Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished majority leader for his remarks and for the leadership he has shown as we have come to the floor on this historic occasion. Last night, the President announced to the Nation that the disarmament campaign against Iraq had begun. It is the duty of the Senate to address our most solemn decisions now as a nation. As a veteran, I know there is no more important or grave decision than whether we send our sons and daughters into armed conflict. Once our President makes the decision to commit to the use of force, the Congress has always come together to speak with one voice, for one purpose: to support the efforts of our troops, and to pray for their courage, their success, and their safe and quick return home. With pride and resolve, we do so again today. We may have had differences of opinion about what brought us to this point, but the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief, and today we unite behind him as well. Saddam Hussein is a menace to his own people, and a threat to the peace and stability of the entire region. As our soldiers risk their own lives to secure the lives and liberty of others, we pledge to repay their courage by guaranteeing that we will spare no resource and no effort to ensure that nothing stands between them and victory. Recently, within the last couple of weeks, I visited Sturgis, SD, the home of the members of the 109th Engineering Battalion. Its members had just been mobilized and sent to the Persian Gulf. As American families have done since the birth of our Nation when our country has been called to war, fathers and mothers said goodbye to their children in uniform, and sons and daughters watched as their parents left home for battlefields. Once again, the families of our troops are left with prayers, and hopes, and the pride that the men and women they love are serving their country and serving the cause of peace and liberty. One thousand members of the 28th Bomb Wing from Ellsworth Air Force Base in my home State are engaged in the Persian Gulf today. Several thousand more South Dakotans have been activated in what is now the most robust callup in our State's history. We are proud to have one of the highest proportions of deployed troops in the country. It makes sense that so many South Dakotans have volunteered to serve. We are a State of small towns and old neighbors. And when you grow up in a small town, you learn early that your future is bound to those around you. You learn early that if you do not do your part, someone else has to pick up the slack. And you learn early that all we value about our homes and our lives cannot be created or maintained by leaving the work to someone else. Soldiers and sailors, airmen and marines, go into battle today driven by that wisdom. As they begin the dangerous work of disarming Saddam Hussein and liberating the people of Iraq, their courage rides on the values of small towns and old neighbors. Our country--generation after generation--has been defended by the same willingness to sacrifice. Today, our bravest men and women are called upon to carry forward the proud tradition of the American Armed Forces. They are making a more peaceful world for all children--for their own and for the children of Iraq. History will long remember their service. They have our support, our devotion, and our gratitude. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I announce that the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, will be our manager. I ask unanimous consent that the time between now and the time the votes are cast on the amendments pending be divided equally.

Mr. DASCHLE. If I could just interject.

Mr. DASCHLE. Perhaps I can at least describe what we are anticipating as the unanimous consent request. I think we are about ready to propound it. There have been a number of Senators who have indicated to the two managers that they wish to address the resolution. We are prepared to accommodate all of those requests. We would then ask for unanimous consent that the votes that are currently scheduled for 4 be moved back to 5 to accommodate the additional time allocated for discussion of the resolution. At that point, we would then vote on the amendments, in addition to the resolution. Following those votes, we would still allow Senators to speak, either to the resolution in support of the troops or to the resolution relating to the budget in both amendment as well as in general comment, so that throughout the evening Senators could still be accommodated to speak to the resolutions, either one. I hope that we could entertain a unanimous consent request that all those speeches which are made on the resolution in support of the troops appear in the Record prior to the vote so that the Record will read appropriately. That would be our intent, and I would hope that all Senators would be prepared to accommodate that request.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the votes Senators be recognized for purposes of making additional statements; that the time throughout the evening be equally divided and that their speeches appear in the Record prior to the vote cast on the resolution.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the majority leader yield for a question? I know that before the agreement was reached regarding the resolution on our troops, we had made a promise that those who could not speak prior to the vote could have the opportunity to speak as soon as these votes have been completed. The majority leader did not mention that, but I assume that has not changed. I asked earlier whether we could ensure that those comments would be printed in the Record prior to the vote, as well. If that could be accommodated, that would be helpful.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of the Senate the critical shortfall in funding for the Indian Health Service, IHS--a shortfall addressed by an amendment I intend to offer tomorrow. Through treaties and Federal statute, the Federal Government has promised to provide health care to American Indians and Alaska Natives. In the Indian health amendments of 1992, Congress specifically pledged to ``assure the highest possible health status for Indians and urban Indians and to provide all resources necessary to effect that policy.'' Sadly, we haven't even come close to honoring this commitment. The IHS is the only source of health care for many Indians, and is required to provide it, yet funding has never been adequate. The chronic underfunding has only grown worse in recent years, as appropriations have failed to keep up with the steep rise in private health care spending. The results are startling and disturbing. While per capita health care spending for the general U.S. population is about $4,400, the Indian Health Service spends only about $1,800 per person on individual health care services. The Government also spends considerably less on health care for Indians than it spends for Medicare beneficiaries, Medicaid recipients, and veterans. This level of funding is woefully inadequate to meet the health care needs of Native Americans--who have a lower life expectancy than other Americans, and disproportionately suffer from a number of serious medical problems. Indians have higher rates of diabetes, heart disease, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and tuberculosis. There is also a great need for substance abuse and mental health services. More funds are needed if the IHS is to provide necessary health care services to Indians. The current shortage of funds is having serious consequences. Native Americans are often denied care that most of us take for granted and, in many cases, would consider essential. They can be required to endure long waits before seeing a doctor and may be unable to obtain a referral to see a specialist. Sometimes lack of funds means care is postponed until Indians are literally at risk of losing their lives or their limbs. Other Indians receive no care at all. This rationing of care means that all too often Indians are forced to wait until their medical conditions become more serious--and more difficult to treat--before they may access health care. This is a situation none of us would find acceptable, yet this is the reality in Indian country. Last year, Gregg Bourland and Harold Frazier, then the chairman and vice chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in South Dakota, sent a letter to the IHS. This is how they described the situation in Eagle Butte: In January and February 2002, the Eagle Butte Service Unit on the Cheyenne River Sioux reservation has been swamped with children with Influenza A, RSV [Respiratory Syntactical Virus], and one fatal case of meningitis. There are only three doctors on duty, one Physician Assistant, and one Nurse Practitioner. The only pediatrician is the Clinical Director who will not see any patients, even though there is a serious need for the services of a pediatrician. Several of these children have presented with breathing problems, high fever, and severe vomiting. The average waiting time at the clinic has been four and six hours. The average time at the emergency room is similar. Most babies have been sent home without any testing to determine what they have and with nothing but cough syrup and Tylenol. In at least three cases, the baby was sent home after these long waits two or more times with cough syrup, only to be life-flighted soon thereafter because the child could not breathe. The children were all diagnosed by the non-IHS hospital with RSV [Respiratory Syntactical Virus]. No babies have died yet, but the Tribe sees no justification for waiting until this happens when these viruses are completely diagnosable and treatable. I couldn't agree more. It is absolutely unacceptable to put the lives of these children at risk. And we can do something to help. On more than one occasion, I have heard horror stories of pregnant mothers delivering children in circumstances that no expectant mother or child should have to endure. For example, right now the Service Unit at Eagle Butte in South Dakota does not have an obstetrician. The Eagle Butte Service Unit is funded at 44 percent of the need calculated by the Indian Health Service. The facility has a birthing room and 22 beds, but there are only two to three doctors to staff the clinic, hospital and emergency room. Naturally, as a result, many children and expecting mothers do not receive the care they need and deserve. Due to budget constraints, the IHS policy is to allow only one ultrasound per pregnancy. The visiting obstetrician is available only every couple of weeks. The story of Brayden Robert Thompson points out how dangerous this situation is. On March 3, 2002, Brayden's mother was in labor with a full-term, perfectly healthy baby. Brayden's umbilical cord was wrapped around his neck, but, without ultrasound, that went undetected. The available medical staff didn't know what to do about his lowered heartbeat, abnormal urinalysis or the fact that his mother was not feeling well. Despite the symptoms, IHS refused to provide an ultrasound or to send her to Pierre to see an obstetrician. Brayden was stillborn. This tragic death was completely preventable, but tough choices are being made every day at IHS facilities throughout the country because there simply isn't enough money to provide the care that every American deserves. The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in my State of South Dakota built a beautiful new hospital and health care center. In many ways, they are equipped to provide state-of-the-art, coordinated care. But they cannot retain health care professionals because of low payment schedules and inadequate training opportunities for local people. Their shiny new labor and delivery rooms, surgery rooms and even dental chairs stand empty, and individuals on the reservation are forced to travel long distances to receive these vital services. This also is the case on the neighboring Rosebud Indian Reservation. This is not solely an Indian issue. This is a community issue. It affects surrounding rural community hospitals, ambulance services, and other health care providers who work with IHS. For example, the Lake Andes-Wagner ambulance district in northeastern South Dakota is facing financial disaster, in part because they have not been reimbursed properly by the Indian Health Service. This ambulance service offers emergency transport for citizens of Charles Mix County and Yankton Sioux tribal members, since the Wagner IHS hospital cannot afford to operate its own service. If this ambulance service shuts down, what will these residents--Indian and non-Indian--do when they face an emergency? Bennett County hospital in the southwestern part of the South Dakota is located between the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Indian Reservations, and suffers similar IHS reimbursement problems, as do other non-IHS providers in South Dakota and throughout rural America. From 1998 to 2001, the most recent year for which IHS has data, IHS contract denials have increased 75 percent. In his budget request for the next fiscal year, the President requested only $1.99 billion for clinical services for Indians. This represents only a small increase over what the President requested for fiscal year 2003, and virtually no increase over what was finally included in the omnibus appropriations bill. We can and must do better. The amendment I am proposing would increase funding for clinical services by $2.9 billion over the President's request for fiscal year 2004. It is the minimal amount that is necessary to provide basic health care to the current IHS user population. The full cost over the next 10 years would be $38.7 billion. The amendment also devotes an equal amount to deficit reduction, all offset by a corresponding decrease in the top tax rate reduction. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Inouye, Bingaman, Dorgan, Murray, Wyden, Johnson, Leahy, Cantwell, Reid, and Kennedy. It is also supported by a wide range of health organizations, native and non- native. This budget resolution is a test of this Nation's priorities. Some will say that it doesn't matter, that it is purely symbolic. But the whole point of the budget resolution is to establish an enforceable fiscal framework and make room in our budget for needs that we believe are worthy of our national attention. I know there are some in this body who honestly believe that it is more important to eliminate the taxation of stock dividends--or accelerate huge tax cuts for our Nation's wealthiest citizens than to provide Native Americans the health care they have been promised but denied. Some defend that position by saying that someday, somehow, these Native Americans will benefit from the tax cuts extended to others, that the benefit will ``trickle down'' to them. It is their right to take that position, but they could not be more wrong. A woman going into labor cannot wait for economic benefits to trickle down to her. A child in respiratory distress cannot wait, either. How is it possible that we can afford to delve deeper into debt to fund additional tax cuts for those doing relatively well in this country, but we cannot afford to dedicate a small fraction of that amount to fund the most basic health care services for some of the poorest people in America who have been guaranteed that care? We must not tolerate this situation any longer. The problem is real; the solution is simple. Give the Indian Health Service the funds it needs to provide Native Americans the health benefits they were promised. Yes, it will require a slight decrease in the reduction of the top tax rate. But those top-bracket taxpayers will still get the benefit of every other rate reduction and every other tax break available to them, and almost 2 million Native Americans will have health care coverage. I ask unanimous consent that letters from the National Indian Health Board and Friends of Indian Health be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time for the comments I am about to make. The decision whether or not to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a defining moment for national energy and environmental policy. This debate reflects two divergent views of our Nation's values and future. We have a choice: Either we can continue building oil wells in environmentally sensitive areas or we can reject the quick fix and broaden our Nation's energy base while honoring our commitment to our natural heritage. It has become apparent that America depends too heavily on some very undependable foreign sources of oil. Hostilities in Iraq are just the latest chapter in decades of instability in the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile, production of oil in Venezuela has been brought to a near standstill because of domestic unrest. For the sake of our economy, for the sake of national security, and for the sake of our environment, America must reduce its reliance on foreign oil. But instead of diversifying energy supply, investing in new technologies and promoting efficiency, the Bush administration's priority is to look for the next big domestic oil field. Last year, the Senate rejected the Republicans' effort to authorize drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in comprehensive energy legislation. Now they are back attempting to use the budget resolution to grease a change they couldn't make in the energy bill. No matter how clever they view this parliamentary sleight of hand, the proponents of drilling in the Arctic Refuge cannot escape the facts. While endangering one of the most pristine areas in the world, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would do nothing to make our country more energy independent. We cannot sit silently by while the administration promotes a short- sighted strategy that mortgages one of our most precious and irreplaceable wild spaces for a few months' supply of oil. Gasoline prices are soaring today. Yet this proposal would add nothing to our oil supply for 10 years. Even then, the Arctic Refuge would supply our country with no more than 6 months' worth of oil and would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by just 2 percent. This is not a serious attempt to come to grips with America's long- term energy needs. America cannot drill its way out of this problem. Ninety-five percent of Alaska's North Slope is already open to drilling and exploration. Even if we drilled in the last 5 percent, even if we drilled in the backyards of every American, we could not satisfy our Nation's appetite for oil. America produces just 3 percent of the world's oil; yet we consume 25 percent of that supply. The answer to our energy challenge will not be found in the Arctic Refuge. The answer will be found in our willingness to encourage American innovation and break the habit of spiraling energy consumption. We have met this test in the past. In the 1970s, Congress increased fuel efficiency standards and began to encourage the development of renewable fuels. Today, those fuel efficiency standards save our country the cost of 3 million barrels of oil every day. That, and a wide range of clean, domestic, renewable energy technologies would dwarf any contribution the Arctic Refuge could make in the future. Meanwhile, if drilling in the Arctic Refuge is authorized, our lack of vision would come at enormous cost. According to the administration's own Fish and Wildlife Service, ``The Arctic refuge is among the most complete, pristine, and undisturbed ecosystems on Earth . . . a combination of habitats, climate and geography unmatched by any other northern conservation area.'' There is no alternative to Arctic National Wildlife Refuge once it is despoiled. But there is an alternative to this reckless proposal: A true national energy strategy that speaks to our core environmental values while at the same time frees our country from the dictates and uncertain fortunes of foreign oil producers. Now more than ever, we should be aware of the real cost of dependence on foreign oil. Now more than ever, we need real answers and serious stewardship to the energy challenges of our Nation's future. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to vote to strike the authorization to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from the budget resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New York for his eloquence and his comments. Also, I commend the distinguished ranking member on the Budget Committee for the leadership he has shown in offering this amendment today. I am very grateful to him for the work he has invested into this amendment. I am very hopeful our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will see its wisdom. Our Nation is living through some grave and difficult days. We face the continuing threat of terror and the developing danger of nuclear proliferation from both North Korea and Iran. At the same time, the American economy is stagnating, the Federal deficit is exploding. More and more Americans are losing hope that they will ever find a job. Overshadowing all of this, we stand on the cusp of war with Iraq. We need to be awake to this moment in history. In generations past, our country stared straight into the eyes of every threat and did what it took to overcome danger. The hallmark of American history has been the willingness of our leaders and our citizens to sacrifice today for the liberty, security, and prosperity of our children and our children's children tomorrow. President Bush said in his State of the Union Address: We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other Presidents, to other generations. We could not agree more. Now is not a time to pass reckless tax breaks that will saddle our Nation with debilitating debt for generations to come, while doing nothing to energize our economy today. Our Nation needs to be united in the face of the many threats before us. But I fear the President's tax break plan not only divides us against one another today, it pits the political whims of the moment against the economic security and prosperity of the future. Therefore, I am asking Democrats and Republicans to come together to support this amendment, which has been called the ``patriotic pause,'' because it states clearly that, except for national security, except for defense, except for a genuine and very small fiscally responsible economic stimulus plan, this Congress will approve no new tax breaks or new spending until the cost of war in Iraq and the rebuilding effort that will follow are determined. Under this amendment, we will provide every necessary resource to support our troops and protect our homeland. We will also do what it takes to re-ignite our economy. But this amendment acknowledges that we have an obligation to keep our commitments to America's children, families, and seniors. If we enact the Republican budget plan with the $1.5 trillion in new tax breaks, primarily for those at the very top, we would see deficits and debt for as far as the eye can see. And the cost of these new tax breaks explodes in the future, sucking up resources needed to keep our commitments to Social Security and Medicare. This past weekend, I met with a group of seniors to discuss the issues most important to them. Concerned about the uncertain future of Social Security and Medicare, one gentlemen said to me: Five years ago, I was part of the ``greatest generation.'' Now someone is trying to declare war on me. This Congress must honor the patriotism of our parents and grandparents by living up to our obligations to them. We must demonstrate our own love of country by living up to the highest traditions of our history. The ``patriotic pause'' gives us that chance. It will demonstrate to our citizens and to history itself that we are awake to the demands of this moment, and it will preserve the resources and trust necessary to meet whatever challenges our shared future holds. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to speak as in morning business and I will use my leader time to do so.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, about 3 months ago, a remarkable discovery was made. In an abandoned storeroom in the subbasement of this Capitol, two Senate staffers discovered the long-lost, handwritten payroll records of the Senate from 1790 to 1870. The ledger contains a vast wealth of information about the birth and the history of this Senate. It also contains authentic signatures of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Aaron Burr. Historians say it is very likely the only document in the world signed by all three of those giants of American history. Three days after it was found, I was able to hold that ledger in my hands. Every page I turned revealed more legendary names: James Monroe, George Mason, Abraham Lincoln, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, John Calhoun. It was a rare privilege to be able to hold such a tangible link to the giants of this Senate. For the last 16 years, I have had the privilege to be able to serve with--and learn from--a living link to those giants: the incomparable senior Senator from West Virginia, Robert C. Byrd. Today, we celebrate yet another milestone in Senator Byrd's extraordinary career. As of today, Senator Byrd has served in Congress for 50 years, 2 months, and 14 days. Since the beginning of our Nation, only two Members of Congress have served longer than Senator Byrd. For the last 44 years--more than half his life--Senator Byrd has served in this Senate--longer than all but one other Senator. I come to the floor today to congratulate Senator Byrd on reaching this historic milestone and to thank him for the many lessons he has taught me and for the kindnesses he has shown me over these many years. I also thank Erma Byrd, Senator Byrd's wife. I have heard Senator Byrd say often that he could not do this job were it not for her support and her love. I thank Mrs. Byrd for sharing so much of her husband with their State, and our Nation, for so long. At the beginning of our Nation, there was another couple who shared a great passion for democracy and public service. Their names were John and Abigail Adams. On July 3, 1776, the day the Declaration of Independence was signed, John Adams wrote to Abigail about the world- changing events that had occurred that day in Independence Hall in Philadelphia. In that letter, John Adams wondered whether future generations would understand how much the signers of the Declaration had risked so that the Americans who would come after them could know freedom. Somewhere, I think, John and Abigail Adams must be smiling down on Senator Byrd. In these anxious days, when some argue that the United States must curtail some of our Constitutional rights, or rewrite the balance of powers in our Government, Robert Byrd reminds us that principled compromise is a worthy goal--but our basic constitutional principles themselves must never be compromised. Robert Carlyle Byrd seems as much a part of West Virginia as the Appalachian Mountains themselves. In fact, he was born, in 1917, in North Carolina. After his mother died of scarlet fever, his father gave him up before his first birthday. He was adopted by his aunt and uncle, who took him to West Virginia's coal country. His family had little money. After graduating from high school and working for a time as a butcher in a coal company store, he yearned for a political life. He began that political life in 1946, when he was elected to the West Virginia state legislature. Six years later, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. And 6 years after that, he was elected to this Senate. Two years ago, he was elected to his eighth term in the Senate. Only one Senator--Strom Thurmond--ever served longer in the Senate. He is one of only a handful of Senators ever to cast 15,000 votes in this body. Over the years, Robert Byrd has served as majority leader, minority leader, President pro tempore and President pro tem emeritus of the Senate, not to mention Democratic whip and chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. He is the preeminent historian of the Senate and the author of the definitive history of this institution. He is a legendary orator. His speeches cover everything from the great issues of the day to the framers of the Constitution and the need for civility in the Senate to the virtues of the King James Bible and even the greatness of dogs. He is a master of the Senate's rules and traditions. Two years ago, he offered to share his knowledge of those rules with newly elected Senators. Most of the new Senators took advantage of those priceless tutorials. So did a few Senators who had been around for a lot longer. All of his life, Robert Byrd has been driven by the desire to know and understand more. He was already serving in the Senate when he earned a law degree from American University in 1963, after a decade in night school. He received his bachelor's degree from Marshall University in 1994. Besides great constitutional issues, another development that always provokes eloquence from Senator Byrd is when one of his fellow Senators marks a personal milestone. I was deeply touched by his beautiful words to my family and me on the birth of my first grandchild nearly a year ago. I know those words were not easy ones for a man whose heart still breaks over the death of his own grandson 20 years ago. And my family and I treasure them. Last November, the New York Times ran a profile on Senator Byrd on the occasion of his 85th birthday. The article described how, during the debate on the homeland security bill, Senator Byrd would come to this floor every day and, for hours, voice his concerns about what he regarded as serious flaws in the bill. The reporter asked Senator Byrd: ``Why are you spending so much time--and irritating some of your fellow Senators--prolonging a battle you're sure to lose?'' Senator Byrd replied, ``To me, that question misses the point, with all due respect to you for asking it.'' ``To me,'' he said, ``the matter is there for a thousand years in the record. I stood for the Constitution. I stood for the institution. If it isn't heard today, there'll be some future member who will come through and will comb through these tomes.'' To that, I will add a prediction of my own: Years from now, Americans will read the name ``Robert C. Byrd'' and they will read the words of this extraordinary Senator. And when they do, they will feel that same respect and gratitude I felt when I held that ledger in my hands and looked at the names of some of the giants of our past. Robert C. Byrd is a vital link to the patriots who created our democracy . . . I am honored to know him and serve with him, and to call him my teacher and friend. By the way, on December 2, 2009, Senator Byrd will become the longest-serving member in the history of Congress. I look forward to celebrating that day with him and to the many days I hope to be able to serve with him and learn from him between now and then. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in a few moments the Senate will offer a resolution which honors a member of our Senate family who, as the majority leader noted, will be leaving us soon. Lloyd Ogilvie has the appreciation of every one of the Members of this body. I join in expressing my heartfelt appreciation to him and his family as they begin the next chapter in their lives. A Senate chaplain was once asked: You pray for the Senate? He replied, no, I look at those Senators as I stand on the dais and I pray for the country. For the last 8 years, Lloyd Ogilvie has done a lot of praying--for our Nation, for the Members of this Senate, and for our families, for our staffs, and all the people who work in this building, and for those who come to visit the Senate from all over the world. He has prayed for us and with us. For many of us, he has been a source of guidance and support. We are grateful to him for his wisdom, for his friendship, and for his service to this Senate and our Nation. The Senate has been through many challenges these last 8 years, as the majority leader has noted. During those challenges, many of us have found hope and direction in Dr. Ogilvie's words. He comforted us and led us through the deaths of three of our colleagues, our friends John Chafee, Paul Coverdell, and Paul Wellstone. He consoled us when two fine, brave members of the Capitol Police, officers J.J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson, were murdered guarding this building. He helped us find courage and faith after our Nation was attacked on September 11, and again after the anthrax attack that closed the Hart Building. He has helped many of us grapple with the profound moral and spiritual questions that underscore all questions of public policy. One lesson Dr. Ogilvie has always stressed is the importance of keeping our priorities straight. In his words: Put God first, then family, then Nation, then career, and things will turn out as they are meant to. Now Dr. Ogilvie is living that lesson. He is putting his family ahead of his career and returning to California to be with and care for another treasured member of our Senate family, his wife Mary Jane. As much as we will miss him, we respect his decision greatly. Everyone who knows Lloyd Ogilvie knows he has a special place in his heart for St. Andrew. That seems fitting for two reasons. The first and most obvious reason is that St. Andrew is the patron saint of Scotland, and we all know how proud Dr. Ogilvie is of his family's roots in that beautiful country. The other reason is St. Andrew never got the attention he deserved. In the Bible, it was Andrew's brother, Peter, who got the headlines, even though it was Andrew who first recognized that Jesus was an extraordinary teacher. It was Andrew who told Peter to pay attention to Jesus' words. Here in the Senate, it is Senators who get most of the headlines. But for many of us for the last 8 years it is Lloyd Ogilvie who has been there to remind us of the important lessons. Our thanks and our prayers will go to Lloyd Ogilvie as he returns to California. We wish him and Mary Jane, their children, Andrew, Scott and Heather, and their grandchildren, much happiness in the days, months, and years ahead. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, few issues divide our country more markedly than the issue of abortion. This debate is a difficult one, and I commend those on both sides of the issue who have given their time on the floor to express their very deeply held views on this matter. While the debate has had some unfortunate low points, it has also had some very high ones. In particular, I commend those on the Democratic side Senators Boxer, Murray, Durbin, Harkin, and Feinstein--who have helped manage the floor this week. Each of them has worked diligently to ensure these difficult issues were given the honest, constructive attention they deserve. I know very well how thankless that job can be, and I am grateful for their efforts. I am personally opposed to abortion, and I oppose Federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or medical necessity. Far too many abortions are performed in this country, and I want to do everything reasonable to discourage abortion. That is why I support efforts to facilitate and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion, and that is why I support voluntary family planning, including improved access to contraception and research on improved contraceptive options for both men and women. That is why I supported Senator Murray's amendment. Every abortion is a tragedy. But I recognize that there are extraordinary medical circumstances that make abortion necessary to save the mother's life or prevent grave harm to her health. I also recognize and respect the Supreme Court's clear message on abortion stated first in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision and later in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Court consistently upheld two basic tenets. First, before the stage of fetal viability--when the fetus is capable of living outside the womb with or without life support--a woman has a constitutional right to choose whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. Second, a woman's health must be protected throughout her pregnancy. The Court has not, as the junior Senator from Pennsylvania has wrongly suggested, endorsed ``abortion anywhere at any time.'' In Casey, the Court clearly drew a distinction between abortions performed before fetal viability and those performed after viability, clearly allowing the Government to restrict abortion after fetal viability. While I am deeply troubled by the procedure described in S. 3, and voted again to ban it, I have real concerns that S. 3 is not the most effective means of limiting the late-term abortions the bill's sponsors claim to target. Like many of my colleagues, I would prefer to ban all post-viability abortions, regardless of the procedure used. In 1997, in an effort to find a constitutional compromise that would actually stop far more abortions than the bill we have been debating today, I offered a broader ban much like the one offered by the Senator from Illinois yesterday. The Durbin amendment, like the earlier Daschle amendment, banned all post-viability abortions, allowing an exception only if an abortion is absolutely necessary to protect the mother. An ironic fact that the sponsors of S. 3 don't readily acknowledge is that, if their statements are accurate, S. 3 will not stop a single abortion. In contrast, the Durbin amendment would stop all post- viability abortions except those that are absolutely medically necessary. This may seem counterintuitive, so let me explain why this is true. The sponsors of S. 3 answer the Supreme Court's concern that their legislation is too vague to meet constitutional muster by claiming that their legislation bans only one procedure and that it is clearly defined. They also claim that the ban does not restrict a woman's Court-affirmed right to choose because all other abortion procedures are allowed under S. 3. Finally, they claim their legislation avoids the Court's concerns about protecting the life and health of the mother because the procedure described in their legislation is never necessary to protect the mother; thus, other available procedures could be employed interchangeably. If all those statements are true and I confess I am not confident that they are--then S. 3 will not stop a single abortion; it will merely cause women and doctors to choose a different abortion procedure. While I am deeply disturbed by this procedure, I oppose any unnecessary abortion once a fetus becomes viable. If our true desire is to protect viable fetuses whenever possible, I think we can do better than S. 3. An across-the-board ban on all post-viability procedures with a constitutional life and health exception is the only way to achieve that broader goal, and I deeply regret that the Senate has yet again failed to do so. It is a principle that would win the support of the American people and the Supreme Court, and it would actually reduce the number of abortions in this country. Yesterday's outcome is one I will never understand. There is yet another reason S. 3 may fail to meet its objective. The Supreme Court has struck down what many experts claim is a ``legally identical'' bill, the Nebraska law banning this procedure. In previous Congresses, I have expressed my concern that this legislation may not withstand an inevitable constitutional challenge. Now that the Court has ruled in the Nebraska case, that concern is even greater. But the sponsors of this bill have chosen to take that gamble, claiming their ``20 word changes'' have resolved the constitutional concerns. Those 20 words, by the way, are allegedly powerful enough to change the outcome in the Supreme Court, but not significant enough to merit a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. If the sponsors of S. 3 are wrong, then this week's exercise will serve only to delay meaningful progress toward restrictions on not only this procedure, but all post-viability abortions. It will also fuel the unnecessary bitterness surrounding this debate. At this point, it is my hope that this Senate bill will go quickly to the President so that the Supreme Court can rule on it. If the Court strikes it down, then I hope people on both sides of this issue will be willing to work together to stop all post-viability abortions except those that are absolutely necessary to protect a woman's life and health. Finally, I want to say a few words about the women whose lives are impacted by our actions this week. One of the saddest aspects of this debate is the suggestion that countless women, for frivolous reasons, are choosing unnecessary abortions in the last few weeks of their pregnancies. That just isn't true. Anyone willing to listen has heard the tragic stories of women and families who have had to terminate their pregnancies either because their own health was threatened, or their child was the victim of severe fetal anomalies often inconsistent with life outside the womb. These are not unwanted pregnancies, and these are not abortions of convenience. Regardless of one's ultimate decision on this legislation, I hope that in the future the Senate will show greater respect for these women and the tragic circumstances they have faced. As they have so poignantly said, you or someone you love could face similar circumstances, and you would deserve better than these women and their families have gotten.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I join the distinguished Republican leader in expressing my heartfelt congratulations to the senior Senator from Indiana, our colleague, Dick Lugar. He was sworn in on January 3, 1977. Over the course of these 10,000 votes cast, he has served as the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee and now serves as the chairman, as we all know, of the Foreign Relations Committee. With those 10,000 votes, he has made a major impact on American history. I would be willing to bet that for every vote he has cast, he has made at least one more friend over all of these years. He may be a Republican and I may be a Democrat, but I have never been so appreciative of a relationship as a Senator as I have with Senator Lugar. He has many more than 10,000 friends since he came to the Senate in 1977. So we congratulate him. We tell him of his great service to this country and our appreciation for that service. We hope that there will be many thousands more. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, a little over 18 months ago, I came to this floor to welcome MG Alfonso Lenhardt to the Senate on his first day as this body's Sergeant at Arms. Tomorrow will be GEN Lenhardt's last day in the Senate. It is with profound admiration, and more than a little sadness, that I rise today to thank him for his extraordinary service, and to wish him much success and happiness in the years ahead. Nominating Al Lenhardt to serve as the Senate's Sergeant at Arms was one of the great honors of my time as majority leader. It was also, I think, one of the best decisions I made in more than 30 years of public service. I did not know Al before we began the search for a Sergeant at Arms in the summer of 2001. He was recommended to me by our former Secretary of the Senate, Jeri Thomson. Jeri had met Al more than a decade ago when they were both at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. She was impressed by his intelligence, knowledge, steady demeanor and commitment to public service, characteristics she correctly noted are highly desirable in a Senate Sergeant at Arms. Twenty minutes after meeting Al, I knew Jeri had identified the right person for this job. I also knew, when I nominated Al, that he would make history in this Senate. What I did not realize is what a crucial role he would play, and what a difference he would make, in the history of this Senate. Al Lenhardt is the first African American ever to serve as the Senate's top law enforcement and administrative officer. In fact, he is the first African American to serve as an elected officer of the Senate or House--ever. That seems hard to believe, but it is true. And after 212 years, I must say, it was long overdue. And he was the individual serving as the top law enforcement officer of the Senate when the unimaginable happened--terrorists struck a devastating blow on American soil. The September 11 attacks occurred less than a week after Al Lenhardt was sworn in as Sergeant at Arms. I do not think he took a day off for over 5 months. Five weeks after September 11, a letter containing a lethal dose of anthrax was opened in my office. That incident remains the largest bioterrorism attack ever on U.S. soil, and one of the most dangerous events in Congress' history. Al Lenhardt's leadership ability, experience and demeanor were instrumental in the Senate's entry into the post-September 11 world. I am not sure that before that terrible day any of us fully appreciated the threat that America's enemies posed to our U.S. Capitol, a majestic and enduring symbol of our democracy. Al Lenhardt rose to the challenge of protecting against further terrorist attacks on the Capitol complex and protecting the people who work in and visit these buildings--without closing ``The People's House'' to the people themselves. Al provided calm and steady leadership in the face of danger that reassured us all in an extraordinarily stressful and emotional time. When deadly anthrax was released in the Hart Building, 50 Senators and their staffs, and 15 committees and their staffs, were displaced for 96 days while the building was remediated. Never before--not even when the British burned the Capitol in 1814, had so may Senators been uprooted. Relocating them and their staffs presented an unprecedented logistical challenge. But Al Lenhardt and his staff, and the staffs of the Rules Committee and the Secretary of the Senate, responded quickly and well. The business of democracy never stopped. Al Lenhardt stood tall in the face of danger. And his steady hand assured that the Senate kept functioning. Over the past 18 months, Al Lenhardt rose to the occasion, demonstrating to me that he was indeed the right man, with the right skills and experience, in the right place, at the right time. Al Lenhardt has had a remarkable public career. He served in the United States Army for 32 years and as a combat veteran wears the Purple Heart earned in Vietnam. He retired from the Army in 1997. His last Army position was commanding general of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command at Ft. Knox, KY. From that post, he managed more than 13,000 people in 1,800 separate locations. Before that, he served as the senior military police officer for all police operations and security matters throughout the Army's worldwide sphere of influence. In the 1980s, he did counter-terrorism work in Germany against the Baader-Meinhof Gang and other terrorist groups. He also was the former commander of the Army's Chemical and Military Police Centers at Fort McClellan, AL, which trains the military police who are guarding our bases overseas. Al Lenhardt was born in Harlem 59 years ago. He earned a bachelor's degree in criminal justice from the University of Nebraska, a master of arts degree in public administration from Central Michigan University, and a masters of science degree in the administration of justice from Wichita State University. He has also completed post-graduate studies at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and the University of Michigan Executive Business School. Between the Army and the Senate, he served for 4 years as executive vice president and chief operating officer of the Council on Foundations, where he worked to harness the power of philanthropy to meet some of America's most urgent unmet needs. He has been active in an array of organizations, from the Boy Scouts of America, to the Boys and Girls Clubs of Washington, DC, the National Office of Philanthropy, and the Black Church Project. He has been married for 38 years to Jackie Lenhardt, one of the few people I have ever met who has a more commanding presence than Al. Jackie and Al have three daughters--two lawyers and a doctor--and two grandchildren, Olly, who is 4, and Maya, who was born 2 months ago. The closest thing to a complaint I've ever heard from anyone who knew Al Lenhardt in the Army was from an officer who took a battalion six years after Al had left it. He said: ``It's tough to go into a unit after Al Lenhardt because he leaves such strong footprints. Six years later, his policies and procedures still stood. He made a lasting impact on soldiers.'' The one consolation in saying goodbye to Al Lenhardt is knowing that the policies and procedures he instituted here in the Senate will continue protecting us in the future. Al's predecessor, Jim Ziglar, began the effort to modernize security and protect the Capitol in an age of terrorism. And he made a good start. But I think even Jim would acknowledge that it is Al Lenhardt who deserves the lion's share of the credit for leading the Senate into the modern age of security and law enforcement. If Congress is ever forced to vacate this building, or even this city, for any length of time, the Senate will be able to move and resume the work of democracy immediately in a new location under a ``continuity of operations'' plan that Jim Ziglar started and Jeri Thomson and Al Lenhardt completed. While Al would be the first to state that more needs to be done, he has ensured that the Senate will continue operations in the event of any emergency. The physical security around the Capitol is much stronger and intelligence gathering, analysis and sharing is much better today than it was on September 11th--largely because of Al Lenhardt. We are better prepared to prevent attacks--and to respond if attacks happen--than we were before Al Lenhardt came here. Because of Al Lenhardt, we know have an effective crisis communications network that uses state-of-the-art technology. We have emergency evacuation plans and drills. We've implemented state-of-the-art mail security to prevent another nightmare like the anthrax attack. Capitol Police officers are getting new training to deal with the new threats. We are also expanding the police force--so our officers can get some much-deserved rest. Al Lenhardt has played a leadership role in building stronger working relationships with security and intelligence experts at the departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Defense and other agencies. That is another way Al Lenhardt made history. The first Saturday morning after the anthrax letter was opened, Al was at work in the Capitol, surrounded by scientists and investigators. He had been at work until late the night before. That morning, someone asked him: ``If you had to decide all over again, would you still want this job?'' Al smiled his great, broad smile and--without a moment's hesitation-- replied: ``Absolutely. To be in a position to serve your country--what better job could there be?'' To that, Mr. President, I can only add: What better person could there have been in the Senate Sergeant at Arms' position these last 18 months than General Alfonso Lenhardt? Certainly no one I have ever met. Al Lenhardt has earned the respect and gratitude of every member of this Senate, and of this nation. I am proud to have recommended him. I am proud to have served with him. And I am even more proud to call him my friend. Indeed the entire Senate community is grateful to Al Lenhardt for what he has contributed to us, and we will miss him.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank my dear friend, the Senator from Nevada, for his very kind words.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend Senator Murray for this amendment. I appreciate very much the leadership she has shown in providing a real opportunity to prevent late-term abortions to begin with. That is exactly what this amendment does. I appreciate very much her willingness to step forward. I want to quickly state three things prior to the time that we have the opportunity to hear from Senator Murray more extensively about the importance of this amendment. No. 1, I can recall so vividly on so many occasions over the last couple of years when Republicans cried crocodile tears about legislation that came to the floor without having first gone through committee. Crocodile tears. They did everything but throw things on the Senate floor, they were so upset, every single time somebody would suggest that amendments or bills be offered that had not been considered in committee. Yet right out of the box, one of the very first pieces of legislation presented to our colleagues today is legislation that didn't go through committee. That was rule under rule 14 on the floor. The double standard and the hypocrisy is amazing to me. The second issue I think ought to be stated is that we may be going to war within the next 10 days. I hope not. I have said publicly and privately I hope we never consider war inevitable. But I must say, as we consider what is now occurring in North Korea, as we consider the extraordinary repercussions of what may occur in Iraq, as we consider the constant deliberations in the United Nations with regard to our actions, you would think the Senate would express itself, if not through resolutions, at least with our dialog, with our consideration of these issues, with our opportunities to express ourselves, and with more opportunity to avoid concern for all of these issues and others going into such a dramatic historic and consequential moment in our Nation's history. And yet we find ourselves debating this issue. I think it is an ironic juxtaposition. And I am disappointed we would be spending our time on it this week, given all of the other issues we have to address. The third thing I would simply say is that, as with so many issues on the Senate floor, this issue is packed with emotion on both sides. We are the Nation's leaders. We set the tone. We are the ones who create a sense of perspective with regard to these debates. The more shrill we are, the more shrill we can expect the American people to be. The more confrontational and personal we are, the more confrontational and personal we can expect the American people to be. So I urge my colleagues, as we go through this emotional debate, to demonstrate civility, to demonstrate a recognition that it is very easy to generate emotional fervor on this issue. It is out there already. I hope, in the tradition of the Senate, a debate as important as this would recognize our responsibility to deal with these issues sensitively, to deal with them in a way that recognizes the importance of civility, to recognize, as well, that tone can be an important factor in effecting substance. So I only urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize, to accept our responsibility to debate this issue with civility, with respect, with sensitivity, and with a recognition that our voices are heard way beyond these Chambers. I thank again the Senator from Washington and again applaud her for her efforts. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I regret to say that the White House and many of our Republican colleagues have twisted this debate beyond all recognition. It is sadly ironic that Republicans now seek to cast this as a debate about constitutionality, for it is Republicans who evidently are quite ready to throw over our Constitution's enduring principles merely because they do not fit the politics of the moment. Democrats have been accused of subverting the Constitution for mere political gain. We have been accused of subjecting a nominee to ``unprecedented obstructionism.'' We have been accused of employing these tactics in the service of racism. Enough is enough. It is time to call the rhetoric of some of our Republican colleagues for what it is: Rank hypocrisy and cynical manipulation of fact. While in the majority, Democrats facilitated the confirmation of 100 of the President's nominees to the Federal bench. After proving our cooperation, we now have the temerity to ask one nominee a series of simple questions that go directly to the question of his qualifications and judicial temperament. We asked the administration to provide the documents the nominee drafted during his tenure at the Department of Justice, documents that have been provided by both Democratic and Republican administrations in the past. We ask these questions not to score cheap political points but to fulfill our solemn obligations under the Constitution. The Senate, not just the Senate majority but the entire Senate, is required under the Constitution to provide advice and consent to the President on his nominations. All we have asked is that we be given the information necessary to provide that informed consent. Mr. Estrada, however, has chosen not to cooperate. That is his right. But it is our constitutional duty to reserve our judgment until we know the whole picture. Imagine a job applicant refusing to fill out the last four pages of a five-page application. You couldn't get a job flipping burgers with that response. Surely, the American people would not reward such intransigence with a lifetime appointment to the second-most powerful court in the land. Republicans disagree, and so it is the recalcitrance of the nominee and the administration, not Democratic opposition, that is responsible for this delay today. Today, Republicans, one after another, will come to this chamber to claim that they are shocked that any nominee could be treated to this unprecedented obstructionism. Let me be charitable and say that only willful amnesia allows our colleagues to levy such charges. In 1994, Senate Republicans stood before this chamber trying to persuade their colleagues to filibuster one of President Clinton's nominations to the Federal bench. The current Chairman of the Judiciary Committee said then that the minority has to protect itself and those the minority represents.'' In 2000, the Senate was forced to vote on cloture because for 4 years, Republicans filibustered judicial nominee, Richard Paez and, for two years, Marsha Berzon. Fifteen Republican Senators, including Senator Frist, Senator Inhofe, Senator Craig, Senator Brownback, Senator DeWine, and others voted to continue the filibuster of Richard Paez. Thirty Senators voted to ``indefinitely postpone``--quoting from the resolution--Mr. Paez's nomination, which had then been pending for more than 1,500 days. That's right, 1,500 days. No Republicans objected then. No Republican expressed concern for the unprecedented obstructionism that could endanger the Constitution that we are likely to hear about this morning. No Republican dared to castigate his colleagues by calling the opposition to Mr. Paez ``anti-Hispanic.'' But the truth is, by comparison to the treatment of other nominees by the Republican majority, Mr. Paez and Ms. Berzon could almost be considered fortunate; at least their nominations made it to the floor. Under the Republican majority, more than 50 different Clinton administration judicial nominees saw their nominations killed, not because of the shared objections of 41 Republican Senators, but because a single Senator chose to place an anonymous hold on their nomination. These nominations never received a hearing or a vote in the Judiciary Committee, let alone consideration on the floor of the Senate. By describing this sad history, I do not mean to indicate how the confirmation process should work. It should not. The President promised he would work with us on his judicial nominees. But instead he continues to nominate many extraordinarily controversial candidates. We stand ready to cooperate in the nomination and confirmation of qualified judges who will enforce the law and protect the rights of all Americans. We demonstrated that on many occasions already in this Congress. But we fear that we will be kept waiting. The suggestion that the Democratic request for information is inappropriate is equally ludicrous. When Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court, the Senate sought and received his memos as Solicitor General, including one to the President on the application of Executive privilege to the case of the Nixon audiotapes. When Justice William Rehnquist was nominated to the Supreme Court, the Senate sought and received all of the memos that he had written as a clerk to Justice Robert Jackson. When Stephen Trott was nominated to the Ninth Circuit, the Senate sought and received line attorney memos regarding the appointment of special prosecutors. When Benjamin Civiletti was nominated to be Attorney General, the Senate sought and received his line attorney memos regarding anti-trust settlement recommendations. And when William Bradford Reynolds was nominated for Associate Attorney General, the Senate sought and received his memos to the Solicitor General regarding a discrimination case, a school prayer case, and internal legal memos on a redistricting case. Our request for information from Mr. Estrada is both appropriate and well-grounded in precedent. Yet because that precedent stands in the way of their political ends, Republicans now seek to deny their own words and their own actions. They are here today claiming that the Constitution is threatened by the very same procedures they themselves employed. They are here today claiming that the Constitution can be threatened by the very same powers that it grants. The Constitution is secure. The Democrats support it by refusing to let one third of our Government become a rubber stamp. Alexander Hamilton, foremost among the Framers in his support for a strong presidency, wrote in the Federalist Papers that the Senate's role in confirmations was an indispensable check on executive power. In explaining the advise and consent clause, he wrote: Might not [the President's nomination] be overruled? I grant that it might. . . . [but] if by influencing the President be meant restraining him, that is precisely what must have been intended. Mr. President, every Member of this body took an oath ``to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' That is exactly what Democrats are doing. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, shortly we will have a vote on cloture on the nomination of Miguel Estrada. Let me just say that I am saddened that we have to have this vote at all. Democrats are not interested in delaying the debate, delaying the vote. What we are interested in is the same standard set for judicial nominees virtually all through history. Nominees in the past have come before the Judiciary Committee, they have answered their questions, they have provided the documentation, votes have been taken, and judges overwhelmingly have been confirmed. This is the exception, not the rule. While we were in the majority we confirmed 101 judicial nominees. I haven't checked, and I have no way of knowing, but I suspect all 101 confirmed judges are conservatives. I don't think they would have made it through the screening process of the Bush administration were they not conservative. We have voted on a large number--I don't have the number before me-- of judges this year. Again, I would say, without exception, those judges are conservative and, with rare exception, those judges were confirmed unanimously. There are those who suggest that somehow because this is a conservative judge, Democrats are balking at confirmation. I will oppose Mr. Estrada even if we have the opportunity at some point in the future because I am confident, based on his answers to questions so far, and the limited information we do have available to us so far, that he represents an extreme point of view, not a moderate point of view. I believe those extreme positions are ones that would cause concern, whether he were extreme liberal or extreme conservative. But the issue in this immediate case is not philosophical temperament. This issue is about intransigence. This issue is whether or not Miguel Estrada or anybody else ought to be held to the same standard for consideration of this important position, the second highest court in the land. He has been asked to fill out a job application and he refuses to fill out the final pages of that application. We are left to guess what his qualifications are. We are left to guess what his judicial temperament is. For many of my colleagues, that is insufficient. His attitude, his disposition, his intransigence is why we are here today. So it is not Democrats, it is Mr. Estrada, it is the administration that continues to be unwilling to provide the cooperation and the information that Members have used in the past to make their judgments. There has been so much misinformation regarding past precedent, but even if you sift through all of the misinformation in the assertions relating to other judges and their degree of compliance with the law, I don't know of anyone who has not acknowledged that Solicitor General documents have been shared with members of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate on past occasions. That is fact. Judge Bork, Benjamin Civiletti, Judge Rehnquist--there are many who have provided the very information we have requested. So it is regrettable we are at this point. We have been debating this nomination now for a month. I would like very much for us to turn to other important matters. We may be going to war soon. The Senate ought to have an opportunity to discuss the implications of war, our thoughts about war. We have not had that discussion. Perhaps now is the time to do so. As I have said on the floor on several occasions, the administration seems to be consumed with this one job but ignores the fact that over 2.5 million Americans have lost their jobs. This Senate ought to be devoting its attention and time to dealing with the real issues confronting our country domestically, which are the economy, the loss of jobs, the stagnation, the uncertainty. I was with a group this morning who said investment is simply not in evidence in large measure because of uncertainty, because people do not know what the future holds economically. We ought to be moving forward on an economic debate. We ought to be moving forward to address those 2.5 million Americans who have lost their jobs, but we have not done so. Yet day after day, hour after hour, we continue to be consumed by the one job at the expense of the millions. There are many reasons I wish conditions would be different this morning. I do hope Mr. Estrada will see fit to be more cooperative. I have appreciated the willingness on the part of the administration to encourage Mr. Estrada to meet with Members. But as many of us have noted, it is not his willingness to meet; it is his unwillingness to provide information that has brought us to this point. Meeting alone is cosmetic. Meeting alone is more of a public relations ploy than a meaningful way with which to ascertain the facts. We don't need more public relations. We don't need more efforts to meet if those meetings cannot be more productive. So I hope we can move on to issues of great import to this country, whether it is foreign policy or the economy or the many other domestic issues we face. We have attempted day after day to bring an economic stimulus bill to the Senate floor. Perhaps with this vote the way can be cleared to allow that to happen. But whatever happens, I think it is important to put my colleagues on notice that the vote will not change regardless of how many votes may be cast. We feel strongly as a caucus, and we will continue to hold the position as a caucus, that the information Mr. Estrada has so far failed to provide is not in keeping with past precedent; it is not in keeping with constitutional expectations; it is not in keeping with our expectations with regard to the cooperation we would expect from any nominee. I hope as we consider how we might resolve this matter, Mr. Estrada will work with us, provide information we have asked, work with us to ensure that those unanswered questions can be answered and that in the meantime we can turn to the matters of interest, of import, of concern to the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor just to give our colleagues a brief report on the status with regard to amendments to the treaty legislation. Senator Byrd has indicated he wishes to offer an amendment. Senator Conrad has an amendment. Senator Feingold may have an amendment. We are trying to verify whether he still intends to offer it. And then Senator Levin has an amendment. I had indicated to the distinguished majority leader that we felt we could accommodate these amendments today and vote on final passage tonight. He has indicated that if that were the case there would be no votes tomorrow. I hope our colleagues can accommodate that schedule to come over and offer their amendments, and perhaps we can even agree to a timeframe within which these amendments can be considered. We have been in a quorum call now for about an hour. Obviously, if we want to finish at a reasonable hour today, it would be very helpful if our colleagues could come to the floor to offer their amendments. We will have to do it sometime today. It seems to me the sooner we get on with this debate, the sooner we can offer those amendments and the sooner we can complete our work and do so in a way that will accommodate other schedules which I know Senators have tonight and tomorrow. I make that report. I make that plea. I hope our colleagues can allow us to finish our work on this legislation so that we can move on to other matters. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I congratulate Senators Lugar and Biden on their efforts on this treaty. In their new roles as chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, they have gotten off to an impressive start. By holding a series of hearings on pressing foreign policy questions, including the looming war in Iraq, they have helped every Member of this body and every American. In addition, they have taken the Moscow treaty, a treaty that came to us with perhaps more questions than answers, and added some definition. Their collective labors on behalf of this treaty demonstrate what bipartisanship leadership on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can accomplish. This treaty represents a positive step forward by calling on the United States and Russia to reduce their operational strategic nuclear weapons. But it is a step long overdue. Many in this body felt these kinds of cuts were possible years ago. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts for much of the last decade, Republican opposition prevented us from implementing the kind of cuts this treaty now recommends. To ensure that we derive the maximum security benefit possible from this treaty, the Administration will have to fill in a number of important holes. Though the administration has assured us that some nuclear warheads will be dismantled, the treaty itself does not require the destruction of any Russian or American nuclear warheads. At best, the treaty will put warheads out of reach, but, unfortunately, not out of use. Moreover, the treaty does not include a schedule that spells out when the deactivations must occur. In fact, the treaty language does not require the deactivation of a single weapon until December 31, 2012, the day the Treaty expires. Finally, the treaty also lacks any concrete commitments on verification, undermining longstanding, commonsense principle of our arms control policy. In years past during Senate discussion of other arms control treaties, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle based their opposition to these treaties on the lack of adequate verification provisions. Evidently, either verification is no longer as important to them or they are more willing to trust rather than verify. Notwithstanding these shortcomings and inconsistencies, Mr. President, I intend to vote for the Resolution of Ratification, and I do so because it points our country in the right direction. But at the same time I would like to send a message as loudly and clearly as I can to the administration and to my colleagues here in the Senate: our work to deal with the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction does not--in fact cannot--stop with this vote. Last fall, the President's National Security Strategy stated that: The gravest danger our nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination. We need look no further than the steadily escalating crisis in North Korea to recognize that the President was right on that point. You will have to look much harder, however, to ascertain exactly what the administration proposes to do about this crisis, let alone the larger issue of proliferation worldwide. That is why last night I joined with several of my colleagues, including Senators Lieberman and Biden, to introduce S. Res. 77, a resolution that calls on the administration to devise a comprehensive strategy to confront the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration's policy to counter proliferation has suffered from inconsistency. It downplays immediate threats, such as North Korea, while emphasizing others. It puts together a coalition against terrorism, but has ignored allies and undercut international action against proliferation. In sum, the administration's actions have served to weaken the effort to establish a robust coalition against proliferation. Since taking office, the Administration has been deeply ambivalent about U.S. efforts to secure loose Russian nuclear weapons and materials and unemployed nuclear scientists. While focusing on Iraq, it has ignored looming problems elsewhere, such as North Korea and Iran. And rather than seeking ways to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, it pursues doctrines that would effectively lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, further compounding the threat of proliferation. This is too dangerous a situation to ignore any longer. Our resolution calls for a comprehensive strategy--not unhelpful actions or ad hoc reactions--to confront the threat proliferation presents to American citizens. Among other proposals, we urge the President to begin to build a coalition against proliferation, immediately and directly engage North Korea, vastly increase the funding for U.S. programs that secure loose nuclear weapons, and deliver sufficient homeland security funds to the state, local and tribal governments so they can prepare their first responders to respond against further terrorist attacks. The administration tells us that the Moscow Treaty represents a new kind of agreement, one that acknowledges we have emerged fully from the cold war era. We join the President in welcoming this new era. But we must take this opportunity to create a comprehensive strategy that recognizes we have entered a new and potentially dangerous era of proliferation. To date the administration has failed in that effort. But we cannot afford to delay any longer. Time is not on our side. The risks to our security mount with each day that passes without an administration strategy.