Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we are making better progress this afternoon. I really appreciate the two managers and the work they are doing to move it along. I hope we can line up a series of amendments, hopefully with time agreements. I know there is an interest on the part of both sides to accommodate as many amendments as possible. The best way to do that is with time agreements. I encourage all Senators to agree to a time limit on their amendments so that we can move through additional amendments. There have been questions about the schedule. To accommodate an event I know a number of our Republican colleagues want to attend tonight, we will not be in late tonight, but I do hope, for those who could offer their amendments and have some debate on the amendments without having a vote, we might do that in the interest of moving the legislation forward. We should not just look at tonight as a lost opportunity. To the extent Senators can come to the floor and offer amendments, we can certainly stack some of those votes tomorrow morning. It is also our expectation that we will not be in session during the gold medal ceremony tomorrow afternoon. That will last about an hour from 2 to 3. We need to make the most of the time that is available to us tonight and tomorrow, both before and after the ceremony. Senators should know that we will be in session on Friday and we can expect votes Friday morning. We will try to move this legislation along and accommodate as many Senators who have amendments as possible, but they need to help us by agreeing to time limits. I know there has been some concern for the May 16 deadline. That is tomorrow. The Andean Trade Preference Act expires tomorrow. We do know that the administration has the authority to move that date, should they choose to do so. I hope they will consider doing that given the fact that tomorrow is May 16. We will move this expeditiously. We will do all we can to get this job done. Nobody wants to pass ATPA more than I do. I do think it is important for the administration and for all of us to work together to ensure that we leave no question about our determination to complete our work on ATPA and ensure there is continuity when it comes to the application of the trade legislation and our determination to ensure that that continuity is created in law.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will just say that the Senator from Arizona is absolutely right. If all else fails, we have no other choice but to split it off. We would do so if we were not able to make progress, which is why I started out as I did urging Senators to come to the floor. I know Senator Lieberman and others are prepared to offer amendments this afternoon. Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley have accelerated the consideration of these amendments. As always, Senator Reid has been on the floor to help serve as a motivator in getting the job done.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, our friends on the other side of the aisle are right about one thing: it is important to fill vacancies on the Federal bench in a timely manner. In his remarks last week, President Bush cited Chief Justice Rehnquist's report about the alarming number of vacancies in the federal courts. He's right. Let me read some of Chief Justice Rehnquist's report: ``vacancies cannot remain at such high levels indefinitely without eroding the quality of justice.'' Except that's from the report he wrote in 1997. Democrats, independent-minded observers, and the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court have all raised concerns about the judicial vacancy crisis for years. But our Republican colleagues never seemed to hear those concerns when they ran the Senate. The fact that they now recognize the seriousness of the situation is--I suppose--progress. It appears, however, that there are some facts on which they are still unclear. I'd like to take a few minutes to set the record straight: First, the judicial crisis developed when Republicans ran the Senate. Under Republicans, total court vacancies rose by 75 percent--from 63 at the beginning of 1995 to 110 by the time Democrats took control of the Senate. Circuit court vacancies more than doubled--from 16 to 33. As the vacancy rate was skyrocketing, more than half--56 percent--of President Clinton's circuit nominees in 1999 and 2000 never received a hearing or a vote. Second, Democrats have reduced the number of vacancies. The judicial nominations process has significantly improved under Democratic leadership. As of this afternoon, in only 10 months, the Democratically controlled Senate has confirmed 56 nominees--more judicial nominees than the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed for President Reagan in his first 12 months in office. Our 10-month number is also greater than the number of judicial nominations confirmed in four of the 6 years Republicans controlled the Senate during the Clinton administration. It also exceeds the average number of judicial nominees the Republicans confirmed during the time they controlled the Senate--when, from 1995-2001, confirmations averaged only 38 per year. But Democrats aren't just improving the numbers, we're improving the nomination process. Under Senator Leahy's stewardship, the process is now faster, fairer--and more productive. Senator Leahy has restored a steady pace to the judicial nominations process by holding regular hearings and giving nominees a vote in committee. Despite the chaos of September 11 and the disruption caused by anthrax, the Judiciary Committee has held 15 hearings involving 48 judicial nominations in the past 10 months, and is planning an additional hearing this week to consider another 7 nominations. In addition to increasing the total number of hearings, Senator Leahy is reducing the amount of time it takes to confirm a nomination. The Judiciary Committee has been able to confirm nominations, on average, within 86 days after a nominee was eligible for a hearing. This is more than twice as fast as the confirmation process under the most recent Republican-controlled Senate. Senator Leahy has also made the process more fair. Unlike our Republican colleagues, who would sit on nominations for years--many never receiving a hearing, Senator Leahy has ensured that President Bush's judicial nominees are treated evenhandedly. Senator Leahy has also eliminated the practice of secret holds within the judiciary, that were often used to delay and defeat nominees for political reasons. Third, the confirmation of judges is part of a constitutional obligation we take very seriously. Democrats have been clear: We will make the process move more fairly, and more quickly--but we will not abdicate our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. I believe the President has a right to appoint to his cabinet and administration men and women with whom he is personally and ideologically comfortable. But Federal judges and Supreme Court justices do not serve at the pleasure of the President. Their term does not end when the President leaves office. These are lifetime positions. Their decisions will have profound consequences for years, possible decades, to come. For that reason, they deserve special scrutiny. The Constitution requires the Senate to evaluate the President's judicial nominees, nominees, offer advice, and grant--or withhold--its consent. Fourth, I'm concerned that the real issue isn't numbers, but using Judiciary to achieve a political agenda. Appointing judges that are out of the mainstream is a way that the right-wing can achieve through the judiciary what they can't get through Congress, the President, or any other office represented by those who reflect the will of the people, and need to stand for election before them. Most Americans simply don't want to see a judiciary that will turn back the clock on decades of progress for civil rights, women's rights, workers rights, and the environment. Most of us don't either. Senator Lott and Senator Nickles both hinted after Judge Pickering's nomination was defeated in committee that they would find ways to retaliate. The irony is: By shutting down the Senate today, they are preventing the Senate from doing the very thing they claim to want. Right now, their tactics are preventing the Judiciary Committee from holding hearings on 4 of the President's nominees. And last August they wouldn't give us consent to carry pending nominees over the recess-- further slowing the process. Amazingly, their judges are falling victim to their own tactics. There are 77 days left in this Congress--only 46 days if you don't include Mondays and Fridays. Shutting down the Senate at a time when there are so many major questions facing our nation, and so few working days left in this Congress--is not the way to achieve their stated goal of confirming judges. When all the facts are thoroughly examined and honest comparisons are made, it is clear that the judicial nominations process has significantly improved under Senator Leahy's stewardship, and Democratic leadership. There are real differences between our parties on many issues. We have shown time and time again, on issue after issue, that we can work through those differences for the good of the nation. Today, I ask our Republican friends to join with us in helping--and not obstructing--the Senate as we work to meet the needs of the American people, and perform our constitutional obligation regarding federal judges.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have been in consultation with the distinguished Republican leader. We are continuing to discuss matters pertaining to the trade package currently under consideration on the Senate floor. In order to accommodate additional discussion, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed in morning business until 2:30, with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to talk briefly this afternoon in morning business about a matter that I know is of great importance to a number of people across the country, an issue that was the subject of some discussion in the health committee just this morning. Students are borrowing too much, and students are working too much in order to finance rising college costs. Sixty-four percent of all students borrow Federal student loans to finance a college education today. The typical undergraduate student graduates with about $17,000 in Federal loan debt. Student debt is skyrocketing. As a result, many students find themselves saddled with unimaginable levels of student loan debt and experience difficulty in repaying their loans. An estimated 39 percent of all student borrowers today graduate with unimaginable student loan debt. The administration, in late April, proposed to exacerbate the current circumstances in ways that were inexplicable to many of us. They proposed to raise student loan interest rates for consolidated loans by changing the consolidation loan interest rate from a fixed to variable rates. This proposal has come along, as I noted, when millions of students are struggling to pay for college. According to the Department of Education, the typical borrower now graduates with almost $17,000 in Federal student loan debt, as I noted a moment ago. And more than half of all Pell grant recipients graduate with student loan debt as well. The typical Pell grant recipient who borrows graduates with almost $19,000 in loan debt. The Office of Management and Budget, on April 25, released a third ``Offset Options for the Supplemental'' appropriations bill that is currently pending in the House. Many of us were intrigued with the offset option that they chose to use involving student loan consolidation. I will quote from the document. It is under the category ``For $1.3 billion for the Pell Grant shortfall, Student loan consolidation proposal.'' And they stipulate that would raise $1.3 billion. Now I am quoting from the OMB document: Changing the interest rate formula from fixed to variable is a good thing as fixed rate consolidation loans: can result in significant Federal costs; have higher average costs to borrowers; needlessly penalize borrows who consolidate their loans when variable interest rates are high; and, can have a destabilizing effect in the guaranteed loan program. The proposal that the administration made through the OMB would cost the typical student borrower $2,800, and the typical Pell grant recipient, who borrows, $3,100 over the life of their loans. So in order to raise that $1.3 billion for which they are proposing to offset, in part, the costs of the supplemental, what they want to do is charge the typical borrower an additional $2,800 and the typical Pell grant recipient $3,100 over the life of the loan. Senator Kennedy has held a hearing this morning. We were very pleased that the administration appears now to have had a change of heart, for they have announced they are reversing their position. They now recognize that this was a major error and that they will now no longer adhere to that offset as they look to ways in which to find the money to pay for the supplemental. We are very pleased with the administration's announcement that they will not advocate this additional burden on students, both for student loans as well as Pell grants. But I must say, I thank the distinguished chair of the HELP Committee for calling this to the attention of our colleagues, for calling it to the attention, really, of the educational community. Because of his stalwart advocacy, and the extraordinary attention that this issue has generated over the last couple of weeks, I am not surprised that the administration has now had a change of heart. This was not a good idea. And, obviously, they have now come to that conclusion as well. So it is good news for students. It is good news for education. And it is especially good news for those advocates, as Senator Kennedy has personified, who have called for this change of heart from the day it was announced.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, no one knows more about the commitment we have made to the students who want to be involved in higher education than the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. He can probably tell us the very day it was done. But in recent times, we have increased the cap, the availability of resources through both loans as well as the Pell grants to students in order to accommodate their additional costs. We have recognized that their costs continue to go up. We have recognized how serious the financial problems are that many of these students have experienced. As a result, we have increased the caps. That is why the original OMB decision is so mystifying. Because as we raise the caps, if we raise the cost, then we have not done anything to help the students, so we have made this raise in eligibility for additional assistance virtually meaningless. I might say, there is a trend here because that is basically what we did with the No Child Left Behind Act as well. We provided more opportunities for students in many respects, but then we underfund by more than $1 billion the resources we should be providing to ensure that act is fully funded. So there appears to be rhetoric, and then there is the reality. There is the rhetoric, and then there is the resources. The rhetoric is: We want to help all these students. The rhetoric is: We don't want to leave any child behind. The reality is, we do not provide the resources to see that it happens--whether it is an OMB decision on student loans or the decision that the budget implies on the part of the administration to fund the No Child Left Behind Act.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Michigan. She has been a tremendous advocate for education ever since the day she was sworn. I am grateful to her for her engagement and her willingness to continue to work with us. She was one of the signatories on the letter the Senator from Massachusetts has referenced. I thank her very much. She made an interesting point. She said, what the administration has decided could be decided in another direction at some later date, and we might find ourselves in yet another set of circumstances involving the very same problem; that is, the rhetoric versus the reality, the rhetoric versus the resources. We will be going into appropriations. I worry about the rhetoric versus the resources once again. Are we going to be able to ensure that we can provide the commitment to students at all levels, that the resources will be there to match the rhetoric that we hear coming from the administration with regard to their commitment on education? I have my doubts. We have at least two instances now so far--the student loan issue as well as the no child left behind question--where the rhetoric has far exceeded the results and the reality and the resources. I appreciate her comment in that regard.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Minnesota is exactly right. I don't know what the amount is in South Dakota for the typical student, but the typical student nationally now graduates with about $17,000 in Federal loan debt. My guess is, it is somewhat lower in South Dakota. I have talked to a lot of students who are very concerned about paying off that debt, very concerned about the debt service they have to pay on a regular basis when they graduate. This is something about which they are very concerned. Thirty-nine percent of all student borrowers graduate today with what is termed an unmanageable student loan debt. There is no question, this is a matter that is of increased concern to students all over the country, especially those in the Upper Midwest such as Minnesota and South Dakota. This is why we were so mystified when they said, we are going to ask students, on top of all the debt they currently have, to pay an additional $2,800 for a typical loan or $3,100 for a Pell grant recipient. I can't imagine how we would want to exacerbate their problems by adding even further cost on to the overwhelming loan debt that many of them already have.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. DASCHLE. In the history of the Senate, I would say there has only been one Ted Kennedy. But the point is so well taken. For 35 years, this giant of the Senate has done remarkable things, probably has more legislation attributable to his contribution in this body than anybody in recent times. We certainly recognize his many accomplishments. It is not only the level of accomplishment and achievement but the manner in which he accomplishes them that is noteworthy. I appreciate very much his calling attention to this issue as well. This is another example. This became an issue when the country, through his committee and his leadership, was put on notice about the implications of this $1.3 billion offset. We are very grateful to him for his work in this regard.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I heard someone say the other day: You can't fool all the people all the time, but why not give it a try. I think that is, in essence, what we find the administration attempting to do when it comes to education--simply assert that they are for it and try to fool all the people all the time. But the Senator from Massachusetts points out the problems with that strategy. You can't fool all the people all the time, when the resources simply don't speak to the reality. That is exactly the problem the administration continues to face. The resources don't speak to the reality. The resources fall far short of the reality. We can all assert we are for education and that we are not going to leave any child behind. But I can tell you, there are South Dakota children left behind, there are Massachusetts children left behind, and Nevada and Minnesota children are left behind. I think that is the question we are going to continue to face throughout the remainder of the year: Will we leave these children behind because this administration refuses to provide the resources? I hope not. Today, we got a good indication that, at least in one instance, they have changed their minds. When it comes to students, they will provide the resources that match the initial reality. We have a lot more of these instances in store, but I think we have made the first downpayment in the effort. I thank and applaud the Senator from Massachusetts for doing so. 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. President, the people who have been discussing and negotiating the trade matter have asked for a little additional time. In order to accommodate their discussions, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 3:45.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Republican leader for his understanding and his willingness to act in good faith. I appreciate very much the explanation that he has made. I know it was not his intention and he was not aware of the circumstances that had been agreed to prior to the time he came to the floor. We certainly know how these things work and appreciate his willingness to rescind his actions. There are a number of Senators who would want to be heard on issues that are important to them. As we continue to await further word about the progress of the discussions and negotiations underway, I see no reason we cannot continue to allow the Senate to proceed as if in morning business. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed as in morning business under the arrangements previously authorized in the Senate for a period not to exceed 90 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent my consent request be amended in that fashion.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, again I ask unanimous consent the Senate be in morning business for 90 minutes and accommodate Senator Reid's request for 2 minutes prior to the time Senator Byrd is recognized.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me respond briefly to the Senator from Arizona. Nobody wants ATPA passed more than I do. I have attempted in many different ways over the last several weeks to find the right formula to bring this about. I have talked about it, literally, for months. I will work with the Senator from Arizona and others. We are very aware of the May 16 deadline. I am very hopeful we can find a way with which to accommodate that deadline and make sure this job can be done. We are sensitive to the tremendous economic repercussions that will result if we are not successful. The stakes get higher with each passing hour, which is why I have been frustrated in my effort to move the process along all week. We spent a lot of time on the farm bill. We spent a lot of time waiting for some sort of negotiation when I think sometimes the best thing to do is just offer amendments. That is what we do in the Senate if there is a disagreement: At some point you offer an amendment, have a vote, and move on to the next amendment. There are those in the Senate who want the package to be just so, prior to the time they even allow us to move forward on a package. We will continue to work with those who have been in negotiation. I hope we can resolve this matter soon.