and years ahead on the relationship between our national security and our base structure. Once the Pentagon has its own house in order, I am prepared to revisit this issue. Unfortunately, that time has not yet come. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are in the midst of a disturbing slowdown in the confirmation of judicial nominations, especially when the nominees are women or minorities. A few days ago, on June 22, the Senate finally confirmed, by a vote of 56 to 34, Susan Oki Mollway, a Japanese-American nominated by President Clinton almost 3 years ago to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. Ms. Mollway was first nominated in the 104th Congress and was renominated again in the 105th Congress. She was favorably reported out of the Judiciary Committee, not once but twice. It took 3 years for Republicans to bring her nomination to the Senate floor despite the fact that a judicial emergency was declared in her district. I am particularly concerned about the lack of progress in the consideration of Hispanic judicial nominees before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Of the 36 judges confirmed in 1997, none were Latino, although six Latinos had been nominated. Thus far in 1998, 2 of the 26 judges confirmed were Latino and five are currently awaiting confirmation. It took the Senate 32 months to confirm Ms. Hilda Tagle, the only Hispanic woman the Senate confirmed this year. Why are the nominations of these qualified individuals taking so long? These nominees and the American people deserve an explanation. The nominations of Emilio Cividanes, Richard Paez, Jorge Rangel, Annabelle Rodriguez, and Sonia Sotomayor have been pending before the Senate for months. Two of these 5 nominees had to be renominated this Congress because their nominations expired in the 104th Congress without Senate action. Sonia Sotomayor, a nominee for Second Circuit Court of Appeals, was reported out of committee on March 5, 1998. Nominee Richard Paez for the Ninth Circuit was reported out of committee on March 19, 1998. No Senate action has been taken or scheduled on either nominee, and no explanation of the delay has been forthcoming. My colleague, Xavier Becerra, Chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said it best when he stated, ``This is a crisis. . . . Only two Latino judges have been confirmed this Congress out of a total of 62 confirmations.'' The Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy, has come to the floor 3 times in the past month to demand Senate Republican action. He pointed out that ``We are having hearings at the rate of one a month, barely keeping up with attrition and hardly making a dent in the vacancies crisis . . . confronting the judiciary.'' The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, calls that ``vacancy crisis'' a ``most serious problem.'' He warns that ``vacancies cannot remain at such high levels indefinitely without eroding the quality of justice that traditionally has been associated with the federal judiciary.'' We cannot wait for the judicial system to collapse before the Senate acts. I call upon Senate Republicans to reject partisan politics and significantly accelerate the pace of scheduled judicial confirmations before the Senate adjourns in October.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know that everyone is expecting a vote shortly, and the distinguished Senator from Virginia has noted that he will be making a motion to table in just a moment. But I want to take a couple of minutes simply to applaud the two previous speakers. Let me thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Massachusetts both for their eloquence and their passion with which they articulated their views. Clearly these issues deserve a lot more attention and consideration and careful thought than what they have been given so far. We have heard a couple of speeches; that is it. As the Senator from Michigan has noted, these deserve an opportunity to be heard and thoughtfully considered in ways that ought to include committee consideration, ought to include other amendments, ought to include other countries. And that, in essence, is what argument the Senator from Michigan made, I think, with a great deal of authenticity and authority this morning. Then the issue of timing. Mr. President, if there was ever a question about what it was these amendments were truly designed to do, it is simply, as the Senator from Massachusetts noted, designed to embarrass the President of the United States on the eve of his trip. That is what this is about. And I hope Republicans and Democrats understand, what comes around goes around. And I hope everyone understands that, in the past moments of equal import, this isn't what the Senate did, this isn't the way the Senate operated; on a bipartisan basis, we would send the head of state off to another country with a clear understanding that we would stop at the water's edge when it came to sending the wrong message, that we would send President Bush to another country with the realization that we were behind him, that we would send President Reagan to Reykjavik with a clear understanding that he had very big issues he had to deal with and we were going to protect his right to stand united for this country in negotiations as important as they were. Time after time, in situation after situation, we put politics aside. We knew what we had to do. We knew there was a time for politics, there was a time for issues, and there was a time to pull together as Americans, saying, look, we don't support you, Mr. President, on virtually anything, but when it comes to this, what could be more important? Well, there are some in this Chamber who have come to the conclusion that that is no longer the way we do business here. We do not care what message we send about the importance of American unity. We do not care whether progress is going to be made on a historic trip of this kind. We do not really care whether or not he comes back with a collective appreciation of new accomplishments having to do with trade and maybe even human rights and shipments abroad and abortion and all of the other issues dealing with human rights. That doesn't matter, because we want to make our points on the Senate floor. Mr. President, I hope we take a collective step back. I hope we take a good look at what message this sends. And I will tell all of my colleagues, I see this as a procedural vote. I am not going to vote to table, because I am not going to allow one single vote on China this week. And if we are going to play this game, we are not going to have any votes on defense either. I am going to be voting against cloture, because I don't want to see any votes on defense, any votes on China, any votes that are as reckless as they would be cast were we to have votes this afternoon or on any other issue regarding China or other matters pertaining to defense. So it is over. We might as well pull this bill. We are not going to have those votes. We are not going to embarrass this President. We are going to stick to procedural votes, and we will let everybody make their own decision. But we are not going to have votes on substance when it comes to issues of this import. So, Mr. President, that is my position. I hope my colleagues will subscribe to it. I hope that we can come back to our senses and do the right thing, come together in a bipartisan way and send the right message. We are not doing that right now. I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I want to say a couple of words about this nomination. I am very pleased that Susan Mollway's nomination has finally reached the Senate floor. As others have noted, it is a long, long time in coming. I am told that it has taken 2\1/2\ years. But today she is finally going to get a vote, and I am confident that she will be confirmed. I think it is quite an impressive story. Susan Mollway, first nominated for the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii in December of 1995, was reported favorably by the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 25 of 1996. Nothing happened, of course, with that nomination, and she was renominated again on January 7 of 1997 and again reported out favorably by the Judiciary Committee. She must be the most patient woman in the world. For all this time, with all this uncertainty, with all of the implications professionally, it has been a long wait, not only for her, but for Hawaii. The seat which Ms. Mollway has been nominated to has been vacant now for 3 years, since April of 1995. Were it not for the extraordinary persistence of our colleagues from Hawaii, the senior Senator, Daniel Inouye, and the junior Senator, Daniel Akaka, we would not be here this afternoon. It is only their persistence and the extraordinary credibility and, frankly, persistence that they have demonstrated for all this time that we are now celebrating this moment. Their persistence is well invested. Susan Mollway is fully qualified and will be an extraordinary credit to the bench. She is a partner in the Honolulu law firm of Cades, Schutte, Fleming and Wright where she went upon graduation from Harvard Law School. She has practiced in a broad range of areas, including a successful argument before the U.S. Supreme Court. She has won numerous awards, including the Hawaii Women Lawyers' Outstanding Woman Lawyer Award in 1987. The granddaughter of a ``picture bride'' and a plantation worker in Hawaii, Ms. Mollway and her family have learned strength and commitment from their story. Her father left high school during World War II to join a Japanese-American unit of the U.S. Army. Together with Senator Inouye, he fought in Europe as part of the 442nd Regiment Combat Team, the most decorated military unit of its size in World War II. At the same time, people he knew were among the thousands of Japanese- Americans interned by our own Federal Government. Later, Ms. Mollway's father used his veteran's benefits to attend Harvard. Clearly, his daughter now understands the great joy and honor of being an American, but also the burdens and barriers faced by some in our society. We are all proud of the distance we have come as a society in ending the kind of discrimination faced by Japanese-Americans of Ms. Mollway's father's generation, but the confirmation of this judge to be now U.S. district judge will mark yet another step in this progress. Susan Mollway is an outstanding nominee and deserves to be confirmed. I, again, congratulate my two colleagues from Hawaii, and I call upon all of my colleagues to vote in her favor in 40 minutes. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have the floor; do I not?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I won't be long. I will accommodate the manager of the bill. Let me just say this is an amendment that reflects where we were yesterday on what we consider to be one of the most important issues facing our country. I am hopeful that we can come back to this legislation again, as we debated it yesterday. The tobacco bill may have died last night, but the tobacco issue is very much alive. We have noted that as legislation is presented to the Senate we have no recourse but to continue to press for final consideration, to get a vote, and ultimately to pass legislative changes that will allow us to confront the remarkable problems that we are facing in our country today. In South Dakota, 45 percent of teenagers now are addicted to smoking or are smoking--45 percent. Every day, thousands of children continue to light up for the first time. Many of us feel that even though we lost parliamentarily yesterday, that we have no choice but to continue to press this issue, to continue to force the Senate to consider ways with which to resolve this matter. As I said, there ought to be principles that unite us, principles that Republicans and Democrats can agree with, principles that would allow the FDA to regulate tobacco as a drug, principles that would allow us to come up with an orchestrated national effort to discourage smoking among teenagers, principles that recognize the importance of research as we continue to confront the myriad of health problems that are directly related to smoking and addiction. Those are principles that ought to unite us. I don't think anyone ought to come to any conclusion that somehow because the McCain bill died last night that we now can wash our hands of this issue, that we now are going to move that aside and think that everything is just fine with regard to the schedule or with regard to this particular issue. It isn't. We are not going to be fine until we have come to some conclusion about this. It doesn't really matter what legislation comes before the Senate. We are going to be compelled, either in the form of amendment or in a motion to proceed, to force the Senate, to whatever extent we can, to stay focused on this issue until we resolve it. We are open for suggestions on how we might break this impasse, how we might resolve this matter. We are certainly prepared to sit down with our colleagues and come up with a piece of legislation that will work. We will not let this issue die. We believe very strongly that it must continue. That is, in essence, what this amendment does. This amendment, for the information of all of my colleagues, simply takes us back to the McCain bill and the managers' amendment. The managers' amendment was added after a great deal of consultation with Members on both sides of the aisle. The managers' amendment and the McCain bill passed, I remind my colleagues, on a vote of 19-1 out of the Commerce Committee. So this is an opportunity, once again, to use a vehicle to start the negotiations to allow us to come to closure on this issue. I had hoped we could do it sooner rather than later. This is an important bill. I hope we can get on to energy and water. I hope we can deal with all of the appropriations bills. Those bills have to be dealt with, but at the same time, many of us believe that tobacco has to be dealt with as well. Our effort to deal with it will have to be in the form of amendments or in the form of our motions to proceed so long as we haven't found any closure on how we ultimately resolve this very, very important national issue. I hope we can have a good debate on this amendment. I hope we can have some good give-and-take about what we might do, as a Senate, Republicans and Democrats, to break this impasse and ultimately to pass meaningful tobacco legislation this month. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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