Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in August, I had the good fortune to be able to travel with several Senate colleagues to South Africa, Kenya, Botswana, and Nigeria. We wanted to get a clear look at the development challenges in Africa, including health crises, U.S. investment and trade, micro-enterprise development, education and agriculture. Even before we left, we got a sense of the common cause between the people of the United States and the people of Africa. Working with the South Dakota Red Cross and Hope Worldwide, citizens from Sioux Falls donated more than 1000 pounds of clothes and toys to South African children who have been affected by the AIDS pandemic. I want to publicly acknowledge the great work of Stephanie Koster, director of HIV/AIDS Services for the Sioux Empire Chapter of the American Red Cross, on this effort. I was overjoyed to be able to deliver, on behalf of South Dakotans, some glimmer of hope to children who have suffered either because one or both of their parents contracted HIV or because they themselves contracted it. In Soweto we met a young girl, Mary, who gave me an indication of the price children are paying as a result of HIV. Mary is 12 and the eldest of five children. She recently lost both of her parents due to complications with AIDS. Not yet a teenager, she is left to fend for herself and her four siblings. Despite this challenge, Mary rose to greet our delegation and recited a poem she had recently written to her parents entitled, ``Parents yesterday, parents today, parents tomorrow.'' I left for that trip convinced that these challenges facing Africa-- chief among them the AIDS pandemic--were tragic humanitarian crises. After this trip, I am convinced Africa's challenges, if left unaddressed, could soon become America's national security threats. Failure to more energetically engage this troubled continent, especially in the post-September 11 world, poses risks to both the lives of millions of Africans and our own national security. That is why I was especially disappointed to learn last Friday morning that the House chose to adjourn without passing two important pieces of legislation that could have energized our efforts in Africa. S. 3032, a bipartisan bill to expand U.S. efforts to support micro- enterprise and which passed the Senate unanimously, was a casualty of the House's rush to leave town. We all know that micro-enterprises are a lifeline for the poorest of the poor--and have proven to be a pivotal tool that has allowed women, especially, to provide for their families. Across Africa, we saw women fighting for their families and raising their children on money they earned at small shops. But for every woman who was able to make ends meet because of her micro-enterprise, there are thousands of others who need a helping hand to get started. And by helping hand I don't mean a costly program. The typical micro- enterprise loan is $50. By failing to pass S. 3032, the House missed the opportunity to provide that helping hand and opportunity. The House also left town without passing a Global HIV/AIDS bill. In July, the Senate unanimously passed H.R. 2069, which authorized the resources that we all know will be required in the battle against HIV/ AIDS. We were told by the House that the price tag on that bill was too high, and that they would pass it if we reduced the funding level. So we made clear to the House that we were ready to cut back the amounts authorized for this battle--vastly if they insisted--to remove the obstacles to some form of progress on this vital issue. Apparently, any amount at all was too much for the House leadership, because the House just could not get to yes on this vital issue. I am particularly disappointed because the House's refusal to act ends any hope of enacting the Family Partnership Survival Act. This program is very simple. It authorizes $75 million over the next 2 years to treat HIV-positive mothers and their partners. By keeping mothers and fathers alive so that they can help raise their children, it is, in effect, an orphan-prevention program. I remember vividly arriving at an HIV Voluntary Counseling and Testing Center in Kibera, the largest slum in Nairobi, Kenya. We were greeted by mothers, each of whom was HIV-positive. Yet they greeted us, dancing and singing a song whose lyrics were: We are so blessed, because we know our status. They felt blessed to have learned they were HIV-positive because, by knowing their status, they could take steps to protect their partners. And they could receive counseling and nutritional supplements to keep themselves healthy in the face of this insidious virus. It will be an even more joyful day when these women will feel blessed not only because they know their status, but also because they have access to treatment and drugs that will keep them alive. The House could have hastened that day. It did not. And so, Mr. President, I will come back at this issue until it is law. The President is scheduled to travel to Africa in January. As I was able to carry with me on my trip--to young Mary and others--some of the compassion of South Dakota, I wish the President could have been able to bring with him two new laws expressing the compassion of the United States. As our dear colleague Paul Wellstone used to say, ``time is not neutral.'' We can no longer afford to ignore Africa's challenges, because before long they will become our challenges. The House missed its chance to help confront those challenges in the 107th Congress. I hope it will help us address them in the next.

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, one of the advantages of a lame duck session is it gives us a little longer before we have to say good-bye to departing colleagues. Quite a few members of our Senate family will not be with us when the 108th Congress begins in January. From the moment we first step foot on this floor, most of us are powerfully aware that we are links in an extraordinary chain of history. When we open our desks, we see carved or penned in them the names of those who served in this body before us. Over in the historic Old Senate Chamber, we can almost hear the voices Daniel Webster, Henry Clay and John Calhoun. Here in this Chamber, we walk in the footsteps on such leaders as leaders like Lyndon Johnson, Mike Mansfield and Howard Baker. Once you have served here, you never leave here entirely. Every Senator who has ever served here remains here in some form. That connection is not only carved in our desks. It is carried in those with whom we serve. Think about this: Senator Thurmond entered the Senate in 1954. He served with Walter George, who entered in 1922. Walter George served with Henry Cabot Lodge, who entered in 1893, who served with John Sherman, who entered in 1861, who served with Hannibal Hamlin, who entered in 1848, who served with William King, who entered in 1819, who served with Rufus King, who re-entered in 1813, who served with Joseph Anderson, who entered in 1797, who served with John Brown, who entered in 1792, who served with Robert Morris. Robert Morris entered in 1789--and signed both the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Through just ten people, we are directly connected to the two documents that this Nation is founded upon--two documents that all of these departing Members have advanced and defended throughout their careers. We are able to see those linkages because of the masterful historical work of another of our colleagues, Senator Byrd, whose birthday, we have noted, is today. Every departing Senator has added pages to the history of this Senate and this Nation. Some have provided whole chapters. And, in a couple of cases, whole volumes of history. I would like to take a moment and acknowledge our departing Senators. Strom Thurmond is the longest serving Senator in our Nation's history. His career has spanned the arc of the last century, and his service has helped usher in this one. He has gone from Democrat, to Dixiecrat, to Republican. His party affiliation may have changed, and his position on some issues may have changed, but his service to the people of South Carolina has been unwavering. He is truly the Cal Ripken of the Senate. Jesse Helms began his first term in the Senate in January 1973. Senator Helms is a giant--not only on the Senate stage, but also on the world stage. And, with his budding friendship with the rock star, Bono, in retirement we may yet see him on a concert stage. It has been said that leaders face a choice between being loved or feared--Senator Helms is both. Jesse and Dot have been indispensable members of the Senate family, and we will miss them. Phil Gramm has been at the center of every major economic and domestic policy battle in my time here. And even though I have frequently disagreed with him, I have always learned from him. Virtually singlehandely, he has changed America's economic policy-- twice. Like all things Texan, he is larger than life, and he leaves some big shoes to fill. Frank Murkowski is departing the Senate not because the people of Alaska don't want him in Washington, but because they do want him closer to home. That makes sense, because he has been a tireless advocate for his State. I have no doubt that he will continue to be, whether it is shaping policy at home, or twisting the arms of his former colleagues here. Congratulations, Governor. Bob Smith once said, ``I hope that they'll put in my obituary that I was a good legislator--that I did my job for the people of New Hampshire. I hope they put that whole picture in.'' Well, we don't have time to capture the whole picture--and I know that there are more chapters to be written in Bob Smith's political life--but for nearly 20 years in the Congress, he has been a good legislator, and he has certainly done his job for the people of New Hampshire. We may not be seeing Fred Thompson on C-SPAN anymore, but we will certainly be seeing him on TV. And should he ever take a role that involves combating government fraud, waste, and mismanagement, it will be a case of life imitating art--because that is just one of them many things he has done so well here in the Senate. From the Arkansas State house, to the House, to the Senate, Tim Hutchinson has brought his keen understanding of both education and small business to bear for the people of Arkansas--and that is something I am certain he will continue to do in the days and years ahead. Let me also say a word to Senator Barkley. I recently saw an interview in which Senator Barkely said he would bring some bottled water from Minnesota so as not to catch Potomac Fever. I think you probably need a slightly longer exposure to catch it--but we thank him for his service at this time of transition for Minnesota and for the Senate. I also want to say a few words about the departing members of the Democratic Caucus: There is no tougher fighter for this party or its values than Bob Torricelli. There is no more loyal ally, there is no more passionate Senator. He has lived a life devoted to public service. I have often heard Senator Torricelli talk about how, growing up in his house, ``a person's value was measured by what they did for other people.'' By that measure--or by any measure--Bob Torricelli has been an invaluable member of the Senate. Bob Torricelli has always put others first. He helped recruit and elect the Senators who would ultimately put Democrats in the majority-- embracing a thankless task, and excelling beyond all expectations. In an act of political courage, he stepped down when he felt his own candidacy would threaten that majority he worked so hard to build. In the legislative arena, he has worked to protect Americans from gun violence--to protect women's rights--and workers' rights--and civil rights--and he has sought to provide tax relief for working families. And in the wake of the tragic events of 9/11, Bob Torricelli took on the cause of rebuilding--helping New York rebuild--helping the region rebuild--and helping the victims and the survivors begin the process of rebuilding their lives. I will miss Bob Torricelli's eloquent, passionate, articulate voice-- and I thank him for his service. I am sure these last few weeks have been bittersweet for Max Cleland. He lost an election--but he did get engaged the next day. It shows he has his priorities straight. But then, he always has had his priorities right. After Vietnam, just about anyone else would have said: I've given enough for this country. Not Max Cleland. When some of the people whose job it was to care for him lost hope, saying that the very act of putting on a shirt would tire him for the whole day--Max willed himself to health. And then he set out to help others. In 1970, at age 28, he became Georgia's youngest State Senator ever. In 1977, he became President Carter's outspoken chief of Veterans Affairs. After that, he served for 13 years as Georgia's Secretary of State. In every job, he worked to make life better for Georgians, for veterans, and for those who needed the government to work for them. And then--as if he hadn't given enough of his time and energy to others--he volunteered for another tour of duty--this time as a U.S. Senator. In the Senate, Max's personal experience gave him a voice in the issues of war and peace, the preparedness of our armed forces, and the way in which we treat those whose service is done. Though Max knows the sacrifices service sometimes demands, he didn't limit his focus to those who have sacrificed. He dedicated himself to the creation of an America worthy of that sacrifice: a society of justice, freedom, compassion and strength. In the wake of September 11, and the anthrax attacks here on my office, Max was instrumental in passing the legislation that better secures our ports and airports, better prepares our armed forces, and better equips the CDC to confront the new challenges of bioterrorism. The things he has done may have been important for Georgia, but they were vital for America--and history will bear that out. From his service in Vietnam, to the VA, to the U.S. Senate, Max has exhibited a rare, almost singular kind of patriotism. He has taken his service seriously, but--as anyone who has been a subject of one of his jokes, or has witnessed him telling jokes about himself can tell you-- he has never taken himself too seriously. It has been reported that nearly every day, someone calls Max's office, just to thank him for being Max--for overcoming what he has overcome to become a leader. Today, I want to thank Max Cleland for being Max--for being a great Senator, a personal inspiration, and a dear friend, one who I will miss tremendously here in the Senate. Tragedy carried Jean Carnahan into the Senate, but she refused to let it define her once she arrived here. I saw that most vividly last October 16, the first anniversary of the plane crash that killed her husband, her son Randy, and their aid Chris Sifford. Jean had visited their graves over the weekend--and then returned to Washington so she could debate and vote on a foreign operations bill that strengthened our efforts to track terrorists, to strengthen the coalition against terrorism, and to feed and shelter Afghanistan's refugees. That was the same day a letter containing anthrax was opened in my office, forcing her to continue her work--as a freshman Senator-- without an office. Compared to the adversity she has overcome, that was nothing. From the day she arrived, Jean Carnahan brought with her to the Senate the hopes and concerns of millions of Missouri's families. She has a unique ability to find compromise, but there was one thing she never compromised--she never compromised the interests of hardworking Missourians. Whether it was working for tax relief, prescription drug coverage, a National Patients' Bill of Rights that would be as strong as Missouri's, or help for laid-off workers--her elegant words and depth of understanding commanded attention, and more often than not, got something done. Jean sits in Harry Truman's seat--and I think that is fitting, because she occupied it with strength, dignity, plain-spoken independence. She may not have served long, but she served this Nation and the people of Missouri well, and she served at one of the most turbulent and historic times in the life of our Nation. I remember once hearing Government Carnahan say, ``Most of the time, you just get to sit in the boat, but every now and then you get to row the boat and direct it.'' In a short time, Jean Carnahan demonstrated that she belongs at the helm, and I, for one, am going to miss having her there. I sometime think Max Cleland and Jean Carnahan possess as much internal strength and grace as the rest of the Senate combined. They are extraordinary people, exceptional public servants. Each in his or her way, is an inspiration. They served their Nation faithfully, and at great personal cost. I must say, it was disturbing and disheartening to see how their records and characters were misrepresented in this campaign. They deserved far better. Voters in Georgia and Missouri deserved far better. I hope that through the clarity of history, the people of their States see these two great patriots for what they are, and how well they served. Finally, let me mention a colleague who left us too soon--Paul Wellstone. It was a joy and an honor to have him in the Senate. Paul said that he came here to rattle some cages--and sometimes he rattled mine. But he always told the truth. And he always remembered who he was speaking for. As I have said before, he was the soul of the Senate. He had that rarest and most difficult kind of bravery: moral courage. He always stood for what he believed in, even if it meant standing alone. And he fought in a way that ennobled his causes and inspired us all. And I will miss him dearly. To hear each of these leaders call me ``leader'' has been one of the greatest honors of my life--and I will be forever grateful to you. In 1998, Senator Lott inaugurated the ``Leader's Lecture Series,'' featuring speakers who had ``enrich[ed] the memory of the Senate by sharing with us the wisdom and insights that can be gained only by a lifetime of service.'' Without exception, every speaker--including those who went on to serve as Vice President, even President of the United States--has recalled his years in the Senate as the best and happiest of his career. Given the historic events that shaped this Congress, I don't know that any of us will look back on these 2 years as the happiest of our careers--although there have been moments of great joy for all of us. But I hope we will look back on these 2 years and remember times when we were able to work together to help lead America through one of our Nation's darkest chapters. The private times we have all shared together over those months have forged bonds that make us more than just colleagues. In keeping with the Senate's best traditions, we have become friends, and family. I regret that we weren't always able to maintain that unity-- especially this year--that I had hoped we might have. I hope we can recapture it in the days ahead. To all of my departing colleagues, it is an honor to be connected to history--that short thread that ties us to the Founders of this great Nation. But as a much of an honor as it is to be connected to history, it has been a privilege to be connected to each of you. thanking staff Senators may be the most visible people here, but there are also many people who make the Senate work. I want to thank all of those who make the Senate run: our staff here on the floor, the reporters, the doorkeepers, the police officers, the pages, the tour guides, the librarians, the employees of the Architect of the Capitol, our Chaplain and his staff--and the list goes on. Our clerks, those who are with us today, our Parliamentarian--to all of them, to each of them, let me express my heartfelt thank you. They deserve our thanks, but there are two people in particular who I also want to thank: Jeri Thomson, the Secretary of the Senate, and Al Lenhardt, our Sergeant at Arms--both of whom I had the privilege, as majority leader, to nominate. I have heard them called our 101st and 102nd Senators, and they truly have been indispensable to me, and to the Senate family. For Al Lenhardt, the fact that he was in place in this job 6 days before September 11 is further proof for me that God watches over this body. Through 9/11, anthrax, he helped the Senate to handle unprecedented challenges, and prepare for a new generation of threats. For Jeri Thomson, no challenge was too big, no detail too small, the consummate professional, unflappable. She kept the Senate functioning in the aftermath of anthrax. Without her, we would not have broken ground on the Visitors Center. She made the Senate work better--not only for the Senators, but for the people we serve. She has been by my side my entire time as leader. She has become a dear personal friend. And I will miss her, as we all will. This has been an historic Congress. Between September 11 and anthrax, we have lived through two of the greatest crises the Capitol has not seen since Civil War soldiers were camped out in this Chamber 140 years ago. The dedication and professionalism of Jeri Thomson, Al Lenhardt, and all of those who work here helped us not only survive those who work here helped us not only survive those crises, but to work through them, and to continue to serve the American people. I thank them, the Senate thanks them, and I feel confident that history will record them as able servants who deserve our thanks for generations to come. And that, too, is a part of the recognition they deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to make one final plea with regard to unemployment compensation. It is important to remember what the Senate has done as we reflect back over the last many months in our efforts to deal with this issue. We offered an amendment that was sponsored by our departed, distinguished Senator Paul Wellstone. That legislation was the same as legislation that Congress passed when the first President Bush was in office in the early 1990s. We tried to pass it. Unfortunately, it was blocked by our Republican colleagues on eight different occasions. Again, let me repeat. That was what we had in place when the first Bush administration was in office. Unemployment benefits that were actually extended three times when President Bush Sr. was in office. The Senate then took up a bipartisan compromise to extend benefits for just 3 months. Republicans and Democrats got together. On the 14th of November we passed a simple extension for 3 months. Once again, the House refused to act. So we took what was originally acceptable to the senior Bush administration, and that didn't work with the House. Then we passed what worked on both sides of the aisle here in the Senate for a simple 3-month extension, and that too didn't work for the House. Over the course of the last 48 hours, we have been involved with House leadership, asking if there was any possible compromise, any way that we could extend it for 2 months, 1 month, any way that somehow we could send a message to the almost one million people who will lose their benefits on the 28th of December and to the 95,000 people who will lose them each week following the 28th of December. Hundreds of thousands of people, ironically, right over the Christmas holidays will lose any opportunity to provide for their familiar with unemployment insurance. I must say I am disappointed to announce to my colleagues that once again our House Republicans said no. I have to say that I think it is a story right out of Charles Dickens. I can't imagine that under these circumstances, even for a month, they couldn't see fit to act. Ebenezer Scrooge had a last-minute conversion. I hope that our Republican colleagues in the House will do so. They are coming back on Friday and the Senate's bipartisan 3-month extension is waiting. I would urge the President--I ask President Bush--to call on the House Republican leadership to recognize the consequences of their inaction and pass our bipartisan unemployment extension. We were, as I said, prepared to take whatever action necessary. We would have stayed in session if we had to to accommodate something that the House could have done to extend those benefits for a couple of months, which would have allowed us to work out something for a longer period of time. That is my plea, my hope, recognizing, as I say, that hundreds of thousands of people will be affected at the worst possible time of the year. I again renew that request. I urge the President to act. I urge our House colleagues to reconsider.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I want to share with my colleagues the dedication and public service rendered by Nathaniel Bankston, Registrar of Voters in East Baton Rouge Parish. He is retiring from public service today, and as he enters a new phase in his life, I look back and remember his accomplishments. Mr. Bankston has served as the Registrar of Voters of East Baton Rouge Parish since 1969. His dedication to ``getting the job done'' causes him to reach out to both all parties, regardless of affiliation. He is a respected member of the community, having served as president of the Louisiana Registrars of Voters Associations, member on the Board of Trustees of the Louisiana Registrars of Voters Retirement System, and president of the East Baton Rouge Parish Board of Election Supervisors. He is a lifelong resident of Louisiana, having graduated from southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, LA, in 1972. He has spent his entire life striving to make Louisiana a better place, and it is with a heavy heart that I see him retire. Mr. Bankston is an upstanding citizen and it is my hope that his future holds all that he desires.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the provisions of S. Con. Res. 160.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we are finally about to vote on a bill to create a new Homeland Security Department. Many Senators worked long and hard to get us to this point. But one man was indispensable. He is the chairman of the Senate Government Affairs Committee, Joe Lieberman. Under his leadership, the Government Affairs Committee held its first hearing on homeland security 10 days after September 11. It was at that hearing that former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart, the co-chairs of a bipartisan blue-ribbon commission, shared their recommendation that the Government should create a permanent, cabinet-level Department to protect the American people from terrorism. Three weeks later, on the one-month anniversary of September 11, Senator Lieberman announced his plan to create such a department. He had the vision to see what needed to be done and the patience and flexibility to work through disagreements and come up with workable, bipartisan alternatives. He also had the courage to stand his ground for months while the President threatened to veto any Homeland Security bill. I also want to thank Democrats on the Governmental Affairs Committee for standing with Chairman Lieberman. There are some who would like to rewrite the history of this effort. They want the American people to believe that Democratic opposition is the reason it has taken this long for Congress to pass a Homeland Security bill. That is simply not so. Creating a Homeland Security Department was a Democratic idea to begin with. It was disturbing to see that truth twisted in the recent campaigns. There are some who are threatening publicly to try to exploit homeland security again for partisan political advantage in the Louisiana Senate race next month. For the sake of our Nation, I hope they do not. Our war is with terrorism, not each other. In the months since Senator Lieberman introduced his bill, we have heard countless chilling reasons why a Homeland Security Department is needed. We have heard about dots that were not connected, intelligence reports that weren't shared and urgent warnings that were not heeded. I will vote for this bill because I believe a Homeland Security Department is right and necessary. I have thought so for more than a year. But we need to be honest with the American people about what this means. I am very concerned about what I fear are false hopes and false assurances being given by some of those who came late to this cause. Many of the same people who claimed just a few months ago that creating a Department of Homeland Security would detract from the war on terrorism now seem to want the American people to believe that creating this Department will solve the war on terrorism. They seem to want people to believe that, once we pass this bill, there is nothing else that needs to be done--no other changes that need to be made--to prevent another September 11. This is worse than wishful thinking. It is dangerous thinking. And it is not true. Reorganizing parts of our Government in order to better connect the dots is only part of the solution. A much greater and far more comprehensive effort is still needed to protect America from terrorism. That effort will be difficult, it will be complicated, it will be costly. To pretend otherwise is a disservice to the American people. Our public health system is still dangerously under-prepared for the possibility of future biological or chemical attacks. Our borders are still not secure as they need to be. Neither are our seaports; we still search only 2 percent of the roughly 6 million containers that are unloaded every year at America's ports. The U.S. has 150,000 miles of train track plus rail yards, bridges, tunnels, and switches that are all still vulnerable to terrorist attacks. This bill does not provide the resources to secure them. Our food supply--domestic and imported--remains highly vulnerable to biological attacks. This bill does not change that fact. A study last year by the Army Surgeon General warned that a terrorist attack on a toxic chemical plant in a densely populated area could kill 2.4 million people. There are more than 120 such plants in America. Even after we pass this bill, those plants will remain vulnerable to terrorist attacks. The Department of Energy estimates that there are 603 tons of weapons-grade material inside the former Soviet republics-- enough to build 41,000 nuclear weapons. So far, only about a third of this material has been properly secured. This bill alone won't keep that deadly material out of the hands of terrorists who want to use it to build ``dirty bombs.'' Last year, the President's budget cut the programs that safeguard weapons of mass destruction. Fortunately, the Senate reversed that decision. It is urgent that we continue to work with Russia and with other nations to shut down the nuclear black market. In addition, we know that there were intelligence failures leading up to September 11. Yet, unlike the bill introduced by Senator Lieberman and passed by the Governmental Affairs Committee, this bill leaves most critical intelligence functions outside of the Homeland Security Department. We need to do a much better job of coordinating intelligence efforts regarding terrorism--or critical pieces of information will continue to fall between cracks. Nearly as troubling as what was left out of this bill is what was added to it at the eleventh hour. The American people should know that this is not the same Homeland Security bill that Congress was debating before the election. It was re-written in secret after the election. It has been stripped of a number of bipartisan, workable solutions that had been worked out on difficult problems. It has also been used as a Trojan horse for special interest giveaways that have little or nothing to do with making America safer from terrorism. We offered an amendment to strip out seven of these last-minute changes--changes that have not been debated publicly. But the White House lobbied hard to keep them, and the White House won. As a result, this Homeland Security bill now rewards US companies that use Carribean tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of taxes by allowing those companies to compete for Government contracts with the Department of Homeland Security. It says to those companies: Even if you refuse to help pay for the war on terrorism, you can still profit from it. What does that say about this administration's commitment to corporate responsibility? You tell me. Better yet, tell the American people. This bill now guts a critical part of the aviation security bill the Senate passed last year by a vote of 100 to nothing. It does so by providing special immunity for private companies that perform passenger and baggage screening at airports. It is likely to slow enactment of other new emergency transportation security rules that the Transportation Security Administration has said are essential to protect air and rail passengers, as well. In the name of protecting Americans, this bill actually eliminates some legal protections for ordinary Americans. It grants legal immunity to countless private companies. All the Federal Government has to do is designate a company's product an ``anti-terrorism technology'' and the company can't be sued--even if it acts in ways that are grossly negligent. This bill also provides special legal protections to the maker of a mercury-based, vaccine additive that has been alleged to harm children. For parents who are involved in class-action lawsuits against the makers of that additive, this bill slams the courthouse door in their face. This bill abandons the bipartisan effort to make workplace rules in the new Department more flexible without trampling worker protections and making workers more vulnerable to partisan political pressure. History has already shown that no one--no one--sacrificed more on September 11th than did public workers. I believe history will also show that using September 11 to justify taking away public employees' basic rights is a mistake. I regret deeply that it is part of this bill. This bill also undermines the Federal Freedom of Information Act and community right-to-know laws. It says that any information a company offers voluntarily to the Homeland Security Department--or any information a company gives to another government entity, which is then turned over to the Homeland Security Department--is classified. And it makes releasing such information a criminal offense. You don't have to worry about shredding damaging documents anymore. If a company wants to hide information from the public, all it has to do is give the information to the Federal Government and releasing it becomes a criminal offense. This is not necessary. The Freedom of Information Act already allows exceptions for national security reasons. We will not make America safer by denying people critical information or throwing conscientious whistle-blowers in prison. Finally, this bill authorizes the creation of a university-based homeland security research center. That sounds like a good idea. But this bill is now written in such a way that only one university in all of America is eligible to compete for the research center: Texas A&M. We shouldn't have to be here, working on this bill, on November 19. It has been nearly 14 months since Senator Lieberman first proposed creating a Department of Homeland Security. The Senate could have passed a strong Homeland Security bill, and President Bush could have signed it into law, long before the election. Democrats tried five times to break the Republican filibuster on homeland security. The reason we couldn't break the filibuster is because Republican leaders wanted to use homeland security as an election issue. They wanted to be able to blame Democrats for the impasse they created, and question the patriotism of good and decent people. As I said, for the sake of the American people and their security, I hope we have seen the last of those tactics. I will vote for this bill because there is no doubt that we need to create a Department of Homeland Security. But we must be honest with the American people. Passing this bill does not solve the problem of terrorism on American soil. Creating a new Department of Homeland Security is only one part of the solution. A much greater and far more comprehensive effort is still needed to prevent future terrorist attacks. That effort will be difficult, it will be complicated, it will be costly. We should not pretend otherwise. Last year, after September 11, this Senate put aside partisan differences and acted quickly to protect America from terrorism. It is deeply regrettable that much of that unity seems to have been lost, or sacrificed for partisan advantage, in the closing months of this Congress. We are capable of better. The American people deserved better. And I hope that in the next Congress, we will give them better.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, what is the order?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will have more to say about our departing colleagues tomorrow, but let me share as well my admiration for our colleague Senator Gramm. He is a hardened legislative adversary, but I have a great deal of respect for his ability and the manner with which he conducts himself on the floor. I have fond memories of the many years we have served together. I recall so vividly our first days together riding a bus as freshmen Congressman in 1979. So we wish him well. As I said, I will have much more to say about him and about our colleagues tomorrow. I wanted to come to the floor simply to express what I have said on several occasions. It is with some misgivings that I will cast my vote tonight in favor of the creation of this Department. I do so, fearful we have not done the kind of work on this legislation I wish we could have. I do so even though language has been inserted in the bill I think we are going to regret, but I do so recognizing we have to start rebuilding our infrastructure, reorganizing our Government, recognizing more consequentially the threat that is now posed by terrorism within our borders as well as without. I intend to support this legislation with every expectation that this is the first in a long series of steps which must be taken to better prepare our country and our Government. I have no doubt we will be back next year addressing many of the shortcomings we will be incorporating in this legislation tonight. This bill still needs work. This Department needs work. But as much work as it needs, not to have done anything in recognition of the tremendous challenges we face as a country is something I could not accept either. So I will support it, recognizing as well that it is critical for us to provide the funding--and there is no funding. In fact, if I have any regret about what we are doing tonight, it is that we are not passing the requisite resources needed to get started in an earnest and successful way. We are going to have to wait until next year. The more we wait, the harder it will be. The more we wait, the more complicated our mission. The more we wait, the more underfunded will be our effort in so many other ways. I regret we are not willing to commit the resources that match the infrastructure we will be authorizing tonight. Finally, let me say there are many people who deserve recognition and thanks. I acknowledge especially the leadership of Senator Joe Lieberman, the chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee. He and others on the committee have done an outstanding job getting us to this point, whether or not you agree with all of the components of the bill. I congratulate Senator Thompson as the ranking member. They worked oftentimes together, and where they could not work together, they worked in a way that was not disagreeable. I thank the whole Governmental Affairs Committee for the work they did in getting us to this point over the many months they have been involved. Let me say I also thank Senator Byrd. He and I may come down on different sides tonight, but he has done the Senate and the country a real service. I have admired him for many reasons for many years. But his powerful advocacy of his position, the extraordinary effort he has made to enlighten us, to educate us, to sensitize us, and to ensure that we are fully aware of all of the concerns he has about the creation of this Department is something for which we all ought to express our deep indebtedness to him. I thank him for what he has done in adding to the debate, acknowledging as he has the inevitability of our consideration and ultimately the passage of this legislation tonight. There are many others, including Senator Harry Reid, our extraordinary deputy Democratic leader, all the work he has done to allow this opportunity to complete our work tonight. As I said, we will be in session tomorrow and we will have much more to say about many of these issues, reflecting back, but I close simply by thanking our colleagues for the work they have done. I hope we can complete our work and pass this legislation tonight. I also ask, following the first vote, all subsequent votes be limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that the votes from here on out will be 10 minutes in length. And I intend to cut off the votes at 10 minutes. I hope everybody will stay on the floor and cast their votes so we can complete our work at a reasonable hour.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate has confirmed 99 judicial nominees during the 107th Congress--all of which have occurred since Democrats assumed the majority. Democrats have also confirmed more circuit court nominees than Republicans did any of their prior six years of control. Today we are considering the nomination of Judge Shedd for the Fourth Circuit. There has been much discussion over Judge Shedd's nomination, and I understand the Judiciary Committee has received hundreds of letters from individuals and organizations expressing concern over elevating Judge Shedd. While his nomination was reported out of the committee last week, there was considerable debate and many members raised serious concerns. I am troubled by allegations that Judge Shedd has a pattern of injecting his personal opinions into the proceedings before him, including--ordering defendants to make motions for summary judgment, and deciding on issues before they are raised. I am also concerned about allegations that individuals raising employment discrimination claims before him are unable to receive a fair and impartial forum. I understand that through questioning by the Judiciary Committee, it was uncovered that Judge Shedd could not think of a single plaintiff in a civil rights or employment discrimination case who had prevailed in his courtroom--in fact, Judge Shedd has never granted substantive relief to a plaintiff in an employment discrimination case. I am also concerned about his extreme views of the constitutional allocation of powers between the States and the federal government-- views that are not shared even by the current conservative Rehnquist Court. In a 1997 case challenging the constitutionality of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), Judge Shedd held that the federal government did not have the power to require states to protect the confidentiality of state driver's license records. In a 9-0 reversal of Judge Shedd's ruling, the Supreme Court made clear that he had gone too far. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to evaluate the President's nominees, offer advice, and grant--or withhold--its consent. I take this responsibility very seriously. Unfortunately, in Judge Shedd's case I believe enough concerns have been raised about his judicial temperament to lead me to the conclusion that he should not be elevated to the Fourth Circuit. So, on this vote I plan to vote against Judge Shedd's nomination.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have consulted with the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. As I think our colleagues know, the next order of business is a debate and then a vote on the continuing resolution. I am told they will need no more than 40 minutes. So Senators should be prepared to vote on final passage on the continuing resolution at about 9:10 to 9:15 p.m. Please return to the Chamber if you are not going to stay. That will be the final vote of the evening. We will vote at approximately 9:10 to 9:15 p.m., following this vote.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Dr. Geralyn M. Jacobs of Vermillion, SD who has been named the South Dakota Professor of the Year by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education. This award is given to professors who demonstrate a high level of dedication to teaching and a commitment to students, and who use innovative instructional methods. Dr. Jacobs' dedication to early childhood education and academic accomplishments make her an outstanding recipient of this award. Since 1995, Dr. Jacobs has been a professor at the University of South Dakota. In addition to her teaching responsibilities as an Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education in the School of Education, she serves as President of the South Dakota Association for the Education of Young Children and is active in several professional, campus and community organizations. She co-produced a CD ROM, ``Inclusion: Celebrating Children's Successes,'' that provides resources for teachers working with children with special needs and she often leads workshops and classes for teachers in South Dakota. Dr. Jacobs brings 16 years of experience working with school-age children to her college classrooms. Through her tireless efforts at the University of South Dakota and in many area communities, Dr. Jacobs has an invaluable impact on many teachers and their students. Recent brain research has shown us that early childhood educators can have a tremendous impact on the development of young minds, and I would like to thank Geralyn Jacobs for her contributions to South Dakota schools and congratulate her on this well-earned recognition.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we are finally about to vote on a bill to create a new Homeland Security Department. Many Senators worked long and hard to get us to this point. But one man was indispensable. He is the chairman of the Senate Government Affairs Committee, Joe Lieberman. Under his leadership, the Government Affairs Committee held its first hearing on homeland security 10 days after September 11. It was at that hearing that former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart, the co-chairs of a bipartisan blue-ribbon commission, shared their recommendation that the Government should create a permanent, cabinet-level Department to protect the American people from terrorism. Three weeks later, on the one-month anniversary of September 11, Senator Lieberman announced his plan to create such a department. He had the vision to see what needed to be done and the patience and flexibility to work through disagreements and come up with workable, bipartisan alternatives. He also had the courage to stand his ground for months while the President threatened to veto any Homeland Security bill. I also want to thank Democrats on the Governmental Affairs Committee for standing with Chairman Lieberman. There are some who would like to rewrite the history of this effort. They want the American people to believe that Democratic opposition is the reason it has taken this long for Congress to pass a Homeland Security bill. That is simply not so. Creating a Homeland Security Department was a Democratic idea to begin with. It was disturbing to see that truth twisted in the recent campaigns. There are some who are threatening publicly to try to exploit homeland security again for partisan political advantage in the Louisiana Senate race next month. For the sake of our Nation, I hope they do not. Our war is with terrorism, not each other. In the months since Senator Lieberman introduced his bill, we have heard countless chilling reasons why a Homeland Security Department is needed. We have heard about dots that were not connected, intelligence reports that weren't shared and urgent warnings that were not heeded. I will vote for this bill because I believe a Homeland Security Department is right and necessary. I have thought so for more than a year. But we need to be honest with the American people about what this means. I am very concerned about what I fear are false hopes and false assurances being given by some of those who came late to this cause. Many of the same people who claimed just a few months ago that creating a Department of Homeland Security would detract from the war on terrorism now seem to want the American people to believe that creating this Department will solve the war on terrorism. They seem to want people to believe that, once we pass this bill, there is nothing else that needs to be done--no other changes that need to be made--to prevent another September 11. This is worse than wishful thinking. It is dangerous thinking. And it is not true. Reorganizing parts of our Government in order to better connect the dots is only part of the solution. A much greater and far more comprehensive effort is still needed to protect America from terrorism. That effort will be difficult, it will be complicated, it will be costly. To pretend otherwise is a disservice to the American people. Our public health system is still dangerously under-prepared for the possibility of future biological or chemical attacks. Our borders are still not secure as they need to be. Neither are our seaports; we still search only 2 percent of the roughly 6 million containers that are unloaded every year at America's ports. The U.S. has 150,000 miles of train track plus rail yards, bridges, tunnels, and switches that are all still vulnerable to terrorist attacks. This bill does not provide the resources to secure them. Our food supply--domestic and imported--remains highly vulnerable to biological attacks. This bill does not change that fact. A study last year by the Army Surgeon General warned that a terrorist attack on a toxic chemical plant in a densely populated area could kill 2.4 million people. There are more than 120 such plants in America. Even after we pass this bill, those plants will remain vulnerable to terrorist attacks. The Department of Energy estimates that there are 603 tons of weapons-grade material inside the former Soviet republics-- enough to build 41,000 nuclear weapons. So far, only about a third of this material has been properly secured. This bill alone won't keep that deadly material out of the hands of terrorists who want to use it to build ``dirty bombs.'' Last year, the President's budget cut the programs that safeguard weapons of mass destruction. Fortunately, the Senate reversed that decision. It is urgent that we continue to work with Russia and with other nations to shut down the nuclear black market. In addition, we know that there were intelligence failures leading up to September 11. Yet, unlike the bill introduced by Senator Lieberman and passed by the Governmental Affairs Committee, this bill leaves most critical intelligence functions outside of the Homeland Security Department. We need to do a much better job of coordinating intelligence efforts regarding terrorism--or critical pieces of information will continue to fall between cracks. Nearly as troubling as what was left out of this bill is what was added to it at the eleventh hour. The American people should know that this is not the same Homeland Security bill that Congress was debating before the election. It was re-written in secret after the election. It has been stripped of a number of bipartisan, workable solutions that had been worked out on difficult problems. It has also been used as a Trojan horse for special interest giveaways that have little or nothing to do with making America safer from terrorism. We offered an amendment to strip out seven of these last-minute changes--changes that have not been debated publicly. But the White House lobbied hard to keep them, and the White House won. As a result, this Homeland Security bill now rewards US companies that use Carribean tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of taxes by allowing those companies to compete for Government contracts with the Department of Homeland Security. It says to those companies: Even if you refuse to help pay for the war on terrorism, you can still profit from it. What does that say about this administration's commitment to corporate responsibility? You tell me. Better yet, tell the American people. This bill now guts a critical part of the aviation security bill the Senate passed last year by a vote of 100 to nothing. It does so by providing special immunity for private companies that perform passenger and baggage screening at airports. It is likely to slow enactment of other new emergency transportation security rules that the Transportation Security Administration has said are essential to protect air and rail passengers, as well. In the name of protecting Americans, this bill actually eliminates some legal protections for ordinary Americans. It grants legal immunity to countless private companies. All the Federal Government has to do is designate a company's product an ``anti-terrorism technology'' and the company can't be sued--even if it acts in ways that are grossly negligent. This bill also provides special legal protections to the maker of a mercury-based, vaccine additive that has been alleged to harm children. For parents who are involved in class-action lawsuits against the makers of that additive, this bill slams the courthouse door in their face. This bill abandons the bipartisan effort to make workplace rules in the new Department more flexible without trampling worker protections and making workers more vulnerable to partisan political pressure. History has already shown that no one--no one--sacrificed more on September 11th than did public workers. I believe history will also show that using September 11 to justify taking away public employees' basic rights is a mistake. I regret deeply that it is part of this bill. This bill also undermines the Federal Freedom of Information Act and community right-to-know laws. It says that any information a company offers voluntarily to the Homeland Security Department--or any information a company gives to another government entity, which is then turned over to the Homeland Security Department--is classified. And it makes releasing such information a criminal offense. You don't have to worry about shredding damaging documents anymore. If a company wants to hide information from the public, all it has to do is give the information to the Federal Government and releasing it becomes a criminal offense. This is not necessary. The Freedom of Information Act already allows exceptions for national security reasons. We will not make America safer by denying people critical information or throwing conscientious whistle-blowers in prison. Finally, this bill authorizes the creation of a university-based homeland security research center. That sounds like a good idea. But this bill is now written in such a way that only one university in all of America is eligible to compete for the research center: Texas A&M. We shouldn't have to be here, working on this bill, on November 19. It has been nearly 14 months since Senator Lieberman first proposed creating a Department of Homeland Security. The Senate could have passed a strong Homeland Security bill, and President Bush could have signed it into law, long before the election. Democrats tried five times to break the Republican filibuster on homeland security. The reason we couldn't break the filibuster is because Republican leaders wanted to use homeland security as an election issue. They wanted to be able to blame Democrats for the impasse they created, and question the patriotism of good and decent people. As I said, for the sake of the American people and their security, I hope we have seen the last of those tactics. I will vote for this bill because there is no doubt that we need to create a Department of Homeland Security. But we must be honest with the American people. Passing this bill does not solve the problem of terrorism on American soil. Creating a new Department of Homeland Security is only one part of the solution. A much greater and far more comprehensive effort is still needed to prevent future terrorist attacks. That effort will be difficult, it will be complicated, it will be costly. We should not pretend otherwise. Last year, after September 11, this Senate put aside partisan differences and acted quickly to protect America from terrorism. It is deeply regrettable that much of that unity seems to have been lost, or sacrificed for partisan advantage, in the closing months of this Congress. We are capable of better. The American people deserved better. And I hope that in the next Congress, we will give them better.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, what is the order?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will have more to say about our departing colleagues tomorrow, but let me share as well my admiration for our colleague Senator Gramm. He is a hardened legislative adversary, but I have a great deal of respect for his ability and the manner with which he conducts himself on the floor. I have fond memories of the many years we have served together. I recall so vividly our first days together riding a bus as freshmen Congressman in 1979. So we wish him well. As I said, I will have much more to say about him and about our colleagues tomorrow. I wanted to come to the floor simply to express what I have said on several occasions. It is with some misgivings that I will cast my vote tonight in favor of the creation of this Department. I do so, fearful we have not done the kind of work on this legislation I wish we could have. I do so even though language has been inserted in the bill I think we are going to regret, but I do so recognizing we have to start rebuilding our infrastructure, reorganizing our Government, recognizing more consequentially the threat that is now posed by terrorism within our borders as well as without. I intend to support this legislation with every expectation that this is the first in a long series of steps which must be taken to better prepare our country and our Government. I have no doubt we will be back next year addressing many of the shortcomings we will be incorporating in this legislation tonight. This bill still needs work. This Department needs work. But as much work as it needs, not to have done anything in recognition of the tremendous challenges we face as a country is something I could not accept either. So I will support it, recognizing as well that it is critical for us to provide the funding--and there is no funding. In fact, if I have any regret about what we are doing tonight, it is that we are not passing the requisite resources needed to get started in an earnest and successful way. We are going to have to wait until next year. The more we wait, the harder it will be. The more we wait, the more complicated our mission. The more we wait, the more underfunded will be our effort in so many other ways. I regret we are not willing to commit the resources that match the infrastructure we will be authorizing tonight. Finally, let me say there are many people who deserve recognition and thanks. I acknowledge especially the leadership of Senator Joe Lieberman, the chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee. He and others on the committee have done an outstanding job getting us to this point, whether or not you agree with all of the components of the bill. I congratulate Senator Thompson as the ranking member. They worked oftentimes together, and where they could not work together, they worked in a way that was not disagreeable. I thank the whole Governmental Affairs Committee for the work they did in getting us to this point over the many months they have been involved. Let me say I also thank Senator Byrd. He and I may come down on different sides tonight, but he has done the Senate and the country a real service. I have admired him for many reasons for many years. But his powerful advocacy of his position, the extraordinary effort he has made to enlighten us, to educate us, to sensitize us, and to ensure that we are fully aware of all of the concerns he has about the creation of this Department is something for which we all ought to express our deep indebtedness to him. I thank him for what he has done in adding to the debate, acknowledging as he has the inevitability of our consideration and ultimately the passage of this legislation tonight. There are many others, including Senator Harry Reid, our extraordinary deputy Democratic leader, all the work he has done to allow this opportunity to complete our work tonight. As I said, we will be in session tomorrow and we will have much more to say about many of these issues, reflecting back, but I close simply by thanking our colleagues for the work they have done. I hope we can complete our work and pass this legislation tonight. I also ask, following the first vote, all subsequent votes be limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that the votes from here on out will be 10 minutes in length. And I intend to cut off the votes at 10 minutes. I hope everybody will stay on the floor and cast their votes so we can complete our work at a reasonable hour.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate has confirmed 99 judicial nominees during the 107th Congress--all of which have occurred since Democrats assumed the majority. Democrats have also confirmed more circuit court nominees than Republicans did any of their prior six years of control. Today we are considering the nomination of Judge Shedd for the Fourth Circuit. There has been much discussion over Judge Shedd's nomination, and I understand the Judiciary Committee has received hundreds of letters from individuals and organizations expressing concern over elevating Judge Shedd. While his nomination was reported out of the committee last week, there was considerable debate and many members raised serious concerns. I am troubled by allegations that Judge Shedd has a pattern of injecting his personal opinions into the proceedings before him, including--ordering defendants to make motions for summary judgment, and deciding on issues before they are raised. I am also concerned about allegations that individuals raising employment discrimination claims before him are unable to receive a fair and impartial forum. I understand that through questioning by the Judiciary Committee, it was uncovered that Judge Shedd could not think of a single plaintiff in a civil rights or employment discrimination case who had prevailed in his courtroom--in fact, Judge Shedd has never granted substantive relief to a plaintiff in an employment discrimination case. I am also concerned about his extreme views of the constitutional allocation of powers between the States and the federal government-- views that are not shared even by the current conservative Rehnquist Court. In a 1997 case challenging the constitutionality of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), Judge Shedd held that the federal government did not have the power to require states to protect the confidentiality of state driver's license records. In a 9-0 reversal of Judge Shedd's ruling, the Supreme Court made clear that he had gone too far. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to evaluate the President's nominees, offer advice, and grant--or withhold--its consent. I take this responsibility very seriously. Unfortunately, in Judge Shedd's case I believe enough concerns have been raised about his judicial temperament to lead me to the conclusion that he should not be elevated to the Fourth Circuit. So, on this vote I plan to vote against Judge Shedd's nomination.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have consulted with the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. As I think our colleagues know, the next order of business is a debate and then a vote on the continuing resolution. I am told they will need no more than 40 minutes. So Senators should be prepared to vote on final passage on the continuing resolution at about 9:10 to 9:15 p.m. Please return to the Chamber if you are not going to stay. That will be the final vote of the evening. We will vote at approximately 9:10 to 9:15 p.m., following this vote.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Dr. Geralyn M. Jacobs of Vermillion, SD who has been named the South Dakota Professor of the Year by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education. This award is given to professors who demonstrate a high level of dedication to teaching and a commitment to students, and who use innovative instructional methods. Dr. Jacobs' dedication to early childhood education and academic accomplishments make her an outstanding recipient of this award. Since 1995, Dr. Jacobs has been a professor at the University of South Dakota. In addition to her teaching responsibilities as an Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education in the School of Education, she serves as President of the South Dakota Association for the Education of Young Children and is active in several professional, campus and community organizations. She co-produced a CD ROM, ``Inclusion: Celebrating Children's Successes,'' that provides resources for teachers working with children with special needs and she often leads workshops and classes for teachers in South Dakota. Dr. Jacobs brings 16 years of experience working with school-age children to her college classrooms. Through her tireless efforts at the University of South Dakota and in many area communities, Dr. Jacobs has an invaluable impact on many teachers and their students. Recent brain research has shown us that early childhood educators can have a tremendous impact on the development of young minds, and I would like to thank Geralyn Jacobs for her contributions to South Dakota schools and congratulate her on this well-earned recognition.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I didn't hear the request.

Mr. DASCHLE. I have no objection.