Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, two Republican voters in Pennsylvania have commenced a civil action against Senator Jeffords in federal district court in the District of Colombia to challenge Senator Jeffords' recent decision to become an Independent and to caucus with the Democratic party for organizational purposes within the Senate. Specifically, this lawsuit seeks ``to assert the invalidity of Senator Jeffords change of party by mere announcement'' and requests a court order requiring Senator Jeffords ``to reinstate his status as a Republican Senator'' particularly ``during the Senate polling and caucusing of its members.'' Through this action, the plaintiffs seek to subject to judicial control a Senator's choice of with which Senators to caucus, as well as the process by which the Senate chooses its officers and the chairs of its committees. This attempt to question a Senator in court about the performance of his legislative responsibilities in the Senate is barred by the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, which commits such oversight of Senators to the electorate, not to the judiciary. This suit also runs afoul of the clauses of the Constitution that commit to each House of Congress the responsibility to elect officers and determine the rules of its proceedings. Because this suit seeks to challenge the validity of actions taken by Senator Jeffords in his official capacity, representation in this case falls appropriately within the Senator Legal Counsel's statutory responsibility. This resolution would accordingly authorize the Senate Legal Counsel to represent Senator Jeffords to present to the Court the constitutional bases for dismissing this suit.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, the next vote will be the last vote. There will be three votes on judicial nominations at 9:45 tomorrow morning. Those will be the last votes of the day. The next vote will occur, then, on Monday, at 5:45. This is the last vote for the day.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a request for testimony and document production in a criminal case in the Superior Court in Hartford, CT. A resident of Connecticut has been charged with inciting injury to a person, second-degree harassment, and threatening. The criminal charges arise out of threatening and abusive telephone messages left on an answering machine at Senator Lieberman's Connecticut District office, located in Hartford, CT, threatening, among other things, to inflict bodily injury through an attack on a Federal building. This resolution would authorize an employee on Senator Lieberman's staff who heard the threatening messages to testify and to produce evidence of the calls, with representation by the Senate Legal Counsel.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Republican leader for his eloquence and for his heartfelt expressions of fond remembrances of a very special U.S. Senator. Those of us who watched the relationship flourish over the years as we served in the Senate are reminded again today of the friendship and joy Senator Lott and Senator Coverdell had. It was a rare friendship, a special friendship, one that was evident to all of us as we watched and as they worked. So it comes as no surprise that Senator Lott would be the first on the floor today to talk about a man about whom he cared deeply. While we were not as close and did not enjoy that wonderful proximity in friendship, we certainly had a great deal of admiration for the Senator from Georgia. It was 1 year ago that we were stunned and saddened by the sudden death of our colleague. On that day, we lost not only a friend but, as Senator Lott noted, a gifted leader. A while back, I came across the story of a hot Saturday he spent at a county fair in north Georgia. Despite the casual setting, he was wearing a coat and tie. When a long-time aide asked him why, Senator Coverdell responded, ``Well, I've noticed that if there's ever any kind of emergency and people are trying to figure out what to do, they always go to the guy with the tie on.'' A year after his death, we still miss being able to go to Paul Coverdell. Although Paul and I didn't see eye to eye on a lot of matters, I can't think of a single time that he was not fair, that he was not decent, that he was not honest. He was a reminder to all that we can disagree without being disagreeable. While I may not have agreed with him on every detail, I never questioned his deep commitment to the people of Georgia and the principles that he and we hold dear. One of the principles in which Paul Coverdell believed most deeply, of course, was the right of every child to go to a good school. So it is fitting that we are creating a living tribute to him by seeing to it that the educational accounts for which he fought so hard will now bear his name. There is another way in which Paul Coverdell's spirit of kindness, fairness, and bipartisanship live on today in the Senate. That is the work of his fellow Georgians, Zell Miller and Max Cleland. In the final years of his life, I am told that Senator Coverdell developed a passion for gardening as well. I think that is entirely fitting because so much of his work in public life was about nurturing and about helping things grow. That was evident in his leadership of the Peace Corps and in his commitment to educational opportunity. These educational savings accounts, which now will bear his name, will help ensure that the seeds he planted continue to take root and his work continues to blossom. We miss him, and we thank him for his public service. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Republican leader if I may be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Republican leader.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time allotted for the remembrances for Senator Coverdell be extended for an additional 15 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Missouri. He clearly feels as passionate about this issue as I do, and he, like I, has tried to find common ground. I have no objection to the amendment that Senator Bond is proposing this afternoon. What he is saying through this amendment is that in addition to the proposal made by Fish and Wildlife, there ought to be consideration of other issues, other opportunities to address the problem. I have said that from the beginning. I will support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well. I also urge my colleagues to endorse this position as the bill proceeds through conference. This is a position that I think will clearly show unanimity on both sides of the aisle and, as a result, I hope we can maintain this position rather than the very negative approach adopted by the House. I am hopeful as we go into conference that Senator Bond will support the position that he and I now have adopted as a Senate position. While I am in agreement on the amendment, we are in vast disagreement about the issue. I feel compelled to address some of the questions raised by the distinguished Senator from Missouri. First of all, it is important to remember, most importantly perhaps, it is important to remember that this goes beyond just the pallid sturgeon. Obviously, the pallid sturgeon is an endangered species, and we can argue all afternoon about the relevance of the pallid sturgeon to the master manual debate, but in my view, this is about more than an endangered species. This debate is about an endangered river. This debate and the master manual is about whether or not we can save an endangered river. This is not about an endangered species. This debate is about an endangered river. This debate and the master manual is about whether or not we can save an endangered river. The distinguished Senator mentioned the organization American Rivers. The American Rivers organization has now listed for the second year in a row the Missouri River as the most endangered river in America. It doesn't get any worse than that. We talked about the Federal Government's commitments and regulatory approach. Citizens of South Dakota know a lot about commitments and regulatory approach. We were told if we gave up hundreds of thousands of acres of land to build four dams to help downstream States, we would benefit. We would have irrigation projects, and we would have water projects, and we would have an array of special consideration given the new jeopardy within which we find ourselves as a result of the dams' construction. The first things to go, of course, were all the irrigation projects. We don't have any in South Dakota. That is done. The second thing to go, of course, was the quality of life for people who lived along the river. We had to move communities. That is done. We have moved them. Unfortunately, because the master manual is now so out of date, we are drowning communities all along the river as we speak. The Senator from Missouri talks about his concern for spring rise and floods. We are getting that every year. We have already authorized the construction of new homes for 200 homeowners in Pierre, SD. We will have to commit $35 million to move homeowners because we flooded them out because the master manual isn't working. So don't talk to us about spring rise. Don't talk to us about flooding. Don't talk to us about sacrifice. We know sacrifice. We know the problem because we are living in it every single day. Yes, this is about pallid sturgeons. But this is about a lot of South Dakotans who are living on the river who were told they were safe, who were told they had been given commitments, who were told they would get irrigation projects, who were told they would get all kinds of benefits which we have not seen. This is about an endangered river. It is about a master manual written 50 years ago when times were a lot different. It is about a recognition that every once in a while, perhaps at least every two generations, we ought to look at a master manual and whether it is working or not and come to a conclusion about rewriting it so people are not flooded out. This has been an effort 10 years in the making. In spite of all the assertions made by the Fish and Wildlife and the Corps of Engineers and others that the spring rise proposal provides 99 percent of the flood control we have today, that is not good enough for some of our people. In spite of the fact they tell us in any single year there would be high water, there would be no spring rise, we would not authorize it, that is not good enough for some people. The distinguished Senator from Missouri mentioned a hero of mine, Steve Ambrose. I don't know of anybody who knows more about that river than he does. He has walked virtually every mile of it. He knows it backwards and forwards. He knows its history, he knows its splendor. He knows the river like no one knows the river. He has been very complimentary about the efforts made to protect it now. I will not speak for him, but I will say this. Were he here, I think he would express the same concern about how endangered this river is, as I just have. Steve Ambrose is not the only one. The Senator from Missouri was talking about all the indignation, talking about all those who came out in opposition, and he mentioned quite a list of people. I could go on, too, with lists of organizations, lists of Governors on a bipartisan basis. I think perhaps the most important is the letter we received on May 21 from the Missouri River Natural Resources Committee. The Missouri River Natural Resources Committee is made up of people up and down the river, but especially people in the lower regions of the river. Here is what the Missouri River Natural Resources Committee has to say. I will read one sentence, and I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. DASCHLE. ``The MRNRC supports the recommendations contained in the Biological Opinion as biologically sound and scientifically justified.'' There you have it, perhaps the most authoritative organization on river management dealing with the Missouri River. This sentence is underlined: ``This plan is biologically sound and scientifically justified.'' I feel this as passionately as the distinguished Senator from Missouri. What happens when two people who feel as passionately as we both do, with polar opposite positions, come to the floor on a bill of this import, on an issue of this import? What I did early in the year-- and I thank my very professional staff, Peter Hanson, and others, and my colleague, Senator Johnson, for his admirable work on the committee in working with us, and perhaps most importantly, my chairman on this subcommittee, Harry Reid. I thank them all for their extraordinary efforts to work with us to try to find some common ground. Basically, what is in the bill is simply an amendment that says: Look, let's continue to look at this; let's see if we can find the common ground, with the depth of feeling we recognize on both sides. Let's not do any damage, but let's keep working. That is what is in the bill. Let's not make any conclusions, let's not insert that somehow the States have to comply prematurely. We already have invested 10 years. What is another year? Let's keep working. That is what is in the bill. What the Senator from Missouri is saying is let's also ensure that there are other options that we look at. I have no objection to that. That is why I support this amendment. If we pass this legislation, we will look at other options, we will not take any specific action right now, but we will not deny, as the House did, the right to continue to move forward. I hope we can all agree this is a legitimate, balanced approach. I also hope people recognize this: If we don't solve it, the Fish and Wildlife and the Corps don't solve us, there is only one other recourse: The courts of the United States will solve this. This will be tied up in the courts, and we will see litigation for a long time to come, and it will be North v. South in a new context. I don't want to see that. I want to see a resolution to this problem. I want to see some understanding of the science that has gone into the solution to this problem. I want to see a recognition that there is pain on both sides of this problem. I want to see us not continuing to kick the ball down the field but coming to grips with it, finishing it, and moving on. This master manual is now older than I am. The river has changed a lot, as I have, over the last 50 years. I think it is time to update it. Probably time to update, me, too. This river is a lot more important than I am. This river provides a lot more livelihood to people in South Dakota than I do. This river is dying, and we need to save it. Exhibit No. 1 Missouri River Natural Resources Committee, Missouri Valley, IA, May 21, 2001. Secretary Gale Norton, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. Dear Ms. Norton: I am writing to express the position of the Missouri River Natural Resources Committee (MRNRC) concerning the biological and scientific merits of the November 30, 2000, final Biological Opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Operation of the Missouri River Main Stem Reservoir System, Operation and Maintenance of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project, and Operation of the Kansas Reservoir System. By way of introduction, the MRNRC is an organization of appointed, professional biologists representing the seven main stem Missouri River Basin state fish and wildlife management agencies. Our agencies have statutory responsibilities for management and stewardship of river fish and wildlife resources held in trust for the public. We were established in 1987 to promote and facilitate the conservation and enhancement of river fish and wildlife recognizing that river management must encompass the system as a whole and cannot focus only on the interests of one state or agency. Besides an Executive Board of state representatives, we also have three technical sections--Fish Technical Section, Tern and Plover Section, and Wildlife Section--consisting of river field biologists and managers which advise the Board on river science, management, and technical matters. The MRNRC supports the recommendations contained in the Biological Opinion as biologically sound and scientifically justified. Implementation of these recommendations will not only benefit the federally-listed pallid sturgeon, interior least tern and piping plover, but also many other river and reservoir fish and wildlife for which our agencies have responsibility and jurisdiction, including river fish species which have declined in many river reaches since development of the system. A sustainable river ecosystem requires restoring as much as possible those hydrological functions and river and floodplain habitat features under which native river fish and wildlife evolved. The scientific community is increasingly recommending restoration of natural flow patterns or some semblance of them to conserve native river biota and river ecosystem integrity (Richter et al., 1998; Galat et al., 1998). The Opinion takes the first, adaptive management step toward accomplishing this task while recognizing that the river has been drastically modified and must continue to meet other human needs for power generation, water supply, recreation, flood control, and commercial navigation. The Opinion contains most of the operating and habitat rehabilitation objectives contained in an alternative submitted by the MRNRC in August, 1999, for the Corps of Engineers' Missouri River Master Manual Environmental Impact Statement Review and Study and in a white paper we developed in 1997 (Restoration of Missouri River Ecosystem Functions and Habitats). These objectives include higher spawning flow releases from Fort Peck and Gavins Point Dams in the spring, warmer water releases from Fort Peck Dam through the spring and summer, lower flows below Gavins Point Dam in the summer, unbalancing of reservoir storage (annual rotation of high, stable, and lower reservoir storage levels among the big three reservoirs), restoration of shallow water aquatic habitat in the channelized river reaches, and restoration of emergent sandbar habitat in least tern and piping plover nesting areas, all of which have been advocated for many years by the MRNRC. The MRNRC also commented on and supported the draft Biological Opinion. A copy of that letter is enclosed. The final Opinion is responsive to our comments on the draft. We are especially pleased to see the commitment to include our agencies in the Agency Coordination Team process for fine- tuning and implementing management actions identified in the Opinion. I am also enclosing a copy of the 1997 white paper and a brochure which explains the function of the MRNRC. I hope this letter and accompanying materials clarify the views of professional biologists responsible for Missouri River fish and wildlife. Please do not hesitate to contact me (712- 336-1714) if we can be of further help in this regard. Sincerely, Thomas Gengerke, MRNRC Chair, Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Could the Presiding Officer inform the body as to the unanimous consent agreement entered into with regard to the final comments on the Bond amendment?

Mr. DASCHLE. Since it is now 4:40, I consulted with the distinguished Senator from Missouri, and with his permission I will use my 2 minutes and accommodate the Senator's desire to speak to the amendment prior to the time we have the vote. Let me say what I said a few moments ago for purposes of emphasis. No. 1, I support this amendment. I think it, again, is a bona fide effort to reach common ground. I attempted to do that. Thanks to the distinguished chair and ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee, I felt we had done so in a reasonable way. Senator Bond goes further and says the Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service ought to look at other options beside spring rise, and that is certainly appropriate. We have no objections. My hope is that we can maintain this position in the final conference on the appropriations bill. I hope on a bipartisan basis, given the kind of strength this amendment will clearly demonstrate, that we can do that. Let me just make three points about the issue. The first point is that American Rivers and other organizations have singled out the Missouri River as the single most endangered river in the country. This issue is not just about pallid sturgeons. It is not just about endangered species. It is about an endangered river. It is about a future for a river that is in great peril. Second, this issue is about a master manual that is over four decades old, that needs to be revised to recognize how endangered this river really is. There has been an extraordinary effort made to find a way to recognize the need for change in the way the river has been managed. I believe they have done a good job. I believe when the Corps asserts they can control 99 percent of the flooding, as they do now, we ought to believe them. But I am prepared to go beyond that, to find additional ways to accommodate those downstream even though we are being flooded out each and every day. There are 200 homes in Pierre, SD, that are being flooded out. And the families who own these homes are now being moved. So we know about floods. Finally, let me say if we do not resolve this issue, the courts will. This will be tied up in the courts for a long time to come. We are not going to be able to avoid this issue. This issue will be dealt with. It will be resolved. The question is, ``Do we do it with Fish and Wildlife with the assistance and oversight of the Congress, or do we do it in the courts?'' I hope we can move on and recognize that in spite of our passionate, deeply held feelings, it is important for us to find common ground. This amendment, in my view, moves us closer to that goal. While we have different positions on the issue of how the master manual should be written, we certainly do not have different positions on the need to resolve this matter. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I appreciate very much the work of the chairman and ranking member. We have just had a vote on the first amendment offered. We have been on the bill all week and the vote was 100-0. I hope we can move to the more substantive issues that have to be resolved before we can bring the bill to closure. But we will be in later this evening and tomorrow and tomorrow evening in order to accommodate Senators who wish to offer amendments. After this, of course, we still have the Transportation bill that we have to bring up. There is a lot of work left to be done for the week. If Senators will cooperate and work with us, we can complete our work on this bill. This is a very good bill. Senators have done a good deal of work to get us to this point. I think it is a fine product, but we need cooperation from Senators in order to finish. As the Senator from Nevada has noted, we are looking for people who can offer amendments. I know the Senator from Alaska is planning to do that now. I am hopeful that we can do more of that tonight before we complete our work for this evening.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. We will have to be here later than normal on Friday afternoon, and we will be here on Monday as well. We have no choice. We have to continue our work. This will accommodate the consideration of the bills that have to be disposed of. Last year, eight appropriations bills had passed by the end of July. Thus far, we have only passed one in the Senate. So we have a lot of work to do just to catch up with what we did last year. So our effort to do that will go unimpeded, and we will do the best we can, given the schedule we have. We have a lot of work to do this week.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor, as I did earlier this spring, to commend the efforts of a South Dakotan who is having a direct impact on America's international interests. Last Thursday evening, I was proud when the Senate confirmed Lori A. Forman, born and raised in Sioux Falls, SD, to be Assistant Administrator of USAID for Asia and the Near East. She is the first South Dakotan nominated and confirmed to serve in the Bush Administration. The Assistant Administrator for Asia and the Near East, ANE, has a tremendous responsibility. Stretching from Morocco in the West to the Philippines in the East, the ANE region is large and diverse and covers a wide range of issues of critical importance to the U.S., including the challenges posed by terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The region is also home to vital economic interests. As a market for U.S. goods and services, it is second only to Europe. Countries in the region provide 50 percent of the oil consumed in the United States and control vital shipping lanes for the world's commerce. As the world witnessed with the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, instability in this region has direct and significant ramifications for global economic interests. Furthermore, the region poses a development challenge for the United States. According to the World Bank, the ANE region accounts for more than two-thirds of the world's extremely poor. And those poor are succumbing more and more to the threat of infectious disease, especially HIV/AIDS. In India alone, there are 1,500 additional cases of HIV daily. In such an important region, USAID requires a talented and experienced Assistant Administrator. Our interests there are too vital and the costs of failure too high for us to accept anyone but the finest. I can think of no better candidate than Lori Forman. She has written extensively on the development challenges in Asia. Her writings are based on years of experience--in both the governmental and non- governmental sectors--as a development practitioner throughout Asia. She knows the region and Washington, ensuring that assistance will get to the people for whom it is intended, not become tied up in bureaucratic wrangling here. Lori has an additional asset which has served her well in her career--and will continue to serve her well. Though she has been engaged in Asia policy for much of the last 25 years, she is from the Great State of South Dakota. In South Dakota we pride ourselves on humility, self-reliance and hard work, traits that are valuable, even crucial, to anyone in the development field. Americans from each and every state are having a positive impact on the lives of people the world over. I am particularly proud when individuals from South Dakota have done such a fine job. Lori Forman's efforts make me proud, America stronger and the world better.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, today the Senate will resume consideration of the Bankruptcy Reform Act. The prior agreement called for 3 hours of debate prior to a rollcall vote on cloture of a substitute amendment at approximately 12 o'clock today. There will be a recess for the weekly party conferences from 12:30 to 2:15. We expect to return then to the Energy and Water Appropriations Act today, with rollcall votes on amendments expected throughout the afternoon. Last week the Senate confirmed 53 nominations. I don't know that there has been a week in recent times where we have accomplished that much with regard to nominations. I expect to continue that level of progress this week. There are currently 10 nominations on the Executive Calendar. Our caucus is prepared to move immediately on 8 of those 10. One of the remaining two, Mr. Graham, already has a time agreement regarding his consideration. I expect to be able to dispose of his nomination between the energy and water appropriations bill, which we will resume after the bankruptcy bill is sent to conference, and the Transportation appropriations bill. I also expect to dispose of the Ferguson nomination at that time. The legislative branch appropriations bill is on the calendar. The committee staff has informed us that they know of no amendments. So we hope to be able to complete action on that bill as well this week. If we can accomplish these items, including the Transportation bill, by the close of business on Thursday, then we will not have votes this Friday. If not, of course, we will then be on the bill on Friday with votes possible throughout the day. That is the plan for the week. We will do bankruptcy this morning, energy and water this afternoon for whatever length of time it takes. Tomorrow we will do the Graham nomination, then the Transportation and legislative appropriations bills. This will be a busy week but, I think, a productive week. Hopefully, we can accomplish a good deal by continuing to work together.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, earlier today both the Democratic and Republican Conferences unanimously passed resolutions which I believe ought to be made part of the Record at this point during the business of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that both resolutions by read at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think the distinguished Republican leader has spoken for all of us in expressing his affection and his gratitude for a very special person. This will not be our farewell speech. We will give that later as it accompanies an official Senate resolution that I am certain will be offered on a bipartisan basis by the two leaders and perhaps with the cosponsorship of others but certainly with the unanimous, enthusiastic support of the entire Senate. But we take the floor this afternoon to acknowledge the decision Elizabeth has made and to call attention to that decision and to express our gratitude and our deep affection for a person to whom we have turned, on both sides of the aisle, on countless occasions. I have been leader now for about 7 years. I have had the good fortune of working with Elizabeth all 7 of those years. But that is just less than a third of the time she has worked in various capacities in this Chamber. She has served the Senate, not just the Republican caucus but the Senate, so admirably, so professionally, so capably that it goes without saying that on occasions such as this it is a heartfelt gesture for us to pass a resolution as we did in the caucus this afternoon. I might say, even though she wasn't there, there was rousing applause after the resolution passed, with the hope that she might have heard it even though she wasn't in the room. Isaac Bassett was the second page to serve in the Senate. He was Daniel Webster's choice as a page. He served here for a long period of time, over a half a century. Isaac Bassett wrote prodigiously about his experiences and never rose to a level any higher than Assistant Doorkeeper. Isaac Bassett would talk about his remarkable view of history. To read his notes is to read history in the first person. I think Elizabeth could write notes in the first person about the history she has witnessed, as Senator Lott has noted. She could write history that I am sure would enlighten all of us. I am sure it would be every bit as valuable to future historians and future citizens a hundred years from now as Isaac Bassett's notes are to me today. Regardless of how much history she writes, she should know that she has helped make history. She has been a witness to history. As she has witnessed history, and as she has made it, she has done it in a way that will make her family and future generations very proud. Today, rather than saying farewell, we simply say that we admire her, and we are grateful to her not only for what she has done but for what she will continue to do here in the Senate for the next few weeks and beyond as she serves in other roles and recognizes the importance of being a member of the family that goes beyond the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is nearly 6:30 and we have not had an opportunity to make much progress on the energy and water appropriations bill. I am a little disappointed. I had hoped that we could move at least to the adoption of a few of the amendments that I know are pending. I am hopeful that we can get an agreement on a finite list tomorrow morning. The Republican leader has indicated that might be a possibility tomorrow morning. We have colleagues on both sides of the aisle who, I know, have amendments, and I hope they can come to the floor as quickly as possible and begin offering them. I will say to those who may feel the need to drag this out that we have to get this work done. If we can't get it done between now and Thursday night, of course, we will have no recourse but to continue for a reasonably full day on Friday--Friday morning and at least a part of Friday afternoon. I will also say that these appropriations bills I know are important to the administration, important to the Congress, and I hope nobody makes any definite date for their plans for the August recess. We are going to finish this work, and if we have to bump into the August recess some to complete it, we will do that. Each day we delay now possibly entails additional days at the end of the July work period that we will have to use in order to accommodate the work. We will not allow this work to go over until September. We will stay here. That is not meant to be anything other than an observation of the reality of our responsibilities here. So I just caution everybody not to let these days go by thinking that somehow it is time that we can make up down the road. We are going to have to make it up before we leave for the August break. So I hope we can make this a productive week. My hope is that we can complete our work on the energy and water bill in a reasonably prudent period of time, and then we will move on to the Graham nomination, which I know is important to the administration, as well as other nominations. I am hopeful, as well, that we will take up the legislative branch appropriations and Transportation. It would be my expectation that we can make a lot of progress on those bills as well. Senators have to come to the floor to offer amendments. I thank my colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, for his effort in getting us to this point. I know he shares my interest in working for whatever length of time is necessary. I think I will announce at this point that there will be no more rollcall votes tonight. But it is with the expectation that we can get a finite list of amendments, and we could be in late tomorrow. We will take amendments, and if we have to do it, we will do other work. We will stay in to accommodate the need to get a lot of additional matters done before the end of the week. So there will be no more votes tonight. There will be a number of votes tomorrow. I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely right. Just today, I have had, I don't know the number but I would say countless discussions with my colleagues about other legislative items that ought to come up, and all with good reason. There are a number of authorizations and legislative issues that deserve the consideration of the Senate. What we have said is that we want to work as the Senator suggests, in a very constructive way, in an effort to try to accommodate the priorities of the administration, as well as the Congress, in achieving what we know we have to in passing these appropriations bills. It is important to get the work done, and it is important to spend the time on the Senate floor to ensure that happens. We have not had a very productive couple of hours, but I am confident that tomorrow will be a much more productive day.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. If I didn't say it as clearly as I needed to, let me repeat it. We will have a full day tomorrow. We will be, hopefully, completing our work on energy and water and taking up the Graham nomination. My hope is that we can complete both of those tomorrow. We will stay late and make some decision late in the day about how much time may be required. But there is no reason to believe that we cannot finish energy and water and the Graham nomination before the end of the day tomorrow. So Senators should be prepared to work late tomorrow in order to accommodate those two very important priorities--again, not just to us but certainly to the administration. The administration has made it very clear that this Graham nomination is important, and they have a right to assert that. We will attempt to accommodate their desire to complete the work on that confirmation before the end of the day tomorrow.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in expressing my great admiration for Katharine Graham and my profound sadness on her passing. I also convey my regrets to Mrs. Graham's family and friends. Our thoughts and prayers are with them on this very sad day. America lost a legend this afternoon. Katharine Meyer Graham was a woman of great dignity, intelligence, and wit. She was a pioneer. She was a patriot who believed deeply in the strength of our democracy, and in the indispensability of a free press in preserving this democracy. Much has been made of Mrs. Graham's gender--and rightly so. No woman has ever achieved what she achieved in journalism, and her accomplishments helped change people's perceptions about the role women could play in journalism, in business, and in the world. But Katharine Graham needs no modifiers. She was not simply one of the best woman newspaper publishers in the country; she was one of the best newspaper publishers America has ever seen--period. Katharine Graham was a 46-year-old widowed mother of four when she took over as president of the Washington Post in 1963. At the time, the Post was one of three daily papers in Washington and not even the best or most widely read of the bunch. A decade later, largely because of the courage and the extraordinary talent of Katharine Graham and editor Ben Bradlee, the Post was not only indisputably the best newspaper in Washington; it was one of the best newspapers in the world. In June 1971, with Katharine Graham's backing, the Washington Post joined the New York Times in fighting a court order banning publication of the so-called Pentagon Papers. Thirty years later, the Supreme Court decision overturning that injunction remains one of the most important decisions in first amendment law. One year later, in June 1972--again with Katharine Graham's blessing--the Post began its coverage of the Watergate break-in and cover-up. She never wavered in her support of her reporters and their quest for the truth. Mrs. Graham was modest about her professional achievements. She once said of her paper's Watergate coverage: The best we could do was to keep investigating . . . to look everywhere for hard evidence . . . to get the details rights . . . and to report accurately what we found. She made it sound almost like a routine story. It was, of course, anything but routine. It led eventually to the resignation of a President of the United States, and it earned the Post the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. Over the next nearly three decades, there would be many other awards and accolades for Katharine Graham, including a Pulitzer of her own-- the Pulitzer Prize for Biography for her 1998 autobiography, ``Personal History.'' We are so fortunate that in what would be the last years of her life, she took the time to sit down and write an incredible story that had largely gone untold--her story. In recalling her sudden ascendancy as president of the Post, she remarked: What I essentially did was to put one foot in front of the other, shut my eyes and step off the ledge. The surprise was that I landed on my feet. For those who knew her, for those who loved her, and for those of us who were simply lucky enough to have met her and seen her work, Katharine Graham's success seems no surprise at all. She was a woman of remarkable insight and remarkable strength. My deepest sympathies go out to her children, Donald, Lally, William, and Stephen, her many grandchildren, and her great-grandchildren. Our Nation's Capital will not be the same without her and neither will American journalism. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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