Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask the majority leader if it is his intention to schedule any additional votes today after we have had the vote on this particular resolution.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the majority leader. Electing William H. Pickle, of Colorado, as Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, first let me commend the distinguished majority leader for his choice in this proper position. In this time of uncertainty and with the experiences that the Senate has endured over the course of the last couple of years in particular, we are all the more sensitive about the role and the responsibilities of the Sergeant at Arms. The Senate owes a big debt of gratitude to Al Lenhardt, the man who has filled this position so admirably for the last couple of years. He has endured, he has led, he has inspired. So we say farewell to Mr. Lenhardt, and we acknowledge once again the extraordinary contribution he has made not only to the Senate but to his country. I am proud of his work. I am proud to call him a friend. I am pleased that Bill Pickle has agreed to take on this enormous responsibility. He comes extraordinarily well qualified. His experiences will serve him well as he begins to undertake the responsibilities and the expectations of the Senate as we look to the many challenges the Senate faces in dealing with security and the many other issues that will be on his desk as he holds this position. I congratulate him. I wish him well. I know I can say without equivocation that unanimously our caucus expresses our willingness to work closely with him as he begins his work in the Senate. I thank the distinguished majority leader, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I listened carefully to the words of the distinguished majority leader and certainly understand his decision to file cloture. Many of us had anticipated a cloture motion would be filed. We are more than ready to have one or more votes when and if they are scheduled. Those votes, of course, would not be necessary were the information we requested from the beginning provided. We have simply asked that Mr. Estrada fill out his application for this lifetime employment, as every other one of his predecessors has, providing information about his record, providing information about his position, providing information in ways that will allow Senators a far better appreciation of the vote they are taking on this important matter prior to the time he begins serving on the second highest court in the land. We welcome the vote. As I said, we will welcome subsequent votes if they are filed. We believe the constitutional obligation we have as Senators requires we demand the same degree of compliance to the rules, the same degree of willingness to cooperate that all those who have served in the past and have provided that information have been willing to provide in their cases, as well. We will certainly anticipate that vote, the recognition that this debate goes on unnecessarily. It would not have to take 30 days. It would not have had to take 12 legislative days. It would not have had to take 85 hours for Mr. Estrada to be more forthcoming, more willing to provide the information his predecessors have provided. I understand the actions just announced by the majority leader. But I will say it really does not change anything. The only thing that will change the circumstances we currently face is if Mr. Estrada becomes more cooperative and he fulfills his obligations under the Constitution, as his predecessors have so ably done for so many years. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I want to announce a very exciting event taking place this evening in my hometown of Aberdeen. Tonight, in conjunction with the 2003 Women in Space Conference, Northern State University will host NASA astronaut, Dr. Karen Nyberg. Originally from neighboring Minnesota, Dr. Nyberg received her undergraduate degree at the University of North Dakota and her doctorate in mechanical engineering from the University of Texas. After finishing her education she worked for NASA, where she was granted a patent for work done on a robot assembly. Dr. Nyberg also worked extensively on improving the internal thermal control system of the space suits used by the astronauts. In July of 2000, she was selected in to the astronaut program, and she is awaiting an assignment on a future space flight as a mission specialist. The tragic loss of the Columbia space shuttle on February 1 demonstrated to all Americans the dangers inherent to space exploration. However, the exciting opportunities space exploration presents require us to push forward, take risks and broaden our horizons by emulating the courage and fortitude demonstrated by the crew of the Columbia. As the President stated in his address to the nation, ``Mankind is led into the darkness beyond our world by the inspiration of discovery and the longing to understand. Our journey into space will go on.'' Thank you, Dr. Nyberg, for taking the time to visit Aberdeen and share your experiences and knowledge. To all the attendees and organizers, I wish you the best and congratulate you on what I am sure will be a successful and inspiring conference.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor this afternoon to discuss a matter that occurred in the Judiciary Committee today that is deeply troubling. During a mark-up of 3 controversial circuit court nominees, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee refused to observe the long- standing rules of the committee and brought two circuit court nominations to a vote despite the fact that there was a desire by several members of the minority to continue debate. This situation is very specifically addressed by Committee Rule No. 4, which reads as follows: The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a rollcall vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the Minority. At the time that the chairman attempted to bring the nominations of John Roberts and Deborah Cook to a vote, objections were lodged by at least 2 members of the committee. In fact, I believe that this rule was read into the Record in an effort to make clear to the chairman that it was not appropriate under the committee rules to bring these matters to a vote. Despite the fact that this action represented a clear violation of the committee rules, the chairman ended debate on these nominations and conducted a roll call vote. This reckless exercise of raw power by a chairman without regard to the agreed-upon standards of conduct that members of the committee have agreed to is ominous. Senate committees either have rules or they do not. It cannot be the case that the rules of a committee will apply unless the chairman deems them inconvenient or an obstacle to a goal he seeks at any given moment. This body has, for over 200 years, operated on the principle that civil debate and resolution of competing philosophies require rules. If the actions taken today indicate the new standard to which the majority plans to hold itself, then I propose that we simply repeal committee rules altogether and acknowledge that ``might makes right'' and there is no respect for minority interests. How can we expect the Judiciary Committee to place on the bench individuals who respect the rule of law if the very process that the committee uses to confirm those individuals violates the Senate rules themselves? I hope that upon reflection the chairman of the Judiciary Committee will reconvene the committee and allow for the committee to report out these nominations in a manner that is consistent with the committee rules. If not, he must recognize that he is setting a terrible precedent regarding the operation of Senate committees in the future, regardless of which party may be in control. Mr. President, I am very deeply troubled. This is a body of rules. This is a country of laws. I cannot imagine that there is ever a time that any one of us--any one of us--ought to be in a position to say: The rules in this case are not going to apply, the law in this case will not apply. And how ironic--how ironic--that in the Judiciary Committee, the committee which passes judgment on those who will interpret the rule of law, that very committee violated the rule today. So, Mr. President, we call attention to this extraordinary development with grave concern about its implications, about its precedent, about the message it sends. And I must say, it will not be tolerated. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan for his courtesy and appreciate very much his comments with regard to the budget and his extraordinary leadership with regard to many issues involving our military challenges and priorities abroad. Three weeks ago, I came to the Senate floor to address the intensifying crisis in North Korea, a country and a situation that I believe poses a risk to our Nation every bit as serious as that posed by Saddam Hussein. At the time, I urged President Bush immediately and directly to engage the North Korean Government in discussions to bring about a verifiable end to that country's nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, the administration so far has failed to act, and, in the meantime, the crisis in North Korea continues to escalate. In recent days, we have seen reports that North Korea test-fired a new missile, evidently that regime's idea of an inauguration present for South Korea's incoming President. Just today, the newspapers contain reports that North Korea has restarted one of the reactors at its primary nuclear complex, a reactor that produces spent plutonium which can then be converted into weapons grade material. Let's be clear about what this latest provocation means. It means North Korea could have a nuclear production line up and running and producing weapons grade nuclear material in a matter of months. It means the world's worst proliferator could have enough nuclear material to produce six to eight nuclear weapons by summer. According to Brent Scowcroft, President George Bush's National Security Adviser, if we fail to act, it means ``We will soon face a rampant plutonium production program that could spark a nuclear arms race in Asia and provide deadly exports to America's most implacable enemies.'' Unfortunately, the administration continues to insist on downplaying this threat. These latest developments should confirm for anyone watching that this is a crisis that only grows with each day the administration fails to act. I come to the floor today to join with my colleague, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, to urge the administration to act now. The first step toward action is to acknowledge there is a problem. Based on a series of administration statements that play down the threat posed by North Korea's actions, it appears many in the administration are not even willing to take this step. For example, for quite some time now, the administration refused to call this situation even a crisis. Last month, North Korea announced its intention to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the cornerstone of the world's nonproliferation efforts, and the response from Under Secretary of State John Bolton, ``Not at all expected,'' and on Monday after the missile test, the administration is quoted as saying that this was ``just a periodic event.'' Secretary Powell called the test ``not surprising and fairly innocuous.'' So what do we do? I believe we must begin by making certain we are on the same page as our allies. Failure to do so will only produce a failed policy. Unfortunately, while the administration says the right things about the importance of coalitions, it is unwilling or unable to do the right things to build a coalition. The administration continues to insist on multilateral discussions with the North Koreans while our friends and others have consistently and repeatedly urged President Bush to engage in bilateral talks. Therefore, the administration must redouble its efforts with our allies in South Korea, Japan, with the Chinese, and the Russians. Second, we must make it clear to the North Koreans that separating plutonium from the spent fuel rods at Yongbyon represents an unacceptable threat to our collective security. We should tell North Korea what we expect of them directly: That if it verifiably freezes all nuclear activities, we and our allies are prepared to discuss the full range of security issues affecting the peninsula, as well as other steps North Korea can take to reenter the international community. This is not news to the administration. In fact, the President himself has suggested he is prepared to have just these kinds of talks. Yet, I must say, regrettably, the administration still delays. It allows the crisis to deepen and relations with our friends who are most directly threatened by North Korea to suffer. In fact, what would reward North Korea is to continue to stand by while it builds a nuclear arsenal. The danger within North Korea is too urgent for the President to delay this any further. Finally, let me also take advantage of having my colleague, Senator Levin, in the Chamber to discuss a recent exchange of letters with the administration on this issue. Senators Levin, Biden, and I laid out our concerns to the administration about its North Korean policies and provided recommendations in a series of letters. I recently received a response from Dr. Rice, and I ask unanimous consent to print our January 31 letter and Dr. Rice's February 10 response in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Unfortunately, little in Dr. Rice's letter addresses our policy concerns. Rather, the bulk of her comments are dedicated to rebutting a claim in our letter that Congress has not been adequately consulted about some explosive findings revealed in a January 31 New York Times article. The article stated that the U.S. Government has evidence North Korea had begun moving spent fuel rods out of a secure storage area, a development that was subsequently confirmed by the administration. Movement of spent fuel rods would either suggest that North Korea was getting ready to reprocess that fuel to build new weapons or was trying to hide the spent fuel from the international community. In either case, this is a very significant finding that we believed then and still believe deserves to be brought to the Congress's attention. While Dr. Rice rightly points out that Congress has been briefed on North Korea issues generally, including a briefing by Deputy Secretary Armitage on January 16, we are not aware of any administration briefing that provided us with information on this specific development prior to the New York Times story. And in recent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Deputy Secretary Armitage implicitly acknowledged that fact. The reason to bring this up is because we are facing a crisis on the Korean peninsula, a crisis with extremely high stakes, a crisis that demands robust American response, a crisis that demands we be clear with each other and with the American people. Given the stakes of the situation and the ongoing confusion about the administration's policy, we should expect no less. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Before I yield the floor, I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

Mr. DASCHLE. I think the Senator asks a very good question. This is more than just a semantical issue. Whether one calls it a crisis, an emergency, whatever volatile term one wishes to apply, clearly this deserves more of a response than this administration has provided. I wonder what would have happened if Iraq had been the country with the evidence now to suggest that weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, would be produced with the degree of certainty that we now see them in North Korea, what would the administration have said to that? If Iraq had fired a test missile within the last 2 weeks, what would the administration have said of that? My hunch, is that they would have used the word ``crisis'' and then some. They have already claimed, of course, that North Korea is a member of the so-called axis of evil, an unfortunate term in my opinion. But to avoid using the word ``crisis,'' I believe, lends a real serious credibility question to the administration's foreign policy with regard to the region. This is a crisis. Every expert has acknowledged that it is a crisis. Unless we are willing to recognize the reality of the implications of this crisis, I believe the crisis will only worsen. The Senator from Michigan has made a very important point with his question.

Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate the question posed by the Senator from Michigan. This whole experience has turned logic on its head. We have 220,000 troops in the gulf. We are told that there is almost an inevitability of war. We are told that the reason for this near inevitability is because of weapons of mass destruction that we have yet to find in Iraq and because of an unstable leader in Iraq. These assertions have required the administration to go to great lengths to try to prove that their findings are ones that could be recognized by the world community. With all of their best effort, they have yet to demonstrate to the satisfaction of some of our allies that the threat exists to the extent the administration perceives it, and yet there is a clear set of circumstances that are undeniable in North Korea. There is a very questionable leader spurring development of nuclear weapons in the most rapid way, which we know could be sold quickly to terrorist organizations and used against us and the world community. Yet this administration chooses to ignore it. The Senator asks the question, why would we not engage the community and recognize the importance of confronting North Korea? The administration says the answer to that is they do not want to reward bad behavior. I argue that we are rewarding bad behavior by ignoring the circumstances as this administration has chosen to do. What could be worse behavior than what is going on right now? As I understand it, we began to reship food assistance to the North Korean people within the last few days. We have no real guarantee that aid is going to get to the people, but it is a very unusual message they are sending to both Iraq and North Korea. Of all those who would be most confused it would be our allies. How do they explain all of this? What credibility do we have with them as we attempt to rationalize this odd position we find ourselves in today? I appreciate the question, and I would simply say to my colleague that it begs further explanation by the administration which, again, because they refuse to call this a crisis, they have yet to provide.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan. We can learn a lot from history. History, for most of my lifetime, involved a cold war, a cold war with an archenemy--the Soviet Union-- which had thousands of nuclear warheads pointed toward the United States. They posed an imminent threat that could at any moment destroy all of civilization. We made the choice, for good reason, Republican and Democratic administrations made the choice, that rather than engage in conflict, we would contain, negotiate, disarm, and ultimately wear down those leaders of the Soviet Union. That is ultimately what happened. The Soviet Union collapsed, negotiations for disarmament continued, and I recognize the contribution of many Presidents, from Harry Truman on. But it was Ronald Reagan who said: Trust but verify. He did not say: I don't trust the Soviet Union, so I'm not going to enter into dialog with them. He was criticized at times, but he said: I'm going to engage in dialog. I'm going to continue the effort of my predecessors. I'm going to trust. But then I'm going to verify. What the Senator from Michigan noted is that a couple of years ago that verification process was underway. We trusted. And we verified. His site visit was an indication of that verification. I can only hope that those responsible for the day-to-day decisions made with regard to U.S. foreign policy will recognize the importance of past precedent, that we engage our enemies, we engage those whom there is ample reason to distrust, but we recognize that without some communication, without some engagement, the only other option is conflict. The only other option is to see what is happening today. Nuclear weapons are being constructed. Nuclear weapons are being stockpiled. Nuclear weapons could be shipped. Nuclear weapons could be used not only in the region but against this country, as well. Every day we delay, every day we lack the will to confront and communicate, every day we lack the desire to verify, every day we create a problem more complex for future leaders and for future American policy. I hope this administration will very carefully reconsider their position. I hope they will listen to our allies. I hope they will engage the North Koreans. I hope they can give us greater appreciation with greater clarity of their intentions with regard to that part of the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the request made by the majority leader be modified to include that the Justice Department provide the requested documents relative to Mr. Estrada's Government service, first requested in May of 2001; that the nominee then appear before the Judiciary Committee to answer the questions which he failed to answer in his confirmation hearing, and any additional questions that may arise from such documents.

Mr. DASCHLE. Then I object, as well.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I again ask unanimous consent that the request made by the majority leader be modified to allow for the documents requested by the Judiciary Committee members be provided as a part of the hearing record and that additional questions proposed by Judiciary Committee members be included in the Record at that time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will ask for regular order. We can debate this if the majority leader wishes, but this is a unanimous consent request.

Mr. DASCHLE. I was under the impression I made the objection, but of course if I did not, I do it again.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent documents requested by members of the Judiciary Committee, as well as answers requested by Members to Mr. Estrada, be made part of the request as well.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, then I object as well.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I was home in South Dakota over the last week, and I had the opportunity to talk with farmers and ranchers, businesspeople, educators, and government leaders. What I bring back from those many discussions is the strong belief that if there is anything we do in the Senate over the course of the next several weeks, it ought to be addressing the economic problems that our country is facing. I wish I had an accurate count of the number of times in various ways business men and women and farmers and ranchers asked the question: So why are you spending all of this time on a judge when our country is in such economic disarray? This is an important issue, the Estrada nomination, but we have said from the beginning, and I think we will be able to continue to say with authority, that there will not be any resolution until the Solicitor General documents are released and until Mr. Estrada is more forthcoming with regard to his positions. We can take up time on the Senate floor week after week, or we can put it aside, make some decision with regard to whether or not there will be some reconciliation on that issue and answer the question posed by so many South Dakotans to me last week: When will we address the economy? When will we recognize that there is a lot more productive use of the Senate's time than an unending debate about Miguel Estrada? They do not understand why we are stymied and why we are unresponsive to the growing concern they have about the direction the economy is taking. There is a growing credibility gap between what the President and the administration says and what they do, between their rhetoric and their reality. The President has taken occasion to go around the country to talk about his concern for the economy. On several occasions over the last couple of weeks, he has made his speeches about his concern for the economy and his approach through his tax cuts. I have to say, if he cared, if he was concerned, he would ask the Senate to take up this matter immediately. It will not be a day too soon. A report was released this morning that said consumer confidence is now at a 10-year low. Consumer confidence, as registered and reported through its index, has plummeted to 64 from a revised 78 just last month. That is the lowest rating since 1993, 10 years. Unemployment is rising. We have seen an increase in the number of unemployed by 40 percent. We now have 8.3 million Americans out of work and 2.5 million private sector jobs have been lost just in the last 2 years. The unemployment spells are lengthening, wage growth is now stagnant, and the shortage of jobs has slowed wage growth so that only those at the very top are still experiencing wage increases that outpace inflation. We now have the worst job creation record in 58 years, while State budgets continue to be plagued with deficits of close to $70 billion. Some have reported even more than that. We have an economic crisis that is not being addressed, and while that economic crisis grows, there is another concern expressed to me last week by scores of South Dakotans who are our first responders. Our fire departments, our police departments, those involved in crisis management all tell me they haven't a clue as to what they would be required to do should some emergency come about. There is no coordination. There is absolutely no training. When I asked them last week, What would you suggest I go back and tell the President and my colleagues, they said: Understand that unless we have training, unless we have communications equipment, unless we have more of a coordinated effort to bring us into the infrastructure required for response, we will not be able to live up to the expectations of the people right here. Help us. We have attempted to help those first responders over and over: last December, with $2.5 billion that the President said we could not afford; last month with $5 billion that the President, once again, said we could not afford. You tell those first responders that we cannot afford providing them the resources to do their job when we look at what has happened in just the last 48 hours in our basing arrangements with Turkey. According to press reports, we can afford up to $6 billion in grants and $20 billion in loan guarantees for Turkey, but for some reason we cannot afford providing homeland and hometown assistance-- direct, coordinated help--to provide the training and communication and coordination required. That is a credibility gap that I think this President needs to address. I hope we can set aside this issue of Mr. Estrada and deal with the issue about which our people, regardless of geography, are concerned. The President has a plan, Democrats have proposed a plan, and there is a significant difference between the two. There, too, we find a credibility gap. An article was written in the New York Times that appeared this morning by David Rosenbaum entitled ``The President's Tax Cut and Its Unspoken Numbers.'' I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the President talks about his plan providing 92 million Americans with an average tax reduction of $1,083, and yet with closer scrutiny and attention, with a more careful review of the facts, we find that is not the case at all. That is like Bill Gates and Tom Daschle averaging their income. If he and I averaged our income, mine would be somewhere around $39 billion. I only wish I had $39 billion to average with Bill Gates, but I do not. But that is the method this President is using to provide these average numbers with regard to the beneficiaries of his tax cut. Here are the facts: 78 percent of Americans are going to get less than $1,000, and over half of all taxpayers will get less than $100 under the President's plan. That is right, less than $100. That is all more than half of all taxpayers will receive under the President's plan. That is fact. That is a credibility gap. That is saying one thing and doing another. That is saying the average American gets $1,000 but actually, in fact, the average American is going to get under $100. There is a credibility gap across the board. He said his plan will create 1.4 million jobs by the end of 2004. According to the same report President Bush cites by macroeconomic advisers of St. Louis, his tax cuts actually have the potential to harm the economy in the long run, but the President did not mention any references to those parts of the report stated later on. The President has said eliminating the double taxation of dividends is good for enhancing the lifestyle of millions of Americans all across the country. The reality is that only 22 percent of those with incomes under $100,000 reported any dividend income in the year 2000. The average tax cut from the dividend exclusion would be $29 for those with incomes below $40,000. There is a lot to discuss. There is a great need in this country to do what the American people are hoping we will do, and that is take up issues they are concerned about, to address the issues they will rise and fall on over the course of the next several months. I cannot tell my colleagues the emotion I feel in the room oftentimes as I talk to businessmen whose lips would quiver, whose eyes would moisten, who would tell me: Tom, I do not know if I can be in business a year or two from now if things do not change. I have not sold a piece of farm equipment in 2 years. I have seen my sales plummet more than 20 percent in the last 3 months. I have no confidence about how we are going to turn this around, they tell me, unless you in Washington understand that things have to be done to make this economy better. What do we do? We come back to Washington and we are back in the same old trap, talking about the same old thing. That will not change until Mr. Estrada is more forthcoming. So we can spend time on the economy or we can spend time talking about issues that have no relevance to the daily lives of the people of South Dakota and the people all across this country.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate very much the comments of the distinguished Senator from New Jersey because I think among us all no one knows these economic issues better than he does. Again, I would say to the distinguished Senator, this is part of that credibility gap I was referring to. The President professes to be concerned, the President talks about his proposals to address the economy, and yet we are not planning to take up any economic stimulus for months, I am told. It may be May before it comes to the Senate. How can anybody with any truthfulness express concern about the economy and say, no, but we will just do it later? We will not do it this week, we will not even do it this month, we will do it sometime down the road but, yes, I am concerned. When they look at consumer confidence, when they look at the numbers of jobs lost, when they see those plants close, when they see the consumer confidence drop as precipitously as it has, how in the world can anybody in the world confess to be supportive of economic recovery and economic stimulus with numbers like that and the inaction we see from the White House?

Mr. DASCHLE. I say to the Senator from New Jersey, that is exactly what I am hearing from the people of our State. As I have traveled around the country, I hear it in other parts of the country as well. This is a very serious issue that will not go away, and I think the more we face the uncertainty of war, the more we face the uncertainty of international circumstances, the more this domestic economic question is going to be exacerbated. People want more certainty. They want more confidence. They want to at least believe we understand how serious it is out there and we are going to do something to address it. And what do we do? We come back after a week's break and not one word about the economy from the other side, not one word about the recognition of how serious this problem is. We are still talking about the Estrada nomination. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 414 I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and begin the consideration of Calendar No. 21, S. 414, a bill to provide an economic stimulus package.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I believe I still have the floor privilege.