Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar Nos. 547 through 566, and 568, and the nominations on the Secretary's desk; that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements thereon be printed in the Record, that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, with that understanding, I inform all Senators there will be no more rollcall votes tonight, nor do we anticipate now that there will be any rollcall votes tomorrow. We have a number of other matters we will take into account during wrap- up. I will begin with one, and there will be others that will be addressed. All the matters, of course, in wrap-up will be offered in consultation with the Republican leader and have his consent.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Montana.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank all of those Senators who were involved in the array of legislative items that we have taken up today. This has been quite a busy day, with a lot of coordination and a tremendous amount of work. I think we have accomplished a good deal today. I also report that the Commerce Committee has completed its work. I compliment the chair and ranking member of the Commerce Committee for their work on the aviation security bill. We will be addressing that bill a little later.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 5 months ago, America had a projected budget surplus of $2.7 trillion over the next 10 years. The stock market was soaring. The question before us was one that most leaders could only dream of: ``What should we do with our prosperity?'' At that time, the debate was focused on tax cuts--how much, for whom, and could we also provide for America's unmet needs? Regardless of one's view about that debate or its outcome, there can be no doubt that this is a very different moment. Two months ago, more than 6,000 innocent men and women lost their lives to terrorism. In the weeks since, a wave of anthrax attacks has taken lives, closed offices, and sown fear. Our President, rightfully, has assembled an international coalition to fight those who attacked us, and those who aided them. We are at war. The Federal Government is helping those areas destroyed and damaged by the attacks to rebuild. We passed legislation to keep our airlines flying, and to give our law enforcement the tools needed to fight terror. Our economy, which was already weakening before September 11, has continued to deteriorate. The question facing America is no longer, ``What should we do with our prosperity?'' The question now is, ``How do we protect our citizens, strengthen an ailing economy, and win this war against terrorism?'' I believe history will judge this Congress by how well we answer that question. Shortly after September 11, I visited a call center in Rapid City, SD, that handles United Airlines' frequent flyer program. The 235 people there were working hard--helping people get tickets and arranging travel in the chaotic days after September 11. It was a tough job, on the phone hour after hour, helping scared, angry, and confused callers. All they could do was to ask people to be patient and to be understanding. In the past couple of weeks, nearly 50 of those hard-working employees have lost their jobs. Like most hard-working people in America, these people don't expect or want the government to do anything for them that they can do for themselves. But now, due to no fault of their own--no lack of skill or ambition or work ethic--they are no longer working. They are not alone. More than 7 million Americans are out of work. Last month, the unemployment rate took its largest jump in 21 years. For too long, we have asked America's laid off workers to be patient and understanding. Too many Americans fear for their future. Because of what our nation has experienced in the last 2 months, they fear for their safety. We need an economic recovery plan that addresses both fears and offers real help. Today, Democrats are offering a plan that will help bring back America's economic prosperity and help workers who have lost their jobs. It is a plan that strengthens our homeland defense in the process. This is, simply, the right plan for the right time. In the weeks following the September 11 attacks, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate asked the experts, including Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin: What are the most effective steps we can take to shore up our economy? Here is what they told us: Put money into the hands of low- and middle-income workers; they are the ones who will spend it quickly. Make sure that workers who have lost their jobs receive unemployment benefits. And cut taxes for businesses--but limit the tax cuts to those that actually help create jobs. They told us that any plan to stimulate the economy should help people regain the sense of security they need to shop, travel, and invest. Finally, they said our plan must be affordable and temporary. After all, the baby boomers will start retiring in less than a decade, and we should not be taking on major long-term spending or revenue obligations that will make it even more difficult to meet our responsibilities to Social Security and Medicare. Our plan heeds that simple but sound advice. It includes unemployment insurance and health care for laid-off workers, tax cuts for individuals and businesses, and investments in our homeland security. It does all of these things in a way that is fiscally responsible and fundamentally fair. I would like to take a moment and outline the four key components of our plan. First, it provides unemployment insurance for laid-off workers. Providing unemployment insurance to laid-off workers isn't just the right thing to do. It's the smart thing to do. It puts money into the hands of people who are most likely to spend it immediately. As Robert Rubin has said, unemployment insurance is ``a near-perfect stimulus.'' But more than half of unemployed workers are not covered under the current unemployment insurance system, even though they pay into it. Many of these are the part-time and temporary workers who often most need the help. And for those who are eligible for unemployment insurance, the benefits often do not last long enough. Next year, an estimated 5 million Americans will use all 26 weeks of their benefits, and still be without a job. Our plan extends unemployment benefits an additional 13 weeks in all 50 States; it expands coverage to millions of workers who are not covered under the current system. During the first Bush Administration, when we were facing a recession, Democrats and Republicans agreed to extend unemployment insurance--four times. We were able to agree that extending unemployment benefits was the right approach to an economic slowdown then, we should be able to agree that it is the right approach now. Second, we provide health coverage for workers. Democrats also believe that extending health coverage for laid-off workers and their families should be part of any real economic recovery package. The average cost of COBRA health coverage for a family is $588 a month--half the monthly unemployment benefit. That is simply too much money for families hit by a layoff. As a result, only about 20 percent of dislocated workers who are eligible for COBRA coverage actually purchase it. Too often, when a head of a household is out of work, parents and children go without health insurance. That is wrong. We propose paying up to 75 percent of the cost of COBRA coverage, giving States the option to provide Medicaid coverage to those who aren't eligible for COBRA, and providing a temporary increase in the Medicaid payment rate for States, so that States will not have to cut Medicaid or raise taxes in order to keep their budgets balanced. Third, we provide tax cuts for families and for businesses that invest and create jobs. Most economists agree: to jump start the economy, individual tax cuts should put money quickly into the hands of middle- and low-income people--because they are the people who are mostly likely to spend it immediately. Our plan provides tax rebates for the 45 million low-income taxpayers who pay Federal payroll taxes but got little or no rebate at all last summer. Our plan also includes new business new tax cuts to encourage job creation and investment. In sum, these are tax cuts that will help Wall Street and Main Street. Fourth, we provide for strengthening homeland security. We can pass tax cut after tax cut. In the end, no tax cut--even the right tax cuts--will stimulate the economy if people are afraid to travel or go about their business. If we are serious about repairing damage to America's economy--and avoiding future terrorism-related financial disasters--we must strengthen America's homeland security so people can feel safer getting on a plane, going about their business, and living their lives. That is why our plan includes $15 billion for homeland defense. It will help protect Americans from threats such as the recent anthrax attacks that have so shaken our nation and our own offices, as well as other biological, chemical, and nuclear threats. It will strengthen our transportation security and help protect our food and water supply. All told, our plan costs $74 billion in the first year, and $84 billion over 10 years. It is both effective and responsible, and we believe it is the right approach for America's economic recovery and future safety. Regrettably, Republicans have chosen to take a different approach. Many things, as I said, about America changed on Sept. 11. One thing that seemed to change--for the better--is the way Washington works. Democrats and Republicans in Congress have been working together, and Congress has been working well with White House. This unprecedented level of consultation and bipartisanship is what has, to date, allowed us to respond so quickly to the attacks and the ongoing terrorist threat. It was my hope that we would follow that same bipartisan approach on the subject of economic stimulus as well. Indeed, that is how the process began. Early on, Chairman Baucus led a bipartisan series of meetings with Senator Grassley, their House counterparts, outside experts, and the Administration. Unfortunately, Republican leaders in the House withdrew from that effort. Instead, they pushed through--on a party line vote--a bill that is not a recovery bill at all but merely another laundry list of tax cuts--just another page out of the Republican Party's pre-existing tax cut agenda. Although they masquerade as stimulus plans, no serious observer believes that the Republican proposals are anything of the kind. The centerpiece of the Senate Republican proposal is a plan to accelerate by 4 years the rate cuts in the $2 trillion tax cut enacted earlier this year. Speeding up the rate cuts would cost $121 billion over 10 years. That amounts to 69 percent of the total cost of their plan. And what would Americans get for their $121 billion? Most would get very little. But the top 1 percent of taxpayers--people making an average of $1.1 million a year--would get an additional $16,000 tax cut next year. They would get additional tax cuts the year after that, and the year after that, and the year after that. In total, over the next 4 years, the Senate Republican plan would give a $52,000 tax cut bonus to every millionaire in America--the very people who are least likely to spend it and help the economy. America needs a plan that will help the economy now, not years from now. We need a plan that puts money in the hands of people who need it most, not the people who need it least. I have yet to understand how giving millionaires tens of thousands of dollars in additional tax breaks 3 and 4 years from now will stimulate the economy today. The second-largest part of the Senate Republican plan would spend $22 billion to repeal the corporate alternative minimum tax, or AMT. The corporate AMT was enacted as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 because certain corporations, using legions of tax lawyers, had become so clever at exploiting loopholes in the tax code that they were able to pay no taxes at all. So Congress said to those corporations: regardless of how many loopholes you can exploit, you must pay at least a minimum tax. Now Republicans want to do away with the minimum tax, forever. How will returning to the days when certain profitable corporations paid no taxes at all stimulate our economy now? Small businesses create most of the new jobs in America, and most of them are not incorporated. So they won't get a penny from repealing the corporate AMT. If this proposal does not seem fair or stimulative, that is because it is not. What is perhaps even more troubling about the Republican approach is what it fails to address. The Republican plan provides next to nothing for workers who have lost their jobs. And it provides nothing at all for homeland security. When you read their plan for the first time, you assume it is missing a page. Not a dime for bioterrorism preparedness? Not a nickel for food safety or for security at our nuclear plants? Can this really be a plan to restore confidence and stimulate the economy? Evidently, these items weren't omitted because of cost concerns. Quite the contrary. The Republican plan is more than twice the size of our plan. And the exploding price tag of the Senate Republican plan-- $175 billion over 10 years--may not even account for its true cost. It will not make America safer. It will not help the economy. In fact, it may do real economic harm by driving up long-term interest rates. Now, if the Republican plan sounds familiar, that is because it is. It is a collection of leftover tax breaks that our friends on the other side of the aisle weren't able to pass last spring. Reading their plan, it's as though September 11 never happened. They have re-labeled these tax breaks as, ``stimulus,'' but they are really just more of the same pre-September 11 tax cut agenda that we have heard our Republican colleagues talk about for months, if not years. Tax cuts for wealthy Americans and profitable businesses do not solve every problem--and they will not solve this one. The Republican plan is not about getting the most stimulus per dollar spent. It is not about getting help to those who most need it. It is not about strengthening our national security. It is about ideology. It is about seizing on a moment of crisis in order to advance unrelated political goals. It is driven by a conservative Republican orthodoxy that is so rigid, and so myopic, that it cannot or will not see what is obvious to every fair-minded observer: this is the wrong plan for America, especially at this moment in our history. I will say one thing for this approach: it has managed to achieve a degree of unanimity. It has been unanimously rejected by economists, Governors, State legislators, editorial writers, and business leaders. Two weeks ago, Senator Lott and I received a letter from the National Governors' Association, signed by its Chairman, Governor John Engler, Republican of Michigan, and its Vice-chairman, Governor Paul Patton, Democrat of Kentucky. The NGA is a majority Republican group that represents all of America's governors--29 Republicans and 19 Democrats, and 2 Independents. The Governors asked us, as we consider economic stimulus, to ``help protect health and human services for vulnerable Americans, address employment and training for dislocated workers, and stimulate the national economy through targeted capital investment.'' Interestingly, they make no mention of huge new tax breaks for profitable corporations. No mention of huge new tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Republican leaders got this letter. Sadly, I don't think they got the message. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there is another important point that must be made today. Five months ago, when we last considered a huge tax cut that mostly benefitted the wealthiest Americans, the money to pay for it was to come from the non-Social Security surplus. Today those surpluses are gone. So whatever is spent on this stimulus package will, at least over the next 5 years, come mainly out of Social Security and Medicare funds. We may even return to deficit spending, if we are not careful. That is why we must be even more prudent, and more vigilant, about what is included in this economic recovery package. The Democratic plan has a one-year cost of $74 billion. Over 10 years, its cost increases to $84 billion. As I said, the Republican plan costs $89 billion in 2002. Over 10 years, it explodes to $175 billion--and it runs the risk of damaging our long-term economic health. Their plan costs more but does less for our economy, less for laid off workers, and nothing for homeland security. I hope every Senator will ask himself or herself a simple question: Would my constituents want their Social Security and Medicare money to be spent on this proposal? Democrats have tried to write our package with this concern in mind. We think the American people want us to invest in bioterrorism preparedness, for example. But would Americans want their Social Security payroll tax money spent on new tax cuts for the wealthy or on huge permanent new tax breaks for profitable corporations? I don't think so. In fact, it seems especially unjust when you consider that Americans at the lower end of the income scale pay payroll taxes on every dollar of their income. Meanwhile, wealthy Americans pay zero in Social Security payroll taxes on all income above $80,000. In other words, the Republican plan would spend the hard-earned Social Security payroll tax dollars of ordinary workers at the bottom and use them to pay for tax cuts for corporations and people at the top. We have been told that Senate Republicans will attempt to raise a budget point of order against this bill. Let me make clear what that means. A budget point of order is a procedural technicality aimed at killing this bill by saying that what our nation is now facing is not an emergency. A vote for this procedural motion is a vote to kill unemployment insurance for laid off workers. It is a vote to kill health care for struggling families. It is a vote to kill tax cuts for businesses that create jobs and for people who did not get a rebate in the last round. It is a vote to kill funding to build our national pharmaceutical stockpile, security at our nuclear power plants, protections for our bridges, tunnels, and ports, and the safety of our food and water supply. This is a vote to kill all of these items by saying that this is not an emergency. Thousands of people have lost their lives. Millions of people are out of work. We are at war abroad, and we are facing threats to our safety here at home. If that's not an emergency, I don't know what is. There is still time for us to come together and pass an economic recovery plan that will work for the nation. In the days since September 11, we have seen more clearly than ever that we are indeed one nation, indivisible. The victims of those attacks were from all races and ethnicities, all segments of society. The heroes who came to their aid didn't ask, What's in it for me? As we look to lift up the economy for all Americans, the most fortunate among us should not be asking what's in it for them. Those workers I met in Rapid City aren't looking to us to solve all of their problems. They are just looking for a little help to get through one of the most difficult times of their lives. It may be difficult for us to reach agreement, but for them--and for our nation--it is vitally important that we do so. I strongly believe that with every challenge comes an opportunity, and right now we have an opportunity to help those who are hurting, lift our economy, and secure our Nation. We will be judged on whether we seize it. I hope and pray that we will. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate conduct a period of morning business for up to 45 minutes, between now and 11:15.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just pick up where my colleagues from Oklahoma left off. We have been ready for weeks to work in a bipartisan fashion. No one has worked harder at reaching out to our Republican colleagues than the man sitting at my right, Senator Baucus, the manager of this bill. He has tried on several occasions not only with the Republican colleagues in the Senate but with those in the House, and every time he was told, no, we can't do that because we have to offer our own package. Don't talk to us about bipartisan until you are ready to do it. I must say this is a facade--this notion that somehow the only way to deal with whatever concerns the Senator from Oklahoma may have with regard to this bill is to raise a point of order on this bill. If they do like a particular provision, let them do what we do in the Senate. Let them offer an amendment. If you do not like a particular provision, offer an amendment. Let there be no doubt that the vote we are about to take on this point of order which refuses to allow an emergency designation is a vote to kill homeland security for the remainder of this year. It is a vote to say no to our effort to protect our country from bioterrorism. It is a vote to say no to important security for airports, ports, highways, and tunnels. It is a vote to say no to additional help for law enforcement as we consider the vast array of issues we have to confront. It is a vote to say no adequate unemployment compensation for 7\1/2\ million unemployed workers. It is a vote to say no to helping these families keep their health insurance. It is a vote to say no to those 34 million workers out there who didn't get a nickel in a rebate last summer. There is a lot riding on this bill. This isn't just a point of order and some parliamentary vote you can hide behind, this is a real vote. This is all we have to protect, for the remainder of this year, our opportunities to ensure that a meaningful economic recovery and homeland security package can be passed. That is it--this vote. I hope everybody understands that there isn't a second or a third chance here. I don't know what will happen if we fail a pass this particular test. But I know this: it delays for a long period of time the help we can provide for all of those who are saying we don't have time any longer. We have to get on with protecting this country and the vast array of new challenges we face as a country. We have to provide this unemployment insurance for people whose benefits are running out and for those part-time workers are receiving no benefits at all. I hope our Republican colleagues will understand that. I hope they will join all 51 members of this caucus who are prepared to say, yes, this is an emergency; yes, we need to move on; yes. We need to work together in a bipartisan way; yes, let's do it tonight. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time in order to make a statement on the economic recovery-homeland security bill. It is our expectation that we will be introducing the bill in its modified form at about 11:15. But until then, obviously Senators are welcome to address this or other issues in morning business. I invite them to do so.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on ``Lead-Based Paint Poisoning: State and Local Responses.''

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``Review of INS Policy on Releasing Illegal Aliens Pending Deportation Hearing.''

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet to conduct a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 13, 2001. The purpose of this business meeting will be to discuss the new Federal farm bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have been discussing the schedule for the remainder of the day with the distinguished Republican leader. I want to propound a request. It is my understanding that there is an agreement with our colleagues, having consulted with the Republican leader. I ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 today the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 223, H.R. 3090, the economic recovery/stimulus legislation for debate only until 5 p.m., with no amendments in order during this period; that this time be equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee or their designees.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from New York.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will use whatever leader time I may require to close out the debate on this amendment. As my colleagues have noted, every day firefighters, police officers, and emergency workers literally risk their lives to protect our safety. In 18 States, public safety workers do not currently have the legal right--the legal right--to sit down with their employers and talk about their own health and about their own safety. That is why we offer this amendment this afternoon, the Public Safety Employee-Employer Cooperation amendment. It is identical to the bipartisan bill offered by Senators Gregg and Kennedy, who both spoke in favor of this amendment last week. The amendment is very simple. It guarantees that public safety officers have the right to form and join a union; have the right to bargain collectively over hours, wages, and conditions of employment-- period. Studies have shown, as Senator Kennedy and others have noted, that fewer firefighters are killed in the line of duty in States where collective bargaining exists, States where public safety officers have a say in their working conditions. Our proposal expressly forbids strikes or lockouts by public safety workers. Contrary to assertions by some of the opponents of this amendment, our proposal does not override State right-to-work laws. The opponents of this amendment say that allowing public safety workers to join a union will somehow jeopardize public safety. Tell that to the 344 unionized firefighters and paramedics who died trying to save the lives of people at the World Trade Center. Tell the unionized Capitol police who guard this building and protect our lives every day of the week. These men and women deserve our thanks. They deserve a vote on this important issue. Instead, when we offered this amendment, we were informed opponents would not give us a vote. So let there be no mistake. This cloture vote is the vote on the merits. It is a vote on whether or not we stand with firefighters, the police, and those who protect us day in and day out. This gives all firefighters, regardless of where they live, the opportunity to do what they ought to be able to do in this country--to bargain collectively for their rights, for their safety, for their lives in some cases. Madam President, I urge a ``yes'' vote. I hope our colleagues will support this cloture vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. DASCHLE. Preserving the prerogative of the majority, I want to close out this debate. Let me respond in a couple of ways. First of all, this amendment does not federalize state labor laws. This amendment says if a state has a right-to-work law, we will respect it. What this amendment also says to every firefighter in the country: If you want to negotiate in a collective bargaining arrangement with your employer, you have the right to do so. The process is not dictated. There is no requirement that employers agree with those firefighters who want to enter into a collective bargaining arrangement. Who would deny the right to a firefighter today to enter into a collective bargaining arrangement if he or she chooses to do so? That is all we are suggesting. We protect right-to-work laws. We protect rights of the State. I think we ought to protect the rights of all firefighters too. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to update the Senate on a situation that is of interest to many people and of acute interest to many of us: the remediation of the Hart Senate Office Building. It was 3 weeks ago yesterday that an envelope containing anthrax was opened in my Hart office by a member of my staff. It is the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency to recommend how the Hart Building is to be remediated. No other entity has the expertise to make those recommendations. One week ago today, on October 30, the Environmental Protection Agency officially took control of the Hart Building and the Hart remediation project. At the time, EPA officials outlined for us what they said was an experimental but promising plan to use a chlorine dioxide fumigant throughout the building to kill the anthrax spores. Under that plan, the Hart Building could have reopened as early as November 13--1 week from today. Unfortunately, it is now clear that EPA will not be able to meet its initial optimistic schedule. EPA now says that the Hart Building will not re-open until at least November 21. Earlier today, EPA officials came to the Hill to brief Senators who have offices in the Hart Building on the reasons for the delay. They also spoke with chiefs of staff and office managers from those offices. Since this situation affects the entire Senate family, I want to share what the EPA officials told us. When EPA told us last week about their plans to remediate the entire Hart Building using chlorine dioxide as a fumigant, they said they believed it was the safest, most effective, most comprehensive, and least disruptive way to remediate Hart. At the same time, they said their plan would not be final until it had passed a peer review--until leading scientists in government and the private sector had examined it and agreed it was a reasonable way to go. According to EPA, over the weekend, some of those scientists raised questions about the plan. While they all agreed that a chlorine dioxide fumigant will kill anthrax spores, some of the experts EPA consulted expressed concerns about using chloride dioxide gas on a building as large as the Hart Building. According to EPA officials, this is not a scientific issue. It is an engineering issue. As a result of these questions, EPA is now formulating a new plan for the Hart Building. The Senate Sergeant at Arms has appropriately insisted that the entire Hart Building be tested for anthrax. The building will remain closed until the EPA deems that it is safe to reenter. I understand the frustration and disappointment of Senators and staff who have been displaced by the Hart Building closure. We have all been greatly inconvenienced, and we are anxious to get back to the regular order in our offices. But we are dealing with a deadly bacteria. Safety must come before convenience. Twenty members of my staff and 8 other members of the Senate family were exposed to anthrax when that letter was opened. I do not want one more person to have to face that situation. It is important that we all understand the EPA, and only the EPA, has the expertise to declare the Hart Building safe. We will follow their lead and re-open Hart when they certify it is safe to do so. The safety and health of the people who work in the Hart Building and those who visit there must be our guide. I appreciate the patience and the understanding of all our colleagues, their staffs, and those who find themselves as dislocated as my staff. I intend to continue to give periodic reports as they are necessary, and I will share whatever information is made available as soon as it is provided to me.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, the Senate will resume consideration of the Labor-HHS Appropriations Act with 15 minutes of debate in relation to the firefighters amendment. The Senate will vote on cloture on the amendment at approximately 2:30 this afternoon. We hope to complete action on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill today. Then it would be my intention of moving to the D.C. appropriations bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar Nos. 516 through 528; that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate return to legislative session.