Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask the assistant majority leader if he can advise Members with regard to the schedule tomorrow, whether any rollcall votes are expected.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, he has left the Chamber, but I begin my remarks by welcoming our former chaplain, Lloyd Ogilvie. He has so many friends and it is such a delight to see him. I know I will have an opportunity to talk to him personally later. His prayer this morning again brings back fond memories of those times and years he was with us. We welcome him back and appreciate very much his friendship and the fact he is back with us again today.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come this morning to again review the lay of the land. As I said a couple of days ago, many of my colleagues, most of our caucus, expressed deep concern--alarm, really--at the hijacking of the process that went on during the deliberations on the Omnibus appropriations bill. I said at the time, and I believe it ought to be repeated, that I believe the process in the Senate was fair. I have immense respect for the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He worked with Members on both sides to accommodate consensus and to reach agreement and the process worked. That process was destroyed at the eleventh hour by some in the administration and by leadership on the Republican side in the House. Changes were demanded. Ultimatums were set. The House and Senate were actually forced to take positions in conference diametrically in opposition to the very positions we took on the Senate floor after a very deliberative debate; positions that I think have great merit. On an overwhelming vote, the Senate supported the notion that we ought to have country-of-origin labeling. They did it because they believed it is an opportunity for us to enhance our ability to add confidence to consumers' choice, knowing if they buy 100 percent U.S. beef they are not going to buy meat with downer cattle from foreign countries. We are going to be able to say with confidence to countries who are purchasing our products that they are 100 percent U.S. product. Today, they say they are not prepared to take our products unless we can give that assurance. For those and other reasons--patriotism, patriotism--the Senate voted in support, not once but twice, of country-of-origin labeling. With the crisis involving mad cow, it became even more imperative that that position be taken. Yet some in the White House insisted that there be a 2-year delay. That 2-year delay is tantamount to killing country-of-origin labeling. That is what is now in this bill, in direct opposition, in direct conflict, diametrically in opposition to the position taken by the Senate during the debate on the Agriculture appropriations bill and, I might add, diametrically in opposition to the views of the vast majority of the American people. Eighty percent of the American people support country-of-origin labeling. Over 80 percent say they would be prepared to pay more if we had country-of- origin labeling. So it is with great chagrin that we find ourselves in this circumstance. The same could be said for overtime. I don't believe that most of our colleagues can fully appreciate the depth of feeling, the magnitude of anger and frustration that is out there on this particular issue. I have talked to firemen and policemen and nurses and first responders. I must say they cannot believe that their Government is devising ways with which to reduce and in some cases actually eliminate overtime. They can't believe that they may be among the 8 million Americans whose overtime will be lost when this bill passes. They can't believe it. They always thought if you work hard and play by the rules, especially working overtime, you are going to get paid. Now they have their own Government saying, in a memo produced by the Department of Labor, if you want to reduce wages, we will give you a way to reduce overtime. What kind of progress in society is that? For all these years we have marched forward, recognizing we are going to reward work. What does this memo and what does the provision in this legislation say? We are not going to reward work anymore. In fact, we are going to find ways to get out from under the reward for work. How can anybody sustain that position here in this body? How can anybody with pride or with any conviction say that is the right policy now, after all these years? But that is what we are doing.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know we will have more opportunity to debate this legislation in the coming days. I wanted to come to the floor for a few moments to express my gratitude and my admiration to those colleagues who have worked so diligently to bring us to this point. We deal with a lot of divisive issues in the Senate. We just dealt with one moments ago, the Omnibus appropriations bill. People sometimes ask me, as I travel the country and in my home State: Why don't you all ever get together on something? Here is an illustration where Republicans and Democrats have gotten together with a work product that I think merits our support, and I say our enthusiastic support. Senator Kennedy, of course, one of our key sponsors of this legislation, particularly deserves great thanks and great recognition for the work he has done to get us to this point. We have a pension time bomb in this country. That time bomb is going to explode with even greater impact on the lives of millions and millions of Americans unless we begin dealing with the issues of retirement security. A couple of nights ago, when I had the pleasure of responding to the State of the Union, one of the points that I made and I know is shared by my colleagues, especially on this side of the aisle, is on the issue of pension security. Retirement security is increasingly becoming an issue of great interest and concern to not only our retirees but to so many of our workers who are today concerned about whether they can retire at all as a result of the problems with pensions. I have some charts I know have already been used, but in case others missed the opportunity to walk through these charts and to hear the explanation of this legislation, I want to share a couple of observations, first about our circumstances, and then why I believe this bill is as good as it is. This chart talks about the defined benefit plans that are currently available, and we have defined benefit plans that have worked well over the course of the last 50 or 60 years, in particular. Thirty-five million Americans are covered today by plans that have been incorporated and utilized within corporations and businesses to provide a defined benefit at retirement. Mr. President, 9.7 million Americans are covered by multiemployer pension plans, only a fraction of what single-employer defined benefit plans entail, but both the multiemployer and single-employer plans are currently the ones that are causing employers, employees, and retirees very serious concern. Only defined benefit plans provide a secure monthly benefit backed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and that is where we begin to run into some very serious problems. We have 35 million Americans covered by single-employer plans and 9.7 million Americans covered by multiemployer defined benefit pension plans. What has happened, of course, over the last couple of years in particular--but it goes back longer than that--is that a perfect storm has been created that has caused grave concern to those analyzing the viability of these pension plans. The perfect storm involves a number of factors that threaten the very essence of defined benefits as we have known them now for so long. The first factor in the defined benefit plan was a prolonged downturn of the stock market during this administration, the longest downturn we have had since the Great Depression, almost 70 years ago. We have had extremely low 30-year Treasury bond interest rates, and that, too, has contributed to the funding problems some defined benefit plans face. Then we have had weak economic conditions, which means companies cannot afford to make the payments and pay the excise tax imposed in the pension laws themselves. So we have one of the worst economic circumstances that could possibly befall these pension plans as pension designers and pension officials were attempting to struggle with the responsibilities and the direct legal requirements provided of these pensions. That is why this legislation is so important. This legislation addresses that perfect storm. It addresses the circumstances we are now facing across the country. What the Grassley-Baucus-Gregg-Kennedy legislation provides is only temporary relief but, nonetheless, important and essential relief if we are going to deal with this perfect storm of circumstances. The legislation temporarily replaces the 30-year Treasury bond with a corporate bond rate. That will help stabilize these circumstances and begin putting some greater confidence within the system. It provides targeted additional deficit reduction contribution relief to the hardest hit industries. We can walk through those, but there are some, such as the airline industry, that are really suffering very serious consequences as a result of this perfect storm. Some industries have been hurt worse than others. Airlines, perhaps, have been hurt the hardest of all. The legislation also provides temporary relief to the multiemployer pension plans by giving employers and workers time to negotiate changes to the contributions and benefits in order to preserve these pension plans in the first place. Again, this is a very commonsense approach, an opportunity for us to say, at least in the short term, that we recognize the problem. We understand this is not going to be resolved with only these actions, but this will go a long way to providing that temporary relief and that confidence that is going to be required if we can ensure we begin to turn around the circumstances we are facing in this perfect storm today. One of the most important aspects of this legislation, in my view, is the third piece of the proposal that I have just described which deals with multiemployer plans. I am concerned, frankly, that we may sometimes minimize the importance of these plans and not fully appreciate the magnitude of their importance to millions of workers. Those 9.7 million workers have only this to fall back on. We need to be fully appreciative of the importance these plans have in the daily lives of the American workers today. What they allow workers to do is earn pensions under many different employers, as I said a moment ago, helping workers in short-term or seasonal employment. We are talking about construction, hospitality, entertainment, sometimes retail. This is their only opportunity. They have no real access to retirement security unless they have access to a multiemployer plan. They couldn't earn pensions in the single-employer system. It doesn't exist for them. Multiemployer plans provide pensions to low-wage workers--hotel workers, restaurant workers, janitors, the people who work through the night oftentimes so that the buildings are clean when we come back; the people who oftentimes are the workers in the kitchen. This is a critical source of pensions for employees in small businesses as well. In South Dakota, that is the bulk of our business community--small business. We have thousands and thousands of small business employees who have absolutely no access to pensions today were it not for the multiemployer system that we created. We are talking about a serious concern and, I would say, a serious response to that concern as we consider this legislation today. I think this chart lays out very vividly in a picture what I just described in more rhetorical terms. The multiemployer plans provide some help to workers in virtually all industries: 15.2 percent of those 9.7 million Americans are in manufacturing; 14 percent in retail trade; 15 percent in services; almost 10 percent in truck transportation; and 38 percent in construction. This chart in particular caught my attention because we are talking about South Dakota, and we are talking about rural States in particular, but we could be talking about any State. Multiemployer plans provide literally tens of thousands of small employers with the opportunity to provide competitive, comprehensive benefit plans to their employees, which would otherwise be too expensive and administratively too complex for them to provide on their own. As so many of my colleagues know, one of the concerns we have in our State is young people taking flight, leaving our State, once having been educated. We oftentimes in our State compare it to a good crop. The crop is grown, it is nurtured, and then somebody from out of State comes along with a combine, harvests the grain, takes it to another country, sells it, and makes a profit. In some ways that is a little bit like our young people. We educate them, nurture them, teach them our values, and then somebody comes along and hires them away before the first employer has a chance. One of the reasons they are able to hire them away is oftentimes they can provide better wages and better benefits. Well, this is an opportunity for South Dakotans, South Dakota small businessmen and other rural small businesses, to say, look, we have an opportunity to keep you in our State, to provide you with a competitive pension benefit, so you do not have to leave and go to a big city. That is important as well to small businesses that otherwise are not able to be competitive. So this is not just a retirement bill; this is not just a pension security bill. This is legislation that will provide competitiveness to small businesses, whether it is in any one of the industries I mentioned. We have to find ways to ensure that we level the playing field between big business and small. In part, this legislation will do it. So I will end where I started. I am very appreciative of the efforts made by our colleagues to get us to this point, to contribute to public policy in a way that I think will send hope to millions of workers and retirees who are concerned about being right in the center of that perfect storm today, and, of course, to millions of small businesspeople who want very much to be able to provide benefits in a meaningful way and therefore compete, as they do so effectively each and every day, in our free market system today. So I likely will have more to say about this legislation prior to the time we vote on final passage. I again thank my colleague Senator Kennedy for his leadership and those who have brought us to this point. This is good legislation. It merits our support. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, each leader has 5 minutes prior to the vote. I spoke early this morning. Let me again summarize my concerns. I have heard others express the fact that on the country-of-origin labeling, we had one position in the Senate and the House had another, and that this represents a compromise. I will come back to that issue. I acknowledge that in the case of country-of-origin labeling, the House and Senate had two different positions. I would say, though, that on the issue of overtime, on the issue of media concentration in particular, both had rollcall votes cast in the House and in the Senate taking strong positions in opposition to what has now been presented to us in conference. My earlier remarks expressed the deep concern for the institution when in conference there is an ability on the part of a few people to override the majority in both the House and Senate on issues as important as these. So I think we have to be concerned about democracy and about our Republic as occasions such as this arise. Maybe it is not unprecedented, but I don't care how unprecedented or precedented it may be, it is a bad practice. I believe it ought to be stopped. I also expressed this morning my concern about media concentration. I will not elaborate, except to say I am troubled when not only the White House but those in the House who hold a different position can override the majorities in the House and Senate. I am also concerned about the policy itself. Increased media concentration is not good for this country, and those who advocate and support the free enterprise system certainly would have to share that concern. We will say a lot more about that also in the future. My two greatest concerns have to do with the overtime provision and country-of-origin labeling. For the life of me, I cannot understand why this body, this Congress, would ever want to take away the rights to overtime and make the extraordinary statement today that we are not going to reward work, that people who work overtime, work hard and play by the rules, are actually going to be penalized for working hard and overtime in a week or a month. I know of a lot of people who desperately need these resources to make ends meet, pay for groceries, for insurance, and the house payment. For us, as an official Government policy, to say, no, we are going to devise ways in which to deny you overtime pay for the first time in 70 years is abhorrent. It is just wrong. I know I only have 5 minutes, so I will leave it at that. Simply again, I will reiterate how deeply concerned many of us are for this dramatic change in the way we look at rewarding work. Finally, country-of-origin labeling. We have had an unfortunate set of circumstances in the last month right around Christmas; we had the first case of mad cow disease. The administration has done some things right, but, for the life of me, I cannot understand why they would not support an action already in law and a policy in 43 other countries--an action that simply says we have a right to know not only the contents of our food, not only the nutritional value of our food, but the origin of our food. We know the origin of everything else. Why is it so hard for us that we have to say we need 2 more years to study whether it makes sense for us to know the origin of our food? The Japanese are saying: We are not going to give you 2 years. You are not going to export food to our country unless you can tell us where it came from. We are going to deny American exports so long as you cannot label them. Again, the administration is saying that doesn't matter; we are for free trade; we just don't care whether the Japanese want us to label our food. Some have suggested there ought to be a voluntary system. We have tried that. Give me a break. That will not work because it has not worked for years, decades, generations. We need a mandatory system. I am out of time. I will simply say this, and I will use leader time for the additional time. I know there is a need to vote soon. These issues will not go away. We intend to come back with congressional review resolutions, amendments, freestanding bills, to Rule XIV bills on the calendar. We will come back on these. This is not the end but the beginning. We will not rest until this job is done. I have indicated to my colleagues that I intended to make a unanimous consent request, as we have with some of these other provisions. I will do so at this time before I yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a concurrent resolution, which I shall send to the desk, correcting the enrollment of the omnibus conference report, striking the language which delays the implementation of country-of-origin meat labeling regulations; that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I look forward to having further discussions with the majority leader with regard to taking the next legislative step with regard to the Omnibus bill. I am sure we will be able to reach some understanding as to how we might complete our work on this legislation. I do think it is important, as we said yesterday, for the Senate to focus its attention on some of the issues we cited yesterday as real policy concerns. There were procedural concerns about how we got here, but the policy concerns are the ones that can be addressed and can be fixed. If we are not able to fix them in this legislation, I certainly want to assure my colleagues we will look for other vehicles and other ways to address each of these issues over the course of the next several weeks and months. I will have more to say about that later in the day, but I will certainly work with our majority leader in addressing the schedule and providing options for ways in which we can complete our work on this bill perhaps this week. I urge colleagues to recognize the opportunity the day presents to discuss some of these issues. I know there are many on our side who intend to do that. The time is equally divided. We certainly intend to use the time that will be allocated to this side throughout the day to discuss many of these issues. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time to comment on the pending legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are all eager to hear the President's agenda for the year. Before we move on, the Senate has some unfinished business from last year. This time last year Republicans promised a smooth appropriations process. In fact, it broke down to an unprecedented degree. It didn't have to be this way. Chairman Stevens and Senator Byrd steered this process in an open, bipartisan fashion. Working together, they produced 12 appropriations bills that passed with broad, bipartisan support. As the majority leader noted this morning, we owe both of them a debt of thanks. I am confident, had they been able to conclude the process they began, this debate would not have been needed. But because of the hubris of the White House and House Republican leadership, bipartisanship ended at the door to the conference negotiations. Hidden from the light of day, the White House hijacked the appropriations process, excluded Democrats, and wrote a bill to satisfy little more than special interest wish lists. Today we are already 4 months into the fiscal year. We cannot undo the entire process, nor do we seek to. Democrats are united in our support for the vast majority of what is contained in this bill. But we should fix this bill before we finish it. We want to give the majority a few days to work with the administration and the House to fix the most egregious provisions in this bill, provisions that have already been rejected by both Houses of Congress and bipartisan majorities. I have discussed our plans with Chairman Stevens and the majority leader, and I believe they understand that we have no intention to block this bill. There is no reason to consider a full year continuing resolution and absolutely no risk of any interruption to the operation of the Government. The existing CR does not expire until January 31. We could fix this bill with a simple correcting resolution and pass the Omnibus bill with broad, bipartisan support this very day. If we fail to do so today, all we ask is a few days to reconsider their actions. In doing so, we hope to salvage this process and begin this year on a note of bipartisanship, openness, and cooperation. Three provisions demand particular attention. American ranchers and farmers meet the highest safety standards in the world. But the discovery of mad cow disease in one imported Canadian cow has cast an unfair shadow of uncertainty over the American food industry. There is a simple fix--implement the country of origin labeling law Congress has already passed. This rule would put a ``100% American Beef'' sticker only on meat that was born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States. Consumers want and deserve the right to make informed choices. In a recent poll, 85 percent said they would be more likely to buy food if it's American. At a time when the rural community is struggling, the economic benefit of COOL to farmers and ranchers could be pivotal. That is why COOL is supported by 167 farm organizations representing 50 million Americans. The Senate passed rule on two occasions with strong bipartisan support, in May 2002 as part of the farm bill, as well as in November. It is time to enforce the will of the Senate and respond to the wishes of the American people. The second issue is overtime. This bill would allow the White House to end overtime protection for American workers. This plan has already been rejected by the Senate by 54-45 and the House 221-203. There is a simple reason why: It is bad for working families, bad for the economy. It would deliver a pay cut to 8 million workers, including emergency medical personnel, criminal investigators, nurses, physician assistants, teachers, agriculture inspectors, and more. Overtime pay accounts for nearly a quarter of take-home pay. For millions of families, it represents college savings, down payment for a house, medical bills. At a time when manufacturing jobs continue to be shipped overseas and families are anxious about their finances, it would be cruel to end this vital protection that workers have depended upon for 70 years. Finally, as to media ownership, when a few companies control the vast majority of media outlets in our country, our national discourse suffers and the vitality of our democracy is undermined. There has been broad bipartisan support for maintaining limits. Last year, these limits won wide majorities in both the House and the Senate. After first agreeing to retain language passed by the House and Senate to limit the number of stations a network can own, conferees bowed to White House pressure and included language that helps media conglomerates consolidate control over the airwaves. This is special interest giveaway that directly harms the national interest, and it should be stopped. There is more in this bill that could be improved. Provisions hidden within this 1,200 page bill would also threaten the education of Washington D.C. children through an untested vouchers scheme, undermine gun enforcement laws and allow more dangerous criminals to get their hands on guns, and contract out Federal jobs in key areas of government, leaving both Federal workers and citizens less safe and secure. There are many more shortcomings. My colleagues could certainly point to other issues that deserve attention. The Senate should not look the other way while a small minority overrides the will of the majority merely in order to reward one special interest after another. We ask just a few days to improve this legislation. Let us fix this bill before we finish it. A few extra days of debate could prevent this bill from causing enduring damage to the Senate, our government, and our Nation. Last year, with the White House and House Republican leadership at the controls, the appropriations process jumped the tracks. We have a chance to set things right and establish a tone of bipartisanship and cooperation for the coming year. I urge the Senate to make the most of this opportunity. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senate Democrats have set as our goal the passage of legislation that we call an ``Opportunity Society'' for all Americans--not just the privileged few. It includes proposals for more jobs--especially in manufacturing where we have lost nearly 2.5 million jobs just in the past 3 years--8,000 in my State of South Dakota. Nothing could create those jobs faster than early passage of a highway bill. We have already lost 90,000 jobs by the failure to take up the bill last year when the last bill expired. We can create over 800,000 jobs this year if we act expeditiously. Not only do we believe in the need to create jobs but we want those jobs to pay a decent wage. Nothing can be more critical in that regard than to increase the minimum wage for the first time in 7 years. Democrats also believe this Senate should address the cost and availability of health care which is fast becoming the preeminent issue in our country. I have vivid recollections of my hundreds of conversations with South Dakotans throughout my State last year, conversations which revealed the anxiety and the physical and financial pain now experienced by so many with and without health insurance. We believe one of the very first steps in reaching this goal should be the passage of legislation which authorizes the Government to negotiate lower prices for all seniors on prescription drugs as we already do for veterans and military retirees. We will also advocate that this country devote far more attention to education, from preschool to higher education, with more resources and greater priority to fully funding childcare, title I, special education, and the No Child Left Behind Act. We are determined to see that the Senate addresses retirement security for all Americans by protecting our seniors' pensions and providing them with the confidence that their retirement income will not be squandered or lost because of corporate mismanagement. It is imperative that Social Security be protected, and we will continue to fight this year to see that it is. We also seek to provide opportunities here at home, and we ask that we not forget we are a nation at war and are asking a great deal of the men and women in our Armed Forces as well as their families. Democrats want to ensure that all of our Nation's reservists have access to quality health care. Democrats will try to make certain that no veteran has to choose between his disability pay and his retirement pay. We will seek to provide additional resources to end the lengthy waits at VA hospitals that are a fact of life for too many of our veterans today. It is also our hope that this session will allow us the opportunity early on to address a good energy bill. I have said on several occasions, should the MTBE liability immunity provisions be stricken from the provisions in the energy bill, there would be sufficient votes to pass it on the Senate floor. The decision is up to the majority. It is also our goal this year to pass the Mental Health Parity Act, welfare reform reauthorization, and the legislation to outlaw hate crimes. As I said, we hope we can do this and much more on a bipartisan basis. It is with sadness that I note the way the last session ended. The majority didn't seek consensus or cooperation of the Democratic caucus on either the Medicare bill or the energy legislation. It was a process designed to find agreement among those who already agreed not to bridge the differences or broaden support. It was marked by procedural abuses. Many Americans are still dismayed that the House kept the Medicare vote open for 3 hours while one Member actually admitted he was offered a bribe from another Member on the House floor to support the bill. That isn't how the American people expect us to do their work. We can do better. This year we must. While I am on matters that cause Democrats very grave concern, I am compelled to note the onerous recess appointment of Judge Charles Pickering. The President could not have started off this session of Congress in a worse way. The Senate has repeatedly rejected this nomination. The timing, during the Martin Luther King, Jr., weekend, also could not have been worse. It was a deplorable decision and one that is deeply regrettable on several levels. As we begin this session, our first order of business will be the consideration of the Omnibus appropriations bill. The Omnibus appropriations bill was once a good bill. In the Senate we were able to work out compromises. We accomplished many things and the process worked. But the administration intervened at the eleventh hour and demanded changes, laid down an ultimatum, and even forced the conference to take positions in direct conflict with earlier positions taken on rollcall votes in both the House and the Senate. Its insistence on provisions affecting the mad cow decision, overtime regulations, and media concentration made the bill unsupportable to many Senators. We should take the time to fix the bill's problems because they affect millions of American families. We owe it to them to take the time to do it right. I take a moment for some additional comments on matters unrelated to our legislative agenda. First, I know I speak for all Senators in expressing praise for our troops in Iraq for their inspiring demonstration of bravery and patriotism. Nearly 500 soldiers have died and 3,000 have been wounded since the war began. Our country owes them our debt of gratitude. I am particularly mindful of the sacrifices made by thousands of South Dakotans, including 800 who departed for Iraq during the recent holiday season. Recently, I attended a funeral for Chris Soelzer, a young man from Sturgis who lost his life in Iraq on Christmas Eve. He was a remarkable role model, a leader, and soldier. The agony felt by his family, friends, and his community is another poignant reminder of the horrific sacrifice that war demands. We honor those who are there and express our heartfelt gratitude for the job they continue to do under the most difficult of circumstances. While we praise them for finding Saddam Hussein and for continuing the effort to ensure democracy for the 23 million people of Iraq, we remain concerned that our troops face violent attacks daily and our troops and our taxpayers are bearing a disproportionate share of the burden. Second, I note the decision made by our colleague, Senator John Breaux, to retire at the end of this session. I have had the good fortune to work with Senator Breaux now for 25 years, 17 in the Senate. I am proud to call him a close friend. He will leave the Senate with many accomplishments, many admirers, and many good friends. He has earned our respect and affection by his manner, his work, and his never-ending desire to seek consensus and bipartisan achievement. For that reason, he will also leave a hole in this institution, one that will be very hard to fill. We thank John Breaux for his service to his country, his remarkable leadership, and his friendship. I wish Lois and John well in the months and years ahead. In the spirit of John Breaux, let me close by reiterating our desire to work in a constructive, bipartisan way for legislation that will truly create an ``opportunity society'' for all Americans. I look forward to the coming months and the challenges that we will confront as they unfold. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Thank you, Mr. President. I join in welcoming back our colleagues and staff, and I wish our majority leader a happy new year. I hope his holidays were as enjoyable as ours. I express my good wishes to the Presiding Officer and to the distinguished assistant Democratic leader and others with whom I have already had the opportunity to talk personally. I hope this will be a productive session because there is so much that ought to be done. I believe much can be done if we work in a constructive and bipartisan way for legislation that will create opportunities for all Americans.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the legislative session, that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1853, a bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits for displaced workers, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, unless the majority leader has additional comments, I wish to take a few moments to address my concerns about the current draft of the appropriations bill. I believe the appropriations process has fallen apart. This is a Frankenstein monster of a bill born of a badly broken process. It is time to send it back to the laboratory. At the beginning of the year, we were told the White House and the Senate Republican leadership would make sure the appropriations process ran more smoothly than ever before. In fact, the process broke down to an extent never seen before, opening the door to the worst kind of legislative abuses and special interest giveaways. This bill, this monstrosity, combines 7 appropriations bills, including 11 of 15 Cabinet-level Departments, comprising $820 billion in Government spending. To agree to a unanimous consent request this morning I believe would represent a shocking abrogation of our responsibilities to the people of this country. We have not finished until 2\1/2\ months into the fiscal year. This was supposed to have been done on October 1. It is now early December. These delays are becoming regrettably common. But what makes this omnibus unique is its utter disregard for the expressed will of each House of Congress. The process was an abomination, closed largely to Democrats, hidden from the light of day, written to satisfy nothing more than special interest wish lists. It didn't have to be this way. The Senate passed 12 of the 13 appropriations bills by wide bipartisan margins. The House passed 13 appropriations bills with wide margins. None of the bills posed difficulties. The only reason the process was handled this way was to ram through divisive provisions and pork spending that could never win the support of the Congress on their own. I thank Chairman Stevens and especially my ranking member, Senator Byrd, for the work they did to avoid this calamity. They understand the proper process and worked to employ it in this case. However, they were overruled by the White House and Republican leadership. That's why we find ourselves in this regrettable situation today. This brand of legislating opens the door to the most ludicrous examples of pork spending, which has contributed to citizens' loss of faith in the process itself. Even the conservative Taxpayers for Common Sense said: This bill includes thousands of frivolous, bizarre, and special interest earmarks for every congressional district in the nation. For example, in this bill, somewhere in these pages, you will find $2 million to encourage young people to play golf; half a million dollars for halibut data collection; money for a replica mule barn in LaSalle, IL; and most ironic, a half a million dollars for the ``Exercise in Hard Choices'' Program at the University of Akron which attempts to replicate House and Senate meetings in which congressional members review a budget and vote to include or exclude various options. Alongside this kind of wasteful spending, this bill includes several mean-spirited damaging offsetting cuts. These cuts will result in 24,000 fewer children who will be served by title I educational programs; 5,500 fewer kids will be able to attend Head Start; 26,500 fewer veterans will receive medical care; and $170 million will be cut from needed highway construction projects. I could go on all day. What is most troubling about this bill is the fact that some of the most egregious provisions that were sneaked into this bill at the last minute had already been rejected by one or both Houses of Congress. The fact that the White House directed conferees to include them shows a contempt both for the procedures of Congress and the citizens they were designed to protect. This bill once more allows the White House to end overtime protection for American workers. The Senate voted to stop the White House's plan by a vote of 54 to 45. The House agreed by a vote of 221 to 203. The reason is clear. Ending overtime is bad for working families, and it is bad for the economy. At this precarious moment for our economy, the White House's plan would deliver a pay cut to 8 million workers, including emergency medical personnel, criminal investigators, nurses, physician assistants, teachers, agriculture inspectors, and more. Overtime accounts for nearly a quarter of these workers' take-home pay. For many Americans, their overtime offers them the chance to save for college or a down-payment for a house, or simply to meet their medical bills. It has been vital protection for workers for the past 70 years, and now Congress's defense of working families, overwhelmingly approved by both the Senate and in the House, mysteriously was stripped from this bill. Media ownership is another example. Real damage to our democracy occurs when a few companies control the airwaves. We had broad bipartisan support for maintaining the limits--wide majorities, again, in both the House and the Senate. After first agreeing to retain the language passed by the House and Senate to limit the number of stations a network can own, conferees bowed to White House pressure to permanently raise the limit to make it easier on media conglomerates, again, directly overturning rollcall votes taken in the House and Senate on media ownership. Mysteriously, once more, the legislation confronted reality and the sentiment of the Members of both bodies. Consider country-of-origin labeling: The omnibus legislation I have in front of me includes language actually delaying the implementation of country-of-origin labeling for 2 years. The Senate passed country- of-origin labeling on two occasions--in May of 2002 as part of the farm bill, as well as just last month with a vote of 56 to 32. Consumers deserve the right to make informed choices. The economic benefit to farmers and ranchers in struggling rural communities could not be more apparent. It was supported by 167 farm organizations representing 50 million Americans but opposed by the four meatpackers that control 80 percent of the U.S. beef market. They worked behind the scenes to kill this rule and that, too, is in this legislation. This bill also undermines our ability to stop gun crimes: This bill requires the destruction of background check records within 24 hours. Current law requires records to be maintained for 90 days. It is vital to the war on terror, as well as to domestic violence cases, that retention of these records be maintained. The retention of records has been critical to audit NICS and correct mistaken approvals. We will no longer have that ability as a result of the provisions included in this bill. The General Accounting Office reports that the 90-day retention allowed the FBI to retrieve 235 guns that were bought by people with criminal records. We also had a big debate--a very aggressive debate--about DC vouchers. We stripped out the provision that was reinserted to circumvent Democratic objections. There was no accountability here. In addition, we are undermining the Washington, DC, schools to advance a theory that absolutely has no evidence to back it up. Vouchers threaten to create two-tiered education system in which more children each year are left behind. But as with the other controversial provisions, vouchers, for the first time at the Federal level, are in this bill. This bill also undermines our protection of federal workers. Language was dropped that blocked the OMB plan to contract out 400,000 Federal workers. The conferees had reached a bipartisan compromise, but that was rejected by the White House. What remains provides so many loopholes for OMB that the Federal workers have very little protection. This bill is to good legislating what a dank basement corner is to good housekeeping. Both could stand a good dose of sunlight, and that is just what we intend to do. We will not allow this bill to be sneaked through a procedural back door when no one is looking. It may mean further delay, but 1 more month of delay is nothing compared to the enduring damage this bill will cause to the Senate, our Government, and our Nation. Extension of the Federal Unemployment Benefits Program Mr. President, with regard to the unanimous consent request I had made, this holiday season is bringing the same bad news that millions of jobless workers heard last year. Nearly 3 million Americans have lost their jobs; 2.6 million in manufacturing alone. The number of people looking for work for more than 6 months has now tripled since the beginning of the Bush administration. In fact, the economy would have to create over 347,000 jobs per month just to keep the Bush administration from having the worst rate of job creation of any administration since the Great Depression. Today, there are three job seekers for every job opening. Yet the Republican leadership in the Congress is again refusing to address this urgent problem. During this holiday season, the temporary Federal Unemployment Benefits Program will expire. This means each week after December 21, more than 80,000 Americans will run out of their State unemployment benefits. These workers will not be eligible for any additional assistance. Last fall, before Congress adjourned, the Senate worked on a bipartisan basis to ensure that unemployment workers would not be left out in the cold. Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership decided to turn its back on these families, and the administration has failed to act as well. As a result, thousands of workers were stranded until Congress reconvened, and we were able to pass an extension. Over the last several weeks, Senate Democrats have repeatedly propounded unanimous consent requests to pass an extension to the Federal Unemployment Insurance Program. We faced Republican objections every time. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay went so far as to say he sees no reason to extend the Federal unemployment compensation program. Clearly, inaction is an unacceptable position. It was last year, and it remains so this year. Since it appears Congress may not return until the end of January, it is now even more urgent that the administration influence congressional Republicans to work with us to pass a 6-month extension before Congress adjourns. As we approach the holiday season, we have to ensure that families are not left without the ability to make ends meet while searching for employment. Foreign Operations Conference Report Mr. President, finally, let me briefly explain why I felt the need to ask unanimous consent to pass the Foreign Operations conference report. AIDS is the worse public health crisis the world has ever known. Mr. President, 8,000 people--8,000--die each and every day; 15,000 people contract HIV every day, the majority of them young people. The Foreign Operations conference report provides $800 million for an increase--a much needed increase--in the Global AIDS Program. It is a positive step in our effort to fight and defeat this pandemic. It should have been done 2 months ago. We should not have to wait another 2 months. The crisis is simply too pressing. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership and the House Appropriations Committee would have us wait. There are a lot of controversial items in this huge omnibus, but let's be clear: The Foreign Operations conference report and the increased AIDS funding is certainly not one of them. Foreign Operations was signed by every single conferee. It was minutes from being filed. Unfortunately, some Republicans intervened and demanded that it be rolled into the larger bill. Why? Because they wanted increased leverage on the omnibus and the controversial policy provisions, provisions that go against the will of bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress. So let's be clear. The reason they insisted on this was to hold increased AIDS funding hostage to these special interest giveaways. In a season of disappointments, that is especially disappointing. So I am very deeply disappointed that by unanimous consent we could not take up a bill that had passed unanimously in conference, signed by all the conferees, recognizing that 8,000 people who die every day will not get the kind of attention, the resources, the commitment, and the response they so desperately need. 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. Mr. President, I join the majority leader in welcoming our colleagues and our staff. I, too, hope they all had a good Thanksgiving holiday, and I appreciate the work that has been done at the staff level over the course of the last couple weeks as we have prepared for this day. I look forward to our discussions in the next couple of minutes with regard to how we might proceed. I have a more extensive statement with regard to the omnibus appropriations bill that I will make at a later time. Obviously, there are some executive nominations that we believe could be addressed. We have been working together to find how we might move a large number of them today, and I hope before the end of this day we will have completed our work on that as well. I look forward to working with the majority leader and our colleagues in the hope we can make this a very productive day. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object--and I will have a lengthier statement--I ask unanimous consent, instead, that later today, at a time to be determined by the two leaders, the Senate proceed to the consideration of a resolution to correct the flaws in the omnibus appropriations bill by: Reinstating the Senate-passed provision to prohibit the administration's plan to abolish overtime for 8 million workers; reinstating the Senate-passed provision on media ownership; striking the House language blocking the implementation of country-of-origin labeling; striking the provision that weakens the background check requirements of the Brady bill; striking the provision to impose a voucher system on the DC public school system; striking the provision to allow the contracting out of over 400,000 Federal jobs and reinstating the House-passed language; and striking the provisions imposing arbitrary across-the-board cuts to education, Head Start, veterans health care, highway construction, and other needed programs. I further ask consent that the resolution be subject to 1 hour of debate equally divided, that no amendments or motions be in order, and that after the expiration of the time, the bill be agreed to and sent to the House of Representatives. Finally, I ask consent that upon approval of this correcting resolution by the House, the omnibus appropriations bill be agreed to by the Senate, and that it be sent to the President for his signature.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, then I object to the request made by the majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2800, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill, as passed by the Senate on October 30, that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of division D of H.R. 2673, the omnibus appropriations bill, be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill be read the third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think it is fitting that the distinguished Senator from Illinois is in the chair. I know Senator Frist either has or intends to say something about the tragic news we just received this afternoon. I had the privilege, the honor, of working with Paul Simon for 12 years. He brought a decency, a sense of humor, to his life and to his work that I think has never been matched. True to his roots as an investigative journalist, he had a clear eye for injustice and an untiring devotion to using power to improve the lives of Americans. At the same time, he recognized that in order to maintain citizens' support for Government, we needed to preserve their faith in the political process. Paul Simon was among the more vocal and effective advocates of campaign finance reform, and his leadership helped clear the way for the McCain-Feingold bill, passed 5 years after his departure. Even after his retirement, Paul Simon remained committed to raising citizens' understanding of and faith in Government and politics through his writings and his work to begin Southern Illinois University's Public Policy Institute. Anyone who knew or worked with Paul will miss his probing intellect, his self-deprecating wit, his integrity, and his leadership. I will never forget one of the last days that Senator Simon served, all of us surprised him during a vote by coming to the floor wearing bow ties. I will never forget the look on his face. We tried to replicate Paul Simon's look, but we could never replicate his soul, his character, his personality, his drive, his intellect, his prodigious writing as the author of, I know, more than a dozen books. Paul Simon was a friend. Paul Simon was a giant on whom we depended for the guidance, the leadership, and the courage that this Senate has come to expect of people as capable as he was when he served. We will miss him dearly. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I share the Majority Leader's belief that schools are critical in this effort. We must do a better job of educating our children to be the productive and involved citizens that our democracy, our country, needs.