Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will certainly not exceed 30 minutes. I hope I can speak using less time because we are getting a little bit of a late start. Let me begin by saying what an important debate this is. This is a debate the consequences of which will last for generations. This debate in many respects will be every bit as important as the debate on Medicare in 1965. One really has to go back to that year, 1965, to fully appreciate what we are debating now. There was a debate, of course, in that period of our history, in the mid-1960s, about whether it was possible for us to address what was a national embarrassment at the time. About half of all senior citizens in the early 1960s had no health insurance--none. They were left out. There were horror stories about what they had to do in order to accommodate the health problems they were facing. It was a painful chapter. In some cases, because seniors had no health insurance, they were not living as long, the quality of their lives could not have been worse, and they were the poorest of the poor. They often had no income other than Social Security, and Social Security took them nowhere in regard to paying for the costs of health care. Thanks to President Kennedy and then-President Johnson, the recommendation was made that we provide a national health insurance plan for seniors. Republicans, at that time, argued that it was not the role of Government, that it ought to be the private sector that provides health insurance. Democrats argued, in response, that given the group of people we were talking about, providing health insurance for senior citizens in the private sector had about as much profit in it as providing insurance for a haircut. You are dealing with the sickest, most elderly in our population. So there is not much of a profit incentive for insurers; there is not an incentive in terms of the demographics and all of the actuarial circumstances. The private sector has virtually been loath to insure seniors because of that. It is like insuring a haircut. There is an inevitability, if you are a senior, to that moment in one's life when illness becomes a serious threat. And obviously, that is when the circumstances involving the end of life become all the more real. Medicare stepped in. Now, over the last 40 years, it has been one of the most successful programs in all of American history. Forty years of success, 40 years of providing health care with a consistency and a confidence we have never had in all of our time in this country. My mother has benefits from Medicare. My mother benefits from Social Security. I can only imagine what it would be like today if she did not have Medicare and Social Security upon which to depend. So Republicans, over the last 40 years, have tried to find ways to go back to that debate of 1965 and say: We still believe in the private sector. We ought to be able to find a way to provide insurance for a haircut and incentivize the private sector. I will never forget the extraordinary statement made by the Speaker of the House, I believe it was in 1994. He addressed that very issue all over again when he said: It is still our hope and still our design to see Medicare wither on the vine. For 40 years they have attempted to bring about an end, if not to Medicare itself, certainly to the concept of universal coverage through Medicare for all senior citizens. That is really the backdrop that today we must recognize as we begin the debate on this bill. How is it that those very colleagues who 40 years ago argued that we really should not have a Government program for universal coverage for health care, who just 10 years ago said we ought to see Medicare wither on the vine, now in the name of Medicare are arguing we need to reform it, we need to improve it? We are not improving it with this bill. We are not reforming it with this bill. Does Medicare need to be changed? Of course. And providing a meaningful prescription drug benefit is probably the single best reform we could enact, because medicine itself has changed. But to those who say we want Medicare to look more like the private sector, I say you don't speak for me with that assertion. Medicare has had about a 4 percent administrative cost over 40 years; 96 percent of the money that goes into Medicare goes to benefits. Do you know how that compares with the private sector? I am told the average administrative cost in the private sector for insurance plans is not 4 percent. It is not even 10 percent. I am told the administrative cost for a private sector plan today on the average is about 15 percent--almost four times the administrative costs of Medicare. So if you want to see the Medicare plan become more like a private plan, then count on spending almost four times more for administrative costs. At most, 85 percent of premiums go to benefits in private sector plans. How ironic that we find our colleagues saying: We want to make Medicare more like the private sector; we want more competition. We don't mind competition. But the kind of competition they want doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why would we provide, instead of 96 percent of the benefits to the beneficiary, only 85 percent, and call that progress? To make Medicare more ``competitive,'' our colleagues want to give more than $14 billion of incentives to the private sector to get them to insure a haircut. Their notion is that somehow we can find a way to make the private sector more interested in providing meaningful health care to seniors, when Medicare is doing it so well already. There are a lot of very grave concerns we have about this legislation. I brought some charts to the floor to talk about some of these concerns. I want to address them, if I can, in the time I have allotted to me. I think one of the biggest concerns I have is that seniors today are very concerned about prices. They are concerned that their drug prices go up each and every year. I will never forget talking to a woman in Sioux Falls whose name is Florence. She told me that, at 73 years old, she must work and she must use the supplemental pay she gets from her job--at 73--simply to pay for the drugs she needs. Her drug bill is about $400 a month. It goes up 10 to 15 percent every year. She drives to Canada once every 3 months in order to save $100 a month. She figures every 3 months she saves enough to actually buy the drugs for a month with that trip to Canada. So, without question, I think most seniors are very concerned about what is going to happen to the costs of their drugs. The answer, with all of the specific analysis done to date about the impact of this bill, the best analysis we can provide so far, is that up to 25 percent of all beneficiaries are actually going to pay more, not less, for the drugs they buy with the passage of this bill--25 percent. It could be more than that. Many Medicaid beneficiaries are going to pay more than what they are paying right now. And there are many in the private sector who are going to pay more. You are going to see several million Medicare beneficiarie who now have private coverage actually lose that coverage as a result of the passage of this bill. The estimate is now about 2.7 million senior citizens will lose their retiree coverage when this legislation is enacted into law. There are a number of other concerns we have with regard to this particular bill, including the coercion of seniors into HMOs and increasing their Medicare premiums with the so-called premium support concept. Within 7 years, many seniors are going to be forced into a pilot project in at least six locations. In those locations at least, and maybe others, we are going to see not only increases in Medicare premiums, but also seniors coerced into HMOs. These are cases where seniors have never even thought about an HMO until now. In addition, millions of seniors are going to go without drug coverage during part of the year. I will talk more about that later. We also are going to keep drug prices high as a result of this legislation. There is very little this legislation does to reduce the cost of drugs at all, as I said just a moment ago. And finally, we squander $6 billion needed for retiree coverage on tax shelters for the wealthy and the healthy. For all of these reasons--the cost to beneficiaries, the coercion of seniors into HMOs, millions of seniors who are going to go part of the year without any coverage at all, the fact that drug prices don't come down but they go up, and that we squander $6 billion on tax shelters for the wealthy in the name of Medicare--it makes a mockery of the whole word ``reform.'' I said earlier that up to 25 percent of all beneficiaries will see more costs for drugs. There are two categories in particular. Studies have shown that 2.7 million retirees, including about 5,000 South Dakotans, will actually lose the coverage they have with the private sector when this legislation is enacted. And that 2.7 million number, I think, is actually going to be higher. For those millions of Americans and those thousands of South Dakotans, that would be the biggest blow of all. They have confidence now that they can go to the pharmacy, and they can buy their drugs. They do not have to worry about whether or not they are covered. They had better start worrying because the problems kick in just as soon as this legislation is enacted, if it is. Up to 6.4 million low-income beneficiaries are going to pay more or lose access to drugs they are now provided. I think the 25 percent number may be a conservative figure. When you take the number of retirees adversely affected, when you take the number of low-income beneficiaries who may be worse off under this plan, you begin to appreciate the magnitude of the problem this bill is going to create for millions of senior citizens today who are totally unaware of its negative implications. The legislation creates a dilemma. The choice seniors will face is higher premiums on one side or an HMO on the other. How is that reform? How does that possibly relate to this widely stated goal we all have that we simply want to provide a meaningful drug benefit to senior citizens? This bill isn't a drug reform plan, this is a Trojan horse for the collapse of Medicare. We are going to see the loss of Medicare as we know it today if this legislation passes. I think this chart describes it pretty well. If you want to see increased premiums, support this bill. If you want to see seniors forced into an HMO, support this legislation. It leaves a question mark for a senior citizen right now: What do I do? How do I respond? How can I prepare myself for what is about to come? What is about to come regarding drug coverage is described on this calendar. This calendar says more than any speech probably can. This calendar describes in essence the drug benefit structure. Of all the concerns I have, the benefit structure is one of the most troubling to me. I want to describe it, but then I want to use this calendar to talk about its implementation. A senior will start paying $35 a month. We will come back to that figure in just a minute. A senior pays that $35 a month 12 months out of the year--January through December. Then the senior must pay 100 percent of all the benefits up to the deductible. That is depicted in red. Then the first dollar of protection under this plan for drug coverage would kick in, following the $250 deductible. Beneficiaries pay all of the $250. The drug coverage kicks in from $250 in spending up to $2,250. The Government pays 75 percent of the benefit. After the benefit has been paid--75 percent Government, 25 percent senior, up to $2,250--the Government says: Wait a minute. We paid all we can pay. You are on your own from $2,250 up to $5,100. You are going to pay all the costs during that period. After the beneficiary pays $35 a month, 100 percent up to $250, and 25 percent up to $2,250, they have to pay the entire cost up to $5,100, even though they are still paying a premium, and then they have a 95 percent benefit that kicks in after that. Basically, what this calendar depicts is the drug schedule for 2006 for beneficiaries with $400 per month in drug spending. By the way, the benefit doesn't kick in until 2006. So there are premiums that kick in, and the benefit lasts for a period of time, during the months of February, March, April, and May. They benefit in June somewhat. But for the entire rest of the year they are on their own. This convoluted benefit structure is scary, as I think of my own mother, and I think of all of those who are going to try to figure it out: How in the world do I know how much I owe? How much can I count on? How much of these benefits are really going to apply to me? This period of no benefits is called a coverage gap. Some people call it a donut hole. Whatever you want to call it, it is a mistake. Think of the myriad of administrative costs involved for every single senior citizen who is going to have to try to decide: Are they in the 25 percent category, the 100 percent category, or are they in the 95 percent category? By the way, if you are a senior citizen with a lower income, you are entitled to a different schedule. First, they have to know what their income is. They are going to have to turn over their tax records to determine what kind of income they have and whether they are eligible or not. Once those tax records are determined, they then are presented with these different tables that they are going to have to try to figure out. Imagine a 90-year-old woman trying to figure out when she goes to the pharmacy what the coverage gap is: Do I pay the premium? Do I have to pay 100 percent? If I do, how do I pay for it? Am I breaking a law if I expect the pharmacy manager to give me the full benefit? How do I figure this out? This convoluted, confusing, extraordinarily complex schedule is a disaster. I will make a prediction. I will predict that within 12 months, we are going to be back fixing this so-called coverage gap. It is chasm, it is not a gap. It is a confusion chasm. It is a disaster. That, if nothing else, ought to warrant reconsideration of this legislation. But as I say, the coverage gap widens over time. It is not just now. The premium, as I said, starts at $35. In 2013, the premium goes up to $58. The deductibles start at $250. But guess what? In 2013, the actual deductible is going to be almost $500. The coverage gap then goes from $2,850 in 2006 all the way up to $5,066 by 2013. In other words, senior citizens are going to have to pay $5,000 even though they are paying $35, or in this case $58, a month for the benefit. Can you imagine a senior citizen coughing up these kinds of dollars in just a few short years? It is absolutely the most reprehensible expectation for senior citizens. They can no more afford $5,000 in 2013 than they can afford it today. It is wrong. This, if nothing else, ought to be a reason we should send this legislation back to the conference to figure out a better way of doing it. The bottom line is, when it comes to the coverage gap, seniors are going to have to pay $4,000 to be eligible for $5,000 worth of benefits. Can you imagine that in the name of reform? First of all, we are coercing seniors into an HMO. We are telling retirees they may lose their own health benefits. Two to three million people are going to lose benefits, and the benefit they are going have instead is a $5,000 coverage gap and paying $58 a month in 2013. That, perhaps more than anything else, is disconcerting. As I talk to seniors, the concern they have the most is, of course, the high cost of drugs. First of all, our conferees wasted no time in eliminating the reimportation of United States-made drugs from Canada. They will point to language in the bill, but the bottom line is we will not see any change in the current law with regard to reimportation of drugs from Canada. There is virtually a prohibition on drugs from Canada. South Dakotans, North Dakotans, Montanans, Minnesotans, Michigan residents have counted on Canadian relief. That has been a big part of what has been their strategy in coping with the high cost of drugs today. That is going to be gone. They will not be able to reimport unless they go to Canada themselves. They also have a prohibition--and this is amazing to me as one of the things Medicare has been able to show is it can leverage better prices; because of the power of pooling, we can leverage, whether it is hospital prices, doctor prices, prescription drug prices--and there is actually a prohibition for Medicare in the negotiation of lower drug prices on behalf of senior citizens. Drug companies can do it, pharmacy benefit managers can do it, but there is a prohibition on the Federal Government involving itself in negotiating on behalf of senior citizens for lower drug prices today. I have never heard of such a thing. If we cannot bring about a better price, if we cannot leverage drug prices more effectively through Medicare, who in the world can do it more effectively than the Government itself and Medicare specifically? The reason prices are going to remain high is, No. 1, there is going to be very little competition from those sources where competition is already shown to be very effective; No. 2, Medicare itself, the Government through Medicare, is actually prohibited from negotiating better prices on behalf of seniors. That is an amazing provision of law that is inexplicable. It goes on. I said earlier one of the concerns I have is this provision that allows $6 billion to be squandered for those who are healthy, and in many cases wealthy today, money that could actually go for retiree coverage. It creates a new health savings account which is nothing more, of course, than a tax shelter for those who are wealthy and will draw off people who are healthy. Ordinary Americans cannot afford it and it undermines the employer-based coverage we already have. Six billion dollars is a tremendous pool of resources that could have gone to making this program far more cost effective and far more accessible for a lot of seniors. Instead, even though we did not have it in the Senate bill, even though we had bipartisan support for this $6 billion going to those who need it the most, in keeping with the trend, in keeping with the philosophy of many on the other side, creating this tax shelter for the wealthy was a ``must pass'' piece of legislation. The bottom line is we lost $6 billion over the next 10 years that could have gone a long way to reducing the cost of drugs to everyone else. How is it that with all these warts, with all these problems, with all these deficiencies, with all these concerns, this legislation could be before the Senate today? This chart shows it pretty well. The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association had their agenda as well. I must say, they got virtually every single thing they wanted. They wanted an administered drug benefit in the private sector that diluted the purchasing power of Medicare. They got it. They wanted financial incentives for HMOs, another step away from Medicare. They got it. They wanted a prohibition on Medicare negotiating prices, as I just described a minute ago. Guess what. It is there. They wanted a meaningless reimportation provision because they did not want the competition. Guess what. That is in the bill as well. They wanted a watered-down generic access provision. Check that off the list. They wanted no public scrutiny and secret kickback arrangement potential within the contracts they have with the benefit managers and the insurers. That is in there, too. They wanted a huge windfall profit. They are going to make more money in the next 10 years than virtually any other sector within our economy. No wonder stock prices are soaring today--because they also see the writing on the wall. PhRMA had a checklist. PhRMA got their list checked, every single item on the list. The bottom line is, of course, Medicare beneficiaries lose, PhRMA wins, and the bill comes before the Senate with this realization. PhRMA got what it wanted. But organizations that represent seniors, organizations that represent working families, organizations that represent State governments and city governments, organizations of all kinds--liberal, conservative, name it--organizations of all kinds have come forward to say: Please do not pass this bill. Send it back to the drawing board. Recognize the damage you are going to do--not just to Medicare; recognize the damage you will do to the confidence and the security of senior citizens. Now more than 200 organizations have said they oppose this legislation and they want the Senate to oppose it as well. This legislation would have been killed in the House had they abided by the rules. One of the most flagrant demonstrations of abuse of the institution and rules I have seen: They took almost over 3 hours the other day to bring about the desired vote on the House floor in spite of the opposition of all these organizations. You have all these organizations on one side. This picture depicts pretty well what is happening on the other. A meeting was called on November 13 to talk about the benefits of this plan, to convince seniors that somehow they are going to be better off. And all these empty chairs pretty well depict exactly what happened. Seniors know what is going on. They were not going to be part of a sham discussion. No one showed up. No one ought to vote for this either. This legislation does not deserve our support. We can do better. This started out as a debate about providing meaningful help to seniors. It has turned into a debate to save Medicare. We are going to do all we can to live up to the specific talks, to live up to the needs, the hopes and dreams of senior citizens today. We will do all we can to defeat this bill when those votes are taken. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I share the view expressed by the majority leader about the need for us to accommodate as many Senators as possible. It is my understanding that there is no objection to actually locking in a 30-minute time limit. Senators are free, of course, to ask unanimous consent to extend if they wish. So at this time I propound that request. I ask unanimous consent that Senators be limited to no more than 30 minutes during the debate today.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we already have an agreement where we will alternate in recognition of Senators on either side of the aisle as we debate the Medicare bill. We have several hours of requests already from our colleagues. I will not propound a unanimous consent request, but I might propose that we consider limiting at least comments today on the floor to 15 minutes to accommodate as many Senators as possible. I know there are a lot of Senators who are going to be attempting to schedule their day around their opportunity to come to the floor. If we have that understanding, if there are four or five in line, it would seem to me it would work. As I say, I will talk to the majority leader about that. I do hope Senators on this side of the aisle will call the cloakroom or call Senator Reid or myself to let us know their intentions with regard to speaking so that we can coordinate the effective use of time. As the majority leader has already announced, we will be in tomorrow as well. So Senators will have an opportunity to speak throughout the weekend in addition, of course, to Monday. We will work with him to accommodate all Senators who wish to speak. We will work on a time certain for a vote at a later date. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask the majority leader if it is his intention to set aside a moment of silence this afternoon in commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy. It is my understanding that some thought had been given to that time, and I think it would be helpful, if that time has been set aside, if we could make that announcement in the interest of all Senators.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for those of us who are old enough to remember President Kennedy, November 22 is always tinged with a sense of sadness and loss. Today, on this 40th anniversary of President Kennedy's death, we are especially aware of that loss. One floor above us, in a corridor leading to the House side of the Capitol, there is a wonderful exhibit by a long-time Senate photographer named Arthur Scott--``Scotty.'' He was an official Senate photographer from 1955 until his death in 1976. One of my favorite of his photos up on the third floor shows a very young-looking Senator John Kennedy playing catcher in a baseball game with other Senators in 1958. Scoop Jackson is at bat and Mike Mansfield in umpiring. John Kennedy looks more like a staffer than a Senator. About 12 feet down that same hall hangs another photograph. This one was taken on January 20, 1961. It shows a smiling, older-looking JFK walking into the Rotunda shortly before he was sworn in as President. Next to that is another photograph, also taken in the Rotunda. It shows a grim-faced Everett Dirksen with his arm around the shoulders of Hubert Humphrey as the two men walk past President Kennedy's casket in November 1963. Only 5 years passed between that first photograph and the last. Only 1,000 days elapsed between John Kennedy's inauguration and his death. Not long at all. Yet, 40 years after that terrible day in Dallas, President Kennedy remains vivid in our memories and he continues to inspire even people who were not yet born when he died. There are many reasons for this, I believe. John Kennedy believed that politics can be a noble profession. Many of us in this Senate are here, in part, because we were inspired by his belief and his example. That is certainly true of me. That belief was also shared by his brother Robert, and it continues to be demonstrated today by his last surviving brother, our friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts. Another reason that President Kennedy remains such a force in our national life is that he inspired us to be our best possible selves. He led by appealing to our better instincts, not our base fears. He showed us that we need not fear great challenges, as when he said America chose to go to the moon not because it was easy, but because it was difficult. He understood that there is almost nothing Americans cannot achieve when we are united and willing to sacrifice and work together toward a common goal. John Kennedy was, indelibly, the grandson of immigrants. He was deeply grateful for the freedoms and opportunities that America affords. But he also understood that, with rights come responsibilities. As he said so often, ``To those whom much is given, much is required.'' President Kennedy understood that the most powerful weapon America possesses is the power to do good in this world. And he transformed that belief into the Peace Corps. President Kennedy understood that we are all connected to each other, as he said to the Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev when the two leaders began negotiations on the first limited nuclear test ban treaty following the near-cataclysm of the Cuban missile crisis. ``In the final analysis, we all share the same planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's future.'' Today, thousands of people are expected to visit President Kennedy's grave in Arlington National Cemetery. They will file past that eternal flame. But we don't need to go to Arlington to pay our respects to John Fitzgerald Kennedy. That eternal flame also shines in the hearts of every American and every person on Earth who recalls what President Kennedy taught us in his too-brief life and who tries to live those lessons today. Finally, Mr. President, I want to say a word about my friend, Senator Kennedy. I know this is a sad day for him. In the drawer of every desk on this floor are the names of the Senators who occupied these desks before us. I suspect we have all had the experience of seeing those names and thinking what an awesome responsibility it is to follow in such footsteps. In the drawer of Senator Kennedy's desks are the names of two of his brothers, John and Robert. I am grateful to my friend that he chose to follow in his brothers' footsteps, despite the pain that public service has brought him and his family. It is an honor to work with him. America is better for the Kennedy family's service and sacrifices. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I, too, wish to have an opportunity to comment briefly on the vote we have just taken. Mr. President, for Senators like me, who support enactment of a comprehensive energy bill, the Senate's failure this morning to break this filibuster was as unnecessary as it is unfortunate. It is a classic example of insisting on provisions that were simply too much for the traffic to bear. The Senate's lead negotiator, Senator Domenici, was, I believe, prepared to work in good faith with his House counterparts to craft a comprehensive energy bill that could attract broad bipartisan support in this body. Regrettably, his best intentions were undercut by the cynical manipulations of the House Republican leadership during the conference proceedings, which cut Senator Bingaman out of the conference process and produced a product that was a far cry from the bipartisan energy bill that passed the Senate in July. I am convinced that a true conference would have produced a much more balanced energy bill than that before us today. Make no mistake, however, the overriding reason for the failure of this bill today was not what I consider to be its disturbing lack of balance between production and conservation or between promotion of fossil fuels and renewable energy sources. It was the House Republican leadership's insistence on inclusion of retroactive liability protections for MTBE shielding MTBE producers from legal exposure. The provision was not contained in either the House or Senate-passed energy bills. In an effort to aid a major special interest, the House Republicans wrote the provision so that it would specifically invalidate the State of New Hampshire's lawsuit against the MTBE industry. So it is no surprise that New Hampshire's two Republican Senators chose to filibuster this bill. The drive to placate a narrow special interest not only came at the expense of the public, it trumped the Republican Party's own legislative strategy. I personally--on numerous occasions--warned Chairman Domenici, Chairman Tauzin, and others responsible for the closely held Republican energy bill conference deliberations that inclusion of this provision threatened enactment of this legislation. This scenario has, unfortunately, come to pass, ironically because the inclusion of MTBE liability waiver was the straw that broke the camel's back for many Republicans. While the drumbeat of recriminations about who bears responsibility for this setback had begun even before the vote, the question I am concerned about is what we can do to enact a comprehensive energy bill quickly. My first preference would be to adopt something close to the bipartisan energy bill that passed the Senate by overwhelming bipartisan votes in the current and past Congresses under the leadership of both parties. But experience tells us that won't happen. While I fully appreciate that the current bill without MTBE liability relief would still be objectionable to many Senators, there should be no doubt that if this provision was not included, the bill would pass the Senate today and be enacted into law. Therefore, Mr. President, I call on the White House, and the House and Senate Republican leadership, to join with me to immediately strip out the offending safe harbor language now in the bill. Further, as a demonstration of good will, I propose that safe harbor language be eliminated for ethanol as well as MTBE. Once these changes are made, the comprehensive energy bill could be brought back to the Senate and the House, either as a new conference report or as part of the Omnibus Appropriations bill now being readied for final passage in both Chambers. This simple action would have this energy bill, as imperfect as it is, ready for the President's signature yet this session. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, yesterday was a national day of mourning in Italy. Tens of thousands of people lined a procession route and gathered at a basilica in Rome to pay their final respects to 19 Italian soldiers killed last week in a truck bombing in Nasiriyah, Iraq. The soldiers' deaths mark Italy's worst military loss since World War II. The American people share Italy's sorrow over their enormous loss. There is also a profound sense of sorrow today in South Dakota. Two of the 17 American soldiers killed last Saturday, when those 2 Army Black Hawk helicopters collided in the sky over the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, were from our State. South Dakota lost as many soldiers in that instant as we had lost in the entire Iraq war so far. Today, we mourn our lost sons: Army CWO Scott Saboe; and Army PFC Sheldon Hawk Eagle. We also mourn the 15 soldiers lost with them, the 405 other U.S. servicemembers who have given their lives, so far, in this war, and all of the sons and daughters of our allies who have been lost in this war. CWO Scott Saboe was 33 years old, a career soldier with 14 years of military service. He leaves behind his wife, Franceska, and their 6-year-old son, Justin, who live in Alabama. His father, Arlo Saboe, is a decorated Vietnam war veteran who lost his wife and brother in the last 2 years. His sister, Amy remington, is stationed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center near Washington. Willow Lake, where Scott Saboe grew up, is a small town. Only about 300 people live there. On Sunday, more than half of them stopped by Arlo Saboe's house to pay their condolences. Before Iraq, Scott Saboe had flown helicopters over the demilitarized zone in Korea. As his father told a reporter for the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, ``He was willing to go anywhere.'' He reportedly was scheduled to return to the United States in 2 weeks for training. Today, at Willow Lake High School, where he played center on the football team, the flag has been lowered to half-staff. Bill Stobbs, a former teacher and football coach who now is the school's principal, told the Argus Leader: He died doing what he loved, and he was a dedicated soldier. That's all there is to it. Darin Michalski, a childhood friend, said: Most of us can go through our who lives and don't really accomplish anything, and some of us only live to be 33, and we're heroes. PFC Sheldon Hawk Eagle was just 21. He lived in Eagle Butte, on the Cheyenne River Sioux reservation, and was an enrolled member of the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe--one of about 90 members of the tribe deployed to Iraq. He was a descendant of the legendary Lakota warrior leader, Crazy Horse. His Lakota name was Wanbleoheteka, Brave Eagle. Like Scott Saboe, Sheldon Hawk Eagle grew up in a family that viewed military service as a citizen's duty. His grandfather, father and uncle all served. Friends and family members describe him as a hard-working, quiet young man. One of his former teachers remembers his ``nice smile.'' His parents died when he was a young boy. He was raised by his aunt and uncle, Harvey and Fern Hawk Eagle. His only surviving sibling, his sister, Frankie Allyn Hawk Eagle, lives in Grand Forks, ND. He enlisted in Grand Forks, in June 2002, to be close to her. He was deployed to Iraq in March and reportedly had hoped to be home this coming February. Emmanuel Red Bear, a spiritual leader who teaches Lakota language and culture at Eagle Butte High School, remembered Hawk Eagle to a reporter as an aggressive, but fair, football player who was a model of sportsmanship on and off the field. Said Red Bear of Hawk Eagle: He was a role model, in his quiet way. The younger kids looked up to him. . . . He really was a modern-day warrior. Tribal Chairman Harold Frazier said simply: He's our hero. He defended our country and protected our freedom. News of Scott Saboe's and Sheldon Hawk Eagle's deaths reached their hometowns on Sunday. Many people first heard the news first at church services. It had been some time since South Dakota had lost anyone in Iraq. On May 9, CWO Hans Gookezen, of Lead, was killed when the Black Hawk helicopter he was copiloting got caught in a power line and went down in the Tigris River. On June 18, PFC Michael Dool of Nemo, was killed while on guard duty at a propane distribution center in Baghdad. The crash of the two Black Hawks last Saturday was the deadliest single incident since the United States invaded Iraq. The military is investigating whether enemy ground fire have caused the crash. All 17 of the victims were from the Army's 101st Airborne Division-- the famed ``Screaming Eagles''--the same unit that parachuted into Normandy on D-Day. Like people in every state perhaps, South Dakotans sometimes focus on our superficial differences: East River versus West River, Native American versus the sons and daughters of pioneers and immigrants. Today, we are one State, united in sadness over the deaths of our soldiers, and pride over the noble lives they lived. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time so as not to take away from the time allotted to those who still wish to speak. America needs a comprehensive national energy plan that increases our energy independence, that creates jobs, that lowers energy prices for consumers, and that is environmentally and fiscally responsible. We have been trying in the Senate for 3 years to pass such a plan. Regrettably, this is not that plan. This plan will move America forward in some ways. But it falls far short of a comprehensive approach to America's energy needs. In fact, it does not even attempt to address some of our most pressing problems. And it is extremely generous to a variety of special interests. I am greatly disappointed by the number of opportunities we are missing here. This bill fails to significantly reduce America's growing dependence on foreign oil. Today, our Nation imports 60 percent of our oil, much of it from some of the most volatile and dangerous areas on Earth. Over the next 10 years, the United States is expected to consumer roughly 1.5 trillion gallons of gasoline. The Republicans in the House and Senate who wrote this conference report actually rejected measures that would have reduced our dependence on foreign oil. They rejected efforts to mandate oil savings. The authors of this conference report also rejected a common-sense plan to address America's projected natural gas shortage. They killed tax incentives needed for construction of a pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska to the lower 48 States. The provision, which was contained in the Senate passed bill, was dropped in conference. And, when Senator Bingaman offered a motion in conference to restore it--in the one meeting of Conferees to discuss substantive issues--that motion was defeated on a straight party line vote, with the seven Republican Senate conferees voting against it. The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline would have been the largest construction project ever in this country. It would have brought down 35 trillion cubic feet of known natural gas reserves on the North Slope of Alaska. Right now, we are paying to pump that gas back into the ground because there is no way to get it to the American consumers who need it. The pipeline would also have created 400,000 good jobs and used an estimated 5 million tons of U.S. steel. It would have reduced our dependence on foreign oil by bringing Alaska gas directly to the Midwest. This conference report also fails to address the problems that led to the catastrophic energy crisis California experienced, and the blackout that left nearly one-third of the country without electricity this past summer. In addition, this bill actually repeals existing consumer protections--and does nothing to prevent a repeat of the Enron schemes that cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, this bill could make such schemes more likely by tying the hands of regulators. This bill fails to include a renewable portfolio standard that would diversify America's sources of electricity. The Senate-passed energy bill includes a requirement that 10 percent of America's electricity come from renewable sources, such as wind and solar. This would increase our energy security and create new jobs and opportunities in America's rural communities. The people who wrote this bill ignored 53 Senators who said this provision should be in the final bill. Last year, and again this year, the Senate passed energy bills that reflected the growing scientific and bipartisan consensus that the threat of global climate change is real and, unless we act, will have devastating consequences for our children and grandchildren. This bill simply ignores that fact. Many important provisions that the Senate passed with strong bipartisan support are nowhere to be found in this bill. But there are many provisions that are in this conference report that were not even debated in either the House or the Senate. They were simply added in a back room. One of the most egregious is the retroactive liability protections for MTBE manufacturers. Forty-three states have problems with contaminated groundwater as a result of MTBE. The National Conference of Mayors estimates clean-up costs at $29 billion. This bill dumps those costs on local taxpayers, by granting immunity from liability to the polluters. In fact, this bill provides retroactive liability protection to MTBE producers dating back to September 5 of this year. It is no coincidence that this is one day before the State of New Hampshire filed its lawsuit against companies responsible for the contamination of groundwater by MTBE. The authors of this conference report know that provisions like this could not survive open debate. That is why they chose to write this bill in secret. This process began in secrecy--with Vice President Cheney's energy task force. And it ended in secrecy. Democrats in Congress were shut out. The American people were shut out. That is not the way to debate a matter that is so critical to our Nation's security. Even with these obstacles, we were able to make some important improvements over the bill we were originally given. Against great odds, we succeeded in protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling. We increased efficiency standards for appliances and machinery, and increased investments in research and development of new energy-saving technologies. This bill also makes an historic commitment to expanding the use of renewable energy sources by nearly tripling the use of ethanol. This is important to the people of South Dakota and many other farm States. And it is important to our national energy security. A year and a half ago, President Bush came to South Dakota. We visited an ethanol plant in Wentworth. The President said: ``[ethanol is] important for the agricultural sector of our economy, it's an important part of making sure we become less reliant on foreign sources of energy.'' I agree. I've been fighting for ethanol and other renewable fuels for over 20 years. Nearly tripling America's use of ethanol will create 214,000 new jobs and produce $5.3 billion in new investments in America. It will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And it will save $4 billion in imported oil each year. Ethanol comes from American farmers and producers, passes through American refiners, and fuels American energy needs. No soldier will have to fight overseas to protect them. And no international cartel can turn off the spigot on us. I understand and respect my colleagues who oppose this bill. There is much in this conference report that is objectionable. Despite secrecy, the partisanship and the shortcomings in this bill, I will vote to invoke cloture--reluctantly--because America needs to improve its energy situation, and I think this proposal takes a few small steps forward. However, the people who wrote this bill must understand that a vote for this bill is not a vote of support for their radical energy agenda that some of it includes. We can--indeed must--revisit the shortcomings in this bill. We must re-examine the MTBE liability waiver, the effects of this legislation on environmental laws and consumer protections. I intend to press these issues in the next session of this Congress and for as long as it takes to get it right. So I will vote for this bill. But I tell my colleagues--especially those who were involved in its drafting--that this bill could have been much better, and the American people deserve better from us in the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the conference report on the Healthy Forest initiative. The question of how we effectively and efficiently deal with the threat of wildfire is a complex one, and I have been committed to finding a solution that will provide the Forest Service with additional tools, can win approval in the Senate, and can become law. This bipartisan compromise meets that test. As I toured the Black Hills National Forest this August, it was clear that the Forest Service needs additional tools to address the increasing fire risk to South Dakota communities. There are currently over 460,000 acres of the Black Hills National Forest that are in moderate to high fire risk. And, it is increasing. The Forest Service estimates that over 550,000 acres will fall into this category in the next 10 years if we do nothing to address it. It is clear that we must find a way to allow Forest Service personnel to spend less time in the office planning, and more time in the forest actually clearing high fuel loads. This legislation takes major steps to do just that. The legislation provides communities more flexibility in defining what should be considered priority areas as well as incentives to work near communities. It clarifies how much detail is needed for environmental analysis of fuel reduction projects. The conference report adopts the Senate-passed streamlined appeals process, expediting decisions for fuel-reduction projects while ensuring that the public has an opportunity to be heard early in the developmental stages forest restoration projects. And, it includes Senate-passed language encouraging speedy disposition of any projects that are challenged in court without giving undue deference to any party. While the legislation is not exactly how I would have written it, I think it is the best shot we have to get something meaningful enacted into law this year. I am please the House has passed this legislation and encourage my colleagues to pass it, and hope the President will quickly sign it into law.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the majority leader has been consulting with us with regard to the schedule. I share his view that there is an opportunity here for us to complete our work, if we can find a way to resolve the remaining issues before the Senate. We have a lot of work to do on conference reports, on the omnibus legislation, and on certain nominations. I will say there are a number of holds on the nominations in part because of a misunderstanding perhaps with the White House on a particular nominee that has to be resolved if we are to move forward on these nominations. I am hopeful that can be done perhaps as early as today. That is one of the major obstacles to addressing successfully a number of other nominees. This is going to be a busy week. I certainly urge our colleagues not to make plans for Saturday or Sunday until we know better what the scheduling entails. I think it would be important for us to give our Members adequate notice with regard to the schedule, perhaps once or twice a day updating people as to what the schedule may hold. We will certainly work with the majority leader in attempting to address the many challenges we face with regard to the legislative schedule yet before us. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased the majority leader mentioned Healthy Forests. I would have done it if I had remembered. Of course, Senator Cochran and I had a very good conversation yesterday. Based on that conversation and his assurances that extraneous material would not be included in conference, we are prepared to go to conference now. We have had good success in reaching agreement on the forest health provisions of the bill. There are other issues that still remain to be addressed. I share the view of the majority leader that we are now at a moment where I think we ought to try to complete our work. It would be great if at the end of the day we could set aside the pending legislation and pass that conference report. I think we are going to get a good broad bipartisan vote on the legislation. I applaud those who have taken us to this point. This is good legislation. It deserves support. I look forward to finishing work on that bill as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President. I rise to express my strong support for a decision taken over the last several days in South Africa. On Wednesday, South Africa's cabinet approved a plan for government- sponsored HIV/AIDS treatment programs. Though late in coming, the decision had to be received as good news by South Africa's five million people infected with HIV. In a country where 600 people a day die of complications from AIDS, this is a life-saving announcement. Many of us feared we might not ever see this day. In August 2002, I sat with President Mbeki in Pretoria. His response to the AIDS crisis in his country was disheartening, even disconcerting. But he and his government have come a long way. We must be sure that we do our part now, Mr. President. I gather that the Foreign Operations and Labor-HHS conferences have agreed to provide $2.4 billion in global AIDS funding for FY 04. That is welcome and positive news. But it is still less than we promised the world, and given that 16,000 people a day contract this deadly virus we cannot afford to break that promise again next year. We will also have to take a look at the assumptions that are underlying our current AIDS policy. The President laid out an ambitious emergency AIDS program for the 14 countries hit hardest by this virus. With a robust prevention and treatment program coupled with aggressive recruitment, training and retention of qualified medical personnel, we will make a difference in those countries. But this pandemic is moving. While we act aggressively in these 14 countries, we cannot afford to maintain just the status quo in the countries who are threatened with the next wave of this crisis. Recent studies in India suggest that the epidemic in that one country could match if not overwhelm the suffering we have already seen in Africa. In China, government mismanagement and poverty are contributing to an acceleration of the pandemic, and eastern Europe and Russia are seeing alarming rates of infection that threaten to overwhelm the weak health care infrastructures in those tenuous democracies. This is a huge challenge. We have begun to take some important steps to address it, but we are a long way from done.

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 ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. Res. 270, congratulating John Gagliardi on becoming the winningest college football coach in history. He is a truly remarkable coach and an even better man. While thousands of his players have known this for years, the rest of the country has come to learn over the last several weeks that it not just John's 410 wins which make him special. In an era when collegiate student athletes are pressured to avoid academics, John Gagliardi consistently coaches teams with graduation rates at or close to 100 percent. He values sportsmanship, hard work and humility. And he treats his players and opponents with respect. I am proud that several South Dakotans have contributed to John's success over the years. This year's conference championship team includes three fine student athletes from South Dakota: Aaron Babb, of Sioux Falls; Jason Hardie, of Beresford; and Dana Kinsella, also of Sioux Falls. There have been other fine South Dakotans before them. While there are dozens, I will name just a couple. Sean Dailey, an all-conference defensive end, is now an accomplished chemist. And Jay Conzemius, an All-American running back was until recently the Chancellor of the Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls. It is right and fitting for the Senate to honor John Gagliardi for his historic accomplishments. It is unlikely that anyone will ever win as many games as he has, and maybe even more unlikely that any coach will so positively impact the lives of so many young men. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, when will the Democratic allotment of time expire?

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Chair for the information. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Arkansas has been a stalwart participant during the wee hours here. I want to publicly acknowledge his presence and laud him for his willingness to not only be on the floor, but to stay on the floor. I asked if he would mind if I would take a couple of minutes, and then I will relegate the balance of time for this allotment to him. He has some important remarks to make and I, like others, would like to hear him. Let me respond briefly to the comments made by the distinguished Senator from Georgia. He noted, of course, that the Constitution provides the authority to the Senate to write its rules. That, in essence, is what we have done, as he has also noted. There have been various ways with which the Senate addressed the issue of unlimited debate, which is the essence of this institution. Having unlimited debate means an opportunity for Senators to be heard for whatever length of time, but it also means an opportunity to protect the minority--the minority being whatever the case may be, whether it is a political minority, ethnic minority, minority on a given issue, regardless. That was really the essence of what the Founding Fathers saw with regard to the delegation of this authority to the Senate to write its rules with an expectation that filibusters, this extended debate, would be part of the deliberative spirit and soul of this body. But my colleague from Georgia fails to recognize, and certainly others have ignored the number of times our Republican friends have used the rules of the Senate, the filibuster, to advance their position. There have been a number of occasions over the course of the last three decades where filibusters and cloture votes have been cast. There were 63 occasions where nominees from the Clinton administration did not even reach the floor because of an effective filibuster within the committee. One Senator would say: I will not allow this nominee to go forward. That assertion was respected and, ultimately, 63 of the Clinton nominees never got out of committee because of a Republican filibuster. That has not happened, of course, during this Congress. The Republicans have moved their nominees at will, and the only option we have available to us, of course, is to vote either against or for the nominee in committee, and then on cloture as some of these nominees with whom we have grave concern come to the Senate floor. No. 1, this is not unprecedented. No. 2, it was used to a far greater degree by our Republican colleagues during the 8 years of the Clinton administration--as I said, on 63 occasions. That issue should not be debated. It is not even arguable. I don't think this debate should be about 4 jobs, which, by the way, are generating incomes of over $100,000. It is our view that the debate tonight should be about the 3 million jobs that have been lost under this administration and the 9 million jobs which are lost and for whom people are attempting to find some way to survive financially and economically. Those 3 million jobs have been lost, in our view, because of a mismanaged economy that needs to be addressed if indeed we are going to bring this economy back. All one has to do is look at the comparison between the Clinton and Bush administrations to gain some understanding of the degree of difference between the Democratic approach and the Republican approach to the economy. The Clinton administration created 22 million jobs in 8 years. The Bush administration has lost 3 million jobs in 3 years. Our view is, if we are ever going to turn this around, it is important we do three things. First and foremost, we address the concerns of those who are unemployed today by providing unemployment compensation beyond the limits that have now been put in place. There are too many people who have, through no fault of their own, been unable to get employment and who have run out of unemployment benefits. We need to address that. I hope the Senate will do so before we leave this year. The second thing we need to do is to ensure those who are employed have the kind of incomes they deserve. That means, in some cases, increasing the minimum wage for the first time in now almost 7 years and addressing the fact that at minimum wage we are at the lowest purchasing power in the history of minimum wage. It also means we protect people's overtime. Contrary to what the administration would like to do, we need to ensure those 8 million people who could see their overtime lost are provided the confidence and the knowledge they will not lose the overtime and will be compensated as we have done now for almost 70 years, for time they have worked over a 40-hour work week. Finally, I think it is critical we understand we must provide some relief for the extraordinary costs our working people especially are facing with regard to health care. Health insurance costs have skyrocketed--some 15 percent a year. There are a number of ways with which to create jobs--the highway bill, the manufacturing job tax credit. We offered tonight unanimous consent requests with the hope our colleagues might join us in at least allowing this legislation to go forward. Obviously they have objected. But that is the first thing we need to do--create the jobs for those 3 million people who have lost their jobs in this administration. Second, we need to ensure the incomes of those who are working are protected. Third, I hope we can recognize that, even with incomes, they can't afford their health insurance today unless we help them to find ways in which to bring its cost down. There is a lot more to talk about with regard to jobs and this economy, but as I said, the distinguished Senator from Arkansas has been waiting. He has done an extraordinary job of representing this caucus on the Senate floor and I yield the floor now for his remarks.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arkansas yield for just a moment?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the request made by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas. This is a matter that he and his colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, have been involved in and supported for a long period of time. He and I have had a number of conversations. I want to make sure that the record is clear there will be no objection on this side to having votes on the nomination. We have had now 40 hours of debate where one Republican after another has come to the floor in an outcry that we haven't been able to have a vote on a judge, that we are denied the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on a judge. As we have said on 168 occasions, let us have the up-or-down vote. This one would be the 169th. We are prepared this afternoon within the next hour to have a vote on the judge referenced by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas. I appreciate very much his request. I certainly understand his frustration after all of the outcry that we have heard from our colleagues on the other side. It is amazingly ironic after all of that on a nominee for which there is absolutely no objection to moving to. I will oppose the nominee. I will vote against the nominee when it is presented to the Senate, but there is certainly no opposition within our caucus. I want the record to be clear with regard to that point. Again, as I have on other occasions, I want to work with the majority leader for a very short time and have a vote. Let us have the vote. After all of this, you would think that the Republican caucus and the majority leader and others responsible for these decisions would jump at the chance of having a vote on the Holmes nomination. We are ready. We will certainly not object to a time limit or to ultimately have an up-or-down vote, as the Senator from Arkansas has proposed.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, I have 10 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would ask the Presiding Officer if he could notify me when I have used all but 3 minutes. Mr. President, I find it remarkable that our colleagues can continue to come to the floor these past 40 hours and lament the fact that we have had votes on 172 judicial nominees and 4 of them have not been confirmed because they have not attained cloture. With passion and with emotion they scream out. Where is the fairness for those four nominees, they ask. Where is the fairness? I find it remarkable that some of the very people who lament not getting a vote for those 4 nominees were participants in the effort to deny even a hearing to 63 nominees for the bench during the Clinton administration. Don't talk to me about the unfairness of a cloture vote on the Senate floor. Don't talk to me about cloture. Don't talk to me until you talk about those 63 who waited, in some cases 4 years, and never got a hearing--or a committee vote. Denying consideration of judicial nominees is an ongoing practice that our Republican colleagues have been involved in for as long as they have been in the Senate. So this extraordinary outcry, this emotional fervor that we hear so often on the other side, with their misleading charts, does not bear up to the facts. You tell those 63 people who have not had even a chance for a vote, who should have been confirmed, how it is right for them now not to have the jobs for which they work were nominated--you tell them about the fairness of those four votes. We have done all we can to work with our colleagues to accommodate all nominees. We have now spent 40 hours talking about this matter. And we have actually spent over 20 days debating judicial nominations since the Bush administration has come to office, 20 days debating and largely confirming the nominees sent to us from the White House. From the beginning of these last 40 hours, our message was really very simple: We have confirmed 168 of the 172 nominees to date. We have worked with our colleagues on the other side to do as much as we can to ensure that they get a fair debate and ultimately an opportunity to be voted on, whether it is a cloture vote or an up-or-down vote on this Senate floor--unlike what they did on 63 occasions during the Clinton administration. What we have said over the course of these 40 hours, though, is that it is very unfortunate that while we are debating these four jobs, we are not debating what the American people care most about. We are not debating the fact that 3 million people have lost their jobs, or what to do about it. We are not debating the fact that we are not working on the things the American people care most about. Several times we spoke about the need to pass the highway bill, and our Republican colleagues ignored our concerns. Several times we spoke about the need to pass the manufacturing jobs credit bill; our Republican colleagues ignored our concerns. These are bills that could truly provide the opportunity for the unemployed in this country to actually acquire a good job and be a little more confident that they will have a brighter future. Several times we have asked for an increase in the minimum wage by unanimous consent so those who are working would get the pay they deserve. Republicans objected. We could have been spending our time a lot more effectively, a lot more in concert with the expectations of the American people, but that has not been the case. We will continue to work with our colleagues, and in those cases where we can find agreement, we will continue to confirm most of the Bush nominees. But that will not be the case this morning. We are now debating three justices who continue to insist on putting their own views above the law, to interpret law on their own and without regard to judicial precedent. As a result, virtually every single women's organization and every single civil rights organization in the country has urged the Senate, pleaded with all 100 Senators to reject these nominations. I am very grateful for the effort made by our Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee who have put the time and effort they have into analyzing the record of these nominees and have concluded, as I have, that they do not warrant confirmation. Mr. President, there will come a day, once again, when we can find nominees for whom there can be agreement. But until that happens, until we have the confidence that we can look upon them with an expectation that they will uphold the law, interpret law and not write the law, we have no other recourse but to oppose their nominations, as we will this morning. I yield such time as he may require to the distinguished Senator from New York.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use leader time first to engage in a brief colloquy with the distinguished majority leader with regard to the schedule for the remainder of the day. I wonder if he can inform us as to what his intentions are with regard to schedule.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the majority leader. Mr. President, I also note at the end of this period of time, we have been here now for about 40 hours. It is probably not accurate to say we have all been here for 40 hours. Some of us had the luxury of coming and going, but there have been a lot of staff on the Senate floor, in our cloakrooms, in the Sergeant at Arms Office, our Capitol Police, all of our clerks--the extraordinary effort that they have made in these last 40 hours should be recognized. I know I speak for all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle in expressing our heartfelt gratitude to all of them. Once again, they have exceeded our expectations, and we are grateful for their dedication and professionalism during these difficult days. I yield the floor.