Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. We yield back on the minority side.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have a simple request for the President today: Please ask the people around you to stop the character attacks they are waging against Richard Clarke. Ask them to stop their attempts to conceal information and confuse facts. Ask them to stop the long effort that has made the 9/11 Commission's work more difficult than it should be. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with Mr. Clarke's facts, he set an eloquent example for all of us yesterday. He acknowledged to the families of the victims of September 11 that their Government had failed them. He accepted responsibility for September 11. He made himself accountable and he tried, in my view, to help us understand what happened in the months and years before September 11. I could not be more disappointed in the White House response. They have known for months what Mr. Clarke was going to say. Instead of dealing with it factually, they have launched a shrill attack to destroy Mr. Clarke's credibility. I know something about those attacks. On several occasions, I have been on the receiving end of the White House broadsides. I saw the White House ferocity firsthand. I saw the people around the President attack John McCain when he ran for President in 2000. I will never forget the distortions, the recklessness, and the viciousness of those attacks. They were wrong and they impugned one of our great patriots. I saw the same viciousness 2 years ago when Senator Max Cleland, a man who served when called during the Vietnam war, had his reputation and patriotism smeared in his reelection campaign. The idea that a man who gave so much to his country could be smeared by those who are willing to give so little haunted me then as it haunts me now. There are some things that simply ought not to be done in politics, and that line was crossed by attacks on both Senator McCain and Senator Cleland. Last year, I watched the people around the President set their sights on Ambassador Joe Wilson when he stepped forward to tell the truth about the President's claims on Iraq, Niger, and uranium. The White House did not battle Ambassador Wilson on the facts. Instead, they put his wife's life in danger by disclosing publicly that she was a deep cover agent for the CIA. That was a grossly irresponsible act done for the worst of reasons--to avoid accountability and unwelcome political consequences. It ought never have happened. It was shameful, and it crossed a line that had never been crossed before. Now when I watch what the people around the President are trying to do to Richard Clarke, I think it is past time to say enough is enough. The President came to Washington 4 years ago promising to change the tone. The people around him have done that. They have changed it for the worse. They are doing things that should never be done and have never been done before. What they need to do, what we all need to do, is to put politics aside and put the American people and their security first. I know how difficult that is in an election year, but we all, every one of us needs to do exactly that. Some things are more important than politics, and September 11 ought to be at the top of the list. We need the facts on September 11, not spin and not character assassination. We need this administration and everyone involved to follow Mr. Clarke's example and accept responsibility and accountability. We need Condoleezza Rice, who seems to have time to appear on every television show, to make time to appear publicly before the 9/11 Commission. She is not constrained by precedent from doing that, as the White House has argued. As the Congressional Research Service documented, two of her predecessors have given testimony in open session on matters much less important than September 11. I have reluctantly reached the conclusion that what really constrains Ms. Rice's full cooperation is political consideration. The September 11 families deserve better than that and, just as importantly, our country deserves better. There is only one person who can change what is going on at the White House, and that is the President. So I appeal to President Bush to change it. He deserves better than the tactics his staff are using and, as I have said, the September 11 families and our country deserve better, too. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Nevada for his very kind words, and I thank my colleagues for yielding the floor to accommodate my leader time this morning. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 created a temporary drug discount card program. We expect that program to go into effect this summer. Under the new law, it is the only prescription drug assistance seniors will see until 2006. And it isn't much. This program has a lot of problems and I am very skeptical that it will provide meaningful assistance to most beneficiaries. Today, the administration announced which private companies have been selected to receive beneficiary enrollment fees and provide the cards to beneficiaries. The applicants included big pharmaceutical companies, pharmaceutical benefit managers, and HMOs. And the list of approved companies is a who's who of the insurance industry. One of the most glaring problems with the program is that the Medicare legislation fails to ensure that these private companies pass along the discounts they negotiate to beneficiaries. Today, I am introducing legislation to remedy that failure. My bill would require card sponsors to pass at least 90 percent of the discounts along to beneficiaries. It seems like common sense, but, true to form, the Republican Medicare bill allows the private companies to keep the discounts as profits. And the administration's regulations only require that they pass along a ``share'' of the discounts they negotiate. Well, I think that's giving them too much leeway. The administration is promising seniors discounts in order to convince them to pay private companies a $30 fee. My bill would ensure that these private companies pass the discounts along to those seniors. It's only fair. The sponsors will still have plenty of room for benefitting from participating in the program--they get the $30 enrollment fee and they will be able to retain up to 10 percent of the negotiated price concessions. Despite all the hoopla, the cards themselves are nothing new. Some low-income beneficiaries will see $600 in assistance on their cards, and that is real help. Unfortunately, the process for gaining access to that money is so cumbersome, I worry that many will not get it. And I have serious doubts about whether the cards will add any other meaningful assistance. The General Accounting Office has found that similar cards now available on the market offer discounts on average of less than 10 percent--that's about what seniors could save by comparison shopping at local pharmacies. Worse, under the Medicare drug program, seniors will only be able to use one Medicare-endorsed card. Before the program, people could use as many cards as they wanted and compare discounts. And the real kicker is that once seniors pay a fee to participate, they're locked into that card for a year. But the card sponsor isn't locked into anything. It can change everything whenever it wants--even the amount of the discount or whether a discount is offered on a particular drug. And here's the worst part, this drug card program may already be harming all American drug consumers. As the Wall Street Journal noted just yesterday, recent drug price increases are eroding even the meager savings the administration predicts. What's more, all Americans are already paying higher drug prices. According to the Wall Street Journal, since the Bush administration proposed a Medicare drug card in 2001, the prices of many drugs the elderly use have ``surged.'' For example, the article notes that since that time, the price of Lescol, a cholesterol drug, has increased by more than a third. Similarly, the price for Celebrex, a popular drug for arthritis pain, has risen 23 percent since the administration proposed the cards. The administration is claiming the discount cards will result in beneficiary savings of between 10 and 25 percent. But the pharmaceutical industry's price hikes negate what little savings the administration optimistically predicts. Unfortunately, the discount cards are just one example of the new law's failure to address drug prices. The Boston University School of Public Health recently found that the new Medicare law could lead to an additional $139 billion in profits for the drug companies. The new law actually prohibits Medicare from using its negotiating power to obtain lower drug prices for seniors. And the reimportation provisions are meaningless. We know from experience that seniors can save much more than 10 to 25 percent by getting their drugs from Canada. As Families USA points out on its website, the drug cards actually create an incentive for the drug companies to raise their prices: ``Neither the new law nor the regulations specify the `base prices' to which discounts will be applied. Any discount will be meaningless if the base price is undefined--especially if the base price continues to rise very substantially. It would be like a department store marking up prices on products so that it can later offer them `on sale' at tremendous `savings.' '' The bill I am introducing addresses only one flaw in a program riddled with problems. I feel that it is a critical step. At the very least, we should ensure that if this program does offer some sort of price concession, that Medicare beneficiaries--not private companies like HMOs--are the ones to profit from the results. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 created a temporary drug discount card program. We expect that program to go into effect this summer. Under the new law, it is the only prescription drug assistance seniors will see until 2006. And it isn't much. This program has a lot of problems and I am very skeptical that it will provide meaningful assistance to most beneficiaries. Today, the administration announced which private companies have been selected to receive beneficiary enrollment fees and provide the cards to beneficiaries. The applicants included big pharmaceutical companies, pharmaceutical benefit managers, and HMOs. And the list of approved companies is a who's who of the insurance industry. One of the most glaring problems with the program is that the Medicare legislation fails to ensure that these private companies pass along the discounts they negotiate to beneficiaries. Today, I am introducing legislation to remedy that failure. My bill would require card sponsors to pass at least 90 percent of the discounts along to beneficiaries. It seems like common sense, but, true to form, the Republican Medicare bill allows the private companies to keep the discounts as profits. And the administration's regulations only require that they pass along a ``share'' of the discounts they negotiate. Well, I think that's giving them too much leeway. The administration is promising seniors discounts in order to convince them to pay private companies a $30 fee. My bill would ensure that these private companies pass the discounts along to those seniors. It's only fair. The sponsors will still have plenty of room for benefitting from participating in the program--they get the $30 enrollment fee and they will be able to retain up to 10 percent of the negotiated price concessions. Despite all the hoopla, the cards themselves are nothing new. Some low-income beneficiaries will see $600 in assistance on their cards, and that is real help. Unfortunately, the process for gaining access to that money is so cumbersome, I worry that many will not get it. And I have serious doubts about whether the cards will add any other meaningful assistance. The General Accounting Office has found that similar cards now available on the market offer discounts on average of less than 10 percent--that's about what seniors could save by comparison shopping at local pharmacies. Worse, under the Medicare drug program, seniors will only be able to use one Medicare-endorsed card. Before the program, people could use as many cards as they wanted and compare discounts. And the real kicker is that once seniors pay a fee to participate, they're locked into that card for a year. But the card sponsor isn't locked into anything. It can change everything whenever it wants--even the amount of the discount or whether a discount is offered on a particular drug. And here's the worst part, this drug card program may already be harming all American drug consumers. As the Wall Street Journal noted just yesterday, recent drug price increases are eroding even the meager savings the administration predicts. What's more, all Americans are already paying higher drug prices. According to the Wall Street Journal, since the Bush administration proposed a Medicare drug card in 2001, the prices of many drugs the elderly use have ``surged.'' For example, the article notes that since that time, the price of Lescol, a cholesterol drug, has increased by more than a third. Similarly, the price for Celebrex, a popular drug for arthritis pain, has risen 23 percent since the administration proposed the cards. The administration is claiming the discount cards will result in beneficiary savings of between 10 and 25 percent. But the pharmaceutical industry's price hikes negate what little savings the administration optimistically predicts. Unfortunately, the discount cards are just one example of the new law's failure to address drug prices. The Boston University School of Public Health recently found that the new Medicare law could lead to an additional $139 billion in profits for the drug companies. The new law actually prohibits Medicare from using its negotiating power to obtain lower drug prices for seniors. And the reimportation provisions are meaningless. We know from experience that seniors can save much more than 10 to 25 percent by getting their drugs from Canada. As Families USA points out on its website, the drug cards actually create an incentive for the drug companies to raise their prices: ``Neither the new law nor the regulations specify the `base prices' to which discounts will be applied. Any discount will be meaningless if the base price is undefined--especially if the base price continues to rise very substantially. It would be like a department store marking up prices on products so that it can later offer them `on sale' at tremendous `savings.' '' The bill I am introducing addresses only one flaw in a program riddled with problems. I feel that it is a critical step. At the very least, we should ensure that if this program does offer some sort of price concession, that Medicare beneficiaries--not private companies like HMOs--are the ones to profit from the results. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss our Nation's effort in the war on terrorism. Tens of thousands of American soldiers have placed their lives on the line to fight this war, and its outcome affects the security of every American. No one doubts our troops have performed courageously and effectively in this war. The entire world saw how quickly they were able to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan. Less visible, yet certainly no less significant, is the fact that they are taking the fight to terrorists in scores of other countries around the world. While there is no question about how our troops have performed in the war on terror, there are a growing number of questions about our Government's policies in this critical struggle against al-Qaida and other terrorists. These questions are being raised by the families of the nearly 3,000 victims of the heinous terrorist acts on September 11. These questions are being raised by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission which is currently holding public hearings to understand the events surrounding that terrible day. And most recently, questions are being raised by former Bush administration officials with firsthand knowledge of the administration's counterterrorism efforts. The responsibility for getting answers to questions surrounding the tragic events of September 11 rests with the 9/11 Commission. Therefore, the importance of cooperating with the Commission simply cannot be overstated. Only with complete cooperation will the Commission be able to produce a report that explains how these attacks occurred in the first place, and what can be done to reduce the likelihood of future attacks. Only with complete cooperation can the Commission produce the kind of report that our families, our troops, and the American people deserve. While the former Clinton administration officials have cooperated fully with the Commission, for some reason, the Bush administration's record on access to officials and documents is, in a word, unsatisfactory. As a result, I am confident the Commission and the American people will get a full picture of the Clinton administration's activities against al-Qaida. All Americans will have an opportunity to evaluate both the things the Clinton administration did right and the things it may have done wrong. Unfortunately, unless senior Bush administration officials have an immediate change of heart, I am much less confident the same can be said about their activities. If the Bush administration is truly serious about allowing the Commission to examine its actions against al-Qaida before September 11, it must provide answers to the following questions: Was defeating al-Qaida the Bush administration's top national security priority before September 11? Although both Clinton administration officials and the intelligence community repeatedly warned the Bush administration that al-Qaida posed an immediate threat to America, accounts indicate defeating al-Qaida was not, in fact, the administration's top priority. The President's most senior advisers did not meet to discuss terrorism until September of 2001, 9 months after the administration took office. In fact, some senior Bush officials reportedly believed the Clinton administration was obsessed with al-Qaida. According to both former Treasury Secretary O'Neill and Richard Clarke, the President's top counterterrorism expert, President Bush and senior administration officials viewed Iraq as a greater threat to our security. Did the Bush administration have a strategy for defeating al-Qaida prior to September 11? Reportedly, the Bush administration was unsatisfied with the Clinton administration's approach for dealing with al-Qaida, and the President requested a new strategy. Dr. Rice recently wrote in the Washington Post that ``the President wanted more than occasional retaliatory cruise missile strikes. He was . . . tired of swatting flies.'' However, even as the administration was being told that the threat posed by al-Qaida was growing, press accounts indicated President Bush did not see, let alone approve or implement, the new strategy until after the terrible attacks on September 11. The American people need to know what really happened. What did the Bush administration do before September 11 to defeat al-Qaida? During the nearly 9 months it took the administration to develop and sign off on a terrorism strategy, it does not appear the Bush administration took any decisive or effective action to cripple al-Qaida. Perhaps the most potentially significant action the administration took prior to September 11 was in May of 2001. At that time, reportedly in response to an increase in ``chatter'' about a potential al-Qaida attack, President Bush appointed Vice President Cheney to head a task force ``to combat terrorist attacks on the United States.'' But, according to The Washington Post and Newsweek, the Cheney Terrorism Task Force never met. The American people need to know whether this is true. Did the Bush administration commit adequate resources necessary to defeat al-Qaida prior to September 11? In the months before September 11, Attorney General Ashcroft listed the Justice Department's top objectives. According to this document, the Attorney General listed at least a dozen objectives that were more important than fighting al-Qaida and terrorism. And in his September 10, 2001, submission to OMB, Attorney General Ashcroft did not endorse FBI requests for $58 million for 149 new counter-terrorism agents, 200 intelligence analysts, and 54 translators even while he approved spending increases for 68 programs not related to counterterrorism. Even in the immediate aftermath of September 11, press reports indicate the White House budget office cut the Department of Justice's funding requests by nearly two-thirds. It might be that the Attorney General has a good explanation for why the other items on his list where higher priorities than terrorism. There might be a good explanation why the Attorney General did not support the FBI request for these funds. The American people need to know why this happened. Finally, did the Bush administration's apparent focus on Saddam Hussein detract from efforts to defeat al-Qaida and leave America less secure? Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke are very different people with different backgrounds and experiences. Yet both have spent the majority of their public lives serving Republican Presidents and both had an insider's vantage point on the current administration's security policies and priorities. And both agree that from the very beginning of this administration through the terrible events of September 11 and beyond, President bush and his senior advisors were fixated on Iraq. O'Neill revealed that at the very first meeting in January 2001 of the President and his senior national security advisors, these officials discussed what to do about Iraq--not terrorism. Mr. Clarke's observations confirm Secretary O'Neill's assessment. According to Clarke, after failing to get a Cabinet level meeting to discuss terrorism, administration officials relented and permitted a deputies meeting in April 2001. At this meeting, Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz argued that Iraq posed a terrorist threat at least as grave as al-Qaida. Even after September 11, both Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz reportedly made the case that the administration should use the attacks of September 11 as a reason to invade Iraq. In Secretary Rumsfeld's case, the reason was that there were no good targets in Afghanistan. If the administration's focus on Iraq appears to be coming clearer, so too are the consequences--for our troops, their families, and our security. In the debate leading up to the authorization of the use of force against Iraq, a number of us sought administration assurances that action against Iraq would not harm our efforts to capture bin Laden and destroy al-Qaida; would not shift the focus from those responsible for September 11 to a less immediate threat; would not drain away much- needed intelligence analysts, translators, and certain military assets in short supply; would not inflame the Arab world and alienate our allies and others whose cooperation was essential if we were to prevail in the war on terrorism. Even at the time, we were amazed at the swiftness and certainty of the administration's response. Far from harming our efforts in the war on terrorism, the administration repeatedly insisted that attacking Iraq would help them. Unfortunately, like so many other predictions advanced by the administration as it made the case for invading Iraq, these assertions have not been borne out. Osama bin Laden is still at large. No one can deny that vital intelligence collection, intelligence analysts and special forces were shifted away from Afghanistan and directed to Iraq. And no one can deny that our credibility and standing in the Arab world and with our allies and others have suffered greatly as a result of the decision to attack Iraq based on an apparently false claim that it possessed weapons of mass destruction. As a result, even the administration has been forced to back off just a bit from some of the bolder claims it made before the start of the war in Iraq. In a much discussed memo released late last year, Secretary Rumsfeld wondered whether we were winning or losing the war on terror: Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us? At a minimum, the administration's missteps in Iraq have greatly complicated the answer to this question, and attacking Iraq, at least in the short to medium term, may have made Americans less secure, not more, against terrorist threat. The American people need to know whether attacking Iraq has helped our efforts against al-Qaida and made them more secure. These are the critical questions currently confronting this administration. Unfortunately, while the administration has chosen to make its accomplishments in the war on terror a centerpiece of its re-election campaign, it has resisted telling the American people precisely what it did and did not do to win this war. It has resisted allowing the 9/11 Commission access to the policymakers and documents that can provide some answers. It has refused to provide the families of the victims of September 11 and the American people with the information they deserve so they can judge for themselves the administration's record. Rather than attacking those who raise questions about the administration's policies, President Bush and senior administration officials should do all they can to clear up these troubling questions. The first step is to make themselves and any supporting documents immediately available to the 9/11 Commission, which is running up against a deadline for its important work of ensuring the American people that we do everything possible to prevent another September 11. This includes having National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice testify publicly. It also includes having the President and Vice President appear privately before the full commission for as long as needed to clear up these critical issues. America's soldiers have performed heroically in the defense of their Nation. All America stands united in our pride and gratitude for their service. In order to be certain our Government has done and is doing all it can to defend us, Americans have a right to know more about our Government's priorities and actions in the months leading up to the attacks of September 11. Americans have placed the security of this Nation in the hands of this administration. That trust is a privilege, and alongside it comes the obligation to answer the questions and concerns of the American people. To continue to refuse the 9/11 Commission's requests and to criticize those who raise legitimate questions about its actions merely adds to the doubt felt by an increasing number of Americans. It is time for the administration to honor our citizens' right to know.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, that is my intention.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use a couple of minutes we have allocated to our side simply to say I agree with the last statement made by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky: The time to act is now. He and I may be talking about two different things. I share with him the view we ought to act on this legislation, but I also believe strongly now is the time to act with regard to the Labor Department regulations. If we do not act, 8 million people, including police officers, firefighters, service providers in a lot of different ways will lose their overtime. I do not know how we can sit here and accept that fact. Why some on the other side of the aisle would put the loss of overtime ahead of this legislation is something I do not understand. But I must say, there is no more important protection we can make than to allow the opportunity for the Senate, once again, to do what it did on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis just last year. The Senate said unequivocally we want to repeal the overtime regulations; we do not think they are fair. Telling 8 million Americans they are going to lose their overtime is not right. All we are suggesting today is to give us a vote because in the dark of night, even though both Houses have acted and spoken out, that legislation was taken out of the conference report. We have to go back and repair what was done last year. That is all we are asking. We are asking for one vote, no time. Don't tell me we cannot act on that now. That is what this cloture vote is all about. I am hopeful on a bipartisan basis we can defeat cloture, get the vote on the amendment, and move this legislation through in time to do both things: provide the protection for overtime and pass this legislation as we know we should. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to talk this morning about a disturbing pattern of conduct by the people around President Bush. They seem to be willing to do anything for political purposes, regardless of the facts and of what is right. I don't have the time this morning to talk in detail about all the incidents that come to mind. Larry Lindsay, for instance, seems to have been fired as the President's Economic Adviser because he spoke honestly about the costs of the Iraq war. General Shinseki seems to have become a target when he spoke honestly about the number of troops that would be needed in Iraq. There are many others, who are less well known, who have also faced consequences for speaking out. U.S. Park Police Chief Teresa Chambers was suspended from her job when she disclosed budget problems that our Nation's parks are less safe, and Professor Elizabeth Blackburn was replaced on the Council on Bioethics because of her scientific views on stem-cell research. Each of these examples deserves examination, but they are not my focus today. Instead, I want to talk briefly about four other incidents that are deeply troubling. When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill stepped forward to criticize the Bush administration's Iraq policy, he was immediately ridiculed by the people around the President and his credibility was attacked. Even worse, the administration launched a government investigation to see if Secretary O'Neill improperly disclosed classified documents. He was, of course, exonerated, but the message was clear: If you speak freely, there will be consequences. Ambassador Joseph Wilson also learned that lesson. Ambassador Wilson, who by all accounts served bravely under President Bush in the early 1990s, felt a responsibility to speak out on President Bush's false State of the Union statement on Niger and uranium. When he did, the people around the President quickly retaliated. Within weeks of debunking the President's claim, Ambassador Wilson's wife was the target of a despicable act. Her identity as a deep-cover CIA agent was revealed to Bob Novak, a syndicated columnist, and was printed in newspapers around the country. That was the first time in our history, I believe, that the identity and safety of a CIA agent was disclosed for purely political purposes. It was an unconscionable and intolerable act. Around the same time Bush administration officials were endangering Ambassador Wilson's wife, they appear to have been threatening another Federal employee for trying to do his job. In recent weeks Richard Foster, an actuary for the Department of Health and Human Services, has revealed that he was told he would be fired if he told Congress and the American people the real costs of last year's Medicare bill. Mr. Foster, in an e-mail he wrote on June 26 of last year, said the whole episode had been ``pretty nightmarish.'' He wrote: ``I'm no longer in grave danger of being fired, but there remains a strong likelihood that I will have to resign in protest of the withholding of important technical information from key policymakers for political purposes.'' Think about those words. He would lose his job if he did his job. If he provided the information the Congress and the American people deserved and were entitled to, he would lose his job. When did this become the standard for our government? When did we become a government of intimidation? And now, in today's newspapers, we see the latest example of how the people around the President react when faced with facts they want to avoid. The White House's former lead counterterrorism adviser, Richard Clarke, is under fierce attack for questioning the White House's record on combating terrorism. Mr. Clarke has served in four White Houses, beginning with Ronald Reagan's administration, and earned an impeccable record for his work. Now the White House seeks to destroy his reputation. The people around the President aren't answering his allegations; instead, they are trying to use the same tactics they used with Paul O'Neill. They are trying to ridicule Mr. Clarke and destroy his credibility, and create any diversion possible to focus attention away from his serious allegations. The purpose of government isn't to make the President look good. It isn't to produce propaganda or misleading information. It is, instead, to do its best for the American people and to be accountable to the American people. The people around the President don't seem to believe that. They have crossed a line--perhaps several lines--that no government ought to cross. We shouldn't fire or demean people for telling the truth. We shouldn't reveal the names of law enforcement officials for political gain. And we shouldn't try to destroy people who are out to make our country safer. I think the people around the President have crossed into dangerous territory. We are seeing abuses of power that cannot be tolerated. The President needs to put a stop to it, right now. We need to get to the truth, and the President needs to help us do that.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I do, Mr. President.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I want to make sure the record is clear. We have not actually resolved our differences in the House on a majority of occasions through conference. We have actually done the opposite. We have done what I have suggested we do with this bill. On 51 occasions in the 107th Congress and on 19 occasions so far in the 108th Congress, we have not gone to conference. We have resolved these matters by sending the bill to the House and worked on legislation either in preconference or through negotiation. I am fully prepared to do that again in this case and look forward to working not only with the Senator from Pennsylvania but others who want to see this legislation passed as I do. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will respond to the Senator from Pennsylvania by saying there are two issues. One is process and the other is substance. I think there is ample opportunity for us to agree on substance. The distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and I have talked on a few occasions in recent weeks about this matter and it comes down to two questions: the social services block grant and the importance we place on fully funding it, and the need for offsets to the tax provisions in this legislation. We agree there should be tax provisions. We agree there should be an SSBG provision. What we have not agreed to is how we resolve ways in which to fully fund them and to offset the costs involved with the tax provisions of the bill. That is a substantive question. Then there is a procedural question. The Senator from Pennsylvania continues to insist the only way to resolve the procedural issue is by forcing this bill to conference. As I have said to him on several occasions, we are very reluctant without the concurrence of the House leadership that there will be the kind of bipartisan participation we need to resolve these issues in a fair way. He has given his assurance, but he has also indicated to me privately he cannot commit for the House, and I understand that. I would not expect him to. We have done a lot of work between the House and the Senate in the last two Congresses in the way I have proposed we resolve these issues. We send the bill over to the House. The House deals with the amendments. We preconference or we negotiate the amendment and either through conference or a final ratification of the bill the legislation is sent to the President. We have actually resolved our differences with the House without a conference on 51 occasions during the 107th Congress, and already this year we have resolved our differences with the House on 19 occasions on a whole array of bills: the veterans benefits bill, the Healthy Forest Act last year, the Syrian Accountability Act, the military tax bill. All of these issues have been preconferenced and resolved in a way that has allowed us to work through our differences, with the assurance we would have the kind of involvement and participation I expect and all of our colleagues expect with regard to the conferencing or the working out of the differences between the two versions. I ask unanimous consent that we simply remove references to the conference in the request made by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania so we can do what we have done on 19 occasions so far in this Congress: Send the bill to the House, let us resolve our differences through negotiation, and send the bill to the President, as we all want.

Mr. DASCHLE. With the objection raised by the Senator from Pennsylvania, I, too, would have to object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I urge Senators to come to the floor. I was just discussing with the distinguished acting majority leader the schedule for the week. There are a number of amendments that could be offered with time agreements that we might be able to work through reaching an agreement on the overall list of amendments to be offered. Many would like to complete work on the bill. We could at the end of the day have a pretty good vote on the legislation that is pending. There are a number of critical amendments that our colleagues want to have considered, but I think we can work through those on a timely basis. I look forward to more discussions with our Republican friends with regard to the schedule and the list of amendments to be offered.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we spend a lot of time here in the Capitol talking about the abstract effects of policy. But when we go home, we see firsthand the challenges and pain so many of our constituents are facing. I spent the last week in South Dakota. We have a higher percentage of our National Guard and Reserve units activated than almost any other State. South Dakotans are united in our support for all the men and women who are risking their lives to defend our freedom. We are proud that America looks out for other nations. But we need to look out for people here at home, too. We need leadership that fights for American workers and families, not against them. That is what I heard, over and over again, from people in South Dakota. Last Tuesday, I held a town hall meeting in Spearfish, in the Black Hills. Among the people who came were a couple I have known for years. Donna Smith is a newspaper reporter for the Black Hills Pioneer. She is one of the best journalists in my State; I have tremendous respect for her skill and fairness. Over the years, I have seen Donna at many meetings. But this time was different. This time she was there not as a reporter but as an American who needs help. Donna and Larry Smith have been married for 29 years. They have six children. Larry Smith is tall and athletic. He takes good care of his health. Unfortunately, he inherited some bad genes; his arteries clog. He had his first heart bypass surgery when he was 47 years old and his second one a year later. Everything was fine for almost 11 years. Then, about a year ago, Larry started feeling constant, debilitating pain in his legs and hips. Larry works at a casino in the Black Hills. He was a machinist all his working life, but he switched to cashier because he couldn't take the walking involved in his old job; it hurt too much. Last February, he had a stent placed in his heart. His doctors determined that the pain was being caused by a build-up of plaque in Larry's arteries. They said the only place he could find a vascular surgeon skilled enough to clear the blockages was at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. Larry had that surgery. He was at the Mayo Clinic nearly a month. Donna was with him the whole time. Their insurance company paid most of the hospital bills. But there were lots of out-of-pocket costs insurance didn't cover: The lost income from the time both Larry and Donna had to take off from their jobs; the cost of getting to and from the Mayo Clinic; the cost of Donna's motel; the $2,000 annual deductible the Smiths had to pay before their insurance coverage kicked in; the $200 they spend every month on the prescription drugs Larry takes to control his blood pressure and other health conditions. In addition, Donna is a diabetic and a cancer survivor. They spend another $150 a month on her prescriptions. Then there are the health insurance premiums: $270 a month for Larry and $180 a month for Donna. Add it all up and, suddenly, a couple who had worked hard all their lives and put six children through college is drowning in a sea of medical debt--$18,000 in debt. Larry and Donna Smith have done everything they can to honor their debts. They sold their home. They now live in a smaller, rented house. They have borrowed money from friends. They have even borrowed money from their children. Talking about that is one of the few times Donna cries. ``How demeaning,'' she says, ``to have to ask your children for money. We're at a time in our lives when we ought to be showering our grandchildren with gifts, but we can't. We can't even pay our bills.'' Creditors started threatening lawsuits. Bill collectors called at home and work. They garnished Donna's wages. In January--less than a year after Larry's surgery at Mayo--the pain in his legs came back. It's worse than ever now. It hurts him to lift the bags of coins at the casino. It hurts him just to walk. But he still works five nights a week; he can't afford to take time off. Two weeks ago, Donna decided there was nothing else they could do, no one else they could borrow money from. So they filed for bankruptcy. On April 6, Larry Smith is scheduled to go back to the Mayo Clinic to see if there is anything else that can be done. Donna says they have no choice. Without medical help, Larry is at increased risk of a heart attack or stroke or amputation. The people at Mayo have generously offered to ``work with'' the Smiths to meet the $2,000 deductible. Donna doesn't know where she'll stay this time. She says maybe she'll sleep in the car. There's something else Donna Smith doesn't know. As she puts it, ``I don't know how to give up. This is my husband. This is the man I've spent my whole life with, the man who fathered my children, and who worked hard all his life to support us. She said, ``We know that there are hundreds of thousands of other people going through this, too. You pay for health insurance and you always believe that everything will be covered, but it is not. The safety net is not there and suddenly you have nothing. ``If people are just supposed to give up, how do you do that?'' Donna asks. ``How do you just give up on the life of someone you love?'' Larry Smith and I talked for quite a while last week. I found out later that he spent 48 hours thinking about exactly what he would say so that I would understand how fragile economic security has become for so many middle-class families. All over this country, people who have done everything right--people who have worked for decades, bought their own homes, put their children through college, saved for their retirements--are finding they are just one medical emergency, one pink slip, one bad break away from serious economic trouble. The social and economic safety net that used to protect families is being shredded. Health care costs that used to be manageable are bankrupting families and businesses. Last Thursday, I had another townhall meeting in Aberdeen, my hometown. That afternoon I got a fax from a general manager of a farmers' cooperative grain elevator in the nearby town of Florence. His name is Steve Schlenner. He said 3 years ago the health care premiums for the co-op's employees went up 38 percent. The next year they went up another 28 percent. Last year they increased another 24 percent. This year they had to lay off one of their workers so they could afford health insurance for the other workers. He asks: How are we ever going to get people back to work if the insurance companies are taking more and more of our profits every year? At this rate, only the rich will be able to afford insurance in the future. . . . The average hard- working, tax-paying, middle-class American needs to be put on the endangered species list if we sit back and do not address these insurance issues and high unemployment [rates]. He ends his fax by saying: Thank you for taking my comments seriously. They represent the thoughts and feelings of quite a few people in this area. All of us, Democrats and Republicans, need to take the comments of people like Donna and Larry Smith and Steve Schlenner seriously. Donna and Larry are luckier than many Americans. They have insurance. More than 43 million Americans have no health insurance. We must work together to make health insurance affordable again and health care accessible to all Americans. We need to fix what is wrong with the new Medicare prescription drug program. At a minimum, we need to end the prohibition that prevents the Government from negotiating better prices for seniors. We need to allow the safe reimportation of drugs from Canada and other countries where they are less expensive. We need new policies that create good jobs in America. There are 8.2 million Americans out of work. Two million have been out of work for the last 6 months or longer. It is not their fault they cannot find jobs. Last month, the economy created only 21,000 new jobs--all of them Government jobs, none in the private sector. Mr. President, 21,000 jobs; that is one new job for every 389 unemployed workers. The administration and some of our Republican colleagues say the economy is getting stronger. I guess I would ask, whose economy? Not the 8.2 million Americans who want to work but cannot find jobs; not the 43 million Americans without health insurance; not the millions of Americans who are working harder than ever and taking on more debt than ever. We need trade and tax policies that reward companies for creating jobs in America--not for shipping American jobs overseas. We need to help workers who are hurt by outsourcing, and make sure they get access to health care and job training while they get back on their feet. Unless we act to prevent it, 9 days from today, on March 31, the Government will stop paying unemployment insurance benefits to workers who have already exhausted their State benefits. We cannot let that happen. We need to extend Federal unemployment insurance benefits now. Also, at the end of this month, the Federal Government and the Department of Labor will issue new regulations effectively ending overtime pay for 8 million American workers. The Senate voted on a bipartisan basis to reject that change when the White House proposed it, but the House rejected it. Somehow, behind closed doors, someone slipped it into a conference report that had to pass or most of the Federal Government would have been shut down. That is wrong. The Senate should reject this bad idea and the underhanded way it was handled. We should vote to protect the 40-hour workweek and overtime pay. Working families cannot afford a cut in pay. A week ago today, Lead-Deadwood High School held its annual Government Day. Students at the school spent the day shadowing local government officials, observing firsthand how democracy in America works. In a story about the program, on the front page of the Black Hills Pioneer, the students talked about how interesting it was to see Government work for people. That story was written by Donna Smith. Despite all of their struggles, she and her husband still believe Government can be a force for good. They, and millions of other Americans, are looking to us for help. As we begin this next work period, let's vow not to disappoint them. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The ACTING PRESIDING pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I congratulate the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his tireless efforts and for the success he has now described. Without his persistent leadership, and the effort he has made over the last couple of days, we would not be in the position we are today. I know I speak for senior citizens and certainly for the members of our caucus and many others who care deeply about this issue. He has moved the process forward in quite a dramatic way in the last 48 hours. Were it not for his persistence and the leverage he had with regard to this nomination, we would not be in the position we are. I am grateful to him for the work he has done. As he has just noted, this definitely moves the ball forward. This is a significant development that will once again allow the Senate the opportunity to consider the issue of drug reimportation in a meaningful way. I have absolutely no doubt there is growing support for the efforts of the Senator from North Dakota and others who have been advocating for drug reimportation. In the last couple of days, the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, announced his change of position, and for good reason. I talked with him last night about his desire to be supportive of the effort. He, too, is troubled by the pharmaceutical rip-off that is now going on and the determination among drug companies to hold senior citizens captive to high prices for prescription drugs. On a bipartisan basis, Senator Lott, and Republicans and Democrats alike, have joined Senator Dorgan. This allows us, once again, to look at ways with which to address the issue. I commend the Senator for his success and applaud him for keeping the Senate's focus where it belongs: on bringing lower drug prices to seniors. I also acknowledge his role in moving the McClellan nomination forward. This was a controversial nomination in some ways. I have been working with the majority leader over the last couple of days to consider the ramifications of either holding up the nomination or moving it forward. I will have more to say in a moment about another very disturbing bit of news that has just been released this morning. But I think because of the extraordinary responsibilities that go to the office of CMS Administrator, filling that position is something that is important. I supported the effort to try to move this nomination forward in spite of some of the misgivings I have, as described so well by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. Let me say, though, that when we come back from the recess, I will come to the floor to talk more specifically about nominations and the process that is currently being employed with regard to the consideration of other nominees from this administration. Last night, I spoke with the distinguished majority leader about some of the concerns I have. There are now over a dozen Democratic nominees, some of whom have been held for months by the administration. Their refusal to send the nominations to the Senate has caused many of us to be concerned about the fairness with which this process has been implemented. It will be very difficult for us to move forward on nominees in the future if this matter is not resolved. I have indicated to the majority leader that I will be providing him with the names of those people who have not been given fair consideration and whose names have been withheld. And whether it is in regard to judges or with regard to other executive appointments, there has to be a reciprocal treatment of nominees. If we are not able to move these nominees in the future, I think it would be very difficult for us to at least consider all of those who are being given to us by the administration with an expectation that they will be voted upon until this matter is resolved. We will have more to say about that when we return from the week recess.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last night just before we closed I noted the absence of our distinguished assistant Democratic leader, Senator Reid. He was attending the funeral of one of his closest personal friends. I come to the floor this morning just to talk for a couple of minutes about this remarkable individual. Of course I am talking about a true American patriot and hero, Michael O'Callaghan. While we all mourn Governor O'Callaghan's passing, I am heartened that we here in this Chamber will continue to feel the impact of this great man through the service of his protege and former student, Harry Reid. The essence of Governor O'Callaghan's contribution is perhaps best captured by an effort he undertook in Nicaragua in 1996. He was in that war-torn country to observe the elections that would mark its first ever peaceful transition of power between democratically elected presidents. At 66, Governor O'Callaghan could have asked to observe elections in the nation's capital or its second city, but he insisted on going north to the Honduran border to observe elections among some of the most marginalized people in a country of marginalized people. He had to go there--in a battered truck over rained-out roads--because, he said, these were his people whom he had gotten to know in the 1980s, and he wanted to be there with them as they celebrated the democracy they had earned. That determination and generosity of spirit marked Governor O'Callaghan's life. He was highly decorated, with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star with a V for valor, and the Silver Star, in the Korean war, during which he lost a leg. Aware of that bravery and personal strength, Sargent Shriver reached out to Michael O'Callaghan to make him a point man in President Kennedy's and President Johnson's fight against poverty. Also aware of that bravery and strength of character, the people of Nevada made him their Governor from 1971 to 1979. It was Harry Reid's awareness of O'Callaghan's bravery and character that led me, with great pride, to recommend him just last month to serve on the Veterans Benefit Commission. Governor O'Callaghan died last Friday morning doing what he did each and every morning of his life--attending daily mass before he went to work at the Las Vegas Sun. He also fought for the poor and disenfranchised--from Korea to Nicaragua to Nevada--each and every day of his life. While we are saddened by the loss of Michael O'Callaghan, we can take comfort in the knowledge that his generosity of spirit, his strength of character, and his devotion to his State and country will not soon be forgotten, and that his values and commitment to public service live on in our colleague and his close friend, Harry Reid. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to call attention to another matter that just came to our attention this morning. There was a story filed by the Knight Ridder news organization in the Miami Herald, by Tony Pugh. The Miami Herald and other papers have had this story now on the Internet. I wanted to read a piece of it: The government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed Medicare prescription drug plan. The Senator from North Dakota was just addressing this issue. Obviously, the reimportation plan was part of the Medicare legislation, and had we been able to pass a meaningful reimportation provision, we could have brought down costs. Again, quoting from a report copyrighted by the Miami Herald: When the House of Representatives passed the controversial benefit by five votes last November, the White House was embracing an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office that it would cost $395 billion in the first 10 years. But for months the administration's own analysts in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had concluded repeatedly that the drug benefit could cost upward of $100 billion more than that. Withholding the higher cost projections was important because the White House was facing a revolt from 13 conservative House Republicans who had vowed to vote against the bill if it cost more than $400 billion. Representative Sue Myrick of North Carolina, one of the 13 Republicans, said she was ``very upset'' when she learned of the higher estimate. ``I think a lot of people probably would have reconsidered [voting for the bill] because we said that $400 billion was our top of the line,'' Myrick said. Five months before the November House vote, the government's chief Medicare actuary had estimated that a similar plan the Senate was considering would cost $551 billion over 10 years. Two months after Congress approved the new benefit, White House Budget Director Joshua Bolten disclosed that he expected it to cost $534 billion. Richard Foster, the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which produced the $551 billion estimate, told colleagues last June that he would be fired if he revealed numbers relating to the higher estimate to lawmakers. ``This whole episode, which has now gone on for 3 weeks, has been pretty nightmarish,'' Foster wrote in an e-mail to some of his colleagues June 26, just before the first congressional vote on the drug bill. ``I'm perhaps no longer in grave danger of being fired, but there remains a strong likelihood that I will have to resign in protest of the withholding of important technical information from key policymakers for political reasons.'' Cybele Bjorklund, the Democratic staff director for the House Ways and Means health subcommittee, which worked on the drug benefit, said Thomas Scully--then the director of the Medicare office--told her that he ordered Foster to withhold information and that Foster would be fired for insubordination if he disobeyed. The vote on this Medicare legislation was one of the most critical decisions Congress had made in 40 years on Medicare. We are talking about a difference of more than $150 billion. What this article states is that key members of the administration were told they would be fired if they told Congress the truth. I think this is one of the most reprehensible actions that I have seen since coming to Congress. For the life of me, I cannot understand how such irresponsible behavior could be condoned, could be allowed. We will get to the bottom of this. But I think it calls into question how laws are made. It certainly calls into question what efforts may now be made by the administration to keep information on other issues from Congress, before we make critical decisions. I think we ought to bring this bill back for another vote. I think the House and the Senate deserve to have a vote based on all of the information, not just part of it. If this and perhaps other information was withheld, Members of Congress were called to vote under false pretenses. They were called to vote without having the truth. On an issue with these repercussions, we have no other choice but to revote this issue. Already, the Congress has tried to offer corrections to the bill. Bills have been offered and amendments suggested to try to correct many of the problems created by this bill. But now we know, based on the information provided in this article, that not only are there significant policy questions, but the very issues provided to Congress as fact before were, in fact, untruthful misrepresentations upon which Congress voted mistakenly. So we are going to have to review the available options that we have, with regard to how this happened and what ought to be done. I think an investigation of some kind is certainly warranted. Whether this is criminal or not is a matter that we will certainly want to clarify. But if not criminal, it is certainly unethical. I think we need to know the facts. How did this happen? Why did it happen? Are there precedents for things like this happening for which the situation called for another vote? As close as that vote was, in the dead of night, I think we owe it to the American people, we owe it to seniors, to reconsider these votes and question whether or not we can put in place some absolute guarantee that this will never happen again. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Next Monday, March 15, the Senate will be in recess. As Julius Caesar could tell you, the Ides of March is a good day to be far from the Senate Chamber, but this Ides of March the Senate family has something to celebrate: the 25th anniversary of Marty Paone's service to the Senate Chamber. The Senate is not the simplest of institutions. The rules and traditions that govern our work can seem baffling even to the most experienced legislator. Marty has the most comprehensive understanding of the rules and procedures of the Senate of anyone I have ever known. We may lose an issue because we do not have the votes, but in my time in the Senate we have never lost an issue on procedural grounds. In fact, we have even won a few, and when we do, it is thanks to Marty's extraordinary knowledge and unerring counsel. He not only knows what the rules are, but how they serve the greater purpose of maintaining the Senate's unique role within our democracy. This innate understanding has come as a result of a quarter century of dedicated service to the Senate and our Nation. Marty was born in Everett, MA, and is a graduate of Boston College. After graduation, he made his way to Washington to attend graduate school at Georgetown University. It was while working on his master's degree in Russian studies that he first came to Capitol Hill. While attending school, he worked in the House post office and later moved to the Senate parking office. In 1979, Marty joined the staff of the Senate Democratic cloakroom. A few years later he joined the Senate Democratic floor staff, and in 1991 became assistant secretary for the minority. In 1995, he was elected by the Democratic Caucus to the position he holds today, secretary for the minority. Each of us knows that the Senate has its own peculiar schedule that is unpredictable at best, but no one knows that better than Marty. Twenty-one years ago, while planning his wedding, he and his fiancee Ruby, who is also a member of the Senate family, pored over the calendar looking for a date that they could be certain the Senate would be out of session. They chose Veterans Day and made their plans. Perhaps predictably, the Senate held a rare Veterans Day session that year, and Marty did what he has seldom done in his 25 years, he actually missed a day of work. Fortunately, the Senate adjourned early enough for Marty's colleagues to share in his and Ruby's joy that day and make the wedding. Fitting one's family life around the peculiar schedule of the Senate is never easy. It takes a lot of patience, a good sense of humor, qualities that Marty has in abundance. We are grateful to him, his family, his wife Ruby, and their children Alexander, Stephanie, and T.J., for sharing their husband and father with us. During his time in the Senate, Marty has shown unequaled dedication and loyalty to our institution and to the men and women who serve here. As a result, he has won the trust of every Senator and every staff person who has ever had the honor of working with him. Thanks to his experience, every Senator is better able to serve his or her constituents and the Senate is better able to serve the needs of the American people. We owe him an extraordinary debt of gratitude. There is no one I know who has more respect and affection for the Senate as an institution than Marty. On behalf of the entire Democratic Caucus, I thank him for his service of 25 years. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.