Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I would like to ask the Senator from Vermont if the Congress provided additional funding for Afghanistan in the Supplemental Appropriations bill that was passed earlier this year. Isn't it true that the Congress fully funded the Administration's request for a range of activities in Afghanistan during fiscal year 2002? And weren't you subsequently told by officials in the State Department and USAID that this request was not nearly enough to address some of the most acute problems in that country? And isn't it true that the Congress added $94 million for humanitarian, refugee, and reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan, only to be told later by the President that he would not provide this additional assistance to Afghanistan?

Mr. DASCHLE. I agree with the Senator. We need to find additional resources for humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan, but I know that the Senator, like me, is concerned about the deteriorating security situation. For months, in the form of letters to the Administration and amendments here on the Senate floor, we have been urging the President to expand the International Security Assistance Force beyond greater Kabul. Coalition forces provide much needed security throughout the country, but significant concerns remain, highlighted by the assassination attempt on President Karzai just last month. I know that the Senator agrees with me that expanding ISAF could play a central role in improving this worsening security situation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session after the first floor vote of the day during the session on Wednesday, October 9, in SC-216. The Senate will consider the nomination of Mark B. McLellan of the District of Columbia to be Commissioner of the Food and Drugs Department of Health and Human Services.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to inform my colleagues, after consultation with the distinguished Republican leader, that it is our intention, assuming we get cloture tomorrow--the cloture vote will be cast on the resolution tomorrow--it would be my intent to stay in for the full 30 hours, or whatever period of time would be required to complete our work on the resolution. I said at the beginning of the week, it would be my determination to finish our debate on this resolution before the end of the week and that is still my determination. So if cloture is achieved, we would go for whatever length of time to accommodate Senators who wish to be heard under the rules of cloture. We would expect, therefore, a vote on final passage on the resolution prior to the time we leave this week. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ed Danielson, a fellow in the office of Senator Reed of Rhode Island, be granted floor privileges during the debate on S.J. Res. 45.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished assistant Democratic leader for his characteristic leadership and cooperation as we have worked through so many of these procedural issues. I thank him so much for all he has done on the floor in the last few weeks. We have had the debate on the resolution now for a couple of days. They have been good days. I think Senators have used the time wisely and productively, and I think it has been very constructive and respectful debate, as we hoped it would be. I have indicated to Senator Lott it is my hope we can reach an agreement tomorrow about how we might proceed to the completion of the debate. I am hopeful we might propound a unanimous consent request that would accommodate the Senators who wish to offer amendments, that those amendments be debated tomorrow, Wednesday, and Thursday, and that we have a vote on final passage on Thursday night. That would allow an entire week to have debate on this resolution. Senators will have ample time to be heard and to speak tomorrow, Wednesday, and Thursday. We will go late into the night, if we have to, to accommodate Senators who wish to be heard. But I think that is sufficient time. So I will make such a request after further consultation with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I hope Senators will accommodate our desire, recognizing first that, as important as this is, there are other issues that still have to be addressed prior to the time we leave. We have to deal with the continuing resolution; we have to deal with the budget enforcement resolution; we have to deal with homeland security. Given the fact that tomorrow will be 1 month to the day before the election, that is a lot to be done in a very short period of time. So I urge Senators to work with us to accomplish these legislative goals and recognize there are other issues as well that we hope to deal with, such as nominations, perhaps conference reports; the election reform conference report ought to be done. I would like to see bankruptcy done. In any case, we have work that cannot be done unless we are cognizant of the limited time available and make use of every day. Again, I appreciate everyone's cooperation to date. I hope we can reach that agreement tomorrow and we can complete our work on this resolution by sometime Thursday night. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Responding to the distinguished Republican leader, the answer to that is, yes, this will be the final vote of the day. There will be no votes tomorrow, but we will be in session. It is my hope and expectation that Senators will avail themselves of the opportunity to come to the floor to not necessarily debate the resolution but to express themselves on the resolutions. The Senate will be available for that purpose today, tomorrow, Monday, and we will have more to say with regard to the specific schedule, perhaps as early as tomorrow. This will be the final vote today.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I did not have the opportunity to hear all of the distinguished Republican leader's remarks, but I have a pretty good understanding of the tone of his statement and agree very much with what I did hear of his remarks. Let me say I would pick up where he left off. I want very much for this debate to be respectful, to recognize our solemn obligation as Senators to debate, and our role in providing advice and consent on issues of this import. That will be what we set out to do over the course of the next several days. In consultation with the Republican leader, I also had hoped we could have a prompt debate. That is also part of our motivation in bringing the resolution to the floor in the form of a cloture motion this afternoon. There will be differences of opinion expressed, but there is no difference of opinion with regard to our ultimate goal. Our goal is to address the very understandable and serious concern shared not only by the administration but the American people that we have to address the threat that exists today in Iraq, the threat that it poses to us in a number of ways but especially with regard to weapons of mass destruction. It is my hope that debate can begin in earnest today, that people can come to the floor to express themselves, to indicate their support and their proposals for ways in which we might address this issue through resolutions that will be offered over the course of the next several days. I am confident that as we begin this debate, we will debate with every expectation that in spite of what differences exist, the similarities will be far greater than the differences; that ultimately we can come to some resolution that will bring about perhaps a broad bipartisan coalition in support of a resolution that authorizes this administration and our country to move forward. There is a growing appreciation of the role of the United Nations. There is a growing appreciation of the role of the international community. There is a recognition that the extent to which we work in and through the international community, as we did in 1991, we will do it again successfully today. I come to the floor with an expectation that there will be an opportunity at some point for Senator Levin to introduce his resolution. We will have a debate and a vote on that resolution sometime next week. We would then lay down--perhaps simultaneously--the resolution that has been the subject of negotiations and discussions now with the administration over the course of the last couple of weeks. Agreement was reached with some members of leadership over the course of the last day or so. That certainly will be one of the primary vehicles we will address as we consider debate on this issue in the coming days. I might suggest that it be used as the primary vehicle, although we have not entertained a unanimous consent request in that regard. It is also my expectation that Senators Biden and Lugar may have an amendment that they wish to offer that would go to some of the concerns they have with regard to the need for further clarity of that resolution. That may be the amendment that would be offered to the administration resolution at some point next week. In the meantime, Senators are encouraged to come to the floor to express themselves in general or to express themselves with regard to any one of those specific resolutions or amendments to the resolution. I would hope that at some point we could reach an agreement that we would have those three votes--a vote on the Levin resolution, a vote on the Biden-Lugar amendment to the administration resolution, and then ultimately a vote on the administration resolution itself. As I said today, I am not prepared to propound it because we have not had enough opportunity to consult with colleagues on either side of the aisle. I have had many consultations with the distinguished Republican leader. It will be our intent to suggest that to our caucuses with the hope that we can put that framework in place as we debate this very important matter in the days ahead. I encourage Senators to come to the floor today, tomorrow, Monday, and all next week as we hope to complete our work. My expectation is that we would complete our work on this resolution, on this set of issues relating to this resolution, sometime by midweek next week. I know we are scheduled to have a vote at 4:15. That time has arrived. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing, with my colleagues Senator Johnson, legislation to investigate and hopefully change the culture of disregard for environmental values that infects the Corps of Engineers' management of America's great rivers. My own experiences in South Dakota and my discussions with many of my constituents and others around the Nation have led me to conclude that protecting the future health of our Nation's waterways demands that Congress consider relieving the Corps of its current river management responsibilities. For the last decade, I have watched as the Corps has steadfastly refused to change its management of the Missouri River to reflect the environmental and economic needs of the 21st century. The agency's refusal to change the management of the river will further jeopardize endangered species, drive river-dependent businesses into bankruptcy, and lead to further erosion of Native American burial and cultural sites along its banks. As a Senator from South Dakota and as a citizen of that State who enjoys hunting and fishing along the Missouri, I share the sense of betrayal that so many upstream residents feel watching the Corps' management slowly degrade this once thriving river. Last spring, just when sport fish were spawning and the State was facing its worst drought in decades, the Corps began to drain the reservoirs to provide water for navigation downstream. This prompted lawsuits by South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana to force the Corps to bring common-sense management to the river. Since then, boat ramps have become unusable, while some river-based businesses have lost tens of thousands of dollars. There is no legitimate reason for further delay in reforming management of the Missouri River. For more than a decade, the Corps has spent millions of dollars revising its operating plan for water flows on the Missouri River, the Master Manual. An overwhelming amount of scientific and technical data all point to the same conclusions: the management of the river should more closely mimic the natural flow regime. Flows should be higher in the spring, and lower in the summer, just as they nature. Yet in June, the Corps indefinitely delayed the release of the new Master Manual due to pressure from the White House. The mismanagement of the Missouri River is illustrative of a larger problem. For example, a study of proposed upper-Mississippi lock expansion has to be retooled after the Corps whistle blower showed that the study was rigged to provide an economic justification for that billion-dollar project. A broad pattern of disregard by the Corps for environmental priorities throughout the nation's waterways is now evident. In addition, the corps has been shown time and again its unwillingness to work effectively with members of the public, States, tribes, or stakeholders to resolve ongoing challenges. Indeed, more than ever, the Corps appears mired in the past, incapable of assimilating new scienfic and economic information into its management scheme, and, consequently, failing the people and wildlife that depend on the sound stewardship of Ameria's rivers. The time has come to ask tough questions about the institutional barriers within the Corps, and the influence of special interests, that prevent it from effectively meeting the Nation's river management needs. The time has come to ask whether those responsibilities are better left to others. This ongoing situation presents a compelling case for a thorough, independent review of the agency's operations and management, and for serious reform. Indeed, many of my Senate colleagues have introduced legislation to accomplish certain reforms, and I, along with others have made it clear that we will fight any effort to pass additional authorizations unless they are accompanied by serious, meaningful Corps reform. Our Nation needs a river management program that is environmentally and economically sound. History does not offer much room for confidence that the Army Corps of Engineers can meet this standard under its current management structure. The management of the Missouri River, the Mississippi River, and other major waterways presents a compelling case for a thorough, independent review of the agency's operations and management, and for serious reform. I am introducing legislation today to establish an independent Corps of Engineers River Stewardship Investigation and Review Commission. The commission will take a hard and systematic look at the agency's stewardship of our Nation's rivers and make recommendations to Congress on needed reforms. It will examine a number of issues, including Corps compliance with environmental and Indian cultural resource protection laws; the quality and objectivity of the agency's scientific and economic analysis, the Corps' cooperation with Federal agencies, States, and tribes; whether congress needs to amend river planning laws and regulations; and, ultimately, whether the Corps' river management responsibilities should be transferred to a federal civilian agency. I urge my colleagues to review this legislation. It is my hope that all those who care about the mission of preserving our Nation's waterways will support this effort to identify and implement whatever reforms are necessary to fulfill that mission. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing, with my colleagues Senator Johnson, legislation to investigate and hopefully change the culture of disregard for environmental values that infects the Corps of Engineers' management of America's great rivers. My own experiences in South Dakota and my discussions with many of my constituents and others around the Nation have led me to conclude that protecting the future health of our Nation's waterways demands that Congress consider relieving the Corps of its current river management responsibilities. For the last decade, I have watched as the Corps has steadfastly refused to change its management of the Missouri River to reflect the environmental and economic needs of the 21st century. The agency's refusal to change the management of the river will further jeopardize endangered species, drive river-dependent businesses into bankruptcy, and lead to further erosion of Native American burial and cultural sites along its banks. As a Senator from South Dakota and as a citizen of that State who enjoys hunting and fishing along the Missouri, I share the sense of betrayal that so many upstream residents feel watching the Corps' management slowly degrade this once thriving river. Last spring, just when sport fish were spawning and the State was facing its worst drought in decades, the Corps began to drain the reservoirs to provide water for navigation downstream. This prompted lawsuits by South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana to force the Corps to bring common-sense management to the river. Since then, boat ramps have become unusable, while some river-based businesses have lost tens of thousands of dollars. There is no legitimate reason for further delay in reforming management of the Missouri River. For more than a decade, the Corps has spent millions of dollars revising its operating plan for water flows on the Missouri River, the Master Manual. An overwhelming amount of scientific and technical data all point to the same conclusions: the management of the river should more closely mimic the natural flow regime. Flows should be higher in the spring, and lower in the summer, just as they nature. Yet in June, the Corps indefinitely delayed the release of the new Master Manual due to pressure from the White House. The mismanagement of the Missouri River is illustrative of a larger problem. For example, a study of proposed upper-Mississippi lock expansion has to be retooled after the Corps whistle blower showed that the study was rigged to provide an economic justification for that billion-dollar project. A broad pattern of disregard by the Corps for environmental priorities throughout the nation's waterways is now evident. In addition, the corps has been shown time and again its unwillingness to work effectively with members of the public, States, tribes, or stakeholders to resolve ongoing challenges. Indeed, more than ever, the Corps appears mired in the past, incapable of assimilating new scienfic and economic information into its management scheme, and, consequently, failing the people and wildlife that depend on the sound stewardship of Ameria's rivers. The time has come to ask tough questions about the institutional barriers within the Corps, and the influence of special interests, that prevent it from effectively meeting the Nation's river management needs. The time has come to ask whether those responsibilities are better left to others. This ongoing situation presents a compelling case for a thorough, independent review of the agency's operations and management, and for serious reform. Indeed, many of my Senate colleagues have introduced legislation to accomplish certain reforms, and I, along with others have made it clear that we will fight any effort to pass additional authorizations unless they are accompanied by serious, meaningful Corps reform. Our Nation needs a river management program that is environmentally and economically sound. History does not offer much room for confidence that the Army Corps of Engineers can meet this standard under its current management structure. The management of the Missouri River, the Mississippi River, and other major waterways presents a compelling case for a thorough, independent review of the agency's operations and management, and for serious reform. I am introducing legislation today to establish an independent Corps of Engineers River Stewardship Investigation and Review Commission. The commission will take a hard and systematic look at the agency's stewardship of our Nation's rivers and make recommendations to Congress on needed reforms. It will examine a number of issues, including Corps compliance with environmental and Indian cultural resource protection laws; the quality and objectivity of the agency's scientific and economic analysis, the Corps' cooperation with Federal agencies, States, and tribes; whether congress needs to amend river planning laws and regulations; and, ultimately, whether the Corps' river management responsibilities should be transferred to a federal civilian agency. I urge my colleagues to review this legislation. It is my hope that all those who care about the mission of preserving our Nation's waterways will support this effort to identify and implement whatever reforms are necessary to fulfill that mission. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I understand that S. 3018 is at the desk and is due for its second reading.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask that S. 3018 be read for a second time, and then object to any further proceedings on this bill at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for his powerful statement and my colleagues, the Senators from New York, Missouri, and Washington State, and others, in support of the Wellstone unanimous consent request. I know he will propound it momentarily. We are waiting for the assistant Republican leader to come to the Chamber. In the meantime, I add my voice to those who have spoken this morning. The economic conditions in this country continue to worsen. We now have 2 million jobs that have been lost over the last 20 months. The number of the private sector unemployed has gone up by over 2 million people. We have seen the number of long-term unemployed go from about 650,000 now to 1.5 million people--those who are unemployed for more than 6 months. We have seen a $4.5 trillion loss in market capitalization. We have seen the number of foreclosures go up at a rate higher than anything in recent years. Over and over, every single indicator points to the fact that this economy continues to worsen. Yet we have an administration that, for whatever reason, chooses to ignore it entirely. The point we make this morning and have made now for some time is that at the very least we ought to be sensitive to those who are the victims of this tragic set of economic circumstances. Felix Batista is one of those people. I heard about Mr. Batista when I was in New York in the last couple of days. Felix Batista worked for the World Trade Center for 23 years. After the tragedy of 9/11, Mr. Batista was left unemployed. He has yet to find a job more than a year later, in spite of the fact that he was an outstanding employee, that he has family, that he has run out of his unemployment benefits. He has no recourse but to continue to plead for help, ask for our understanding. I don't know whether Mr. Batista is watching this morning, but I am sure if there are those who are unemployed with access to C-SPAN, they have to be wondering, hoping, wishing the Senate would act expeditiously. They didn't have to hope or wait 10 years ago. We went through a recession at that time and we extended unemployment benefits--not once, not twice, but on three occasions. We provided the safety net to those who were unemployed in the long term. We provided some hope, some opportunity to have a sense of worth. That is all we are asking, Mr. President. Give these people a chance. Give them the hope and the real opportunity they need to be able to pay their bills, buy groceries, to ensure that their rent payments are made so they are not evicted in addition to being unemployed. So I hope that, at the very least, we can extend unemployment benefits again. We have done it before. The need could not be more urgent. While we can talk about all the other things we need to do about the economy, there should not be any difference in opinion whatsoever, Republican or Democrat, when it comes to economic security for these unemployed workers, these families left with nothing--the Felix Batistas of the world, who are good employees, who work hard, who expect at least some understanding for their circumstances now. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota to make his unanimous consent request.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. If the Senator will yield, I will be happy to respond.

Mr. DASCHLE. As he knows, we have attempted to bring debate on homeland security to a close now on 5 separate occasions. We failed to do that again this morning. It was my expectation we were going to take up the budget enforcement mechanism prior to the time we moved to the Iraqi resolution. That may be complicated now, in part, because I think we need to get started on the resolution on Iraq prior to the end of this week. But without any doubt, we will address the budget enforcement resolution the Senator has addressed prior to the time we depart, prior to adjournment. I have made that commitment to the budget chair and I have said it on the floor on several occasions. I think it is essential. I have not heard all of his remarks, but I assume the Senator from New Mexico made a similar statement. So we will make that effort. I am quite confident when we do, it will be successful.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I simply add to the comments I have just made to the Senator from Oklahoma, that we are going to finish the debate on homeland security, even if it is the night before the election. So I want those Senators on both sides of the aisle thinking that somehow this is going to go away to be very clear. We have voted now on cloture five times: Three times on the pending bill, the original bill, and twice on the Republican amendment--twice on the Republican amendment. I have offered the Republican leadership the opportunity for an up- or-down vote on the Republican amendment, and I am still told that is not good enough. For the life of me, I do not know what else to do. But we will continue to have cloture votes. We will continue to stay here. To the extent we can, we will interrupt--and I use that word ``interrupt'' as opposed to ``displace''--homeland security with other pieces of business so we do not keep spinning our wheels. If it is November 4, we will be here. If it is November 7, we will be here. I have heard there are those on the other side who believe somehow they can make this a political issue if we just drag it out and blame the Democrats. We are not going to do that. I think the record is abundantly clear who is holding this up. We will vote on it. We will vote on final passage at some point this fall. I just want to make sure my colleagues all understand that. This is the sixth week--the sixth week--we have debated this bill, and there are probably 70 or 80 amendments pending. So you tell me when we will finish; I will tell you whenever that is we are going to be here. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to proceed to the conference report to accompany H.R. 2215, the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act.

Mr. DASCHLE. Correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. No. We will only interrupt the ongoing consideration of homeland security. This does not displace homeland security on the calendar. The regular order would be we would revert right back to homeland security once the conference report has been disposed of, with no additional action required on the part of the Senate.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, prior to the clerk reporting the conference report, I ask unanimous consent I be able to speak as in morning business for 3 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there will be no further rollcall votes today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

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