Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last week we regrettably learned of the passing of Jo-Anne Coe. She served the Senate and Senator Dole for many years. She was an admirable public servant. From 1985 to 1987, during the 99th Congress, she became the Senate's first woman to serve as Secretary of the Senate. Our condolences and prayers go out to her daughter Kathryn Coombs, her niece Kindra, her nephew Kevin, and of course to our former colleague. Senator Bob Dole not only had an ally, a friend, a staff person, he had someone who was his presence on the floor on so many occasions. We regret her loss, not only the loss of an employee, not only the loss of an important public servant, but the loss of a friend.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, yesterday marked the end of the fiscal year, and, absent action by the Senate, it will also mark the end of a fiscal discipline system that has served this country very well for more than a decade. Earlier this year, we had a chance to pass a budget blueprint for 2003. It was jointly co-sponsored by Senators Conrad and Domenici, the chair and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. It received 59 votes. one vote short of passage. It would have done exactly what everyone in this chamber knows we should do. It would have extended the pay-as-you-go rules and the other points of order that have helped enforce at least some measure of fiscal discipline around here since 1990. When we voted in the spring, many Republicans voted ``no,'' citing the total amount for 2003 discretionary spending. That issue has been removed from the current effort to extend the budget enforcement rules, and there is no longer any plausible reason to oppose a simple extension of the points of order. Prior to the time President George H.W. Bush signed the budget act into law in 1990, there were no procedural barriers to the most irresponsible fiscal propositions. Spending proposals could be offered without any consideration for offsetting their budgetary affects. Tax cuts could be implemented without the slightest thought for their long- term consequences. Enormous fiscal damage could be inflicted with a simple majority vote. The 1990 Budget Act ended the bad old days, and it did so with overwhelming bipartisan support. It has subsequently been extended each time it expired whether the Senate was in Democratic or Republican hands. It should be extended here today. I think we all know that the budgetary trend of the last year has been profoundly negative. For many years, the two parties have disagreed vehemently about the most fundamental aspects of our country's spending and tax policies--and we will continue to disagree. But the times when we were able to restore fiscal balance, like we did in the 1990s, were the times when both parties agreed to retain basic discipline at the procedural level. We very much need to agree to that right now. Democrats will continue to press for adoption of the Conrad-Domenici budget enforcement resolution as soon as possible, and we urge all Senators to support it.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the Gramm-Miller amendment No. 4738.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the Byrd amendment No. 4480, as amended.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture has not been invoked on the Lieberman substitute amendment No. 4471 to H.R. 5005, the homeland security legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 4738

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes of leader time this morning, before we get into the debate on the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas, to talk about a concern that I have wanted to avoid talking about for weeks. I am very saddened by the fact that we have debated homeland security now for 4 weeks. I have noted on several occasions that there is no reason, on a bipartisan basis, this body cannot work together to overcome our differences and to pass a meaningful and substantive bill dealing with homeland security. Some have suggested that the delay has been politically motivated, and I have said: I am not willing to believe that. In fact, yesterday I said: We intend to give the President the benefit of the doubt. Over the course of the last several weeks, as we have debated national security, the issue of war in Iraq has become more and more prominent. And again, as I go back to my experience in 1991 and 1992, during a similar period--the fall and winter prior and after an election--I expressed the concern that our politics in this climate could easily create a politicized environment and, in so doing, diminish, minimize, degrade the debate on an issue as grave as war. No one here needs to be reminded of the consequences of war. No one here should have to be admonished about politicizing the debate about war. But, Mr. President, increasingly, over the course of the last several weeks, reports have surfaced which have led me to believe that indeed there are those who would politicize this war. I was given a report about a recommendation made by Matthew Dowd, the pollster for the White House and the Republican National Committee. He told a victory dinner not long ago--I quote--``The No. 1 driver for our base motivationally is this war.'' Dowd said war could be beneficial to the GOP in the 2002 elections. And then I quote: ``When an issue dominates the landscape like this one will dominate the landscape, I think through this election and probably for a long time to come, it puts Republicans on a very good footing.'' I thought: Well, perhaps that is a pollster. Perhaps pollsters are paid to say what is best regardless of what other considerations ought to be made. Pollsters are paid to tell you about the politics of issues. And were it left with pollsters, perhaps I would not be as concerned. But then I read that Andy Card was asked: Well, why did this issue come before Washington and the country now? Why are we debating it in September? Where were we last year? Where were we last spring? And Mr. Card's answer was: ``From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.'' New products? War? And then I listen to reports of the Vice President. The Vice President comes to fundraisers, as he did just recently in Kansas. The headline written in the paper the next day about the speech he gave to that fundraiser was: Cheney talks about war: electing Taff would aid war effort. And then we find a diskette discovered in Lafayette Park, a computer diskette that was lost somewhere between a Republican strategy meeting in the White House and the White House. Advice was given by Karl Rove, and the quote on the disk was: ``Focus on war.'' I guess, right from the beginning, I thought: Well, first it was pollsters, and then it was White House staff, and then it was the Vice President. And all along I was asked: Are you concerned about whether or not this war is politicized? And my answer, on every occasion, was: Yes. And then the followup question is: Is the White House politicizing the war? And I said: Without question, I can't bring myself to believe that it is. I can't believe any President or any administration would politicize the war. But then I read in the paper this morning, now even the President--the President is quoted in the Washington Post this morning as saying that the Democratic-controlled Senate is ``not interested in the security of the American people.'' Not interested in the security of the American people? You tell Senator Inouye he is not interested in the security of the American people. You tell those who fought in Vietnam and in World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people. That is outrageous--outrageous. The President ought to apologize to Senator Inouye and every veteran who has fought in every war who is a Democrat in the Senate. He ought to apologize to the American people. That is wrong. We ought not politicize this war. We ought not politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death. I was in Normandy just last year. I have been in national cemeteries all over this country. And I have never seen anything but stars--the Star of David and crosses on those markers. I have never seen ``Republican'' and ``Democrat.'' This has to end, Mr. President. We have to get on with the business of our country. We have to rise to a higher level. Our Founding Fathers would be embarrassed by what they are seeing going on right now. We have to do better than this. Our standard of deportment ought to be better. Those who died gave their lives for better than what we are giving now. So, Mr. President, it is not too late to end this politicization. It is not too late to forget the pollsters, forget the campaign fundraisers, forget making accusations about how interested in national security Democrats are; and let's get this job done right. Let's rise to the occasion. That is what the American people are expecting. And we ought to give them no less. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Inouye have 5 minutes of my leader time.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have been hoping to move this process along. And I would hope that we would continue to have debate throughout the day on the Gramm and the Nelson amendments. The Senator from Texas had noted earlier that he was desirous of an up-or-down vote. I would be prepared to provide that up-or-down vote. I am going to propound a unanimous consent request to accommodate that, so I will do so at this time. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote on Senator Nelson's amendment at 10 o'clock in the morning, tomorrow, and that immediately after it has been disposed of, Senator Gramm be recognized to offer a further second-degree amendment that is the text of amendment No. 4738, and that the Senate then vote immediately in relation to Senator Gramm's amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have a hard time understanding the basis for the Senator's objection. We have offered him an up-or-down vote on his amendment, just as he has suggested.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will yield in just a moment. Motion To Commit Mr. President, I do not see that we have any other option, then. To ensure that we keep in place the current parliamentary circumstances that we have legislatively, I move to commit the bill to the Governmental Affairs Committee and that it be reported back forthwith with the Lieberman amendment No. 4471, as amended, pending. And I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Who controls the floor?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I do not want to interrupt the statement of the Senator from Ohio.