Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there will be a vote on cloture at 10:30 this morning. The time between now and then will be divided equally between the Republican leader or his designee, who will have the first half of the time, and the Democratic leader or his designee for the second half. Senators should be aware that within the next 50 minutes, we will have a cloture vote, and we will proceed in an effort to try to complete work on the Defense bill today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the adjournment resolution, that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table without intervening action or debate.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period for morning business until the hour of 3:20 p.m., when I understand the next vote will occur.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I wish to announce this will be a final rollcall vote of the day and the week. Our next rollcall vote will occur Tuesday morning following the July Fourth recess. Senators should be on notice that we will have a vote that morning and votes throughout the day and the week. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor just to compliment the distinguished Senator from Illinois for his determination and the effort that he continues to make to ensure success. I will guarantee that before the end of this session, one way or the other, we are going to resolve this successfully. We will do whatever it takes to ensure that the people of Illinois, the business community at and around O'Hare and the tremendous service it provides are protected and that the priority it deserves is given on the Senate floor. The Senator from Illinois has been relentless in his determination and in his advocacy. He has spoken in the caucus on countless occasions, in leadership, and on the Senate floor. I just wanted to assure him publicly, as I have privately, that we will continue to work on this until we get it done. It will happen. I am convinced that 95, maybe 98 Senators support what the Senator from Illinois is attempting to do. I have every confidence that once we get to the vote, it is going to be overwhelming. So I will assure the Senator that we will continue to work with him and find a way to do it and make sure that it gets done in a time that will send the right message to the people of Illinois, the people of Chicago, the people who are concerned about safety, concerned about jobs, concerned about economic development--that the Senate understands that and, thanks to the leadership of the Senator from Illinois, we are going to deliver. I simply wanted to add my voice to the many who support the Senator's efforts. I appreciate very much his coming to the floor this afternoon, again, to reiterate the extraordinary importance that this issue and this project has for the people of his State. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, let me compliment the distinguished Senator from Michigan for his work in accommodating the dual priorities our two managers have attempted to address over the course of the last couple of days as we consider the issue of missile defense and the need to ensure adequate resources for homeland defense. We are debating what may be one of the most significant amendments to one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before the Senate this year. I am surprised, frankly, that objections have been raised to the Levin amendment. Both the Warner and Levin amendments agree that if additional resources become available to the Pentagon, only two programs, missile defense and counterterrorism, would be eligible for these resources. The only difference, as has just been described in the colloquy between our two colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, the only difference is that Senator Levin's amendment would put Congress on record that combating terrorism should be our top priority. After what America and the world witnessed on September 11 and the subsequent actions discussed in reports from intelligence agencies since, I question how anybody could challenge that this should be our top priority. How could anyone think, in the short term at least, we are more likely to be a target of a ballistic missile attack than another terrorist incident? The heinous terrorist attacks of September 11 did not involve ballistic missiles, and none of the warnings of possible future attacks issued by this administration since September 11 even mentioned the possibility of a ballistic missile attack. The steady stream of recent warnings from this administration have warned us about crop dusters, gasoline trucks, shoe bombers, ``dirty'' bombers, attacks on our financial institutions, shopping malls, nuclear powerplants, and large apartment buildings. All of these have been cited as possible attacks. More money for ballistic missile defense would not make any of them more preventable. This debate is about the best use of our national resources to protect our national security. It is not about whether to proceed with the construction of a missile defense facility at Fort Greeley, AK. Although I have many questions about the merit of and need for this facility, the underlying bill already fully funds the administration's proposal for constructing this test site. This debate is not about whether to provide missile defense with billions of dollars, although I have concerns that a huge missile defense program could crowd out funding for more important security programs such as counterproliferation and homeland defense. The underlying bill already provides missile defense with $6.8 billion, easily making it the largest acquisition program in the Pentagon's entire budget. And, if this body adopts both the Warner and Levin amendments, it will be possible for missile defense to receive additional resources if they become available. Nor is this debate about the proper timetable for deploying missile defense. Although I have strong reservations that the administration's rush to deployment could have some negative ramifications for our security, the underlying bill does nothing that would affect the administration's timetable for deploying missile defense. In short, this debate is not about who supports missile defense. In fact, where one stands on these amendments bears no relation to how one feels about missile defense. I strongly support a substantial missile defense program and the Levin amendment. Anyone who believes there is something inconsistent about this should read the underlying bill and the amendments before us. Rather, the pending amendments raise a larger, more fundamental question. In particular, what is the most immediate action we can take to make America more secure? Providing the funds that will help us dismantle al-Qaida and prevent acts of terrorism, or providing funds beyond the $6.8 billion already in this bill to help us deploy a missile defense system at some point in the future? That is the question. Your answer ought to be the former, not the latter. We should all be able to agree that terrorism is a threat that confronts us here and now. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will make fighting terrorism their first priority. I support the Levin amendment. I congratulate him on drafting it. I urge our colleagues to support it as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I wanted to come to the floor to share with our colleagues my intent to bring a resolution to the floor this afternoon expressing our strong disagreement with the decision the Senator from Nevada has just addressed. I will soon propound a unanimous consent request to bring the resolution to the floor and to have a rollcall vote and then to allow Senators to express themselves once the vote has been cast. Just as soon as we can get agreement to set the time--I would like to do it within the next 15 or 20 minutes, if we can reach an agreement with the managers of the bill. Madam President, I have not had the opportunity to hear all of what the Senator from Nevada said, but this decision is nuts. This decision is just nuts. We ought to recognize that there are those who differ with the overwhelming sentiment expressed by Americans of all stripes, of all regions of the country, young and old. We added the language, ``under God'' in 1954. Then-President Dwight Eisenhower said: In this way, we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way, we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war. I agree with President Eisenhower. I agree with the overwhelming number of people who have already expressed themselves in the hours since this decision. The resolution we are propounding this afternoon really will state two things: First, our strong disagreement with the decision; and, second, it will authorize the legal counsel of the Senate to intervene on behalf of the Senate in the Supreme Court when the case comes before the Court. This is not unprecedented; we have done it before. I hope overwhelming support will be demonstrated on both sides of the aisle. I hope we can do this quickly. I think we need to send a clear message that the Congress disagrees, the Congress is going to intervene, the Congress is going to do all it can to live up to the expectations of the American people. We have been drawn together to face a tremendous tragedy in the last 9 months. In part, that healing process has come by our belief in the Supreme Being and our belief in the faith that comes in the strength that we draw from our faith. I hope our colleagues will support the resolution. I hope we can address it within the next few minutes. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I simply wish to respond to the Senator from Virginia and thank him for his kind words and tell him I will be happy to add his name as a cosponsor to the resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I indicated a few minutes ago that it was our intention, after consultation with the Republican leader and our colleagues, to offer a resolution immediately on the matter of the Ninth Circuit Court decision. That is our intention at this point. I will propound a unanimous consent request that allows us to go to a vote. I know a number of other Senators wish to be heard, but I think it would be appropriate for scheduling purposes for us to have the vote and then accommodate other Senators who wish to be heard. We will certainly allow the floor to be available for purposes of additional comment by our colleagues. Let me ask Senators to vote from their desks on this particular vote. I think it would be appropriate, given the strength of feeling we have on the issue, that we draw a distinction between this and other votes. I ask Senators to vote from their desks. I also note as we have already announced through our cloakrooms, every Senator will be listed as a cosponsor unless they ask to be removed from that list. So Senators will automatically be listed as a cosponsor. We have had so many requests on both sides of the aisle, it was our view it would be appropriate for us to do that. I also ask unanimous consent that the resolution be submitted and stated for the record, prior to the vote.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of the resolution at the desk earlier introduced by myself and Senator Lott regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, that no amendments or motions be in order, the Senate immediately vote on passage of the resolution, that any statements thereon appear in the Record as though read.

Mr. DASCHLE. I compliment the Senator on his remarks. I appreciate very much his cooperation in the last couple of hours.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Again, I ask Senators to vote from their desks.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this was the last vote of the evening. Under the normal rules of the Senate, of course, it is the custom of the Senate each morning to pledge allegiance to the flag. We will be coming into session tomorrow morning at 9:30. It would be my suggestion--not my original suggestion, I hasten to add--that we as Senators be here at 9:30 to pledge allegiance to the flag. I encourage Senators to be present at their desks at 9:30 to accommodate that suggestion. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I simply want to respond to the distinguished Senator from Vermont and, as always, thank him for his kind words and support for the resolution and, as always, his willingness to be helpful. I am also pleased with the unanimity with which the Senate has expressed itself this afternoon. It was the right thing to do. It was important that we did it in a timely manner. Again, let me reiterate my thanks to the distinguished Republican leader for the tremendous cooperation he has shown in allowing the Senate to move as quickly as it has. It sends as clear and unequivocal a message as I believe we are capable of sending. We strongly disagree with the decision made today. We will authorize our Senate legal counsel to intercede on behalf of our position before the court. That is the right thing to do. I am very pleased we were able to say it as strongly as we have on a bipartisan basis that we have today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. I object. Let me simply say, I reiterate what I have said on several occasions. As the Republican leader knows, a unanimous consent request in this case is not necessary. The statute allows any Senator to bring the bill to the floor and make a motion to proceed. It is not debatable. The vote occurs. If it is successful, the debate, under the statute, is required for a period no longer than 10 hours. Any Senator is capable of doing that. I object today simply because, of course, we have to finish our work on the Defense authorization bill. We are not sure yet what the circumstances will be with regard to the supplemental. I hate to have this legislation supplant an emergency supplemental dealing with our Armed Forces and dealing with the emergency needs of counterterrorism. That is exactly what this proposal would do. It would supplant it if that were the pending business. We are hopeful we can accommodate the priorities of the country and the Senate in a way that recognizes the importance of proper sequencing of legislation including the supplemental. As I say, it certainly also recognizes any Senator's right to bring it to the floor. I am personally very opposed to the Yucca Mountain legislation as is presented. I oppose it and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. We have a large majority of our colleagues on this side of the aisle who oppose it. However, for that reason as well as for the procedural reasons I have just described, I do object.

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, I have been following the proceedings over the last day or so with increasing concern. As we said last week, we all know that this legislation has to be completed this week. I had hoped, because of the agreement we were able to reach among leadership last week, that we would table nonrelevant amendments, that we would be able to move expeditiously with amendments on those issues for which there was an interest, and that we would accommodate these amendments in a way that would allow us to move the consideration of this bill along successfully. I guess I was overly optimistic. Frankly, I am very disappointed, in spite of that agreement, in spite of the efforts we have made to encourage Senators to come to the floor, and in spite of the fact that we know there is so much that still needs to be done, that we are at a procedural impasse. I, frankly, know of no other recourse but to file cloture. That is the only way we can be absolutely certain we will complete our work before the end of this week. I have indicated that lament to the Republican leader. I have noted with some concern to our managers that unless we do, I see no really practical way we can complete our work and perhaps accommodate other issues and other needs legislatively before the end of this week and before the Fourth of July recess. Frankly, I don't know what the impasse is now. I thought we had reached an agreement on one of the amendments. At the very last minute, it appeared that in spite of that agreement there was opposition on the other side. And that precluded the opportunity to move forward on at least one of these issues. Cloture Motion

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will indicate to all colleagues that we will not leave this week until this bill has been voted on and final passage. I hope that won't be the last piece of legislative work we do. I hope we will even be able to work on a couple of the nominations. There are a number of issues on the Executive Calendar that could be addressed. But we can't do anything until we have completed our work here. Senators should be aware that there will be a cloture vote on Thursday morning. That will then trigger a 30-hour period within which this work must be completed so that we have a guarantee that at least before Friday afternoon the legislative time will have run out and we will have an opportunity to vote on final passage. I regret that I have to do this, but I see no other recourse. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in light of this development, it is safe to announce there will be no more rollcall votes for the remainder of the day. I yield the floor. And if no none is seeking the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, a Federal grand jury in Nevada has indicated an individual on four counts of mailing a threaten communication and one count of transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce for a series of threats to kill public officials and others in written communications sent last year to the offices of Senators Patrick J. Leahy and Orrin G. Hatch, among others. The U.S. attorney has issued subpoenas for testimony at trial by employees on the staffs of Senators Leahy and Hatch who received the communications and an employee on Senator Harry Reid's staff who had contact with the defendant. The testimony is necessary to establish the receipt of the threatening communications in Washington, DC. This resolution would authorize the Senate employees to testify and produce documents in this case with representation by the Senate Legal Counsel.