Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois. As I was on the Senate floor, I noticed he was calling attention to the amendment that was contemplated by the two Senators from Hawaii. They both spoke powerfully and eloquently about a month ago before the caucus and at that time expressed the hope that the caucus could support their efforts to deal, once and for all, on the issue of Hawaiian recognition. This is a very important issue for them. I think I can say without equivocation or concern for contradiction that our caucus was ready to stand unanimously in support of their effort. But it is the amendment offered by the Senator from Hawaii that illustrates the point we were making earlier today. There is, I am told, one person in the entire body who has an objection to the amendment offered by the Senators from Hawaii--one person. One person is holding up the effort made by the two Senators from Hawaii courageously and persistently to deal with this question. And they came to us for advice: What do you think we should do? My suggestion was: Well, given the fact that we are in this situation, offer it as an amendment to the next vehicle. This happens to be the next vehicle. They said: We don't need a lot of time. We could probably resolve this matter, given the fact there is overwhelming support for it, in a few minutes. I said: I will tell you this: Once we get on the bill, you will have the first amendment on our side. And that is exactly what the case was going to be. We heard already from the Senator from Idaho. He, too, has been working diligently with the Senator from Massachusetts. He, too, said: This is not going to take a lot of time, but there is a very critical question of temporary workers and their status today, legally, and if we don't address this problem, we are going to be facing increasingly difficult legal questions. And it is a crime that this--he did not use the word ``crime.'' That is my word. It is a crime. It is a shame that we are precluded from addressing the temporary worker issue. But that goes to the heart of the situation we find ourselves in right now. In the first instance I can recall, the majority leader has now done something I thought we would never see under his leadership. He has filled the tree. He has precluded all Senators from offering amendments. We recognized in those dark days in the late 1990s, when this was done with some frequency, what a counterproductive effort that was. Now we find ourselves in exactly the same situation. Well, I was told this morning. I was very troubled by this action. Now I am told that maybe one of the reasons it was done is because there are those on that side who do not want this version of class action passed. So in an effort to preclude this version of class action being passed, they knew if they filled the tree they would never get to final passage and they could, without fingerprints, kill this version of class action, knowing there would be unanimous opposition to this procedural approach, just as there has been on every occasion when it was done in the past. So whatever the motivation was, it is counterproductive, it is a real disservice to the Senators of Hawaii and Idaho and others who simply want their day in court, their opportunity to present their issues, who have not had that opportunity, with the calendar pages turning and the clock ticking and the time running out. It is very unfortunate. I had told the majority leader that we would be willing to work with him and I offered to have a limited number of nonrelevant amendments--five. He objected. So given our circumstances, we are left without recourse. But, again, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his kindness in yielding the floor for me to make a couple comments. I tell the Senator from Hawaii that we will continue to find an opportunity for him to present his case to the Senate, and we will support him when his legislation reaches a vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if the majority leader will yield?

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me welcome him back and express the hope that we can work together on a number of issues this work period. Could the majority leader give us some indication as to what we might expect once the class action bill has been completed? What other issues do you expect to take during this 3-week period and in what order of sequence? If the majority leader could share that with us, it would be helpful as well.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we hear a lot these days about how essential optimism is to economic growth and progress. These discussions remind me of that old saying that ``an optimist is someone who believes we're living in the best of all possible worlds, and a pessimist is someone who fears this may be true.'' By those definitions, there are probably very few optimists or pessimists in America because we all know that America's economy today is not the best possible. This morning, I want to say a few words about how we can strengthen our economy and create new jobs and a brighter future for hard-working middle-class families in America. We are all relieved that the economy has finally started adding more jobs each month than it is shedding. After 2\1/2\ years in which our economy lost jobs every month, these new jobs are good news--especially for the millions of Americans who are looking for work. But there are still over a million fewer jobs in America today than there were 4 years ago. In addition, the latest job-growth figures, released last Friday, were considerably weaker than most analysts had predicted. That disappointing news reminds us that optimism alone is not a national economic policy. What we need is realism. Many proposals have been introduced in this Senate to create jobs and to help people who have lost jobs find new ones. We owe it to the American people to consider a variety of ideas. And in weighing our economic options, the question we ought to ask ourselves is not whether an idea is optimistic or pessimistic. The question we should ask about every proposal is: Does it do right by America? Will it lead to the kind of economic growth that benefits all Americans, not just the fortunate few? Does it provide incentives to encourage companies to create jobs in America--rather than encouraging companies to ship American jobs overseas? Does it help the people and communities that have lost jobs these last 4 years? Does it give them the tools and the opportunities to replace those lost jobs with better jobs? Or does it just write them off? Does it do right by the millions of middle-class families who are working harder every year but are still losing ground economically? Optimism alone can't stretch a paycheck, or pay a mortgage, or put your children through college. Some people point to the fact that the economy has finally started to create jobs as proof that we have solved the jobs problem. They say that all we have to do now is stay the course and be patient. I wish the people who say that would come to North Sioux City, SD, and some of the communities that surround it. Until very recently, North Sioux City was the headquarters for Gateway computers, one of the largest private employers in South Dakota. Four years ago, Gateway employed 6,000 people in the Siouxland area around North Sioux City. But the recession and the shakeout in the technology sector hit Gateway hard, as it did many tech companies. Today, only 1,700 people work for Gateway in the North Sioux City area. I am not sure if it is a blessing or a curse, but the job losses at Gateway didn't come in one crushing blow. They came instead as a steady stream of layoffs. While none was large enough to grab national media attention, the cumulative impact of these layoffs on the families and communities in the Siouxland area around North Sioux City has been devastating. Some of the laid-off workers received severance packages. Some have found new jobs that pay less. Many are still looking for work. There are many more good workers today in the Siouxland area than there are good jobs. These times are tough even for many people who are working. Over the past year, real weekly earnings actually fell for the average worker, according to the Department of Labor. In South Dakota and across America, workers are earning less than they did a year ago, but they are paying more--for gas, health care, tuition, and other basic necessities. Even with the recent easing of prices, gas still costs 30 cents a gallon more in South Dakota today than it did a year ago. Health care costs continue to rise by double digits every year. More employers are being forced to scale back the health care benefits they offer their workers; others are dropping health care coverage altogether. According to a new report by Families USA, 27 percent of South Dakotans today have no health insurance. Across America, 44 million people are in that category. And most of the people who are uninsured get up and go to work every day. They work hard. Some of them work two and three jobs to support their families. But they can't afford health insurance. You don't have to be an optimist to believe that we can do better than that. Last week, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates for the first time in 4 years as protection against inflation. Most analysts predict that we will see additional rate hikes in the future. And the enormous budget deficits built up these last 4 years will put even more pressure on interest rates, making it harder and more expensive for families to borrow money and to pay off mortgages, loans and credit card balances. The Gateway workers who have lost their jobs, and middle-class families across South Dakota and across America, don't lack for optimism. But it is not easy to be patient when you have lost your job and your unemployment benefits, and your savings are getting low. It is not easy when you are working harder every year and getting deeper in debt. Middle-class families across America are getting squeezed between stagnant wages and rising costs. They are being hurt by an economy that is creating jobs too slowly to fill the demand, and by the fact that the new jobs pay, on average, 21 percent less than the jobs they replaced. The choices we make must do right by these families. Middle-class families need more--and deserve more--than soothing words of optimism. They deserve action from the Federal Government--smart, sustained, realistic, bipartisan action to help people who have lost jobs find new ones and to make sure that American companies and workers can compete for, and win, the jobs of the future. One of the fastest, easiest ways we can reduce the economic squeeze on middle-class families is by protecting overtime pay. The Senate voted overwhelmingly last year to reject the administration's outrageous effort to deny overtime pay to millions of workers, and we rejected that misguided proposal again this year when we passed the Senate version of the FSC bill. Overtime pay isn't extra money; it is essential family income and protecting it is doing right by America. We need to continue to stand together and make sure that the final FSC bill Congress sends to the President preserves overtime protections. When it comes to helping workers whose jobs have disappeared or been shipped overseas, we don't need to create a new government bureaucracy. We just need to invest in solutions that we know work. The Commerce Department's Trade Adjustment Assistance program is one example. It helps manufacturing workers who have lost jobs because of globalization get back on their feet. Among other things, it provides access to community college so workers can learn new job skills and it helps workers maintain their health coverage until they can find work. The Trade Adjustment Assistance program is a good program. The only problem is, it doesn't cover service-sector workers, who are among the workers hardest hit by ``outsourcing'' and ``offshoring.'' During the debate on the FSC bill, the Senate considered a bipartisan proposal to expand the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to help service-sector workers whose jobs are being shipped to India and other low-wage countries. Not only did the administration oppose our efforts to help these workers get back on their feet, it continues to encourage companies to ship more jobs overseas. Turning our backs on workers who are being displaced by this economic transition isn't optimism. And it isn't doing right by America. We can do better--by expanding the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to match the realities of today's economy and help more laid-off workers get back on their feet. We should also extend Federal unemployment benefits for those workers who have exhausted their State benefits and still can't find work. It is the sensible thing to do. It is the decent thing to do. It is right for America. And with the average length of unemployment at a 20-year high, we need to do it now. We can also do a better job of helping businesses create new jobs. Tax cuts are one tool. But they do not, by themselves, create jobs. Small businesses and start-ups need access to capital. They need technical advice. They need help developing marketing plans. In other words, they need the kind of help that is provided by innovative programs such as the Small Business Administration's lending and technical assistance programs, and the Treasury Department's Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. Both of these programs have achieved wonderful results with limited resources. Yet the President's proposed budget for next year drastically reduces or eliminates funding for many of their efforts. That is a mistake, and we should fix it. Finally, EDA, the Economic Development Administration, which is part of the Commerce Department, was created specifically to ``alleviate conditions of substantial and persistent unemployment and underemployment in economically distressed areas and regions.'' I have seen how EDA seed money can grow into real jobs in rural areas, on Indian reservations and in other communities in South Dakota where private lenders weren't as optimistic as the EDA about the community's future. If we are looking to reward hard work and optimism, we need to make sure EDA has the resources to carry out its mission wherever it is needed. Around the country there must be hundreds, if not thousands, of communities like North Sioux City, where well-equipped factories stand idle and well-trained, highly skilled workers are waiting for an opportunity. Even though they have had a tough time these last few years, these workers are not pessimistic about America. They believe in America. They believe the future can be better than the past and they're willing to work hard to make that happen. Let's work together to show these workers that America believes in them. Optimistic words are not enough. We need a comprehensive economic plan that does right by all Americans. We need to reduce the squeeze on middle-class families and make sure that every American worker is able to find work that allows them to care for their family and live in dignity. We have done it before. Working together, we can do it again. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to discuss the nomination of James Leon Holmes to be a federal court judge in the district court of Arkansas. Before I address Mr. Holmes' record and qualifications, however, I think it is important to remind my colleagues of where we are in confirming President Bush's judicial nominees and how the Senate's record stands in historical context. Thanks to bipartisan cooperation, the Senate has confirmed nearly 200 of President Bush's judicial nominees. This is more confirmations than in President Reagan's entire first term, President George H.W. Bush's presidency, or in President Clinton's last term. There are now only 27 vacant seats in the Federal courts, the lowest level of vacancies since the Reagan administration. In fact, more than 96 percent of Federal judicial seats are filled. With 28 judicial confirmations in this year alone, this Senate is well ahead of 1996, the last time a President was running for re- election, and when Republicans allowed not one single judge to be confirmed until July. In 1996, Republicans allowed only 17 of President Clinton's judicial nominees to be confirmed, none of which were for the circuit courts. The Senate has confirmed five circuit court nominees this year. In total, the Senate has confirmed 35 circuit court nominees, which is more than President Reagan and President Clinton saw confirmed in each of their first terms. There have been limited occasions where a nomination raises such significant concerns that members choose to oppose granting that nominee a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench. However, these cases have been few. Democrats have allowed 98 percent of President Bush's nominees to be confirmed. In addition, Democrats recently reached an agreement with Republican leadership and the White House to ensure that 25 judicial nominees, including Mr. Holmes, receive an up or down vote on the Senate floor. Any objective look at the record shows that Democrats have been willing to work with the White House to confirm President Bush's nominees to the Federal bench. While Democrats have worked with Republicans to provide James Leon Holmes an up or down vote, I must oppose this nomination. I have great respect for my esteemed colleagues from Arkansas, who are supporting his nomination. However, my review of the nominee's record raises serious concerns about Mr. Holmes' ability to put his personal beliefs aside and decide cases based on the law. The Federal judiciary is too important to allow the appointment of any individual whose personal views interfere with his ability to interpret and adjudicate the laws of the United States impartially. This controversial nomination has been pending for a vote on the Senate floor for more than a year. His nomination was reported out of the Judiciary Committee last year without recommendation, a rarely used procedure. Mr. Holmes has been a lawyer for 20 years, and has made countless insensitive and extreme statements over the years. In just one troubling example, Mr. Holmes described slavery as divine providence intended to teach whites to be more Christlike. During his hearing before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Holmes admitted that some of his remarks have been ``unduly strident and inflammatory,'' however, he also refused to promise to recuse himself in cases involving issues on which he already holds a committed position. In fact, during his hearing one Republican Senator on the Judiciary Committee asked Mr. Holmes, ``why in the world would you want to serve in a position where you have to exercise restraint and you could not, if you were true to your convictions about what that role as a judge should be, how you could feel like you have done everything you could in order to perhaps achieve justice in any given case.'' Rather than assuring the Committee of his ability to separate his personal beliefs from his role as a judge, Mr. Holmes simply conceded that ``I know it is going to be difficult for this Committee to assess that question, and I know it is a very important question.'' Another example of why this concern was raised, in October 200, Mr. Holmes delivered a speech in which he stated that, ``Christianity, in principle, cannot accept subordination to the political authorities, for the end to which it directs men is higher than the end of the political order.'' Mr. Holmes is entitled to these beliefs. And one of the magnificent aspects of our country is that every American can hold such beliefs and advance them in the national discourse. But our country was founded on the separation of church and state and the administration and adjudication of our laws must remain free from the influence of any one religious perspective. That separation has been one of the linchpins of American liberty. Because of the unique role of the federal judiciary in preserving our liberties, the Senate needs to be vigilant and ensure that no judge is able to impose his or her religious views on the rest of our country. Mr. Holmes's actions and statements raise profound, and unanswered, questions about his willingness to set aside his personal beliefs when interpreting the law. Each member of the Senate has taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and I believe that in good conscience we should not support the appointment of a judicial candidate who will not be able to do the same.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the upcoming Danish Days Festival in Viborg, SD. This annual event attracts hundreds of people to the small South Dakota town to celebrate the area's rich Danish history. I especially applaud the Danish Days planning committee and the Danish Heritage Association for their work to make this event a success. Denmark-native Peter Larsen Christensen first settled near Viborg in 1864, establishing a small general store on his homestead. Southwestern Railroad completed a line connecting Sioux Falls and Yankton in 1893, which passed through the present-day Viborg. The community incorporated on August 25, 1893, shortly after the railroad's arrival, and quickly grew into a bustling Danish community on the new South Dakota prairie. Today, this town of 800 remains a vibrant community. In a time when small town stores continue to close, Viborg's Main Street features full storefronts offering a variety of services, including a pharmacy, grocery store and bank. The city's industrial park also continues to grow. Viborg's strong business community exists because of the town's strong foundation of community, established more than 100 years ago. Each year, the Danish Days Festival provides Viborg residents, past and present, with an opportunity to celebrate the community's proud heritage. The event will feature a leadership luncheon for Turner County's public servants and an honoring reception for the decedents of 2004 Danish Days honorees, C.J. and Cena Glood. A parade, community barbecue, car show, and fireworks display are also planned. The C.J. and Cena Glood family opened Viborg's first hardware and implement store shortly after the community was incorporated, and their decedents have continued to impact Viborg's prosperity through proud leadership. Most prominently, their eldest son, Royal, served 10 years in South Dakota State Legislature, advocating for the interests of Turner County. Their daughter, Dagmar, maintained a medical practice in Viborg for nearly 20 years and made numerous contributions to the community. The family has had a substantial impact on Viborg's development and are worthy honorees. Finally, the Danish Heritage Association will unveil Viborg's first Danish heritage museum during the festivities. The Association has dedicated hours of volunteer time and labor to ``preserving yesterday and today for tomorrow,'' and I am pleased that artifacts of Viborg's history will be preserved in this fashion. South Dakota communities each have their own unique history. I am proud to recognize Vibrog's ongoing work to preserve its heritage while building toward the future.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on a recent visit to South Dakota, I met a couple that impressed me a great deal. Their names are Lowell and Pauline Larson. Throughout their life together, Lowell and Pauline farmed 160 acres just outside of Chester, SD. After a lifetime of hard work, they were looking forward to a well-earned retirement together. But 2 years ago, Pauline suffered a stroke. Before the Larsons knew it, they had incurred $40,000 in medical bills. Even though they had insurance, it only covered $75 a day of Pauline's hospital costs. So Lowell did the only thing he could. He sold all his farm equipment and his cattle to pay the bills. All they are left with is the deed to their farm, and if Pauline suffers another stroke, or if the MS she has been battling for the past 15 years gets worse, the Larsons know they may have to sell their farm. I wish I could say that the Larsons' story came as a surprise to me, but it did not. For the past 4 years, stories like the Larsons' have become commonplace. I've heard from businesses that have been forced to cut back on benefits or lay off workers in order to pay for escalating insurance premiums. I have heard from retirees who have seen their life savings evaporate due to the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs. I have heard from families forced to sell the businesses or farms that have sustained their families for generations, because a child got sick and insurance just wouldn't pay for it. I have heard from veterans who have been forced off the rolls of the VA and have nowhere else to turn for care. I have heard from Native Americans forced to undergo a literal ``life or limb'' test to receive care at Indian Health Service facilities. I have heard from National Guard members who face losing their health coverage once their Iraq deployment ends. And I have heard from citizens from all walks of life who can't afford the high cost of insurance, and who live in constant fear that an illness or an injury could throw them and their families into bankruptcy. It's no mystery what is happening. Americans are being caught in the undertow of historic increases in the cost of health care. Millions have lost their insurance. Tens of millions more know that they are just one layoff, or one illness, away from a life of poverty and poor health. In this election year, as with every election year, Americans are asking themselves, ``Am I better off than I was 4 years ago?'' With the cost of doctors' visits, prescription drugs, and monthly insurance premiums moving farther out of reach, the answer for most of us is clearly no. America is enduring a health care crisis that is deepening with each passing month. And after four years of inattention from the White House, it is clear that when it comes to health care, as a nation, we are significantly worse off than we were just four years ago. The scope of this crisis is staggering. Since 2001, the amount workers are paying for their family coverage has increased by 50 percent, and the average premium for family health care is now above $9,000 per year. Prescription drug costs rose at four times the rate of inflation last year alone. Both businesses and workers are feeling the squeeze. And, as a result, we have seen unprecedented increases in the number of uninsured. Each month since January 2001, an average of 100,000 Americans have lost their health insurance. Today, 44 million Americans have no health insurance whatsoever. The problem is even worse among minority communities. One in six Asian and Pacific Americans lacks insurance. For African Americans, it is one in five. For Latino Americans, it is one in three. As startling as these numbers are, they do not include the tens of millions more who shuttle on and off the insurance rolls depending on unpredictable work schedules. Nearly 82 million people lacked insurance at some point in the last 2 years. The impact of losing health insurance can be catastrophic--for uninsured individuals, for families, and for our Nation as a whole. According to the National Institute of Medicine, children and adults without health insurance are less likely to receive preventive care and early diagnosis of illnesses. They live sicker and die younger than those with insurance. Eighteen thousand Americans die prematurely each year because they lack health insurance. Families suffer emotionally and financially when even one member is uninsured. Communities suffer as the cost of uncompensated care is shifted onto doctors, hospitals, and taxpayers. And our Nation pays a steep economic cost. The Institute of Medicine estimates that lack of health insurance costs America between $65 billion and $130 billion a year in lost productivity and other costs. Making the high cost and growing inequities even more troubling is that on the whole, we seem to be getting less for our health care dollar than we should be. The World Health Organization recently reported that Americans pay twice as much per capita for health as the average industrialized nation. We pay a third more than the next-highest country. But despite the high costs, we are not getting any bang for our buck. Among industrialized nations, Americans' life expectancy is only 24th, and we have one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world. We may pay twice as much, but we don't even get in the top 20 when it comes to mortality or life expectancy. The results of the past few years beg the question, ``How can we be paying the highest costs and getting so meager a return.'' In short, where is all the money going? Who is better off today? A recent article in the Economist offered one answer. Noting that profit margins for health insurers are as high as they have ever been, the article notes: Since [2000], the prices of many [health insurers' stocks] have quadrupled. And if shareholders have done well, executives have been more than amply rewarded. . . . One CEO earned $30 million in pay in 2003 and exercised $84 million in stock options from earlier years. This left him with options worth $840 million at the company's current share price. His second-in- command earned $13.7 million in compensation and holds options worth $350 million. Another CEO of a leading insurer earned $16 million; yet another, $51 million; and still another, $27 million. While insurers and their executives are reaping billions, and Americans are fearing that their benefits will be the next to be sacrificed for the sake of even higher profits, the administration has done nothing to rein in the cost of health care. In fact, in the recently enacted Medicare bill, the administration included tens of billions of dollars in giveaways to HMOs, not to mention the windfall created for prescription drug companies. The proposals the administration has offered would extend coverage only to a small fraction of Americans who lack insurance today. Often, their solutions extend meager coverage to a small number of vulnerable Americans at the expense of a larger group. For instance, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the President's plan to create ``association health plans'' would decrease the number of uninsured Americans by only about 600,000 people. Six hundred thousand out of nearly 44 million. But it would increase premiums for 80 percent of employees of small businesses. The administration's band-aid approach to our health care crisis won't work. It is the wrong treatment, and its cost would preclude us from affording the right one. The results of the administration's so-called solutions can be seen each month as more Americans lose their insurance or feel themselves pushed closer to the point where the cost of coverage is too large a burden to bear. As a nation, we are not better off than we were four years ago. We are losing ground. We can do better. But to do so will demand a change in direction. We need to reject the notion that we are helpless to control health care costs. We need to reject the notion that with a little tinkering around the edges, our health care system can offer the kind of care every American deserves. Most of all, we need to reject the notion that the primary purpose of our health care system is to provide profits for health care companies and the drug industry. That is wrong. That is the thinking that brought us to the point where families such as the Larsons are forced to turn over the proceeds of their life's work, just to pay the bill for treating a single illness. There are better answers, and working together we can find them. We can find ways to ensure that every American is able to see a doctor when he or she is sick. We do not have to be the only major industrialized nation in the world that fails to guarantee health care for all its citizens. We can do better, and none of us should rest until we do. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his statement and for the assurances that he is now prepared to give the Senate. He more than anyone--and I want to acknowledge as well our ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and the subcommittee for their extraordinary efforts to move this appropriations process along. They, more than anybody, understand how critical it is that we move these appropriations bills forward. The debt limit would have been extremely counterproductive and would have prevented us from completing our work. With the assurances given by the manager and our chairman, I am prepared to commit to him that we will do all we can to finish our work on this bill today. I believe we can finish it today. I would anticipate some amendments, but there is no reason why, given what he has just committed in terms of the conference, that we cannot finish this today and look forward to other bills as soon as we come back after the Fourth of July recess. I thank him for that commitment and pledge my support and partnership in working with him and our ranking member today to complete our work on time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me again compliment our two managers. We want to encourage Senators to come over and offer their amendments. I hope over the course of the next couple of hours we can dispose of whatever pending amendments there are. Mr. President, I understand the pending legislation is an amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio regarding Sudan.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the history of the world's response to genocide is one of long memory and poor eyesight. Each of us have, at one time or another, looked back upon the terrible history of the Holocaust and made a commitment, in public or in our hearts, not to stay silent should the first signs of a potential genocide come into view. Every one of President Bush's six immediate predecessors gave voice to this common commitment. And yet each saw during their tenure a genocide somewhere in the world. In the last quarter of the twentieth century, 1.7 million Cambodians were murdered by the Khmer Rouge; 100,000 Kurds were massacred by Saddam Hussein; 200,000 Bosnia Muslims were killed by Serb militia; and 800,000 Rwandan Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed at the hands of Hutu mobs in just 100 days. As these dangers gathered, and the cry for help went out to the world, the world stood by, each time. Our failure has not been one of moral understanding. Our failure, simply, has been one of moral courage. Today, a tragedy of all too familiar dimensions appears to be gathering in the Darfur region of Western Sudan. Armed and protected by the Sudanese military, ethnic Arab militiamen have brought a plague of terror down on the African residents of Darfur. Villages have been razed, crops destroyed, and cattle slaughtered. Women have been raped and enslaved. More than 15,000 Sudanese men, women, and children have been killed, and a million more have been driven from their homes in fear. As they torch villages, the Arab militia have been heard to shout, ``We will not allow blacks here. . . . This land is only for Arabs.'' On May 6, the Senate passed a resolution condemning the Sudanese government's complicity in the terrorizing of the civilian population of Darfur and warning of a potential crisis. Since then, however, no real progress has been made either to stop the bloodshed or to bring sufficient aid to the refugees. Humanitarian assistance has not been allowed to reach all of those in need. Meanwhile, the annual rainy season is now beginning, making transportation more difficult, and making the health of the vulnerable even more precarious. Most ominously, the people of Darfur are about to miss their planting season, raising the specter of a famine of epic proportions and rendering otherwise productive men and women dependent for at least another year. Already, USAID predicts 320,000 have been effectively sentenced to death. Unless action is taken, 1 million Sudanese men, women, and children will die this year alone. I repeat, 1 million people face death in Sudan. Let's also be clear on this point. Most of these deaths are preventable, but only if the world chooses to act. Genocide is a crime against humanity. And all humanity shares a common responsibility to respond. Our revulsion at genocide joins all people, in all cultures throughout the world. Unilateral action in this sense would not be sufficient. There are few clearer cases for the need to rally the world. America has both the opportunity and the obligation to unite the world community in trying to prevent yet another genocide. My friends from Ohio and Vermont, Senators DeWine and Leahy, are urging us to take the first important step in stopping this gathering storm. This additional assistance will help thousands of people avert hunger. But we also must ensure that we do everything possible to end this crisis. The most effective tool against a potential disaster in Sudan is the United Nations. The Bush administration must equip our new ambassador to the United Nations with the authority and support required to provide effective leadership on Sudan. The administration should take the following steps in order to make sure that Senator Danforth is able to mobilize international action on Darfur: First, the Administration must insist that Khartoum provide complete, unrestricted access for all humanitarian operations and aid workers. Second, we must demand that the Sudanese government take verifiable steps to ensure that the militia forces are restrained, by allowing for the unrestricted movement and operations of observers deployed by the African Union. In addition, the Sudanese government must stop providing arms and logistical support to the Janjaweed militia. Third, we should require that Khartoum initiate, with U.N., African Union, and regional support and involvement, a dialogue with political, rebel, and civil society representatives in Darfur in order to achieve a long-term resolution of the political crisis and agreement on a plan for disarming militia forces and rebels. Fourth, the administration should invest Senator Danforth with the authority to start work immediately on a Security Council resolution including each of these steps and establishing verifiable benchmarks for compliance. In the event of noncompliance, we must call for Security Council sanctions, including freezing the assets and restricting the travel of Sudanese government officials. In order to be effective, however, it is vital, that these sanctions be multilateral and the world community share fully in their implementation. Fifth, Senator Danforth should also be empowered to put Khartoum on notice, in the strongest terms, that international support for implementation of the North-South peace agreement does not represent endorsement of Khartoum's actions in Darfur. The agreements reached between warring parties in the North and South of Sudan, which could not have been accomplished without the leadership of Senator Danforth and the administration, are nonetheless just the first steps to bringing stability and peace to the entire country. In no way does the Sudanese government's commitment to end hostilities with rebels in the South justify or compensate for its active support for Janjaweed militia in Darfur. Sixth, in order to clarify Senator Danforth's authority, the State Department should make its final determination on whether the crisis in Darfur meets the legal definition of genocide. Testimony from the victims in Darfur make it very clear that it does. In order to remove any ambiguity or ambivalence from America's moral leadership, the State Department should make its determination quickly, so that we can bring together an appropriate response from the world community. Finally, Senator Danforth should be empowered to initiate discussions within the Security Council on planning for an intervention force, if this should be required to ensure that lives are saved and a genocide prevented. Consideration should be given to non-U.S. troops including from Europe and Africa; the Security Council should consult with the African Union. The main point here is that the planning must be done now--even if the decision is delayed--both to make clear to Khartoum that the international community is serious and to be ready if it is necessary to intervene. The history of genocide teaches us that this crisis needs to be addressed on several different levels. First, on the humanitarian level, we need to provide immediate aid to refugees and to the internally displaced. Second, we must insist on full accountability for all perpetrators of crimes against humanity. In order to keep Sudan from spiraling downward into a cycle of retributive violence, all those responsible must be brought to justice. Finally, a long-term resolution demands that the world focus on bringing about a political solution to the instability and violence of Sudan. President Bush has spoken with force and eloquence on the need to match American action to American words and values. Never is that more important than in the case of genocide when the lives of hundreds of thousands hang in the balance. President Bush, like his predecessors, understands the moral imperative to take action to stop genocide. Speaking after a tour of the Holocaust Museum in 2001, President Bush reaffirmed ``America's commitment to the memory of 6 million who died in the Holocaust [and] our commitment to averting future tragedies.'' The future has arrived. A tragedy stands at the world's doorstep. These words are engraved upon the conscience of the world: Never Again. In the months ahead, we will learn what they mean to us.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina is not on the Senate floor, but I do not think he would mind, given the fact----

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the statement of support offered by the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee. It had been our intention to offer an amendment to provide full 12- month funding, on this particular bill, for reservists' TRICARE. I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee and our remarkable ranking member for their efforts and the acknowledgment of the need to address health care concerns among members of our Guard and Reserve. They have done so in this bill in a way that allows Guard members and reservists to obtain this health care coverage for 5 months, up until that time next year when we expect a supplemental to be brought again before the Senate, which would then afford us an opportunity to review the current program and extend it for the balance of the year. It would be in consultation with Senator Graham. We have concluded that a far better and more productive and long- lasting approach would be to complete our work in the bill where it belongs, the Defense authorization bill, the legislation we completed just last night, thanks to the able leadership of Chairman Warner. Our concern, of course, has been that even though TRICARE for reservists enjoyed the support of more than 70 Members, there may not be the degree of support in conference that will be required to sustain the Senate position. So it is our hope that will happen. The chairman's acknowledgment of his interest in protecting the Senate position is appreciated, and we will work with him to see that we are successful in that effort in committee.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I again thank the chairman. Simply stated, it is our expectation that we will succeed in conference this year. This issue has overwhelming bipartisan support not only in the Senate but the House as well. And, obviously, it will keep coming back year after year unless we do resolve it. It would be my hope this would be the year we do so successfully. So, again, I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to talk, if I can, about another matter to which I have given a great deal of thought. I would like to share some thoughts with my colleagues on it this afternoon. I would like to begin by referencing a trip I took last weekend. I traveled to Kuwait, Jordan, and Iraq with Senators Biden and Graham. We went to Baghdad to talk with coalition and Iraqi leaders as they prepare for the historic transfer of sovereignty to Iraq 6 days from today. We went to thank our troops who are making enormous sacrifices, braving extraordinary risks every minute of the day. We wanted to assure them they have the support and respect of every Member of the Senate and all Americans. Our trip was especially productive because of the experiences and insights of the Senators with whom I traveled. Senator Joe Biden, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been a leading voice in the Senate on foreign policy issues for now almost a quarter century. Senator Lindsey Graham has quickly established himself as one of the most authoritative and independent voices on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Graham, as we all know, is a colonel and a Reserve judge in the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. He and I have been working together for more than a year to improve health care benefits to National Guard members and their families. I know from working with him on the TRICARE bill that he is fiercely committed to American troops and American veterans. Lindsey Graham is a proud Republican. Joe Biden and I are proud Democrats. But we are all, first and foremost, proud Americans. We are all committed to the safety of our troops. We all want the Iraqi people to succeed in building a stable, free, and pluralistic Iraq. It is in their interest, but it is also in America's interest and, I would argue, the world's interest. Our trip to Iraq reminded me again how much this Senate and the American people benefit when we are able to focus on the problems that unite us. No one who saw it will ever forget the cloudless, deep blue sky on the morning of September 11. Pilots have a term for visibility conditions on days like that--they call it ``severe clear.'' We all saw it clearly that day. We saw horrific acts of inhumanity, but we also saw, with equal clarity, countless acts of nobility and compassion. We saw beyond the labels of race, income, gender, and the other distinctions that too often divide us. We are more alike than we are different. All Americans want to live in a world that is safe and secure and just. Whether we're Republicans or Democrats, or don't care one whit about politics, all Americans want to be able to earn enough to care for our families' basic needs. After a lifetime of working hard, all Americans want to be able to retire with dignity and security. All Americans need affordable health care. All Americans want to be able to send their children to good schools; that is not simply a Democratic or Republican aspiration, it is a necessity for our children's future and the economic, political, and social well-being of our Nation. These are dangerous and challenging times, but Americans have faced danger and challenges before, and we must always remember that we have emerged stronger when we have faced those challenges together. We are stronger together than separately. This afternoon, I want to talk about how I believe the Members of the Senate can work together more constructively to solve the big challenges facing our country today. The result of all-or-nothing politics is too often nothing. We owe the American people better than that. I believe in what I like to call the Politics of Common Ground. Practicing the Politics of Common Ground does not mean betraying one's principles. We can bend on details without abandoning our basic beliefs. The Politics of Common Ground is pragmatic, not dogmatic. It recognizes there can be different ways to reach the same goal. It puts our common interests ahead of personal or partisan interests. Instead of narrow ideological victories, the politics of common ground seeks broad, principled compromise. I recognize some people may think this timing is strange, to talk about searching for common ground now in the midst of campaign season. But I actually believe it is exactly the right time. The truth is, no one knows which party will control the Senate next year, or the House, or the White House, so neither party can be accused of embracing these ideas for partisan advantage. The Politics of Common Ground rests on four fundamental commitments. Obviously it takes at least two to seek common ground. Neither party can make these principles work alone. If Democrats hold the majority in the next Senate, these are the four fundamental principles by which we would seek to govern: First, deal in good faith with the executive branch, regardless of which party holds the majority. Second, preserve and fulfill the historical role of the Senate regarding budgetary responsibilities, oversight, and advice and consent on nominees, regardless of which party holds the majority. Third, respect the rights of the minority and seek to work in good faith with them. Fourth, end the cycle of partisan retaliation. This week marks the 40th anniversary of the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, one of the greatest common ground victories in our Nation's history. It was a Democratic President, Lyndon Johnson, who signed the Civil Rights Act, but it was a courageous Republican leader, Senator Everett Dirksen, who provided the political leadership that finally ended the years of opposition and put the civil rights bill on the President's desk. There are some today who believe the only way to move America forward is to ignore or change the rules of the Senate. What their arguments fail to recognize is the Founding Fathers deliberately designed this Senate to protect the rights of the minority. They did so because they understood that the only way to make just and lasting change in a democracy is to first build broad support for it. They also understood, as Everett Dirksen said in calling for the vote on the Civil Rights Act, that nothing can stop an idea whose time has come. Finding common ground requires that we follow the rules of the Senate, not ignore or rewrite them. It requires that all Senators--whether they are in the majority or minority--be treated fairly. That means safeguarding the rights of every Senator. It means establishing fair representation on all Senate committees. And it means observing the traditional procedures for conference committees concerning the appointment of conferees, and the right of all conferees to participate fully in all meetings. A closed meeting that is a conference committee in name only is no place to look for common ground. Finding common ground also means listening to each other. Someone who was a good friend to many of us, Senator Pat Moynihan, used to blame television for what he saw as a decline in cross-party cooperation in the Senate. Before TV, he said, Senators from both parties used to spend their evenings talking to each other. It helped to see things from the other person's perspective. I would like to see the Senate create more opportunities to increase cross-party understanding. Next year, I would like to see the Senate hold bipartisan leadership meetings every 2 months at least, and bipartisan joint caucus meetings at least every quarter. I would like to see us hold periodic, bipartisan policy forums for all Senators in the Old Senate Chamber, where the Missouri Compromise and other historic agreements were reached. When Senator Lott was majority leader, he established the Leaders Lecture Series to draw on the wisdom of former Senate leaders, from Mike Mansfield and Senator Byrd to Robert Dole and George Herbert Walker Bush. The Leaders Lecture Series represents one of the most insightful seminars ever taught on common ground politics. I would like to see us build on that success next year by inviting former Senate leaders to a summit where they can share their ideas with us, and with each other. Senators Dorgan and Kyl had a good idea recently to hold occasional, thoughtful, Lincoln-Douglas style debates here on the Senate floor on the most important issues of the day. Let us build on those debates next year. President Reagan was as ideological a President as any of us have ever seen. But he understood that political adversaries don't have to be enemies. He and Tip O'Neill had a rule: after 6 o'clock, they were always friends. Something as simple as just getting our families together once in a while for a barbecue or a potluck supper--or even choosing an annual charity to which all Senators could contribute--could help Senators find common ground, I think, and may strengthen the bonds of friendship and trust between our two parties. In addition, I would like to see the Senate reward the search for common ground solutions by giving special consideration to bills with strong bipartisan co-sponsorship. There are questions of enormous consequence facing our Nation today-- questions that will define what kind of Nation we are, and what sort of future we will leave for our children. How de we balance freedom and security in a post-September 11 world? How do we keep the good jobs we have and create more of them in a global economy? How do we craft a national budget that reflects our national values? How can we reduce our over-reliance on imported oil so the fate of our Nation is not tied so directly to the stability of some of the most dangerous and volatile places on Earth? Last year, I got a note from a father in South Dakota who had lost a good-paying job as a machinist 2 years earlier when his employer moved out of state. He was working as a handyman, earning a fraction of his old income. The only health insurance he and his wife could afford had such a high deductible that they tried never to use it. He hadn't seen a doctor in 15 years or a dentist in 10 years. He felt ashamed. The worst part, he said, was having to tell his children, when they got sick, that there was no money for a doctor. Because Republicans and Democrats in Congress had the courage to practice the Politics of Common Ground 7 years ago, I was able to tell that father about the Children's Health Insurance Program. Today, if his children are sick, he takes them to the doctor. As he puts it, ``I show the people in the doctor's office that card and I'm treated like a human being. It's the greatest thing in the world.'' Across America today, the CHIP program is providing health insurance for nearly 4 million children from low-income families, and peace of mind for their parents. More than 9,300 children in South Dakota have health coverage through CHIP. How can we now build on this common ground success? How do we make health care more affordable so that exploding health care costs don't break family budgets and eat up corporate profits that could be better used to create new jobs and invest in new plants and equipment? We can chose to shrug our shoulders and say that the divisions in Congress simply reflect the increasing polarization in our society--and let it go at that. But I believe we have a higher responsibility. If society is divided, it is the responsibility of leaders to try to bridge the divide, not simply mirror or exploit it. The Politics of Common Ground is the Politics of Common Good. It is more than a political challenge; it is a moral imperative. Last weekend in Iraq, Senators Biden and Graham and I met with members of the new Iraqi government, with Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, and with senior military leaders. They were all impressive. But the people who inspired me most were the soldiers. We were helped by National Guard members from Minnesota, Kansas, Illinois and Texas, and we met troops from Mississippi, South Carolina, Delaware and other states. In fact, we met extraordinary people from almost every state. Every one of them deserves our profound appreciation. I was especially moved by the dozens of South Dakotans I met. One of those South Dakotans is a member of the South Dakota National Guard's 153rd Engineer Battalion. Home for him is a small family farm in South Dakota. But these days, his unit is deployed to Baghdad International Airport. He and his unit provided security for our delegation in Baghdad. When we left, he handed me a letter that reads, in part, ``I am very proud to fight and to serve my country, like so many of my relatives before me.'' He went on, in that letter, to talk about the challenges he and his family face today. He didn't want his wife and their teenage children to have to bear the burden of caring for the family's cattle while he was gone, so he sold the entire herd when he was deployed. When he returns--which may not be until sometime next year--he will buy the herd back. But he and his family will still be out 2 years' worth of income they would have earned from their cattle. He wasn't complaining. He just wanted us to know. I met another soldier from South Dakota who is with the Army's First Cavalry Division. They have a dangerous mission: securing Baghdad. But he and the other members of the First ``Cav'' aren't complaining, either. I met a family practice doctor who grew up in Rapid City. Today, she is healing the bodies and saving the lives of U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians at the Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad. Finally, I got to eat supper in Kuwait on Saturday with a group of men and women whose families I have been working with for months: the members of the South Dakota National Guard's 740th Transportation Unit. Two months ago, the members of the 740th had already packed their bags when they got word that their tour was being extended. It was their second extension. They have now been deployed for 14 months--2 months longer than they were told was the longest they would be gone when they left South Dakota. When I asked one soldier at super if they had been given a new date to return home, he told me ``the second.'' I thought he meant their tour was ending on July 2nd. Then he explained, they will know when they are coming home the second they get on the plane. Even these soldiers were not complaining--just trying to find a little humor in a tough situation. Pride in one's party and the principles for which it stands is admirable. But there are causes that matter more than political parties. There the values and hopes that transcend party labels and unite us all as Americans--so eloquently again related to me in conversations I had with those soldiers. During campaigns, candidates and parties should be clear about where we stand on the issues and how we differ with our opponents so that voters can make a choice. That is part of the campaign. That is an essential part of democracy. But we also have a responsibility to work together constructively, where we can, to find common ground. Making the principled compromises necessary to make democracy work takes effort. It takes patience and trust and, often, a little humility. It requires that we listen to others and admit that someone else just might have a better idea sometimes. It's not simple or easy. But if our troops can give the extra measure of devotion and risk their lives because our Nation asks them to, surely we can make the extra effort to find solutions to the problems facing these soldiers' families, and all Americans--both in times of peace and war. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Arkansas for his eloquent statement for being part of the inspiration for this proposal creating the Politics of Common Ground. I will tell my colleagues, as I began thinking through many of these particular ideas and the suggestions we have now made, it was the Senator from Arkansas who was extraordinarily helpful and who had many creative ideas and thoughts on how we might discuss this matter and make these proposals. I acknowledge the Senator's important contribution and thank him for his statement and appreciate the tone he has helped create virtually since he has arrived in the Senate. He believes in the Politics of Common Ground--but for him it is more than just words; it is deeds. He has again demonstrated that this afternoon. I am grateful.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we are not prepared to go to conference tonight. We will consult with some of our colleagues tomorrow morning, and we certainly have no intention of delaying conference. But it is our hope that we will have an opportunity to consult a little bit more about some of the issues we expect to be raised. For that purpose, I object to the portion of the request which would allow the conference to begin.

Mr. DASCHLE. I think the most recent tribute by each of the managers to each other is yet another illustration of the kind of bipartisanship that is so routinely achieved in the Armed Services Committee. Thanks for the extraordinary leadership and effort of these two genuine patriots. I admire the work they do. They set a standard for the rest of us. I admire, especially, the manner with which they have managed this legislation. This has been one of the toughest jobs we have had in a long time. They have done it admirably. We owe them a debt of gratitude, not only for the work done but for the manner with which they have done it. I congratulate them both.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the resolution.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if the majority leader will yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will just confirm the conversations that the majority leader alluded to. I think we have made real progress, certainly, on both sides of the aisle. There are a couple of other consultations required, but it would be my hope that before the end of the week we would be able to complete our work on the AGOA bill. This is an important piece of legislation. It has demonstrated its job-building capacity in Africa in particular. We are very hopeful that we can continue that success in the years ahead by reauthorizing this important legislation. So we will have more to say about this tomorrow.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure I understand. The majority leader is proposing that we go to class action immediately following the completion of our work on the Defense appropriations bill; is that correct?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate that. I have made it clear I am not a supporter of the class action bill, but I have made a commitment to many of the colleagues in my caucus with regard to the assurances we have provided to them in the past that they would have a chance to have this legislation brought before the Senate and offer the appropriate amendments. They have been very patient. We have asked them to delay consideration of this bill now on several occasions, but with the assurances given by the majority leader, I have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3387

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I believe the veterans health care amendment is next; is that correct?