Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I think that would accommodate a lot of the needs of many Senators on our side. As we indicated last night, many of us felt that the filing of the cloture motion was unfortunate, premature, but I think this will allow us to keep working in a meaningful way. I think it is clear that both sides, Democrats and Republicans, want to accomplish a good deal with regard to regulatory reform, and I think there is a lot of progress that has been made. We have raised a number of issues. While they have not been addressed and resolved to our satisfaction in some cases, these amendments have been proposed in good faith and have raised very important issues. I am hopeful we can continue to do that today. I am hopeful that at some point between now and Monday we will have the opportunity to debate the Democratic substitute, and we will simply take a look on Monday as to where we are and how much progress we have made as to what our position on cloture will be. But this certainly accommodates the need to allow Senators to come to the floor, to propose their amendments, and to have good debate. I think in many cases that can be done with short timeframes and perhaps some without rollcall votes. I would hope we could continue negotiations as well. I think we have made progress in many areas off the floor, and I hope that effort could continue as well. So I think the majority leader has advanced the effort here substantially, and I would encourage support of the motion.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield. The floor is the majority leader's.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I would first clarify with the majority leader that first-degree amendments would still be in order at least as to their filing up until the close of business on Friday. Is that the understanding of the majority leader?

Mr. DASCHLE. I say to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, who has probably had as much to do with this bill as anybody, this is a very important step procedurally. I think, as I said, this allows us to go forth with additional amendments, perhaps with the substitute, so I think it accommodates the needs of Senators on both sides, and I am enthusiastic about the change that is proposed here today.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader would yield, would it not be in the interest, for the benefit of those who are waiting to offer amendments, to at least provide a sequence? We have Senator Domenici prepared to go now, and then Senator Lautenberg immediately after that. If it would be appropriate then for Senator Feingold and Senator Pryor to follow Senator Lautenberg --if we know the sequence perhaps we could then----

Mr. DASCHLE. That was my understanding, that we were going to set aside the Domenici amendment in order to accommodate the other amendments, and come back to the Domenici amendment after we had a chance to look at it.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader would yield, I am informed Senator Feingold has a second amendment very similar in nature to the Pryor amendment that he would be willing to accept a short time agreement on, so if we could put that on the list as well, I think that could accommodate Senator Feingold.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me just associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished manager of the bill on our side, Senator Glenn. I was hoping we could avoid this. I had the opportunity throughout the last couple of days to talk to the distinguished majority leader about our desire to continue to work in good faith. I think we have done that. Obviously, today was a good example of what has happened. I laid down an amendment this morning, and by far the bulk of the debate has been on an amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Senator Johnston, and modified on several occasions throughout the day by Senator Johnston. It was only at the end of the day, after a great deal of prodding and pleading on our part, that we could finally agree to a time limit and an up-or-down vote on his amendment and then on mine. So I think the distinguished Senator from Ohio said it very well--16 amendments, 11 Republican, 5 Democrat. We are here tonight. I would note that in the Chamber there is one Republican and four or five Democrats ready to continue to work. So I am disappointed that the cloture motion was filed. I think it is fair to say that we will not be precluded from offering amendments, from ensuring that this debate receives the full airing it deserves. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before the Senate in this session of Congress, regardless of what else may be brought up before the end of the year. So we will not be precluded from that. We will offer amendments. I think we will anticipate the unity that we have experienced on several occasions already this year when it has come to cloture in protecting Members' rights to offer amendments and have the full debate. So while we may have a cloture vote, I have the feeling that we will be on this bill for a little while yet because we need to raise a number of issues that have yet to be addressed. We will have the alternative perhaps as early as tomorrow. Subject to however that may turn out, we may or may not want to protect our rights to deal with other issues. So it is unfortunate, and we will continue to work in good faith. Hopefully we can resolve these outstanding issues in whatever time it may take. It is not our desire, as the Senator from Ohio has indicated, to prolong debate unnecessarily, to do anything other than work in good faith to resolve the outstanding differences and get on with final passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Accepting the Johnston amendment? We would be opposed to accepting the Johnston amendment. We want a rollcall on that.

Mr. DASCHLE. I understand that.

Mr. DASCHLE. If the Senator from Vermont will yield again, let me just say we have been working in good faith on both sides to try to resolve this issue, and I especially commend the two managers for their efforts in trying to accommodate everyone. I do not understand, frankly, why it would not be in everyone's best interests just to have, even accept a tabling motion if that were the only option. But this process of second-degreeing all the amendments being offered precludes really an opportunity to have a vote on an issue that is quite simple. So I understand and again accept the right of any Senator to offer second-degrees, but we would hope on this one, given the debate we have had, given the fact that we have had a good debate yesterday on the Dole amendment--the Senator was protected with second-degrees on that one--we could simply resolve this matter and go on to other amendments. I hope we would not have to have a second-degree on this one, too.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for me to respond, I have no objection to having a vote on the Johnston amendment, but at some point I think it would be fair to say that we would like to have an up-or-down vote on the Daschle amendment. I do not know if others may have second-degree or substitute amendments that they wish to offer to this one. Obviously, that is anyone's right. But I think at some point it would be helpful if we could get a time certain for an up-or-down vote so we could move on to other amendments. [[Page S 9766]] I know the distinguished majority leader has urged us to try to move this process along. In that interest, I think we have a few other amendments that could be offered maybe even with some time limits. So to accommodate everyone it would be helpful if we could get a time certain for a final vote on this one and move on to other amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE. My point is that we could agree to that if we could also agree at some point to have an up-or-down vote on the Daschle amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, yesterday President Clinton announced that the United States would establish diplomatic ties with the Government of Vietnam. I want to commend the President for having the courage and the vision to begin a new chapter with a nation that was once our enemy. It has been 20 years since the last U.S. helicopter lifted off the roof of the American Embassy in Saigon, a tragic ending to a long and painful war. For years afterward, relations between our two nations have remained hostile and the question of what happened to the American soldiers missing in action in Southeast Asia remained unanswered. But times have changed. The Vietnamese leaders who viewed the United States with suspicion and distrust have been replaced by a new generation of leaders, one that has demonstrated a desire to cooperate on the POW/MIA issue and a number of other questions having to do with relations between our two countries. With their help, we have been able to make much progress toward our goal of a full and accurate accounting of our soldiers who did not come home when the war was over. I understand that the prospect of restoring diplomatic ties with Vietnam is painful to many Americans, particularly those who have friends and family members among those who remain unaccounted for in Vietnam. But experience has shown us that it is precisely by expanding our ties with Vietnam that we are most likely to learn what happened to the soldiers who never returned. Consider the President's decision on February 3, 1994, to lift the trade embargo against Vietnam. At the time, some Members of Congress and some in the veterans community expressed concern that lifting the embargo would reward Vietnam prematurely and discourage their further cooperation on the POW/MIA issue. Instead, as we all now know, just the opposite has occurred. Just 2 months ago, officials from the Departments of State, Defense, and Veterans Affairs traveled to Asia for high-level talks with their counterparts in both Vietnam and Laos. During that trip they were presented with more than 100 documents, which the Defense Department has called the most detailed and informative turned over to date. Moreover, our officials characterize the cooperation they had received from the Vietnamese as excellent. Well, this progress has not gone unnoticed by those who remain committed to a full accounting of our POW's and MIA's. For example, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, one of the Nation's most influential veterans groups and an organization whose membership includes 600,000 Vietnam veterans, released a statement on June 13 regarding the issue of normalizing relations with Vietnam. In that statement, the VFW announced it will support the establishment of diplomatic ties with [[Page S 9728]] Vietnam, provided such ties would enable the United States to make even further progress toward a full accounting of the missing. It is also telling that normalization of relations with Vietnam is strongly supported by three of my colleagues who are distinguished veterans of the Vietnam war and who served with me on the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs: Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the committee; Senator John McCain, a prisoner of war in Vietnam for 6 years; and Senator Bob Kerrey, the recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor for heroism in Vietnam. Having devoted countless hours to this issue, all three concluded establishing diplomatic ties with the Vietnamese will lead to greater cooperation in resolving our remaining POW/MIA cases. Normalizing relations with Vietnam does serve our national interest in another very important respect. Other nations have already created a diplomatic presence in Vietnam, and some have even entered into trade agreements with the Vietnamese Government. This puts U.S. businesses at a competitive disadvantage in one of the fastest growing markets in all of Asia. Establishing a formal presence in Vietnam will help this country even out the playing field with their international competitors, leading to greater exports and greater job creation. The President has recognized that our relationship with Vietnam should be based on today's national interests, not yesterday's animosities. I fully expect his bold decision will help us find the answers about our missing servicemen that their families and we have long awaited. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the President pro tempore. I understand the leader time is reserved. I will use some of my leader time this morning.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, are we still in a quorum call?

Mr. DASCHLE. I have no objection to that. I am sure the request of the Senator from Minnesota can be accommodated.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I have been in consultation with the distinguished manager of the bill. I will withhold offering the amendment momentarily. The distinguished Senator from Utah has an amendment that he would like to offer. We are willing to accommodate the interests of the distinguished Senator from Utah. Perhaps, following that, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota can be recognized for his morning business time. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. I hope we will have an opportunity, first, to look at the amendments; second, let me just say, I hope--I know we are working under the rights that every Senator is accorded under parliamentary procedure. But, again, we filled the tree, and I think we all understand the reasons for filling the tree. I hope we can have some good debate and have the opportunity to lay down amendments. I was prepared to lay an amendment down--not fill the tree--and have a good debate about it. The Senator from Utah has asked me to withdraw or delay the offering of that amendment. I have done so. Now I find that after I have conceded to do that we allow the Senator from Delaware to offer an amendment, and now we have not one amendment but four amendments simply to fill the tree.

Mr. DASCHLE. Certainly. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is not necessary. I would just call attention to the fact that I think it is important for us to work through these things and not to deprive either side.