Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I intend to use my leader time this morning and comment, if I may, on gasoline prices. They continue to hit record highs. According to the Department of Energy, the average retail price of a gallon of gasoline in America is more than $1.84, up 23 cents in the last two months, 33 cents in the last year, and 37 cents in the past 36 months. In my State of South Dakota, the average price of gasoline is $1.80 per gallon, with many communities seeing much higher prices than that. Even more troubling, the Department of Energy expects prices to remain high through the summer. This is of particular concern for rural States such as South Dakota, where many people have no choice but to drive long distances daily to get to their jobs, to receive health care, or just to shop for essentials. Americans are increasingly frustrated with skyrocketing gas prices and want to know what the Federal Government is going to do about it. And they want action now. In March, I sent a letter to the President recommending that he take several initiatives that could curb gasoline prices at home. First, I suggested that he use the prestige of his office and his relationships with foreign leaders to press the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries--OPEC--to increase production, thereby relieving some of the pressure on gas prices in the United States in the long term. This is not a radical idea. In fact, on more than one occasion in the fall of 2000, then-candidate Bush put the challenge directly to the President. His message was clear: What I think the President ought to do is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say, ``We expect you to open the spigots.'' If that was good advice then, it is certainly sound counsel now. Unfortunately, President Bush has not followed his own advice. Secretary of Energy Abraham announced earlier this year that the Bush administration would not call on OPEC to roll back their scheduled production cuts. Secretary Abraham said, ``The United States is not going to go around the world begging for oil.'' On April 1, OPEC went ahead with the production cuts. In my March letter, I also asked the President to follow the Senate's advice and stop diverting oil from the marketplace to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. On March 11, the Senate voted 52 to 43 for an amendment that would stop the diversions of oil. Simply put, it is illogical to be taking oil out of the marketplace when gasoline prices are so high. If anything, we should be doing just the opposite. The President has ignored the Senate's advice, and gasoline prices continue to rise. To add insult to injury, we now know that the large oil companies are reaping record profits as a result of the volatility in the gasoline market, while consumers are struggling with higher prices at the pump. Over the past year, the ``Big Four'' oil companies have seen an average increase in their U.S. profits of 157 percent. Chevron-Texaco has seen a 294 percent increase in its U.S. refining and marketing profits. BP has seen a 165 percent increase. ExxonMobil has seen a 125 percent increase. And Conoco-Phillips has seen a 44 percent increase. Consumers have reason to be upset. While the big oil companies are raking in record profits, President Bush remains reluctant to take steps that could reduce the costs consumers face. It is time to reconsider this posture. In the short term, I hope that President Bush will take another look at the value of encouraging OPEC to increase production now. Senator Wyden, who is on the floor this morning, has introduced a resolution calling on the President to do just that. I hope the Senate would ratify it and would encourage, on a bipartisan basis, the President to take this action with the passage of the resolution. This resolution contains the same language as the resolution the Senate passed unanimously in 2000, when then-Senators Ashcroft and Abraham joined others in offering it. I hope that the Senate will act on the Wyden resolution soon. I also encourage the President to reconsider his decision to continue filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But short-term fixes are not the answer to our longer-term energy supply problem. The Nation needs a balanced, national energy policy. This Congress has considered comprehensive energy legislation. I have voted for the conference version of this legislation twice--once in November when it contained the controversial MTBE liability relief provision, and again last week when Senator Domenici offered a slimmed down version with the MTBE rider as an amendment to the Internet tax bill. It was defeated both times by bipartisan votes. It is no secret that I strongly support the renewable fuels standard provision of the comprehensive energy bill. That section would double the amount of ethanol produced in the United States over the next 10 years. In the process, it would boost rural income, improve air quality, and extend domestic gasoline supply. The use of domestically produced, renewable ethanol has effectively lowered gasoline prices to motorists whenever it has been made available during its 25-year history. This is because high-octane, clean-burning renewable fuels, especially ethanol, increase available volume of finished gasoline by more than 10 percent today and give gasoline markets more supply options. In addition, the reduced tax that is imposed on renewable fuel also saved consumers millions of dollars each year as ethanol blends are nearly always priced lower than conventional gasoline. Reenactment of the renewable fuel standard would result in more than 500,000 barrels per day of high-octane, refined ethanol for blending with gasoline, saving the United States $4 billion in imported oil each year because we would double the use of renewable fuels. Unlike the comprehensive Energy bill which remains stalled by bipartisan opposition to specific provisions, the renewable fuel standard enjoys strong bipartisan support. It has been reported out of the Environment and Public Works Committee twice and passed by the Senate twice, both times by more than a two-thirds vote. It is still pending in the Senate today. Last June, 68 Senators voted in favor of RFS when then-Majority Leader Frist and I offered it as an amendment to the Energy bill. The renewable fuel standard will help blunt rising gasoline prices. If Congress is not able to pass the RFS as part of a comprehensive energy bill, it should pass it on its own. It is the right thing to do for consumers. Beyond that, we have to recognize this country cannot sustain its current consumption of gasoline and of transportation fuels. We have to find ways in a comprehensive energy policy to deal with an issue that many on the other side are unwilling to deal with, and that is conservation. We have the capacity to improve conservation, to reduce per capita demand. We have a capacity now to use the technological innovation, the extraordinary research that has been offered in the last 20 years to bring down consumption in both comprehensive as well as in individual and specific ways. I have absolutely every confidence that if our Members would continue to work on comprehensive energy legislation with an understanding of the importance of conservation, of reduction of our insatiable appetite for more and more energy, we could do it. It must be a part of any long-term energy policy if, indeed, we are going to bring this country to a balanced and a pragmatic appreciation of the extraordinary implications of current energy policy and demand in this country today. Again, I hope we all recognize the volatility and the extraordinary danger economically and financially we put our country and all Americans in if we are not prepared to address energy prices, gasoline prices, more effectively than we have so far at the Federal level.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I respond to the distinguished assistant Democratic leader by first thanking him for again clarifying our circumstances with regard to the FSC bill. I said in the Senate yesterday, and I know he has reiterated our commitment, that we will pass the bill this week if we can get the cooperation of Senators on both sides. Working with the distinguished assistant Democratic leader, we have winnowed down the number of amendments on our side to a handful. We are very confident we can finish the consideration of the pending Democratic amendments, certainly within the next couple of days. I have yet to hear from our Republican colleagues as to the status of the 55 amendments that were offered on their side. I have no information that would lead me to believe they have had similar success. I hope that is not the case. I hope they have been able to convince Republican Senators that 55 amendments, as prolific as that sounds, would make it impossible to finish the bill this week. We are prepared to continue to work to see we bring our debate on this bill to closure. I am confident we can do that, at least on our side, and I appreciate very much the Senator from Nevada working so diligently with the managers of the bill to accommodate our optimism about our success in completing the bill this week. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I had hoped to come to the floor when Senator Durbin spoke with regard to the need for a Senate response on the matter of prisoner abuse. Senator Durbin related, as I understand it, some conversations I have had with the distinguished majority leader, and I confirm I have had some very good conversations with the majority leader about some of the actions Senator Durbin outlined. The majority leader shares my view, and I know he will want to speak to the matter himself, that the Senate needs to address this matter, asking Secretary Rumsfeld to come to room S-407 this week so we can ask questions directly and clarify why it was when they met with us last week we were not told of this information, and share with us as much as he and the Pentagon know about the degree of abuse, what other circumstances may be involved, and whatever has been learned so far through the investigation, and a full airing of the report. He also indicated his view that the Secretary ought to come before the appropriate committees and testify with regard to these actions so the American people have a better understanding of what we know and what actions are being taken to address this circumstance so we can say without equivocation it will not happen again, and that we can reiterate to the world community this is not the practice, not the policy, and certainly not in keeping with the character of the American people. Finally, Senator Frist and I have talked extensively about the importance of passing a resolution this week denouncing this abuse and expressing our abhorrence on a bipartisan basis and sending as clear a message as we can to all the world community that this is unacceptable behavior, it is not in keeping with our practice, with our philosophy, with our character, and we want as much as possible to rectify what damage has been done and to assure those who would in some way make any effort to use this for their own purposes as an anti-American propaganda tool that that will not be tolerated. This is not America. This is not the practice of our country. This is not the practice of 99.9 percent of the military serving so admirably in Iraq today. They deserve better than that. And to tarnish their reputation and the contributions they have made is abhorrent as well. We need to make sure those points are made, but, first and foremost, we need to have a better understanding. We are shooting in the dark. We have no information other than what we have read in the newspaper, and that is not acceptable. Secretary Rumsfeld ought to be here, he ought to explain himself and the Pentagon, and we ought to say, after having acquired that information, as unequivocally and with whatever authority we have, this will not happen again. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I can respond, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee for his comments and for the work he has already undertaken to ensure many of these issues can be addressed. He has shown real leadership. I applaud that and look forward to working with him in the days ahead. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Democratic side?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use part or all of that time. I know Senator Breaux was planning to come to the floor but has now changed his plans.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I share the view just expressed by the distinguished assistant Republican leader with regard to finishing the FSC bill. It is my understanding they have probably twice as many amendments as we do. I know both sides are attempting to work down the list. We have had some success in the last 48 hours with regard to our list, and we are hopeful our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will have an equal opportunity to demonstrate their success in reducing the number of amendments to be offered. We can finish this bill easily this week. Our amendments have all been vetted, and it is my understanding that every author of each amendment on our side has also agreed to a time limit. So we not only have short time limits and a reduced number of amendments from what was originally entered into with the time agreements and the unanimous consent agreement having to do with the consideration of this bill, but I think if we can continue to show that degree of cooperation, certainly we can finish the bill easily this week and perhaps move on to other business. So I join with the Senator from Kentucky in expressing the hope we will continue to work to accomplish that this week.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I had not intended to speak to the appalling news in the last several days about the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq. But I must say I come to the floor with grave concerns about the news, about the events, about the message it sends, about the extraordinary impact this violation of human rights can have on our efforts to succeed in that country, and about our appalling inability to explain how this happened. While I certainly am not in a position today to speak with any clarity or definitive character with regard to the facts, let me say that I don't know that there has ever been a time when we needed a better understanding of how this could have happened, why it happened, how widespread these practices may have been, what the administration has done about it, what they intend to do about it, why the President was not informed, why the Defense Secretary was not informed until just recently, why no one has seen the report, why the Intelligence Committees were not informed, and why, in other words, has there been this extraordinary disconnect, this unbelievable failure of communication and of oversight. We need answers. I hope no later than the end of this week the Secretary of Defense can come to the Senate, as he does with some regularity, and explain to us what they know, what happened, and what is going to be done about it. We must do everything we can to ensure that we understand the circumstances surrounding these appalling acts. We must also be provided with a very specific and detailed response that spells out the measures taken to discipline those responsible and outlines what steps will be taken to ensure this never happens again. Somehow, we have to say to the international community that this is not the United States of America. I think it is imperative that the Senate itself speak to this issue in some manner. We should send a clear signal through a resolution or some other collective and forceful means that expresses how important it is to adhere to the international standards respecting the human rights of every person. We cannot be silent. We must learn, respond, and speak out. I hope all that will be done at the earliest possible time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to use the remainder of my leader time to comment on the Medicare temporary drug discount card. For nearly a decade, Congress has been debating how to provide seniors with meaningful help when it comes to the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs. This temporary program represents the first tangible result of that long debate. Until the Medicare prescription drug benefit takes effect in 2006, this is the only assistance seniors will receive. The administration has introduced this program with great fanfare. Unfortunately, the hype masks the disappointing truth. This program provides far more confusion than real savings. As a result, it represents yet another missed opportunity in our longstanding effort to bring the cost of medicine within the reach of seniors who need it. Among the many shortcomings in the program are three critical flaws. First, the discount program forces seniors to go through a baffling number of calculations and decisions. In order to decide whether the discount program is right for them and, if so, which card to choose, seniors need to ask themselves: First, will the card offer discounts on the drugs I need? Second, is my neighborhood among those where this card is available? Third, does my pharmacist accept the card? Fourth, which of the several cards offered will provide the best discount on the drugs I am personally taking? Are the discounts offered worth the enrollment fee? Could I get a better deal through a separate discount plan offered outside of Medicare? Will I qualify if I am in Medicaid? The questions go on and on and on. The dizzying array of possibilities and permutations are shown in a number of the pieces of material that have been offered by CMS. I must say the charts and information provided are equally as confusing. One reason it is so confusing today is that seniors have nowhere to turn for reliable information. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has built a Web site, but it has already been found to have incorrect prices on many of the drugs Medicare recipients rely upon the most. Unless seniors have faith in the information on which they are basing their decisions, the fact they are given options will mean absolutely nothing. Second, the program unfairly locks seniors into their choices until the end of the year, even though the card sponsors can change the rules anytime they wish. Assuming that a Medicare recipient is able to get the information he or she needs to make a smart choice on a plan that could help, it may not matter. At any time, card sponsors can withdraw the discount they were offering on any drug. Meanwhile, even though the rules could change at any minute, Medicare recipients are actually locked into the choice they made until the next enrollment period comes. So they make their decision based on facts provided to them, and they are locked into that decision for the coming year. But those facts can change at any time--the day after, for example--and the Medicare recipient is now committed. Those facts for that recipient could change. This is an extraordinary invitation for abuse. It puts seniors, especially those with serious health conditions, in a very vulnerable position. Last week, the Secretary of Health and Human Services suggested that seniors wait before enrolling because more information will soon be available. Because enrollment begins today and the administration has not included this warning in its widespread advertising, I have urged Secretary Thompson to allow Medicare recipients at least a 30-day grace period to enable them to change their decisions should it turn out that another plan could offer a better discount. In the wake of the confusing and contradicting information seniors are receiving about these cards, the very least HHS can do is to offer them the flexibility to make the right choice once the right information becomes available. Finally, and most importantly, the program simply doesn't provide much of a discount. A recent analysis found that prices under the new drug cards would be no lower than prices currently available to Medicare beneficiaries. Furthermore, whatever discounts the cards may provide have already been factored into drug company pricing strategies. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that several of the drugs seniors use the most have actually seen prices increase more than three times the rate of inflation since this program was announced. In fact, drugmakers have already raised prices so much that the so- called discounts offered by this program will do little more than return the drugs to their original price. To add insult to injury, the new law only requires the card sponsors to pass along to beneficiaries a share of the discount that they do negotiate. That is not good enough, so I have introduced legislation that would require them to pass along at least 90 percent of the savings to seniors. Medicare should not be in the business of propping up profits at the expense of seniors. After wading through the stupefying process, with its myriad questions and calculations, the fact of the matter is many seniors will not see their drug costs go down 1 penny. Regrettably, this was entirely predictable. Instead of relying on commonsense solutions we know could bring down the cost of drugs for every senior, Congress created a mystifying maze of computations, replete with new vendors, changing rules, shifting prices, and unreliable information. There is a better way. Not long ago, I was contacted by a couple from Trent, SD, who, until January, spent $525 every month to pay for 17 different pills the wife had to take for her diabetes and high blood pressure. As the cost of the drugs rose higher and higher, it became more difficult to pay their monthly bills, much less enjoy the retirement they worked and saved for. So in order to make ends meet, the husband, at the age of 84--at the age of 84--started a paper route. Once a week, he spent a day delivering a weekly magazine to a number of small towns around Trent. He does not make much, certainly not enough to cover the cost of his wife's prescription drugs, but the added income relieved a little of the sting, and most of the urgent bills could be paid. In January, the couple called a pharmacy in Canada. They had heard drugs cost less on the other side of the border, and he was curious if they could save a little money. What they learned stunned them. The same drugs that cost $525 per month at their local pharmacy cost less than $100 in Canada. Over the course of the year, the couple will save over $5,000. This couple's experience points the way to two commonsense steps Congress could take to guarantee lower drug prices for all Americans. First, we must make it possible to safely and legally reimport drugs from countries with lower drug prices. Pharmaceutical companies charge American consumers the highest prices in the world. Some medicines cost American patients five times more than they cost patients in other countries. In effect, our citizens are charged a tax simply for being American. As a result, millions of Americans are having trouble affording lifesaving medication. Last month, Senators reached a bipartisan agreement to introduce a bill that would allow reimportation of prescription drugs. I want to thank Senators Dorgan and McCain for their extraordinary leadership, and also those who joined with us--Senators Snowe, Kennedy, and Lott, and others on both sides of the aisle. This is the same medication, manufactured at the same facilities, and inspected by the same rigorous safety standards. It is absurd, even cruel, to force Americans to pay wildly inflated costs, driving hundreds of thousands of Americans into poverty, just to pad the profits of pharmaceutical companies. Second, it is time to give the Government the same negotiating leverage it has on every other product it buys. When the Government buys computers or automobiles or equipment for our soldiers in uniform, it uses its purchasing power to get the taxpayer a better deal. We should have the same ability to negotiate for drugs on behalf of 41 million Medicare beneficiaries. The administration has repeatedly opposed this commonsense price- reducing measure and insisted on a provision in the Medicare law that expressly prohibits the Federal Government from using leverage to bargain for lower drug prices. Let's be clear, if we have the power to save taxpayers money and choose not to use it, we are, in effect, throwing taxpayers' money away. This is foolish and irresponsible. It helps no one but the drug companies who can count on their bloated profits. By defending the system, the administration is merely showing whose side they are truly on. America's seniors deserve better. The question isn't how we bring down drug costs for seniors. We know how. Rather the question we face is whether we truly want to bring down costs for seniors. The administration and many of our Republican colleagues have given their answer. Over the next several months, seniors are going to see this drug card program is not up to the task of controlling the spiraling drug costs. Instead of helping seniors afford the drugs they need, it is designed to help drug companies reap the profits to which they are accustomed. Seniors need a real Medicare prescription drug benefit that puts their needs first. We are going to try to continue to work across the aisle, as we did with the reimportation bill, to find a way to bring down these costs, to find a way to empower the Government to work on behalf of all seniors to negotiate better prices. There is an answer to the high cost of prescription drugs. The program being introduced today and unveiled this week is not it. We can do better than this, and I hope we will. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, every year on the 30th day of April, nations throughout the world, especially in Latin America, honor and celebrate the importance of children to families and communities. Many Latino families honor their children on this day by celebrating El Dia de los Ninos in their homes. Today, nearly 45 million children under the age of 18 reside in the United States, and one in four of these children are of Hispanic descent. The El Dia de los Ninos holiday provides a wonderful opportunity for all Americans to pay tribute to those who represent the future of our great country--our Nation's youth. A growing number of cities, schools, libraries, museums, churches, and other community organizations across the nation observe this holiday by planning activities and events that celebrate children. While El Dia de los Ninos recognizes the importance of children, the holiday also provides an occasion to shed light on the unique challenges currently facing Latino children in America. Every day nationwide, 751 Latino children are born into poverty; 518 are born without health care; and 561 Latino high school students drop out of school. As every parent knows, our children are a gift we have been given in exchange for a commitment to put their well-being above all else. It is our covenant to meet our children's needs before our own and to work and plan so that they may have a better future. The Bush administration's fiscal year 2005 budget proposal breaks that covenant by giving tax cuts for the wealthy higher priority than investments in our children. His administration has created record deficits that mortgage our children's future. The choices contained in the President's budget fail to address the basic needs of children in key areas such as health care, education, Head Start, child care, housing, child nutrition, and the prevention of, and treatment for, child abuse and neglect. The number of Americans without health insurance increased by 2.4 million between 2001 and 2002, the largest jump in a decade, to a total of almost 44 million. Among those 44 million are more than 9 million children under age 19, almost 90 percent of whom live in working families. However, the administration's budget proposal does nothing to significantly expand health insurance coverage. Latinos are the most likely of all groups to lack health insurance. One-third of Latinos, 33.2 percent, lack health insurance, and nearly one-quarter, 24.1 percent, of Latino children are uninsured. Since a significant reason for the low level of insurance coverage among Hispanic children is the result of current law that bars them from participating in Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, removing these barriers to health care is key to ensuring that Latino children have access to health care services. Yet, the administration's budget does not recommend taking this important step, leaving millions of children without coverage. Just when schools are struggling to meet the new requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, President Bush has proposed the smallest increase in Federal education funding in 9 years. Since 2002, the NCLB program has been shortchanged by $26.5 billion. This year alone, President Bush has proposed a budget that would underfund the NCLB program by $9.4 billion. The administration's budget shortchanges education programs that are particularly important for Latino students. Dropout assistance, bilingual education funding, Migrant Education, HEP and CAMP and the parent assistance program--all of which help migrant students--are all significantly underfunded. The President's budget proposal would virtually freeze Head Start funding even though the program currently reaches only 3 out of 5 eligible preschoolers, and only 3 percent of infants and toddlers eligible for Early Head Start. At a time when the Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Services Programs serve only 19 percent of eligible migrant and seasonal children, the President's budget provides $269.4 million--far short of what is needed to meet demand. The President's budget proposal would flat-fund child care assistance at a time when only 1 out of 7 eligible children currently receives a child care subsidy; when States are making significant cuts to child care services due to State budget crises that are exacerbated by recent tax cuts; and when more than 550,000 children across the country are on waiting lists for child care assistance. The Senate recently voted 78 to 20 to increase the Federal investment in child care so that low- income working families can succeed in the workplace and make sure their children have safe, high-quality, appropriate care. The President's budget proposal cuts section 8 housing assistance by $789 million, intensifying the unmet need for affordable housing. Of the 2 million households that receive section 8 rental vouchers, 52 percent are families with children, making section 8 the main source of housing assistance for low-income children. The President's budget proposal provides no significant increase in funding for child nutrition programs, while 22 million children live in households suffering from hunger or living on the very edge of hunger. More than 900,000 children were abused and neglected in 2001, yet the investments proposed for preventing child abuse and neglect and assisting children and families in crisis, totaling $151 million, fall far short of the need. As we look to the future, we must do more than simply hope that our country will be in good hands. We must take steps to ensure that each child growing up in America has access to world-class health care and a quality education. El Dia de los Ninos allows us to celebrate the hopes and dreams of our children while reflecting on their many accomplishments and assisting them in reaching their future goals. As a proud father and grandfather, I happily celebrate El Dia de los Ninos. However, my commitment to young Americans and the Latino Community will not end today. I am committed to championing legislation that will help families realize the vision of El Dia de los Ninos increased access to health care; higher investments in Head Start, education, and child care; access to decent housing; stronger child nutrition programs; and more child abuse prevention and treatment programs. By working to meet our children's needs today, we are building a better future for all Americans.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent to take 1 minute of leader time to respond. Mr. President, I was 1 of those 74 Senators who voted for the motion to proceed. I want to see this bill completed. I would like to find a way to resolve the outstanding differences. I think that can happen. We have now found ourselves in a position where cloture would deny Senators the opportunity to offer relevant amendments. They may not be germane but they certainly are relevant. So I would vote against cloture in the hope that we can find a way to continue this debate and allow for the offering of amendments that are relevant. My hope is that at the end of the day we can reach a conclusion procedurally as well as substantively.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I did not have the opportunity to hear all of what the distinguished chairman of the committee has said, but what I did hear him say I find myself in agreement with. Let me first talk procedurally for a moment and then I want to talk substantively. I hope, procedurally, we can reach an agreement to attempt to get to the votes earlier rather than later. I think it would be great if we could have the three cloture votes beginning at noon to accommodate our policy conference meeting. If that could be done, I think it would also accommodate a number of Senators' schedules. With regard to the larger procedural question, this is not our first choice. This is not the way we ought to approach comprehensive energy legislation or targeted energy legislation, as my amendment did with ethanol. I have made no secret of my frustration and disappointment with regard to the conference process and the way in which Democrats again were locked out of the opportunity to express themselves. I warned our House colleagues and our leadership on the other side with regard to putting MTBE legislation into the conference report. All those warnings, all those admonitions, all those concerns about being locked out have been expressed on a number of occasions. As I said the other day, I am also very deeply concerned about the reported decision to delay any real debate about energy legislation until the fall. I think it was reported in the Energy Daily on Tuesday. So for all of those procedural concerns, we had no choice but to act as we did the other day and to provide at least an opportunity for Senators to be heard and for us to vote once again on legislation that on a bipartisan basis this Senate has supported over and over. The first vote we will cast this morning will be on the renewable fuels standard. I hope our colleagues will support cloture on it. Two- thirds of the Senate has voted for it in the past. All we need, of course, is 60 votes so I cannot imagine that anybody would flip their vote, having supported it on several occasions, and vote against it as we contemplate its consideration today. It is the exact same legislation that we have offered. It eliminates the reformulated gasoline programs oxygen standard, replaces it with the renewable fuel standard, and sets a 10-year schedule for assured growth in alternative energy. It contains the same waiver authority agreed to in the energy conference report and it strikes all liability protection for MTBE and ethanol and bans MTBE within 4 years. So this is an amendment that merits the bipartisan support that it has received before, and I hope our colleagues could support the amendment. I hope my colleagues will support cloture on the comprehensive Energy bill. Senator Domenici did what he said he was going to do. He took out MTBE liability immunity. He has also taken out the provisions having to do with many of the tax incentives created originally in the Energy bill. This is a much different bill. So those who voted against it before I think ought to look very carefully at voting in favor of it this time. One of the reasons on this side of the aisle that we have always opposed cloture is to protect Members' rights to offer amendments. In this case, there is no concern for the protection of a Senator's rights because they will be protected. We are only bringing cloture on the amendment. The bill is open as wide as it is now to any amendment that Senators wish to offer on energy or on anything else. So we are not in any way excluding or minimizing Senators' opportunities to be heard and to offer other legislation. I might say the third cloture vote is the critical one. That is the cloture motion that I hope will be defeated, because I believe we have not had a good enough debate on the Internet tax bill. We have not had an opportunity to offer our amendments. We have not really had the kind of debate that an issue of this import requires. There are very divergent views in the Senate on a bipartisan basis, and I think as we consider those divergent views it is critical for us to ensure the debate and the opportunity to reach consensus prior to the time we invoke cloture or bring this bill to a premature conclusion and have the vote that I think can be taken at some point as that debate produces the consensus for which we are looking. So if we are going to accommodate the schedule that I have just suggested, I will not dominate the floor. Let me again reiterate that I hope my colleagues will support the cloture vote on ethanol. I hope they will support the cloture vote on energy. I hope they will oppose the cloture vote on the Internet tax bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, who controls time?

Mr. DASCHLE. That was my understanding. How much time remains?

Mr. DASCHLE. How much time will the Senator from Oregon require?

Mr. DASCHLE. I hope we can yield back as much time as possible to accommodate the votes as quickly as possible, but I am happy to yield to the Senator from Oregon 5 minutes and the Senator from Delaware 5 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Before I yield additional time, I know Senator Carper wanted 5 minutes, and I will yield to our distinguished manager, the Senator from North Dakota, 5 minutes. But I want to be sure people understand there will be three votes, regardless of the outcome of these votes. There will be a vote on the Daschle amendment; there will be a vote on cloture on the energy amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico; and there will be a vote on McCain, a cloture vote on the McCain substitute, the amendment pending. There will be three cloture votes. I know there was some question as to whether there would be a vote, given how the amendments may be resolved. The votes will be cast regardless. I yield the floor to accommodate the requests made by my colleagues.

Mr. DASCHLE. As I understand it, under the rule we had a minute to respond. Let me just say that I am disappointed that we didn't get cloture on the Daschle amendment. I am also troubled by the fact that we find ourselves in this position to begin with. We should not be on the Energy bill as an amendment to the Internet tax, but many of us have been asking to have an energy bill scheduled now for some time for good, open debate, given our failure to pass the conference report. This is our only option. This does not in any way preclude a Senator from offering other energy amendments on the Internet tax bill. It doesn't in any way undermine a Senator's right to be heard on an energy debate. If we move to cloture, we bring this bill to an opportunity that otherwise we should have had, had the legislation been freestanding. So far that has not happened. I hope Senators will support cloture so we can move this energy legislation forward. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr President, an historic gathering took place in South Dakota last week. For 2 days, Indians and non-Indians came together to discuss how they could improve the schools attended by Indian children in South Dakota. The South Dakota Indian Education Summit was sponsored by our Governor, Mike Rounds, and our state Education Department, working with tribal leaders and educators. It grew out of an extraordinary conference last October that I was proud to cosponsor. That Gathering and Healing of Nations conference brought Indians and non-Indians together to talk honestly about the issues that divide us, and the issues that unite us. At the Indian Education Summit last week, most of the discussion focused on how to make sure the No Child Left Behind Act improves the schools Indian children attend. As we all know, concerns about No Child Left Behind are not limited to Indian Country. But they are especially acute in many parts of Indian Country, largely because of the Federal Government's long history of severely underfunding Indian education. I have heard from many Indian educators who tell me they are deeply concerned that the Federal Government will not provide Indian schools with the resources they need to meet the higher standards in No Child Left Behind. They are worried as well that the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Education may be placing too much emphasis on testing students and labeling schools--and not enough emphasis on helping schools correct problems. They're concerned about preserving native cultures and languages. These are all legitimate concerns. We need to pay attention to them. That is why I have asked the Senate Indian Affairs Committee to hold hearings on how the No Child Left Behind Act is being implemented in Indian Country. I have not received a reply yet from the committee chairman, but I am hopeful that there will be agreement on the importance of holding such a hearing. I know he cares deeply about the need for the Federal Government to honor its trust and treaty obligations regarding education. President Bush has proposed three Federal budgets since he signed the No Child Left Behind Act. All three have shortchanged No Child Left Behind. The President's proposed budget for next year--fiscal year 2005--underfunds the new law by $9.4 billion. Schools serving Indian children are among the oldest, poorest, and most crowded schools in America. They have been drastically underfunded for decades. The last thing children attending Indian schools need is to be denied the opportunities, resources, and good teachers the new law promises--and then have their schools labeled as ``failing.'' That is why, during debate last month on the budget resolution for next year, Democrats offered an amendment to fully fund No Child Left Behind for all schools, including BIA schools. Regrettably, Republicans defeated our amendment. But we are not giving up. We will continue to press to make sure No Child Left Behind is funded adequately and implemented sensibly in Indian Country, so that this Nation leaves no Indian child behind, either. America also needs to face up to the massive school facilities problem in Indian Country. There is an overwhelming backlog of facility repair and construction projects for BIA schools, and the BIA estimates the cost of completing those projects at nearly $1.2 billion. In 2000, when he was running for President, then-Governor Bush met with tribal leaders in New Mexico and promised to invest $1 billion to fix crumbling BIA schools. Yet the President's proposed budget for next year cuts funding for Indian school, reconstruction for the second year in a row. That is wrong. Crow Creek Tribal Schools in Stephan, SD are among the nearly 200 BIA-funded and BIA-operated schools in the United States. Their buildings are typical of schools throughout Indian Country. They are crowded, crumbling, and outdated. Some of them date to the 1930s. Between 500 and 600 students attend classes in them. Two years ago, Crow Creek's middle school was condemned and replaced with modular trailers. An elementary school also need to be replaced. The high school gym is in such poor structural condition that it can only be used for limited purposes; the district has to rent gym space from other schools for basketball games. They don't know where they will hold their graduation this year. Crow Creek Tribal Chairman Duane Big Eagle has been lobbying for money to fix the schools on the reservation for 25 years. Two months ago, he drove 4,000 miles to try to find someone in the Federal Government who would help him. He drove first to the BIA facilities and construction office in Albuquerque. When he found no help there, he drove to BIA headquarters in Washington, DC. Senator Tim Johnson and I met with Chairman Big Eagle while he was in Washington, and I have since spoken with BIA officials about the Crow Creek schools. I am pleased to report that the BIA has agreed to provide $2.5 million for a new 17,000-square-foot gymnasium. But there are still schools all over Indian Country where conditions would shock most Americans--schools with no heat and schools where the cold wind whips in through broken windows. Schools where trash cans are positioned in classrooms to catch the rain water that pours in through holes in the roofs. The He Dog Tribal School in Rosebud is a two-story brick building built in the 1930s. Its ``library'' is three shelves of books on one bookcase. A while back, leaders from the Dakota Area Consortium of Treaty Schools proposed a smart way to address the backlog of school construction needs in Indian Country. Their proposal called for the creation of a new Indian school-bonding authority that would use Federal dollars to leverage other funds. We have been working with Senator Johnson to help create this authority, and we now have bipartisan support. We ought to consider it--and any other innovative ideas people may have to deal with the school-construction backlog--and then we must act. It shouldn't take a tribal chairman driving thousands of miles for Indian children to be able to attend safe schools with adequate space and up-to-date books and computers. The right to attend a good school should be the birthright of every child in America. But Native American children have a special claim on this right. Our Government has given its word, in treaties and laws, to provide education, health care, housing, and other basic necessities to Indian tribes and their members forever. Education and other Federal programs serving Native Americans are not handouts; they are treaty obligations. They are installment payments the United States Government owes for land the tribes surrendered reluctantly more than a century ago. America has never even come close to meeting those obligations. You can see the legacy of this neglect in the harsh realities of life in Indian Country today: houses with no electricity, plumbing, or telephones. On some reservations in South Dakota, people live in homes with no running water; they have to haul water from 15 or 20 miles away. It is not unusual on reservations in South Dakota for 20 members of an extended family to share one small, three-bedroom home. Three hundred families on Pine Ridge are living in homes that are contaminated with black mold. The Pine Ridge Reservation needs 3,000 new houses just to meet the current demand. During the depths of the Great Depression, 25 percent of Americans were unemployed. Today, on many reservations in South Dakota and other States, the unemployment rate is twice that high--or higher. Native Americans live sicker and die younger than other Americans as a result of inadequate health care. Their higher rates of diabetes, heart disease, sudden infant death syndrome, tuberculosis, alcoholism, and many other serious health problems are the direct result of our Government's long history of dramatically underfunding Indian health. Our Government spends twice as much per person on health care for federal prisoners as it does on health care for Native Americans. I am still baffled by that statistic. We spend twice as much per person on health care for Federal prisoners in this country--$3,800 per capita-- as we do on the children on Indian reservations--$1,900 per capita this year. The rationing of health care at Indian Health clinics and hospitals is so severe that sick and injured people who are not in immediate danger of losing their life or a limb are routinely turned away and denied any care. This is immoral. Tribal roads make up two-and-a-half percent of Federal roads in this country, yet tribes receive only one-half-of-one-percent of Federal road funding. The poor condition of many tribal roads is a significant reason that the rate of fatal traffic accidents on tribal roads is four times higher than the national average. It is also a major obstacle to economic opportunity in Indian Country. These are just a few of the ways the Federal Government is failing to meet its trust and treaty obligations to Native people and tribes. Unfortunately, President Bush's proposed budget for next year would make things even worse. Dozens of programs serving Native Americans and Alaska Natives are flat-lined, reduced, or simply eliminated. According to the National Congress of American Indians, the President's proposed budget cuts Indian hospital and clinic construction by 56 percent; Indian school construction by 19 percent; and tribal college funding by 11.5 percent. The tribal COPS program is slated to be cut by 20 percent, the tribal courts program by 26 percent, and the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program by 83 percent. The President's proposed budget also cuts $52 million from the BIA for tribal law enforcement, tribal roads, and Indian child welfare programs. Earlier this month, BIA Assistant Secretary Dave Anderson shocked tribes with an announcement that BIA programs will be slashed another $79 million in fiscal year 2006. The president of the National Congress of American Indians, Tex Hall, has said, ``Asking us to somehow prioritize which programs in the BIA should be cut is like asking Indian Country to decide which child should go hungry, which elder should go unprotected, and which of those who need medical help should go untreated.'' Rather than do that, the National Congress of American Indians and BIA's Tribal Budget Advisory Council met recently with BIA officials in Washington over 2 days to develop an alternative budget. A tribal leader from my State, John Steele, president of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, is a member of that advisory council. Assistant Secretary Anderson visited South Dakota reservations recently, so I know he is familiar with the staggering unmet needs of Indian Country. He surely must know that cuts such as those recommended by the White House will do real harm to people and communities that have already suffered greatly because of the policies and neglect of the Federal Government. I hope Assistant Secretary Anderson will consider carefully the recommendations of the Tribal Budget Advisory Council as he prepares his budget request for fiscal year 2006. If he will take a strong stand for this government to meet its trust and treaty obligations, I know he will find many allies in Congress. I am one of them. But Assistant Secretary Anderson and Interior Secretary Norton do not have to wait until the department completes its fiscal year 2006 budget proposal. They can do something today that will not cost a dime and will make a significant difference in the lives of thousands of Native Americans, especially children. Three times now, the Federal judge hearing the Cobell v. Norton Indian trust case has had to order the Interior Department to shut down its computer system to protect individual Indian money accounts from hackers. Every time BIA has shut down computers in the Office of Special Trustee, it has shut down the computers serving Indian schools as well. The last time, the shutdown lasted for 5 days. Such disruptions cause serious problems for teachers, students, and school administrators. In response to a recent letter from me, Interior Department officials said they did not choose to shut down the BIA school computers; they were forced to do so when the judge ordered the Indian trust computers shut down. I have been told there is a simple solution: All Interior Department officials have to do is properly certify and verify to the court hearing the Cobell lawsuit that the BIA school computers are separate from the trust fund computers and protected from intrusion. Based on the department's certification and verification, if the trust fund computers ever have to be shut down again, BIA school computers will be spared. It is a simple step that can make a difference in the education of Indian children, and I urge the Interior Department to do it as soon as possible. I also ask the Interior Department, the White House, and our Republican colleagues to work with us to come up with budgets that honor America's trust and treaty obligations to Indian people and tribes--next year, the year after that, and every year. This should not be a partisan issue.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last week was National Minority Cancer Awareness Week, an annual event for the past 18 years. Though we have been monitoring disparities in cancer for nearly two decades, the gap in some cancer mortalities has widened rather than narrowed. One of the most important reasons for this disparity is poor access to health care. People who do not get mammograms, colon exams, and Pap tests on schedule are more likely to be diagnosed with cancer at a later stage of the disease, when survival rates are lower. And why don't they get these necessary tests on time? Members of racial and ethnic minority groups are more likely to be poor, have lower education levels, and less likely to have health coverage or a source of primary care. Recently, I told the story of a young Indian girl who was misdiagnosed with heartburn at an under-funded Indian Health Service clinic. It turned out that she really had stomach cancer that had already spread and was, therefore, untreatable. I will remind you that this is not some rare exception. For Native Americans and other minority communities across the country, the miracles of modern medicine--and sometimes even the most basic primary care--are beyond their reach. The disparities within our health care system have reached a crisis point, and the consequences for America's minority communities are staggering. Overall, African Americans are more likely to develop cancer than persons of any other racial or ethnic group. Cervical cancer incidence in Hispanic women has been consistently higher at all ages than for other women. Only 52 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native women aged 40 years and older have had a recent mammogram. American Indians and Alaska Natives have the poorest survival rate from all cancers combined when compared to other racial and ethnic groups. I am grateful that National Minority Cancer Awareness Week causes us to reflect on these facts. America faces few more important or complex challenges than building a world-class health care system for everyone, regardless of race, income, or geography. There are no quick fixes. The factors that have led to these inequities in our health system are complex and interrelated. Minorities are far less likely to have health insurance or a family doctor, making regular preventive visits less likely. And many of those who do have insurance report having little or no choice in where they seek care. Minority communities are more frequently exposed to environmental risks, such as polluted industrial areas, cheap older housing with lead paint, or asbestos-laden water pipes. For Hispanics, Native Americans, and others who do not speak English as a first language, the lack of translators and bilingual doctors makes it more difficult to communicate with doctors and nurses. The Native American community has been forced to cope with a system suffering from decades of neglect and underfunding of the Indian Health Service. The IHS has consistently grown at a far slower rate than the rest of the HHS budget, and at only a fraction of health care inflation. America is obligated, by statute and by treaty, to provide health care for American Indians--a commitment the U.S. Government made to the Indian people in exchange for their lands. America is not honoring that commitment. The White House's budget this year included only $2.1 billion for IHS clinical services. That is more than 60 percent below the bare minimum needed to provide basic health care for people already in the IHS system. The problems run still deeper. Even when minorities and white Americans have roughly the same insurance coverage, the same income, the same age and the same health conditions, minorities receive less aggressive and less effective care than whites. The racial and ethnic disparities in our health care system are not merely minority issues or health care issues. They are moral issues. A health care system that provides lesser treatment for minorities offends every American principle of justice and equality. The Republican Leadership has promised to address these issues. After seeing no action for almost a year, House and Senate Democrats, led by the House Minority Caucuses, introduced the Healthcare Equality and Accountability Act of 2003. This legislation would reduce health disparities and improve the quality of care for racial and ethnic minorities. There are several elements of this bill that would specifically address minority cancer rate reduction. I would like to highlight four particularly important issues. First, this bill will provide adequate funding for the Indian Health Service--so that we can finally stop the shameful underfunding of Indian health needs. Second, it will provide funds to increase cancer prevention and treatment programs. This includes the development of screening guidelines for minority populations for chronic diseases, including prostate, breast, and colon cancer. Third, this bill will provide funding through the Health Research and Services Administration, the Indian Health Service, and the National Cancer Institute for patient navigators. Patient navigators work in underserved communities to bring individuals into the health care system sooner, so they can learn about preventing and detecting diseases--especially cancer--before they become ill. Patient navigators also help individuals overcome language and cultural barriers to setting up appointments and understanding their doctors' instructions. Patient navigators can also be important resources to individuals living in rural areas, since they often have to travel outside their communities to receive certain health services. The American Cancer Society notes that ``Patient navigator programs offer a low-cost, tangible fix in a part of our health care system that is broken, giving hope to millions of medically underserved individuals, saving lives and reducing health care costs.'' The last item I would like to highlight in this bill is the focus on improved health literacy, the degree to which individuals can obtain, process, and understand basic health information. The bill will provide funds to support programs that remove language and cultural barriers. Just two weeks ago, the Institute of Medicine released its report on health literacy and recommended that ``Government and private funders should support the development and use of culturally appropriate new measures of health literacy.'' On that same day, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality released findings that showed that individuals with low literacy-- lower-than-average reading skills--are less likely than other Americans to get potentially life-savings screening tests such as mammograms and Pap smears. In addition, Secretary Thompson remarked that, ``We must ensure that all Americans get the prevention and health information that they can understand and use to keep themselves and their families healthy.'' He pointed out, ``Health literacy can save lives, money, and improve the health of millions of Americans.'' The Healthcare Equality and Accountability Act would move us closer to the goal of ensuring equal access to quality health care. Last year, the majority leader said, ``Inequity is a cancer than can no longer be allowed to fester in health care.'' I agree. We know what happens when cancer is allowed to spread. Too many Americans in minority communities have lost their lives because they are not getting the care they need. We cannot afford to wait any longer to confront the minority health gap in our country. Americans are asking for our leadership on a challenge that is quickly becoming a national emergency. We have an obligation to answer their call.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor for a couple of minutes because I want to thank a man who is a fixture in this institution. Tom Lundregan is the Senate's enrolling clerk and as fine a public servant as you will find anywhere. Today marks his last day in the Senate, and I know that I speak for all of us when I say we are going to miss him. Tom began his Government service 36 years ago as a printing apprentice with the Government Printing Office. Over the next 21 years, he was detailed a number of times to both the House and the Senate. Fifteen years ago, the Senate was fortunate enough to convince Tom to join us full-time, as member of the Office of the Senate Enrolling Clerk. Since 1995, he has headed that office and served this institution with great distinction. ``Enrolling clerk'' is one of those curious Senate titles that even devoted C-SPAN watchers might have a hard time defining. It is the enrolling clerk's responsibility to proofread and prepare for printing every page of legislation the Senate passes, and then transmit those pages to the House of Representatives, the National Archives, the Secretary of State, the United States Claims Court, and the White House. It is also the enrolling clerk who transmits Senate messages to the House, and arranges for the delivery of all Senate-enrolled bills and resolutions to the White House. The job demands diligence, intelligence, enormous attention to detail and often incredibly long hours. When legislation needs to be moved quickly to the House, or prepared for preconferencing, the enrolling clerk and his staff work until the job is done. I know that, many times, Tom has had only enough time to go home and take a shower before coming right back to face another workday. He and his staff have also worked through weekends, recesses, and holidays, and they have done so without a word of complaint. As enrolling clerk, Tom worked closely with the Secretary of the Senate and the Senate Legislative Counsel's Office to establish policies regarding the proper form and language of legislation. He also worked with the Legislative Counsel's Office to develop software that will soon allow the enrolling clerks and legislative counsel offices to share data electronically. These projects--and others--will ensure that Tom's influence will continue to be felt in the Senate for years to come. As some know, Tom was actually scheduled to retire 16 months ago but he stayed on to help train his successor and ensure a smooth transition. That's how committed he is to this Senate. More than once in these last 16 months, Tom has reminded his successor, ``We need to be 100 percent right, not just 99.9 percent.'' In 36 years of service to the people of the United States, Tom Lundregan has held himself to that same high standard. With Tom, there is no such thing as ``good enough for government work.'' We could not have a Government ``of the people, by the people and for the people'' without the extraordinary devotion and skill of people such as Tom. He is a public servant in the best sense of that term and an important and valued member of our Senate family. Today, on the occasion of Tom's well-deserved retirement, I joint the rest of the Senate family in thanking Tom. I also want to thank Tom's wife Yanjie Xu for sharing her husband with the Senate at least 16 months longer than she had planned. We wish them well as they finally begin those travels they have looked forward to for so long, and we want them to know that they take with them the thanks, admiration, and best wishes of the entire Senate.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to respond to the distinguished majority leader. Like him, I have come to the Senate floor on several occasions advocating for passage of the FSC bill. Many of us believe it may be the only opportunity we have to address, meaningfully, jobs policy and the creation of new jobs in this country. His characterization of our position is unfortunate and inaccurate. We have no desire to filibuster the bill. We simply believe Senators ought to have a right to offer amendments. That was really the discussion and the debate earlier as the legislation was offered. We had an amendment that simply provided for protection for 8 million workers who were not accorded overtime, who the administration now acknowledges were prepared to take overtime as a part of their compensation packages. We fought it. The administration has changed it, not to our satisfaction. But had it not been for our fight, I doubt very much that overtime could have been protected for the millions of workers who otherwise would see it as lost. We also want to ensure that we have an opportunity to deal with the outsourcing problem. Outsourcing is a very serious issue today. The President has created a new program called Higher Hour Workers. The acronym is HOW. Well, that is our question. How? How are you going to do it? What we have seen so far from this administration falls far short of what we need to do if we are serious about meaningfully addressing the problem of jobs in this country. This administration has lost 3 million jobs. We have not seen an administration like this in seven administrations. We want to address the terrible and unfortunate record we have seen with regard to the economy over the last 36 months. So our hope is we can create a real opportunity to debate jobs, to debate the way with which we can compete in the international markets. That is our desire. I went to Senator Frist and offered him an agreement, after this cloture vote, and indicated that we would limit our ourselves to 18 amendments. I presented that to him. I was hoping we could get a unanimous consent agreement. That was not done and, as a result, time was lost. Now, as we understand it, they have over 50 amendments pending to this bill. We have something like 30. So there is no filibuster going on. They have some difficulty on their side in trying to address this issue, and in an expeditious way. We will get through the amendments. It is unfortunate we could not have agreed to the 18. We would be done with it by now. But there has been a practice on the Senate floor, over the last several months--we get on a bill, an amendment is offered, the bill is pulled; we move to another bill, we get on that, an amendment is offered, the bill is pulled. We have to stay on a bill to finish the bill. I am hopeful we can stay on the Internet tax bill until it is finished, that we can stay then on the FSC bill until it is finished, and welfare reform until it is finished. We can accomplish a lot, but we have to have greater attention to the work at hand and a willingness to stay with it until it is done. That is the nature of the Senate. That is the way we function. That is our institutional history. We are prepared to work with our Republican colleagues on these and other bills in the months ahead to make that happen. I yield the floor.