Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have heard many remembrances of President Reagan these last 3 days. One of my own favorite stories about President Reagan appeared in the Boston Globe on St. Patrick's Day, 1983. It begins: In his corner office, House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. has proudly hung a photograph of President Reagan. It shows the two men, their faces agitated in the heat of a argument over jobs and the economy, each jabbing a finger at each other. Underneath, a puckish inscription from `Ron Reagan' to `Tip' reads, `From one Irishman to another--Top o' the morning to you.' That photograph conveys the flavor of perhaps the most important political relationship in Washington, for it juxtaposes the sharp partisan confrontations between the two men with the personal cordiality that suits the current mood of bipartisanship. The headline on that article read: ``Reagan and O'Neill: Each One Needs the Other.'' Ronald Reagan was many things in life: An actor, a Governor, the President. For countless millions throughout the world, he was the voice and the image of American confidence and optimism. Even those who disagreed strongly with many of his policies admired his sunny disposition, his easy grace and charm, his quick wit, and his unshakable conviction, as he said so often, that America's best days are just ahead of us. He was a self-made son of small-town, middle America who loved this Nation because of the chance it gave him--and generations of Americans before and after him--to go as far in life as their talents and ambitions could take them. Historians will still be taking the measure of Ronald Reagan and his presidency for decades to come. But even now, it is clear that President Reagan presided over, and helped bring about, enormous changes in America, and in the world. His unflinching opposition to communism helped bring down the wall and bring about the end of the Soviet Union. For that, the world owes Ronald Reagan a great debt of gratitude. Americans, and friends of America throughout the world, are saddened by President Reagan's death. Our hearts go out to the Reagan family, especially Mrs. Reagan and the Reagan children and grandchildren, as well as to President and Mrs. Reagan's friends. Even when someone has been slipping away for a long time, as President Reagan did, the final goodbye is still heartbreaking. We wish them comfort in this time of great sorrow. In his 1987 autobiography, ``Man of the House,'' Tip O'Neill recalled the time President-elect Reagan visited him in his office in early 1981. The Speaker told the man who was soon to be President that in the House, Democrats and Republicans ``are always friends after 6 o'clock and on weekends.'' For the next 6 years, until he retired, Tip O'Neill recalled, President Reagan always began their phone conversations by asking, ``Tip, is it after 6 o'clock?'' It has been nearly 10 years since President Reagan wrote his courageous letter to America telling us that he had Alzheimer's disease. In the decade since President Reagan began his quiet withdrawal from public life, the civility and personal decency that we associate with him seems, at times, to have all but disappeared from much of our public discourse. The elbows in politics have become sharper, the words have become meaner--and the accomplishments have become scarcer. Sadly, there is a tendency today to assume ill will and bad motives of those who belong to the other party--or even another wing of one's own party. This decline of civility in politics and public discourse is not good for America. It does not make us safer, or stronger. President Reagan spoke to all that was good and decent in America. We would honor him by restoring decency to our politics. Ronald Reagan was a man who believed deeply in his core principles. He would not want any of us to compromise our own core principles in his memory. But there is such a thing as principled compromise. President Reagan understood that. He knew that accommodation was needed to make the system work. Like many conservatives, President Reagan had some basic philosophical qualms about Social Security. But he appointed a bipartisan commission to find ways to save Social Security from imminent insolvency--and he backed the commission's plan. That was principled compromise at work. Twenty-four years ago this week, Ronald Reagan had just clinched the delegates needed to win his party's 1980 Presidential nomination. It was a nomination he had worked for for 12 years. A newspaper reporter asked him what he thought he needed to do next. He replied that he wanted to dispel the notion that he was a hard- nosed radical who would oppose compromise on principle. As he put it: You know, there are some people so imbued with their ideology that if they can't get everything they want, they'll jump off the cliff with the flag flying. As governor, I found out that if I could get half a loaf, instead of stalking off angrily, I'd take it. Perhaps because he himself was a Democrat early in his life, President Reagan never demonized his political opponents--even when he disagreed profoundly with them. When Tip O'Neill turned 70, President Reagan hosted a reception for him at the White House. There they were: the opposing champions of laissez-faire economics and New Deal liberalism. President Reagan toasted Tip O'Neill by saying: Tip, if I had a ticket to heaven and you didn't have one too, I would give mine away and go to hell with you. President Reagan and Tip O'Neill, I am convinced, are reunited in heaven now. As we prepare here in the Capitol to say our final goodbye to President Reagan, let us remember his capacity to see the best in everyone, including those whose political views differed starkly from his own. Let us remember that there is no dishonor in accepting a half a loaf. In the months ahead and for as long as we are given the honor of serving in Congress, let us search and work for principled compromises that serve the interests of the vast majority of Americans. In that way, we can help to preserve President Reagan's great belief and hope that America's best days are, indeed, just ahead. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I thought it might be helpful if the majority leader would walk through the week's schedule. I have had a number of questions about the schedule. As I understand it, we will have the vote tomorrow, and tomorrow will be dedicated primarily to remarks on the floor by colleagues and Members in tribute to the President. Then beginning as early as noon-- is it on Wednesday?--we will not anticipate any session. Then at 7 o'clock Wednesday night, it is my understanding the memorial service here in the Capitol be will held for Members only.

Mr. DASCHLE. Is it the majority leader's intention to be in session on Thursday?

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, then we have the official memorial service in the National Cathedral at 11:30 on Friday morning. Is that correct?

Mr. DASCHLE. Senators should be aware they have all day today and up until 3 o'clock tentatively tomorrow to come to the floor to make presentations. Obviously, Senators are welcome to speak about any issue. My hope is we would want to accommodate Senators who wish to speak in memory of President Reagan and perhaps defer other remarks unrelated to these tributes to next week. Obviously, as I say, it is every Senator's prerogative to make that decision. I appreciate the majority leader's clarification on the schedule.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama and share his and the leader's view that given the agreements we have reached with regard to consideration of amendments on the DOD authorization bill, that we can work in a way that will accommodate that goal of completing our work on the bill before the end of next week.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to again say farewell this morning to a wonderful group of young men and women who have served as Senate pages over the last 5 months and thank them for their contributions to the day-to-day operations of the Senate. This particular group of pages has served with distinction, and they have done a marvelous job of balancing their responsibilities to their studies and to this body. Today is their final day as Senate pages. I want to say thank you to Andrew Blais of Rhode Island; Katherine Buck of New Hampshire; Sam Cannon of Utah; Erin Chase of South Dakota; Eric Coykendall of Arizona; Julie Cyr of Vermont; Joe Galli of Maine; Watson Hemrick of Tennessee; Jennifer Hirsch of Arkansas; Garrett Jackson of Mississippi; Kara Johnson of Illinois; Ben Kappelman of Montana; Andrew Knox of Vermont; Adam Lathan of Alabama; Betsy Lefholz of South Dakota; Brittney Moraski of Michigan; Alex Ogden of North Carolina; Jaclyn Pfaehler of Montana; Aaron Porter of Tennessee; Ingrid Price of Utah; Laura Pritchard of Virginia; Laura Refsland of Wisconsin; Ryan Smith of Kentucky; Kyra Waitley of Idaho; Nathanael Whipple of California; and Elizabeth Wright of Montana. I suspect few people understand how hard Senate pages work. On a typical day, pages are in school by 6:15 a.m. After several hours of classes each morning, pages then report to the Capitol to prepare the Senate Chamber for the day's session. Throughout the day, and sometimes into the night, pages are called upon to perform a wide array of tasks, from obtaining copies of documents and reports for Senators to use during debate, to running errands between the Capitol and the Senate office buildings, to lending a hand at our weekly conference luncheons. Once we finish our business here for the day, no matter what time, the pages return to the dorm and prepare for the next day's classes and Senate session and, we hope, get some much-needed sleep. Despite this rigorous schedule, these young people continually discharge their tasks efficiently and cheerfully. In fact, as one page said, ``We like working hard. When things get hectic, that's when we like it best.'' This page class had the good fortune to witness some historic moments. They saw President Bush present the Congressional Gold Medal to Dorothy Height, one of the giants of the modern civil rights movement in America. They were present for important debates in this chamber over such critical issues as the budget and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have seen, and had their photos taken with, celebrities, including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Two days ago, they saw another famous visitor, the actor Mike Myers, better known to some as ``Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery.'' I hope the close-up view that these exceptional young people have had of the Senate at work these last few months has made this institution a little bit less of a mystery. Our Government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people'' requires the active involvement of informed citizens to work. I understand that many, if not most, of this semester's pages have decided to volunteer on political campaigns, both Republican and Democratic, when they return home. I am told the campaigns run the gamut from local school board candidates to Senate candidates. I am sure I speak for all Senators when I say, we applaud your continued involvement in the democratic process. And we wish you well in all that you choose to do in your future. We hope we will see some of you back here some day, as staffers, or as Senators. We are grateful for the excellent work you have already given the Senate these past 5 months. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, this bill passed the House yesterday. Senator Snowe and a number of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle are negotiating with the White House to accommodate women's businesses in particular. It is my understanding there is the real possibility that some accommodation can be reached in the next couple of days. In order to accommodate that possibility, I object to moving at this point.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I will use my leader time this morning. This is the cover of a recent Parade magazine. The man in this photograph is the great-great-great-grandson of Sitting Bull, one of the most extraordinary leaders America has ever produced. His name is Ron. His horse is Thunder. He is part of the new generation of American Indian leaders. He is a lawyer by training, but education is his life's work. He is president of the Sitting Bull College in Fort Yates, ND, on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, and chairman of the President's Board of Advisors on Tribal Colleges and Universities. The subtitle of this article expresses a fundamental truth that Sitting Bull taught and that people I talk with throughout Indian Country still believe today: Education is the key to a better future for the American Indian people. Education, more than anything else, gives a person the power to determine his or her own destiny. It is the most effective tool there is to relieve the grinding poverty that exists today in too many tribal communities throughout America. When Native Americans surrendered their lands more than a century and a quarter ago, the United States Government promised to provide the descendants of Sitting Bull and all Native Americans, free education, health care and other basic necessities of life, forever. That is one reason I am disturbed by the results of two new audits by the Interior Department's inspector general. The first audit reveals that, over a 3-year period, the BIA's Office of Indian Education Programs used at least $5 million from a contingency fund for non-emergency purposes, including staff retreats, bean bag chairs, televisions and puppets. This misuse of contingency funds shortchanged Indian schools of money they need for emergencies. The second audit, which concerns the BIA school construction program, also documents numerous examples of poor management and lack of accountability. It found that Indian children are being forced to try to learn, and their teachers are trying to teach, in schools that put them at undue risk of injury because ``no one in BIA ensures that school buildings are not occupied'' until hazards are corrected. That is shameful. This second report also found that 30 percent of the school construction and repair projects it reviewed failed to meet the BIA's own goal of completing design and construction within 3 years. The IG made nine recommendations that it said could strengthen the BIA school construction program and increase the program's benefits for Native Americans. Those nine recommendations were included in a draft copy of the report the IG gave to BIA officials for comment. Incredibly, despite being given an extended deadline, Bureau officials failed to respond to the draft. As a result, when the report was released publicly, it noted that ``all nine recommendations are considered unresolved.'' I do not know why the BIA failed to even acknowledge those nine recommendations for improving the Indian school construction program; I do not know if it was arrogance, indifference, incompetence or simply a result of being overwhelmed. But I know that it is unacceptable. The BIA operates or funds 187 schools in 23 States, including South Dakota. Most of these schools were built in the 1940s or 1950s. Many are decades older than that. Few are equipped to support computer labs or other sorts of modern equipment that are now considered essential in most school districts. I have visited BIA schools where children had to place trash cans beneath the holes in the roofs to catch the rain. I have been to BIA schools in which cold winds whipped through broken windows. I visited a school, which has since been replaced, in which neither the furnace nor the bathroom plumbing worked. That is not keeping our promise to educate Indian children. That is a disgrace. The Cheyenne Eagle Butte School and dormitories on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation in South Dakota were built by the BIA around 1960. The floor tiles in both the school and the dormitory contain asbestos, a known cause of lung cancer and emphysema. To date, the BIA's remediation efforts consist of recommending that the school ``keep the boiler room door shut'' and keep the floors waxed so the tiles will not chip and flake. Three years ago, the Cheyenne Eagle Butte School was first on the BIA's priority list for school replacement. Then the BIA changed its criteria, and the school dropped down on the list. Today, the tribe has no idea when the school will be replaced. Several weeks ago, I spoke on this floor about the Crow Creek Tribal Schools in Stephan, SD. Two years ago, Crow Creek's middle school was condemned and replaced with modular trailers. The elementary school and high school still need to be replaced. Throughout the high school, crumbling walls are supported by steel braces; one can see exposed electrical wires. The Crow Creek Council has been lobbying for money to fix the schools on the reservation for 25 years. Recently, the Crow Creek school superintendent received this letter from the South Dakota state fire marshal. I have had it reprinted and enlarged here. I will quote: [T]he buildings are dangerous and represent a threat to life. The State fire marshal ``strongly recommends discontinued use of both'' the elementary and high schools. Two weekends ago was graduation weekend at Crow Creek Tribal Schools. The school had originally planned to hold the graduation ceremony outside because the gym has been condemned--but it rained on graduation day. So 1,500 people--the graduates, their families and friends-- crowded into a condemned gymnasium that threatened to fall down around them. I ask you, what other group of children would we allow to be treated this way? The BIA has committed to replace the Crow Creek gym--but it is unclear when. Tribal officials had thought students would be playing basketball in the new gym this fall, but the construction funds have once again been delayed. In the last several months, Crow Creek schools have experienced a crisis of suicides among students. Mental health experts call such episodes ``cluster suicides.'' Six young people on the Crow Creek Reservation have killed themselves in the last 6 months--and many more have tried. In April, there were 21 suicide attempts; the month before, 28. Last month, a 14-year-old girl tried to hang herself behind the elementary school. She was discovered and cut down just in time. The most recent suicide was a 19-year-old young man who had dropped out of school. Had he stayed, he would have graduated last month. Clearly, the suicide crisis at Crow Creek schools is not caused only by crumbling schools. This is a complex crisis with very deep roots. It involves public health issues and myriad other issues. But what message does it send to young people when they are forced to try to learn in a condemned building? There are school buildings like the Crow Creek Tribal Schools throughout the BIA system. All told, the BIA school construction backlog is estimated at $1 billion. At the current funding levels, it would take decades to get through that backlog. 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 replacement for the second year in a row. That is wrong. America's commitment to build new schools for children in Iraq and Afghanistan is admirable, but it does not erase our treaty obligations to provide good schools for Indian children in this country. The JOBS bill the Senate just passed last month includes a promising program that was first suggested by tribal educators in my State. The program would allow tribal governments to issue school construction bonds; the Federal Government would pay the interest and the principal on the bonds. The BIA school construction bond program would increase by about half the number of BIA schools that are currently being replaced or repaired each year. Yesterday evening, I met with two officials from the Porcupine school board on the Pine Ridge Sioux Reservation. Those two gentlemen are with us this morning. The grade school in Porcupine is 40 years old and overcrowded. The foundation is unstable. The boiler is unreliable. There is no cafeteria; the children eat their meals in the hallways. The Porcupine elementary school is number two on the BIA's school construction replacement list. School board officials say they have been told that construction on a new school could start in July--not this year, not next year, not the year after that, but in 2008--more than 4 years from now. The new Indian school bonding program would enable us to replace and renovate more schools faster. For the sake of the children at the Porcupine elementary school, and all the children in crumbling and inadequate BIA schools throughout America, Congress needs to get the JOBS bill--with the BIA school construction plan--to the President and get this important program up and running as soon as possible. Once the law is signed, we are going to insist that the BIA report regularly to Congress on how the BIA school construction program is being implemented and managed. We expect progress and results. We will not tolerate the lack of accountability that is documented in the two recent audits of the BIA's Office of Indian Education Programs. This chart says it so poetically and prophetically. More than a century ago it was said the first time. Sitting Bull implored representatives of the Federal Government: Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children. In that same spirit, we must now put our minds together and hold our Government accountable to keep the promises it made in trusts and treaties and laws to Native Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to say farewell to a wonderful group of young men and women who have served as Senate pages over the last 5 months and thank them for the contributions they make to the day-to-day operations of the Senate. This particular group of pages has served with distinction and has done a marvelous job of balancing their responsibilities to their studies and to this body. Their final day as Senate pages is tomorrow, but I hope we will see some--or all--of them back in the Senate someday, as staffers or Senators. I suspect few people understand how hard Senate pages work. On a typical day, pages are in school by 6:15 a.m. After several hours of classes each morning, pages then report to the Capitol to prepare the Senate Chamber for the day's session. Throughout the day--and sometimes into the night--pages are called upon to perform a wide array of tasks--from obtaining copies of documents and reports for Senators to use during debate, to running errands between the Capitol and the Senate office buildings, to lending a hand at our weekly conference luncheons. Once we finish our business here for the day--no matter what time-- the pages return to the dorm and prepare for the next day's classes and Senate session and, we hope, get some much-needed sleep. Despite this rigorous schedule, these young people continually discharge their tasks efficiently and cheerfully. In fact, as one page put it, ``We like working hard. When things get hectic, that's when we like it best.'' This page class had the good fortune to witness some historic moments. They saw President Bush present the Congressional Gold Medal to Dorothy Height, one of the giants of the modern civil rights movement in America. They were present for important debates in this Chamber over such critical issues as the budget and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They've seen--and had their photos taken--with celebrities, including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Just yesterday, they saw another famous visitor, the actor Mike Myers--better known to some as ``Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery.'' I hope the close-up view that these exceptional young people have had of the Senate at work these last few months has made this institution a little bit less of a mystery. Our government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people'' requires the active involvement of informed citizens to work. I understand that many, if not most, of this semester's pages have decided to volunteer on political campaigns--both Republican and Democractic--when they return home. I'm told the campaigns run the gamut from local school board candidates to United States Senate candidates. I am sure I speak for all Senators when I say, we applaud your continued involvement in the democratic process. We are very grateful for your outstanding service to the Senate this semester. And we wish you well in all that you choose to do in your future. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the names and hometowns of each of the Senate pages to whom we are saying goodbye today.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this last weekend, in the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial, our Nation dedicated a new memorial to the generation of Americans who fought and won the Second World War. One cannot help but imagine the look of respect and approval coming over the face of the great emancipator, the man who ended slavery in our country, as he looks upon a memorial to those who ended enslavement of an entire continent and gave the world a new birth of freedom. While this honor is long overdue, we must acknowledge that no memorial, no ceremony, no words could match the scope of this generation's achievement. The true monument to their efforts exists not on the National Mall but in the hearts of the hundreds of millions in America and billions more throughout the world who live in freedom thanks to their courage. We are the children of their sacrifice. We have flourished in the Nation they came home to build. The debt we owe them is without end. The Senate family is blessed, as the majority leader noted, to serve alongside six men who fought for their Nation in World War II: Senator John Warner enlisted in the Navy as a 17-year-old in 1945 and later reenlisted in the Marines in the Korean war; Senator Frank Lautenberg, who served so ably as an Army Signal Corps soldier in Europe; Senator Daniel Akaka, who served in the Army Corps of Engineers; Senator Fritz Hollings, who served as an Army officer in the North African and European campaigns, earning a Bronze Star; Senator Ted Stevens, who served in the Air Force, earned two Distinguished Flying Crosses and two Air Medals as a member of the Flying Tigers; Senator Daniel Inouye, who saw the smoke rising from Pearl Harbor as a 17-year-old growing up in Honolulu, and served in the Army's 442nd Regimental Combat Team, earning, among so many other high honors, the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest award our Nation confers for valor in battle. Whatever debt these men owe their country, their service in a time of war was paid in full. As so many of their generation, their service didn't end when they took off their uniforms. They saw this Nation and indeed humanity at its very best. They saw an effort in which every last person pitched in, every aircraft maker who made a fighter plane, every woman who worked in a factory, every farmer who grew food for our troops, every child who tended a victory garden. They saw with their own eyes the greatness that could be won when a nation of free men and free women worked together to fight for the cause of liberty. They dedicated their lives to carrying forward that spirit and leading our Nation to still greater heights. That spirit runs throughout the careers of each of these six men, as it has for so many other World War II veterans who have served in this Chamber over the years. Each of us who have had the honor to serve with them can attest that they are distinguished not only by their service in war but by their tireless commitment to ensuring that each successive generation of Americans could enjoy the blessings our free Nation had to offer. Thanks to their wisdom and leadership, generations of Americans have grown up in peace and prosperity and have learned that in return for their blessings, they too have a duty to give something back to their country. Nowhere is that more clear than in the service of young Americans fighting now in Iraq, whose courage echoes that of the men and women who wore the uniform of their country in generations past. Ultimately, what we learn from their lifetime of service is the fight for freedom is never finished. If we are to repay their debt to us, we must receive the liberty they won not as a gift but as a challenge to take up their work as our own. We could do our country no greater service than to assume the spirit of unity and decency each has exemplified throughout their long careers. It is a great comfort and joy to know that should we falter or fall short, our friends are still beside us, living monuments to remind us of our duty. Their contributions to America continue undiminished, and they have the undying thanks of the Senate and the Nation it serves. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use leader time this morning to comment about a number of matters. I return, as most Members have, from our home States, and I feel a new sense of optimism about what we can accomplish in America for the remaining months of this Congress. I had the opportunity to visit with South Dakotans of all ages when I was home. I was reminded during those conversations of the hope and resilience that characterize Americans, even in difficult times. The people I talked with spoke frankly about the serious challenges we are facing, but they also expressed a belief that together we can overcome those challenges. And they are right. Their sense of resolve is a great reminder for us all. When we left Washington for Memorial Day recess, the Senate had ended 5 weeks of procedural wrangling that left many of us frustrated. We accomplished much less than we should have in those 5 weeks. What we did accomplish, though important, took far too long. Remarkably, when we finally did reach agreement on a couple of key issues, some influential voices actually complained. Why? Because bipartisan progress does not suit their political strategy. They would actually prefer Congress do nothing between now and November because they want to blame Democrats for inaction. When we left for the recess, I was seriously concerned that such political gamesmanship in the Senate could result in a lot of name- calling and finger-pointing this summer but very little progress for the American people. We owe our country more than that. On Memorial Day, I spoke at a ceremony at a veterans cemetery in my hometown where my father is buried. There were veterans there from my father's war, World War II, from Vietnam, Korea, and the Persian Gulf conflict. There were guests who have friends and family members today serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yesterday I spoke to about 500 young men who were attending Boys State in South Dakota. This is the 35th anniversary of my own week at Boys State. The young men who are part of Boys State this weekend are among the best and brightest in my State. They are there because they are natural leaders. They care deeply about the future of our country. Some of them will no doubt join the military. From the oldest veterans at the cemetery to the youngest delegates at Boys State, the people I talked with at home reminded me Americans have always done what was needed to be done to make a better future. Congress can do the same now. These are difficult times economically for the middle class. The last time we found ourselves in the situation like this was in 1992. Then, as now, the monthly bills were getting bigger but wages were not keeping up. Then, as now, we were told the economy was getting better. But whatever ``recovery'' there was did not seem to be reaching the middle class. Then, as now, there was a feeling that leadership was out of touch with what was going on in most of America. But then, over the next few years, the leadership in Washington, our Government, started putting the interests of the Nation ahead of special interests. We focused on creating jobs and reducing crime and balancing the budget. With the help of the American people we did all three. Between 1992 and 2000, 22 million new jobs were created. We lowered the crime rate and turned record deficits into surpluses. We restored strength to America's economy and strengthened America's leadership position in the world. We worked with our allies and NATO to confront a ruthless dictator in Europe who was engaged in ethnic cleansing and ended his brutal reign. A victory in Kosovo proved how successful we can be with our friends when we work together and share the burden confronting global threats. The situation today may be a little tougher and the solutions may be more complex, especially on the international front, but the fundamental truth remains. Americans still know we can work our way out of this. That is the sentiment I heard back in South Dakota. We have done it before; we can do it again. I am confident the American people will rise to the challenges of today as well. And we need to meet those challenges with them. We must make the needs of hard-working Americans a higher priority than passing more tax breaks. Congress must put the well-being of patients ahead of the profits of HMOs and drug companies so we can finally address the health care crisis in a meaningful way. We must return to a foreign policy that recognizes the value of listening to military leaders and working with all of our allies. These are commitments the American people want from this Congress. In recent weeks, we have gotten a glimpse of what we can accomplish if we put aside politics and focus on the larger task at hand. Two weeks ago, for example, we had a promising bipartisan development regarding the transportation bill. After several disappointing experiences with conference processes last year, we have reached a good-faith agreement on how we can proceed with the transportation conference. I am hopeful we can get a good bill to the President soon. There are some people who think Congress should do little or nothing more of any consequence before we adjourn in October. They see political advantage in gridlock. We need to reject cynical calculations such as these. Doing nothing may be good for some people's political campaigns, but it does not do good for America. It is not good for the millions of middle-class families looking to Congress for help with real and every-day needs. We cannot wait until the new Congress is sworn in next January. We need to be working together now. Last week I participated in my fourth annual Technology Summit, which has become now an annual event in Sioux Falls. Bill Gates and other technology industry leaders spoke. About 1,000 people came to hear how new discoveries in science and technology can help solve even the most seemingly intractable problems. One of the people at that summit was a brilliant 29-year-old neuroscience researcher who got his Ph.D. at the University of South Dakota and is doing breakthrough work unlocking the secrets of the human mind. If he can learn how the human mind works, surely we can find a way in this Senate to work together on the challenges facing America. If young people are willing to go to war for America, surely we can agree to call a political truce in the Senate for at least the next several months so we can deal with some of the real problems facing middle-class families. As my fellow South Dakotans reminded me over and over again last week, we have met the challenge of difficult times before. Together we must do so again. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of our distinguished Chair and compliment him on his leadership and the effort he has made to put this bill before the Senate. I will come to the reservations he has raised in a moment. Let me begin by thanking my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Graham, for his tremendous leadership on this issue. It has been a true pleasure for me to have had the opportunity to work with him these past 18 months on this legislation. We come from quite different backgrounds, different approaches and philosophies, but on this issue in particular, I have enjoyed immensely the opportunity to work with him. I compliment him on his statement just now and on the remarkable work he has done to date. Let me also compliment and thank Senators Leahy and Clinton for their work and role on our side, and certainly Senator DeWine and others on the Republican side for their involvement. As Senator Graham noted, this is a strong bipartisan effort involving many Senators on both sides of the aisle. The votes that have been taken already indicate the depth of support and enthusiasm for the amendment Senator Graham and I are offering again this afternoon. I am sure most of our colleagues had the same experience I did last Monday. We spoke at Memorial Day events. We recalled the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform now for more than 220 years. I am sure many of our colleagues in particular focused on the commitment made by our men in uniform today. Now, more than 800 men and women have been killed in Iraq in recent years; 122 have lost their lives in Afghanistan; more than 5,000 have been injured. I have been to Walter Reed Army Medical Center on numerous occasions to visit the injured who are from South Dakota. If my colleagues shared my same experience, they were moved by the patriotism, by the depth of feeling and support for our troops and our country as we gathered to commemorate Memorial Day again this year. Over and over again, I saw cars with bumper stickers proclaiming ``support our troops.'' I propose that supporting our troops entails more than expressions of support from the heart, as important as they are. We need to support our troops emotionally and rhetorically with our bumper stickers, but if we mean what we say, supporting our troops also must go to supporting their needs. That is what Senator Graham and I are again proposing with this amendment: to support our troops in a realistic and meaningful way that matters to them. That really is what this amendment does. It recognizes a need. It also recognizes today an inequity. As my colleague from South Carolina noted, 40 percent of those boots on the ground today in Iraq are reservists, members of the Guard and Reserves. Madam President, there are 160,000 Reserve troops--1,200 from South Dakota--now on active duty. That is a dramatic departure from past practice. In the past, it was active duty personnel who performed these roles. In the past, it was active duty personnel, augmented at times through history by the draft, who gave us the manpower we needed to do the job wherever it may have been required. But in the post-Cold War period, our military practices have changed dramatically. Now we are turning to our Guard and Reserves. We are saying: You need to fill the gap. You need to defend your country. Now it is more than just a weekend commitment each month. Now it is a year, and in some cases 2 years of your life, giving up your job, giving up your time with family, exposing yourself to life-threatening circumstances. Now you are doing it. Madam President, 40 percent on the ground--that is vastly different than what it was just a few years ago. So this amendment attempts to deal with the inequity of troops on the ground fighting for their country in Iraq: one troop sitting right here with full health insurance for himself and his family; the other troop, right here, with absolutely no health insurance coverage at all. How in the world today could that be fair? And how in the world, in the name of supporting our troops, can we accept that? I want to see those ``Support Our Troops'' bumper stickers, but I want it to mean something. I want it to mean what we say. We are supporting our troops and their needs. And this is their greatest need. I acknowledge the work done by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the ranking member. They have addressed this issue. I acknowledge the support they have shown. We have come some way, some distance in the last 12 months, but there are five crucial differences. For the record and for the information of our colleagues, I want to walk through those differences, if I can, just briefly, because it is our argument for why we need the amendment offered by Senator Graham and myself and others. First is coverage. Under the committee bill, only those reservists who can gain the consent of their employer will be allowed to participate. We believe the fate of reservists in the private sector should not be determined by their employer's attitude. Why should they have to get approval from their employer to get health insurance from their Government--fighting for their country, as they now do in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world? To me, that does not connect. Employer support is helpful, but employer approval to get Government benefits does not seem, to me, to be the approach we want to subscribe to, and I think it sets a very dangerous precedent. The second is cost. The committee bill requires the reservist's private-sector employer to pick up 72 percent of the cost of the reservist's health care premium. So unless the reservist's employer is prepared to pay 72 percent of the premium for the reservist, that employer is not going to sign off on the health care coverage. The employer is going to say: I would love to do it, Joe, but I can't afford it. You are telling me to do something I would love to do. My colleagues and I know how these things work. I have talked to a lot of awfully good employers, awfully good small employers, who virtually break down when they tell me how it hurts for them to make a decision between offering employment and offering benefits and recognizing they cannot do both. We have thousands of employers in South Dakota who would give anything if they could offer benefits to their employees. But to tell those employers they are going to have to pay 72 percent of the cost, I guarantee you, almost 100 percent of the employers will say they can't do it or they would have done it by now. Now, as it relates to cost, yes, the chairman is correct. The cost of this program in the first year is $696 million. Madam President, $696 million sounds like a lot of money, and it is--$5.7 billion over 5 years. But, as the Senator from South Carolina said so well, do you know what that amounts to in terms of the percent of the defense budget? In percentage terms, for the defense budget, this represents two-tenths of 1 percent. That is what we are talking about, two-tenths of 1 percent, to follow through with the commitment that we, as a nation, must make when we say: ``Support Our Troops.'' I think we can afford two-tenths of 1 percent. And, as Senator Graham said so well, we cannot afford not to. I will get to that in a moment. The third difference is reimbursement. Under our amendment, if a reservist's family opts to retain their personal doctor rather than enroll in TRICARE when the reservist is activated, the family can do so. We want to give the family the option of choosing the best coverage for themselves, and the Defense Department would simply pick up a portion of the family's private health care premium. That is all we do. You choose. You are not going to be penalized for whatever choice you make. The fourth difference is the amount of the annual premium. Under our amendment, an individual reservist can obtain health coverage for about $1.37 a day. The reservist with a family could obtain coverage for about $4.90 a day. The committee bill does not specify how much a reservist would have to pay, and they leave it to DOD. I think reservists will tell you: We like the certainty of knowing, as we make our choice, what it is going to cost. And $1.37 a day is $1.37 more a day than Active-Duty personnel pay. And $4.90 a day is $4.90 a day more than Active-Duty personnel pay for family coverage. So the reservists are already paying more than what their counterparts right next to them in the line of battle are required to pay today, even though they are both defending this country. Finally, the last difference has to do with deductibles and copayments for doctor visits. Unlike the committee bill, we ensure that the reservist would not face an annual deductible or copayment for doctor visits. The committee bill does. So those five specific differences are why we have come to the floor. We acknowledge the commitment and the effort made by our chairman and ranking member and others on the committee to address this issue. But I have to say, for two-tenths of 1 percent of the entire defense budget, we will be able to say to our reservists: We are not only going to support you rhetorically, we are going to support you with what you have told us is your single greatest need and concern today. There are three reasons I think we need to adopt this legislation: First, because it is the right thing to do. I don't know how you explain, today, to a member of the Guard or the Reserves, who soon could be stationed in Iraq for perhaps 2 years that even though he is required to pay for his health insurance and his Active-Duty counterpart is not, that we are not even going to give him even that chance at coverage, but we want him to defend his country. I do not think that is right. That is inequitable, that is unfair, and this amendment addresses it. The second is retention. Senator Graham mentioned this so well. We have some very serious concerns about retention in our Guard and Reserves, for good reason. For a lot of them, this is not what they bargained for; this is not what they were told. We have the best Guard and Reserves we have ever had, the best we have ever had in history. If we do not want to go back to those bad old days, in my view, of the draft--and we have a bill pending, S. 89. I get asked all the time: Will there be a draft? I tell them: No, I don't think you have to worry about a draft. Why? Because the volunteer Army has worked. Why? Because the Guard and Reserves are filling that void, that gap that we used to call upon the draft to do. But if we see the attrition and the erosion in support and the reduction in the enrollment and re-enlistment, we are going to pay a very heavy price. I cannot think of a better inducement for re- enlistment than this. Finally, the third reason is simply the need. You can check the category, but across the board, one out of every five of our members of the Guard and Reserves has absolutely no health insurance today. In the age groups below 30, it is even higher, almost 40 percent. So there is a need that we need to address. So I enthusiastically join my colleague, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, in asking our colleagues, once again, to do what they have done in the past: Support the effort to provide this needed benefit. It is needed, not only for purposes of addressing an inequity that I think has been long overdue, but also real concerns about retention and parity. If we are all going to do what we said we were going to do last Monday, during our Memorial Day speeches-- ``support our troops''--let's do it more than with bumper stickers and rhetoric. Let's do it immediately. Let's help them. Let's provide them the assistance they tell us would mean more than anything else we could do for them right now. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, if I may respond to the distinguished Senator from Virginia, I would simply say that he reads and interprets the law correctly. He said it just as the law reads. While on active duty for that 30-day period, there is no difference. But what about before and after? What about the families and what about the opportunities accorded those families when the need arises? There isn't any accommodation. I think we have to take into account the universe of support we provide through health benefits for Active-Duty personnel. I stand by my statement concerning the disparity that exists today. I don't want to take anything away from Active-Duty personnel. They deserve every dollar of support we provide them through good health insurance. All I am saying is that today, given the dramatic change we have seen in the makeup of our military and the role now that the Guard and Reserves play, the Guard and Reserves, for a personal commitment that I outlined in my remarks a moment ago--$1.37 a day for individuals, $4.90 a day for families--ought to be entitled to that same level of confidence. Today the law denies that. I thank the Senator for asking the question.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, my colleagues have just heard an eloquent and extraordinarily persuasive case for the amendment offered by our colleague from South Carolina. It illustrates yet again why it has been such a pleasure for me to work with him on this amendment. He has made the case. But for emphasis let me reiterate a couple of points which he made better than I could. First, with regard to cost, our distinguished Chair this morning--and I think on other occasions--has raised an understandable concern. He correctly noted that the cost of this amendment this year is about $696 million. The cost over 5 years is $5.7 billion. He correctly noted that there isn't any particular offset listed for this benefit. Of course, what we haven't said is that is exactly the situation we will face with the amendment he is about to offer. The only difference is his is $25 million and ours is $696 million. I said the only difference but there is another difference. The amendment requested by the administration for our efforts in Iraq indirectly benefits the United States but directly benefits the people of Iraq. This amendment benefits directly 300,000 people--men and women who are putting their lives on the line in support of their country's efforts in Iraq. It is two-tenths of 1 percent of the entire budget. That is all we are asking--to say with an exclamation point that we support our troops. We support the efforts made by our members of the Reserve, the Guard, and the extraordinary heroism, patriotism, and dedication they demonstrate each and every day on the job. We give our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee credit and our thanks for making an effort to address this problem in the bill, but with great respect and tremendous admiration for them. In particular, we have indicated in the past our concern and, frankly, our opposition to the language--as well intended as it is--to require that employers and the guardsmen themselves shoulder 100 percent of the responsibility, in light of the fact the colleagues they work next to every single day on the job get that critical benefit; it is part of their package for serving in the military. That is wrong. To give an employer veto power over whether this guardsman can access the benefit is wrong. To say we are going to benefit our active-duty personnel and not provide any help or appreciation for the extraordinary difficulties in accessing health care for guardsmen is wrong. The 85 Senators who supported this legislation in the past need to demonstrate once again that our commitment has not eroded and we will continue to press for parity, for fairness, for a recognition of the commitment made by our members of the Guard and Reserves every single month, week, and year until this action becomes law. My colleague from South Carolina has done it so well, laying out our arguments and the persuasive case to be made. All that remains is, on a bipartisan basis, to again reiterate our strong support for the fairness represented in the Graham-Daschle amendment. I thank him for his leadership. I thank our colleagues for their support. I hope we can send a clear message today, as we have said on so many occasions, that when we say we support our troops, we mean it with more than our words. We intend to step up to the plate and show it with our deeds. That is what this amendment does. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I share the view expressed by the majority leader. He and I have had conversations about the scheduling. I think it is the right decision. We made some progress on the bill before the recess. I think the excellent manager relationship we have on both sides of the aisle with regard to this particular bill will serve us well as we work through amendments. There are a lot of place holders. There are a lot of amendments where Senators simply wanted to be protected, and we respect that. But as we do with the number of bills, we will work with our managers to constructively come up with a more manageable and practical list as the next day or so unfolds. I think we can complete our work in a timely way. As I have indicated to the majority leader, it is not our desire to oppose going to the class action bill once the work on the DOD bill has been completed. We will have a good number of amendments on that bill as well. But this sequence makes the most sense given our circumstances right now. We need to finish our work on the DOD bill given our circumstances in Iraq in particular, and I think this schedule will accommodate that need. I think we are where we need to be at this point. I will continue to work with both of our managers to see that we finish our work on this bill as we expected we would prior to the recess. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today the Washington Post reported that the United States Department of Agriculture secretly allowed American meatpackers to resume imports of ground and processed beef from Canada last September, just weeks after Secretary Veneman publicly reaffirmed the Department's ban on such importation as a result of mad cow disease being found in Canadian-born cattle. The article states that a total of 33 million pounds of Canadian processed beef came into the United States and went straight to American consumers under a series of undisclosed permits USDA issued to the meatpackers. This is how today's article describes Secretary Veneman's public position last August: She and her top deputies said ground beef imports would resume only after the agency completed a formal rulemaking process, with public debate. There was no public debate. Instead, there were undisclosed permits allowing banned Canadian beef in the United States. Not only am I extremely concerned that the Department of Agriculture deceived American consumers by allowing the import of Canadian beef that was previously banned, but I am also disappointed that the Bush administration is actually working to prevent American consumers from knowing where the food they buy comes from. That is why I am introducing a bill today that will require USDA to implement country-of-origin labeling on schedule this September. That was the date agreed upon in the Farm Bill which the President signed into law in 2002. Unfortunately, at the urging of the Bush administration and the large meatpackers--most likely the same people who urged USDA to issue permits to allow the importation of banned Canadian meat products-- Republican leaders in Congress inserted language into last year's omnibus appropriations bill in the dead of night delaying implementation of country-of-origin labeling for 2 years until September 2006. The bill I am introducing today is what the Senate has voted to do several times: Inform consumers about the origin of their food. Over 80 percent of American consumers have said they want to know the country of origin of their food, and over 170 groups representing over 50 million Americans support mandatory food labeling. We must not allow anyone who may represent special interests, anyone who now abrogates the spirit as well as the letter of the law to choose big business interests over the interests of the average American family. We must ensure consumer confidence, particularly now in light of recent developments. We would have not had the situation of 33 million pounds of banned beef entering the United States if it couldn't have been properly labeled. This legislation is long overdue. It is time that it become the law of the land. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I came to the floor with the understanding that we are in a moment where we haven't been able to move forward legislatively as far as the schedule goes. I wanted to take a few minutes of leader time to comment on a number of specific issues. Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act

Mr. DASCHLE. Yesterday I spoke about the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act. This is a critical piece of health care legislation. One in five Americans today suffers from a mental illness every year. Many are now denied health care they need because of legal discrimination by their health insurers. Such discrimination often takes a terrible toll on people with mental illness, their families, and all of us. It is estimated that not treating mental illness costs our society $300 billion a year. The Wellstone bill will end that discrimination for all Americans. It is modest, affordable, and urgently needed. I mentioned yesterday people from across America were coming to Washington on June 10 for a rally in support of mental health parity and the Wellstone bill. The famous Wellstone green bus that Paul loved to campaign on is coming back here for that rally. It is my hope the majority leader will agree to allow the Senate to vote on the Wellstone bill prior to the June 10 rally. I think it would be a fitting tribute to Paul, and it would make a profound difference for millions of Americans who live with mental illness. (The remarks of Mr. Daschle pertaining to the introduction of S. 2451 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') commemoration of memorial day

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, in the Black Hill National Cemetery, SD, SSG Cory Brooks was laid to rest. A member of the South Dakota National Guard, Sergeant Brooks died in Iraq in late April, and his friends and family gathered to remember his laughter, his joyful spirit, and his love of country. Among the mourners was a man Cory Brooks had never met, Pat Red Fox. Mr. Red Fox came as a representative of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. Six months earlier, the tribe had suffered the loss of PVT Sheldon Hawk Eagle, who died when his Black Hawk helicopter collided with another above Mosul. The families of Sheldon Hawk Eagle and Cory Brooks had little in common on the surface. But each passed along the values of service and patriotism to their children. With pride and sorrow, each said good-bye as their loved ones were shipped overseas. And each prayed that Sheldon and Cory would complete their mission unharmed. Today, they are bound to one another in mourning. And so to acknowledge this bond, this sacred bond that transcends all apparent differences, the family of Sheldon Hawk Eagle sent Pat Red Fox to Cory Brooks' funeral with one of the most valued gifts in the Sioux tradition--a star quilt bearing the colors of our Nation, and the Sioux symbol representing the immortality of the soul and the connection between the living and the dead. During the upcoming recess, our Nation will commemorate Memorial Day with a special unity, immediacy, and poignancy. As we honor those who gave their lives for their country in generations past, young American soldiers today face mortal danger. As we offer thanks for the sacrifice of families who suffered the loss of loved ones, hundreds of American families are today mourning the deaths of their children, spouses, and parents. For them, the cost of war and the price of freedom is not a thing of memory. It is the inescapable fact of their lives. And their pain and shock reverberate throughout American communities. All Americans stand together in awe of the courage of our soldiers, and in gratitude for their sacrifice. But the urgency of this Memorial Day also serves to amplify and clarify our understanding of America's history. Within the sacrifices of today's soldiers, we see a clear reflection of the sacrifice of those who came before. Like our soldiers today, our veterans, too, left families behind. They, too, woke up to uncertain dangers. They, too, saw their friends fall. Yet, knowing both their risks and their responsibilities, they, too, performed their duty each day. And many gave their lives. Forty years ago, President Kennedy noted that no nation ``in the history of the world has buried its soldiers farther from its native soil than we Americans--or closer to the towns in which they grew up.'' At our proudest moments, the American people have sent our sons and daughters across the globe to fight for freedom. Today, the honor of defending those who cannot defend themselves is carried forward by young American soldiers. But their service is doubled, for in addition to offering a chance for freedom to the Iraqi people, they are renewing our understanding of the cost of war, the price of freedom, and the immeasurable depths of American valor. Seven hundred and ninety one Americans have lost their lives in Iraq. Another 122 have died in Afghanistan during the course of Operation Enduring Freedom. As was true in World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam War, South Dakotans have volunteered for service in disproportionate numbers. And as before, South Dakota has borne a disproportionate share of loss. Seven of South Dakota's sons have lost their lives in this conflict: CWO Hans GOO-Keye-sen, of Lead; PFC Michael DOOL, of Nemo; CWO Scott Saboe, of Willow Lake; CPT Chris SOUL-zer, of Sturgis; SP Dennis Morgan, of Winner; PFC Sheldon Hawk Eagle, of Eagle Butte; SSG Cory Brooks, of Philip. For them and for the hundreds more who have lost their lives in service to their country, America is united in sorrow, and in debt for their sacrifice. But this sorrow, and this debt, is not unique to us. In many ways, it has been the central experience of each and every American generation. My father was an Army sergeant in World War II. He landed on the beaches of Normandy with the 6th Armored Division on ``D Plus 1''--June 7, 1944. He was injured during the landing, and, as he was recovering, one of his duties was sending word back to the States of those who had died so their loved ones could be notified. That experience left my father with a profound sense of respect for the sacrifices that freedom sometimes demands, and he passed that lesson on to his four sons. When I was a boy, every Memorial Day, my parents would take my brothers and me to the cemetery to pay our respects to the heroes who lie buried there. Later in life, when I was in the service, I learned the lesson in a deeper way, as friends of mine lost their lives in Vietnam. The men whose names my father sent home from Normandy, the men whose names are carved into The Wall in Washington, and all of the other noble heroes we honor gave their lives to preserve our freedom. We are in their debt--today and every day. Now a new generation of Americans is called to battle--in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other areas around the world. And once again, they are answering the call, and making us proud. In 1868, just three years after the end of the bloodiest conflict our Nation has ever known, General James Garfield led the first observance of the holiday we now know as Memorial Day. Standing among the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers alike, he said: If silence is ever golden, it must be here beside the graves of fifteen thousand men whose lives were more significant than speech and whose death was a poem the music of which can never be sung. We do not know one promise these men made, one pledge they gave, one word they spoke; but we do know they summed up and perfected, by one supreme act, the highest virtues of men and citizens. For love of country they accepted death, and thus resolved all doubts, and made immortal their patriotism and virtue. No words, no ceremony could add to the honor they won in their lives. So this year, with the heroism of our soldiers so radiant, we must acknowledge that Memorial Day is not commemorated for the sake of those who gave their lives, but for our own. We remember their courage because within it lie the seeds of our own courage. We remember their sacrifice, because it shows us both the cost, and the value, of freedom. Memorial Day is not merely a time to remember those who died in uniform, but a time for each of us to rededicate ourselves to trying in our own way, in our own lives, to meet the the example of patriotism set by all the men and women who defend our Nation. It is a time to rededicate ourselves to carrying forward the legacy that has been passed down from one generation to the next. As with the families of Sheldon Hawk Eagle and Cory Brooks, it is a legacy that binds together every American. It transcends borders and generations and all political divisions. Above all else, it is this shared legacy, and the great gifts that it has conferred upon our Nation, that we reaffirm on Memorial Day. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, earlier today many of our Senate family attended the funeral of a former Senate employee, Robert Bean. Bob started here in the Senate when he was 15 years old as a Senate page under the sponsorship of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield. Following his page graduation Bob moved into the Democratic cloakroom where he continued his outstanding service to our members. He rose to the position of Assistant Secretary for the Majority and then was appointed by Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell to the position of Deputy Sergeant at Arms in 1990. He moved to the Treasury Department's legislative affairs office in 1995 and remained there until 1999 when he returned to the Hill to work on the House side as the minority staff director of the House Administration Committee. He retired from the Hill in 2002 and he had just recently begun work for the Jefferson Consulting Group. Throughout these years of service Bob earned his undergraduate degree from George Washington University and his law degree from American University's Washington College of Law. But all of these accomplishments pale in comparison to his personal accomplishments. Bob was known as a friend by anyone who came into contact with him. Whether you were a member of Congress or a new staffer, lost on the Hill, Bob would find a way to help you, and he would make sure you knew that, if you ever needed help again, he'd be there to assist you. The church was filled today and that was a testament to the type of person Bob was to so many people. He died at the age of 43 leaving behind his mother, Margaret and his brothers John, Kenneth, and Brian. Bob also left behind a Capitol Hill community united in mourning the loss of one of its most cherished possessions--a true friend. I would like to extend my sympathies to his mother, his brothers and to all those who were lucky enough to know him. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the eulogy given earlier today by Congressman Steny Hoyer be printed in the Record.