Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, since the terrible bombing in Oklahoma City more than 2 weeks ago, we have been forced to consider what the society should do in self-defense against potentially deadly maniacs who think that killing defenseless people is a way to send a political message or effect political change. This is an enduring challenge for a democracy. We have faced it before. There is no easy answer. We cannot afford to give the terrorists what they want to achieve-- the subversion of our free institutions--in the effort to prevent their terrorist acts. But we cannot remain complacent in the face of determined threats either. The President has sent to Congress his proposal to give Federal law enforcement additional resources and tools to use in combating domestic and international terrorism on American soil. It includes commonsense expansion of FBI investigative authorities in counterterrorism cases, such as access to credit reports and travel and hotel records, which are routinely available to State and local law enforcement authorities in criminal investigations. It will speed the process of adding chemical taggants to explosives, as well as moving more aggressively into taggant and related explosives research. It will expand the FBI's ability to use trace-and-track devices and pen registers to capture the phone numbers dialed from or coming in to a particular telephone. It does not abandon the requirement of American law that no phone may be tapped without an explicit warrant, issued only when there is probable cause to suspect criminal activity. The package of proposals includes added penalties and some broader Federal felony offenses, whose purpose is to conform the law with respect to explosives to the existing law that covers firearms. Coupled with the President's earlier antiterrorism bill directed at international terrorism, this is a sound step to respond to a national threat without throwing overboard the civil rights of law-abiding citizens. The consensus of those who work in this field is that, although the cold war is over, the war against terrorism is just beginning. Experts make some chilling--and compelling--arguments. In the century preceding the Oklahoma City bombing, although terrorist groups were numerous, and although horrible murders, kidnapings, and other crimes by them were frequent, there were fewer than a dozen terrorist attacks that cost more than 100 lives. There is reason to fear, according to experts, that this trend is shifting. Where once terrorists would take hostages and threaten the lives of 1 or 2 or 20 people if their demands were not met, they no longer issue specific demands. They take fewer and fewer hostages. Instead, they attack more soft targets, where civilian casualties are bound to be higher. They are aiming less at a particular demand and more at terrorizing the entire society. They build more car bombs and undertake more suicide attacks; they attack civilians in crowds--airplanes, subways, and office buildings. They make fewer explicit demands, but their broader demands are more apocalyptic. If this trend continues, instead of a cold war atmosphere of threat and counterthreat, of massive nuclear stockpiles poised to strike each other's targets, we face the prospect of random violence--impossible to predict, impossible to counter, impossible to explain. A civilized society can live with many fears. We lived with the fear of nuclear holocaust for almost 50 years, yet our society became freer throughout that time. The great advances in civil rights and protections against Government were postwar. But no civilized society will survive the threat of random terror. It cannot. We must be able to feel secure as we travel to our workplaces each day, as we sit at our desks or man our service counters--that we will end the day predictably, by going home, making dinner, performing the normal pattern of tasks and duties we face. If we ever reach the point where randomized terror can paralyze us, can make Americans distrust each other--distrust the safety of the next few hours--the terrorists will have won, because we will be what they want us to be: an atomized nation, without community, without security, without anything except fear for immediate individual survival. That is where these people want to take us. We have to combat this, without becoming savages, without losing our perspective, without succumbing to paralyzing fear. It is not going to be easy. If the experts are right, and apocalyptic terrorism is what the future holds, we will face challenges our system has never before been forced to face. We will have to ask ourselves questions that we have never before raised. A growing number of terrorist groups believe they are fighting a holy war. That change has changed the nature of what they are prepared to do, the risks they themselves are prepared to run, and the damage they are prepared to inflict. This change presents us, as a society, with a challenge as well. Americans are of diverse faiths, but we are among the We respect the faith of others, and we respect the demands of their religion. Our respect for religious belief is not enshrined only in our first amendment. It is an instinctive American habit not to second- guess the faith of your neighbor. And yet, if terrorism comes claiming religious sanction, we have to face it. And this bill will help us. Since 1990, 40 percent of all terrorist acts worldwide have been committed explicitly against American targets. That is, in large part, because the success of our society is a standing refutation of the beliefs of many of these groups. Unless our system can be destroyed, their vision cannot be vindicated. This is believed by domestic groups as well as groups overseas. Reports that some Americans think they have to shoot down military helicopters on routine training missions are surfacing. A Member of Congress has even proposed requiring Federal law enforcement agents to be formally deputized by local authorities before they can carry out their responsibilities. Reports of threats against local officials have discouraged involvement in local government meetings in some regions. I do not believe that words alone cause terrorist acts. I do not think anyone seriously believes so. But I do believe that a culture is comprised of many factors, feeding into its hopes and fears, and I do believe that a culture changes as the factors feeding its hopes and playing on its fears change. When people in the mainstream become careless with words, they breach barriers that create a new set of assumptions. Barriers, once breached, are permeable in both directions. The lunacy of the fringe enters the mainstream even as the careless or calculated words of the mainstream create a new defining normalcy. Senator Moynihan has spoken about a society that redefines deviancy. Those aggressively seeking to make their mark on our society should examine how they are defining normalcy. We are warned by the Tokyo subway bombing earlier this year that weapons of mass destruction need not be explosives. Easily manufactured chemical and biological weapons can be as deadly and effective when the goal is to terrorize a community. Before it collapsed, the Soviet Union operated the largest biological warfare production facility in the world, employing 15,000 scientists. These people had developed a form of bubonic plague that was resistant to 26 antibiotics, a form of fast-spreading meningitis, agents that could be introduced into water systems or into the air in climate- controlled buildings. Today, these people face the economic collapse of the system that supported them as highly paid and privileged specialists. All they need to re-create their deadly work is carried in their own brains. The temptation to sell that knowledge outside of Russian borders cannot be ignored at a time when the value of their monthly wages has fallen to less than $70. Again, this threat is not limited to international terrorists. In August 1994, our own FBI arrested two members of a group calling itself the Patriots' Council in Minneapolis. This group was concocting ricin, a neurotoxin that can be produced from the common castor bean plant. An equally deadly potential is the contamination of a conventional bomb with radioactivity. Since May 1994, there have been 39 separate incidents of nuclear materials diversion in Eastern and Southern Europe. It is not necessary for radioactive material to be made into an explosive device like a bomb. The contamination of a conventional bomb with radioactive materials is simpler; its terrifying effect would be as great. These threats are not speculative. Unfortunately, they are all too real. We cannot and must not succumb to the temptation of regarding everyone with oddball notions as a potential threat. But, unfortunately, neither can we write off all oddballs as harmless. It is the goal of the President's counterterrorism approach that we be able to make the distinctions between the harmless and the potentially dangerous before the dangerous are able to strike again, not afterward. I believe it is a balanced package of proposals that does not go too far. We should pass this legislation promptly, without detouring into the partisan political minefields some have suggested. Curtailing the appellate rights of prisoners on death row is not going to change the murderous intentions of terrorist groups. The extraneous politically motivated inclusion of these kinds of provisions does a disservice to the cause of counterterrorism. It does not move us forward; it is intentionally and purposefully divisive. I very much regret that this is on the agenda of some in the wake of a national tragedy. I would hope that these issues could be abandoned for the time being, out of respect for the families of the victims of the Oklahoma bombing and so that we may enact the necessary counterterrorism legislation expeditiously. We have plenty of time for politics later. This is a time that demands unity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the White House Conference on Aging which, as I understand it, just this afternoon passed a resolution that I ask unanimous consent be made part of the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the resolution is entitled ``Protecting Medicare and Medicaid.'' The important part of the resolution simply says: Therefore, be it Resolved by the 1995 White House Conference on Aging to support policies that: Address problems facing the Medicare and Medicaid programs in the context of broad-based health care reform, as the President has proposed; Oppose massive cuts soon to be considered in Congress; Prohibit the use of savings in Medicare and Medicaid for tax cuts for well-off citizens. I think it is very important that everyone understand the ramifications of the proposals to cut Medicare in the budget resolution. It would simply be the largest insurance rate hike in Medicare history. The plan would cost $900 per person in additional out-of-pocket expenses for Medicare recipients by the year 2002, a total of about $3,500 over the next 7 years. We cannot accept that. I do not believe that the vast majority of the American people will accept it. Certainly, if this resolution is any indication, senior citizens across the country, represented by the White House Conference on Aging, will not accept it as part of our budget, as part of any plan relating to Medicare reform this year. So I am very pleased with the action taken by the White House conference. I hope we can talk more about that in the coming days.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on April 24, 1964, Sergeant First Class Raymond Adams, a 10-year Army veteran, was killed by a hand grenade in South Vietnam. Sergeant Adams was 30 years old and married. More than 8 years later, on July 21, 1972, Specialist Fifth Class Steven Allen Trant died in South Vietnam. He was 21 years old, and had been in the Army less than a year. They were the first, and the last South Dakotans to die in Vietnam. In between their too early deaths, our country was changed utterly. More than 3 million Americans served in Vietnam. Hundreds of thousands were injured, some permanently, and more than 58,000 young Americans died in the war. Today, 20 years after the last helicopter lifted off the roof of the American embassy in Saigon we pause to say thank you to all of the men and women who served in that long, sad war and to remember those who did not return. One of the most important ways we can show our thanks, of course, is by making sure Vietnam veterans get the medical care and compensation they need for injuries they suffered in that war. Every man or woman who puts on a uniform is at risk of harm. They accept that risk as part of their service. In return, we, as a nation, must accept responsibility to care for men and women if they are harmed during their military service. Congress took a big step toward fulfilling that responsibility to Vietnam veterans in 1991 when we agreed to allow Vietnam veterans to receive compensation for nine different illnesses and disabilities caused by their exposure to agent orange. The National Academy of Sciences is now investigating possible links between agent orange exposure and other illnesses. I suspect that additional illnesses will be added to the list of ailments for which Vietnam veterans may be compensated in the future, and I support the Academy in its continuing research. It doesn't matter whether a wound is inflicted with a bullet or a piece of [[Page S6225]] shrapnel or a toxic defoliant. In each case, the wound is real, and so is our obligation to help the veteran who suffers it. We also need more research into our health concerns of Vietnam vets. In all, more than 682,000 Vietnam and Vietnam-era veterans are now disabled as a result of their military service. And a respected study by the independent Research Triangle institute estimates that more than 960,000 men who fought in Vietnam and 1,900 women--nearly one in three Vietnam veterans--suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. For some, the effects are few and fleeting. For others, they are chronic and debilitating. So as we mark this 20th anniversary of the end of our Nation's most painful period this century, let us remember the words of Abraham Lincoln as he spoke them in his second inaugural to the Nation still grieving from another terrible war that divided our Nation. He said: Let us strive to finish the work that we are in, to bind up the Nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace. Let us show our thanks to Vietnam veterans this week, next week, and at all times in the future by pledging to give the Department of Veterans Affairs the resources it needs to keep the promises we made to all Vietnam veterans. Let us show our thanks by strengthening community-based veterans health care centers, by making a commitment to keep veterans centers vital and independent. These centers do not duplicate the work of VA hospitals. They serve different people with different needs, and we ought to maintain them. Finally, Mr. President, it is time for this Nation to move toward normalizing relations with Vietnam. I know the arguments against normalization, and I sympathize with them. I understand that the prospect of restoring diplomatic ties with Vietnam is painful to many Americans, especially those who have friends and family members among those who remain unaccounted for in Vietnam. Experience has shown that it is precisely by expanding our ties with Vietnam that we are most likely to learn what happened to soldiers who never returned. In the years when we had no contact with Vietnam, we made no progress on the question of those missing in action. So I stand with my colleagues, Senator McCain, Senator Bond, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, and others on both sides of the aisle in urging that we move cautiously toward a fuller dialog with Vietnam in order to secure answers for the families and healing for our Nation. We can never repay Sgt. Raymond Adams and Specialist Steven Trant or any of the other 58,000 Americans who lost their lives in Vietnam, but we can show our respect and our gratitude, and we can continue the effort to bind up the Nation's wounds from a war that, in some ways, still divides us.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I understand that S. 761, introduced earlier today by myself and Senator Biden, is at the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for its first reading.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the second reading.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I may be a little biased, but I have always believed if you give South Dakotans an even break, they can make a living even under the toughest circumstances. Yesterday I met with a man who proves my point. His name is Randy Boyd, and he was just named South Dakota's 1995 Small Business Owner of the Year by the Small Business Administration. Randy lives in a town of 300 people called Geddes in southeast South Dakota with his wife, Sheila, and their two young children, Cassidy and Vincent. He moved back to Geddes in 1982, after his dad had a heart attack and helped move his father's gunsmithing business from his garage into a 400-square-foot shop, where they worked together repairing guns. Later that year, Randy and his father bought a two-spindle carving machine that could make up to eight gunstocks a day. Today, Boyd's Gunstocks Industries is one of the largest original- equipment manufactuers of gunstocks in the country. It has grown from 3 employees in 1986 to 22 full-time and 10 part-time workers, plus 10 who do contract work at home. Company sales have skyrocketed from $29,000 in 1986 to more than $1 million last year. In 1992, with help from the Small Business Administration, Randy was able to obtain a new warehouse for raw materials, as well as new computerized equipment to improve efficiency. The business now occupies 13,500 square feet. One of Randy's biggest challenges is finding enough skilled workers in a of opening a second facility soon in another town in order to hire new workers and take advantage of new international trade opportunities. In addition to creating jobs and opportunities for South Dakota families, Randy has served on the Geddes City Council. He is a volunteer firefighter and emergency medical technician. He is also a black belt karate instructor. In South Dakota, small business has always been big business. This week, as we celebrate Small Business Week in our State, I commend the Small Business Administration for the partnerships it is forging with South Dakota business owners. And I offer my congratulations to Randy Boyd for his hard work and his outstanding contributions to his community.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I was not in the Chamber an hour ago when the distinguished Senator from Utah, my colleague, Senator Bennett, commented on remarks that I made earlier this morning. He is a person for whom I have immense respect and who I believe is a great student of many of the issues we address on the floor. But he and I have a very fundamental difference of opinion with regard to Medicare, and I wish to respond briefly to comments that he made today on that issue. I invite his reaction if he is within the sound of my voice. He said in his remarks the Medicare trustees' report predicting insolvency only became available in April 1995; that it was not available 2 years ago when the President's deficit reduction package was debated. The fact is that the Medicare trustees' report is available every year for all Members of Congress to see, and every year the report has been predicting insolvency of the Medicare trust fund, sometime between 1999 and the year 2003. So there should be no surprise with regard to the predictions of this year's trustees' report. I think the question is, how we will generate Medicare savings over the course of the next year, and how will we use those savings. There are some who have advocated providing a significant tax cut for the wealthy. I think it is fair to say that when you cut Medicare to the extent that some have proposed it be cut, and then you propose a similar decrease in taxes for the very wealthiest among us, one would have to conclude that the cuts in Medicare will be used to pay for the tax cut for the wealthy. That was the main point I was making. Regardless of whether people are willing to make that association, as valid as I believe it is, I think it is very clear everyone recognizes that, indeed, the Medicare trust fund is in serious trouble. In fact, the President's 1993 deficit reduction package addressed this issue through proposals designed to delay insolvency for several more years. Before the President's deficit reduction package was enacted, the trustees' report indicated the trust fund would be insolvent by 1999. As a result of the enactment of the 1993 reconciliation package, which all Democrats supported and every Republican opposed, we have been able to extend the viability of the trust fund for 3 more years, from the year 1999 to the year 2002. So we have made progress. What many of us are saying now is, if we are going to continue to make progress, then clearly we have to go beyond what the reconciliation package did with respect to strengthening Medicare. What we said last year is that we have to pass meaningful health care reform if we are to reduce further the rate of Medicare growth, without hurting beneficiaries and shifting costs onto families and businesses. That is what we attempted to do last year. The Senator from Utah indicated that the President last year argued we needed $118 billion in additional Medicare cuts. Well, the President proposed these reductions in the rate of growth of Medicare in the context of a health reform proposal that assured costs would not be shifted onto the private sector. Clearly we get cost shifting to the private sector when we cut Medicare without addressing private sector health care cost problems. That is why so many of us argued for so long--and, unfortunately, with so little success--last year that if we are ever going to solve Medicare's problems, we have to address our entire health care system's problems. Unfortunately, Republicans opposed that effort last year. So, Mr. President, my point in addressing this issue is to clarify again what I believe to be the real issue. The real issue is that we have to make meaningful reforms to Medicare without adversely affecting the beneficiaries and without passing whatever savings we generate on to the wealthiest among us in the form of another tax cut. Real reform is not cutting benefits to the elderly or simply shifting more costs onto them. Real reform must ensure more efficient functioning and administration of the program. The last issue that I wish to raise with regard to Medicare has to do with the chart the distinguished Senator from Utah used. My chart is not nearly as fancy because we didn't have time to make such an elegant chart, but I think it illustrates my point. The Senator from Utah indicated that Medicare costs were going up faster than costs in the private sector. Well, this is only true if you look at overall costs. But if you look at a more meaningful statistic, per capita health care costs, as this chart indicates--on a per enrollee basis, from 1976 to 1984, Medicare costs rose only slightly faster than private sector costs, 14.2 percent, versus 14 percent for the private sector. But look what has happened from the years 1984 to 1993. In that timeframe, 1984 to 1993, about 10 years, the actual increase in private sector per enrollee costs was 9.8 percent. The increase in Medicare per enrollee costs was 7.7 percent. These are numbers given to us from HCFA, and I think they make the point I was trying to make again this morning. On a per enrollee basis, there is no not grown as quickly as they have in the private sector. But that, in part, is because we are continuing to do what I just said we do not want to do any more. We do not want to pass Medicare costs on to the private sector. We do not want to say, in the name of reform, all we are going to do is let the private sector take on greater responsibility for health costs. We have to solve the problem of skyrocketing costs in the private sector, as well as those costs in Government. And that is exactly what I said this morning and what I hope we can continue to focus on as we consider the Medicare debate.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I rise to commend my colleagues for their eloquent presentation this morning. The Senator from California could not have said it better. The Senator from California knows, as my other colleagues have also indicated they know, the ramifications of this budget resolution and the extraordinary problems we face as we consider some of the implications of the huge cuts in Medicare that are now being proposed, as well as the extraordinary link between those cuts and the tax cut for the wealthy that some of our Republican colleagues have proposed over the course of the last several months, and, as we have already indicated, the House of Representatives has already passed. The concern I want to address just briefly this morning has to do with what happens when nothing happens. What happens when the budget resolution does not come to the floor in the manner the law requires? What happens to the debt? What happens to the cost of running the Federal Government each and every day that we delay? It may come as a surprise to some who may be listening that each day we delay action on the budget, the Federal debt increases by $820 million. The budget resolution, of course, was due on the 1st of April. The budget resolution was due almost 35 days ago. At that time, if you use the day before as the baseline, we increased the debt on that particular day by $820 million. On April 2, only 2 days after the budget resolution was supposed to have been reported, the debt increase was up to $1.6 billion. As you can see, in just the first 9 days since April 1, the debt increased by $8.2 billion simply because there has been no budget resolution and no opportunity for Congress to address the concern that so many of our Republican colleagues say ought to have the highest priority in the Congress today. Indeed, it should have that priority. The situation is beginning to look very serious as you go from this chart to the next one. The next chart indicates that 10 days after the budget resolution was due the debt had increased by $9 billion; 20 days after the budget resolution was due the debt had increased $16 billion. So, in just 20 days, because of inaction, because we have not had a budget resolution, because we have not been given an opportunity to address the extraordinary consequences of failure in leadership here, in just 20 days we have seen an increase of $16 billion in the total debt, directly attributable to the fact that we have not had a budget resolution. It gets worse, Mr. President. This chart begins to depict how much worse. On April 21 that debt increased to $17.2 billion. As you can see, slowly we are going off the chart now. The chart is not even big enough to show the debt that has accumulated by the last day of the month in which the budget resolution was due. As we all said, we knew the implications would be serious, but this chart shows just how serious. On April 30 we now see the debt, as a result of not having a budget resolution, go off the charts to $24.4 billion. That is $24 billion more than it would have been had we been able to stop this growth, this excessive increase in debt, on April 1 when the resolution was due. The real story then comes on the final chart. At least we hope it will be the final chart. The final chart shows that on May 1 the increased debt was $25.2 billion; on May 2 it was $26 billion; on May 3, another $820 million more than the day before--$26.8 billion more than on April 1. Today I will add yet the newest bar, for May 4, $27.6 billion in additional debt as a result of the lack of action, as a result of the inaction of the Senate Budget Committee and our colleagues on the Republican side in failing to address this issue. This is what we are facing. We are going to need charts that I will not be able to reach here by the end of this week, simply because we have not been given the budget resolution that the law requires. We all understand. When the American taxpayer is told that he has to produce his check to pay his taxes by April 15, people join long lines at the post office in order to ensure that they get their return in the mail and comply with the law. American taxpayers go down to the post office at midnight sometimes, on the eve of April 15, to ensure that they comply with the law. The law says everybody has to pay their taxes by April 15, and, indeed, the vast majority of American people, as law- abiding citizens, comply with the law. The law also says that the budget resolution has to be passed out of the Budget Committee by April 1, and out of the Senate, the Congress, by April 15. But we have now seen the cost of inaction. We have now seen what happens if nothing is done. We have now seen how it is compounded, day after day, with increases in cost, increases in debt, increases in the complexity of the problem we are going to have to address in the coming days. I must say, I think the biggest concern that many of my colleagues on the other side have as they consider all of the ramifications of a budget resolution is a promise that was made last November. We heard it time and time again. We heard that we can cut taxes, we can increase or at least maintain defense spending levels, we can balance the budget, and we can do all of that without touching Social Security. Now, given the circumstances, it is becoming increasingly apparent that that is not possible, that there is no way to do all of that, as was promised last November. So, as we look at ways with which to begin to address it, they are coming to the conclusion that one of the biggest pools of resources from which to draw to pay for the tax cut they promised is Medicare. In the name of reform, some of our colleagues on the other side are suggesting that is really what we must do. Let us reform Medicare. And in reforming Medicare we just happen to see this new pool of resources so that we can pay for a tax cut for the wealthy. Cutting Medicare benefits for the elderly in this way has nothing to do with reform. That is not reform. Certainly there has to be some appreciation of the difficulties we are facing in Medicare with the trust fund. Everyone is willing to concede that. But, to say in the name of reform we are going to cut benefits, in the name of reform we resolution, in the name of reform somehow we are going to reduce Medicare but then increase the tax cuts for the wealthy, all with the same stroke of the pen, I think defies credibility. I think most Americans understand the fallacy of that kind of logic and that kind of budgeting. So I do not think there is much support for that proposal. I think people are beginning to understand that the promises made last November are coming home to roost. The promises made about cutting taxes and cutting the budget and maintaining defense spending and not touching Social Security--all in a very short period of time, without any pain. The American people are coming to realize that it just cannot be done. So we hope to have a good debate about the budget. We hope we can talk about our priorities. We can talk about the need for reforming Medicare. But, as we said over and over on this floor over the last 2 years, you are not going to resolve the Medicare problems until you deal with the health care problems in this country. We all understand that, to a large extent, the increase in Medicare costs is being driven by the same forces driving across-the-board health care costs. Medicare's increases in costs this year are no greater than the increases in cost in the private sector. So we all understand that, indeed, if we are going to get a handle on Medicare, if we really are going to reform Medicare, then we have to reform the overall health care system. Otherwise, there will be no real reform--only cost shifting. So I am hopeful we can stop this steady rise in the debt. I hope we can begin to see these bars go back down as we deal with the budget resolution. But it is now the 4th of May. We have seen from past charts just what has happened with each day, the daily incremental increase of $820 million leading in less than 45 days after the date set for the Budget Committee to produce a budget resolution to a proliferation in debt of $27.6 billion. We will bring this chart out again. We will continue to show, as we have already been able to show, that we cannot afford delay. We cannot afford the lack in leadership that we have seen on the Senate Budget Committee with regard to a budget resolution. We need to get on with it. We want to work in a bipartisan way. But we certainly appreciate the extraordinary complexity the Republican Party and our Republican colleagues have created for themselves as we try to grapple with the promises made last November. You cannot cut taxes, you cannot increase defense, you cannot balance the budget and not touch Social Security, all at the same time. Thus, we are left with what we see on these charts. We want meaningful budget management. We want an opportunity to see a resolution that will turn this chart around, that will bring this debt down, that will do what the American people want us to do, and that will protect Medicare, that will protect those investments in people that we believe in so strongly. So, Mr. President, again let me commend my colleagues for their participation this morning, for the work that they have done in laying out the facts as we see them relating to the budget, Medicare and the implications of doing nothing. We need leadership. We are very hopeful that, in the not too distant future, we will see a lot more of it coming from the Republican side. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I could not help but listen to the distinguished Senator from Arkansas just a moment ago. All of us will greatly regret his absence beginning in the next Congress. As we all know, last week, the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, announced his plans to retire. As the Senate Democratic leader, I feel like pleading with him not to go; to change his mind. What we heard just this afternoon was another illustration of the value that he is to all of us, the unique individual that he truly is. While he has been known around town as one of the President's closest friends on Capitol Hill, he is one of my most indispensable allies in the Senate and one of the closest friends that most of us have here in the Senate. I have constantly drawn on his experience and wisdom for advice and guidance. And I have constantly found his calming influence amidst many a Senate tempest to be essential for my own personal well being as well as that of the U.S. Senate. But while I recognize that he is a kind, southern gentleman of the first order, I also warn, do not let that calm demeanor fool you. In the Senate, there is not a more tenacious or aggressive fighter for the causes in which he believes than David Pryor. Shortly after his election to the House of Representatives, Congressman Pryor went undercover as an orderly to investigate conditions in nursing homes. When the House refused to conduct hearings on the plight of America's elderly, he rounded up volunteers from local colleges, rented a trailer, and conducted his own hearings in an abandoned gas station a few blocks away from the House Office Building. When the Speaker of the House refused to establish a Committee on Aging, then-Congressman Pryor turned his trailer into the ad hoc House Trailer Committee on the Aging and continued its investigation. The House finally established--to no surprise of anyone who watched all of this--a Select Committee on Aging. When OPM claimed to have cleaned up its act and made Government jobs accessible to all applicants, Senator Pryor sent his office interns down to that agency to apply for jobs. He then called them to testify before his Subcommittee on Federal Services, where they informed the Senate about the continuing abuses in that most important Federal job recruiting agency. The list does not end. He has taken on the IRS and authored and steered to passage the taxpayers' bill of rights to make our tax system fair and equitable to every citizen and every business. He has taken on the Beltway Bandits, as he has conducted hearings and demanded more than 40 GAO reports on Government use of what he calls America's shadow government--private consultants. He has taken on the pharmaceutical companies for the high prices they charge for prescription drugs. He has stopped production of unsafe and unworkable chemical weapons, even though it meant jobs in his State of Arkansas. He has conducted a longstanding crusade against what he considers time-consuming and time-wasting Senate procedures like filibusters, dilatory floor tactics, quorum calls, and extended rollcall votes. But throughout his fights, Senator Pryor hss remained the gentleman that he is. His fights have always been constructive, not destructive, to the national interest, We need more, not less, positive-minded, cooperative, dedicated Senators like David Pryor. While I am tempted to ask him to stay, as his friend, I fully understand and support his reason for leaving. He has given a lifetime of public service. As a teenager, he worked in Washington, first as a page for Representative Oren Harris, and then in the post office in the House of Representatives. He had successful careers as an editor-publisher and as an attorney, but he always came back to public service. In 1960, he was elected to the first of three terms in the Arkansas State Legislature. In 1966, he was elected to the first of four terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. He served two terms as Governor of Arkansas. Since 1979, he has served in the U.S. Senate. His work in this Chamber has consumed so much of his time and attention. In addition to his most important work as chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, he has been active on the Finance Committee, the Committee on Agriculture, the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, the Governmental Affairs Committee. And, yes, event the Ethics Committee. In addition to all that, he has also served as Democratic Conference secretary. Senator Pryor now wants to enjoy life after politics--and there is much to say for that kind of life. Senator Mitchell told me so just the other day. Senator Pryor's love for the Senate is exceeded only by his love for his family and his love for the beautiful State of Arkansas--both of which he will now be able to enjoy even more. I wish Senator Pryor, Barbara, and his family the best in the years ahead and can only say that their gain is our loss. I yield the floor. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

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 will use my leader time as in morning business. There are a couple of issues I would like to address. As I understand it, once my remarks have been made, the Senate will then go into recess. So I will summarize my remarks at this point.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the administration's proposal to sell three of the Nation's five power marketing administrations includes the Western Area Power Administration, which markets power from the main stem dams on the Missouri River to South Dakota utilities and cooperatives. As others have indicated, the sale of the power marketing administrations or PMA's would result in an expected one-time savings of $3.7 billion. However, basing the decision on that fact alone is a case of false economy. PMA's return far more money to the Federal Government each year than they cost to operate. In 1995, for example, the Western Area Power Administration cost $225.1 million to operate, but returned $378.5 million to the Treasury. Other power marketing administrations showed even greater returns. And, beyond that, the sale is likely, ultimately, to increase electricity rates for consumers by up to 300 percent in some areas. This makes no sense. Obviously, we need to reduce the budget deficit, and Democrats are ready to do that. But we should not do it indiscriminately. Before we start cutting Government programs, we have a responsibility to evaluate their utility and consider the consequences. I am concerned that, in proposing this sale, proponents have fallen prey to the allure of short-term savings and missed the larger point that power marketing administrations are good examples of exactly how Government should work. It has been said that the purpose of Government is to do those things that are essential but which we cannot do as individuals. That is exactly what the power marketing administrations do. They bring affordable electricity to communities that otherwise might not be able to afford it. And they do it cost-effectively. I have heard the claims that the power marketing administrations can be sold without causing substantial rate increases. Frankly, I'm skeptical of these claims. In South Dakota, the Western Area Power Administration, or WAPA, markets power from the main stem dams along the Missouri River and has for years ensured a consistent and affordable supply of electricity. The program pays for itself. If WAPA and the other PMA's are sold, rates are likely to increase substantially. That is because those with the deepest pockets--those in the best position to purchase the assets--will be out-of-State financial interests, whose primary objective will be to maximize their return on investment. Like any business, the buyers of PMA's will want to maximize their bottom line--profits. And electric rates for existing Federal power customers will rise as a result. Customers in South Dakota and other States now served will pay much higher costs for power, with much of the money going to out-of-State financial interests who bankroll these purchases. Farming, ranching, and small businesses dominate the prairie economy, providing modest incomes for most South Dakotans. The economic fate of our State or any other should not be placed in the hands of those whose only interest is in making higher profits. As you would expect, the proposal to sell the power marketing administrations is unpopular in South Dakota and, I believe, in many other States as well. I have received more than 10,000 letters from people opposed to the sale--and only two letters in favor of it. Ten thousand to two. I believe that people generally know what is best for themselves. And when they speak this clearly, in such overwhelming numbers, Congress ought to listen. And let there be no mistake. The sale of the power marketing administrations will have a negative effect far beyond the economy of South Dakota. PMA's sell power in 34 States across the country. I urge every Member of this body to take a long look at the potential impacts of this sale on customers in his or her State. Read the fine print in this proposal, and I believe you will see the folly in this idea. In conclusion, Mr. President, PMA's work. Instead of selling them off, we should be holding them up as an example of how the Federal Government can work for the people and the national economy. PMA's provide affordable power to States like South Dakota without any subsidy. The Federal Government gets a return on its investment. Customers have access to reliable, affordable electricity. What more can one ask of a program? Like other States, South Dakota sacrificed great tracts of prime wildlife habitat and farmland so that dams could be constructed. Selling the PMA's now would deprive us of equitable compensation for those sacrifices. Given that, and given the almost certain rate increases that would result from the sale, as well as the likelihood of out-of-State ownership and, thus, the export of State resources, the sale of the PMA's is not a policy that I can support. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this ill-conceived sale. Mr. President, I yield the floor and, as I understand it, we are now going into recess.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today is May 3, more than a month after the law requires a budget resolution to be reported to the Senate for debate. It is 18 days past April 15, when the law requires a budget resolution to have been completed and passed. Yet, the Senate Budget Committee has not even begun to mark up a resolution. Instead, a scheduled markup has been delayed until May 8, so nothing will be done until then. Yet, the current majority has inherited a budget from the last Congress in which the deficit is declining. Its task should be easier than the task of the last Congress, which made the tough decisions that led to deficit decline. Meanwhile, although our task in the last Congress was a harder one, and we achieved it with no Republican help, we did so within the deadlines set by law. Republicans campaigned on the claim that they could cut taxes, protect defense spending, and balance the budget, all without touching Social Security benefits. That was the message heard around the country all year last year. That was the message to which Americans responded: Cut taxes, protect defense spending, and balance the budget, without affecting Social Security. Now the time is already past for the first downpayment on that promise--the budget resolution required by law. All we are hearing is the stirring sound of people changing the subject. Republicans have discovered that the Medicare Program faces challenges in the years ahead. Democrats told them and the Nation that 2 years ago, when we shored up the Medicare Program and cut the deficit, all without Republican votes. Throughout the last 2 years, Republicans have rejected each and every proposal offered to help shore up the Medicare Program, with rhetoric about reduced choices and higher taxes. Now it is time to deliver. If Democratic solutions to the long-term problems of an aging population are no good, let us hear Republican solutions. I fear we will not, because there are not any. The Republican discovery of a well-known fact is nothing but an effort to distract Americans from their real intentions. House Republicans are considering reductions in Medicare growth on the order of $300 billion. Senate Republicans have said they will need to reduce normal Medicare growth by $200 to $250 billion. They all say they are not cutting, they are just reducing growth. But if a program grows because more people age and become eligible for it, it is pretty obvious that the same number of dollars will stretch a lot thinner. Medicare program costs are increasing because all health insurance costs are increasing. In fact, on a per capita basis, Medicare and Medicaid costs are increasing at the same rate as privately insured costs. If Medicare growth rates are simply slashed--without reform--to a rate of growth half as high, we know who is going to pay. The seniors and working people and employers of this country will pay, that is who. Hospitals and doctors will just shift costs to private insurers. The result will be a massive hidden tax on jobs, a massive hidden tax hike on seniors and workers through hikes in copayments and deductibles. Cost sharing of the kind Republicans are now contemplating are not just likely to shift costs to the private sector. They are certain to shift costs to the private sector. It will be an invisible tax on the privately insured. Some Republicans want to impose this invisible tax to pay for their visible tax cut for the wealthy. The budget figures and the rate of health care inflation show that Medicare can be preserved without massive cuts of the kind some are considering. They only reason they need to cut $300 billion from Medicare is because they plan to give away $354 billion at the same time through a tax cut for the wealthy. Americans will not be fooled by talk of bipartisan commissions. They will not buy the ruse, where their retired parents' health care is cut way back and their own health care costs are exacerbated to quietly provide tax breaks to the wealthiest people in the country. If Medicare needs reform, it should be reformed in a way that ensures seniors will get the care they have been promised, and it should be done in the context of health care reform. Medicare should not be cut blindly to achieve false savings--or worse, to fund a tax cut for those who need it least. The first step in this process must be for the majority to do what they already should have done--propose a budget.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in 1991 Congress designated a 39-mile stretch of the Missouri River from Fort Randall to Lewis and Clark Lake as a national recreational river. The purpose of the recreational river designation is to protect the river and its environment, protect landowner rights, and provide for visitor use. Recreational river designations preserve an important part of our Nation's natural heritage. This section, along with other segments of the Missouri River, provides critical native wildlife habitat, buffers against floods, and scenic waterways for recreation including fishing and hunting. For these reasons, South Dakotans feel strongly about the care and management of the river. The National Park Service is currently evaluating alternative plans for managing this segment of the Missouri River. The selected plan will set goals and mechanisms for the care and public use of the river. Numerous South Dakotans have commented officially on management alternatives proposed by the National protection of wildlife habitat and provision of a primitive river experience. Others advocate a recreational emphasis with attention drawn to cultural and historical aspects of the river. Most agree on a balanced approach to river management. However, many people who own land adjacent to the river have expressed concerns about the effectiveness of river protection efforts. They worry that recreational facilities developed on either side of the river will threaten the fragile river ecosystem. They are afraid that the Federal Government will take away portions of their land but will not do an adequate job of river protection. I have always believed that ranchers and farmers are the original environmentalists. They make their living off the land and, therefore, know how the Earth and its rivers work. For farmers and ranchers, a healthy Earth makes for a healthy living. The National Park Service has stated that, at this juncture, it does not believe that land condemnation will be necessary to accomplish the designation. While I appreciate the sensitivity of the Park Service to this issue, concerns persist among landowners over the potential for land condemnation when the final plan is announced. These fears, which have created a climate of mistrust, threaten to impede the designation process. For this process to move forward in a constructive and productive way, I believe it is important to clarify this issue and ensure that land condemnation is no longer an option in this process. Therefore, today I am introducing a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The bill will limit acquisition of land on the 39-mile segment of the Missouri River designated as a recreational river to acquisition from willing sellers. The bill seeks to ensure that the people who live with the river, who best know its seasonal ebbs and flows, will retain control of the management decisions that will affect them and the river. The bill guarantees that landowners with river property will not have their land condemned by the National Park Service for the purpose of this designation. South Dakotans living along this stretch of the Missouri River are entitled to be the stewards of their own land. They are eager to protect this stretch of the river and to maintain its natural beauty. In this time when States are clamoring for greater control over their natural environment and the laws that guide its use, it is my hope that Congress will provide the degree of control that Americans are asking for along this 39-mile stretch of river. Local landowners must take responsibility for the health and well-being of their natural environment. This bill, which applies only to the 39-mile stretch of the Missouri River from Fort Randall to Lewis and Clark Lake, will provide that opportunity in this case. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, our Nation's history includes too many tragic and avoidable workplace accidents that have maimed and killed workers. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire early in this century, in which women died because the owner had locked the fire doors to prevent them taking an unauthorized work break, remains one of the most horrifying examples. Twenty-five years ago last Friday, Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act. With that legislation, we made a commitment to all American workers that the places where they earned their living would not themselves pose a hazard to life or health. Yet it has been just a couple of years since the Hamlet chicken processing plant fire had a result all too similar to the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory disaster, and for the same cause--a locked fire escape door. Twenty-five working people in North Carolina died in that fire. The Occupational Safety and Health Act was intended to prevent such tragedies, but despite the passage of a quarter century, its work is not yet done. Every year, more than 6,000 workers are killed by workplace injuries; more than 50,000 die each year from occupational diseases. We have made great strides in cleaning up the chemicals and other contaminants that pose a hazard to health in many workplaces. Most American employers are anxious to create workplaces that will not cause injury to their own employees. But the number of deaths each year, whether from immediate injury or from the long-range effects of exposure to hazardous substances, means we cannot say that the work of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration is finished. It is not. It is inconceivable that, with this heavy toll of premature worker death, there is today a concerted effort to roll back and eviscerate workplace safety provisions that protect workers today. This is a misguided and mistaken approach. We are seeing improvements in the rate of workplace safety, with reduced injuries and accidents. Clearly, the work done by Federal and State inspectors is having an effect. It is counterproductive to take an effective enforcement approach and seek to weaken it. American workers deserve better. American workers should not have to fear that the Congress, which promised to protect their health a quarter of a century ago, will today renege on that promise. There are undoubtedly improvements to be made in the enforcement field, but proposals to eliminate the tools of enforcement itself are not improvements. They will do nothing but undermine the ability of inspectors to do their job. There are fewer than 2,000 Federal workplace safety inspectors. They are already overwhelmed by the scope of their responsibilities. If they don't have the tools with which to enforce safety requirements, the promise of a safe workplace will become an empty one. A week after the ultimate workplace tragedy, the bombing in Oklahoma City that took the lives of so many Federal employees as they worked at their desks, it is worthwhile to remember the tragic and wasteful loss of life that goes unremarked in the workplace every day. I commend the AFL-CIO and its affiliates for the continued effort they make, through Workers Memorial Day, to recall to the national memory the lives needlessly lost to preventable injuries and hazards on the job.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, more than a hundred years ago, Sitting Bull, chief of the Lakota Sioux Indians, implored Americans: ``Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children.'' I thought of that plea again on Saturday, April 22, the 25th anniversary of Earth Day. Much has changed since the first Earth Day. More and more, Americans recognize that conserving our natural resources and safeguarding a clean environment is in everyone's best interests. It is, as Theodore Roosevelt said, the patriotic duty of every American. Congress has attempted to fulfill that responsibility by passing laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Federal Land Policy Management Act. As a result of these and other protections, the water Americans drink and the air we breathe is cleaner than it was 25 years ago. We also understand much more about how the delicate Earth system works and about the effects of human actions on the environment. For example, earth scientists have come to recognize that the Earth's climate is changing the atmosphere. Geologists tell us that global climate change could increase the frequency of droughts and floods. We now appreciate that these events can have direct socioeconomic consequences for individuals and communities. We need to build on this knowledge and our successes, not undo them. Clearly, we cannot and will not tolerate laws and rules that frustrate businesses and justify redtape. We must be willing to heed the lessons of the last 25 years and adjust our environmental laws to be more efficient and less burdensome. But, we must not exploit the current frustration with Government to gut all laws protecting our environment. Those who claim we must eviscerate environmental rules in order to sustain our economy are at best disingenuous. They know--we all know-- that we cannot strengthen our economy if we destroy our environment. In fact, establishing policies for a sustainable environment is an economic necessity. We must develop policies using balance, reason, and good science. We will debate many important environmental issues in this Congress. Let us hold ourselves to those standards: balance, reason, and good science. Pollution does not respect ideological boundaries. So our efforts to prevent pollution, to clean up mistakes from our past, and to plan thoughtfully for the future on this delicate planet must transcend those boundaries. In my lifetime, the world population has doubled, and the U.S. population has soared from 150 million to 260 million people. At current growth rates, it's projected that the U.S. population will double--to 522 million people--just 60 years from now. The cold, hard truth is that the Earth cannot supply the resources to sustain such a large human population unless we change our consumption and conservation practices now. Earth Day reminds us that the Earth is not an infinitely bountiful cornucopia. Rather, it is a planet of finite resources from which comes the materials for our food, clothing, and shelter. We must learn to live within its geological and biological limits. Environmental issues are often expressed in by scientists in complicated, technical terms. But the essential issue is really quite simple and critical for all of us to embrace. President Theodore Roosevelt put it best early in this century when he said: ``A nation behaves well if it treats its natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased--not impaired--in value.'' We have an obligation to our children and our children's children to safeguard their future, to preserve the water, soil, air, minerals, rivers, and oceans that are the resource base of this diverse planet and the many life forms that inhabit it. Last week, students at the Grandview Elementary School in Rapid City spoke with me about pressing environmental problems and possible solutions. Let us not disappoint our children. Let us, Democrats and Republicans alike, heed Sitting Bull's plea to ``put our heads together,'' to work together, ``to see what life we can make for our children.''

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the 1995 South Dakota Teacher of the Year, Becky Ekeland. I can attest to the fact that this is an honor she well deserves. Being selected Teacher of the Year is a most significant accomplishment. It means you have gained the utmost respect of your colleagues and students. Becky Ekeland was nominated by her fellow teaching staff in the Brookings School District and ultimately selected by a committee of statewide officials. Ms. Ekeland is an English teacher at Brookings High School. She has been an educator for 20 years. South Dakotans, especially the students of Brookings, are extremely fortunate to have Mrs. Ekeland in our State. Mrs. Ekeland's dedication to her students is evidenced in a hundred different ways. One example is the grammar lessons she creates each year. Rather than relying on a textbook, she tailors her lessons to the specific needs of each class. It's her way, she said, of showing her students how the English language works and what it means in their day- to-day lives. Schools have undergone enormous change in the 20 years since Mrs. Ekeland began her career. One of the most profound changes is the tremendous new demands placed on parents. Many children now come from single-parent families. In other families, two parents work two and even three jobs just to make ends meet. A teacher's job is always demanding, but it become even more difficult when teachers have to fill in as parents, too. Given the increasing pressure on our schools--and our increasing need for good schools, now is not the time to be cutting educational resources. In coming weeks, as we debate next year's budget, let us remember what President Kennedy said: ``A child miseducated is a child lost. And let us pledge to give America's students and teachers the support they need to succeed. In a real sense, they are our future.'' I want to mention a few things Becky Ekeland is working to improve the teaching profession and make that future more secure. First, she is a positive voice in the community, letting people know the good things that happen in the school. She participates in professional organizations. She takes seriously her responsibility to be a good example, demanding from herself what we all should be able to expect from our teachers. she attends classes, workshops, seminars and conventions in an effort to constantly improve herself and her educational skills. The greatest testament to Ms. Ekeland's skill comes from her fellow staffers and former students. The counselor at Brookings High School describes her as ``self- motivated, conscientious, responsible, dependable, a professional individual, always willing to give 110 percent while at work; another 110 percent worth of quality time when at home with her family.'' Ekeland ``an outstanding educator. Becky is first and foremost a caring person,'' he says ``who places a high priority on helping others * * * she establishes relationships with students that serve to increase their motivation, confidence and achievement * * * Becky has always demonstrated strong classroom organizational skills and a commitment to instruction that causes students to be actively engaged in learning through ways that are meaningful to them.'' A former student writes, ``Rebecca Ekeland is truly one in a million. I have never come across anyone who dedicates so much energy to one task--educating the children of Brookings, South Dakota. She puts her heart and soul into the success of every single student that enters her classroom. To me this is what teaching is all about.'' Mr. President, I am honored to commend such an outstanding teacher and to congratulate her on her well-deserved recognition. At this time, I would ask that Ms. Ekeland's essays and the letters of recommendations from which I read be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask to speak in morning business and use part of my leader time to do so.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today marks the end of the Senate career of Brian Hallen, the Senate Enrolling Clerk. Brian began his career of Government service in January 1966 as a linotype operator at the Government Printing Office. Over the years, he assumed other positions in the Government and eventually in 1981, became the Senate's first Assistant Enrolling Clerk. Brian served admirably as Assistant Enrolling Clerk and was promoted to the position of Enrolling Clerk in 1986. As the Assistant Enrolling Clerk and as Enrolling Clerk, Brian has had the Arduous task of ensuring the accuracy of every provision--sections and titles--of the bills enacted by this body. During the appropriations season, I understand that on many occasions, prior to the innovations of computerization, Brian could be found in his office burning the midnight oil working diligently on appropriations bills--checking and double checking--making sure every ``t'' was crossed and every ``i'' dotted--to ensure that the product that was delivered to the House or to the White House was an actual reflection of the Senate's work. I applaud him for the fine service he has given to this body and to his country. The Senate is a better place because of people such as Brian Hallen. As Brian retires after almost 30 years of Government service, I wish him the very best and say ``Thank you'' for your many years of service and for your dedication to this institution. I am sure all of my colleagues join with me in saying ``have a long and happy retirement,'' and ``Good luck.''