Mark Dayton

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I defer to the ranking member.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2193 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Senator and the chairman of the subcommittee. I know these two leaders have been under the greatest of pressures and financial strictures. They both have performed heroically in getting the money for veterans. My colleague is right. My former colleague, Senator Wellstone, would be happy beyond belief for the veterans of Minnesota and of America. I thank you for your extraordinary efforts. I salute the efforts of both distinguished colleagues and I thank them for this matter. I certainly meant no disrespect to anyone yesterday in my remarks. My distress was primarily because I felt that again my friend Paul's memory would not be well served by having the folks in Minnesota or anywhere else losing out. So his memory would be served, I wanted this memorial, this tribute from the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the President of the United States, and they have been very supportive and gracious throughout all this. We finally fulfill that. I thank the chairman and ranking member for making this possible, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. I thank my colleague. Amendment No. 2193, As Modified MS. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification of the Dayton amendment and ask such modification reflect the agreement we had here and I urge its adoption.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I thank my colleague from Alabama. I had not intended to interrupt my distinguished colleague from Texas with whom I have traveled to Iraq and other places, but I misunderstood exactly where we were, given the subject matter that was being discussed. I apologize for the interruption. I will focus my remarks on this matter because it is one that is deserving of all the attention and concern of the Members of this body, and it is a very difficult matter, one that I wish we didn't have to confront in this Chamber and one I wish we didn't have to confront in this country. But we do. We have a general with, generally, a very distinguished record, who now has been nominated for promotion to a very high office, commanding general of the Fifth Army. I have the greatest respect for the top echelon of our military command, as I have come to watch them, work with them, see their dedication and their professionalism and their compassion and concern for the men and women under their command. I regret having to raise these questions about any one of them. But we have a dead American soldier on the other hand, a young man who lost his life while in uniform, while in the service of his country. He wasn't murdered in Iraq, as some of our brave soldiers are these days, or in Afghanistan, or somewhere else. He wasn't in a training accident, as some soldiers from Minnesota have been, in this country or abroad. He was murdered. He was murdered by his own fellow American soldiers. His crime? His crime was that he was perceived and believed to be gay. I use that word ``crime'' rhetorically because I don't believe--I don't think Americans believe--that the sexual preference of an individual is a crime or should be a crime. It is not a crime in this country, punishable by death. That can only happen in a country such as Iraq, or some country with a vicious totalitarian regime, where if someone is different in any way and somebody decides it is wrong, they are not only excluded by society or discriminated against, but they are harassed, tortured, or executed. But not in the United States of America. However, it happened in this country at Fort Campbell, KY, in 1999, under General Clark's command. The soldiers who committed that terrible crime have been prosecuted, convicted, and are serving sentences. The military system that allowed that atrocity to occur remains. It is a system which permitted a succession of actions--from taunts, humiliations, bullying, all sorts of prejudice, immoral and illegal behavior--to occur and recur. What happened as a consequence? Nothing. Nothing. Nothing, unfortunately, is what happens most of the time in the Army of this country today. I am very proud of that Army in many respects, but I am not proud of an Army, or any other institution in this country, that permits discrimination against men and women because of their sexual preference. It is just that nothing usually happens when young women are assaulted and raped at the Air Force Academy--another matter we are dealing with on the Armed Services Committee. Their ``crime'' is that they are women. Women have been admitted to the Air Force Academy for 30 years and have been flying side by side in airplanes, and taking all of the risks, and doing as well as their counterparts. But they are being assaulted and raped time after time. We have discovered that at the Air Force Academy, what has usually happened to the perpetrators of those crimes is very little or nothing. These are impressionable young men and women in our Armed Forces-- most of them. They are outstanding young men and women. I have interviewed a number of them. I think all of us have that responsibility. I find, when I have the opportunity to interview young men and women who are seeking admission to or nomination to our military academies, that they are really fine young men and women. There is a lot of competition to get in. When I have those interviews, when I am talking to other young men and women in uniform as I travel back and forth, I don't see these kinds of attitudes. I don't see young men and women who are looking at their fellow soldiers with this kind of prejudice or are considering these kinds of atrocities. I just visited, in Minnesota over the weekend, a soldier who had one side of his arm shredded while serving in the Iraqi theater. He is recovering, thank God. He is a 21-year-old young man. He will recover. Another young Minnesotan lost most of his right leg, but he has great spirit and morale and he will live a great life. But I have also visited parents of young men and women who are not recovering, who are not coming home because they paid the ultimate price for their service. I am on the Armed Services Committee, and when I look at the reports and the casualty figures of the brave young Americans who are being injured or wounded or maimed or who died in combat, I don't see categories of ``heterosexual'' or ``gay'' or ``lesbian'' and I don't see ``women'' or ``men.'' I see American soldiers, with the same kind of blood and bodies. All they are asking is an equal opportunity to serve their country, to risk their lives in the service of their country--even to die in the service of their country. Amazingly enough, that is what these young women who are going to the Air Force Academy, and the young men and women entering the Armed Forces, who have a same-sex affinity--that is what they want, the same opportunity to fight, to be heroic, and even to die for their country. That is what makes it so inexplicable and inexcusable and unforgivable when they are discriminated against, when they are treated the way they are, and when they have nowhere to turn. So who is responsible? Who is accountable? Who loses a rank or a promotion or a star because a gay soldier was murdered under his command? General Clark's actions following that atrocity were questionable and, I would say, barely marginal. General Clark's actions in many other instances throughout his distinguished career have been extraordinary, heroic, and commendable, and I salute him for them. But it wasn't only his actions after this atrocity that were called into question; it was the actions and inaction before this occurred, which permitted in this environment of opportunities for repeated discrimination and harassment--for an NCO who was clearly unfit to be responsible for impressionable young men who, by his own conduct--or misconduct--showed them how not to treat a fellow soldier. That is what concerns me about this today. I expect we will confirm General Clark's promotion. He will go on, and I hope he performs with great distinction, as I believe he will, as a commanding general of the 5th Army. But what is going to happen to all the other gay and lesbian soldiers out there? What kind of message are we sending to them? What kind of message do we send to the young women who get raped at the Air Force Academy when they see those who commit the terrible acts being promoted? What happens to a military's network of people when those promotions occur untouched by these kinds of atrocities, and eventually they are the military command or they are throughout the military command? How are we ever going to change what is going on in these situations if no one is held accountable, if there is no consequence for not doing what a commander should do--what in some instances they are required by law to do? Regardless, common sense and decency and morality would tell them that anybody responsible for the lives of young people ought to keep people from ganging up or abusing or assaulting or picking on or murdering a fellow human being--not to mention a fellow soldier but a fellow American citizen. What happens to all of us when we let that go on? As I said earlier, I think the U.S. military is outstanding in so many respects. It is that institution where, historically, young men and women have been able to come from all over the country, all different backgrounds; it is the great opportunity provider. It doesn't matter if your parents don't have any money or if you don't have much education; you can find yourself and become somebody and either serve with great distinction and make it a career or you can come back into society and do just as well. But you are not going to be that kind of person or that kind of professional or that kind of citizen or leader of this country if you are learning that is what happens, and that is OK, and those who do it get promoted, and those who are the victims suffer the terrible consequences. That is a terribly destructive message to those individuals, a terribly destructive result to our Nation; and if this body means the concerns it expressed here--and I take them at good faith, but if we mean that, we are not going to be satisfied, and we should not be, by doing nothing other than promoting this general today. We owe it to those men and women who have suffered, and those who have lost their lives through these atrocities, to take responsibility and tell the military, because we are the civilian command, that we are not going to do it; the buck stops here because no one else will, that we are going to insist on an armed forces that reflects, represents, and defends the standards of the basic decency the founding principles of this country that all men and women are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the right to defend their country and be a patriot and not have somebody attacking them, humiliating them, or murdering them because of who they are. That is the responsibility of leadership. That starts at the top, all the way down. It does not come from the bottom because that is where the base level is. It has to come from the top, from the commanders, from the civilians who are responsible for the system which they command and for those who are putting their lives, their hopes, their dreams, and their careers on the line. We have a lot of work to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? What is the order of business before the Senate?

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. The Senator does not object to that.

Mr. DAYTON. I object. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, this amendment will provide $1.1 million in funding for the Paul and Sheila Wellstone Center for Community Building at the Neighborhood House in St. Paul, MN. It is funding for the completion of a commitment which Congress made last year as a memorial for the late Senator Paul Wellstone, my colleague and my friend, who lost his life in an airplane crash last October along with his wife Sheila, his daughter Marcia, and three staff members and two pilots. This is a very emotional subject for me at an emotional time, so I ask my colleagues for their forbearance. We just passed the first anniversary of that terrible day Paul and Sheila and the others were lost forever. One of Minnesota's greatest Senators and most passionately loved and admired political leaders--not unanimous, but the most widely shared and deeply felt connection that I have ever seen in my lifetime between a political figure and the people of Minnesota. He lost his life while flying to northern Minnesota for the funeral of the father of a State legislator, up on the Iron Range of Minnesota where a funeral is community. He knew, even though he had other commitments elsewhere, and even though Senator Ted Kennedy had graciously come to Minnesota to the metropolitan area on his behalf before the elections, which were just a few days away--those events were important, but Paul knew the family of the deceased would be helped in their grief by his presence. The community up there would be honored by his presence as a United States Senator, so he left his campaign schedule and the media market to go worship and pray and mourn with those others, friends and family and relatives, fellow citizens, as their U.S. Senator and as their friend. That is what all of us do all the time in our jobs--Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, Senators here, Congressmen and Congresswomen, across the country--we drive, and if there is not time we charter small planes into small airports in our States. That day Paul's plane didn't land on the runway. It crashed perpendicular to it 2 miles away into a Minnesota forest and peat bog and caught on fire and burned eight people. Tomorrow--another reason this is an emotional topic for all of Minnesota--we are told in the news reports today, the National Transportation Safety Board will hold a hearing to pass final judgment on the causes of that crash. Whatever they were, they will not bring Paul and Sheila and Marcia and the others back. The circumstances, as they are reported, are unofficial, so I will not comment on them here, but as they report them in the press, it will make it, if anything, more difficult, more painful, more awful an accident that didn't have to happen. Paul Wellstone lost his life as a U.S. Senator in service of his country. As the late Senator John Heinz, Republican from Pennsylvania, lost his life several years ago in a small plane crash in the service of his country; as other Senators, Members of the House, Governors, Cabinet Secretaries, and public officials have lost their lives in airplane crashes or other accidents in the performance of their official duties in the service of their country; and when brave men and women lose their lives in the service of their country, I call that man or woman a true American hero. If they are wearing the service uniform of our Armed Forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere around the world, they are true American heroes. If they are wounded or maimed when serving in those awful conditions, they are American heroes. I have been to funerals for Minnesotans who lost their lives in training exercises in this country and overseas. They gave their lives and paid the ultimate price in the service of their country. They are true American heroes. Paul Wellstone is a true American hero. He would have been under any circumstances losing his life, but he is even more so, and forever, in my judgment. That is why it is so fitting and appropriate--and I was glad that I thought it only appropriate--that the Senate last year did what I would want to do for any colleague of this body or of the House who lost his or her life under similar--or any--circumstances in the performance of his or her official duties--to find a suitable memorial, a fitting tribute to that American hero. The surviving members of the Wellstone family--two sons, David and Mark Wellstone--through their own deliberations, identified this project and St. Paul, MN, where especially people from other countries--recent immigrants to the United States--in need of all sorts of assistance but who want to become part of this country, who want to have a chance to participate and raise their kids as American citizens and become the next Paul and Sheila Wellstone, so they can get the help they need and give a helping hand as Paul and Sheila would have given themselves. We authorized $10 million. The House didn't have anything in there on that matter. But we went to the President of the United States. He was gracious enough to assist, and we got the funding provided in that bill--the authorization of $10 million. President Bush invited the Minnesota congressional delegation and members of the Wellstone family to the Oval Office last December for the signing ceremony. He just couldn't have been more extraordinary in his graciousness to the surviving members of Paul and Sheila's families. He took the time and extended his schedule to be with us, to share his condolences and make it a truly memorable occasion for the members of that family. I know they were enormously grateful, as I was to the President for his compassion and for his humanity. When we got to the appropriations for this fiscal year, it was delayed. The bill that finally came forward provided $8.9 million for the $10 million project that was authorized. I am hopeful the balance of that commitment as a memorial to our former colleague will be part of the committee bill that is coming before us today. I was disappointed there was nothing provided in it, and there is nothing provided in the House bill. I pursued this matter and indicated my intention to offer this amendment for $1.1 million--that is an ``m'' for million, not ``b'' for billion--$1.1 million to complete the commitment that was made--the authorization to commit the money the President authorized by his own signature into law. I was told via my staff and in talking with committee staff that if this amendment were agreed to by the Senate, then it would be taken out of some other project for the people of Minnesota--from the people in Roseville, MN, in the northwestern part of the State who were victims of flooding last spring, who need help in relocating, who are still rebuilding and trying to reconfigure the locks and dams in that river so they don't flood again--and from all sorts of other projects around the State in counties that need sewer systems so people can have safe drinking water, so the kids don't get sick. I have to share with the people of Minnesota a confession. They think when they send us out here, we each have a vote; since we are all taxpayers, and since Minnesotans' taxes as a relatively high income State are proportionate to others that send tax money to this great Federal Government, we get back at least our fair proportionate share. But it doesn't work that way in this legislation. It doesn't work that way. We get the appropriations and those who have more seniority, who have been here longer, have more influence, connections, whatever--it doesn't come out the same. If you were to rank Minnesota with other States, you would find that we give more than our share in contributions to this great center of our Nation and we get in return relatively less than most other States. I find it deeply offending that I am essentially being told, forewarned, threatened, that if I bring this amendment forward and it passes the Senate, it is going to come out of some other Minnesota project. I appreciate at least being told that so I know what I am getting into here. So much happens in these conference committees. It is just a sneak attack behind closed doors. In Minnesota, we have an open meeting law where you can't go behind closed doors with three or four members of the elected body and conduct public business in private somewhere. That law is a foreign concept here on Capitol Hill; it happens all the time. People go behind closed doors and members of conference committees can't even get into the conference room to find out what is going on. They have a bill coming up next for reauthorizing the FAA. Somebody in that conference committee stuck something in the bill that hurts the people of Minnesota--thousands of people in and around airports in my State--no hearings, no deliberation, no vote in the Senate, no vote in the House, just put in by Senators who don't represent the people of Minnesota. The conference committees are great places where you can put something in there and you can vote on it. I had an amendment to the Medicare bill which is coming up, and it is going to come out of committee, I am told and I am quite sure. I have an amendment that would require Members of Congress to receive prescription drug coverage that is the same and is no better than seniors of America and other Medicare beneficiaries receive. Boy, it passed the Senate by a vote of 93 to 3. That is pretty overwhelming support. I thought: My goodness gracious, the Senate is going to back this one because the people of America would back that one. I know from my experience in Minnesota that we sure agree with that concept and principle--that Members of Congress should receive a prescription drug benefit no better than we vote for senior citizens. But then I read an article the next week stating that many of those who voted for it had been told they could do so because it was guaranteed to die in the conference committee and it would not become part of the law. I respect those three who voted against my amendment because they weren't going to take that escape route and say, Oh, I voted for that amendment, and to my great dismay it is not going to get conference support. So Members of Congress can continue to get drug coverage twice as good or more or better than those senior citizens of America. In this case, before this bill goes into the conference committee, I urge my colleagues--and I will ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment--if they don't particularly think enough of the situation, and circumstances, and the memory of Paul Wellstone, then vote against it. I will ask the conferees, if it passes and goes to conference and is going to come out of some other Minnesota project, to drop the amendment because I know what Paul would say. I know what he would want us to do. That would be to do what is best for all the people of Minnesota. This project is true to the people of Minnesota. But the last thing Paul Wellstone would want to do is take $1.1 million away from people who are suffering and need help and give it to other people in Minnesota in his memory. That would be the antithesis of what is good, for what he believed in, and what he spoke for on this floor. It would be far preferable if the Senate said forthrightly, that is the view of the Members or the powers that be, that $1.1 million of the $10 million authorized last year is too much to bear, too much money, and it is just not available in the budget for the people of Minnesota, for the State of Minnesota. Unlike other States, we would not have this discussion on the Senate floor--it would be $1.1 million for anything any Member wanted. If they cannot find it, won't find it, do not want to find it, forget it. But tell the American people that. Tell the people of Minnesota that. Don't take it out of somewhere else in Minnesota for a project that is underfunded to begin with, that is needed to save people's lives, that makes their communities stronger. They elected the two Senators to do just as much as any other State in this Nation. Tell them that straight, and then Paul will wait. He should not have to, but he will. The Senate should do the right thing, pass this amendment, put it in the bill, and instruct the conferees to come out of the conference report with the money for the Wellstone Community Center and every project in Minnesota, and not sell anybody out behind closed doors, behind our backs, and I will once again respect this body, the Senate of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. What is the pending business, Mr. President?

Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to offer amendment No. 2193.

Mr. DAYTON. I repeat my request for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DAYTON. I will restate my request when there is a sufficient second. What number of Members constitute a sufficient number?

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I would point out we are not going to vote until tomorrow. We are going to vote tomorrow on a couple of these matters, on a couple of these nominees. According to our own Senate rules and procedures, we are not able to vote until then. Contrary to what some people watching this show might deduce from comments that have been made in the last few minutes, and before me and in the hours preceding, we actually do follow our rules and procedures in this body. We have 216 years' established rules and procedures, and if any 1 of the 100 Senators who doubts that those rules and procedures are being properly followed or disagrees with the action, we have a remedy for that. We have a referee, we have a head umpire and impartial ruler on our rules, who is the Senate Parliamentarian. He or she, as the case may be, at the moment can be asked by any one of us to rule on any action, any tactic, any maneuver being employed by any Member of the Senate or any group of the Senate. Yet for all the accusations for the last number of hours that we are violating somehow the rules, the procedures, the traditions, the Constitution, the intent of the Founding Fathers and just about everything else anybody has conjured up to justify their own point of view, we could ask. No one has asked. I am told that as of yesterday no one had asked the Parliamentarian, and I believe the reason is likely that the colleagues on the other side know that the answer would be clearly and unequivocally that we are following the practices and the traditions long established over 216 years by which this body conducts its matters, its business on behalf of the people of the United States of America. We can have legitimate differences of opinion about whether that is a good set of rules, one that serves us and serves us in one situation or does not serve us, but they are there. I have learned this in my 3 years here, to my own proper humility, that there is a real collective wisdom that has been established with almost 1,900 men and women serving over the course of those 216 years and that while I may still not agree with some of the particulars, there is a way in which this country has been better served in the eyes of many people more learned than I about government and legislative procedure, has been better served by this body than any other legislative body in the history of the world anywhere on this planet. Two generations ago, Gladstone called the Senate of the United States ``that remarkable body, the most remarkable of all the inventions of modern politics.'' James Madison, one of the authors of the document which we swear to uphold when we take this oath of office, the Constitution of the United States, said at the time: In order to judge of the form to be given to this institution [the Senate], it will be proper to take a view of the ends to be served by it. These were,--first, to protect the people against their rulers, secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led. I appreciated the words of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi just now because he was kind and gracious enough, and correct enough, to disagree with the application of these rules and procedures. But not as some have done, casting aspersions on following the rules and procedures, but beyond that, following our responsibilities and proscriptions under the Constitution of the United States, which I consider to be about the most serious accusation that any Member could direct toward anyone else. As I said earlier, we have taken an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That is the most solemn oath I have ever taken in my life. I expect every other Member of this body who has taken that oath is as sincerely and dedicated to that oath as I. To different people it may mean different things. But I never imagined questioning any Member's commitment. If there were reason to doubt or question, the proper way to direct that is through courts of this country, because it is a constitutional matter of the gravest import. I urge everyone who has engaged in this constitutional practice these many hours to weigh those words far more carefully than some are doing. As I am on the Senate Rules Committee, I appreciate the approach the chairman of that committee suggested or implied in looking at these matters and, through a proper forum, if it be the desire, to consider them in a learned way, to bring in constitutional scholars who can give us a variety of opinions, impartial, nonpartial opinions about the Constitution and case law. Then we can have an opportunity to consider whether what is established as a long-standing tradition and practice, whereby 41 Members of this body can prevent the other 59 from proceeding on something that would be passed by majority vote. I could argue the merits or demerits of that position over a particular matter, but I certainly would not question any Member's proper use of that just because I did not happen to like its application. There were 69 of those measures taken in the last two years when we were in the majority; 69 times Senator Daschle had to move to proceed and file cloture when he was majority leader to consider bills and amendments, to go to final passage of legislation that affected health care for senior citizens, veterans benefits, environmental protection, matters that had far more consequence to many more Americans than any single judicial appointment to a Federal court. I respect and appreciate the chairman of the Rules Committee and his thought on that matter. I welcome the chance to participate in that. I believe that is the responsible forum to review these matters and, if deemed necessary or desired on the part of those to consider it, to recognize we have the right and responsibility. We have been elected independently by the men and women of our own States to do this job as each of us sees best, and I am willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt who is doing so. That is our responsibility. That is our right. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. May I inquire, does this side have 30 minutes?

Mr. DAYTON. May the time be equally divided between the Senator from Maryland and myself?

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it is now 4:30. At 4:15, the Central Intelligence Agency began a classified briefing of all Senators on a just completed report on the worsening conditions in Iraq, a report that, according to the news accounts that were published yesterday and today about it, was reportedly leaked by a very high level Bush administration official so that it could not be hidden from the American people and from us in Congress. When I became aware of this--and we were only informed of this briefing this morning--I asked Senator Daschle and Senator Reid to see if we could suspend our talking and talking and talking about all of this for 1 hour to go listen to what is happening to the 130,000 courageous Americans whose lives are on the line in Iraq and to learn what we might be able to do, or must do, to support and aid them. Senator Daschle and Senator Reid inquired, could our colleagues across the aisle either give up 1 of the 30 hours that we are talking and talking about the jobs of four Americans and devote that time to protecting the lives and protecting the safety of 130,000 Americans and to preserving their heroic success that they achieved last spring in Iraq, which was for some of them their heroic sacrifice on our behalf, and which the CIA assessment reportedly has concluded is now in real jeopardy. Or even if that was not satisfactory, could that hour be added on to the scheduled conclusion for this blame-athon, keep the 30 hours as planned even though it is clear to this Senator, having participated between 12 and 1 this morning and listened to others throughout the early hours and now up until this time, that 30 hours for this topic is excessive and that our speeches are becoming increasingly repetitive, but just pause for 1 hour so that all of the Senators could attend that briefing on behalf of their constituents who are over in that precarious situation. The answer was no. I thought that when this blame-athon began, it showed fellow caucus members on the other side of the aisle with mistaken priorities, but this has convinced me that it is much more serious than that. Winston Churchill once described a fanatic as somebody who cannot change his mind and will not change the subject. This fixation today fits that description. We had a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing scheduled this morning, the committee on which I serve, with the Acting Secretary of the Army and other high-level Army officials testifying. We just received a briefing from them, reports of the timetables they have for deployments in and out of Iraq. We have seen reports of other news sources that within a few months the intention is to increase significantly in Iraq the number of reservists and National Guard men and women, which has a lot more importance to a lot more people who live in my State of Minnesota, whose loved ones are either over there now or are training to go over there soon or will be called up to go over later, than any judicial appointment. That hearing was cancelled. The House of Representatives is taking this whole week off. They are waiting for us to catch up on passed appropriations bills for a fiscal year that started on October 1. Yesterday, we suspended action on the VA-HUD appropriations measure, set it aside for this period of time to talk and talk on the same well-beaten, thoroughly debated, and genuinely disagreed-upon difference of our respective opinions, which is somehow so important to some of us that everything and everyone else must simply wait. The House Members are being paid by the American taxpayers to not even be in town this week because they are waiting for us to catch up. We are spending our time and American taxpayers' dollars to say the same things over and over and over and over again. Unanimous Consent Request I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary of the Senate be instructed to deduct the pay of all Senators for 15 hours, which is half the time that we are engaged in this excessive pursuit, and that should be our time, and for indulging in our priorities and playing to our audiences and doing whatever else this is supposed to be about but it is not serving the interests of the people of America any longer and I believe we should face up to that and recognize that.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. As I said, you can tell the priorities and what arouses people's passions. I could get really compassionate about the Senate's whole last week and the disaster aid for Minnesota and elsewhere where crops have been devastated by the summer's drought. Many of Minnesota's farmers had their crops totally destroyed. I did not detect as much passion and priority or concern among Members of the caucus, combined, as in one of them tonight for the misfortune falling on thousands of Minnesotans. I get passionate talking about prescription drug coverage for seniors on Medicare, which went to the Republican-controlled conference committee last July and has not come out since. That is only half as good as the resources committed to the Members of Congress, which is why I introduced my ``taste of their own medicine'' amendment which passed the Senate months ago by a vote of 93 to 3. It says that prescription drug benefits that Members of Congress receive can be no better than what we vote for seniors and others under Medicare. Over 17,000 Minnesotans were compassionate enough about that principle that they signed a petition at the Minnesota State Fair in 12 days. That is what Minnesotans are passionate about. I could get passionate about learning the truths about the present conditions in Iraq. After being told for weeks now how much they are improving and that things are getting better, I read today a CIA report disclosed by two people high up in the administration who cannot get their message through at that level any other way than going to the American people and saying, You do not know all the facts. You do not know even the right perspective on what is going on there. We have sons and daughters and husbands and wives and children of Minnesotans who have given their lives, who are giving their bodies and well-being or giving their livelihoods, and we cannot find out the truth about when they are coming home or whether their stay of duty will be extended and for how long. Those are things that Minnesotans can get very passionate about. That is real life or death. What is important to people? If we do not manifest it here, people will not care about the institutions such as the Senate. I do not question my colleagues' right to their choice of priorities. I don't question their right to have different views on policies and judges or any other matter. That is the nature of our process. That is the strength of our process. That is the wisdom of our process. I have been, in less than 3 years, in the parity, even, 50-50 Senate, with the Vice President, the tiebreaker, but in committee and conference committees equal, and in the majority for a year and a half and this last year in the minority. The previous year and a half there were 69 cloture votes that the Democratic leader, the majority leader, then had to file to move to proceed to legislation, to consider legislation, voting on legislation, issues that were far more important and affected a far greater number of Minnesotans and other Americans than a particular judgeship: health care for senior citizens; benefits for our veterans; environmental protection. And now this year, the conditions have changed. As somebody once said, how a minority reaching majority, seizing authority, hates the minority. So we have, as colleagues across the aisle noted, and I agree, seen a certain role reversal. But that is, in part, the different responsibilities of minority and majority caucuses, and it is particularly the difference of the responsibilities of those in the party other than the President and in the party the same as the President. I don't question the right of my colleagues, one of them or all of them, to support the President, whether he is right, whether he is wrong, whether they believe he is right or wrong. Those are individual decisions of conscience and politics. The Founders of this country--and this applies whether the President of the United States is Democrat or Republican, in which case the situation is reversed--understood that the incredible foresight and wisdom of the separation of powers, this coequal authority of the legislative branch, equal to that of the executive branch, was critical in every respect, critical to this country's genuine freedom and preservation of our democracy. Judge Brandeis, almost 100 years ago, said the separation of powers was adopted by the convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was not to avoid friction but, by means of the inevitable friction inherent in the distribution of governmental powers among the three branches, to save the people from autocracy, to save the people from despotism, from tyranny. That is what they were concerned about. That is the practice that has served us well in this Nation and in this institution of the Senate for 216 years. So it concerns me, and I do not question anyone's right to take whatever position they wish, but it concerns me as I read my colleagues on the other side who were designing this debate, this forum, have a combined number of years of experience in the Senate that amounts to less than one half of 1 percent of the combined collective wisdom achieved by nearly 1,900 men and women who have served in this body in its 216-year history. Yet I hear Members of this body who have been here less than a year saying emphatically this system is broken and it should be radically overhauled and that somehow the process we are engaged in is one that illserves our country and is even, they say, a violation of our Constitutional responsibilities. That is one of the most serious charges that anyone can make against a fellow Senator, because when we take this office, we stand, each of us, and recite the same pledge----

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I have learned politicians' priorities can be measured by their passions. What do they care about most? What stirs their souls? For that reason, the exultation of my colleagues across the aisle about this session, their fervor, their apocalyptic predictions, their press announcements, other than tax cuts for the rich and the super-rich, I have not seen that much passion across the aisle in my 3 years in this Chamber. Frankly, it does not do that for me. My passion tonight is what my colleague from California said: to work on other matters. We would be far more aroused talking about how to put Americans back to work, the over 3 million who have lost their jobs since this administration took office less than 3 years ago. And not just a return to any jobs, but jobs that are the same as, as good as or preferably better than the jobs they held before. Not minimum wage jobs with no benefits, no health coverage for spouses and children, no pensions, no protections, no real future. I would like us to talk about how we replace the 2.6 million manufacturing jobs lost in this country in the last 3 years, jobs moved offshore to someplace other than America. Many of them, I fear, are not coming back to America. The majority of the Republican caucus leadership has the authority to decide the Senate's agenda and has decided we will spend 30 hours on 4 jobs. We have not spent 30 minutes on jobs for the other 3 million Americans out of work who are looking for jobs. We have not spent 3 minutes on jobs and survival assistance for the over 2 million Americans who cannot find jobs for so long that they have exhausted their unemployment benefits. Many are completely broke. If we do not provide them with some support soon, more will be completely broke. Every time we have tried to bring up a bipartisan bill to extend unemployment benefits for Americans out looking for work, except one time last year, someone has objected across the aisle and we cannot proceed. No one has objected to spending 30 hours on 4 people, but we do not spend 30 seconds on most people affected by unemployment in this Nation. I will try again. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1853, a bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits for displaced workers; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. That would extend the basic program unemployment for 6 months. It would extend the long-term unemployment for an additional 13 weeks and would benefit 5 million Americans.

Mr. DAYTON. A unanimous consent request for 1 minute to complete my thought.

Mr. DAYTON. Thank you, Mr. President. That is the most solemn oath I have ever taken, to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I do not question the commitment of anybody in this body to upholding that oath and carrying it out as he or she believes is right, which is the reason we are elected independently, to exercise that independent authority. But when people put out releases saying these matters we are engaged in are dangerous and irresponsible, that we have no right to be doing this, that it is a dangerous dereliction of our constitutional duty, those are very serious accusations. If anyone in this body believes what we are doing is unconstitutional, they should take that question to the proper court. If anyone believes what we are doing in this body is a violation of Senate rules and procedures, they should take that question to the Parliamentarian. I was told earlier today that the Parliamentarian has not been asked. I believe the Parliamentarian, based on all the rules and precedents of the Senate--this book of 1,400 pages of precedents that have been adopted over 216 years--would find we are acting responsibly and within that authority which is our responsibility and our right. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. To uphold the Constitution of the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to complete my thought.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I was on the floor the second time yesterday, 4 or 5 in the afternoon. I observed, then, the time we devoted to this had already become excessive as indicated by the fact the statements being mailed were becoming increasingly repetitive and redundant. Now I see the added problem is, as we go even further, they become less and less factually correct and reliable, which is bad enough under normal circumstances. But the accusations that are being made are the most serious accusations that can be directed toward another Senator. One point of factual agreement is we all do take an oath of office when we are sworn in here in this Chamber by the Vice President of the United States and we do swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. When I took that oath 3 years ago, that was the most solemn oath I have taken in my lifetime. There is nothing I ever committed to that I take more seriously, and I do my best, as I can possibly see to do so, to uphold that. I have never had occasion in my almost 3 years here to question or certainly not to cast aspersions on any other Member for failing to uphold that solemn oath as he or she believes it is best performed. We have information available to us through the Library of Congress and the Congressional Research Service that has been in existence since just about the time the country began. We use it as a learned and nonpartisan and, as much as possible, nonbiased source of information about the 216-year history of this body. It is not hard to get this information. You just pick up the phone and call and ask to get it. So I did the other day. They list the chronological history of efforts to limit debate in the Senate. It goes back to the Journals of the Constitutional Congress in 1778. It references the very first session of the Senate in 1789, which started adopting these rules of various sorts. You can read, and over and over in the summaries, I am sure you can go back to the Journals and read in greater detail, how this has been discussed, considered, debated, argued, voted upon, modified, turned down by Members of this body for 216 years. When people are accusing us of acting outside the rules and the procedures of this body in doing what has been done here and debated about here for all that time, they either are woefully ignorant of the facts or they know the facts and they are being, I think, extremely irresponsible to the American people, if they have the misfortune to be watching this at this hour, to lead them to believe we are doing something here which is anything other than our right, well established in 216 years. If the Members on the other side want to disagree with what we are doing, or why we are doing it, or who we are doing it for or against, they are perfectly within their rights to do so. But to say we are violating the rules of this body is not true. To say we are violating the Constitution of the United States is a heinous fault and I will go with the Senator from South Carolina, I will join with him going to the courts of this country, right up to the Supreme Court and let's get the ruling he wants. Because I guarantee what it will be. Courts have ruled for the last 216 years the House and the Senate have the right under the Constitution to establish their own rules. That is what we have done. That is what this book is about. This book is 1,524 pages, called ``Senate Procedure.'' These are all the precedents and changes in the rules and modifications and the like. It only goes up to about 1992 because over the last 11 years the chief Parliamentarian, who is the editor of this book, hasn't had the time to add to it. There are probably another 500 pages or whatever that have not been added to this that are all the different precedents, all the different changes. Any time any one of us thinks anybody else here is acting in violation of those, we have somebody right there. Every minute we are in session we have somebody we can ask and get a factual answer, an impartial and nonpartisan answer, and that is the Parliamentarian. I ask the Parliamentarian if anything in these books for 216 years precludes our right to do what we are doing and if it is not within the rules of this body. I think it is shameful that anybody states otherwise. One important rule, in 1902, was adopted. Rule XIX was amended by inserting at the beginning of clause No. 2 the following: No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator. I can't think of any imputing of any conduct or motive more unworthy to a United States Senator than the violation of the U.S. Constitution, violation of the Constitution that we each took the oath of office to uphold. To do so without basis in fact is just beyond the pale. The Senator from Mississippi, the chairman from Mississippi, earlier today said he had his disagreements, he thought we should review these matters in the Rules Committee. I laud him for saying so. He doesn't have to agree with what we are doing. He has every right to disagree and he has every right as the chairman of the committee to go through that process and I welcome the opportunity for him to bring in constitutional scholars, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress authorities, and go through all this and consider other questions about whether the minority should be able to hold up the nominations of some 60 nominees of a President of the other party when they are in the majority; as the Senator from Florida suggested, whether these should be lifetime appointments. By the time he passed away, Thomas Jefferson was opining that they should not be, to the Federal judiciary. Let's get the facts. Let's ask the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, to tell us if this is wrong. It's on their stationery that up until 1917, when the Senate first adopted a cloture rule, until 1949, I read directly: . . . cloture could be moved only on legislative measures and nominations could not be subjected to cloture attempts. But then the Senate rule was changed, by the Senate. Following the rules and procedures of Senate they changed it so these steps could be taken with regard to nominations. I am on page 3, reading again exactly: Even after Senate rules began to permit cloture on nominations, cloture was sought not until 1968 on a motion to proceed to consider the nomination of Justice Abe Fortas which was debated at length. Moving ahead: Cloture was sought on no other nomination until 1980. Subsequent to 1980, of the 12 nominations on which cloture occurred during the 103d Congress, ten were for executive branch positions except in that Congress most nominations on which cloture had been sought have been to judicial positions. They have a table which says between 1967 and 2002 on judicial nominations cloture was invoked by the Senate 11 times; cloture was not invoked 6 times. Executive branch nominations, cloture was invoked 10 times, not 8 times. It is pretty easy to get this information. If somebody thinks they are just making it up, they are wrong. They should make that case. But otherwise people are making up misrepresentations and misinformation. It is outright false. They are doing a great disservice to this body and to the credibility we all strive to maintain. One of our predecessors from Minnesota, a man I worked for back in 1975 as a legislative aide, Walter Mondale, former attorney general of Minnesota, served for 11 years as a Senator. He said one of his proudest accomplishments was modifying the procedures under rule XX from two-thirds to three-fifths of Senators. On behalf of the change, Senator Mondale said at the time as sponsor of this resolution the proposal was a reasonable accommodation of the right to debate and the right to decide. We believe this might be harmonized in such a way as to protect action. Anybody in this body has a perfect right to disagree with that statement by Senator Mondale with the actions of the majority of his colleagues in that session to make this modification and to leave this rule as it essentially is today. But to just imply it is a violation of the rules in what we are doing--implying we disrespect the body and the purpose of the established procedures and upholding the best interests of this country for 216 years--by people who have been here less than a year themselves I think is an abomination. Then to go beyond that and say we are in violation of our oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States is I think a disgrace. I yield to my colleague from New Jersey the balance of our time.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent that LTC Gregg Blanchard, a military fellow in my office, be given floor privileges for the rest of this debate.