Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The majority leader noted that tentatively the vote, the cloture vote, is scheduled for Tuesday. There are only two ways that could occur. One would be for us to seek unanimous consent for the vote to be postponed until Tuesday; or, secondly, that we are not in session on Monday, which would then make Tuesday the next business day when the cloture vote would ripen. I am hopeful that the majority leader and I can find a way with which to resolve the schedule that will accommodate both sides. So I hope that perhaps we might tentatively announce that the vote will be held on Tuesday, but certainly if we are in session, I am not prepared at this point to agree to a unanimous consent request that would move it to Tuesday until we have been able to talk through the balance of the schedule.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I don't know how many days it is that we have been on the tobacco bill now, but it is clear that we are not making any progress. I am increasingly frustrated by the degree to which many of our Republican colleagues, in the name of amending the bill, have stalled, obfuscated and, in many ways, attempted to defeat the legislation without any real sign of progress, without any real sign of coming to closure, without any real effort to find some resolution. I have expressed my continued patience, my continued desire to find ways in which to move this legislation along. I give great credit to the manager of the bill, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, for his tireless efforts to move both sides along. This has not worked. We have continued to be thwarted in the name of compromise, and in the name of negotiation, and in the name of consultation. Frankly, I don't know what other options there are but to file cloture on the bill. We may not win. I am prepared to acknowledge that unless we get many of our Republican colleagues to join us, we will not win. But I also understand that if we don't move this legislation forward, we will continue to be in a position of having to say no to other bills the majority leader may wish to bring up until we resolve this matter. We have said, as late as Tuesday, that we are not in a position to move to any other legislation until we finish this bill. I don't know how we can say it more clearly than that. We want to finish this legislation so we can move on to other bills. There are a number of other pieces of legislation that ought to be addressed, and we recognize that. We are prepared to enter into time agreements on amendments. We are prepared to come to some time limit on the bill itself. But we have now virtually wasted the better part of a week waiting for colleagues to offer amendments, waiting for some resolution to the Gramm amendment, waiting, procedurally, to find some solution to the impasse that we now are experiencing. So, Mr. President, I really have no choice but to offer a cloture motion, with some frustration, and with the realization that it may take more than one. We may have to file several cloture motions. But, beginning today, I will take whatever action is necessary to expedite the consideration and ultimately the solution and the conclusion to this legislation. We have a lot of people who have invested a good deal of effort into this legislation; three of them are on the floor right now. I thank them for all they have done to bring us to this point. But unless we take it to its final conclusion, all of the thousands of hours spent by the Senators who are on the floor already, invested in time and good- faith efforts to move us to this point, will be for naught. I don't want to see that happen. I don't want to see this necessarily as a Republican versus Democratic debate. But, frankly, it becomes more and more apparent that we are not getting the help--with the one stellar exception of my friend and colleague from Arizona--in getting this legislation passed. So we are very hopeful that we can move this legislation and find some way to resolve the matter. I understand that I can't file until 2:15 under a previous agreement. I will certainly wait until then. Let me just make sure that our colleagues understand where things stand. Right now, we are discussing the motion to recommit offered by the Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm, with amendments pending to that motion. The Gramm amendment would cost $52 billion. It would rob the bill of any real opportunity to address research in health care, to address the targeted approach that we are attempting to make on advertising and reducing teenage smoking. It would reduce every option that we have available to us to reverse the trend and reduce teenage smoking in this country. Why? Because the Senator from Texas believes that we ought to address the marriage penalty. Unfortunately, Senator Gramm's amendment doesn't address the marriage penalty alone. In fact, one could argue that it has little to do with the marriage penalty. It has everything to do with spending the tobacco revenue raised in the health fee. We are presented with an option that is a Hobson's choice for many: reduce taxes for those who are under $50,000, or reduce teenage smoking, reduce the number of children who are dying from smoking. That is the choice. While we debate this choice, 3,000 kids a day choose to smoke for the first time. A large percentage of those--some say 40 percent--are people who ultimately will die from the habit at some point in their life. They get cancer and ultimately succumb to cancer because they started smoking too early, without knowing the facts, without being able to quit once they had started. That is the issue here. Can we prevent young people from acquiring this terrible habit and from dying because of it? Can we target advertising and research, and can we find ways in which to ensure that we can turn the trend around for the first time? Or are we going to spend that money for something else? Mr. President, Democrats have come up with an alternative.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I did propound a modification.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the President for that clarification and his interpretation of what has just been presented to him. Mr. President, I have heard the majority leader on many occasions come to this floor and make an impassioned speech to all of our colleagues that we are going to stay on this bill until we get it done. I heard him say that eloquently and passionately on NATO. I heard him say that when we talked about the budget. I heard him say that when we talked about the Coverdell bill. I have heard him say that on so many occasions this year--we are going to stay on this piece of legislation until we get it done because we have to finish it so we can move on. I do not want to misinterpret his remarks. I know he would like to see some completion of the tobacco bill. I just wish he and our colleagues would show the same passion and resolve to finish this bill so that we can move on. That is all we are asking. Let's move on to other pieces of legislation once we have completed our work on this. This is an open invitation to go off of this legislation, move on to other things, and, oh, by the way, if there is time, and if my Democratic colleagues play their cards right and behave, we will probably have a chance to come back to tobacco. That is the problem. I want very much to make this month as productive as the last month was. But you know how it was productive? It was productive when we said we were going to stay on a bill until we finished it. We finished the highway bill. We finished the technical bills. We finished an array of pieces of legislation because we showed some focus and we resolved to stay on that legislation until it was completed. That is what we are asking here. Let's stay on this bill until it is done, and then let's move on to the array of other pieces on the calendar that have to be addressed, too. So because we fail to do that, unfortunately, I object.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the majority leader's intent as he has expressed it and the unanimous consent request. As he knows, taking this action would actually put the tobacco bill back on the calendar, and it would then subject the leadership to a request to take the bill off the calendar once again and move the legislation. We would have to get either unanimous consent to move the bill or we would have to make a motion to proceed back to the tobacco bill. So this is a very, very difficult parliamentary challenge. Obviously, we are in a very different set of circumstances if this unanimous consent request would go into effect. It would put us at the mercy of every single opponent of the tobacco bill. They know that. I give the majority leader great credit for attempting to try to expedite our legislative calendar. There are a lot of things we should be doing. But I will not subject this tobacco bill to the fate that would be destined this legislation if we were to require that we be at the mercy of every opponent of the tobacco bill when we want to bring it back. I would ask unanimous consent, reserving the right to object, that regardless of the outcome, the Senate resume consideration of the tobacco bill and remain on the bill until its completion.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I would suggest perhaps we could make the unanimous consent request subject to the circumstances that are now being discussed with the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Massachusetts, that assuming that those two matters could be worked out, that no additional unanimous consent requests would be in order.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I concur with the remarks just made by the majority leader. We have 20 or 25 Senators, all of whom have planes to catch this afternoon, who don't want to miss this vote. I certainly hope that we wouldn't inconvenience a third to half of the Senate as we get to this crucial time. I hope everybody will cooperate and work with us. We have to get this legislation done. My hope is that we won't leave until we get it done. I hope we could seek cooperation on both sides.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come before the Senate today to indicate my support for H.R. 2709, the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act. The message this bill sends to the international community is clear. The patience of the American people and their elected representatives is not infinite. If diplomacy fails to produce satisfactory results, the United States is prepared to take decisive action to protect our security and that of our allies by imposing sanctions on those who violate international agreements restricting the transfer of ballistic missile technology. In my judgment, it is time for Congress to send this message. And it is long past time for those who violate international agreements to heed the message. I appreciate that diplomacy has produced some positive results in this area and may ultimately yield more progress. Nonetheless, these efforts fall short of what is needed to halt the illegal transfers. In the absence of immediate and conclusive evidence of a dramatic reversal of Russian behavior, stronger measures are needed, and H.R. 2709 is an appropriate vehicle. The end of the Cold War has affected our national security policies in many ways. It has reduced the likelihood of a large-scale conventional conflict on the European continent. It has made it much less likely that either the United States or Russia will intentionally use nuclear weapons against the other. And it has allowed us to meet the remaining threats to our security with slightly smaller defense budgets. These are obviously positive developments. On the other hand, the post-Cold War period has been marked by the emergence of a new threat--the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. Let me run down the current state of affairs with regard to weapons of mass destruction. First, at the end of the Cold War, five countries--the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, and France--had declared themselves nuclear weapons states. Unfortunately, as proven by India's actions just last week, the true number in the nuclear club is much larger. Second, the Pentagon suspects that as many as 20 countries have chemical weapons programs, and that a slightly smaller number have biological weapons. Third, the Defense Department believes that about 15 countries currently possess ballistic missiles, and that the number could grow to more than 20 by 2000. It is these disturbing trends that the United States and many other nations in the international community are trying to combat. Reversing these trends is a daunting challenge. If there is to be any chance of even slowing the spread of this threatening technology, the United States must act decisively and firmly when confronted with actions that violate existing agreements designed to proscribe this type of behavior. It is in this context that we must view efforts by several Russian entities and individuals to assist the Iranian ballistic missile program. The status of the Iranian missile program should be of particular concern to U.S. security officials. Iran is located in a critical region of the world. Vital U.S. economic, political and military interests are at stake. Tens of thousands of U.S. troops are within easy reach of the Iranian missiles speeding through their development stage. The entire state of Israel, a staunch ally and friend, would be well within range of the Iranian missiles. Concern about Iran's intentions are further heightened by the fact that many intelligence analysts believe the Iranian government has repeatedly supported and sponsored terrorist activities. Both supporters and opponents of H.R. 2709 agree on one fact: Russian entities and individuals have played an important, if not crucial, role in the Iranian ballistic missile program. Even Russian officials acknowledge the involvement of Russian companies in these illegal activities. It has been publicly estimated that, largely as a result of this assistance, Iran could soon field missiles with sufficient range to threaten the entire Middle East. Where people differ is over what to do about this assistance. Opponents of H.R. 2709 argue the bill's sanctions are a blunt instrument that will not achieve the intended result of stopping Russian assistance. They prefer to allow more time for the Administration's diplomatic efforts to bear fruit. Mr. President, I take a back seat to no one in my appreciation for the negotiations the President and his advisers have conducted with their Russian counterparts on this complex issue. These negotiations have produced positive tangible results. Russian cooperation with Iran has ended in a few specific cases. In addition, the Russian government has issued and agreed to enforce decrees intended to stop the missile trade. Yet, despite the Administration's best efforts and the progress they have engendered, and notwithstanding a score of Russian promises, the fact remains that Russian assistance to the Iranian missile program continues. After months of negotiation, it appears that talk alone is not going to be sufficient to end Russia's involvement with Iran's ballistic missile program. If we are to convince Russia and the world that we intend to protect ourselves and our allies, the time has come for more than talk. If we are to enforce international law prohibiting transfer of ballistic missile technology, it is time for action. Mr. President, passage of H.R. 2709 is the appropriate action to take at this time. However, Senate passage of H.R. 2709 need not be the final word on this critical issue. If we adopt the Levin amendment, the bill will go back to conference with the House. There is still a very limited amount of time for the Russian Government to convince this Congress that it has heard our concerns and moved to end cooperation with the Iranian missile program. Failing an immediate and dramatic reversal in Russian behavior, it is time to redefine the playing field for those currently violating these laws and those contemplating future transgressions. To those parties, enactment of the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act will underscore that the United States stands ready to defend its own security interests and those of our close allies; that the United States will do all it can to stem illegal efforts to spread ballistic missile technology; and that the United States will ensure that violations of international law will not go unpunished. I ask my colleagues to join with me in voting for H.R. 2709.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate the information the majority leader has just shared. I think that is certainly in keeping with the understanding that he and I have had in our private discussions now for some time. My hope is that we can come back and complete our work on the tobacco bill. I believe that is certainly within our reach. I understand, because of the plethora of other bills that are on the calendar, we have to begin consideration of other issues. We have some amendments and bills that we want to raise at some point as well. But I think this schedule accommodates the demands that we are going to have on our schedule for the balance of the month of June, and I am hopeful that we can see the same level of cooperation on both sides of the aisle with that schedule that we have had over the course of the last 2 or 3 weeks. I certainly have no objections to proceeding as the majority leader has suggested, certainly with the expectation that we will complete our work on the tobacco bill early when we come back.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise for a moment to congratulate all of those Senators who have had so much to do with the success that we have just demonstrated with the passage of the Interstate Transportation Efficiency Act, the so-called ISTEA II bill. Senator Baucus, Senator Chafee, Senator Warner, Senator Byrd, and Senator Gramm deserve our accolades and our commendation for a job extraordinarily well done. This represents the single biggest investment in our infrastructure in our Nation's history. It represents an effort to recognize the importance of infrastructure and the array of challenges that we face in an information age, as well as at the turn of this century and the entrance into a new millennium. It also recognizes the importance of regional balance--the West, the South, the Northeast, the Midwest--all with our disparate challenges and problems that we face with infrastructure, all with the needs, all with the recognition that our States are vastly different as those needs are reflected in public policy. This not only represents the greatest investment, in my view, it represents as well the best regional balance that we have been able to demonstrate. Finally, I think it recognizes the importance of something the distinguished Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from West Virginia have said on the floor many times: We must recognize the critical nature of the trust fund itself and restore the practice that this country had at one point and was religious in adhering to, and that is that we use the funds that are designated for particular trust funds as they should be used. When this legislation is fully implemented, that is exactly what will happen; the trust fund will be used as it must be used. Today, we spend approximately $32 billion from the trust fund on an annual basis, but only $21 billion goes to highways and infrastructure needs; $11 billion, roughly, goes to needs that are not highway designated, that are not related to infrastructure. Mr. President, the time has come for us to make a change in that practice, and this legislation does it. There has been a great deal of concern expressed on both sides of the aisle about the veterans' offset. Frankly, I am very disappointed and discouraged about the fact that we are using a veterans' fund for purposes of offset, but this is not the last word. I must say, if we were using the trust fund for which it was designed, we wouldn't need the veterans' fund because the highway fund is more than adequate to cover our needs for infrastructure in this country. We will revisit the veterans smoking issue, and, in my view, we will revisit it in a successful way. We must recognize there is a dependency created in large measure because of past practices in the Armed Forces that we must address. Whether it is in the smoking bill, whether it is in some other legislation in the future, we will not ignore the fact that veterans need the same consideration as every other smoker in this country; in fact, in some cases you could clearly say more. There are two issues to be resolved: One is the offset; the second is the policy. I believe in the longer term we will deal with both successfully. But that should not in any way dissuade us from taking great satisfaction today with this accomplishment, for the tremendous job that was done in bringing us to this point; that, in fact, at long last--a month overdue--at long last we did what the Nation was waiting for us to do: Pass a meaningful infrastructure bill that represents the needs, challenges, and demands that must be put on this Nation as we enter a new era. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to honor the concert band from Tulare High School in Tulare, South Dakota, and the Garden Valley Collegiate school in Winkler, Manitoba, Canada for their participation in a special spring concert to be held in Manitoba on June 2. This is an exciting opportunity for these band members and students to reach across the North American border, and together, promote the exchange of culture and ideas. The concert promises to be a very celebrated event, which should build bridges between these schools for a long time to come. I would like to recognize the leadership of Sam Glantzow, band director at the Tulare High School. He has dedicated so much time and effort into seeing this important exchange take place. Also, I would like to thank Paul Moen, band director, and Karl Redekop, principal, from the Garden Valley Collegiate School. By extending an invitation across the border into South Dakota, they have made an important contribution to international dialogue and understanding. I admire these teachers and administrators for providing their students such a creative and unique opportunity. I wish the students and teachers the best of luck for a beautiful and successful concert.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong support for the nomination of Patrick A. Mulloy to the position of Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Market Access and Compliance in the International Trade Administration (ITA). I believe his many years of experience in dealing with international trade policy issues and his unswerving commitment to public service equip him well for this challenge. For over a dozen years, Mr. Mulloy has had major responsibility for the development of all legislation dealing with international trade and finance in the Senate Banking Committee. His expertise spans export administration, export promotion, exchange rates, foreign investment, international banking, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He played a lead role in developing the Export Enhancement Act of 1993 and has demonstrated an ability to work with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. For many years, he also has served as the Banking Committee's advisor to U.S. negotiating teams at the GATT and WTO and contributed to the successes achieved during these negotiations. Patrick Mulloy's diverse career experience, spanning the State Department, Justice Department and the Senate Banking Committee, have given him an unusual depth of perspective on international economic policy issues. I am confident that, as Assistant Secretary of Commerce, he will work diligently to help ensure that U.S. businesses are given every opportunity to compete freely and fairly in the global marketplace of the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, earlier this year I introduced S. 1672, the Missouri River Erosion Control Act of 1998. It will create an important new program to provide homeowners on the Missouri River with the assistance they need to protect their homes from shoreline erosion. Today, my colleague Senator Johnson and I are introducing a second bill that I hope will help to preserve the character of the Missouri River for generations to come. Up and down the Missouri River, South Dakotans can tell you that the river is slowly changing as a result of the dams built under the authority of the Pick-Sloan Act. While the dams undoubtedly have made positive contributions to South Dakota by controlling floodwaters and making affordable electricity available to promote rural development, they also ended the Big Muddy's ability to carry a full sediment load for long distances. Sediments are now being deposited into shallow areas of the river, causing the water table to rise, flooding shoreline lands and worsening erosion. In addition, the sediment build-up has made navigation nearly impossible in some areas. These problems have grown particularly severe near the city of Springfield, where a delta is forming downstream from the confluence of the Missouri and Niobrara Rivers. In order to better understand the causes of the sediment build-up and to develop solutions to address it, I am introducing legislation today to direct the Corps of Engineers to conduct a study of the lower Missouri and Niobrara River watershed. It is my hope that this study will provide the blueprint necessary to alleviate the sediment build-up, reduce future sedimentation, and preserve the character of the rivers for years to come. I hope my colleagues will give this legislation their full support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

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 that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

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

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.