Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. It is my understanding that there was 20 minutes on the Dodd amendment, 10 minutes on the Boxer amendment, evenly divided.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent for that.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are working on a definitive list as we speak. There are some amendments that may only require a voice vote, but at this point there are at least three or four amendments that may require rollcalls but with very short time limits. I know of no one on our side requesting more than 10 minutes in an effort to offer their amendments. So we should be able to move these quickly.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois is exactly right. I do not disagree with anything the Senator from Wyoming said. We agree it should not be a commitment solely made by the United States, and that really is the whole purpose of this legislation. That is why we are trying to pass this legislation tonight so the President can take this authority with him to the conference and use it as leverage, use it for setting the example, use it as an opportunity to lay out our expectations for the rest of the world. We are simply saying we are going to commit to 500, and you have to commit to a billion. You have to commit two times to the one unit we are committing. We want a 2-to-1 ratio internationally, and we are basically setting a floor. We say we will do the 500, and you come up with the rest. It has to be a 2-to-1 ratio accommodation to address directly the concerns legitimately raised by the Senator from Wyoming. So there is no disagreement. We just want world cooperation, world involvement, world commitment, and we believe this is an opportunity to achieve that.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I thank the distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Montana. I will just take a couple of minutes. I think this is a critical amendment. I hope, as we consider what it is we need to do to ensure that our country can be put back in economic balance, that we recognize the importance in providing meaningful assistance to the States. Of all the amendments we have before us, this is one of the most important. I just spoke to the Governors yesterday. They have an $80 billion shortfall. So I am very hopeful that, as we consider where it is we can do the most good, where we can get the greatest traction, where we can do the most to ensure that we have the greatest degree of economic recovery, we recognize the importance of helping States deal with the crisis they are facing in dealing with medical costs. Likewise, we must recognize that we have an obligation to offset the costs of the Leave No Child Behind Act and realize that transportation infrastructure has to be addressed. Our legislation would do that. So I applaud my colleagues for the extraordinary effort they have made to bring us to this point. I congratulate our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their effort. I hope our colleagues will see fit to pass the amendment when we vote on it tomorrow. If I may say briefly, I wish we were not here tonight with the legislation that is pending before us. Our country is mired in debt. We could exceed $400 billion in debt this year--the single largest 1-year level of indebtedness our country has ever faced. I cannot imagine, with all of that debt, with the recognition that we have gone from a $5 trillion surplus to a $2 trillion deficit, that anyone could possibly feel comfortable supporting a tax cut of the magnitude we are talking about tonight. I only wish that somehow we could resolve our differences and recognize that fiscal responsibility has to have some important part in our calculation as to what makes the most sense as we look to economic recovery. An independent analysis by Economy.com found that we could actually lose jobs in the outyears. The objective report indicated that not only do we not create many jobs in the next year because most of this legislation doesn't kick in until 2004, we actually could harm the economy in the outyears because of increasing long-term indebtedness as a result of higher interest rates. So from a jobs point of view, we can do better. From a cost point of view, we can certainly do better. From the point of view of fiscal responsibility, we must do better. So we will be offering a Democratic alternative that will allow us that fiscal responsibility and allow us an immediate response to the economic circumstances we are facing right now. Our bill does what the economic experts told us we must do. They said make it temporary, make it immediate, make it broad-based and, above all, make it fiscally responsible. That is what the Democratic alternative will do tomorrow. It will provide help for the States, as this amendment does. It will provide a broad-based wage credit for every working family in the country today. It will provide meaningful help to small business with the business expensing allowance. It will provide unemployment insurance for those who have seen it terminated. So it does exactly what the Nobel laureates, the economists, have told us must be done if indeed we are cognizant and sensitive to the many pressures and challenges and the many real problems we are facing as we look to our fiscal responsibilities in the coming years. We can do better than this. I am very hopeful that we can persuade our colleagues to look carefully at what repercussions there will be if the legislation currently pending passes. I hope we can persuade our colleagues that indeed working together we can find a better approach. Our Democratic alternative is that better approach. I urge my colleagues to look at it tonight and support it tomorrow. I yield the floor and I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to address the alternative, as well as the State amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that I stand before the Senate today to pay tribute to the life of CWO Hans Gukeisen. Just before 8 p.m. on Friday, May 9, Hans was sitting in the copilot seat of an Army UH-60 air medical helicopter somewhere near Smarrah in northern Iraq. Gukeisen and his crewmembers were involved in the rescue of an Iraqi child injured by a landmine when they came upon hostile fire. While the circumstances remain unclear, the helicopter crashed in the Tigris River killing three crewmembers. The wounded child was riding in another helicopter. Chief Warrant Officer Gukeisen, 31, became the first South Dakota casualty of the war in Iraq, and he will be sorely missed. His mother Margaret of Hill City and his father, Terry of Lead remember their son as a considerate and easygoing young man who enjoyed hunting, fishing, and stock car racing. A member of a proud military family, Hans was dedicated to the military and had dreamed of becoming a warrant officer and helicopter pilot. He is survived by his brother Ray, a Special Forces instructor at Fort Bragg. I offer my deepest condolences to the Gukeisens. Their son has made the supreme sacrifice while working to protect an innocent child. I join with every South Dakotan and every American in expressing my heartfelt gratitude to Hans and his family for his years of brave and dedicated service on behalf of our country and its ideals. We grieve his death but celebrate the life he chose to lead. Debt Limit Madam President, I come to the floor, in addition to speaking of this very tragic moment in the life of the Gukeisen family, to talk about an issue of great concern that will be the subject of significant debate later on this week. I will take a minute, while we are waiting for others to come to the Senate floor, to talk about the issue of the debt limit. Last June, Congress was forced to raise the national debt limit by $450 billion to avoid defaulting on our loan obligations for the first time in American history. Now the administration informs us that we must raise our Nation's debt limit again. House Republicans have already acted to raise the debt ceiling by nearly $1 trillion, the largest increase in debt in our Nation's history. If the Senate follows their lead, our national debt will increase by $1.4 trillion in less than 12 months, by far the largest 1-year increase in debt in our Nation's history. The debt figures by themselves are shocking, but even more shocking is the fact that at the same time there are many who, while requesting the American people take on this record new debt, but also insist on another massive round of new tax breaks that would increase the national debt by another trillion dollars or more over the next decade. Supporters of these new tax breaks insist that they will pay for themselves. The Republican request for another nearly $1 trillion increase in the Nation's debt limit shows that that is not so. There are no free lunches. And there are no cost-free tax cuts. War, recession, and terrorism have all taken a toll on America's economy over the last 2 years. But they are not the only reasons we are being forced to consider raising the national debt limit. Another major reason is the massive tax cut of 2001. Republican economic policies are undermining the fiscal strength of the United States. Before the 2001 tax cut, we had not had to raise the debt limit once in nearly 4 years. Now we are being asked to raise the debt limit twice in one year, for a total of $1.4 trillion in new debt. In 2 years, we have gone from record surpluses to record deficits. Late last week, the Congressional Budget Office announced that the deficit this year is likely to exceed $300 billion--an all-time high. That is without any new tax cuts, so the actual deficit this year is likely to be even higher. Many private economic forecasters warn that it could exceed $400 billion. Deficits and debt do matter. The national debt clock is in the Capitol today. It shows that every man, woman and child in America already owes more than $22,260 toward our national debt. Last year, Americans paid $332,536,958,599.42 just in interest on the national debt. That is money that cannot be used to educate one child, cure one illness, build one tank, or make America one bit safer. Bigger deficits and a larger national debt also hurt America's families by driving up interest rates, which will make it more expensive for consumers to buy homes and cars and pay their credit card bills. Yet instead of reducing the deficit--or even just slowing its growth--the administration is insisting that the American people take on more debt. The tax and spending plans proposed by the administration will add another $2.7 trillion in deficits to the national debt over the next decade. Just the interest on that new debt would cost taxpayers an extra $500 billion. Actions have consequences. Tax cuts have costs. And those costs have a real impact on the fiscal strength of our Nation and on the economic well-being of working families in my State of South Dakota and all across America. For that reason, we sought consent yesterday, and again today, that the Senate take up and consider the Republican request to raise America's debt limit by another nearly $1 trillion today--before we vote on the administration's request for another trillion-plus dollars in new tax breaks and additional debt. America has lost more than 2.7 million jobs since January 2001, nearly 100,000 jobs a month. A half-million jobs were lost in the last 3 months alone. We are proposing a plan to get America back to work and put the Federal Government back on the path to fiscal discipline. Our plan will create jobs, opportunity and prosperity for all Americans. It will create twice as many jobs as the Republican plan, at a fraction of the cost. It will also provide a tax cut to every working American this year, when our economy needs the boost. We look forward to making a strong case for our plan on the Senate floor. Before we move to that debate, however, the Senate should level with the American people about the costs and consequences of the Republican economic policies. We should admit that the Republican plan for even more tax breaks for the elite will be paid for the same way the first round is being paid for: by heaping even more debt on America's families.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely right. The record is very clear. In those years, we had surpluses for the first time in almost 40 years. We were able to begin paying down the debt some $600 billion totally, and if the Senator will recall, there was even debate by those who were concerned we were paying down the debt too quickly. It sounds almost too hard to believe, but that indeed was part of the discussion.

Mr. DASCHLE. Well, there are those who appear to argue that not only do they not want a balanced budget but they are using the deficits to shrink the Government--a very crass, clumsy, and dangerous way of reducing Government expenditures. The majority leader in the House even argued a few weeks ago that tax cuts are the most important matter before the country, even more important than war, he argued. So clearly tax cuts have a special place in the minds of many on the other side, but as the Senator says, I do not think there is the same degree of interest or commitment to fiscal responsibility. I was on Wall Street yesterday, and I was taken aback by the extraordinary concern expressed to me by so many people in the financial community, people who are concerned about what message we are sending about fiscal responsibility and what international investors are saying about our position. The euro continues to increase in strength against the dollar, in part because in some circles people have more confidence in the euro today than they do the dollar. Why is that the case? Because they are very concerned about the implications of U.S. fiscal policy today. So I believe that whether it is our fiscal policy, our trade policy, our long-term circumstances with regard to the budget in particular, we are going to pay dearly for the consequences of what some have proposed in tax cuts this week.

Mr. DASCHLE. Well, unfortunately, the request by the administration is to increase the debt by $984 billion. That is the single biggest increase in our Nation's history. Never before has there been a request of that kind. I would add, as I did just a moment ago, that that is in addition to the $425 billion request that was made less than a year ago--last summer. We were told then that that increase in the debt limit would last for some time. Unfortunately, those predictions were erroneous. So now we are back again, in large measure because of the consequences of the tax cuts of 2001. So it is all the more ironic that in the very week we are going to be passing this increase in the debt limit by close to a trillion dollars, we are going to be passing the first installment of yet another trillion-dollar tax cut that will be enacted, if the Republicans have their way, before the end of this year.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in 1953, Joe L. Floyd opened the doors of South Dakota's first television station, and began his mission to provide television programming to even the most remote areas of our State. Since then, South Dakotans have had the comfort of knowing there was somewhere they could turn to obtain critical local information and programming. Through tornados and blizzards, KELO-TV has been there. Today, I come to the floor of the Senate to congratulate KELO on its 50th anniversary. Providing television coverage to a rural State like South Dakota is no small challenge. The severe weather and vast distances make it difficult to get the airwaves into the homes of viewers, let alone to provide them with high-quality broadcasting and information in the manner KELO has over the years. In fact, after several towers were lost, many dubbed KELOLAND to be the Bermuda triangle of television towers. To KELO's credit, these setbacks never kept the station off the air for long, as their engineers scrambled around the clock to get the station up and running again quickly. Despite the fact that KELO does not service any major metropolitan areas, it has always tried to take advantage of the most cutting-edge technologies that would allow them to offer the best local broadcasting to its viewers. Some of the station's technological highlights include: In 1955, KELO broadcast the first live local news broadcasts from the second floor of the Hollywood Theater Building. In 1957, KELO aired a game between Sioux Falls Cathedral and Marty Mission--the first live broadcast of a sports competition in South Dakota. In 1968, KELOLAND TV was the first station in the area to air the local news and programming in color. In 1991, KELOLAND TV was the first local station to bring closed-captioning of newscasts and many other programs to the deaf and hearing-impaired community. In 1997, KELO installed the first local Doppler weather radar report that allowed residents to have the most up-to-date information on the rapidly developing storms and severe weather conditions for which South Dakota is famous. Finally, this year, KELOLAND brought digital programming to the area. KELO's commitment to its viewers has also been recognized nationally. In 2000, KELO's commitment to public service was rewarded with an Emmy in the Public Service Announcement--Campaign category. In 1999, KELO earned the ``Friend in Need'' Service to America Award from The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) for its outstanding coverage of the devastating tornado that struck the town of Spencer, South Dakota. Not only did KELO provide award-winning coverage of this devastating tornado, the station also helped raise more than $1 million for the Spencer Tornado Relief Fund. Most importantly, KELO has shown a sustained commitment to providing South Dakotans with the critical information they need about their communities. Whether it is news, weather or sports, local viewers have always been able to turn to KELO for accurate information. I am proud to say that my staff and I currently enjoy a great working relationship with those who work at KELO. We know that we can always come to expect a fair and balanced approach to coverage of the issues and stories in which we are involved. Given KELO's history of honest and intelligent reporting, its viewers expect nothing less.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know the majority leader also came before the Senate this morning to do what I expected he would do yesterday. He has laid down the first amendment in the energy debate. I want to again commend him for his leadership and involvement with regard to the ethanol amendment. The ethanol amendment enjoys broad bipartisan support. That was evidenced, of course, yesterday as people on both sides of the aisle came to the floor and spoke eloquently and with conviction about the importance of this legislation. It is important, in part, because of our dependency upon foreign sources of oil. We use too much imported oil. The more we can become self-sufficient and independent, the more we can truly not only help our own economy, but create environments within which questions pertaining to our dependence will not become key issues as we resolve whatever diplomatic or international challenges our country may face. Energy independence is a laudable goal and it is within our grasp. But the only way it can be achieved is with the creation of renewable fuels, the creation of fuels that can be discovered, utilized, and created in this country. There is no better example of that than ethanol. Ethanol reliance means energy independence. Secondly, the environmental issues are clearly at stake as we consider the consequences of ethanol. Clean air benefits cannot be understated. In 2002 alone--just last year--ethanol use in the United States reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 4.3 million tons, which is the equivalent of removing more than 636,000 vehicles from the road. That is a remarkable achievement. That was in 1 year. If you can imagine taking 636,000 vehicles off the road in 1 year, and the effect it would have on greenhouse gases if we could do that, that is in essence what we were able to create with this increased reliance on ethanol--not to mention our opportunity to phase out methyl tertiary butyl ether, MTBE, contamination. MTBE contamination was also used as an oxygenate to improve environmental circumstances when the oxygen standard was passed in the early 1990s. We only found later how contaminating and toxic it can be. So phasing out MTBE is also a part of our legislative approach, and that, too, will have dramatic positive environmental consequences. We talk about the economic consequences of ethanol and that, too, can hardly be overstated. One in three rows of corn in South Dakota today is being used to produce ethanol. The ethanol industry is creating $1 billion in additional economic impact in my State alone. It means higher corn prices. It means prices will increase, according to USDA estimates, 50 cents a bushel, about $1.3 billion in additional farm income annually once this legislation is enacted. The University of South Dakota has stated this proposal has the potential to create 10,000 new jobs in our State, bringing in more than $600 million annually to the State economy and over 214,000 jobs nationally once the RFS is implemented. From an economic point of view, in addition to the environmental and energy independence advantages, we also have, of course, an agricultural advantage: more income for farmers with less reliance on farm programs. There is a lot to be said for this legislation. I am very pleased, after all these years, as lonely as it was when we started, to see this kind of broad-based support. I would estimate now more than two-thirds, maybe three-fourths, of the Senate would support this legislation. We are well on our way to establishing what I view to be an appreciation of the importance, the contribution, the impact that ethanol can have in energy, in the economy, in agriculture, and in foreign policy. That is why I feel as strongly as I do about the amendment, and that is why I am pleased to be a cosponsor with Senator Frist and many of our colleagues, including the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, on this amendment. I hope the Senate will act quickly. Let us adopt this amendment. Let us ensure, whether it is part of the energy bill or a freestanding bill that was reported out of the Environment and Public Works Committee, that we will have the opportunity to enact this legislation into law sometime this year. We should not wait any longer. It should happen this year. It can happen this year. With the broad bipartisan support, it will happen this year. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I was not in the Chamber until just a few moments ago. I didn't have the luxury of hearing the distinguished majority leader. His comments have been reported to me, and I have now had the opportunity to see the text of his remarks. I welcome the introduction of his resolution. A Senator is within his rights and certainly a majority leader is within his rights to suggest changing the rules. If we are to change rules, there is a procedure. And I respect the majority leader's interest and determination to suggest ways that the rules could be changed with regard to filibusters or, for that matter, any rule involving Senate procedure. He joined me in opposing this proposal when it was offered by Senators Harkin and Lieberman about 10 years ago. But obviously, over the course of 10 years, we all have a right and an expectation that we will change our points of view from time to time. He has on this matter. As in most parts of this country, slogans and phrases sometimes have more wisdom than one might see on the surface. There is an old slogan or saying in South Dakota that I am sure is repeated in other States: ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' It ain't broke. Anytime you can confirm 124 judicial nominees in the course of 2\1/2\ years, I don't see much broken. That is a 98.4-percent confirmation rate. Any baseball player standing at home plate would settle for 500 percent, 400 percent, 300 percent. Any quarterback would love to have a 98-percent rate of completion on passes. I don't know of another administration that has enjoyed the success in confirmations of its judges that this administration has: 124 to 2; that is the score; 124 circuit judges, district judges; 124 nominees who have worked their way through hearings, through a committee vote in the Judiciary Committee, and on to the floor in 2\1/2\ years; 124 to 2. Those two, Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen, have unique circumstances. In the case of Mr. Estrada, it is a matter of asking him with all deference to fill out the application form for the job. I have many employees. I am fortunate to have such good ones. But nobody would work in our office if they refused to fill out pages 3 and 4 and 5 of a 5-page application. If they said: I will fill out the first two pages but not the last three, I would say: Find another job. You are not going to work here. That is really what Mr. Estrada is saying to us. In spite of the fact that Mr. Bork, Mr. Rehnquist, Mr. Civiletti, and so many other nominees who have had similar circumstances have provided the very information we are asking of Mr. Estrada, Mr. Estrada and his supporters in the administration are saying: No, we will not comply. We will not fill out the job application. Our response is: Fill out the job application and you will get a vote. It is that simple. In the case of Ms. Owen, we have a record that is very disconcerting, a record of putting her own views ahead of the law. We cannot accept that either. If she would comply with the law and interpret the law, it would be one thing; but to ignore the law and to use her own views as she applies her decisionmaking authority is not something that is acceptable as well. So you have those two nominees. I know some of my colleagues have lamented this notion that filibusters could be employed, but we had a filibuster in the 106th Congress of a man of incredible stature and standing, Richard Paez. He was a nominee to be U.S. Circuit Judge in the Ninth Circuit during the 106th Congress. This was a filibuster. I find it interesting that the majority leader was one of those who voted against cloture. He apparently felt at the time that cloture was inappropriate, or he would not have voted against it. In other words, he voted to extend the filibuster during that debate on Mr. Paez. But Senator Frist certainly is not alone. There were 14 people who voted to continue debate on Mr. Paez. Senator Hatch, as recently as 1994, said the filibuster is--using his words--``one of the few tools that the minority has to protect itself and those the minority represents.'' Senator Hatch made the statement during a filibuster to a Clinton nominee to the Third Circuit. In 1997, 3 years later, Senator Hatch stated: Determining which of President Clinton's nominees will become activists is complicated and it will require the Senate to be more diligent and extensive in its questioning. . . . Senator Smith of New Hampshire--no longer with us in the Senate--also came to the floor to argue forcefully in support of filibustering judicial nominees. His quote: So I do not want to hear that I am going down some trail the Senate has not gone down before by talking about these judges and delaying. It is simply not true. Don't pontificate on the floor and tell me somehow I am violating the Constitution . . . by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. So, first, on the basis of the record, 124 to 2, and second, on the basis of past precedent, both with regard to Republican positions relating to these judges, as well as to the advocacy of the filibuster in prior years, makes me question: Why now, with that record, would anybody be concerned about the rights of the minority, the rules of the Senate, or the longstanding practice every Senator has been the beneficiary of with regard to using the rules of the Senate to advance his or her arguments? Mr. President, I guess I will simply reiterate the admonition many South Dakotans oftentimes use: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Mr. President, it ain't broke. The Federalist Papers are those papers we turn to with some frequency as we attempt to interpret the intentions of our Founding Fathers as they considered the institutions of the Senate and the House, our democracy. Federalist 63 says: The people can never willfully betray their own interests; but they may possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people; and the danger will be evidently greater where the whole legislative trust is lodged in the hands of one body of men, than where the concurrence of separate and dissimilar bodies is required in every public act. Well, the key word in Federalist 63 is the word ``dissimilar.'' We are not the House of Representatives. We are the body where deliberative, extensive, unlimited debate is protected. That is the essence of the Senate. I sometimes don't know that we live up to the moniker ``the greatest deliberative body in the world.'' Sometimes I don't think we are particularly deliberative. But we are rooted in the traditions of unlimited debate. That has been the essence of this body for well over 200 years. I hope we never minimize the importance of our distinctions, our dissimilarities with the House, the intentions of the Founding Fathers when it comes to the protections, traditions, and the usefulness of the rules of the Senate, just as they applied over 200 years ago. That, in essence, is what is at stake. As I said at the beginning, the majority leader is certainly within his right to propose rules changes. That has happened by leaders and Senators on both sides of the aisle for hundreds of years. We will always examine ways with which to make the Senate work more functionally and perhaps more efficiently. I don't want to give up the tradition of the very essence and meaning of the body for the sake of efficiency, for the sake of moving things along because, indeed, that was not the intent or the expectation of our Founding Fathers. Let me finish by restating the score: 124 to 2. It ain't broke.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I came to the floor earlier today to respond to the distinguished majority leader. I just had the opportunity to hear the President's remarks with regard to judicial nominations. I felt it was important to come back to the floor for just a couple of minutes to respond and to make sure the American people are clear and the record is clear with regard to judicial nominations and what I would view to be the rest of the story. The rest of the story can be found on three charts. We have heard a lot this morning about the intransigence of the Senate, about how much the Senate is in crisis because we haven't confirmed nominations; about how the system is broken. In South Dakota, we like to say, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have three charts to prove that it ``ain't broke.'' One-hundred and twenty-four is the first chart. One-hundred and twenty-four judicial nominees have been confirmed in this administration. That is a record. There is no administration we can find that has had a better record than this. One-hundred and twenty-four circuit and district court nominees have been confirmed since this President has taken office. Here is the number that have not: That is right--2; 124 to 2. We have done a little math. Here is the third chart. That is a 98.4- percent approval rate. I don't know of a business, or a sports figure, or a politician who gets 98.4 percent of what they ask. But that is the record. That is exactly the success level of this administration when it comes to judicial nominees--98.4 percent. ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' I find it particularly interesting that over the course of the 8 years of the Clinton administration, we had 50 judicial nominations that didn't get a hearing. You talk about a filibuster. What about the fact that a person can't even get a hearing in the committee? Ten judicial nominees got a hearing but no vote. Sixty-five nominees never got to the Senate floor over the course of 8 years during the 1990s. I will tell you that there was no 98.4-percent approval rate then. But that is the record. To reiterate--just to be sure everybody understands, I will do this one more time--one-hundred and twenty-four nominees were confirmed in 2\1/2\ years, circuit and district court nominees approved in the Senate--a record. Two nominees have not: Mr. Estrada because he has refused to fill out his job application, and Ms. Owen in large measure because she puts her own views ahead of the law. Those are the two. One-hundred and twenty-four to two, that comes out to 98.4 percent of all Bush nominees confirmed to date. I will end where I began. ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it''. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am proud to announce to the Senate today the names of the young men and women who were selected to receive special awards from the American Automobile Association. Four safety patrollers received the 2003 AAA School Safety Patrol Lifesaving Medal Award, the highest honor given to members of the school safety patrol. Another safety patroller received the special honor of the AAA National Patroller of the Year. They received their awards this past Sunday, May 4, and I wanted to say how proud we are of them There are roughly 500,000 members of the AAA School Safety Patrol in this country, helping in over 50,000 schools. Every day, these young people ensure that their peers arrive safely at school in the morning, and back home in the afternoon. Most of the time, they accomplish their jobs uneventfully. But, on occasion, these volunteers must make split second decisions, placing themselves in harm's way to save the lives of others. The heroic actions of this year's recipients exemplify this selflessness. The first AAA Lifesaving Medal recipient comes from Deshler, OH. Her name is Sadie Peters. On the afternoon of May 2, 2002, Sadie, age 12, was on patrol assisting fellow students with crossing a busy intersection at Deshler Elementary School. Kaydi McGill, a three-year old girl, was with her grandmother at the intersection when Kaydi wandered away from the older woman into the path of an oncoming semi-truck. Seeing that Kaydi was in danger, Sadie immediately threw down her patrol flag and sprang toward Kaydi, grabbing her from in front of the semi-truck. This year's second AAA Lifesaving Medal honoree comes from Lancaster, OH. Cody Byers, age 13, was on morning duty at Fairfield Christian Academy on January 22 overseeing a crosswalk with heavy pedestrian traffic. The two traffic lanes in front of the school were filled with cars dropping off students for class. Cody's safety patrol advisor, Mark Zeitman, saw a first grade student race out of the school and head into traffic. he called out to Cody, who took off after her and grabbed the youngster by the coat collar just before she ran into the street. The next AAA Lifesaving Medal winners come from Burke, VA. On the morning of November 1, 2002, Michael Butters, age 12, was at his post at Holy Spirit School, monitoring a busy traffic circle where children are dropped off. Suddenly, Michael heard a teacher yell, ``Get her!'' A little girl had been playing a game of chase with her friends when she broke away from the group. Not looking where she was running, she headed right for the drop off area. Without hesitating, Michael ran to the little girl and grabbed her backpack, saving her from being hit by a car. In addition to honoring safety patrollers with the Lifesaving Medal Award, AAA also recognizes the School Safety Patroller of the Year. This award is presented to patrollers who perform duties above and beyond their normal responsibilities and demonstrate outstanding leadership, dependability, and academic strength. This year, the Safety Patroller of the Year goes to Kaaren Hatlen, age 11, Safety Patrol Captain at Bear Creek Elementary in Woodinville, WA. Kaaren has been a member of the Bear Creek Elementary School Safety Patrol for the past 2 years. She established herself as a leader early on and this year was selected as a captain of her safety patrol. She was also selected for several leadership responsibilities, including the newly created post of captain of Kindergarten Duty and team leader for the sixth grade salmon tank. Kaaren is always the first to volunteer to fill in for absent patrol members, even in the worst weather. She looks for potentially dangerous situations and corrects problem before trouble can occur. Kaaren is involved in school volleyball, math olympiad, chorus, band and the drama club. She participates in caroling at nursing homes, and makes crafts, food and toy drives for Hopelink, a local nonprofit organization. She is very active in the reading tutoring program, often giving up her lunch recess to help others learn to be successful readers. Kaaren is also an active member of her church and local Girl Scout Troop and enjoys playing soccer, softball, basketball and swimming. She and all of the other AAA winners deserve our thanks and applause. On behalf of the Senate, I extend congratulations and thanks to these young men and women. They are assets to their communities, and their families and neighbors should be very proud of their courage and dedication. I would also like to recognize the American Automobile Association for providing the supplies and training necessary to keep the safety patrol on duty nationwide. Since the 1920s, AAA clubs across the country have sponsored student safety patrols to guide and protect younger classmates against traffic accidents. Easily recognizable by their fluorescent orange safety belt and shoulder strap, safety patrol members represent the very best of their schools and communities. Experts credit school safety patrol programs with helping to lower the number of traffic accidents and fatalities involving young children. We owe AAA our gratitude for their tireless efforts to ensure that our Nation's children arrive to and from school safe and sound. And we owe our thanks to these exceptional young men and women for their selfless actions. The discipline and courage they displayed deserves the praise and recognition of their schools, their communities and the Nation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend Senators Lugar and Biden for their historic achievement this morning. This has been an effort that has enjoyed strong bipartisan support within our country and within the Senate. I commend them especially for their remarkable leadership in bringing us to this point. I also welcome the Foreign Ministers and Ambassadors who join us on this momentous occasion from Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. I welcome them to NATO; I welcome them here. This is truly a historic day. We continue today what we did on VE Day, now more than 50 years ago, what thousands of our GIs, including my father, started more than 60 years ago with the landing at Normandy, the creation of a Europe that is whole and that is free. This is the beginning of a partnership that will produce greater world stability, greater international involvement in world affairs, and a partnership with countries that will increasingly become valuable partners and allies of the United States. Expanding NATO to include these seven democracies will make NATO stronger and the United States safer. Five years ago we undertook to expand NATO for the first time. At that time, the debate hung on this critical question: Should NATO limit its mission to defending a fixed list of nations, selected more than 50 years ago, against an enemy that no longer existed? Or does it exist to provide a collective security umbrella armed to defend an alliance of free countries--countries that have demonstrated not only a deep commitment to democracy, but a willingness to defend it? A strong, bipartisan majority answered that question by voting to enlarge NATO to meet the threats of a new world. The results of that decision did not disappoint. On September 12, 2001, for the first time in its history, NATO invoked Article 5, and mobilized to defeat the threat of terrorism. NATO aircraft patrolled American skies and later this summer NATO will take over control of the Security Force in Afghanistan. Today we have the opportunity to take the next step and strengthen NATO yet again. Each of the seven countries seeking to join our alliance has made the democratic reforms that inclusion in NATO demands. We could not have made this contention 15 years ago. But due to the foresight and perseverance of the citizens of each of these countries, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are all today strong democracies. Emerging from a history of foreign occupation, and defending themselves against the threats of corruption and organized crime, these nations have affirmed their commitment to democracy both in word and in deed. They have earned the right to be members of NATO. With that right, comes a responsibility, and they have shown a willingness to meet that responsibility. Each has contributed to the peacekeeping missions in the Balkans. Each contributed to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Each has contributed to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan and have pledged contributions for the reconstruction of Iraq. As important as our shared values are, NATO remains, at its core, a defensive alliance. As such, the forces of alliance members must remain capable of defending against a significant military threat--in Europe and beyond. At Prague, NATO members pledged to transform NATO to make it better able to address the threats we face now. Gone are the days of defending the Fulda Gap in the heart of Europe. Now we must be ready to counter the elusive and ever-present threat of terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction far outside the borders of Europe. Each of our new partners will bring specialized capabilities to the alliance. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Balkans, we have seen first-hand the expertise of Bulgarian and Slovak anti-nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons teams; Slovenian de-mining units; and Romanian mountain troops. We will continue to draw on their skills as we carry forward our efforts to defeat terror and restore stability to Afghanistan and Iraq. The addition of new members amplifies the need to close the disparities between the United States and our Allies. We are encouraged by our new members ``niche capabilities.'' But the differences between the United States and its NATO Allies in transport, logistics, communications, and intelligence capabilities risk undercutting the alliance. As we take this momentous step today--of extending the NATO security guarantee to seven new countries stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea--we remind our friends, new and old, of their responsibility to invest in the capabilities of our brothers in arms. We also must not permit periodic disagreements to erode the common cause that has made NATO the most successful military alliance in history. The feud in the North Atlantic Council over how to aid Turkey in the event of an attack by Iraq exposed serious divisions in NATO. Subsequent discussion of a EU-based security arrangement as an alternative to NATO does little to ease those divisions. These are not insurmountable challenges, but this alliance, like our key alliances in Asia, demand communication, attention, and diplomacy. Handled correctly, this new and newly energized NATO can play a central role in post-Saddam Iraq--a role that can ease the burden on America's troops and American taxpayers. I am proud to cast my vote for this resolution on the anniversary of one of our Nation's most glorious achievements--V-E Day, May 8. My father was an Army sergeant in World War II. He landed on the beaches of Normandy with the 6th Armored Division on ``D Plus 1''--June 7, 1944. One of his many duties was getting word back to the States about the dead and missing so their families could be notified. That experience left him with a profound respect for the sacrifices democracy sometimes demands. It is a lesson he passed on to his four sons. He taught my brothers and me another lesson: When you make a promise, you keep it. With this vote, the United States makes a promise--a promise to protect our Allies, old and new, from any threat that may emerge in the years to come. In return, we expect their wholehearted commitment to stand with us to continue the push for a Europe, whole and free. That effort began over 60 years ago with the blood and effort of soldiers like my father. By advancing their cause, this treaty honors their sacrifice. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I first want to commend the chairman of the Energy Committee for his strong statement in support and for his leadership on this and on so many of the issues pertaining to energy. I look forward to continuing to work with him as we proceed in consideration of this legislation. I am also delighted to join with the distinguished majority leader in introducing the first amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2003. The fact that this is the first amendment reflects the importance of the subject that we will be discussing. It is my hope that the majority leader's endorsement will help assure enactment of this proposal at the earliest possible date. It was 1990 when a number of us joined together, Republicans and Democrats, including then-Senate minority leader, Bob Dole, and Tom Harkin, and we introduced the reformulated gasoline, or RFG, legislation as a provision of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. The RFG provision, with its minimum oxygen standard, was adopted in the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 69-30. Eventually, it was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush. I am proud to say that this program resulted in substantial improvement of air quality all over the country. It stimulated increased production of renewable ethanol and other oxygenates needed to meet the minimum oxygen standard. In fact, between the onset of RFG in January of 1995 and January of 2003, production of ethanol has increased from 1 billion gallons per year to nearly 2.5 billion gallons. This increased farm economy by hundreds of millions of dollars annually and reduced our dependence upon foreign oil by more than 100,000 barrels per day. Unfortunately, the detection of MTBE in ground water in the late 1990s required us to find a way to get MTBE out of gasoline without sacrificing the air quality and public health benefits of the RFG program. The answer that my good friend, Dick Lugar, and I conceived several years ago was the renewable fuels standard, which would eliminate the minimum oxygen requirement that some of our colleagues find problematic for urban centers and replace it with a nationwide renewable fuels standard. This standard increases ethanol production and protects consumers by creating a credit trading system that provides an economic incentive to use the type of fuel that is most cost effective in the various regions of the country. On May 4, 2000, I was proud to introduce, along with Senator Lugar, the first iteration of the amendment that is before us today. That proposal--similar to the one we are considering today-- reconciled historically competitive interests in a manner that promoted a broad range of national policies. It would protect ground water, enhance our national energy security, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote investment and job creation in rural communities by tripling production of ethanol over the course of the next 10 years. The essence of that proposal was incorporated into legislation reported by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in September 2000. Unfortunately, time ran out in the 106th Congress before final action could be taken on that Committee bill. In the 107th Congress, Senator Lugar and I again joined to introduce the Renewable Fuels Act. This legislation was incorporated into last year's Senate-passed energy bill as part of the fuels agreement with the support of 69 Senators. Unfortunately, time again ran out before the energy bill could be enacted into law. This February, Senator Lugar and I, Senator Hagel, one of the real movers on this legislation early on, along with a growing number of our colleagues, re-introduced this latest iteration of the renewable fuels standard that we have now incorporated in this amendment. I am pleased that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has once again embraced it and reported it out of committee. That proposal, S. 791, is currently on the Senate calendar. This chronology underscores the point that the time to pass this important legislation is now. The groundwork has been laid, and the case for the bill is established. The benefits of the renewable fuels standard for agriculture, the rural economy, energy and the environment are dramatic. The legislation benefits agriculture. Next year, one in every three rows of corn grown in South Dakota will go into ethanol production. There are currently nine ethanol plants operating in South Dakota with two more under construction. Local corn prices have increased 10 cents per bushel near these plants, and USDA estimates that corn prices will increase 50 cents per bushel under the RFS. As a result, USDA has estimated that the RFS will raise farm income by $1.3 billion annually. Taxpayer outlays would drop dramatically because of resulting farm program savings. This legislation benefits the rural economy. Over 5,000 South Dakotans have invested in these plants, and over 500 people are directly employed by the ethanol industry in the state. USDA estimates that for every 100-million-gallon ethanol plant built, 2,250 local jobs can be created throughout a community. This legislation also enhances our energy security. Look at America's energy situation today: gasoline prices are high and America is importing close to 60 percent of the oil we use. At the same time, our substantial appetite for energy continues to grow. Over the next 10 years, the United States is expected to consume roughly 1.5 trillion gallons of gasoline. At the same time, we hold only 3 percent of the known world oil reserves. The Renewable Fuels Standard will save the U.S. $4 billion in imported oil each year because we triple the use of renewable fuels over the next 10 years. As for the environment, this legislation ensures that the clean air benefits that we have achieved because of the oxygenate standard are maintained through strong anti-backsliding language and addresses the serious problems of MTBE contamination. Specifically, the amendment bans MTBE in 4 years, authorizes funding to clean up MTBE contamination and fix leaking underground tanks, allows the most polluted states to opt into the reformulated gasoline program, and provides all States with additional authority under the Clean Air Act to address air quality concerns. The amendment also eliminates the oxygen requirement from the RFG program, a change that is very important to the efforts of States such as California and New York that are planning to eliminate MTBE from their gasoline supplies in the near future. To preserve the hard-fought air-quality gains that have resulted from the implementation of that requirement, the bill creates a renewable fuels standard that will nearly triple the use of renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel over the next 10 years. Finally, the bill provides special encouragement to biomass-based ethanol, which holds great promise for converting a variety of organic materials into useful fuel, while substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This will have substantial benefits for the environment and for rural economies, while helping to lower our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Some of my colleagues from large coastal states have expressed concern that this amendment treats their constituents unfairly and seek a carve-out from its requirements. I respectfully suggest that their concerns are not supported by the facts. Governors Gray Davis and George Pataki, one a Democrat and one a Republican, leaders of the two most populous States in the country, have stated publicly that their States are better off under the Renewable Fuels Act than they are under current law. Their first priority by far is to get out from under the minimum oxygen standard that will force them to use ethanol when MTBE is eliminated from the gasoline supply. The amendment before us allows them that flexibility which they so desperately seek. Moreover, my colleagues from California and New York worry that even though their States will no longer be required to purchase ethanol as a result of the oxygen standard, the cost of gasoline will rise precipitously as a result of the RFS. That is simply not the case. Last April the Energy Information Agency issued a report stating that the cost of establishing a renewable fuels standard is less than 1 cent per gallon for reformulated gasoline and less than 0.5 cent per gallon for all gasoline. Just last month, the California Energy Commission issued a report stating that the recent increase in California's gasoline prices cannot be attributable to availability or cost of ethanol which is consistent with the EIA projections. What is even more compelling is that California is using nearly twice the amount of ethanol this year than they would be required to under the RFS. I understand that my colleagues are fighting for what they believe is in the best interests of their constituents, and I respect that. But my goal in promoting the renewable fuels standard is to solve a nationwide problem with a nationwide solution. My constituents would prefer not to give up the oxygen standard, which has played such an important role historically in expanding the production of ethanol. But I understand that states like California need greater flexibility in their gasoline supply. That is why I am willing to look for new prescriptions that allow States to use alternatives to ethanol and continue to promote the development of the domestic ethanol industry, which I believe is in the national interest. The renewable fuels amendment meets that test. This legislation is a careful balance of often disparate and competing interests--and a compromise in the finest tradition of the U.S. Senate. Meeting our energy challenges is a difficult problem, but is also a great opportunity to demonstrate American strength and ingenuity. This amendment takes advantage of both, and I look forward to its passage. I thank the Chair for his support and effort, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letter regarding an appointment to the Citizen's Coinage Advisory Commission be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

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