Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I may respond, as the Senator from Alaska knows, I am a big admirer of the distinguished Senator from Alaska, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. There are no two more able Members of this Senate than the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii, his ranking member. I appreciate, first, the chairman's explanation, and I also appreciate the fact that he could foresee the budgetary and appropriations problems that could have been generated as a result of the allocation made initially by the administration. We are able to address some of the other concerns in other subcommittees on appropriations in part because he saw the problems arise and took action to avoid them. I guess I go back to a fundamental question of management, not by him but of the administration, a fundamental question about what it is they anticipate will be the costs involving fighting the war in Iraq--not for this year but for the next fiscal year that this particular appropriations bill addresses. It will take $60 billion to address those concerns in the next fiscal year. We appropriated in the supplemental $68 billion in this fiscal year. Obviously, that will take us into the first part of the next fiscal year. The question from us to the administration ought to be: Why have you not made a specific proposal with regard to the commitment that will be required in Iraq for the next fiscal year? If it is $60 billion, request it. If it is $60 billion, defend it. If it is $60 billion, give us some appreciation of how it will be spent and why we are the only ones spending it. Why is it that other countries are not more engaged? Why have you not asked? Those are the questions that any appropriations bill ought to address. I supported the supplemental and most likely, whenever another one is requested, if it comes, I will support it. But it is not good fiscal management to take these matters piecemeal, to expect through a supplemental process--which, I might add, is not offset, which simply adds to the deficit. We now see a deficit of some $450 billion. If we take Social Security out, it is $600 billion, and we are still not at the end of this fiscal year. We have serious management and budget considerations that have to be taken into account but are only exacerbated by these supplemental budgets that are offered, considered, and voted upon throughout the year. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to join with my colleague from Nevada in commending the distinguished Senator from South Dakota for his powerful statement, for the eloquence and the passion he has demonstrated in expressing himself this afternoon. I have said on countless occasions that no one could be more proud to call him a colleague than I. We have heard yet another demonstration of the reason I am so confident in my ability to say that as we heard him this afternoon. I will never forget my colleague sharing with me a postcard his son sent while he was in Iraq. It was on the back of an MRE, one of these meals the military eats every day. He had carved it out, writing on the back, put the address on the front, and sent it to his father and mother to report that he was well, to report that he believed in what he was doing. It has to be an emotional moment to receive that from your son. He invoked that emotion again today in speaking for all families who have members of the military in Iraq; that it is wrong to minimize these losses; that it is wrong to, in some way, depersonalize the extraordinary impact it has when one of these sons or daughters is lost. Hans Gukeisen was one of those who did lose his life. He was from Lead, SD. He was a helicopter pilot. He lost his life rescuing an Iraqi child. He is now buried in the Black Hills National Cemetery. I just received a message from his father a couple of days ago lamenting, expressing the sense of loss that only a father can. As we face these questions, as we struggle to ensure we have the information this Congress deserves, let us also be appreciative of the extraordinary sacrifice made by those who are there; those who are no longer living as a result of having been there; and those, hopefully, who will never have to go but are prepared to do so today. I was disappointed to learn just within the last week that the Secretary of Defense indicated that he could not support an amendment we adopted 82 to 10, I believe, which would have provided health insurance to National Guard personnel once they come home. They are eligible for it now. They are not when they come home. That is a disparity, an inequity, a problem I cannot fully appreciate, but they can, and it is yet another indication of the sacrifice they made to be there for their country. As others have noted, they have been there for months and months. We owe it to them to give them some better understanding of the length of time they will stay. We owe it to them to send as clear a message as we can that we have a plan and that they can put their lives on a similar plan once they know what the plan for the country will be. But it appears there is no plan today. We do not know how long we will stay, and I think it is imperative that we find out. These and other questions, as I said earlier today, Mr. President, are ones that have to be addressed during this debate and consideration of this bill. I am hopeful we can put in place legislatively the assurances that we will require before we vote on this bill later on, whenever that may be. So again, let me thank the distinguished Senator from South Dakota for his eloquence, for his passion, and for his partnership. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time to yield to the Senator from Illinois for whatever question he may want to ask of the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use the remainder of my leader time to make a couple of remarks with regard to the Bingaman amendment, but I, too, want to join the Senator from Illinois in expressing our gratitude to the Senator from West Virginia for his outspokenness, his candor, the strength and conviction with which he has once again articulated the views of so many of the people of this country, as well as the members of our caucus. I thank him once again for his contribution.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I express my strong support for the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico. It is very straightforward. It says as clearly and as succinctly as it can that the United States must keep its promise when we consider the appropriations bill later this month, that we will fully fund the $3 billion promised in the fight against global AIDS. That is all it says. The Senator from New Mexico has laid it out very clearly. I applaud him and thank him for his leadership and the compelling arguments that once again he has articulated with regard to the urgency as well as the need to do this as we consider the appropriations bill later on. The President early this year laid out a very ambitious proposal. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the President did not fund that proposal when he submitted his budget to the Congress. We are now responsible to fill that hole, to address that vacuum, to make that commitment. That is, in essence, what the Senator from New Mexico is saying with this amendment. Let's acknowledge the commitment, let's acknowledge our determination at the appropriate time, in the appropriations bill, to send a clear message. Why is it important now? It is important now because the focus of the world media is on Africa. The President today is in Botswana. I happened to be in Botswana last August. It is a beautiful country with remarkable natural beauty. They have a dedicated democratic government, one of the most successful in all of Africa. It has the fastest growing economy in the world over the last three decades. However, if there is any hope of economic survival, if there is any chance this economy will continue to flourish, they must grapple effectively with a very serious matter. Forty percent of all Botswanans today are infected. Consider that 4 in 10 people in Botswana today have HIV. We opened an AIDS testing and counseling center when we were in Botswana. The townspeople turned out for that ceremony with a joy and excitement that I had not expected in a country where 40 percent may have that disease. They were joyful for one reason: They knew we could now begin to address this incredible problem. If we fully fund our promise, if we fully ensure that centers such as the one we opened in Botswana last August can test, can treat, can care, can provide the outreach, then indeed we will have fulfilled our commitment. We will have recognized the critical nature of this crisis. The world has never known a pandemic as brutal as this AIDS pandemic. But the world has never known a country as strong and giving and caring as America. So this is our moment to prove that the commitments made in the past are no less and no more than the commitment we make now to address this pandemic in a meaningful way, to send a clear message to the Botswana people Botswana who are listening today and who want to believe what they heard in the commitment given earlier this year is one that will not erode, that will be there, not only with words but with deeds, not only with promises but with resources. That is what the Bingaman amendment does. That is why I rise so strongly in support of it today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will comment and then yield the floor. It was reported to me the last time we took up the bill in 1985 we took a couple of weeks to pass it. We certainly do not expect to spend a couple of weeks on the bill in this session of Congress. But I think it does, again, remind us that there are very important issues involving foreign policy, the State Department, and other issues--whether or not they are directly relevant to the State Department--that are meritorious and deserve consideration. I know of no one, on this side at least, who would require a good deal of time, an inordinate amount of time, for their amendment to be considered. We will work with our Republican colleagues in the hope we can accommodate this list, expedite the consideration of the bill, and move to a successful conclusion. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I want to clarify that the amendments that were adopted, including the Reid amendment this morning, would be included as part of this text. Is that the understanding?

Mr. DASCHLE. Again, I ask if my understanding is his as well.

Mr. DASCHLE. I have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am quite sure we would be able to enter into such an agreement, but I want to check with those Senators who have amendments to offer. That is a very wise course of action and with a little checking, I think we can enter into such an agreement, but we would have to check. I also note I have been asked the question, Will there be votes tomorrow morning? I assume there will be votes tomorrow morning, so Senators should be prepared to come tomorrow. I defer to the majority leader for a definitive answer to that question.

Mr. DASCHLE. I know Senator Dorgan has been waiting patiently to make some comments with regard to an amendment he had offered. I think that is the only remaining piece of business we have on the State Department authorization bill today.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, just as soon as the list has been reviewed more carefully by our distinguished ranking member, I am sure we will be in a position to work with the chair to accommodate his unanimous consent request. We have a number of Senators who have been working with the managers. I think they may be in a position to offer their amendments with the understanding they would not require rollcall votes. I know Senator Dodd and Senator Clinton and Schumer, at least, are in that position, maybe others. I have just shared with the majority leader a list of amendments that may not be finite but is almost officially finite. We are hopeful we can continue to work with our managers in accommodating those Senators who wish to offer amendments but with a recognition that in most cases they will not require a good deal of time. In some cases they will not be offered at all. We have only been on the bill for about a day--full--and we were reminded it has been since 1985, which was the last time we actually brought up successfully the State Department authorization bill. We are very desirous of completing the work on all three pieces of it. We will continue to work with the distinguished majority leader and chair to figure out a way to accommodate the successful conclusion and consideration of the legislation. As I say, this list is not necessarily finite, but I do not expect it to grow. In fact, I think there are amendments on the list that will probably not be offered. So we will go from here. In the meantime, perhaps, if we could dispose of the amendments that will not require rollcalls, we will expedite this process even more.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes, I will be happy to.

Mr. DASCHLE. First, with regard to the State Department authorization bill, I think we have made a lot of progress this afternoon. In defining more explicitly the list of amendments that are likely to be offered, it is not a lengthy list and I think we can work through them. I appreciate the cooperation of so many of our Senators. I will repeat what I have indicated to the majority leader, that many of our colleagues who have submitted their amendments for this list do so with an expectation that they will have an opportunity to have a vote on or in relation to their amendment. Obviously, we are going to have to attempt to accommodate that expectation as we work through the list. I think this is a wise decision and a wise course of action with regard to setting the bill aside temporarily because I know the time constraints under which the Appropriations Committee is working. I will say we have very significant reservations on the part of some of our colleagues--I know Senator Byrd has expressed more than once on the Senate floor his frustration with late night sessions and votes, and I am sure, were he here, he would express that frustration again. I do believe we have to continue our work, and perhaps we can arrange ways in which to address that concern. As I understand it, we have a handful of amendments to be offered to the legislative appropriations and supplemental bill. I think definitively there are four amendments at this point. So we ought to be able to work through those reasonably quickly. I know of no amendments to the military construction bill at this point. So we ought to be able to work through these, perhaps even stacking the votes for tomorrow morning. In any case, I hope that Senators who have amendments will come to the floor to accommodate the consideration of these bills in a timely way. We want to finish our work so that we can move on. I appreciate the work that has been done and the effort that has been made to get us to this point. I hope we can have a productive evening. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, first, I compliment the distinguished chair of the Foreign Relations Committee for his work on this omnibus piece of legislation. I intend to support it. I admire the work that has been done. I notice Senator Hagel is in the Chamber, and Senator Feingold. They and Senator Biden have really done yeoman work bringing us to this point. The MCC, foreign aid legislation, in addition to the State Department authorization bill, represents a tremendous amount of work and effort to get us to this point. I look forward to the debate. Having said that, however, I must rise to express my frustration on an unrelated matter. I want to call to the attention of my colleagues the fact that it has now been a month since the Senate passed bipartisan legislation, 94 to 2, to rectify a problem that we all agreed should be fixed. I am referring to the 12 million children, and over 6 million families, that were excluded from legislation we recently passed and signed into law providing tax relief to American families. Shortly after the exclusion was noted, the President admonished the Senate and the House to solve this problem as quickly as we can because we were bumping up against a deadline. I recall all the speeches on the Senate floor. Republicans and Democrats came to the floor and said: Yes, we have to change this. Yes, we have to recognize that by July 25th all of this must be done. Yes, when all of these checks go out and relief is provided to everybody else, we should not be leaving out these 12 million children or these 6 million families. Let's resolve it. Let's do it. We said unequivocally that we were going to resolve this by the 25th of July. Here we are, well into the second week of July, just a matter of a couple of weeks to go before the 25th is here, and yet there is no action. We keep promising. We keep hearing the promises made by others. The fact is, nothing has been done. I think it is important for us, once again, to light a fire, to reignite it, to state again our determination to see that this is going to be done, to see that these people are not left out, to ensure that we address this issue as we all promised we would do just a month ago. While I want to get on with this bill and while I want to be as supportive as I can to assure that the very distinguished chair of the Foreign Relations Committee can move this legislation along, I simply believe it is time for us, once again, to restate our determination to solve this problem. We do not need any time. We can have the vote just as we had it before and complete our work on it. But I do think it has to be done prior to the time we get into the real, legitimate debate and discussion about the many worthy aspects of the bill the distinguished chair has laid down. So, Madam President, at this time I move to proceed to S. 1162, the child tax credit bill, in order for us to accomplish that task first.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment again, as I did yesterday, the distinguished Senator from Illinois for his great work on this issue and for beginning this educational process that I think has to be a part of the debate at this time. I also want to thank, as is always the case, the distinguished assistant Democratic leader for his involvement in these discussions as well. I have concerns about where we are with regard to this issue on at least two counts. First of all, the procedural count: I wish I had $1 for every occasion when Republicans would lament the fact that the committee process was bypassed. Yet here we are. There has been no hearing. There has been no markup. There has been no committee consideration at all of what is one of the most complex and extremely controversial issues to face the Senate and the country. To bypass the entire committee process and bring the bill straight to the floor does an injustice to the issue. As Senator Reid has noted, a bill of this magnitude deserves careful consideration, deserves the opportunity to be heard, and deserves the chance to have some debate in the committee among the experts who know this issue. I think it would be very helpful. It is interesting that the president of the Tort Reform Association said don't count on insurance premiums going down if this legislation passes. I think Senators need to know that. If the president of the Tort Association of America says, look, don't expect any relief, what is it we are doing? This isn't from some trial. This is a person who advocates tort reform, but he is in the name of real honesty saying: Look, this is not the reason we are arguing for tort reform today. It is not going to bring down insurance premiums. I think procedurally we have a real concern about the reason we are here today. I think that is something that ought to be considered very carefully. This is an important bill. It deserves the kind of careful, substantive attention that only committees can bring. Second, of course, is the issue itself. As the distinguished Senator from Illinois has said so ably, we understand how important it is to address the seriousness of insurance premiums. We have two approaches before us: The one offered by the Senator from Illinois, and the one offered by the Senator from South Carolina which will give immediate relief. We are talking within the next couple of weeks, if this went to the President's desk, immediate relief for meaningful insurance cost reduction. When I go home that is the issue about which doctors tell me they are concerned. They can't afford to pay the premiums. There is no better way to reduce the premiums than to give them the immediate relief offered in the Graham-Durbin bill. But I must say this is also a recognition of the concern. There has to be a way to address the problems created when mistakes are made. Tommy Thompson himself--certainly no advocate of the status quo--has recognized that last year, the year before that, and the year before that 100,000 people died as a result of mistakes made in operating rooms, in clinics, and hospitals across the country. That is not my figure. That is not some special interest figure. That is the Secretary of Health and Human Services--100,000 people died. I oftentimes find myself equating numbers with Vietnam and Vietnam- era veterans. We lost 58,000 people in Vietnam. We are losing almost twice that number every year due to mistakes made in operating rooms and in hospitals. What I find perplexing--interesting--is that our Republican colleagues, who say the States know best how to govern, are saying: Well, in this case we don't think that is the case. In this case what we think is we know better. Washington is going to dictate to the States what the laws with regard to tort will be. Not only are we going to set the cap at $250,000, but we are actually, under the legislation before us today, going to preempt every single State law except the cap. We are going to tell the States we know better and we are going to dictate to the States what it is they are going to have to abide by from here on out--total Federal preemption of State law. It is amazing that is coming from our Republican colleagues. I would also say I am concerned because I can probably even consider looking at caps if there was any conclusive evidence that caps work. There is a very respected analytical group that made, with some fanfare, a decision a couple of years ago to examine this whole relationship between caps and premiums. They announced when they started the study that they did not know how it is was going to turn out. It could be pro-cap or it could be anti-cap. They didn't know. But they believed an objective review of the available information ought to be considered. They studied it. They looked at every single State. They released their findings about 3 weeks ago. Do you know what they found? They found that there is no relationship. In fact, what they found is, in those States where there are caps, insurance premiums went up more than in those States that didn't have caps. They are not arguing that caps had anything to do with it. But it is an interesting fact. Those States today with caps have actually seen higher insurance premiums than those without caps, according to this very respected independent study just released. Both on the substantive as well as on the procedural issue, we have great concern with the fact that we are here today. We have a solution. I would argue to anyone on the other side who really wants to resolve this issue that we go back to what we did last year with terrorism insurance. That, too, was a tort reform question. Member after Member came to the floor and said unless we deal with tort reform we will never solve the terrorism insurance question. We sat together in a bipartisan fashion--Republicans and Democrats--worked out a reinsurance concept and passed it on the Senate floor, finally, after a great deal of tribulation and negotiation, with a large margin. If you go to New York or to Chicago or to the hometown of the Senator from Illinois or a lot of other places, you will find that the terrorism insurance bill worked. I would argue it worked in part because procedurally we decided to come together and resolve it and solve it. I think it worked in partly because we addressed the issue with real solutions. We didn't get hung up on all of this tort reform because that wasn't the issue there either. Today, we still celebrate a success story. We celebrate a success story here, too. We have a bipartisan Graham-Durbin bill. It might not be everything. Maybe we can figure out a way to make it an even better bill. I think we have to deal with reinsurance. I think we have to find a way to deal with reinsurance reform. We have to provide immediate relief and the tax credit relief proposed by the Senator from Illinois. We can do that. I think it is important that we do it. I think it is important that we recognize unless we do it that way we are not going to solve this issue. Cloture will not be invoked tomorrow--not because we don't want to solve this problem but because we don't want to have a bill that is poorly conceived and will not solve the problem and which will be rammed down the throats of the country. We can find a better way to do this. I would just implore my colleagues on the other side to work with us to make that happen. Let me again thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois for his work. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I will not object--I will make a comment and then pose a clarification. I talked to the majority leader earlier today about the concerns that we have regarding Mr. Wolski. Although it was not our intent to extend the debate indefinitely, it was our view that, given the nature of his nomination, it deserved a little additional attention and some specific time for debate beyond that which we were provided this morning. I wish to express my appreciation to the majority leader for giving us that opportunity. I hope, if there are breaks in the debate either today or tonight, that Senators who have an interest in this particular nomination use that time in addition to the amount of time that is earmarked for the debate on the nomination tomorrow morning. So we will certainly find a way in which to make that part of the schedule. The clarification: As I understand it--and I ask for the majority leader's affirmation--Nos. 89, 129, and 130 are the nominations involving the Federal Claims Court. They are the other nominees whose names are still pending on the Executive Calendar. I ask the majority leader if that is, indeed, the case.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I did not come to the floor to talk specifically about this debate but I commend the distinguished Senator from Illinois for his excellent presentation today and for the work he has already committed to with our colleague, Senator Graham, and others in an effort to try to resolve this matter and provide some meaningful direction and leadership. I am disappointed we find ourselves in the position we are in, both procedurally as well as substantively--procedurally because this bill, obviously, has not had the benefit of committee consideration. The majority leader, as is his right, brought it directly to the floor. We have a model we used last year to resolve issues of controversy of this nature, in particular the terrorism insurance bill. That bill was brought to the floor after a significant degree of consultation and cooperation and, ultimately, negotiation. As a result of that negotiation, even though the whole question of jury awards and issues involving tort reform were brought up--because there were some who argued that was the only way to resolve this issue involving terrorism and the problems of insurance related to terrorism--we passed the legislation on a bipartisan basis. If you ask anybody today in the industry, they will tell you that insurance premiums have gone down dramatically. The terrorism insurance bill has worked. I would only hope that we could use a model such as that with this issue as well. We can find legitimate, bipartisan, constructive, substantive ways to deal with this issue. There is no question this is a problem. There is no question that unless we address the problem successfully, it will become even more of a problem, exacerbated by the month. So clearly we have to address it. The question is how to address it. If you look at independent analysis done over and over by studies-- the most recent, the Weiss study, issued about 3 weeks ago--those studies have shown conclusively, and I would say almost unanimously, that there is no connection between caps and reduced insurance premiums, none. So we know we have to find a way to deal with the very legitimate problem being faced today by physicians across the country. The question is how. I give great credit to the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from South Carolina and others who have tried to find a way to address this issue in a meaningful, effective, and, ultimately, bipartisan manner. I hope we can continue to work. There is a problem on the other side as well. We want to relieve the problem, financially, that doctors are facing but let us not forget that we had reported by Health and Human Services that there were approximately 100,000 deaths due to malpractice last year. Mr. President, 100,000 people died due to mistakes made in the operating room, in the hospital, in the clinic. I will talk more about this at a later date but there are cases in South Dakota that are troubling. So while we ought to be concerned with one side of this ledger, let us not forget the real problem that exists, as the Senator from Illinois has said so powerfully this afternoon, on the other side of the ledger. Let's find that balance. I hope we can do that. But the reason I oppose the motion to proceed is because we have not really allowed the same opportunity that worked with terrorism insurance to work here. If Senator Durbin and Senator Graham can work together to find some solution, you would think there could be other ways with which we could use that terrorism model and truly find a constructive, bipartisan solution to this issue. Jamming this in the Senate, overriding the committee, and filing cloture on the motion to proceed is not the way to achieve some bipartisan consensus on a very legitimate issue. So we will vote in opposition to the motion to proceed, not because we do not want to address the issue but because there is a better model if we are ultimately going to find a solution. That is what it is we are trying to do. Let's use the model we established last year. I would hope we could do that. But we are spinning our wheels. We have 4 weeks in July, 4 weeks in September, maybe a week or two in October--roughly 10 weeks to deal with all the appropriations bills, all of the other issues that have come before the Senate so far, a prescription drug bill, the child tax credit legislation that is still languishing here, and an education bill that falls far short of even what the President said he would commit with regard to resources. We have a homeland security situation now, we are told by a report by Senators Rudman and Hart, that falls $98 billion short of where we need to be. One of the most stunning comments in that most recent report is that there isn't a first responder in the country that will survive today a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack to respond in the first place. That is right out of the report. So if we are serious about dealing with the Nation's issues, I hope we will not look at the ideological agenda. I hope we will look at the real agenda. I understand the President is going to be spending some time traveling the country over the course of the next several days talking about jobs. I hope he does. When we look at all the administrations, from the very first time we started looking at whether jobs were created or lost in any administration, you cannot find one--you cannot find one--where in the first term of an administration that administration was actually responsible for the loss of jobs, not the gain of jobs. We gained them in the Eisenhower administration, the Kennedy administration, the Johnson administration, all through the 1980s and 1990s. This will be the first administration since Herbert Hoover that has actually seen a net loss of jobs--so far 3 million of those jobs in the first 2\1/2\ years. So my point in raising these other issues is simply to say we have a lot of work to do. The more we spend time on ideological agendas and issues for which there has not been adequate committee consideration, much less an effort made by people on both sides of the aisle to address them in a substantive way rather than in a political way, we are going to lose time and lose an opportunity to address these issues. Mr. President, I know the majority leader came to the Senate floor earlier to talk about how unprecedented it is to consider the possibility of a filibuster on a judge. I go back to our record and I will say we have broken all records with regard to the speedy confirmation of judges. The New York Times again addressed it over the weekend. Out of 134 judges considered so far under this administration, 132 have been confirmed; 132 confirmed and 2 have not so far. But for the record I want to make sure people understand. Michael Gerhardt is one of the most respected analysts and experts with regard to the constitutionality of advice and consent. I want to read one segment of a speech he gave a few weeks ago. He talks about the historical practices of the constitutional right of advice and consent, especially as it applies to the rules of the Senate. Obviously, we talk about rule XXII, and we are very cognizant of the importance of Senate rules in this regard. Senate historical practice, according to Mr. Gerhardt, goes back to the first recorded filibuster of a judge in 1881, to block President Hayes's nomination of Stanley Matthews to the Supreme Court. Numerous nominees before him were denied votes by delay--in other words, they didn't come to the floor--which has been a common practice for the 215 years the Senate has been meeting. But on the very first occasion of a recorded filibuster, in 1881, President Hayes's nomination was defeated; that being of Stanley Matthews. From 1949 to the year 2002, 35 nominations were filibustered, 3 fatally, including Abe Fortas's nomination as Chief Justice. Seventeen of those thirty-five filibusters were of judicial nominations. From 1968 to 2002, Republicans filibustered against 19 Presidential nominations. So these historical practices weigh heavily in support, of course, of the constitutionality in addition to the language itself. That really doesn't tell the whole story: Thirty-five nominations, seventeen filibustered against judicial nominations by Republicans since 1968. But the other story is the 65 nominations filibustered by 1 person in the committee, not on the floor. Sixty-five nominations failed to come out of the Judiciary Committee because of a hold respected by the majority leader at the time or by a committee chairman. Ten had hearings. Fifty-five did not. Sixty-five nominations died before they could even be considered by the Senate on the Senate floor. You have 35 nominations which came to the floor, 17 of which were judicial, all of which were filibustered, the 17 by Republicans, but 65 didn't even have the opportunity to come to the Senate floor for even a vote on cloture. I want to make sure the record, as the majority leader discussed the issue earlier today, is complete with regard to judicial nominations as well. Again, I go back to my hope that we can look back on those occasions when we actually succeeded at addressing a real problem and how it was we did so. We succeeded with terrorism insurance because people such as Dick Durbin and Mitch McConnell and others sat down and negotiated and ultimately came to a resolution that solved a problem, solved it almost, I would say today, by acclamation. Nobody would differ with that assertion that we have solved, at least for now, the issue on terrorism insurance, even though it had many of the same questions involving it that we are dealing with today regarding malpractice. We have a lot of work to do. I hope we can address education and jobs and prescription drugs and the child tax credit and homeland security, not to mention energy and a lot of other issues that have to be addressed in the month before we leave. We can spend our time more productively. I hope that realization will be one that will be accepted by our Republican colleagues sooner rather than later. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, Independence Day marks a time for Americans to celebrate our country's creation through an epic struggle for freedom and liberty. Families come together to commemorate the qualities displayed by the early patriots: a commitment to democratic expression, a yearning to be free from tyranny, and a sober willingness to sacrifice life itself on behalf of these aims. This Fourth of July, thousands of men and women in our military will be in Iraq, dedicating themselves to the reconstruction of this country that has lived so long in the shackles of Saddam Hussein's reign of terror. Our objective is much the same as in 1776: creating conditions in which the people are protected from oppression and in which free expression and democratic government can flourish. We know this is not an easy task--indeed, our forces continue to suffer casualties but its success or failure will be very important, not only to Iraq, but also to the future of this country and the entire Middle East. I am so proud of the service members who have stepped forward, making tremendous sacrifices, to fight for the liberty of a foreign people in a foreign land. These men and women have been unflinching in their resolve and have already accomplished much. I am particularly proud of the roughly 2,000 South Dakotans who have been involved in the Iraq campaign. Many of them are South Dakota National Guard members, who participated in a mobilization with few precedents in our State's history. It was, by far, the largest mobilization since World War II. At the time the fighting began, units from more than 20 communities had been called up, from Elk Point in the south to Lemmon in the north, from Watertown in the east to Custer in the west. Indeed, our State's mobilization rate ranked among the highest of all the States on a per-capita basis. Also, hundreds of personnel from Ellsworth Air Force Base were deployed overseas at the height of the campaign. But no community in South Dakota, or perhaps the even country, is more remarkable in its contribution to this effort than the small town of Frederick. Frederick lies roughly 30 miles from my hometown of Aberdeen. It is a small, close-knit community with a population of fewer than 300 people. But twenty-six of Frederick's sons and daughters answered the call to duty--nearly ten percent of its population! Frederick's military personnel are serving in nearly every branch of the armed forces, including the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Army National Guard, Air National Guard, and Army Reserve. To put this tremendous display of patriotism in perspective, the boroughs of New York City would need to send roughly 750,000 people to match Frederick's effort. On July Fourth, Frederick is commemorating the patriotism of its service members with a community parade and celebration that will feature a flyover by a B-1 bomber out of Ellsworth Air Force Base. They will honor their friends, neighbors and loved ones serving in the U.S. military, and I want to join them by recognizing them here today. They are: Air Force: A1C Justin Wallace, SSgt. Jason Strand, Senior MSgt LeRoy Fiekens, SSgt. Tara Meyers, A1C Paul Sumption, and TSgt. Reiff Mikkonen. Air Force National Guard: SSgt. Brian Achen. Army: LTC Ronald Claeys, PFC Gary Kurtzhals, and PFC Mikael Schmit. Army National Guard: SPC Stephen Achen, Sgt. Ryan Henningsen, Sgt. Robert Heider, PFC Jeff Pierce, Cpl. Mike Bunke, Col. Gordon Niva, SSgt. Eric Kinslow, Sgt. Dave Gunther, SPC Ben Deuter and Sgt. Ryan Bakeburg. Army Reserve: Maj. Susan Lahr and PFC Glenn Gunther. Navy: PFC Josh Larsen and Petty Officer Randy Jensen. Marine Corps: Sgt. Eric Thompson and MSgt. Scott McCullough. Let me also take a moment to recognize another young patriot from Frederick, 10-year-old Peyton Healy. Though she does not know any of the 26 deployed soldiers personally, Peyton took the initiative to develop a way for the people of Frederick to support troops serving abroad, creating the ``Project Patriotic Penny Fund.'' Working with the local American Legion post, she placed donation cans in area businesses to raise money for postage on care packages to the troops. She hoped to raise roughly $100--enough to pay for one package to every Frederick service member. The people of Frederick placed $195 in these cans-- 19,500 pennies. They also donated supplies for the packages, such as crossword puzzles, pens and paper, batteries, hygiene products, and candy. Most importantly, Peyton helped us see the defining characteristic of the people of Frederick. She helped us see that the people of this tiny town have enormous hearts. I call upon my colleagues and the people of this Nation to join with me in commending the people of Frederick, and in celebrating alongside them on Independence Day the democracy and liberty they so proudly defend and promote.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have indicated to the majority leader that I intend to work with him today to schedule as many of these votes and to work through the pending amendments. As he noted, there are approximately 50 pending amendments. It is my hope that our managers might look carefully at many of them and perhaps accept them on voice votes, but those requiring rollcalls I hope can be scheduled earlier rather than later throughout the day. We will work on our side to perhaps offer them en bloc, where we could have a sequence of rollcall votes throughout the day, but we certainly will work with the majority leader to see if we can accomplish as much as he has laid out for the schedule, with an expectation that perhaps by the end of this evening we will have completed our work on the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I suggest that we make them perhaps 10-minute votes as well to expedite our votes.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, with all deference to my colleague from Alabama, I strongly oppose this amendment to strike the provisions that would allow States to cover legal immigrants under Medicaid and SCHIP. As health care measures, these provisions are an appropriate addition to this legislation, and I am grateful that the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee included them in his bill. Legal immigrants were banned from receiving Federal benefits under a number of programs, including Medicaid, for 5 years. The argument was made that people shouldn't come to this country if they are going to be a public charge. But the reality is that legal immigrants don't come here for our benefits. They come because they want to work so they can make better lives for themselves and for their children. They work hard and they make a vital contribution to our economy. Many are forced to take low- paying jobs. And many of these jobs do not provide health insurance. Immigrant families need access to health insurance just as much as citizen families. They are also just as deserving of this coverage as citizen families. Immigrants work hard. They pay taxes. They contribute to their communities. Immigrant children are also required to register for the Selective Service when they turn 18. According to the American Immigrant Law Foundation, 60,000 legal immigrants are on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces. Now, when an immigrant woman becomes pregnant, or her child gets sick, she has few places to turn except to emergency care, which is the most expensive means of providing health care. Many States have realized that this is not an acceptable way to address the health care needs of these families. Some 20 States now provide health care services to legal immigrants using their own funds. So the burden of caring for these families has been transferred to States and hospitals. To respond to this situation, Senator Graham introduced S. 845, the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act, or ICHIA, which simply allows States to use Federal Medicaid and SCHIP funding to provide coverage for pregnant women and children who are legal immigrants. The chairman of the Finance Committee included this provision to give States this option for fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007. This proposal has strong bipartisan support in both the Senate and in the House. It was adopted on a bipartisan basis last year in the Finance Committee, and a bipartisan group of Finance Committee members voted against stripping this provision from this bill this year. The administration has suggested that this proposal would somehow create a new burden on the States. In fact, the proposal only gives States the option to provide this coverage, and allows them to use Federal resources to do so, thus giving them significant fiscal relief. No new burden would be imposed on the States. The National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures both support restoring these benefits. Even Governor Bush of Florida has indicated he supports this proposal. More than 5 million children live in poor or ``near-poor'' noncitizen families. That is more than one-quarter of the total population of poor or ``near-poor'' children. Almost half of all low-income immigrant children are uninsured and they are more than twice as likely to be uninsured as low-income citizen children with native-born parents. Many of these children will eventually become American citizens. By denying all but emergency health care, we increase the risk that these children will suffer long-term health consequences, which could reduce their ability to learn and develop, and become productive, contributing citizens. It is also worth noting that the Medicaid/SCHIP ban also affects citizen children living in immigrant families. As many as 85 percent of immigrant families have at least one child who is a citizen. Although many of these children are eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP, receipt among eligible citizen children of noncitizen parents is significantly below that for other poor children. Parents may be confused about their children's eligibility, or concerned that somehow claiming these benefits will affect the status of other family members. Making sure that pregnant immigrant women, and their children, have access to health care, including preventive care, is an investment in the future workforce of this Nation. I believe providing health care for all of our citizens, including pregnant women and children who are immigrants, is vital for our future economic strength. It is also the right thing to do. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.