Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The distinguished Republican leader is correct. Earlier he may recall that we announced some no-vote Mondays. This particular Monday is one of the no-vote Mondays, so-called, so I am going to respect that commitment. Senators have made scheduling decisions. Certainly we will be in session. As I say, it will be an opportunity for people to come to the floor to speak to the bill. It is unfortunate we have not been able to get agreement to set the amendments aside because I think it would offer other Senators the chance to offer additional amendments. Barring that UC, we will expect to be in session without the additional consideration of other amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator as always for his cooperation. This is an important schedule. We know we have to finish the work on terrorism insurance. We know we have to deal with the Defense authorization bill. The Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan have been ready to go for a couple of weeks. It should be a good debate. I also agree with the distinguished Republican leader that this should not be the grab bag, this should not be the vehicle that attracts extraneous legislation. Let's get it done and done cleanly and move on to other matters that are important as well.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, today is National Flag Day, and it is appropriate that we all pause to honor this important symbol of American Freedom. The National League of Cities has designated this day, June 14, 2002 as second annual National Small Cities Day to call attention to the role of small cities and towns in American life. The vast majority of cities throughout our Nation have populations of fewer than 50,000 people. These communities play an essential role in nurturing families, cultivating values, and building a strong sense of commitment and connection. In fact, the theme for National Small Cities Day is building quality communities by making decisions by choice and not by chance. Millions of Americans live better lives because small cities provide services and programs that meet the needs of their citizens. In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, millions of Americans have looked to the leaders of their small communities to help ensure their safety and security by working in partnership with other levels of government. Businesses, civic organizations, and citizens across the nation are partners in building quality communities and must be encouraged to continue to support efforts that make these cities and towns better places in which to live. The Federal government, too, must continue to be a good partner by supporting important efforts that help strengthen communities, such as the Community Oriented Policing Program, the Community Development Block Grant program, and funds for local terrorism preparedness programs. We must continue to work together and look for ways to further strengthen our small cities and towns through creativity, innovation, and collaboration. I join the National League of Cities and the Small Cities Council in encouraging President Bush, my Congressional colleagues, state governments, community organizations, businesses, and citizens to honor the efforts of ``small town America'' today and renew our commitment to work together on this day and in the future to build quality communities that improve the lives of citizens throughout the nation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator does not need that consent. He can offer that amendment, as the Senator from Nevada has noted, tomorrow, Monday, or any day. That does not require a unanimous consent. I have no objection to his request, but it does not take a unanimous consent. He is entitled to that until cloture is obtained. If cloture were invoked, he would probably be denied the right. We are not anticipating a cloture vote, at least in the foreseeable future. So the Senator is certainly entitled to his right to offer this amendment whenever he chooses.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we will work to attempt to vote on the Allen amendment tomorrow as well, but we have been working over the course of the last several hours--and I thank those of our colleagues who have been involved--to accommodate a unanimous consent request that I understand has now been cleared on both sides. In order to ensure we can inform our colleagues of the schedule for the remainder of the evening and tomorrow, I propound this unanimous consent request so that at least this can be scheduled. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of the terrorism insurance bill on Friday, June 14, at 9:35 a.m., the Santorum amendment No. 3842 be withdrawn; that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3275 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that Senator Leahy, or his designee, be recognized to call up the Leahy-Hatch substitute amendment at the desk; that upon reporting by the clerk, the Senate vote on the adoption of the amendment; that following adoption of the amendment, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate; further, that upon the disposition of H.R. 3275, the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1770; that the Senate proceed to its consideration; that the Senate consider the Leahy-Hatch amendment at the desk; and that upon reporting the amendment, the Senate vote on the adoption of the amendment; that following the vote, the bill, as amended, be read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without intervening action or debate; further, that any statements relating to these items be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kansas be recognized to offer his amendment following the disposition of the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will renew my request in a moment. I do not know that any Senator can be denied the right to offer an amendment as long as cloture has not been filed and achieved. It is not my desire now to file cloture. At some point, if we cannot bring this debate to a conclusion, I will be forced to do so. Until that time, of course, the Senator has every right to come to the floor to offer an amendment. We are going to be in session tomorrow and on Monday, even though there are no votes on Monday. So I hope Senators will use that time to come to the floor to offer what I would hope will be relevant amendments. We certainly cannot prohibit the Senator from offering other legislation. So I would renew my request.

Mr. DASCHLE. I did not understand the request. I have not modified my request.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I said, that does not require a unanimous consent request, but I would not object to the request made by the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me reiterate something I think everybody understands. Obviously, the consideration of an amendment does not mean the disposal or the resolution of the issue. The Senator is only asking for consideration of the amendment. It could be second- degreed. It could be debated. I do not know that he has asked that it be brought to some final conclusion. I will say this: If cloture is invoked, if the amendment has not been disposed of and it is not a germane amendment, then it would fall, but that certainly would not disallow the consideration of an amendment. So, again, I would pursue my request.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I was entertaining the possibility of voting on the Allen amendment, as well as on the Santorum amendment, tomorrow morning. If the discussion of the amendment has been completed, we could lay it aside temporarily to allow the Brownback amendment to be laid down and then return to the Allen amendment tomorrow morning. That would be fine with me. I will say that this will generate other amendments. The Brownback amendment will not be the only amendment offered.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have not propounded the request, but it would be my intention to vote on it immediately after the disposition of the Santorum amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. If there is no disagreement, I would then again amend my request in the following manner: In addition to the request as it was originally propounded, I ask that we vote on the Allen amendment immediately following the disposition of the Santorum amendment tomorrow morning. I would further ask that the Allen amendment be set aside to accommodate the amendment to be offered by the Senator from Kansas, and that amendment be the pending business this evening; that we return to the Santorum amendment tomorrow morning, to be followed then by the Allen amendment, after its disposition.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, just for clarification, when I refer to the Santorum amendment, I refer to the legislation as it was referred to in the unanimous consent request. It is more than an amendment. It is now a freestanding bill under the request. I think all of my colleagues understood that, but I want to ensure that people know that would be the order of business tomorrow morning. With this request, there will be no further rollcall votes tonight. Mr. President, I ask further unanimous consent that no amendments be in order to the Allen amendment prior to the vote on the Allen amendment tomorrow morning.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if there are no Senators wishing to be recognized, I have a statement to make, for which I will use leader time, with regard to the Middle East.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, if it is possible to go to third reading tonight or tomorrow morning, I would like to entertain that. The sooner we can do that, the better. Colleagues are interested in taking up the Defense authorization bill. That is something we hope we can take up very quickly. There are other issues out there that have to be addressed. So if it is possible to go to third reading tonight, I would like to be able to do that very much. If there are additional amendments, this is the time to offer them, or we will move to third reading shortly. I urge my colleagues to come to the floor and dispose of their amendments so we can bring this bill to closure and move on to other matters of great priority before we leave for the Fourth of July recess. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I could respond to the distinguished assistant Democratic leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. He is absolutely right. I have indicated to the distinguished Republican leader it was not my intention to file cloture today, even though obviously that is the prerogative of the majority leader. We have no designs to do that. But we also recognize that we have a lot of work to do. It is not my intention to file cloture today. I hope colleagues who have amendments will offer them and we can have votes on them. If there are no amendments, we will move to third reading sometime very soon. If there are objections to moving to third reading, our colleagues are going to have to come over and physically object. We cannot waste what is valuable time on the Senate floor waiting for Senators to offer amendments if there are none. So we will make our best effort to determine the degree to which there are Senators who still wish to offer amendments. Time is running out. We will move to third reading shortly if no amendments are offered. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am humbled and extraordinarily grateful for the generous words of my colleagues. Senator Byrd has honored me once several years ago when he was gracious enough to nominate me for the position of majority leader. Oftentimes his words are repeated in introductions all over the country, and I have not forgotten that special moment. I will be forever grateful to him for those words on that day. But I must say I am equally honored this afternoon that Senator Byrd would come to the floor and honor my grandchild as he has. This is a very joyous occasion for my family. I must say, I believe that the words just spoken will probably be read and spoken and reiterated and kept and treasured longer than the words spoken about my nomination as majority leader. They will probably terminate when I pass, but the words spoken to my grandchild will go on for generations. So his willingness to come to the floor and speak as he has means so much to me. I would also say, as much as I have learned from him as a Senator, that may pale in comparison to what I think I may learn from him as a grandfather. So I thank him for his kindness and for his willingness to make this moment in our lives even richer. I do not have two dearer colleagues in the Senate than I do in Senator Reid and Senator Leahy. They are like family to us--to my wife and my children. For them to join Senator Byrd on this glorious day means so much to me. I am grateful to them for their generous words and for their willingness to join in this colloquy. I had a special day today that I shared with Senator Byrd. Just this morning my daughter called very excitedly to say our second grandchild will be a daughter. She will be born sometime in late October or early November. So we will have one grandson and one granddaughter this year. I cannot be more blessed. I cannot feel more hopeful and happy than I do today--first, to have the recognition for our grandchild and, second, to know that this joyous occasion will be extended by yet another grandchild, who will be a granddaughter, later this year. One of my friends once said that our children and grandchildren are messages to a future we will not see. I thought a lot about what that means, the kind of message we are sending. I can only imagine the message the Byrd grandchildren and the Reid grandchildren and the Leahy grandchildren will be sending to that generation, that future we will not see. They will send a message of love, a message of stability, and hope, a message that they have taken from their grandfathers and grandmothers with such abundance. It is a message about this country that is embraced in these three Senators and passed on to their children and grandchildren, a message that I think makes this such a special country. It is a country that for so many reasons gives hope and new faith to future generations through our children and our grandchildren. I hope we can send a strong message to those future generations through our grandchildren--by reading them books, by loving them, by giving them the attention they deserve, by changing their diapers--when we want to, and by recognizing what a glorious miracle life is, in the eyes and faces of those tiny grandbabies who grow up to be the leaders of a wonderful nation. I, again, thank my colleagues for their generous words and for making this such a special moment for me as a Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, too often, the crush of daily business here in the Senate leaves us little time to discuss important issues that are not directly and immediately before us. Among the many issues that deserve greater attention, none is more important than the need for peace in the Middle East, and the security of our friend and ally, Israel. The urgency and importance of this issue couldn't be more stark. In this past week alone, a suicide bomber--the 68th in the last 21 months--blew up a fast food restaurant in Israel, killing a 15-year-old girl. Another bomb, placed near a road near Hebron, injured three Israeli teenagers. A third bomb, detonated next to a bus outside Tel Aviv, killed 17 Israelis. A fourth attack-- this one with guns, not bombs--killed a pregnant mother. Less than a week: three bombs; several attacks. The targets in each--civilians: fathers, mothers, teenagers, young children. Given the steady stream of terrorist acts, the historic enmity between the parties, and the stakes involved, the situation could hardly be more difficult. But we cannot turn our backs or allow the specter of violence to diminish our commitment. Our unique relationship with Israel, and the strategic importance of the Middle East, demand that the United States play a leading role in helping to end the current crisis. The President recognizes this dynamic, and has spoken out forcefully on the importance of the leaders in the region taking steps to end the violence. There can be no mistaking the indignation he feels about what is happening in Israel or his appreciation for the strategic importance of the entire region to our national security. In fact, he and his team have undertaken an effort to sound out leaders in the region in order to fashion a new way forward. I understand that as early as next week he will outline the results of those efforts. Like all Americans, I am eager to hear the President's plan. If there is one message in our success so far in the global war on terrorism it is this: When we stand together, terrorism cannot win. Right now, at this very moment, Afghanistan's new leaders are meeting in Kabul to choose a new government, a government that will represent Afghans of all ethnic backgrounds. They are sending a message of hope that the Taliban and al-Qaida never could: Terrorists can only destroy, democracies build. We want the Palestinian people to know that if their leaders will take the necessary steps to end the violence in their region, we are ready to build in the West Bank and Gaza too. This afternoon I want to talk briefly about three principles that I believe should guide our efforts to help bring security, stability, and, ultimately, peace to this troubled region. First, after 68 homicide bombings, the debate over whether Chairman Arafat is unable or unwilling to stop terrorism is unproductive and irrelevant. It is no longer important. What matters is that Chairman Arafat has clearly and consistently failed the test of leadership. If Chairman Arafat would take consistent, decisive actions against terrorist violence, circumstances would be different. But he has been unwilling to exercise this basic authority that is required of his office and required by the agreements he has signed and the commitments he has made on behalf of the Palestinian people. He has undermined his own credibility as the leader of the Palestinian people. The second principle that should guide our efforts is this: Words alone are not enough. Reform demands results. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are all pushing for reforms of the Palestinian Authority. Their efforts are commendable. Unfortunately, their demands--and the demands of the Palestinian people--seem to be falling on deaf ears. Chairman Arafat has put a figurehead in control of the security services, leaving the power in his own hands. He signed the Basic Law but has done nothing to implement it. He added five new faces to his Cabinet, none of whom has the power to affect real change. And he announced new elections but set no date for them. It is time to demand results, beginning with a democratic Palestinian leadership that confronts corruption and provides security for the Palestinian people and their neighbors. We want the Palestinian people to know: Such changes will garner support--in this country and in this Congress. America's people and political institutions will help rebuild the West Bank and repair the infrastructure of Palestinian society when the Palestinian leadership rejects violence and moves toward real, democratic reform. Such leadership, I am convinced, will also find a willing partner in Israel, which has time and again taken risks for peace. Rabin did it at Oslo, Netanyahu at Wye, and Barak at Camp David. And earlier this week, in this very building, Prime Minister Sharon made it clear he would be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to add his name to this distinguished list of warriors who fought for peace, if he is convinced there is a committed partner on the other side of the peace table. The third and final principle is this: America's commitment to peace in the Middle East must be clear and consistent. It must never wane. President Harry Truman recognized Israel as a valued ally 6 minutes after Israel was created. Every American President since Harry Truman has known that the best hope for peace and positive reform in the region lies in sustained and decisive American engagement. Every President since Harry Truman has made such engagement a cornerstone of American foreign policy. The current violence in the Middle East does not diminish the importance of U.S. engagement, it increases it. If there is to be any lasting peace, any chance for regional stability, Israel must be secure enough to make peace and strong enough to enforce it. That is a commitment the United States has made--and will keep. But there is another commitment we must honor as well, and that is our commitment to stand by Israel when she takes risks for peace, and stand with all parties who embrace peace as their goal--Israelis and Palestinians. The United States is, and will remain, Israel's best friend. We are also the best hope for bringing all of the parties in the region together at the peace table. No other country in the world is in a better position to facilitate a dialog. We must remain actively and consistently engaged in the search for peace. We do not, for one minute, underestimate the difficulty of this task. The challenges, and the risks, are enormous. But the probable cost of doing nothing or vacillating from our historic course is far greater. It is too great a price to even consider. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the work that is being done. In the interest of all colleagues, let me simply make sure that people understand that we have a debate on another amendment. Under the unanimous consent agreement, the debate can last up to 2 hours. It would be my expectation, after completion of the debate on the next amendment, the Gramm amendment, we will then vote on the Conrad amendment and the Gramm amendment back to back. It is then my hope that we can have a vote on a point of order that will take place either immediately or shortly thereafter. In the meantime, we are still discussing the matter of stem cell research and cloning and a unanimous consent request there, as well as a hope that I have that we can move to terrorism insurance legislation. I just indicated to Senator Lott that it would be my desire to move to the terrorism insurance legislation immediately following either the debate on stem cell or the debate on the estate tax legislation. So it is my intention to ask unanimous consent to move forward on both of those issues. It is my understanding that some of my colleagues wish to have a little additional time. So before I propound a request on either one of those issues, we will certainly be happy to accommodate the request of our colleagues. But I want people to be on notice that it is our intention to file a unanimous consent request on terrorism insurance, as well as on the stem cell cloning debate. That is with an understanding that Senator Lott just noted. I had been told there was some interest in filing cloture on the motion to proceed on defense. Senator Lott has indicated to me that is not the case. So I will not propound these requests with that understanding. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I may have misspoke. I indicated there are going to be two votes at the end of two hours. That will complete the debate on the estate tax issue: the completion of the debate on the amendment now to be offered by Senator Gramm, and then the vote on the amendment offered by Senator Conrad. We will determine what the course of business will be subject to the discussions underway on both terrorism insurance and the stem cell cloning debate as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. One year ago, America had a projected budget surplus of 2.7 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. The stock market was soaring. The question before us was one that most leaders could only dream of: ``What should we do with our prosperity?'' At that time, the debate was focused on tax cuts, how much, for whom, and could we also provide for America's unmet needs? Nine months ago yesterday, more than 3,000 innocent men and women lost their lives to terrorism. In the months since, an anthrax attack and recent disclosures have revealed holes in our homeland security. The collapse of Enron has raised questions about our system of corporate governance and we are soon to begin perhaps the most dramatic restructuring of government in half a century. All of this has occurred against the backdrop of massive demographic changes that will transform the face of our nation for decades to come. In 2008, the first of the Baby Boomers will begin retiring. By 2015, 50 million seniors will be drawing benefits from Social Security. Prescription drugs are becoming a more and more vital part of American health care, and we need to find a way for Medicare to help pay for them. At the same time we're facing a senior boom, we're also facing a youth boom. School enrollments are already at record levels, and will continue to rise every year for the next 8 years. So here is where we are: The surplus is gone. The Treasury is borrowing money and spending Social Security funds to pay for the daily functions of government. We have just passed a bill to allow America to take on even greater debt. The baby boomers are preparing to retire. More children than ever are moving through our schools. Investors have had their confidence in American business shaken. We are in the midst of confronting new--and previously unimaginable threats to our nation. We are at war. The question facing America is no longer, ``What should we do with our prosperity?'' The question now is: ``How do we protect our citizens, strengthen an ailing economy, prepare for the future, and win this war against terrorism?'' I believe history will judge this Congress by how well we answer that question. And I believe every action we take should keep those four key goals in mind. Today, we are debating, once again, what seems to be the Republican Party's only solution to all of these problems--more tax cuts. Specifically, we are debating a permanent repeal of the estate tax, an idea that could not be more at odds with the priorities of the nation at this critical time. It is bad public policy. It is unfair. It will undermine Social Security, depress American philanthropy, hurt state budgets, and make it more difficult to meet every other challenge we face. And I want to be especially clear that there is a vast difference between fairly protecting family farms and small businesses on one hand, and blindly destroying our fiscal balance on the other. Repealing the estate tax will cost $99 billion over the next decade, and $740 billion in the decade after that. Most of that will come from the Social Security trust fund. If you look out over the next 75 years, the cost of repealing the estate tax will account for nearly 40 percent of the entire shortfall in the Social Security Trust Fund. And who benefits? The wealthiest two percent of American estates. By 2009, it will be the wealthiest one half of one percent of all estates. What we're talking about is diverting the Social Security contributions of millions of American workers to fund a massive tax cut for the most fortunate of the fortunate few. And sometimes it's the fraudulent few. Yesterday, Senator Conrad had a chart here on the floor showing Jeffrey Skilling, a former CEO of Enron, stands to gain $55 million from the repeal of the estate tax. That $55 million will be composed of the Social Security contributions of 30,000 working Americans earning $30,000 a year. We've been hearing a number of arguments in favor of estate tax repeal from our Republican colleagues, so let me just take a minute and address a couple of the issues they raise. They argue that the estate tax forces the sale of family farms and businesses. Some agriculture organizations have said that it is important to repeal the estate tax, but when asked if they could cite when asked if they could cite a single example of a farm lost because of estate taxes, they couldn't name one, not one. As Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist who has studied the issue extensively, said simply, ``It's a myth.'' And here's why: in Iowa, the average farm is worth $1.2 million. In South Dakota it's just over $500,000. Family farms simply do not fall victim to the estate tax. The same goes for family businesses. In the few cases where family businesses are subject to the estate tax, it is usually because that business is just one part of a larger estate. But just to make sure that family farms and small businesses aren't hurt, we're proposing an alternative that will exempt virtually every family farm and small business from the estate tax. Family farms and small businesses define us as a nation. We've never seen it demonstrated that they are being broken up by the estate tax, but, just in case, we're going to see to it that they never will be. Others have argued that the estate tax is un-American, that it is a penalty for success. The history of the estate tax shows the exact opposite is true. Not only does the estate tax encourage economic success based on merit rather than birthright--it is a demonstration that those who have done well by this nation have a special obligation to contribute to its continued success--and its defense. In his 1906 State of the Union, President Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, proposed the estate tax to help finance the war debts of the 19th century, saying, ``The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.'' To single out the estate tax for elimination in the midst of this current war goes against the intent, and the history, of this policy. Those arguments may be false. But there are some powerful and disturbing truths about making the estate tax repeal permanent. In the short term, it costs $99 billion. Just yesterday, we passed an increase in the debt limit in part so we could meet the new security demands we're facing in an increasingly uncertain and threatening world. If giving a handful of multi-millionaires and billionaires another tax break requires a choice between more debt and less security--that should be a clear signal that the price is simply too high. In the longer term, we will feel the full brunt of this repeal at exactly the time the baby boomers begin to retire. We know that, 10 years from now, we are going to need some fiscal flexibility to start paying the retirement benefits to the biggest retirement population that's ever passed through the system, and yet some want to succumb to fiscal irresponsibility at precisely the time we can least afford it. We have all heard the old saying, ``When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.'' Well, it is time for us to stop digging a deeper hole, and start getting serious about the problems we face. Last March, a farmer named John Sumpton, from Frederick, SD, came to testify before the Senate Finance Committee. ``Mr Chairman,'' he said, ``I am not an expert on tax law, but I know about family farmers. They are my friends and neighbors. They are not worried about estate taxes, because, for the most part, they don't have to pay them. They are worried, however, about the prices they receive for their crops and livestock, about good public schools for their kids, about local community services, paying for prescription drugs, and being able to pay their bills in retirement. And, of course, they are always worried about the weather.'' He continued: ``I fear we may not be able to do the things we want and need for our communities if we repeal the federal estate tax. To me, it doesn't seem responsible to eliminate the estate tax for everyone, including billionaires, when they don't need the help. A more targeted approach that helps families better address this issue now, while retaining more resources for other needed public investments to improve our future, seems a more practical and appropriate course of action.'' John Sumpton is right. And I hope the Senate will heed his sensible advice.