Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I simply say that on 21 occasions now when we have completed our work on a bill, we have done what is actually the normal process. We have-- Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am reserving the right to object, and I assume I have the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I simply reserve the right to object and ask consent that the bill be sent to the House once it has been completed.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would inform my colleagues that with this vote we will witness history. Senator Byrd will have cast his 17,000th vote. No Senator in all of history will have done that. I will have more to say about that after the vote. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in the last 3 years, America has lost nearly 3 million private-sector jobs, including nearly 2.9 million good manufacturing jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 8.2 million Americans out of work today. But that doesn't include the millions of ``discouraged workers'' who have stopped looking for jobs. And it doesn't include millions more who are under-employed. All together, nearly 15 million American workers today are unemployed, under-employed, or have given up looking for work. A month ago, the President's Council of Economic Advisors released its annual report on the economy. It predicted that the economy would create 3.8 million new jobs this year. The President's own Labor and Commerce secretaries refused to endorse that prediction. Then the President himself backed away from those numbers. After 3 years of promising jobs that never materialized, the Bush administration won't even predict anymore how many jobs their policies will create. Last month, the economy added only 21,000 new jobs--every one of them in government. 21,000 new jobs. That is one job for every 389 Americans who need jobs. All over America, people who have lost jobs are draining their savings accounts, tapping their 401(k)s, and running up expensive credit card debt to try to make ends meet. The average length of unemployment is at a 20-year high. When people finally find work, it often involves a substantial cut in pay. Jobs in growing industries pay, on average, 21 percent less than the jobs in industries that are shrinking. We have a jobs crisis in this country. And it is not just unemployed workers who are feeling the pain. With wages stagnant or falling, and health care and child care costs rising, many parents are working longer and harder than ever--and it's still not enough. Consumer debt is at an all-time high. Home mortgage foreclosures, car repossessions, and credit card debt are all at record levels. Millions and millions of American families are just one health crisis, one pink slip, or one bad break away from financial disaster. You would never know any of this to look at the agenda of the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans. The President and Congressional Republicans tell us, ``don't worry, the economy is getting stronger.'' Getting stronger for whom? Not the millions of Americans who are unemployed and underemployed. Not the workers whose jobs are being shipped overseas with help--help-- from this administration. Not the 43 million Americans who can't afford health insurance and are living with the daily dread that one serious illness or accident could put them in a financial hole they will never dig their way out of. America's families need jobs. And workers who have lost their jobs need help until they get back on their feet. They need unemployment insurance, job training, and health care until they can find their next job. Yet, this week, instead of just ignoring the economic stress so many American families are under, the Bush administration is knowingly, deliberately, increasing that stress. Yesterday, the Federal unemployment insurance program expired. Despite repeated Democratic efforts to extend the program, the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans have refused. As a result, over one million workers have seen their unemployment benefits expire over the past 3 months, and nearly one million more will see their benefits expire in the next 3 months. Last week, the President's Commerce Secretary said President Bush would sign an extension of the Federal unemployment program if Congress passed it. So I urge President Bush to use his powers of persuasion to convince the Members of his own party to extend unemployment benefits. It is wrong to punish workers who can't find jobs in a jobless recovery. There is something else the President should do. President Bush should make it clear that he will not strip overtime pay protections from one American worker. Not one. Any day now, the Labor Department is expected to issue new regulations that could deny 8 million American workers their right to overtime pay. Those regulations were expected to be released yesterday, but they have now been delayed for some reason. Bipartisan majorities in the House and the Senate voted last year to overturn the Bush regulations stripping workers of their overtime protections. But the White House worked behind closed doors with Republican leaders in Congress to push the regulations through anyway. If they have their way, up to 8 million workers--including firefighters, nurses, store supervisors and others--will lose their overtime pay. Overtime pay isn't for luxuries; it is essential family income that's needed to pay mortgages, tuition, grocery bills, utility bills, health insurance premiums, and prescription drug costs. For eligible workers, overtime pay makes up, on average, 25 percent of their income. Last week, Republican leaders in the Senate actually pulled the JOBS bill to avoid voting on a Democratic amendment that would have preserved the overtime rights of American workers. The Bush administration would rather force American companies to pay tariffs on the goods they sell in Europe than protect the overtime pay of American workers. That shows how deeply out of touch this administration and its allies in Congress are with the real needs of average working Americans. There are other signs as well. Two days ago, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to increase child-care funding in the welfare bill so that mothers who are moving from welfare to work won't have to leave their children home alone or with strangers. Even though States are slashing funding for child care, the Bush administration insisted that no more money for child care is needed. If their view prevails, 450,000 children would be forced out of child care. That is how out of touch they are with this economy. This administration has also refused, repeatedly, to raise the minimum wage. It has fought to deny the earned income tax credit for low-income parents--at the same time it insists on more and bigger tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent. The President's economic advisors even suggested re-classifying Burger King jobs as manufacturing jobs to try to disguise how many manufacturing jobs America is losing. I have some advice for them: Forget about creating better-sounding statistics and figure out how to create better-paying jobs here in America. Millions of Americans are hurting and need help. I urge the President and the members of his administration, and Republican leaders in Congress, to listen to them and extend the federal unemployment insurance payments, stop this effort to deny working people overtime pay, work with us in a bipartisan way to create and keep good jobs here in America and make affordable health care and child care available for working families.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I also have a statement I will make, but as I understand it, the first hour will be divided equally between the Republicans and Democrats. Is it my understanding the second one will also be divided equally in time?

Mr. DASCHLE. That is debate on the cloture vote itself?

Mr. DASCHLE. I say I will make further comments after the distinguished majority leader has made his.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the desire of the majority leader and our friends on the other side of the aisle in addressing many of these issues. He mentioned the JOBS bill, welfare reform reauthorization, and the importance of reaching some agreement on energy. I have indicated on several occasions that we are more than prepared to work through each one of these bills. We simply want to be heard on amendments about which we care a great deal. I will not ask consent to do it this morning, but I would entertain a unanimous consent agreement to go to the energy bill today and work through the amendments. I think there would be a good debate. Ultimately, there could be a conclusive debate about the energy bill. We will see what happens in our work with the House, which we have had to do now on several occasions. The same is true with the FSC/ETI bill. We would be prepared to go to the floor with a number of amendments. People on the other side of the aisle, for whatever reason, have refused to allow us an opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on protecting worker's overtime, on minimum wage, and on unemployment compensation. There are other outsourcing amendments that we think ought to be debated. What better place to debate them than on a bill that relates to international commerce. It isn't our unwillingness to have a good debate; it is our unwillingness to be locked out of the process. Whether it is in conference or whether it is on the floor, we have been prevented closure on each of these bills. I am hopeful that over the course of the next 2 days we can reach some accommodation. I have indicated that I thought we could finish the welfare bill by the end of next week. We will work to see that happens. But unfortunately, we are not at a point where any kind of procedural agreement has been reached to allow that to happen, either. I will continue to talk with the distinguished majority leader about ways in which to accommodate our concerns and his very understandable concerns about completing the work.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the House was scheduled to take up its version of the transportation bill yesterday. At the eleventh hour--or rather at 7 a.m. this morning--the Rules Committee met and appears to have finally found a way to bring the bill to the House floor and allow for debate, although they will not allow a clear vote on a key amendment that would raise the level of investment in the bill. Let me just say, this is astounding. We have already gone 184 days with one temporary extension after another. These unnecessary delays have cost our Nation roughly 100,000 jobs. State and local governments could not begin the contracting process, and employers couldn't plan ahead. As a result, there are 100,000 fewer Americans working today than there should be. Unless we agree on a transportation bill before the end of April, when the current extension expires, tens of thousands more jobs will be lost. Let us put this delay in perspective. First, let us all remember who controls not only the House and Senate but the executive branch of our government--one party controls all three. The President has claimed he was going to change the way government works. Well, he has everything he needs--control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. And how has he done on changing the way government works? In the instance of our Nation's transportation infrastructure, he has steered us toward a real-life work stoppage. It was 184 days ago that the law that governs our Nation's transportation infrastructure and all of the programs that deal with transportation expired. We have been operating on temporary extensions to the law for 184 days. Is the delay because Democrats have blocked a bill or used parliamentary tactics? No. In fact, it wasn't until November that a bill was even reported by a Senate committee and not until February when we passed the bill in the Senate. That was a good bill and Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords and others--including Senators Frist, Bond and Reid--deserve high praise for finally getting the bill finished. That bill garnered 76 bipartisan votes. The delay that occurred in the House was certainly not due to Democrats. A bill that was introduced and appeared to have a majority of support was scrapped by the Republican leadership at the behest of President Bush and slashed by $100 billion. And the new reduced bill wasn't passed by the House committee until last week. One-hundred and eighty-four days behind schedule as we continue to inch toward actually shutting down the Department of Transportation. I have hopes that we will get a bill approved by the House this week so we can begin to pre-conference the two bills and get a bill to the President before the most recent short-term extension expires at the end of April. But as recently as this morning, it is still unclear if the House will complete their work before they leave town for 2 weeks. One-hundred and eighty-four days without passing a transportation bill. Simply amazing on a bill that is critical to our Nation. Why the delay? One reason. The opposition of President Bush himself. A veto has threatened the Senate bill--a bill that, as I said, was approved with Republicans and Democrats alike. The President opposed the original House bill, and now, to the dismay of almost the entire transportation community--including many groups such as the Chamber of Commerce who have long supported the President-- the administration is even threatening a veto by President Bush of the scaled back $275 billion bill that the House is set to consider. It appears the President would rather not have a transportation bill that would create 1.7 million jobs--this in light of the 3 million private sector jobs already lost under this administration's watch. Let us be clear. It has been 184 days since those who control the House and Senate and the Presidency have not been able to move a transportation bill onto the President's desk--and it has not been as a result of Democrats in any way. There are some serious politics being played here with peoples lives, and I, for one, don't want to be a part of it. This inaction has made it nearly impossible for us to even think about approving another short-term extension--because that may be the only thing that places pressure on Congress to approve the longer-term bill. It has been 184 days and there is still a month to go before the Republicans let the law lapse and shut down the Department. There is still time before the extension runs out to move a good bill. But, I will not be a part of another extension that encourages further inaction and shortchanges our transportation infrastructure and denies Americans the jobs that they so desperately need and deserve. One-hundred and eighty-four days so far. We will keep counting. But let us all know what is going on here. The delays are due to the President's opposition to approving a thoughtful transportation bill. This, despite the majority in Congress who want to address this fundamental issue. Why is the majority so strong for a transportation bill and the administration so out of step? There are many reasons, but to make it simple, the Bush administration is focused like a laser beam on tax cuts for the most affluent--the privileged few--and they do not have time or want to bother with investments in our Nation's infrastructure. The transportation investment proposal that the Bush administration put forward was dead on arrival in the Congress because it wouldn't even keep up with inflation. At a time when 9 million Americans are out of work and job creation is virtually nonexistent, any more delays are unconscionable. And if it were not for the President, we could avoid that. In many States, such as my home State of South Dakota, the construction season is short--sometimes only 6 months. If contracts are not entered into in April, it will be nearly impossible to plan and get the work completed before the construction season comes to an end early next fall. Another year could be lost. It is time for Congress and the administration to get together and approve a bill that brings new investments to our decaying transportation infrastructure and new jobs to the American economy. The Senate's transportation bill would create 1.7 million jobs this coming year. It would bring welcome relief from the longest jobs slump our Nation has endured since the Depression. So in addition to repairing America's transportation infrastructure, this legislation will reinvigorate the economy. In States such as Texas, California, and Florida, the Senate bill increases transportation investment by roughly 40 percent--four times the increase proposed by the House, the House level the President opposes. We are not just talking about numbers on a budget spreadsheet; the additional investment in the Senate bill translates into hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans. In Florida, for example, the Senate bill would create 44,000 jobs, while the House bill would create 13,000. In Texas, the Senate bill would create 80,000 jobs; the House bill 13,000. In Missouri, 22,000 versus 6,000; Illinois, 45,000, versus 10,000; California, 90,000 versus 25,000; Tennessee, 20,000 versus 6,000; and in my State of South Dakota, 6,500 versus 1,500. In all, the House bill falls 500,000 jobs short of the Senate bill. We have all heard from the administration, and all we have heard they oppose both the Senate and House versions of the bill. For the Bush administration, it appears it is their way or--if you might pardon the pun--the highway, or, in this case, no highway funding. We cannot afford to let our transportation investments fall victim to this kind of rigid partisanship. Every day we fail to make investments in our transportation infrastructure, every hour Americans lose in traffic, every delay in the shipment of goods, carries a cost to the American economy and slows job growth. There is a broad coalition of groups and industries--including the Chamber of Commerce, the Association of General Contractors, the American Public Transportation Association, and the International Union of Operating Engineers--who are united in their support of the Senate level of $318 billion. They recently delivered a letter that was unequivocal. They wrote: As business and labor organizations, we cannot support any legislation below the Senate investment level for a six-year bill. Time is running short, but, as I said, we can still deliver real relief to the American economy. If the House passes a bill this week, and staff and Members would start working immediately, there is absolutely no reason we should not be able to complete this bill in April. We can avoid letting the President and the Republican House leadership singlehandedly shut down the Department of Transportation. It has been 184 days since the Republican Congress and President Bush began failing our Nation's transportation system and all who rely upon it. I know we can do better than this, put aside partisan politics, and begin to focus on the important work that is before us all. I hope that can be done in the next day.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I answer the distinguished assistant Democratic leader by saying that is exactly the case. We had an extraordinarily effective demonstration of bipartisanship in taking up the highway bill. I worked closely with Senator Frist. I say to the Senator, you worked closely with Senator Inhofe. We got the job done on time and, as you say, on budget. This does not represent 1 dollar of additional deficit spending. It is a commitment to jobs. It is a commitment to infrastructure. It is a commitment to our fiscal soundness that I think is one of the best moments we have experienced in this Congress to date. It demonstrated again Democrats and Republicans can truly work together. I only hope we could do the same in the House, and we will certainly do the same as we try to resolve whatever differences there will be with the House, including the amount committed to infrastructure in the coming days. I thank the Senator for his excellent question. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join the majority leader and all the Members of our body in congratulating Senator Byrd on reaching this historic milestone. I thank him for his half century of service to the U.S. Congress. Seventeen thousand votes is an astonishing number. It is even more astonishing when you consider that Senator Byrd has now cast 652 more votes than the first runner-up, Senator Thurmond. He has served 2 years less than Senator Thurmond. Here is another remarkable statistic: In the last 45 years in the Senate, Robert Byrd has voted on 98.72 percent of the questions put before this body. He has missed only about 1 percent of all votes cast over 45 years--the second highest percentage of all Senators who have cast 10,000 votes or more. From July 25, 1984, through September 17, 1997--a period of more than 13 years--Senator Byrd did not miss one single vote. He cast 4,705 consecutive votes--the second highest consecutive vote total in Senate history. Of the 11,708 persons who have ever served in the U.S. Congress, only two have served longer than Robert C. Byrd. But what makes Senator Byrd's vote totals and voting percentages even more remarkable are some of the other achievements Senator Byrd has recorded over these last 45 years. He is the first person ever to start and finish a law degree while serving in Congress. It took him 10 years. He graduated from American University Law School in 1963. President Kennedy was his commencement speaker. In 1994, he fulfilled a lifelong ambition. He finally received his bachelor's degree from Marshall University summa cum laude--the first person in his family ever to go to college. There are two reasons Senator Byrd has reached this historic 17,000- vote milestone. First, Robert C. Byrd believes, in his bones, if you have a job to do, you do it. He is a coal miner's son who has worked hard all of his life. He got his first job when he was 7, selling the Cincinnati Post. He has been a produce boy, a gas station attendant, a head butcher, and the owner of a small grocery store. He is a man who believes in earning his pay, who knows how it feels to fall asleep at night exhausted but proud for having met his responsibilities for 1 more day. The other reason Senator Byrd has reached this milestone is because of his great love of West Virginia, of this Nation, and of the Senate. Of course, the greatest love in Senator Byrd's life is his wife Erma. For the last 3 years, Mrs. Byrd's delicate health, and Senator Byrd's desire to be with her as much as possible, to support her, has made it even more difficult for Senator Byrd to answer every rollcall vote. Yet he has continued to do so. We are privileged to work with him. On this historic occasion, we congratulate him. And we thank Robert and Erma Byrd for all they have given this Senate and our Nation. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my leader time not be taken as part of the allocation for Members in morning business.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last week I spoke about the White House's reaction to Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. I am compelled today to rise again because the people around the President are systematically abusing the powers and the prerogatives of Government. We all need to reflect seriously on what is going on, not in anger, not in partisanship, but in keeping with our responsibilities as Senators, with an abiding respect for the fundamental values of our democracy. Richard Clarke did something extraordinary when he testified before the 9-11 Commission last week. He didn't try to escape blame, as so many routinely do. Instead, he accepted his share of responsibility and offered his perceptions about what happened in the months and years leading up to September 11. We can and should debate the facts and interpretations Clarke has offered. But there can be no doubt that he has risked enormous damage to his reputation and professional future to hold both himself and our Government accountable. The retaliation from those around the President has been fierce. Mr. Clarke's personal motives have been questioned and his honesty challenged. He has even been accused, right here on the Senate floor, of perjury. Not one shred of proof was given, but that wasn't the point. The point was to have the perjury accusation on television and in the newspapers. The point was to damage Mr. Clarke in any way possible. This is wrong--and it is not the first time it has happened. When Senator McCain ran for President, the Bush campaign smeared him and his family with vicious, false attacks. When Max Cleland ran for reelection to this Senate, his patriotism was attacked. He was accused of not caring about protecting our Nation--a man who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, accused of being indifferent to America's national security. That was such an ugly lie, it's still hard to fathom almost 2 years later. There are some things that simply ought not be done--even in politics. Too many people around the President seem not to understand that, and that line has been crossed. When Ambassador Joe Wilson told the truth about the administration's misleading claims about Iraq, Niger, and uranium, the people around the President didn't respond with facts. Instead, they publicly disclosed that Ambassador Wilson's wife was a deep-cover CIA agent. In doing so, they undermined America's national security and put politics first. They also may well have put the lives of Ambassador Wilson's wife, and her sources, in danger. When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil revealed that the White House was thinking about an Iraq War in its first weeks in office, his former colleagues in the Bush administration ridiculed him from morning to night, and even subjected him to a fruitless Federal investigation. When Larry Lindsay, one of President Bush's former top economic advisors, and General Eric Shinseki, the former Army Chief of Staff, spoke honestly about the amount of money and the number of troops the war would demand, they learned the hard way that the White House doesn't tolerate candor. This is not ``politics as usual.'' In nearly all of these cases, it's not Democrats who are being attacked. Senator McCain and Secretary O'Neill are prominent Republicans, and Richard Clarke, Larry Lindsay, Joe Wilson, Eric Shinseki, and Larry Lindsay all worked for Republican administrations. The common denominator is that these Government officials said things the White House didn't want said. The response from those around the President was retribution and character assassination--a 21st century twist to the strategy of ``shooting the messenger.'' If it takes intimidation to keep inconvenient facts from the American people, the people around the President don't hesitate. Richard Foster, the chief actuary for Medicare, found that out. He was told he'd be fired if he told the truth about the cost of the administration's prescription drug plan. This is no way to run a government. The White House and its supporters should not be using the power of Government to try to conceal facts from the American people or to reshape history in an effort to portray themselves in the best light. They should not be threatening the reputations and livelihoods of people simply for asking--or answering--questions. They should seek to put all information about past decisions on the table for evaluation so that the best possible decisions can be made for the Nation's future. In Mr. Clarke's case, clear and troubling double standards are being applied. Last year, when the administration was being criticized for the President's misleading statement about Niger and uranium, the White House unexpectedly declassified portions of the National Intelligence Estimate. When the administration wants to bolster its public case, there is little that appears too sensitive to be declassified. Now, people around the President want to release parts of Mr. Clarke's earlier testimony in 2002. According to news reports, the CIA is already working on declassifying that testimony--at the administration's request. And last week several documents were declassified literally overnight, not in an effort to provide information on a pressing policy matter to the American people, but in an apparent effort to discredit a public servant who gave 30 years of service to the American Government. I'll support declassifying Mr. Clarke's testimony before the Joint Inquiry, but the administration shouldn't be selective. Consistent with our need to protect sources and methods, we should declassify his entire testimony. And to make sure that the American people have access to the full record as they consider this question, we should also declassify his January 25 memo to Dr. Rice, the September 4, 2001 National Security Directive dealing with terrorism, Dr. Rice's testimony to the 9-11 Commission, the still-classified 28 pages from the House-Senate inquiry relating to Saudi Arabia, and a list of the dates and topics of all National Security Council meetings before September 4, 2001. I hope this new interest in openness will also include the Vice President's Energy and Terrorism Task Forces. While much, if not all, of what these task forces discussed was unclassified, their proceedings have not been shared with the public to date. There also seems to be a double standard when it comes to investigations. In recent days leading congressional Republicans are now calling for an investigation into Mr. Clarke. As I mentioned earlier, Secretary O'Neill was also subjected to an investigation. Clarke and O'Neill sought legal and classification review of any information in their books before they were published. Nonetheless, our colleagues tell us these two should be investigated, at the same time that there has been no Senate investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity as a deep cover CIA agent, no thorough investigation into whether leading administration officials misrepresented the intelligence regarding threats posed by Iraq, no Senate hearings into the threat the chief Medicare Actuary faced for trying to do his job, and no Senate investigation into the reports of continued overcharging by Halliburton for its work in Iraq. There is a clear double standard when it comes to investigating or releasing information, and that's just not right. The American people deserve more from their leaders. We're seeing it again now in the shifting reasons the White House has given for Dr. Rice's refusal to testify under oath and publicly before the 9-11 Commission. The people around the President first said it would be unprecedented for Dr. Rice to testify. But thanks to the Congressional Research Service, we now know that previous sitting National Security Advisors have testified before Congress. Now the people around the President are saying that Dr. Rice can't testify because it would violate an important constitutional principle: the separation of powers. We will soon face this debate again when it comes time for President Bush and Vice President Cheney to meet with the 9-11 Commission. I believe they should lift the limitations they have placed on their cooperation with the Commission and be willing to appear before the entire Commission for as much time as the Commission deems productive. The all-out assault on Richard Clarke has gone on for more than a week now. Mr. Clarke has been accused of ``profiteering'' and possible perjury. It is time for this to stop. The commission should declassify Mr. Clarke's earlier testimony. All of it. Not just the parts the White House wants. And Dr. Rice should testify before the 9-11 Commission, and she should be under oath and in public. The American people deserve to know the truth--the full truth--about what happened in the years and months leading up to September 11. Senator McCain, Senator Cleland, Secretary O'Neill, Ambassador Wilson, General Shinseki, Richard Foster, Richard Clarke, Larry Lindsay--when will the character assassination, retribution, and intimidation end? When will we say enough is enough? The September 11 families--and our entire country--deserve better. Our democracy depends on it. And our Nation's future security depends on it.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, every year, hundreds of thousands of high school students participate in team sports and other extra curricular activities. Through these activities, many young people learn the value of working together with others, and the meaning of hard work sacrifice. These activities also teach our Nation's students to set their sights high, by demonstrating that remarkable achievements come only with hard work and dedication. Today, I pay tribute to a group of young women from Madison High School in Madison, SD, who have proved this fact time and time again, most recently by extending one of the more remarkable winning streaks in our Nation. On February 20, 2004, the girls' gymnastics team at Madison High won the Class A state title for the tenth consecutive season. For the first seven titles, the Bulldogs were led ably by coach Linda Collignon. Since then, Madison has come full circle, having been led to the last three titles by Maridee Weise, a member of that first championship team. It has been a long road for the Madison High team. In the early days of the gymnastics program at Madison High, many of the student-athletes would make the 90-mile round trip from Madison to train at a gymnastics facility is Sioux Falls. In time--and under the leadership of Coach Collignon--members of the Madison community volunteered to build a training facility on the high school campus, saving the school district more than $100,000. It is that kind of community involvement and interest in its youth that has helped establish Madison's tradition in the sport. Each day at practice, these student-athletes are motivated by a drawing of the classic World War II symbol, Rosie the Riveter, and the phrase ``We Can Do It!'' They have not only come to recognize the truth in those words, they have lived up to them. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting these student-athletes and their coaches on their latest championship, and on their truly remarkable run. I am proud to ask unanimous consent that the 2003-2004 Madison High School girls' gymnastics team roster be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide relief to small businesses struggling with the high cost of health care. Rising health care costs are a serious problem for most Americans. The average premium offered by an employer rose last year by 13.9 percent, 4 times faster than wages. This was the third straight year of double-digit increases. The cost of health care for small businesses is even higher. Health care costs for businesses with 25 to 50 employees rose by 14.3 percent. For firms with 10 to 24 employees, premiums rose by 15.2 percent, and for firms with 3 to 9 workers, they increased by 16.6 percent. In many cases, the increases faced by individual small businesses is significantly larger. I've heard from businesses in my State about premium increases as high as 40 percent in one year. For many small business owners, increases of this size force them to make tough decisions regarding whether to continue offering coverage, whether to scale back coverage, and whether they can improve wages and make other improvements to their business. At a time when the number of uninsured Americans is growing, our economy is struggling, jobs are scarce, and financial uncertainty affects many too many Americans, the cost of health care is a tremendous problem. Skyrocketing health care costs could pose the single greatest obstacle to entrepreneurship and growth in our economy today. And many small businesses don't offer coverage at all, not because they don't want to, but because they simply cannot afford it. Both nationally and in South Dakota, only about 55 percent of businesses with 3 to 9 employees offer coverage to their employees, as compared to almost all large businesses--those with over 50 employees. Why don't small businesses offer coverage? The number one reason they cite is cost. A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that about 72 percent of small businesses cite the high cost of insurance premiums as a major reason they don't offer coverage. And a study of South Dakota business owners found that 79 percent said they would be more likely to offer coverage if the costs weren't so high. Clearly small business owners are desperate for relief. The stories I hear from South Dakota business owners underscore the need. Last summer, Kathleen Perkins, the owner of Great Plains Coffee Roasting Company in Sioux Falls, wrote to me about the cost of health insurance. In her letter, she wrote, ``I recently lost two great employees because as a small business, I cannot afford to offer comprehensive health care to my full time employees.'' Earlier this year, I heard from the owner of South Dakota Magazine, in Yankton. He shared with me the notification from his insurer informing him that premiums would rise 27 percent. The owner expressed his frustration that he faces these increases, even after experiencing past double-digit increases and benefit reductions. Yet another small business owner in Mitchell wrote to me about yearly rate increases of 10 to 30 percent. She used to pay 100 percent of her employees' cost, but she has had to shift more of the cost onto her employees. And still she struggles. She said, ``I'm not sure how many more increases we can tolerate before we will discontinue this company benefit.'' Small employers need relief. That's why the bill I'm introducing today would provide up to a 50-percent tax credit to help small employers pay for insurance for their employees. The legislation would provide a 50-percent credit for businesses with 25 or fewer employees, a 40-percent credit for businesses with between 26 and 35 employees, and a 30-percent credit for businesses with between 36 and 50 employees. We must take additional steps to address the high cost of health care, the administrative waste in the system, and the growing number of uninsured. This tax credit is a first, important step in that process. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, our Constitution has vested the Senate with the responsibility of advising and consenting on the President's nominations. Throughout the full range of administration appointments--from top Cabinet officials, to Federal judges, to boards and commissions--the Senate's role is to speak for the American people and ensure the highest standards of public service are maintained throughout our Government. We have exercised this oversight authority with extraordinary restraint. Democrats have sought to participate in the nomination process and work together with the administration and the majority in a bipartisan fashion to confirm public servants in the highest traditions of our Nation. Regrettably, the administration has chosen to reject the course of bipartisanship, even though Democrats have tried to accommodate the President's goal of filling judicial vacancies. The Senate has confirmed a record 173 Federal judges, rejecting only 3. These three judges were far outside the mainstream and had troubling records of judicial activism in service to extreme ideology. They were rejected for that reason. In spite of the Senate's judgment, the President has chosen to take the unprecedented step of using recess appointments to bypass the Senate on two occasions. First, in order to appoint Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. And second, to appoint William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. At no point has a President ever used a recess appointment to install a rejected nominee on to the Federal bench. And there are intimations that there will be even more recess appointments in the coming months. These actions not only poison the nomination process, but they strike at the heart of the principle of checks and balances that is one of the pillars of the American democracy. This cannot continue. What is at stake here is not just a few nominations. What is at stake is the Senate's obligation to represent the American people and check unrestrained executive power. This White House is insisting on a radical departure from historic and constitutional practices. They have broken the process and we want to fix it. And we stand ready to fix it. I have spoken to the majority leader about my serious concerns. Let us be clear: We will continue to cooperate in the confirmation of Federal judges, but only if the White House gives us assurances that it will no longer abuse the process and that it will once again respect our Constitution's essential system of checks and balances. Sadly, this is not the only area in which the administration has chosen to cast aside traditions of bipartisanship and cooperation. One of the minority's less visible yet vital responsibilities is the naming of Democratic candidates to sit on government boards and commissions. These boards span the entire range of government responsibilities, from engaging young people in community and national service, to overseeing financial markets, to supervising the security of America's nuclear facilities, to protecting Americans from illegal energy company price-gouging. They may not get a lot of headlines, but the public servants who sit on these boards perform an extraordinary service to their Nation and have a direct influence on the security, prosperity, health, and well- being of the American people. Once again, Democrats have tried to work in a bipartisan fashion. In the 108th congress alone, we have confirmed 419 of the President's nonjudicial nominations. Because of the importance of these boards, many have a statutory requirement of bipartisanship. Others have bipartisan participation by long-established practice. Their purpose is not simply to serve one party or another, or the administration in power at the moment, but the entire Nation. In order to provide our Nation with responsible stewardship, these boards must resist political manipulation and partisan divisions. For decades, the nomination and confirmation process has honored the unique and vital role of these boards and commissions. During the Clinton administration, for instance, Republican nominations were considered and approved, even when the nominees were outspoken opponents of administration policy. The same was true during the administrations for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. During the current administration, however, that standard has been cast aside. And a divisive form of political gamesmanship has been allowed to extend to the nomination process. Talented candidates are being prevented from serving their Nation. The views and communities they represent are not being heard. And the American people are losing out as a result. Among the candidates rejected by the administration are potential nominees to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Export-Import Bank, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Corporation for National and Community Service, and many more. Let me give you a brief background on just a few of these rejected candidates. For instance, Warren Stern. Early in 2003, Mr. Stern was recommended to serve in the Democratic position on the Defense Nuclear Facilities Board. Shortly afterward, he was rejected on the grounds that he did not have ``enough scientific background.'' The charge is absurd on its face. Mr. Stern has degrees in physics, nuclear engineering, and national security studies. He was selected as the State Department's Senior coordinator for Nuclear Safety, and he coordinates the work of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the field of international nuclear safety policy. Last July, while his nomination was supposed to be under consideration at the White House, the State Department conferred upon him the Superior Honor Award, for ``developing and implementing a diplomatic and technical strategy for the control of dangerous radioactive materials.'' At a time when our intelligence community tells us that America's nuclear facilities are being targeted by terrorists, Mr. Stern brings an extraordinary range and depth of experience that will make America safer. But he is being denied the chance to serve for no reason. Take Dr. Chon Noriega. Dr. Noriega was nominated in March of 2003 to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. He was recommended because Democrats believe that Public Broadcasting can do much more to reach out to America's growing Hispanic community. As the Nation's foremost academic authority on Hispanic media, Dr. Noriega is uniquely suited to help the Corporation for Public Broadcasting achieve this goal. Dr. Noriega is the Associate Director of UCLA's Chicano Studies Research Center and the author of eight books on the topic of Hispanic media. America's Hispanic community could have no more passionate or effective advocate than Dr. Noriega. Yet the administration has once again refused to nominate a superbly qualified candidate, and the Nation's largest minority community has one less advocate as a result. Finally, and perhaps most absurdly, is the administration's refusal to nominate Judge Patricia Wald to the Legal Services Corporation. Judge Wald served on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for 20 years, the last 5 as its chief judge. After her retirement from the circuit court, she was asked to serve as a judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Judge Wald is a brilliant jurist, whose probity, integrity, and commitment to the American legal system are unassailable. So respected is she that just last month, President Bush asked her to sit on the commission investigating the collection and use of intelligence leading up to the Iraqi War. If she can be trusted with the responsibility of restoring confidence in the intelligence system on which America's security depends, surely she is qualified and trustworthy enough to help extend legal representation to Americans who cannot afford it. Democrats have tried to work together with the administration to continue the bipartisan process of nominations, both for boards and for the Federal bench. Repeatedly, we have asked the administration to conduct the nomination process in a bipartisan manner, and we have been denied. The administration has crossed a line and it is time it pulls back. We can no longer stand by and watch this critical aspect of our responsibilities be undermined by the intrusion of partisan politics. Whether it is a nomination to a board or a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench, we cannot allow the Senate's role to be disregarded. Once we have confidence that the integrity of this process is restored, Democrats will be accommodating to the White House's nominations. We hoped for a different result, but the administration has left us no choice. I ask my Republican colleagues to reach out to administration officials and urge them to return this process to its traditions of bipartisanship and cooperation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. As of this day, March 26, I answer the Senator from Nevada, we have approved 173 judges and 419 nonjudicial nominations by this administration. I don't know whether the nontraditional nominations is some kind of record over 3 years, but we now know the judicial record of 173 has not been equaled. So the answer is yes, we have cooperated as fully as any Congress has in accommodating an administration with regard to appointments it considers to be of value to the country. We are only asking for similar consideration of the nominations and a recognition of the importance of the constitutional process of advise and consent, which is why I expressed the concern this morning about the recess appointments of those judges who have not been confirmed in the Senate.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. There have only been 3 out of 173 now that have not been given the authority to serve on the bench and, as I said, for good reason--either their unwillingness to cooperate with the nominating process or fulfill their obligation to provide information regarding their positions, or the fact that they have clearly demonstrated extreme positions on issues that fall way outside the mainstream of philosophical thinking and prevented their confirmation. The Senator is correct: 173 is the accurate number today.

Mr. DASCHLE

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