Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the events of the last year have highlighted what Americans have known since the 1970s, our economic security and our national security depend on our energy security. Americans need--and deserve--an energy plan that truly moves us towards energy independence. America's appetite for energy continues to grow each year. Today we import nearly sixty percent of our oil. And the problem is getting worse, not better. Over the next 10 years, the United States is expected to consume roughly 1.5 trillion gallons of gasoline, most of it refined from imported oil. We need to reduce our growing dependence on foreign oil. We need to ensure the reliability and security of our energy supply. And we need to do so in a way that is good for our families, our economy, and our environment. There is no doubt in my mind that we can do all of these things, if we're willing to invest in new ideas, new technologies, and new approaches to old problems. As we begin this energy debate, I think we should keep in mind four key goals. Any energy plan we pass should increase our energy independence, it should be good for consumers, it should create jobs, and it should be responsible, both environmentally and fiscally. Nine committees have worked on this bill, and Senator Bingaman has done an amazing job of coordinating input from so many committees and so many Senators on both sides of the aisle. In the end, he's put together a bill that meets each of these goals. Opponents of this bill have essentially said that we face a choice between production and conservation. This bill demonstrates that we can, indeed, increase both. First, production. For a long time, we've looked for the ``Made in America'' label on our clothes. We need to put that same ``Made in America'' label on our energy, too. That means increasing our domestic production. But it also means recognizing the reality we face. We hold only 3 percent of the known world oil reserves, and we consume 25 percent of the world's supply. Even if we drilled in everybody's back yard, we could never meet our own demand with our own supply. One might call the assertion that we can drill our way to energy independence, fuzzy math. That's not to say that we shouldn't drill for oil and gas in the United States; to the contrary, we can and we must. But we cannot simply drill our way out of this problem, and we should not be drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Here is what we should do: We should look to develop natural gas deposits in deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico, and allow for increased production where it is environmentally acceptable. We should explore for oil and gas in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, the area where the three largest onshore oil reserves in the last ten years have been found. And we should construct a pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska to the lower forty-eight states. There are 35 trillion cubic feet of known natural gas reserves on the North Slope of Alaska. Right now, we are literally pumping that gas back into the ground because we have no way of getting it to people. This 2,000 mile long gas pipeline would create 400,000 jobs, use an estimated 5 million tons of US steel, and ensure that we do not become dependent on imported liquified natural gas from the middle east. If we want to create jobs, increase our energy security, and help the U.S. steel industry, then building this pipeline is the way to do it. Energy for America, jobs and opportunity for steelworkers, and no damage to sensitive environmental areas, this is the type of pro- development, pro-jobs, energy project we should be encouraging. Others assert that we can dig our way to energy independence. Some see coal as a panacea. Others see it as a dirty and unsafe source of energy. But the choice between simply using more coal or less is a false choice. This bill says that we can use coal better. It invests in new clean coal technologies, which are good for our environment. In so doing, it will create jobs in an industry and area that has been losing them, and will help guarantee the future of coal in America. Still, we need to recognize that drilling and digging simply won't add up to independence if we don't find other fuel sources here at home. That is why this bill invests heavily in new and renewable fuels, including biofuels. For example, it will triple our use of ethanol, which is a clean- burning, corn-based, renewable fuel. It will help us harness the power of the wind, the sun, and the heat of the earth itself with tax incentives to develop these sources of energy, and to keep the energy produced affordable. Recent analysis indicates that investing in these clean and renewable energy technologies will create 1.3 million new jobs for American workers. More importantly, energy from these sources would come from American farmers and producers, pass through American refiners, and fuel American energy needs. No soldier would have to fight overseas to protect them. And no international cartel could turn off the spigot on us. For all of those reasons--economic, security, and environmental--this bill sets a goal of generating 10 percent of our energy from renewable sources by 2010. Some states are exceeding this goal already. There's no reason that our nation can't meet it. Our bill also invests in common-sense efficiency, and the new technologies necessary to increase efficiency without making sacrifices in performance. Take air conditioners, for example. Two years ago, the Clinton Administration issued a standard that would have increased the efficiency of air conditioners by 30 percent. Here is what that means: a 30 percent more efficient air conditioner would save our nation from having to build the equivalent of 50 new power plants and save Americans $3 billion in electricity bills. Meeting that standard isn't a pie-in-the sky proposal or a crushing new mandate for business. In fact, Goodman Manufacturing Company, the second largest air conditioning manufacturer in the United States supports this standard and says that they can meet it with no additional cost to consumers. As John Goodman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the company, said, ``[the higher standard] is just the right thing, and it's something our industry can do to help.'' The Bush Administration revoked this standard, and the House-passed bill doesn't include it. We think it makes sense, and that's why we require it. This bill will help us make similar efficiency gains with items such as vending machines, commercial refrigerators, lights--even our power lines. As Senator Kerry has said so well, you just can't tell Americans you're serious about energy security unless you're willing to tackle transportation, where 70 percent of the oil we purchase is consumed. During the 1970s, America created a program to increase auto efficiency. Those standards now save 3 million barrels of oil every day. But because those standards were frozen seven years ago, our vehicle fuel efficiency is worse now than it has been in twenty years. So this bill says that automobiles and light trucks should average 35 miles per gallon by the year 2013. This doesn't mean that we are going to take away anyone's SUV or make every American drive a compact car. It means that the car companies will do what they say they can do, and increase the efficiency of the vehicles they make. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences found that technology that already exists can be used to improve the fuel economy of automobiles and light trucks without affecting safety or performance. When the fuel-efficiency provisions of the Senate energy bill are fully implemented, they will not only save American drivers billions of dollars--they will save our Nation the same amount of oil we are currently importing from the Persian Gulf. Finally, when it comes to energy efficiency, this bill says that the Federal Government must lead by example. Last year, the Federal Government's utility bill totaled $3.4 billion. This bill mandates that the government use cost effective technologies that consume less energy. This small step alone--one that is not a part of the House-passed bill--will save taxpayers $250 million a year. Doing all of this will be good for consumers and families, good for our energy independence, and good for our economy. Finally, this bill demonstrates international leadership on global climate change--leadership that the Administration, sadly, has been unwilling to show. This bill links energy policy and climate change by creating a national strategy to track and reduce carbon pollution and other greenhouse gas emissions. It funds research and development on innovative technologies to reduce carbon pollution, opens markets for clean energy technologies, and demands high-level coordination and leadership from the White House. The science on this issue is clear. Carbon pollution and other greenhouse gas emissions are causing changes in our climate, including coastal flooding, agricultural disruptions and significant damage to our ecosystems. As the largest emitter of carbon pollution in the world, I believe the United States has a special responsibility to help address this problem. This bill does. Now, we know what our opponents are going to say about this bill and about our approach. They are going to say that we are going to take away people's SUVs and washing machines--we are going to ask you to sweat in the summer and freeze in the winter. They will try to tell you that this is a choice between abundance and austerity. They couldn't be more wrong. Actually, they are right about one thing--we do face a choice. It is a choice between the past and the future, between a bill that is good for consumers, or one that serves only the energy companies. The energy bill that passed the House is based entirely on the old philosophy of dig, drill and burn. The centerpiece of that plan is to open the Arctic Refuge. Supporters of drilling in the Arctic Refuge have used almost every opportunity to justify their position. When we were experiencing rising oil prices, supporters said it would make oil available quickly and drive prices down in the process. But even if Congress were to authorize drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge today, we would not see significant quantities of oil produced from the refuge for 10 years at the earliest. When our economy began to slow, supporters began billing it as an economic stimulus measure, saying it would create 750,000 jobs. Yet that number comes from an outdated and biased study by the American Petroleum Institute. Recent, more credible estimates by the Congressional Research Service and others suggest that only 60,000 jobs would actually be created. And now, as we face threats to our nation's security, those same supporters are wrapping their argument in the cloak of patriotism, saying that drilling in ANWR is vital to increasing our energy security. But the oil there would only meet America's needs for less than 6 months. Let me give you an example of how little oil that is: If we all put replacement tires on our cars that were as good as the ones that came with the cars when they were new, the resulting increase in energy efficiency would save 5.4 billion gallons of oil--70 percent more than the total amount of oil in the Arctic Refuge. Compare that our proposed Alaska natural gas pipeline we have proposed which would provide natural gas to American consumers for at least 30 years. The rest of the House bill is a smorgasbord of tax cuts for oil and gas companies. The Republican bill includes $33 billion in tax cuts. Twenty-seven billion of that goes to the biggest energy companies. Perhaps even more astonishing is this fact: Because the House bill fails to make meaningful reductions in the transportation sector and relies on getting oil from a source that would produce so little and so far in the future, if we enacted it into law today, it would actually increase our dependence on foreign oil. The House plan may indeed be an energy plan for a new century. Unfortunately, that century is the 1900s. Our bill takes the better path--for our energy security, for our economy, for our environment, and for our future. Now, there is one other thing we're hearing from the other party, and it is the complaint that this bill was not subject to a markup in committee. I find this complaint to be ironic for two reasons. First, it is not at all unusual to take a bill directly to the floor. In fact, my colleagues might remember that the Republican leadership did the exact same thing with a Republican energy bill--the National Energy Security Act of 2000. Second, now that we're debating an energy bill, some of my colleagues seem more intent on debating how we came to debate this bill. I made a promise to bring this bill up for debate. That is exactly what I have done. No one's right to be heard will be compromised. Anyone is welcome to offer any amendment they choose. I expect to have a full and open debate on this bill. The less time we spend worrying about procedure, the more time we can spend debating the direction and substance of our Nation's energy policy. So, with that, I want to thank Chairman Bingaman and the other committee chairs who have worked so hard to assemble this bill. And I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in order to make progress on this vitally important piece of legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am happy to briefly yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have said publicly, and I will say for purposes of the Record, it is my intention to back up from the final day of this particular work period for whatever length of time may be required to go through the procedural hurdles to accomplish our goal of completing our work on this bill prior to the time we go into the Easter recess. So we will do that. I just put my colleagues on notice. I also simply note that had we been able to get unanimous consent, I would also have asked unanimous consent on behalf of Senator Hollings that the constitutional amendment regarding campaign finance reform also be considered. But since that agreement could not be reached, I did not propound the other request. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. DASCHLE. I say to the Senator from Kentucky, I know he has put a lot of time and thought into this. I am not averse to considering that approach. I think it is certainly worth our while to consider what proposals the Senator and others have suggested. We will take a look at that and entertain that possibility at such time as we take up the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I am sure I share the disappointment of a number of our colleagues in our inability to come to some closure on this legislation. But I will say the good news is the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, the manager of the bill, and the Senator from Kentucky, his co- manager, have agreed to continue to attempt to work out what remaining differences exist. I will also say, because so much good work has been done, it is my strong desire to bring this bill to a successful completion. We are going to do that. I have made a commitment to Senator Dodd and to all of our colleagues that at such time as we have been able to work out procedurally a way to resolve these final matters, we will bring the bill back under a unanimous consent agreement. So when that unanimous consent agreement is reached, it is my desire and my commitment to renew the debate on this issue. This is too important to let go. It is too important not to find some final resolution to the remaining questions. We spent a lot of time on this bill. I don't want to lose that investment in time and effort. Obviously, the stakes are quite high. We recognize those stakes. We recognize the effort made. We recognize the progress we have made in the last couple of weeks. We are just not quite there yet. But as I have noted on several occasions, it is my strong desire to go to the energy bill. That will be what we do tomorrow. I hope Senators will be prepared to come to the floor midmorning, 10 o'clock. We will begin the debate on energy. I am sure there will be opening statements, and we will begin entertaining amendments. I hope Senators are prepared to have a good debate about energy. We will hopefully resolve that issue and move to other questions. It is my expectation that if some agreement has not yet been reached on the campaign finance reform bill, I will be asking unanimous consent to take that up as well. It will be the only thing that would take us off the energy bill prior to the time we complete it. But my hope is we can reach some agreement procedurally on the campaign finance reform bill as well. If not, of course, when we resolve these issues, if we can resolve them, on energy, my intention is to move to the campaign finance reform bill. So we have a full agenda over the course of the next 3 weeks. Energy begins tomorrow. Hopefully campaign finance reform and election reform can also be addressed successfully before we complete our work in this work period. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on S. 565.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there are discussions underway regarding the impasse we continue to experience on the voter identification amendment and other related issues on the election reform bill. I am probably stating the obvious--but I will make it official--there are no more rollcall votes today. My expectation is the next rollcall vote will be on Monday evening after 6 o'clock. We will set a specific time a little later, but there will be at least a cloture vote on the bill Monday morning, if we have not been able to arrive at any other agreement prior to that time. Members should be aware they should expect a vote on Monday night, and then certainly Tuesday morning. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of my colleagues. I have a short statement that I will use my leader time to make. It involves a matter I know is of great concern to a number of our colleagues. I wish to make a couple of remarks with regard to the so- called 201 decision to be made by the administration relating to steel. The last few years have been among the worst in history for the American steel industry. In just the last 2 years, 31 steel companies have filed for bankruptcy. Since January of 2000, more than 50 steel- making or related plants have shut down or been idle. Steel prices are now at their lowest level in 20 years. This crisis has been devastating for steelworkers, their families, and communities. Over 43,000 steelworkers have lost their jobs, and another 600,000 retirees and their surviving spouses are in danger of losing their health care benefits because the companies that once employed them are now facing bankruptcy. A number of those families are in Washington today. In talking with them, one quickly realizes the numbers do not even begin to capture the pain they are feeling and the insecurity they face about their very future. These families are hurting because this important sector of our economy is competing against global competitors who unfairly benefit from government subsidies or have resorted to flooding our Nation with imports. Seven months ago, the President initiated what is called a section 201 investigation. This investigation, conducted by the International Trade Commission, found unanimously that imports have caused serious injury. That means under our trade laws the steel industry deserves an immediate and effective remedy. In less than a week, by March 6, the President has to make his final ruling on what that remedy will be. But we already know the right remedy. The remedy is a 40-percent tariff rate for 4 years. That would be an effective enforcement of our trade laws and the right thing to do for hard-hit steelworker families. There is one other action the President must take, and that is lead on the issue of promoting consolidation and the protection of retirement health benefits, the benefits that were promised years ago to workers by companies that are now teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. These benefits are so-called legacy costs. They really are a lifeline for 600,000 retirees and their surviving spouses and a measure of our commitment to the healthy and decent retirement these workers have earned. America's steelworkers have literally built this Nation, from skyscrapers that define us, to the military that defends us. In the process, they have proven they can compete against any workers anywhere in the world and win, so long as the rules are fair. In a very real sense, the future of the steel industry in America hinges on the administration's decision. So today we are asking the administration to use this historic opportunity to do the right thing for America's steelworkers, their industry, and the retirement health benefits on which they depend. I yield the floor, and I thank my colleagues for their willingness to accommodate me.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I, too, compliment the distinguished Senator from Oregon for his outstanding work and leadership on this issue. He has gone the extra mile to find a way to resolve this matter. I know he has worked diligently over the last several weeks. He and I have talked about this matter on a number of occasions. I think Oregon has been the leader in this country in innovative ways to encourage broader voter participation. He so ably represents his State. On this particular issue, no one has provided greater leadership and more insight on what we can do to improve participation than he has. I join with my colleague from Nevada in thanking him and commending him for his efforts.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, there have been discussions all day long with regard to the so-called Schumer amendment, the matter involving photo identification and the election reform legislation. I think it is accurate to say that while no resolution has been reached, the discussions continue. This has been an unfortunate and very unproductive period of time, but nonetheless I think it is appropriate at this point to announce there will be no more rollcall votes today. We will be in session tomorrow, and there is a likelihood that we will have at least a cloture vote. There may be other votes as well. So Senators should be advised that at least in the morning tomorrow there will be votes, perhaps beginning at 10 o'clock. So we will keep Senators informed of our progress. We will not be going out of session tonight. My hope is we might still resume debate and further consideration of the election reform bill, but I think the time has come to recognize that at least if votes could be cast, we could postpone those votes until tomorrow. So no votes tonight but votes certainly in the morning. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I can respond to the Republican leader, I appreciate his report and agree there are times when patience has shown its reward. I am hopeful this is one of those times. I will work with him. Obviously, patience at some point runs out. That will necessitate taking action as we had originally contemplated, but we certainly want to work with the Republican leader and his colleagues in an effort to see whether patience can be a productive experience in this case. I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have just received the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill from the House. As I have said before, this bill gives us the first real chance in a generation to limit the access of special interests to the political process. I had intended to ask consent to take up and pass this bill immediately. However, the Republican leader has indicated to me that he was making progress on reaching an agreement on how to proceed with campaign finance reform. Therefore, I am willing to withhold my unanimous consent request at this time, pending an update from the Republican leader on how discussions on this issue in his caucus are proceeding. As my colleagues will recall, we tried to reach an agreement to take up the House-passed bill before the President's day recess. Opponents of reform objected, saying that they wanted time to look over the bill. They have now had more than a week. What they have found, I am sure, is a bill that is very similar to the McCain-Feingold bill that the Senate passed last spring. At the time, we spent 2 weeks on McCain-Feingold. We had a full, fair, and open debate, and we passed that bill with a strong bipartisan majority. I see no reason why we can't take this bill up and pass it quickly. In fact, the only reason I can think that anyone would oppose consent would be to take one more shot at keeping this bill from becoming law—either by filibustering or by trying to send this bill to a conference. And so I say to them: Look what happened in the House. Opponents of reform used every conceivable argument and excuse—every imaginable ploy to stop this. They failed. This is going to be the year that we pass strong campaign finance reform, and put the reins of government back into the hands of all of the people. The sooner we pass this bill, the sooner we can get it to the President for his signature. I look forward to revisiting this issue in the near future. I will not, as I say, ask consent at this time, and I appreciate very much the consultation I have had with the Republican leader in this regard. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona for their determination and their resolute demonstration again today that we will see a successful conclusion of this legislation. I do not want anybody to be mistaken; this will happen either through procedural motions available to us or with a unanimous consent agreement. We will certainly try to take the path of least resistance, and if there is a way to reach unanimous consent, I would like to do that. But we must do that this week, within the next day or so, or we will be forced to take the alternative approach. This will happen. I appreciate the patience on the part of my two colleagues in particular who have been very supportive of our efforts to date, and hopefully we can see to it that patience is rewarded. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin be recognized after my remarks.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous order with respect to the Jorgenson nomination be vitiated; that immediately following the first vote today with respect to the amendment to S. 565, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Cindy Jorgenson; that once the nomination is reported, the Senate, without further intervening action, proceed to a vote on confirmation; that upon confirmation the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to request the yeas and nays on the nomination.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, my old friend and teacher, Mo Udall, wrote a book called ``Too Funny to be President'' and dedicated it, in his words, ``to the 3,000 Members of Congress, living and dead, with whom I served for nearly three decades.'' It is true. We are all part of a continuum. In the history of our Nation, only 1,864 Americans have ever served in the Senate. Carved or penned into the drawers in our desks are the names of some of the giants--men such as Clay, Webster, Calhoun. But we don't have to open our desks or open a book to see one of the greatest Senators ever to serve in this body. All we have to do is open our eyes. He is right here, at the same desk he has occupied now for the last 40 years. I have been a Senator for 16 years. I count it as part of my good fortune that I have been able to call Ted Kennedy a colleague all of those years. I consider it an even greater privilege to call him my friend. Today it gives me enormous pleasure to join the rest of my colleagues in wishing my good friend a happy 70th birthday. In his remarkable 1999 book ``Edward M. Kennedy: A Biography,'' New York Times reporter Adam Clymer recounts a letter an 8-year-old Ted Kennedy received from his father. It was 1940. Ambassador Kennedy was writing from war-torn London to his young son who had returned to America. He tells Ted that he can hear the bombs exploding outside his residence. Then he writes: I hope that when you grow up, you will dedicate your life to trying to work out plans to make people happy instead of making them miserable, as war does today. Somewhere, I feel certain Joe Kennedy is looking down on his youngest son today, as he does every day, smiling. Ted Kennedy has indeed dedicated his life to trying to make people happy. The great Irish playwright, George Bernard Shaw, wrote that ``this is the true joy of life: to be used for a principle recognized by yourself as a mighty one . . .'' That is exactly what Ted Kennedy has done. For 40 years now he has used his great booming voice to speak for those who have none. There is no more passionate or effective advocate in this Senate for good schools for every child, decent, affordable health care for every American; there is no one in this body who has fought harder or longer to improve the living standards of working families and protect the basic civil rights of all Americans. He is a drum major for justice. President Bush says the folks at the coffee shop down in Crawford were surprised to see him praise Senator Kennedy for his invaluable help in passing the new education reform act. They shouldn't have been. Since the day he arrived, Ted Kennedy has sought out those with views different from his own to see if together they could find principled compromise. He has never wavered in his principles. At the same time, he is a pragmatist who wants more than anything to get things done. I remember 5 years ago when we created the Children's Health Insurance Program with strong bipartisan support. It was something Senator Kennedy had worked on for years. After the vote, he came into my office, as he does sometimes with these victories, beaming. He looked so much like a proud, new father, I thought he might start handing out cigars. To everyone he passed he said, ``Isn't it wonderful.'' As he spoke about that victory, he didn't talk about how many votes his plan had received. He talked about how many children it would help. That is the kind of man he is. He doesn't care who gets the credit so long as people get the help. Sometimes when I am in this Chamber, I look up to the gallery to see the people who have come here to see this great institution at work. I can always tell from their reactions when Senator Kennedy has walked on the floor without even looking around. People sit up, heads turn. Almost always you see someone lean over and whisper to the person next to him or her: Look, Ted Kennedy. He is, undoubtedly, the best known member of this body. Yet he remains a modest man--a worker among workers. Within our caucus, he is very often the first one to work in the morning and the last person to leave at night. No job is too small for Ted Kennedy. At the same time, no challenge is too big. On civil rights, voting rights, education, disarmament and so many other critically important issues, Senator Kennedy has not only picked up the fallen standard that his brothers John and Robert once carried. He has advanced that standard. He has done much of the work they hoped to do but couldn't. There is another incident in Adam Clymer's book that may explain, in part, why Ted Kennedy has achieved so much in this Senate. The year was 1965. Ted and Robert Kennedy were serving together on the Labor and Public Welfare Committee. It was Robert Kennedy's first year in the Senate and Ted's third. One day, after they had waited hours to question a committee witness, Robert leaned over and whispered to his brother: ``Is this the way I become a good Senator--sitting here and waiting my turn?'' Ted said: ``Yes.'' Robert pressed: ``How many hours do I have to sit to be a good Senator?'' Ted answered: ``As long as it takes, Robbie.'' Ted Kennedy is a patient idealist. He understands that progress is a long march and he is willing to work as long and hard as it takes to move America forward. Carved into the drawer of the desk in which he sits is the name of his other brother, John, who sat there before him and who, like Robert, was taken from him, and us, because of his commitment to public service. Many people--perhaps most people--who had suffered such loss might withdraw from public service in fear or anger. They might conclude, rightly, that their family had given enough. But not Ted Kennedy. He has stayed and has done what his father hoped he would all those years ago. He has dedicated his life to trying to work out plans to make people happy. Unlike his brothers, he has ``lived to comb his gray hair.'' He has received what they did not: ``the gift of length of years.'' As we celebrate his 70th birthday, it seems to me that America is the real beneficiary of that great gift. And so, on this happy occasion, I say to my friend, Senator Kennedy, Thank you. Happy Birthday. And may you have many, many more. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are all, by now, too familiar with reports of cowardly terrorist attacks in the streets of Jerusalem. With each of these terrible attacks, we also hear amazing stories of heroism. I recently read a powerful account of the health care professionals who cared for the victims of the bombings on Ben Yehudah Street last December. It was written by Barbara Sofer, and it featured the work of the doctors and nurses of the Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem who saved the lives of dozens of young people under the most trying circumstances. Two things were clear from the account. First, the contributions of Hadassah members make an undeniable difference in improving lives around the world. Second, in our international war against terrorism, the compassion and dedication personified in Hadassah will defeat terrorists whose only interest is destruction. Today Hadassah celebrates 90 years of excellence in health care and social justice. Hadassah started as a movement to bring health care to a poor people in a troubled land. It has become much, much more. Hadassah has energized women for nine decades. It helped build modern Israel. It has created world-renowned medical and education institutions in Israel, which provide trained medical experts not only for Israel, but for countries the world over. In fact, Hadassah-trained health professionals have responded to health care crises in Rwanda and Bosnia. We have felt the impact of its excellent work right here in America, as well, on issues of concern to women and to the American Jewish community. Hadassah has over 300,000 members in 1500 chapters across our Nation, and its work has benefitted Americans of all backgrounds. We are reminded day in and day out that there are forces who want to destroy Israel, weaken America and destabilize the world. But Israel is more secure, America stronger, and the world more stable because of the work of Hadassah. It is only fitting, therefore, that we celebrate Hadassah International's 90 years of excellence. I extend my congratulations to Bonnie Lipton, National President of Hadassah, and the women who serve on the Hadassah Foundation's Board of Directors. To each of them, and to each of the 300,000 members in this country, I say, thank you.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the administration's Council of Economic Advisers will issue today some self-serving economic revisionism--a little like a figure skating judge awarding the gold medal to his own team. We are going to hear that the recession was somehow shorter and shallower than it would have been without last year's mammoth, surplus- swallowing tax cut. Let me just say, I might like to change economic history, too, if I had just blown a $5.6 trillion surplus in less than a year. But let's set the historical record straight. The administration's proposed 10-year tax cut, when they offered it last year, was $1.7 trillion, plus about $300 billion in interest-- about $2 trillion. Of that, there was zero stimulative tax cut. Not a dime was to go out to the American people in the year 2001, last year. Let me restate that. There was no economic stimulus in the $2 trillion tax cut that the administration originally sent to Congress. Democrats who were concerned about the recession were the ones who proposed to give working American families immediate tax relief to get the economy going again. Our Republican colleagues, as late as last week, were arguing that there is no stimulative impact at all to rebates for working Americans. But now we have the White House Council of Economic Advisers suffering a case of convenient economic amnesia. They are not only forgetting that the administration did not propose a stimulus, they are also forgetting what happened to long-term interest rates as a direct consequence of their ill-advised, long-term fiscal policy. The administration's plan, history will show, was exactly reversed: No stimulus but huge, long-term fiscal damage. The budget just released affirms the return to deficits. It has been hugely damaging to our long-term fiscal condition, including diverting $1.5 trillion of the Social Security trust funds just as the baby boom generation is about to retire. Just as important, though, is that long-term fiscal mismanagement has hurt us in the short term. Long-term interest rates have remained stubbornly high even as the Fed reduced short-term rates 11 times. Ten- year Treasurys were at 5.01 percent in January of 2001, and at the beginning of February 2002, they were at 5.05 percent. That means that homes are harder to buy, student loans are more expensive, credit card interest rates remain unnecessarily high. All of that has harmed people, and it has harmed the economy. So let's just remember where we were last year at this time: The administration had the wrong prescription for both the immediate and the long term. They proposed no tax cuts at all during the year 2001-- zero for working families. It was Democrats who insisted on a rebate that ultimately passed without the support of the administration. But then they gave huge giveaways--tilted heavily toward those at the top income levels--that explode as we move forward. Those giveaways could expose us to fiscal disaster as the baby boomers approach retirement. So we should be clear on what happened. Democrats were for immediate stimulus for working families and for prudent long-term tax cuts that would not have jeopardized our fiscal future or the retirement security of millions of Americans. The report that we are going to get today from the administration is trying to substitute political sound bites for sound economic analysis. No fair judge would call the administration's economic plan a medal-winning performance.