Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements be printed in the Record, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 322, S. Res. 214.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in more than 20 weeks of operations in Afghanistan, our troops have liberated Afghanistan, decimated the Taliban, disrupted al Qaeda operations and captured hundreds of al Qaeda terrorists. Their success lulled much of the world into thinking that our work in Afghanistan was done. The somber news of earlier this week--that eight of America's finest soldiers had been killed in action--reminds us that there is much to be done in Afghanistan. Right now, our troops are doing that work. They are engaged in the largest ground offensive of the war, confronting the hardest of the hard core of al Qaeda. The resolution that we are about to pass reminds our troops that we are thinking of them and are praying for them. The 6-month anniversary of September 11 is next week. It expresses our condolences to the families of those who have lost loved ones in Operation Enduring Freedom. And it makes absolutely clear on the 6-month juncture, to the al Qaeda terrorists, and to all who of those who wish to take notes, that we will not stop until they have been defeated. But this resolution is also important for another reason. On September 14, we voted unanimously to send our troops into action against the perpetrators of the cowardly and heinous attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That was our constitutional duty, and it is one that none of us takes lightly. The soldiers who were killed this week--and in the last twenty-one weeks of Operation Enduring Freedom--died doing the work that we sent them out to do. It is only fitting, then, that we take a moment here in the Senate to thank them and their families and to reaffirm the commitment that we made on September 14--that we will not rest until the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks are brought to justice. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it adjourn until the hour of 3 p.m., Monday, March 11; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of the energy reform bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I announced earlier that there will be no rollcall votes on Monday. Many of my colleagues have heard me make similar announcements with some concern for the lost opportunity that these days present. Not having votes means very few amendments are offered. When very few amendments are offered, we lose another critical day in accomplishing all that must be done prior to the coming recess, as well as to the end of this session of Congress. While there are no votes on Monday, I do hope that Senators will come to the floor and offer amendments so that we might have votes on them Tuesday morning. Senators should be notified that there will be votes on Tuesday morning. It is my sincere hope that a number of amendments can be offered, considered, and completed in debate on Monday afternoon. The next rollcall vote will occur on the morning of Tuesday, March 12.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 262, H. Con. Res. 102.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I am about to propound a unanimous consent request. I have been in consultation with the Republican leader, with the distinguished Senator from Iowa, and I know of no objections to the request. So at this time I will make it. I ask that the Chair now lay before the Senate a message from the House on H.R. 3090 and that on Friday, March 8, immediately following the usual opening ceremony, the Senate resume consideration of the message; that upon disposition of that message, the Senate immediately resume consideration of S. 517 and the McCain amendment No. 2979; and there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the McCain amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, this unanimous consent is required in order for us to finish our work on the economic stimulus package that was just sent to us this afternoon from the House. Senator Lott and I have discussed this matter throughout the day. As I said, I had an earlier conversation with the distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee, as well as the chairman of the Finance Committee, and we are now in a position to proceed to a vote on the stimulus package tomorrow morning. We haven't set a time, but I expect the votes will be taken at approximately 9:30. So there will be two votes at 9:30--one on the unanimous consent that we have just now agreed to, the so-called economic stimulus unemployment insurance extension legislation, and one on the McCain amendment. I thank my colleagues for their participation and cooperation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Republican leader for his statement. While there are some things that might divide us on the issue, there is a lot he just said that I agree with wholeheartedly. This country needs an energy policy. We ought to be moving forward. We can do both in terms of comprehensive conservation and comprehensive production incentives. So I thank him for the spirit in which he has begun this debate. For those who have expressed some concern about the way this bill came to the floor, I will just say that this is the way the last energy bill came to the floor in May and June of the year 2001. But I want to address very briefly the amendment I have just laid down. One of the most significant, responsible ways in which to increase production and improve our Nation's energy security is to build a pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska to the lower forty-eight states. There are 35 trillion cubic feet of known natural gas reserves on the North Slope of Alaska. Right now, that gas is being pumped back into the ground because we have no way of getting it to people. In the energy bill we are now debating, Senator Bingaman and I have proposed a 2,000-mile long gas pipeline that would create 400,000 jobs, use an estimated 5 million tons of U.S. steel, and ensure that we do not become dependent on imported liquefied natural gas. If we want to create jobs, increase our energy security, and help the U.S. steel industry, building this pipeline is the way to do it. Last week, Alaska Governor Tony Knowles suggested some refinements in the legislation that would ensure that American workers, and in particular, Alaskans, get the greatest benefit from this project. In particular, Governor Knowles urged us to ensure that the pipeline follow what is known as the southern route down the Alaska Highway. This will ensure that much of the pipeline is constructed in Alaska and that it avoids the environmental pitfalls that construction could have on the fragile northern Alaska environment and the Beaufort Sea. Second, he asked that we clarify the rules for State and federal cooperation, to ensure that the development of the pipeline proceed as smoothly as possible. Both of these issues are addressed in the amendment we are offering today. Other changes that Governor Knowles has requested include guaranteeing access to the pipeline for new natural gas producers that may arise in the future, protecting the ability of Alaskans to have access to the natural gas that will be transported in the pipeline, and establishing a tax incentive to reduce the risk associated with natural gas price volatility. Senator Bingaman is working closely with others to develop language on these issues, and I would expect the final product of these deliberations to be added to the energy bill prior to final passage. Energy for America, jobs and opportunity for Alaskans, and no damage to sensitive environmental areas should all be goals to which we can subscribe. This legislation, and this amendment in particular, allow us to do that with even greater confidence. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2980 to Amendment No. 2917, As Further Modified

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have a modification of the amendment at the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I was just going to ask if the Senator would yield at the appropriate time.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask if the distinguished Senator from Alaska is aware that the majority leader, when the Republicans were in charge, utilized exactly the same process the last time the energy bill the Senator is now criticizing came to the floor. I am wondering if the Senator could clarify the difference between that set of circumstances and this one.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, will the Senator yield for one last time?

Mr. DASCHLE. I do not mean to interrupt his presentation. I know he has an opening statement. It is not my intention to debate him. I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Record the document showing the sequence of events beginning on May 16, of the year 2000.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I say for the Record that the majority leader at that time, Senator Lott, introduced an energy bill outside of the committee. It was read the first time and was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under ``Read the First Time'' on May 16. On May 17, the bill was read the second time. And then on September 22 of the year 2000, the majority leader made a motion to proceed. None of the activity had taken place in committee, except for one hearing. I think the Senator from New Mexico has had multiple hearings on energy and on the bill over the course of the last many months. But this is exactly what our Republican colleagues did in May and September of the year 2000. So I find it a little inconsistent for the Senator to criticize our efforts to bring a bill to the floor this year when his party and his leadership did exactly the same thing in May and September of the year 2000. Again, I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I hope the distinguished Senator from Alaska has more documentation than a press release that will allow him to make the assertion he has just made. I do not order my chairmen to do anything. I consult with them. I talk with them. But I think the Senator from New Mexico, who is on the floor, can attest to that fact. There was no ordering here. There was plenty of consultation, just as I am sure there was some consultation with the Senator from Alaska when Senator Lott chose to bring the energy bill to the floor in May of the year 2000. I doubt very much that he ordered Senator Murkowski or anybody else to comply with his wishes. I am sure he consulted. That is exactly what we did. So I hope the Senator has some documentation to support his assertion because that is quite a charge. I will say that there was ample consultation, not only with the Senator from New Mexico but many other Senators who also had jurisdiction. Nine different committees have had some jurisdictional role to play with regard to the completion and the progress on this legislation-- nine committees. To take up this bill, in sequence with each of the nine committees, or even simultaneously, for that matter, would be quite a legislative undertaking. So we have worked diligently to come up with a working draft that we have shared with our Republican colleagues. But to assert that I ordered anybody to do something is, I think, not only an error but is a disservice to the process that we have been engaged in. I thank the Senator again for yielding.

Mr. DASCHLE. If the Senator will yield one last time, I know Senator Bingaman has been patiently waiting to be able to register his own comments here. Let me just say, it is just not accurate for the Senator from Alaska to assert that this is unprecedented. That is the word he used; this was ``unprecedented.'' As I said for the Record--it is now part of the Record--this very action was taken by the majority leader in May and September of the year 2000--exactly the same. So I would just make sure that our colleagues are aware, this is not unprecedented. It has happened on many, many occasions, involving many, many issues and many committees. I think we ought to get on to the substantive issues, and put this procedural issue to rest once and for all. We have a lot of important substantive debates in store. I look forward to having those. But I do hope we can clarify the Record in this regard and move on to more substantive questions. Again, I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator would yield very briefly so we might propound a quick unanimous consent request.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, may at any time turn to the consideration of H.R. 2356, the campaign finance reform legislation; that there be 4 hours of debate equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that no amendments or motions be in order to the bill; that upon the use or yielding back of time the bill be read the third time, the Senate vote on passage of the bill, with this action occurring with no further intervening action or debate.