Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished chair of the Agriculture Committee if it is his understanding that both amendments will be up-or-down amendments as they are offered to the Senate.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is my understanding as well. I appreciate the clarification. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in the final 3 minutes, let me quickly comment on a few points raised. First, to the point that we need to comply with the House prior to the time we vote in the Senate, as the distinguished Senator from North Dakota said, that is not usually the practice here. The Senate takes its stand, the House takes its stand, and we work out whatever differences there are in the two stands in conference. We don't say because the House has a position, we have to comply with the House position before we even go to conference. I hope our colleagues will not set that very dangerous precedent as their motivation for voting for the Republican amendment. Secondly, we have gone through this many times. The formulation we have used as a body, as a government, is the formulation offered in the Democratic amendment. We give the administration latitude to administer it. We have created these programs, disaster assistance and crop assistance, for those relief benefits to be provided. That is what we do here. It is the Republican amendment that creates a new infrastructure, not the Democratic amendment. The traditional and accepted approach we have used in disaster after disaster is the one we offer again and the one for which we voted last fall and received 79 votes. Thirdly, what troubles me the most is that the Republican amendment is one-half of what is estimated to be the need. Even though it is one- half of the need, it is written in such a way that everybody, regardless of whether they have a loss, is eligible. So what happens is you have situations such as the Senator from North Dakota described where those who are eligible, who may be entitled to a $45-per-acre payment, will get $6. Those who may not need any money at all will get $6. There are many of us who do our very best to maximize whatever value we get out of whatever dollars we commit in the programs we authorize. I just don't see why that nondiscriminating approach is not what we want to do especially if you cut in half the benefits to begin with. It seems to me you ought to maximize the benefits to those who need them. There ought to be some degree of need demonstrated, which is why we say that 35-percent threshold has to be realized. To say you are entitled to benefits with no loss at a time when you are cutting the overall cost to the program by 50 percent turns logic on its head. For those reasons, I hope my colleagues will do what they have done before. I hope they will support this amendment. I hope we can show the same bipartisan support we did last fall, and I hope we can work out whatever differences we have with the House in conference as we have always done. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time to talk to this amendment. I compliment the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his amendment. I think this is one of the most important amendments we will vote on in this entire debate. He is simply restoring the across-the- board cut, as he indicated and outlined. We are now at a 2.9-percent across-the-board cut. That 2.9 percent represents at least $16 billion, over and above the other $5 billion that was cut, a total of $21 billion from discretionary accounts. We have done an analysis of what those cuts actually mean in real- life terms. Those cuts mean the elimination of 1,175 FBI agents. There are 1,175 FBI agents who will lose their jobs if this cut goes into effect as it is now proposed. The FBI Web site lists 10 priorities. The No. 1 priority is to protect the United States from terrorist attack. The No. 2 priority is to protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage. The No. 3 priority is to protect the United States against cyberspace attacks in high-technology crime; No. 4, combat public corruption at all levels; No. 5, protect civil rights. Which of these priorities will be sacrificed as a result of the loss of 1,175 FBI agents? Would we do that to the military? Would we do it to the National Guard? Would we do it in any other context as we consider the war on terror and the need to fulfill our constitutional responsibility to protect and defend this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic? I do not think so. Why would we cut 1,175 FBI agents at this time? We have had serious food safety issues over the course of the last decade. I was chairman of a Subcommittee on Agriculture when the whole E. coli crisis broke out. I can recall so vividly families talking about their children being poisoned as a result of E. coli. Why? In part, because we did not have enough food safety inspectors. This 2.9- percent reduction, this $21 billion, will cut 490 food inspectors from our system today. We will have 490 fewer food inspectors. This will cut 230,000 veterans who are now getting medical services. How ironic it is that as we send people to the Persian Gulf to fight for this country and we tell those who are already there we are going to cut them off; they are not going to have the medical assistance; they are not going to get the care. I cannot begin to imagine how, in the name of fiscal discipline or anything else, so long as that huge tax cut is out there, our colleagues on the other side could possibly rationalize advocacy for a tax cut of that magnitude, leaving no millionaire behind, while we tell veterans they are not going to get medical services, while we tell the FBI, with all of its priorities, they are not going to have the kind of agent support for 1,175 FBI agents, we are going to eliminate their jobs. How in the world, with all the dangers there are in food safety, can we say we do not need 500 food safety inspectors today? That is what we are saying. That is what anybody is saying if they vote against Senator Byrd's amendment. I hope people will rethink this. As I said, this whole budget business that we are facing now is bizarre. We cannot afford $6 billion for education. We cannot afford $5 billion for homeland defense. We cannot afford the money for 1,175 FBI agents. But we can afford an $89,000 tax cut for 226,000 millionaires. I do not get it. I hope our colleagues will follow the wise counsel and leadership of our colleague from West Virginia. Let's vote for the Byrd amendment. Let's put some sanity into the budget process, into these appropriations bills this year. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, on Wednesday, the administration made a decision to oppose the University of Michigan's efforts to promote diversity on the campus. In making the announcement, the administration said that Michigan's process amounted to a quota, and that the university should look at other factors, such as economic and geographic backgrounds. Their statement ignores the fact that both of those factors, as well as others, are considered by the university and given the same weight as race. I have made clear on other occasions what I and many of my colleagues believe: The Michigan system is not a quota; the Michigan system is constitutional; and that President Bush made the wrong decision. Racial and ethnic diversity in our Nation's institutions of higher education is an important goal. A student body that reflects the diversity of America is a valuable resource for all of our students. But kind words and lofty rhetoric alone cannot open the doors of educational opportunity or guarantee a diverse student body. We must show our commitment through our actions. That is why today I am asking consent that we adopt a resolution that supports the University of Michigan. This resolution states that the Senate supports the university's attempts to create a racially and ethnically diverse student body and directs the Senate legal counsel to file an amicus brief on behalf of the entire Senate in support. By adopting this resolution, we can show with our actions, not just our words, that we truly believe in the importance of racial and ethnic diversity. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort and support, certainly not stand in the way, of the resolution. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 23 and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration; that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, en bloc; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use leader time that I have under the order of the day. Let me begin by congratulating the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his eloquence and for his leadership on this critical issue. As we consider all of the priorities we ought to be concerned about in this bill, there is no priority of greater import than the homeland defense of this Nation. I have immense respect for the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I admire the way he works and his dedication to his work and the leadership he provides. I can only surmise this would not be his package, either, had he had the opportunity to do this on his own. He is forced to work with an administration and people in the House that have different priorities. I understand that. We have differences and disagreements with regard to priorities, but there should not be any disagreement under the Constitution as to what the most important priority is. It is to protect and defend this country against enemies, both foreign and domestic. That is what the Constitution says. They leave no doubt, our Founding Fathers, about what our priorities ought to be as we consider budgets, as we consider each year what should be our priorities under fiscal management. Over the course of the last couple of years we have turned to experts to ask, How are we doing with that constitutional responsibility in light of 9/11? The Conference of Mayors, under the leadership of President Tom Morino, said about a year ago: It has been 16 months since 9/11, and the Congress has still failed to deliver public safety money for first responders. They vote for tax cuts for special interests but deny cities and States money for critical programs. Washington, he said, is out of step with the rest of the country. We asked two of the most respected experts in the Senate, former colleagues, to give their evaluation of how it is we are doing as we attempt to protect this country against enemies both foreign and domestic. Their response: America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil. We hear from the experts. We hear from those people who are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that first responders have the ability to do what our constitutional obligations require. Today what Senator Byrd is proposing is we put our money where our mouth is, that we make the commitment required to live up to those constitutional obligations. I find the current circumstances in the Senate absolutely bizarre because, on one hand, we are told by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we can afford a tax cut of the magnitude almost equal to what we passed 2 years ago. Take the President's recently proposed tax package, add to it the cost of interest, and add to that his proposal that we make those tax cuts permanent, and you come to about $1.3 trillion. Now they tell us we can afford that. We can pass this ``leave no millionaires behind'' bill. We can do that. We can somehow find the resources to give more tax breaks to 226,000 millionaires, but we do not have $5 billion to live up to our constitutional obligations. That is bizarre. That is, in my view, one of the most preposterous positions anyone could come to the Senate floor and take. Yet that is exactly what I hear our Republican colleagues saying. I have a handout I was given this morning from the Republican caucus. It says: Homeland security funding, and it lays out the reasons why Senator Byrd's amendment ought not be supported by Senators on their side. It says the Byrd amendment is well-intentioned but unaffordable. Unaffordable? Five billion dollars is unaffordable? Unaffordable, when we know we have to provide smallpox vaccine? Unaffordable, when we know we have to ensure that we synchronize the police and fire communication systems and have the emergency planning? Unaffordable, when we see cuts in Coast Guard programs and our efforts to try to protect our ports and bridges and infrastructure? Unaffordable, when we cannot find the money to ensure that we can even deal with the security questions we are facing right now in protecting our nuclear facilities and our water and other unique needs to every community in the nation? Unaffordable? That is preposterous. This debate is bizarre. For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone can say in light of their advocacy of a $1.3 trillion tax cut that defending this country, as the Constitution requires, is unaffordable. I hope our colleagues think very long and hard about how unaffordable this is. God forbid anything happens in the coming months. God forbid we once again experience what we did on 9/11. I would think we would do exactly what Senator Byrd is proposing, and even more. I think $5 billion is just the beginning for what we are going to be required to do to make this country safer and stronger and to live up to those constitutional obligations. If we do not start now, in this fiscal year, when do we start? Tell the mayors they cannot spend the money. Tell our firefighters and our police officers, they cannot spend the money. Tell all of those who are concerned about responding to whatever eventuality there may be, they can't spend the money. I have not found one yet who has given me that answer. When I ask them, Do you need more resources, they say yes, I needed them yesterday. Yes, if we are going to defend our water system, and if we are going to defend all of our facilities and our infrastructure in this country; I needed that money a year ago. Yes, I need the money. But for Heavens' sake, if anyone can say with a straight face that we ought to spend $1.3 trillion more on tax cuts, they ought to be able to say yes, we have $5 billion to protect our homeland, as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am sure I do.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would just say to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia that he is absolutely right. This city has heard a lot of great speeches since 9/11, but I keep thinking of Teddy Roosevelt who said: ``Speak softly but carry a big stick.'' What I find this administration doing is speaking loudly and carrying a small stick. It is a small stick when you consider what they are doing with homeland defense. What you want to do is give them a bigger stick. What you want to do is send as clear a message as we can that we are willing to commit the resources of this country to carry out the rhetoric that we have heard so often on the floor of the Senate and in every one of these State of the Union Messages. We have to match our commitment in resources to the rhetoric we hear from our leaders.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is what you are doing.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. I think the Senator from Nevada makes a very important point. I have about 1,000 people from South Dakota who are now in the Persian Gulf, who are awaiting further orders from the President of the United States and from the Pentagon with regard to what may occur in the Middle East and in Iraq in the next couple of weeks. Of course, I want to provide whatever resources are necessary to see that they are protected and that they have the ability to do their job. But I ask, if we are willing to make that commitment to those fighting the war in the gulf, why aren't we willing to make the same commitment to those fighting the war here at home? Why aren't we willing to provide the resources to the police and the first responders and to all of those who are fighting just as critical an effort to defeat terrorism here at home? Why do we say we have the money for the people in the gulf but we don't have the money for the people here at home? Are they less vulnerable? Is their role less important? Do they have some degree of disadvantage because they are here at home? I think the Senator from Nevada makes a very critical point in the argument here. If we have the resources and if we have the commitment to fight terrorism, regardless of whether it is abroad or here at home, we ought to have the resources commensurate with that commitment. What the President is saying is we don't have that kind of commitment here at home. That is inexcusable. And it is especially inexcusable when he says we have the resources for a tax cut of the magnitude they are considering today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Are we under a time agreement at this time?

Mr. DASCHLE. I come to the floor to congratulate the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts on his amendment and on his efforts this afternoon. I said this morning I believed the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia was perhaps the most significant priority we could address, and indeed in terms of our personal security that is true, but I cannot think of a higher priority, in terms of the long-term future and strength of this country, than this issue and this amendment. We talk about the need for strength. This amendment provides it. I have been home a good deal over the course of the last several months, and I do not know that I have ever seen a time when my teachers, my school districts, my school superintendents, were more alarmed at the circumstances they faced than they are today. We are not alone. There are many schools in South Dakota that have now been forced to move from 5-day-a-week school sessions to 4 days a week. Why? Because they do not have the resources. Why? Because they have to share teachers. Why? Because in many cases the Federal requirements are putting burdens on them that they simply cannot meet budgetarily. I recall a debate we had years ago about unfunded mandates. I recall that debate so vividly because, I think probably with unanimity, we said: Let's put an end to unfunded mandates. Let's say we are no longer going to press upon States and local governments more regulation if we are not going to provide the funding for them. What has happened since that vote? Year after year, session after session, we have done just the opposite. There is layer after layer of additional unfunded mandates. I cannot think of anything more critical and more in evidence of that trend than this. I was an enthusiastic backer of the No Child Left Behind Act when we passed it. There is a need for greater accountability. There is a need to recognize the importance of more shared information and a better understanding of how schools are performing. We know we need that. We said at the time, as important as reform is, it is impossible without resources. So we said at that time, in order to ensure that we do not get to the position once more of imposing unfunded mandates and impressing upon school districts the need for reform without the support for reform, we would guarantee them the resources, guarantee them the support. Guarantee them they would not be facing the extraordinary nightmare that my school districts are facing right now. That is what this amendment does. This amendment says we are serious about providing those resources. We are serious about providing the opportunity for meaningful reform. If we are going to do it, we have to start in this year's appropriations bill. We cannot wait 6 more months. We cannot tell the school districts, hold on, help is on the way. Help is needed now. This amendment fully funds title I. As I talk to school districts all over my State and around the country, they say, if there is one thing you can do to help, it is ensuring we have the resources for title I. What is troubling to me is the bizarre set of priorities we continue to face as we look at the budgetary questions that have come before the Congress in the early days of the 108th Congress. We are told we cannot afford this amendment. We are told the cut is necessary because it is in keeping with a budget that requires us to cut $10 billion, first, and another 1.7 percent, or $6 billion, second, out of an appropriations bill that is already inadequate. That is what we are told. We are told the only way we are going to be able to meet our obligations is if we make these cuts. I guarantee in a couple of weeks we will be right back, saying in spite of all the need for the cuts, we have plenty of room for a $1 trillion tax cut, most of which will go to those in the very top brackets of income in the country. That is a bizarre juxtaposition of priorities. We have a choice of helping our kids, building strength for our future, recognizing that school districts are in dire straits and in desperate need of this help, or turn around and say no to those children, no to those school districts, no to those States, and yes to the millionaires, yes to the tax cuts, yes to this extraordinary zeal, in spite of the need we find this very afternoon. I hope on a bipartisan basis we can recognize that if we were serious about passing real reform a year ago last December, if we were serious about suggesting that school districts would have a new day, a new opportunity for meaningful reform with accountability and resources, we are going to support this amendment. We are going to recognize that school districts have no choice but to rely on us for help through this amendment. We are going to say yes, we recognize this is important from an educational point of view, from a stimulus point of view, from the point of view of providing strength to our schools and to our kids. There can be no more important amendment we could take up on this appropriations bill than this amendment this afternoon. We have to recognize that. I can say with unanimity, we do on this side. I only hope there are those on the Republican side who recognize it, too. Let's put our real commitment where our mouths were a little over a year ago. Let's say we understand the need for reform but we also understand the need for resources. That is what this amendment does. That is why I feel so strongly about supporting it. That is why I applaud its author, Senator Kennedy, and others, who have presented it to us today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I also want to comment, if I have another moment, on the recklessness of this administration in considering economic policy. The extraordinary recklessness of offering a tax plan, that has yet to be unveiled but was certainly outlined by administration officials, leaves me with a great deal of concern and I think ought to be a source of anxiety for the American people. The President has said we need stimulus. Yet the plan he has outlined has almost no stimulative value at the very time when it is required. We lost 190,000 jobs in November and December. Mr. President, 190,000 jobs were lost. There are 190,000 families unemployed. That was just in the last 2 months of last year. And 2.2 million Americans have lost their jobs since the President was sworn in. The Wall Street Journal, the other day, noted you have to go back decades to find an economic record as serious and, in many respects, as dislocating to working families as this one. Yet the President's so- called stimulus plan provides for 190,000 jobs in the remaining 11 months of this year. That is their figure. That is what they say they will generate. For the next 11 months, they will generate the same number of jobs, under their plan, that they lost in the last 2 months of last year. How, in Heaven's name, can anyone suggest that is a stimulus? In fact, by their own acknowledgement, over 91 percent of whatever stimulative value there is in what the President has proposed does not take place until next year and the year after that. So, No. 1, it fails with a capital letter F with regard to its stimulus value and its stimulus potential as we look at reviving the economy at the end of January of the year 2003. The second question is: How fair is a plan of this kind? We are told we have 226,000 millionaires. We have 92 million people who fit the income category of $50,000 a year or less. Mr. President, 92 million Americans are in that category. And 226,000 are in the millionaire category in our country today. Yet, under the President's plan, $20 billion goes to the 226,000 people; $15 billion goes to the 92 million people. How that can be described in any way, shape, or form as fair is something I can't answer, something I hope the administration tries to answer. Also, there is a real question of fairness when it comes to sacrifice in this country. I have heard my colleagues--I know the Senator from Illinois and others, the Senator from Nevada--talk about the fairness question this morning. I think of fairness in a different context: not only economic but in the commitment to the country. We are asking young men and women to go to the Persian Gulf and put their lives on the line, perhaps in the next few weeks. We are asking them to sacrifice, perhaps their lives, for this country. How in the world can we ask them to sacrifice their lives and turn around and tell every millionaire in this country: You get an $89,000 tax break at the same time--at the same time--not only this year but next year and next year and the year after that? Where is the sacrifice? Where is the fairness? How, in Heaven's name, can we possibly look at one of those young troops in the face and say, you are going to sacrifice, but don't ask those who have wealth to do so? There is also the economic question. If we are going to give a tax break to anybody, maybe we ought to give it to those who are asked to defend this country. If anybody deserves one, they do. Their incomes are maybe $20,000 a year. We have not calculated what little, if any, tax relief they are going to get, but here they are sitting in the Persian Gulf with little or no tax benefit at the very same time these 226,000 millionaires get $89,000 a year. Certainly the ``Leave No Millionaire Behind Act'' is an appropriate title for the President's proposal. We are not leaving one millionaire behind. There is also the question of recklessness. What makes this all the more troubling is that we are borrowing the money. Every dollar is borrowed so that we can turn right around and give it out in the form of fat checks to fat cats. It does not make sense. It does not make sense when you recognize that this is going to have a huge fiscal effect on every State in the country. We have a deficit in South Dakota, a deficit that is unusual for our State. There are deficits in virtually every State. We are told the accumulated State deficits are now about $90 billion. And we are told this is going to exacerbate that debt by anywhere from $5 to $10 billion more. So from the point of view of recklessness, I cannot imagine how anything could be more reckless than borrowing almost $1 trillion, when you calculate the interest costs associated with this tax plan, robbing Social Security and Medicare, and exacerbating the problems at the State level. This is not right. This ought not be done. I am encouraged by some of the public comments made by many of our Republican colleagues with regard to their concern about this particular package of tax proposals. I think anyone would have a right to ask: Well, what do the Democrats support? What is our plan? Our plan is very simple. It has five components. The first is that it has to be immediate. We believe that if you are going to stimulate the economy in 2003, you ought to have policies that stimulate the economy in 2003, not 2004, 2005, or 2006. We think it ought to be for 1 year. Let's focus on this year. If we need another stimulus in 2004 or 2005, let's focus on it in 2004 or 2005, but let's limit what we are going to do now to this year because we know we need it now--not a year from now but now. Third, let's target it to where we can do the most good, not only from a fairness point of view but from an economic point of view. Virtually every single economist says, if you want to make sure you get the biggest bang for the buck, put it in the hands of those who will spend it, not in the hands of those who will save it. So we want to target these resources from a fairness point of view as well as from an economic clout point of view by ensuring that those in the middle incomes, $50,000 and $60,000 a year, get the benefit. Fourth, we ought to make this a fiscally responsible proposal. How is it fiscally responsible that we would borrow nearly $1 trillion at a time when we are already $200- to $300-billion in debt? How is that fiscally responsible? Let's limit the fiscal exposure. Keeping it for 1 year and in targeting the benefits, that is exactly what we can do. Then finally, let's recognize that the States are in a very serious fiscal condition today, perhaps the worst fiscal condition they have been in, we are told, in 70 years. Let's ensure that we work with the States and create the kind of fiscal partnership that is required. So there you have it--helping the States; limiting the fiscal exposure; targeting the benefits; ensuring that we do it this year; and making sure that it is immediate. Those principles will serve us well. I urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to adopt them.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would say to the distinguished Senator from Nevada that one would conclude there is a pattern. I was hopeful, given the President's public comments last month, that maybe that pattern would be broken, that maybe their words would be supported by their actions. But everything that has happened since the President uttered those words has been contrary to those words--the renomination of Judge Pickering, the unwillingness to commit the resources on education, at least so far, the unwillingness to support hate crimes. Now we get the public report in the papers and in the media this morning, a determination to oppose the Michigan case on matters of educational diversity. There is, without a doubt, a pattern. That pattern stands in stark contrast to the rhetoric. Rhetoric means nothing if actions do not support it. Unfortunately, so far, the rhetoric has meant nothing. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I read with interest today that the administration currently is considering what to do with regard to the so-called ``Michigan case'' before the Supreme Court. This is a watershed moment for the administration. They must decide whether they are for civil rights and diversity or not. They must make a very important choice, and whether or not they make the right choice depends in large measure on what happens in this particular case. Over the last several weeks we have heard the Republican leadership talk about how this is a changed party, and how Republicans have had a change of heart. To a certain extent, we know they have had a change of face. The question is whether or not this is truly a change of heart. I was concerned with leadership comments made over the weekend, that while additional dialog may be important, there really wouldn't be a change in policy. There would be no change in policy on affirmative action, or on a number of issues relating directly to diversity. My hope is there may be a change of heart on hate crimes. We have had that vote over and over and faced Republican filibusters. I hope at a very early date we will have an opportunity to see whether there has been a change of heart. I can't think of a better occasion for Congress and for the Republican leadership to be clear about their change of heart, than to support, for the first time, the hate crimes legislation. There certainly was not a change of heart when it came to judicial nominations. Once again, almost immediately following these laudatory comments made by the Bush administration and our Republican colleagues toward civil rights leaders and the civil rights movement, the administration turned around and said now we are going to renominate Judge Pickering and renominate Judge Owen for the second highest court in the land. There is no change of heart there. There is no indication of a willingness to change past practices or policies. If President Bush chooses to oppose the University of Michigan case, he calls into question the very commitment he claims to have made with regard to expanding opportunity for African Americans and for Hispanic and Native American students. All of us will be left to draw one conclusion. All of those words about promoting educational opportunity will have been just that. They will have been words. Today's reports indicate the debate in the White House isn't about what decision to make. It appears they have already done that. It appears they will oppose the University of Michigan's effort to boost African American, Hispanic, and Native American enrollment. It seems, instead, the question they are struggling with is how to describe that decision. If they put the weight of John Ashcroft's Department of Justice against the University of Michigan's diversity efforts, there is only one way to describe that decision: It is a slap in the face to America's minority students and to the colleges that seek not only to educate America but to reflect America's diversity. Today is Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday. Had an assassin's bullet not taken his life, he would be 74 years old today; he might very well still be with us. Because of hatred and intolerance, he is not. But his words still are with us. In 1948, at Morehouse College, he discussed the purpose of a college education. He said: The complete education gives one not only power of concentration, but worthy objectives upon which to concentrate. He said: The broad education will, therefore, transmit to one not only . . . accumulated knowledge . . . but also the accumulated experience of social living. If the administration chooses to stand against the University of Michigan, I fear they will be encouraging a decision that would deny tens of thousands of minority students that knowledge and deny millions of American students that experience.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I came to the floor to discuss two issues--one, the matter of civil rights and, secondly, the important matter of economic stimulus. I indicated that today was a watershed moment for this administration. They had to make a choice and, as they made that choice, they would be making history. Well, I am now told they have made the choice. They have decided to side with those opponents of civil rights and diversity in coming down in opposition to the Michigan case. I am troubled and saddened by the news. This administration, just a month ago, indicated they were going to demonstrate their commitment to civil rights, a commitment to diversity. They were going to show by their actions their intentions and their resolve to continue to provide meaningful opportunity to minorities in this country. Once again, today, the administration has said it is as clearly by their actions as anyone can that they will continue to side with those opposed to civil rights and opposed to diversity in this country. I don't know how the Supreme Court ultimately will decide, but I do know this: Unless we take real action, unless we show real leadership, unless we show by our actions that indeed we want to see real opportunity and meaningful respect for diversity in this country, nothing will change. On occasion after occasion, in spite of their rhetoric, the administration has shown by their actions an insensitivity to civil rights and diversity. They showed it by renominating Judge Pickering; they have shown it by their inaction and apparent opposition to hate crimes legislation; they have shown it by cutting funding on programs that would provide meaningful opportunities, especially in education, especially in those areas where with additional investment we could help those who are disenfranchised and disadvantaged; they have shown it in their rulings in the Justice Department; they have shown it on virtually every single occasion when actions spoke louder than words. But of all of the times they have shown it, I don't know that they could have shown it any more unequivocally than they have shown it this afternoon. So as I said, I am troubled, disheartened, and I am still looking for evidence that this administration truly means what it says; that this administration is willing to support by actions, rather than just by its rhetoric, meaningful change in civil rights and diversity in this country today.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I note that we are about ready to move to the omnibus appropriations bill. I know Senator Byrd is on the floor and we are awaiting Senator Stevens. I must say that we have not yet seen the bill. So it will be very difficult for us to speak to the bill or amend the bill until we have had an opportunity to see it. This is an unusual situation in that we are taking a bill that really represents 11 appropriations bills to the floor in this manner. But I, as Senator Byrd, believe it is important for us to continue to get our work done and to move this process along. So I will not object, of course, to moving to the bill. It is my understanding that deep cuts were made in a number of areas--in fact, across the board--to accommodate investments in election reform, drought assistance, and maybe other things. But we will not know until we see it. We will certainly have amendments, as I noted this morning. We will amend the bill in ways we have expressed earlier. Senator Byrd will have amendments on homeland defense. We will have amendments on education. We will certainly have amendments relating to other shortcomings in the dramatic cuts that will be reflected in this bill. This cut across the board is doubly troubling to us. It may mean a significant cut in funds for veterans, for kids, for transportation. Before we come to any final conclusion, obviously, we need to see the details. It is my hope that we can begin the debate, look at the legislation, and, as we become more knowledgeable about the bill itself, offer amendments. So I expect that could begin this afternoon, and I look forward to seeing the bill just as soon as our Republican friends can share it with us. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished majority leader, and let me just say how grateful I am for the work done by his primary staff person, Mitch Bainwol, and my staff person, Mark Childress. These two men have done a remarkable job. I don't know Mr. Bainwol, but I must say that Mark Childress deserves special commendation, as does Mitch Bainwol, for the work they have done in bringing us to this point, working in good faith to resolve these many questions. So I thank our staff. I thank all of those Senators with whom we consulted throughout this process. I agree with what the majority leader has said; this is a fair resolution that accommodates the needs of both of our caucuses.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send S. Res. 20, the Democratic committee assignment resolution, to the desk and ask for its consideration.