Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I share the view of the distinguished majority leader that it is important to come back on Tuesday and make our best effort to resolve the impasse. I am confident that at least on this side that can be done. I would only remark very briefly that the President has indicated the way in which those bills could be signed. There is no reason why we would have to have the impasse. We can negotiate our differences on those bills just as we are negotiating our differences on the budget resolution. I hope we can do that sooner rather than later. We do not need the impasse on these appropriations bills. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me emphasize that the resolution that I attempted to get unanimous consent for would have allowed Government to go back to work. We would not have had this sham proposal sent over to us by the House that does not allow people to go to work, does not allow people to get paid, does not allow people any opportunity to do anything once they are in their offices. So people ought to understand this. I have seen in the media for the last couple of days that this resolution somehow would allow Federal employees to go back to work. There is a distinction between going back to work and going to their offices. They will be able to go to their offices, but they will not be allowed to go back to work. Nor will they be paid. So I would just emphasize that that is our first choice, to allow them to go back to work and have a continuing resolution that allows all Federal agencies to operate as they should during this time. If that cannot be done, I would pose the second unanimous-consent request, and that is the one that Senator Dole and I agreed to last Friday, the 22d of December. On that occasion, with some reservation, I agreed to at least allow them to go to their offices to do whatever they could under very significant constraints. They are not going to get paid, but since we did go on record on December 22d, Friday, to at least do that, to allow them to go back to their offices, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the message from the House on S. 1508, that the Senate concur in the House amendment with a substitute amendment, which includes the text of the distinguished majority leader's back-to-work bill, that the motion to concur be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, our colleagues should know that the effect of this unanimous-consent agreement is to ask Federal workers to show up in their offices without being given authority to do virtually anything. Anything that would cost money would be prohibited. They would be required to sit on their hands and stare at each other day after day after day, until we pass something that gives them the right to do something. So what this would allow them to do is to go to their offices, sit on their hands, and do nothing. They could not get in their trucks because they use gas. They could not make a long distance phone call because that would incur an expense. Anything that any office would do that incurs an expense would still be prohibited. So, Mr. President, this is a facade. This does not work. This is not what we should be doing. Federal employees ought to come back to work. They ought to be paid. And the services they are paid to deliver ought to be funded. Federal employees ought to be allowed to come back to work, not just go to their offices, but to actually work, and Federal employees--who have been without pay since December 15--ought to be paid. This does not do it, and so I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I said this on the floor yesterday afternoon, and I will repeat it this afternoon. I know that the distinguished majority leader wants an agreement as much as I do, and I do not hold him personally responsible for the fact that we are not able to overcome this impasse. I commend him for his efforts at trying to do so again today. Let me try one other option. We have already been unable to agree to a continuing resolution that would have put all Federal employees back to work with pay. We have been unable to agree to something that we agreed to last Friday, the 22d of December, which would have at least sent them back to their offices without pay. Perhaps we can try this. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the message from the House on S. 1508, that the Senate concur in the House amendment with a substitute amendment that includes the text of Senator Dole's back-to-work bill, and the House-passed expedited procedures shall take effect only if the budget agreement does not cut Medicare more than necessary to ensure the solvency of the Medicare part A trust fund and, second, does not raise taxes on working Americans, does not cut funding for education or environmental enforcement, and maintains the individual health guarantee under Medicaid and, third, provides that any tax reductions in the budget agreement go only to Americans making under $100,000; that the motion to concur be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The majority leader and I have been discussing the effort to bring people back to work. Unfortunately, we are not at a point where a resolution will be offered this evening. I must say I am very frustrated by the current set of circumstances. I know it is hard for the American people to understand what is going on. Frankly, it is hard for me to understand. All rationality seems to have been lost in this process, but let me try to explain the situation as I see it. All year, the Speaker and his lieutenants have warned that they would shut the Government down as part of their revolution. They did not care what the price was; they wanted to force their radical agenda on the President and on the American people. And each day there has been a new demand, each day a new hostage--Federal employees, people who depend on Government services, now even the Middle East peace process. The majority leader has worked in good faith in an effort to try to resolve this matter. And he has said he does not believe in shutting the Government down. I believe him, and I share that view very strongly. The Government remains shut because some Members in the House want it shut. It is government by gimmick, and it is wrong. The majority leader offered a bill to declare all Federal employees essential, and that bill was pending in the House for a long period of time. They could have passed it at any moment and sent it directly to the President. It was pending for 8 days. Instead, the House has chosen to play political games with it. Furthermore, while I support the Dole-Warner bill, I must say it falls short of what I think we need to do, frankly. It is an important step, but it is not a solution to the problems caused by the Republican Government shutdown. Congress has to pass legislation to fund the Government. Not once, not twice, but on nine separate occasions now we have offered a continuing resolution to do that, but each time it was met with Republican objections. Under the measure that is now being contemplated, a measure which would make all Federal employees essential, Government workers still could not obligate new funds, make new purchases or do any traveling; they could not spend any money; they could not pay contractors; they could not make grants; they could not buy supplies; they could not be paid. Let me emphasize, under the Dole-Warner legislation, Federal workers would be at work but they would not be paid until some later date, and then they would be paid retroactively. So we will be asking them to go to work, which is better than asking them to stay home, but we will be asking them to go to work and not be paid. Mr. President, keeping the Government closed is an unacceptable situation. We should not allow that to occur. Small businesses would not be able to get SBA loans, and 2,500 FHA home mortgage closures would be blocked; health researchers awarded NIH grants would still not be funded. If a forest ranger's truck ran out of gas in a national park, there would be no money to fill it up. State and local entities would not be funded for programs like Meals on Wheels; students would not get their college loans. I believe that the House wants confrontation, not solution. Time and again we have offered solutions. Time and again, working with the majority leader, who I believe wants solutions, we have not been able to get that job done. So we will keep working toward a solution. And as I say, I commend the majority leader for his efforts in trying to accomplish what we know we must do. We are not there yet. I have very, very grave reservations about the fact that we still on this day have not been able to send a clear message to Federal employees or to the U.S. taxpayers that this issue can be resolved. Let us hope that prior to Tuesday it will be resolved. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Democrats proposed over $20 billion in welfare savings as part of a Democratic alternative, debated in September. Earlier this week we proposed over $40 billion in welfare savings as part of an overall budget being negotiated. So, this is a debate about policy, about changes in funding with a serious regard for reform. It is about a real effort to move people from welfare to work. In the name of reform, this bill boxes up the current system and shifts it off to the States. It says, ``You do it. We do not care if you have the resources or not, you, Governors, you fix it.'' It is ironic that in the same session we passed legislation to prohibit unfunded mandates, some now propose we pass the biggest one of all. So it is with deep regret we cannot support this attempt at welfare reform. We had hoped to work with conferees to improve the Senate bill. We had hoped we could continue to work in a bipartisan manner. We regret the political process led to this political document that falls far short of real reform. We regret that this bill is not about work, that it does not protect children. At best, it is a recognition of a vexing national problem which must be addressed. At worst, it is an experiment set up for failure. A defeat of this conference report is the first step to a bipartisan effort to create real welfare reform, just as we did with the Senate- passed bill. This bill is going nowhere. The President will veto it if we fail to defeat it now. So let us get down to business. Let us work in a bipartisan fashion to draft a real welfare reform bill. It should not take a veto to achieve that objective. This opportunity, this lost opportunity, is not our last chance. Together, as Republicans and Democrats determined to solve a real problem, we can seize the opportunity to make welfare work. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from New York. Mr. President, this bill represents a lost opportunity. Democrats and Republicans share the view that the current welfare system needs to be reformed. We recognize that the current system does not work. It does not enable people to become self-sufficient. It does not contain the resources to put people to work. It is not flexible enough for the States. It sends mixed messages to welfare recipients. Welfare can become a trap, that work does not pay. In short, most recognize that welfare should not be a way of life. We also recognize the twin goals of creating incentives to work, to provide the opportunity for welfare offices to truly become employment offices. That is No. 1--giving people a chance to work, people who want to work, who have no skills to work, who need to work. They want that opportunity, Mr. President, and that ought to be the goal of welfare reform. Our second goal ought to be to protect children, to provide them the nutrition, to provide them the housing, and most importantly, if we are going to ensure that parents have the confidence that they can leave their homes and go to work, that their children will be cared for while they are gone. There is no perfect solution, no easy solution, but Democrats in a unanimous demonstration of support proposed what we called the Work First bill. The Senate-passed bill was passed with the support of many of us and we recognized it as really, just a first step--a minimal bill in many respects, minimally acceptable in the view of many of us, but certainly a bill that represented an improvement over the current system. The pending conference report, Mr. President, has fallen way below that minimum standard of acceptability. It will move more children into poverty, not less. It provides virtually no protections for children. It particularly targets disabled children. The pending bill falls far short of real welfare reform. It fails to achieve the goals. It punishes children and it does not move people to work. It does not provide the resources necessary to move people from welfare to work. It does not provide sufficient child care funds. It slashes assistance for disabled children and abused and neglected children. So the conference bill in our view is a deep disappointment. It is not only a lost opportunity for millions of men and women and children, it may also do real harm to the very people that it is supposed to help. It reduces or terminates benefits for 1 million disabled children receiving supplemental security income. It endangers the lives of millions of abused and neglected children. Most importantly, it terminates Medicaid coverage for the poor, and begs the question, where do we expect them to go? It is a lost opportunity as well for the working poor. While simultaneously threatening real harm for them, too, by slashing food stamp funding important to millions of low-income working families and the elderly, it slashes the earned income tax credit, the most effective effort to move low-income people into the work force and retain them in the work force that we have today. It underfunds child care assistance, which we know is the linchpin between welfare and work. It dismantles the current health and safety standards contained in the child care development block grant. So the conference bill falls far short of the minimum standard of acceptability which many of us supported in the Senate-passed bill. It reneges on nearly every improvement Democrats made to the bill before it passed in the Senate. Let there be no mistake. Democrats strongly support welfare reform, but this legislation threatens single women and children, the disabled, and the working poor. This is not primarily a debate about spending.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to use 3 minutes of my leader time to complete my statement.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the majority leader's cooperation on this issue. It appears that there is one outstanding issue that may or may not be resolved with a rollcall vote. If we could make it in order that the amendment and presentation of the resolution of ratification be the only matters pending relating to START and the return, I think we can accommodate the schedule and it will please all of those involved in the negotiations.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I wish the President pro tempore a good morning. Mr. President, I would like to make a couple remarks, if I can, about the securities litigation reform legislation. The bill before us highlights the real problem that faces companies when frivolous lawsuits are filed against them by lawyers for a quick profit. Our goal should be to address this problem without undermining the ability of investors to protect themselves against real fraud. Regrettably, the bill reported from conference goes too far, effectively closing the courthouse door on investors with legitimate claims. While fixing the problem presented by frivolous lawsuits requires remedy, this bill goes beyond that and, as a result, leaves investors unprotected against fraud in many instances. _______________________________________________________________________

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there are a large number of colleagues on our side of the aisle who would like the opportunity to have a good debate about the issue and perhaps offer amendments. So, on their behalf, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks made by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. Many of us have watched with some dismay as the House continues to refuse to offer a resolution which funds the Government. They have now provided for a resolution which only funds that part of the continuing resolution dealing with veterans. We have no objection at all to the veterans resolution coming to the floor and passing it. We would like to offer an amendment which does that for everything else, including the children and many others who are adversely affected by this Government shutdown. It is our hope that at some point, certainly before the end of the week, that can be done and would like to see if it could be done tonight. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to House Joint Resolution 134, the veterans' continuing appropriations resolution; that the bill be read a third time and passed, as amended, with an amendment that will reopen the Government and keep it open until January 5, 1995; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just say, I hope as a result of the meeting tomorrow at the White House we can move forward with some form of a continuing resolution tomorrow. I would like it to be a complete continuing resolution, obviously, dealing with veterans and children and the whole range of those who are adversely affected by this shutdown. It must not go on. We simply cannot leave with this matter left unresolved. And so it is important that regardless of what happens at the meeting tomorrow, the Senate be on record in support of a continuing resolution which completely funds the Government for a period of time. I am hopeful the majority leader and I can work together to make that happen at some point tomorrow under any set of circumstances. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate, again, the Senator yielding the time. I know the Senator from Nevada did not come to the floor to talk specifically about this issue, but I want to commend the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for calling to the attention of the Senate this important day. I think it is obvious, from many of the comments made by Members on this side of the aisle, the respect and the extraordinary degree of real friendship that we have for the majority leader. As many have also indicated, there are many, many occasions when we find ourselves in disagreement, but never, hopefully, to be disagreeable. Our view is that we have been led well by this majority leader and, obviously, in the tradition of the majority leadership of the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Dole has served us very ably. He is a person who wants to get things done. He is a person who recognizes the philosophical differences, the partisan differences that we hold. But he is also a person I have found to be immensely helpful and supportive in my new role as the Democratic leader. I have had the good fortune to work with many people on both sides of the aisle since coming to the Senate, but I know of no one on the Republican side of the aisle with whom I have enjoyed working more and for whom I have greater respect. So it is important that on this special day we call attention to his service and to the great affection in which he is held by so many Members on this side of the aisle. I share my congratulations with the Senator from West Virginia, the Senator from North Dakota, and the Senator from Nevada, in expressing our best wishes to him as we mark this special occasion. I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator from Nevada yield as well?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is simply to restate the principles that we outlined on November 19, when we passed the last complete continuing resolution. In that continuing resolution, we did two things. We asserted again our belief in the need to find a way to balance the budget within 7 years, ultimately scored by CBO, but to also protect the priorities that we as Democrats have been talking about for a long period of time; Medicare, Medicaid, reforming welfare, education, agriculture, defense, veterans, the environment. These are fundamental investments that this country has made in our people, strengthening the nation and enhancing our security. So as we debate the importance of a balanced budget in 7 years, we also must debate the consequences of that we make toward that end. And so this amendment--in my view, improves upon the resolution that is pending. And I hope that it will enjoy unanimous support given the fact that the continuing resolution received such support on November 19. The distinguished Senator from Nebraska said a number of things with which I wish to associate myself. Most importantly, while this is a fine resolution in which we again assert our support for a balanced budget, the more pressing resolution ought to be the one that funds the Government. We should take care of the immediate and unnecessary crisis before us, as we proceed with negotiations for a 7-year balanced budget. The taxpayers are getting cheated, Mr. President, when tens of thousands of Government employees are not at work. They are not getting the services they deserve and expect when people are sent home. And the sad tragedy of it all is that it is not necessary. There is no direct connection between funding the Government through these appropriations bills and passing a budget resolution. It has been the design of some to make that connection, but there is none. And people should not be confused by it. So I hope that sometime today we could pass a continuing resolution putting people back to work, making sure that the taxpayers get not only what they expect in a 7-year budget resolution, but also the services that they pay for with their tax dollars every day. I might just say one other thing with regard to this particular resolution. I am sure that many of our colleagues will continue to insist that whatever we agree upon be scored by the Congressional Budget Office. CBO has been a very important institution within the Congress now for over 20 years. We have turned to the CBO time and again for objective analysis in the hope that we could project with as much clarity as possible the economic repercussions that will result from the decisions we make. In the past, every single CBO director has had strong bipartisan support--bipartisan support--prior to the time he or she has taken office. Unfortunately, that was not the case this year. In the past, on a bipartisan basis, Members have acknowledged the authenticity, the clarity, and the integrity of CBO numbers, even when they worked against us. I can recall so vividly the health care debate 2 years ago where CBO argued with us vociferously about our projections with regard to the impact of the health care reform bill. We didn't like what they had to say, but we had to deal with that. We had to accept that because the director at the time was the appointed official in charge of making those projections. And while we disagreed, we accepted his authority. I must say, Mr. President, I am disturbed this year about the credibility of this particular director and CBO's activities in the last 7 months. I hope in the future that they will be especially careful to not in any way reflect a partisan bent in the work that they do. Because I am troubled by the very difficult time we have had in getting responses and getting information. And I am troubled by the manner in which much of the information has been presented to the Congress. I am also troubled, frankly, by the projections themselves. While I would like to believe that these projections are not driven by a partisan motivation, I am concerned when I see the very esteemed blue- chip forecasters agreeing virtually down the line with the Office of Management and Budget about what happens when we actually achieve what we say we want in this resolution. We have all made our speeches about the importance of a balanced budget in terms of bringing down the rates of interest, about the effect it will have on unemployment, about the effect it will have on corporate profits, about the effect it will have on the economy itself. And it has been that expectation that has driven my support for a balanced budget. So it is troubling to see CBO projections predicting just the opposite, predicting a decline in real wages, a decline in corporate profits, a decline in economic growth, a decline in overall economic activity and vitality within the economy. These issues ought to be a very central feature as we debate this overall resolution. Do we expect to see better economic performance than CBO now projects? I think we will. If we do not, what does it say about the impact of a balanced budget? Democrats all expect good things to develop. I believe that under a balanced budget they will develop. And it is one of the reasons we have fought so hard on this point, because we think that the economy will do a lot better than CBO now projects. So this issue should remain on the table, and the very positive effects of our actions ought to be something that remains a part of these negotiations. So, today, once again we will express our support for a CBO-scored resolution at the end of all of this, not at the beginning, not during the debate, not during the negotiations, but at the end. We expect that CBO and the blue-chip forecasters and OMB can give us the best information available about what this means in terms of the policy ramifications, and we look forward to receiving that information when we have an agreement. So it is with a caveat that we say, yes, we will score our numbers with CBO, as we have done for more than 20 years. But let us be realistic about projections and be a little more optimistic about what all this may mean, for I fear that we are going to send exactly the wrong message if we do not. But perhaps of all of the considerations to be made, as we vote on this resolution later on this morning, is the insistence that these priorities be identified and be assured as we consider how we balance the budget in 7 years. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nebraska. Amendment No. 3108

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, because the amendment amends the preamble, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be in order at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the committee. I appreciate having the opportunity to express myself on this important matter. Today, Mr. President, is December 20. The holiday season is upon us, and the Senate is in session. A casual observer of the events of the past few weeks --the Government shutdowns, the rancorous budget negotiations--might expect to find the Senate debating such critical issues as how we provide for our children's future and our parents' retirement, or how we protect our precious natural resources while still balancing the Federal budget. One might expect. Sadly, we are not debating such important subjects. No, we are here on the Senate floor debating an issue in which the American people have said repeatedly they have very little interest--Whitewater--or, more specifically, the Senate inquiry into Whitewater. How did we end up here? How did the Senate come to find itself considering a resolution that pushes this body toward an inevitable and, in my view, wholly unnecessary confrontation with the White House? The answer, Mr. President, is that the Senate finds itself here by design. The majority in the Senate, faced with the prospect that the exhaustive investigation into the Whitewater matter will produce little in the way of substantive results, has crafted a legal and constitutional confrontation. This confrontation, the majority hopes, will finally accomplish what all the Whitewater Committee hearings, depositions, and subpoenas have failed to accomplish: political damage to the President. That is why the Senate is on the floor, on December 20, debating a Whitewater resolution. Mr. President, other Members on both sides of the aisle have laid out the legal arguments surrounding this resolution. And make no mistake about it, there are some difficult legal questions at issue here. We all recognize and accept there are good-faith differences of opinion on those issues. But let us be honest. If this debate were solely about the legal merits of the White House's assertion of the attorney-client privilege, and general waivers of that privilege, then I doubt we would even be having this debate at all. That, Mr. President, is precisely what is so troubling about this whole matter. It is not a dispute about conflicting interpretations of law. It is not a dispute about the arcania of the attorney-client privilege, or attorney-work product privileges, or any legal privileges at all. This is about an old-fashioned, hardball political confrontation, pure and simple. I am not an attorney, but let me briefly state my perspective. The attorney-client privilege is a basic, fundamental tenet of our legal system. The privilege reflects the long-held belief of the courts that confidential communications between attorneys and their clients should remain confidential. Every American has the right to talk frankly to his or her lawyer. Indeed, the courts, in creating this privilege, believed that the protection of the privilege would lead to a surer rendering of justice in our legal system. The President of the United States, like every other American, is entitled to the protection of the law. So this resolution represents a dangerous encroachment on a basic protection in our legal system. It is also unnecessary. The proponents of this resolution conveniently omit a very crucial fact, and that fact is that the White House has repeatedly offered to provide the notes in question--the notes taken by associate White House counsel William Kennedy, the notes that are the target of the special committee's subpoena. Let me repeat that. The White House is willing to provide--it has been said many, many times--the documents that the committee seeks. There is no question about that. All the White House asks is that the special committee assist in efforts to secure the agreement of the independent counsel and the House that the White House has not waived its attorney-client privilege. In fact, Mr. President, the White House apparently has already secured the concurrence of the independent counsel that no waiver will occur when the notes are provided to the Senate committee. So the only remaining issue is the position of the House of Representatives. So let us, very briefly, review the facts. The attorney-client privilege is a fundamental tenet of our legal system. President Clinton has legitimately asserted the privilege in this case. The White House has offered to provide the notes to the committee, provided the attorney-client privilege is respected. The Special Committee will receive the notes from the White House immediately if it will only agree to this limited, reasonable condition. Those are the facts. That is all there is to it. It is not complicated. The proponents of this resolution seem determined to seek conflict, when conciliation is within easy reach. Before we vote on this resolution, I think everyone should ask ourselves why that is. Why, when there is a solution at hand, should we pursue a deliberate strategy of conflict? Every Member of the Senate knows that a President's private legal interests may, from time to time, legitimately affect the official operations of the office of the Presidency. In fact, I can imagine no group that might be more sensitive to how private and public interests can sometimes converge than the Members of the U.S. Senate. Let there be no misimpression: The precedent set in this case may involve the President of the United States, but it will affect Members of the U.S. Senate. We will be bound--directly--by what we decide tonight. The pending resolution is an unnecessary, headline-seeking ploy, designed for one reason and one reason only: to damage the President politically. I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will reconsider the course they have chosen. I encourage my Republican colleagues to resist the temptation to score political points. We have serious work to do. Let us stop wasting our time on a cynical political exercise and get on with that work. I hope that all Senators will vote for the Sarbanes amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I want to thank, first, the Senator from Minnesota for accommodating my unanimous-consent request. I begin by saying I believe the Senate owes a debt of gratitude to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for the appropriate lecture that he has given each and every one of us. That speech ought to be reprinted and sent to every civics class in the country. It ought to be reprinted and sent to every legal function that is held for the next several weeks, and perhaps most importantly it ought to be reprinted and sent to every U.S. Senator and Congressman sitting today. It ought to be reread. It ought to be studied. It ought to be respected. Never has his wisdom, clarity of his reasoning or his eloquence been more evident. It needed to be said. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia mentioned many giants, past and present, of the U.S. Senate. I add to that list the name Robert C. Byrd, a Senator motivated by a profound respect for this institution, a Senator driven by a profound belief in what is right, what is good, and what is so critical in this remarkable institution. Today, he is right. We have lost civility. The need for bipartisan spirit, as we debate the critical issues of the day, could never be more profound and more important. Excessive partisanship is as destructive to this institution as violence is to ourselves. So I express the gratitude of many who have had the good fortune this afternoon to have heard his remarkable words. I simply urge each of our colleagues to reread his remarks, to think of them carefully, and to listen to them and take the advice. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 2 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would inquire of the majority leader whether the resolution includes all of the priorities that we listed in the continuing resolution which passed about 3 weeks ago? Mr. President, it is my understanding that the priorities that were listed in the continuing resolution are not included in this specific draft, and because they are not we would be compelled to object at this time. I hope that perhaps we could work out some language that would include those priorities, and then there would be no objection on this side.

Mr. DASCHLE. I share the views expressed by the majority leader. I think there is reason for optimism tonight. I think the meetings held at the White House have been very productive. The President has committed to become personally involved in these negotiations. With a good-faith effort on both sides, there is renewed hope that we can reach an agreement. As the majority leader said, I do not know that there is any timeframe within which we can realistically reach that agreement tonight. We certainly know that these are difficult issues. We agreed to reach an agreement in three areas. First, on the continuing resolution; second, on the schedule; and third, on the framework within which these negotiations would take place. Leon Panetta will be talking with our Budget Committee people on both sides to discuss all three of those and hopefully reach an agreement sometime tomorrow, which then would allow us to go to our caucuses to discuss in detail what that agreement may entail. But there is no agreement tonight. There is simply an agreement to work out in three areas what that agreement might look like. If we can reach that tomorrow morning, I hope our caucuses could be informed and we will begin to go to work. But I again share the optimism expressed by the majority leader, and hopefully it will lead to even more optimistic developments in the days ahead. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Sure.