Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I know there are a number of Senators who wish to be recognized to offer amendments. I think Senator Lott would like very much to offer an amendment as well. What I would like to do is to propound a unanimous consent request involving a number of Senators who have amendments to be offered so they will know the sequence. I know Senator Edwards has been waiting a long time to offer an amendment, as well as Senator Levin, Senator Schumer, Senator Gramm, and Senator McCain. Perhaps in the next couple of minutes we can put together a unanimous consent request which will sequence these amendments so Senators will know they are protected and have the opportunity to then have their amendments called up. I ask that all of our colleagues work with us over the course of the next few minutes. I yield the floor to accommodate Senator Lott's interest in offering his amendment. We will lay aside the Biden amendment temporarily as that amendment is considered as well.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I think we are working through the number of procedural issues with which we have to deal. I want to make sure we are in a position to be able to complete that work. So I call for the regular order.

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

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I send up an amendment in the second degree. What we have done now is to assure that both the Biden amendment and the Lott amendment will have an opportunity to be considered and debated. I am hoping we might even be able to continue to work to see if we can have one vote rather than two.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I yield the floor. It is my understanding Senator Biden and Senator Lott would both like to address their amendments. I yield for that purpose now.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I announce that there will be no more rollcall votes tonight. I hope Senators will come to the floor and continue to participate in the debate. But for the interest of Senators and schedules, we will have no additional rollcall votes tonight. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, it was my intention to yield for a question, but I thank the distinguished chair of the Judiciary Committee for his extraordinary leadership and the effort he has made to bring this legislation to the floor. This is the Leahy amendment and, as I noted, it passed unanimously in large measure because I think he was able to work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I am happy to yield the floor so he and others may seek recognition.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Leahy and others, I offer this amendment which is identical to the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act, S. 2010, passed unanimously by the Judiciary Committee some time ago. I view the Leahy amendment as a necessary complement to the Sarbanes bill. In fact, I think of them as two parts of a vital whole--one element guarantees the truth and honesty of corporate accounting. The other is a deterrent. It says that corporate misrepresentation will be forcefully punished--with jail time. We need both. We need to improve oversight and independence of the accounting profession and hold corporate wrongdoers accountable for their actions. We need to act comprehensively to fulfill our promise to the American people that integrity, honesty, and accountability will be restored to our markets. Last week Senator Leahy and I wrote to the President requesting his views on this bill and the Sarbanes accounting reform bill. Unfortunately, the President has not answered our letter yet. But I hope to hear today--and I think we need to hear today--that he supports and will sign both. We welcome the President's apparent new enthusiasm for reforming our corporate culture, and we look forward to working with him. The administration needs to understand that the time for half measures has long passed. The American people expect and deserve comprehensive reform. Combining the Leahy bill and the Sarbanes bill accomplishes just that. The Sarbanes bill revamps the regulatory structure that protects our markets. There will be better rules and a new oversight body to send corporations and accountants a clear message that they must tell the truth on their balance sheets. The Leahy bill is every bit as vital. Let me summarize a few of its provisions very quickly. The amendment has three aims: punishing criminals; preserving evidence; and protecting victims. The Leahy amendment punishes criminals by creating a tough new 10- year felony for securities fraud. It provides prosecutors with a new tool that is flexible enough to keep up with the most complex new fraud schemes and tough enough to deter violations on the front end. It also provides a mechanism to raise the fraud sentences that are already on the books. The amendment also preserves evidence of fraud. It creates two new criminal anti-shredding provisions in federal law. As we say in the Arthur Andersen case, even the most straight-forward obstruction of justice cases can be difficult to prove under current law. Senator Leahy's bill closes the loopholes and makes document destruction in fraud cases an unambiguous crime. The amendment does not just protect ``paper evidence,'' it also protects valuable testimony from people. For the first time, the Leahy bill creates federal protection for whistleblowers. People like Sherron Watkins of Enron will be protected from reprisal for the first time under federal law. This bill is going to help prosecutors gain important insider testimony on fraud and put a permanent dent in the ``corporate code of silence.'' Finally, the amendment will protect victims of fraud. By extending the time period during which victims can bring cases to recoup their losses, the Leahy bill removes the reward for those fraud artists who are especially gifted at concealing what they've done for lengthy periods of time. Cases where victims have lost their entire life savings should be decided on the merits, not based on procedural hurdles that may now be used to throw legitimate victims out of court. The Leahy bill also prevents fraud artists from declaring bankruptcy to shut out their victims. The amendment would accomplish this by making security fraud debts nondischargeable in bankruptcy. Again, the Leahy provisions enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee when passed unanimously in April. They are needed now more than ever, as the number and magnitude of corporate misstatements continues to pile up and the lost jobs, lost pensions, and ruined lives continue to mount. We must act to punish criminals, no matter what color their collar. I hope all Senators will support this amendment. Madam President, the country will be listening intently to what the President says this morning. A crucial test will be whether he explicitly supports--and pledges to sign--the Sarbanes bill with the Leahy legislation attached. We cannot restore confidence in the integrity of our markets with anything else. Senator Leahy is on the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, it is for that reason that I believe this package ought to be viewed in its entirety. The Sarbanes bill lays out the framework. The Leahy bill lays out the penalties for violating that framework. So I don't know that you can have one without the other and not have a complete package. So I appreciate very much the work of the Judiciary Committee, and the chair of the Judiciary Committee especially, for the work in allowing this package to come to the floor. I thank him again for the contributions he made. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will use my leader time to make the statement I am about to make.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we should not be having this vote today. There are still far too many questions about the wisdom and safety of creating a national nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain for anyone to be able to cast an informed, responsible vote on this matter. But we are here. We are here because the Bush administration and some of its allies in Congress--and in the energy industry--are determined to exploit unique rules that were written 20 years ago and apply only to this bill. I can't help but think how ironic it is that less than a week after America celebrated the genius of our Founders, who intended this Senate to be the world's most deliberative body, we are being forced to vote on a matter of such grave importance before we can have an informed, honest debate. Even more troubling than the break this vote represents with our past, is the threat it poses to America's future. Let us be very clear: The claim that science supports building a national nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain is simply not true. The truth is, leading independent scientists have raised troubling questions about the scientific basis for the Department of Energy's recommendation regarding Yucca Mountain. A recent letter to Congress from the independent Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board contains a warning we should all pay great heed to. It warns that--quote--``the technical basis for DOE's repository design is weak to moderate at this time.'' Think about that. We are being asked to overturn a Governor's veto-- and risk public health and safety--by approving a plan of ``weak to moderate'' technical design. That is an extraordinary position for the administration to take. The General Accounting Office, Congress's independent watchdog agency, has also raised serious questions about Yucca Mountain. Eight months ago, the GAO released a report that questioned Secretary Abraham's recommendation to the President to move ahead on Yucca Mountain despite the--quote--``significant amount of work remaining to be done'' on the safety and feasibility of the project. The GAO report noted that more than 200 unresolved technical issues identified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission remain unanswered. It pointed out that even the Department of Energy's own contractor doesn't think those issues will be resolved in time to meet the 2010 deadline. In fact, it will probably be years before we know definitively whether it is safe to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. So why are we having this vote today? We are being forced to decide this issue prematurely--without sufficient scientific information--because this administration is doing the bidding of special interests that simply want to make the deadly waste they have generated somebody else's problem. That is wrong. We ought to make this decision on the basis of sound science, not pressure from the energy industry. Two weeks ago, a mild earthquake shook Yucca Mountain. What would happen to nuclear waste buried beneath Yucca Mountain when the next earthquake hits? And we know there will be another. Will the radioactive waste leak? Will it contaminate the soil? The groundwater? We don't know. The decision we make will have consequences that will last for tens of thousands of years. We owe it to the American people--and to future generations of Americans who haven't been born yet--to wait until we have real answers. Yucca Mountain is less than 75 miles from Las Vegas, the fastest-growing metro area in the country. But it is not just Nevadans who are potentially in harm's way. Serious questions have also been raised not only about the safety of burying nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, but also about the safety of getting the toxic materials to Yucca Mountain. We are talking about transporting roughly 70,000 metric tons of deadly waste from nuclear facilities in 39 States across our Nation's highways, railways, and waterways to Yucca Mountain. No one knows exactly what routes the waste would take. But, based on the routes the DOE used in its environmental impact statement, there are 14,500 schools and 38 million people within 1 mile of a proposed nuclear waste transfer route. This is extremely dangerous material: High-level radioactive waste. According to the non-partisan Environmental Working Group: Each rail cask carrying nuclear waste, for instance, contains 240 times as much long-lived radiation as was released by the Hiroshima bomb. A person standing 3 feet from an unshielded nuclear waste cask will receive a lethal dose of radiation in 2 minutes. The administration has warned us repeatedly that terrorists may hijack trucks and strike at trains. We also know that there are security problems with many of our ports. By shipping nuclear waste on trucks and trains and barges, we may very well be creating hundreds, even thousands, of rolling ``dirty'' bombs. What sense does that make? Even if we are fortunate enough to avoid terrorist attacks on shipments of radioactive waste bound for Yucca Mountain, there is a serious risk of accidents in transit, which would put Americans at risk of exposure to high-level radioactive waste as well. Almost a year ago exactly, a train derailment in a Maryland incident caused a tunnel fire that burned for days. Temperatures in that tunnel exceeded 1,000 degrees. How much radiation would have been released to the environment had nuclear waste been on that train? How many people might have died? There is so much we don't know about this ill-conceived project. But there is one thing we do know: Contrary to what the special interests claim, even if the Senate votes today to override Governor Guinn's veto, creating a national nuclear dump in Nevada will not solve America's nuclear waste storage problem. That is because the site isn't big enough. America produces far more nuclear waste than can be buried at Yucca Mountain. So beware if you are thinking of voting for this proposal. This time, the nuclear waste may be passing through your State. Next time, your State may be where the special interests want to bury their radioactive trash. If we let them do it this time--without sufficient scientific proof that it is safe--think how much easier it will be the next time. During his campaign, President Bush promised Americans that if he were elected, he would support regulations requiring energy companies to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide, a compound that nearly all scientists agree is causing global warming. When the time came to follow through on that promise, the President reneged. At a stop in Las Vegas during the campaign, Vice President Cheney said a Bush administration would not muscle this project through. He promised that the final decision would be based on sound science. Now, at the urging of the energy industry, the administration has reneged on that promise, too. They are pushing us to make this decision prematurely, at grave potential risk to this Nation. There is no reason we have to make a final decision today. Scientists at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have assured us that the nuclear waste can stay where is it for 100 years--safe in dry cask storage-- without posing any additional risk to public health and safety. It is premature, dangerous, and reckless to force a vote on this question today. We have more than enough time to make an informed, responsible decision about Yucca Mountain. The question is: Will we have the courage to take that time? For the sake of all Americans--including those who will be born generations from now--I hope the answer is yes. I urge my colleagues to vote against this proposal. We risk no harm by waiting for the scientists to finish their work. We risk catastrophic harm by refusing to wait. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this resolution concerns requests for testimony in criminal actions in Franklin County Municipal Court in Ohio. In the cases of City of Columbus v. Jacqueline Downing, et al. and City of Columbus v. Vincent Ramos, the city prosecutor has charged the defendants with criminal trespass for refusing to leave Senator DeWine's Columbus office after the building was closed for the night, and with resisting arrest. Pursuant to subpoenas issued on behalf of the city prosecutor, this resolution authorizes an employee in Senator DeWine's office who witnessed the events giving rise to the trespass charges, and any other employee in the Senator's office from whom testimony may be required, to testify and produce documents at trial in these cases, with representation by the Senate legal counsel.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, our form of government rests on two pillars. One is democracy. The other is free enterprise. We are the strongest, most successful nation in the world because we have maintained the strength of both of those pillars. We are the most durable democracy in the world because our system is constantly refreshed by new leaders and new ideas. If leaders fail, they can be voted out of office. If ideas fail, they can be either discarded or improved. The strength of the system rests on the fact that--while not perfect--our Government is open and accountable. We have the strongest economy in the world, because our commitment to free enterprise is strengthened by a system of open markets. Those markets--fed by free-flowing, reliable financial information--channel investment into new ideas and new enterprises. Working at its best, our free enterprise system has generated durable economic growth, wealth, and opportunity that are the envy of the world. The corruption of one of these pillars threatens the other. The weakening of either threatens our Nation. This week's news from MCI WorldCom was the latest in a series of disclosures that have shaken confidence in American business. Recently, we have seen Enron collapse under the weight of inflated earnings and hidden debt. We have seen Halliburton face charges of improperly recording revenue. We've seen Tyco accused of falsifying merger information, and its CEO indicted. Arthur Andersen has been convicted of obstructing justice. The list goes on: CMS Energy, Computer Associates, Dynegy, Global Crossing, ImClone, Kmart, Lucent, MicroStrategy, Network Associates, PNC Financial Services, Qwest, Reliant Resources, and Xerox are all facing serious questions about their business practices. This string of disclosures threatens our economy to its core. They undermine investor confidence, scare off foreign investment, and slow an already shaky recovery. And the impact is much more than some economic abstraction. Thousands of honest, hardworking people have lost their jobs. Millions more have seen their savings, their nest eggs, and their retirements gutted. When corporate fraud leads to corporate failure, people get hurt. I am not arguing that the corruption we have seen is systemic. America has some of the world's most innovative executives, people of tremendous energy, skill, and integrity. They are the vast majority of corporate executives, and they should be the most outraged about the recent news. In my own discussions with corporate leaders, that is actually the case. They are the most outraged. They resent the notion that the corruption is systemic, that the deception is pervasive, and that ``everyone is doing it.'' I know--and most Americans know--that everyone is not doing it. But the growing list of corporations under question makes clear that we aren't just talking about one or two isolated cases, or rogue executives. The problem, instead, is a ``climate''--a deregulatory, permissive atmosphere that has relied too much on corporate America to police itself. It is as if the line between right and wrong, legal and illegal, acceptable and unacceptable was so little enforced that it became blurred. Bringing it back into focus--as Enron's collapse did-- revealed more than a few businesses standing on the wrong side. The evidence rolling in is now unambiguous. Self-policing is no replacement for a vigilant cop on the beat. It is time to reform and strengthen the system. Unfortunately, the desire for reform is not to be found in the approaches taken by the White House, the House, and the SEC. This game of corporate dominoes we are watching is a wake up call. It is time to abandon this laissez-faire attitude and take action. For starters, we need to made sure that the laws currently on the books are enforced. The SEC and Justice Department need to do more to aggressively and consistently investigate and prosecute cases of corporate fraud. But enforcement alone isn't enough. We are now seeing cases where the law itself doesn't stand in the way of these egregious actions. It is time for us to reform our system of accounting and do more to protect investors. That is exactly what the Sarbanes bill does. And that is why it will be our first order of business when we return from recess. The Sarbanes bill makes six key improvements over our current system. First, it creates an independent audit oversight board with the authority to set standards, conduct investigations, and impose punishment if those standards aren't met. Second, it restricts the nonaudit services that an accounting firm can provide to public companies it audits. In other words, it keeps auditors out of the business of being a company's consultant or tax advisors in addition to being its auditor--the roles that can lead to conflicts of interest. Third, it holds CEOs and CFOs responsible for the accuracy of operating and financial reports. If it turns out that an earnings report is deliberately misstated, those executives would forfeit profits and bonuses earned after that information was released. Fourth, if corporate insiders sell stock, those sales must be reported to the SEC within 2 days. Fifth, it would make sure that investment banking firms that also provide investment analysis don't mix those two functions. It also protects analysts from retaliation if they make unfavorable stock recommendations. Sixth and finally, this bill includes expanded resources for the SEC. This will help them become more thorough investigators and enforcers. I have called the SEC a toothless tiger. This bill gives the agency some teeth. In a message to Congress calling for the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, President Roosevelt said he sought to ``give impetus to honest dealing in securities and thereby bring back public confidence.'' It is time for us to again, ``give impetus to honest dealing, and bring back public confidence.'' That is what this bill does. It strengthens both our democracy and our system of free enterprise. Senator Sarbanes has done a masterful job in moving it through committee with broad bipartisan support. For the sake of America's economy, America's workers, and the two pillars on which our nation's greatness rests, I look forward to debating it when we return.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, the Senate will be in a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. I have already announced there will be no rollcall votes today. The next rollcall vote will occur on Tuesday morning, July 9. I will use my leader time this morning; if my time exceeds the 10 minutes, I ask the time be taken off leader time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, from time to time I have come to the floor to discuss our progress since we became the majority as Democrats in the Senate. I wanted to talk briefly about the accomplishments during this work period and the list of items we have attempted to address over the course of the now virtually 1 year that we have been in the majority. We took over officially during the month of July of last year. Technically, we are not quite there. But for all intents and purposes, we have now completed 1 year as a majority in the Senate. We began June with work on the supplemental appropriations bill, a key piece of legislation. That legislation passed in the Senate a couple of weeks ago. We then moved on to terrorism insurance. We passed that bill out of the Senate with an overwhelming vote. We passed legislation which expedites the extradition of terrorist suspects. The antiterrorism legislation passed about 10 days ago. We increased the debt limit on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. We passed the Defense authorization bill, thanks to the extraordinary leadership of our colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin. I might add that all of these issues--the supplemental appropriations, the terrorism insurance bill, the antiterrorism bill, the debt limit, and the Defense authorization bill--passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. I am pleased to be able to announce that because I feel quite confident that is what the American people are expecting--that we attempt to work together, and that these priorities which are certainly their priorities as well be addressed in the way that allows us to enact them into law sometime very shortly. I will say, having done as much as we can on a bipartisan basis, that I was disappointed by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they objected to the passage of the hate crimes legislation. We failed to achieve the 60 votes necessary to obtain cloture on hate crimes. For the life of me, I am troubled by that. I would think that would be a 100-to-0 vote dealing with hate crimes in this country. It is something that is pernicious, and it is something that we must address in a meaningful legislative way. We will continue to make the effort to assure that 1 day we will pass meaningful hate crimes legislation. I also say there was another matter that was not bipartisan. That involved the Republicans' attempt to permanently repeal the estate tax. I am very proud of the fact that we did not do that. I think that is a good fiscal policy. It is good tax policy, and I am confident that any effort to repeal the estate tax permanently would fail in the future. Let me hasten to add that the Democrats certainly support reform of the estate tax. We supported an increase in the overall exemption to $7 million, and we are very appreciative of the widespread effort within our caucus and hopefully within the Congress itself to continue to work to reform the estate tax over a period of time. But blocking the permanent repeal of the estate tax saves the Treasury $60 billion a year when it is fully implemented, $600 billion over the course of a 10-year period of time. So we look upon this actually as an accomplishment, as we have with all of the other accomplishments during the month of June. But I might say, as we look at accomplishments, the list has become quite significant over the course of the last 12 months. Right after the Democrats took the majority, we passed a Patients' Bill of Rights. After the tragedy of September 11, we passed an antiterrorism use of force resolution and an immediate $40 billion response to the terrorist attacks, the Defense and homeland security appropriations bill, and the USA Patriot Act to deal with the extraordinary challenges we have with regard to law enforcement. We passed increased airport, border, and port security. We passed terrorism insurance. We passed additional support for the airline industry, which was really struggling after the tragedy of September 11. We passed economic stimulus and unemployment insurance legislation. We passed the campaign finance reform bill. We passed an election reform bill. We passed 57 judicial confirmations. That is more than any recent Congress has passed in the same period of time, either Republican or Democrat, even in those cases when the Senate was of the same party as the President at that particular time. We passed clean water and brownfields revitalization legislation. We passed a sweeping comprehensive education reform bill. We passed an energy bill. We passed a farm bill. And as I just noted, we have passed the Defense authorization bill. I would say, as we look at this list of accomplishments, it would be hard for anyone to argue we have not accomplished a good deal in our first 12 months as members of the majority. I look with great satisfaction, with great pride, and am very grateful to all of my colleagues for the extraordinary job they have done in working through the committees--and in most cases all of this legislation has come through committees--to address the needs of America in public policy and the tremendous challenges we face as a nation. We will continue to add to this growing list of accomplishments over the course of the next several months as we complete our work in the 107th Congress. Certainly, the 107th Congress has been historic for so many reasons, but I would say that when all is said and done, at the end of the session we will be able to look with great satisfaction, with great pride, and, I might say, with a certain degree of confidence that we have done what the American people have expected of us. Passing this legislation is a recognition of what Democrats in the majority can do in the broad array of issues with which we have done it. So I thank my colleagues. I thank all of those who are responsible for the work on these bills, especially our legislative leadership, the chairs of each committee where these bills have been produced, for the work within the committee, and certainly the management they have demonstrated on the Senate floor as these bills have been passed here on the floor and sent either to the House or to the President. I see my colleague from Michigan on the floor. I will yield the floor at this time. But I again appreciate the work done by our caucus, and, I might say, in concert, on many occasions, with our Republican colleagues, to achieve the long list of accomplishments we have listed here. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I am grateful for his kind words. We have always had a tremendous team effort within our caucus and within the legislative leadership of the Senate but I recognize that the workhorses are the chairs. And I am speaking to one as we stand here this morning. I thank him for his kind words. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a message from the House with respect to H.R. 3009.

Mr. DASCHLE. I withdraw the request, Madam President.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know I speak for all of our colleagues in thanking Chaplain Ogilvie for his wonderful prayer this morning. He spoke for all of us. We are one nation under God, and we reaffirm that today as Americans--not as Republicans or as Democrats--and we do so proudly.