Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and thank the members, volunteers, and sponsors of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD. MADD and its mission ``to stop drunk driving, support victims of this violent crime and prevent underage drinking'' has become the largest crime victims' assistance organization in the world, with more than 3 million members and supporters. This month marks the 20th anniversary of South Dakota's Pennington County chapter of MADD. MADD Pennington County shares this anniversary with the enactment of the National Uniform 21 Minimum Drinking Age Act, one of the organization's greatest victories. Since the law was passed in 1984, over 20,000 young lives have been saved from highway crashes. Much of that success is thanks to MADD's efforts to change public attitudes and raise social awareness of the dangers of impaired driving. We still have much to do. Since 2000, about half of all the traffic related deaths in South Dakota were alcohol related. In the face of this challenge, the MADD chapter of Pennington County has been active in outreach, coordinating with the police department to educate the owners and staffs of restaurants and bars, as well as high school and college students. Two women in particular have made a difference, and they deserve special recognition. Lila Doud, who is the current Chapter President, and Janice Morehouse, the Secretary/Treasurer, have been working with the MADD Pennington County chapter since its inception 20 years ago. All the volunteers and sponsors of MADD Pennington County have much to be proud of and I am grateful for their commitment to public safety, victim services, and education. All of South Dakota owes them a great debt and we thank them for their service.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I always find it of interest when a prominent member of corporate America steps forward to offer a refreshing perspective on the economic challenges our country faces today. To that end, I would like to call the Senate's attention to two pieces of commentary written by Leo Hindery, Jr. and published over the summer recess. Mr. Hindery, as many of my colleagues are aware, has served as the CEO of TCI and AT&T Broadband, and more recently as the chairman of the YES Network. He has a keen understanding that corporations have obligations both to their shareholders, but also to the communities in which they operate, and the American economy they fuel. Mr. Hindery's first piece is on the subject of outsourcing, and he argues that offshoring of jobs is not inevitable, nor is it often the best long-term strategy for American companies. His second talks about the need to see through the sky-is-falling claims of some interest groups and weigh both policy and electoral decisions on a simple standard--what is the best thing to do, not just for a few who are well-off and well-connected, but for the economy as a whole? Again, I think these pieces of insight and analysis would be of interest to those of us who are entrusted to make decisions about the policies America adopts, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I certainly will not object, but I wish to clarify the matter pertaining to going to conference. I have had a conversation with the majority leader, and he has given me his assurance that this would not be used as a vehicle for debt limit, and we do not intend for this legislation to be a larger omnibus bill. I know some colleagues perhaps on both sides of the aisle have expressed that concern. I think we can say with confidence that is not the intent. It is also my hope that this unanimous consent agreement would be the first installment perhaps of a series which would also include a finite list, perhaps within the next 24 hours or so, that would give us a clear understanding of what these amendments may be. But we would ask for cooperation on both sides of the aisle in that there will be plenty of opportunities and other circumstances to offer amendments that may exceed the bounds of this agreement. But I am real hopeful we can get good bipartisan cooperation and complete the work on time. But I would ask the majority leader if he could confirm the clarification with regard to intent when we go to conference.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will quickly respond. It is certainly not my intention to object to this request. I think both Senators have spoken very accurately about the need to expeditiously consider this supplemental funding request. I will say, however, that the ongoing disasters--especially in the Dakotas but around the country--in areas affecting agriculture will have to be addressed. We cannot ignore it indefinitely. We can certainly understand the need for urgent action tonight on this particular request, but I do hope we can come back at a later date, in the not-too-distant future, to address in a more comprehensive way other disasters as well.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I applaud the effort made by the majority leader and all Members of Congress to respond as quickly and as comprehensively as we can to the extraordinary disaster we have now witnessed in Florida. Our hearts and prayers go to all of those people who have experienced this remarkable set of circumstances. There are other areas of the country which have not had the same degree of direct adverse weather but have suffered adversely the effects in many parts of the country with regard to drought, in particular, in certain areas. The two Senators from North Dakota, Senators Dorgan and Conrad, in particular, have been very vocal about the extraordinary impact it has had. South Dakota has also been very adversely affected. We have had terrible drought. We have not been able to address it satisfactorily. There are some people now who are actually having to sell their farms and ranches because they are unable to cope any longer with the drought circumstances. I ask that we might modify the consent to provide for a single amendment which would provide disaster assistance primarily to agricultural producers in Florida and throughout the country in an effort to address those needs, as well.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will have a lot more to say about nominations in coming days, but I want to focus, if I may, on just one matter that I think deserves real attention this month. I have also discussed this matter with the majority leader. It has to do with the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. On November 27, 2002, when the President signed the law that created the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, he said: I expect that the Commission's final report will contain important recommendations for steps that can be taken to improve our preparedness for and responses to terrorist attacks in the future. Twenty months, over 1,000 interviews, 12 public hearings, millions of pages of documents reviewed later, the Commission has put together those important recommendations--41 in all. Few of the recommendations are new. Many are obvious. Yet none are law. The ideas are there. The leadership has been lacking. It is up to us, with the time we have now, to provide that leadership. Congress is back in session for less than 2 months. The single most important thing we can do is make the American agenda the Senate's agenda, and we need to put security first. That means putting at the top of our legislative agenda the two items that carry with them an urgency that is unique to our time and our challenges: the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and the funding necessary to increase homeland security. The last months have only heightened concerns about the threat of terrorism. In early August, the Secretary of Homeland Security raised the terror alert level from elevated to high, putting Washington, DC, New York, and New Jersey on orange alert. Also last month, two airliners crashed nearly simultaneously in an incident that appears to have been caused by midair explosions. Last week the world witnessed the terrible hostage standoff at a Russian school and the tragic consequences that resulted. In those last two incidents, other nations were targets. And yet we know that America is a target. The question for every Member of Congress is, have we done enough to improve our Nation's security? Three high-level government reports all sanctioned by the Bush administration--conclude the answer is: not yet. The 9/11 Commission is not the first to look at how we can strengthen our intelligence community in order to protect ourselves. In just the past 4 years, the Joint House-Senate inquiry into the September 11 terrorist attacks issued its findings, as did a commission appointed by President Bush and led by General Brent Scowcroft. Three independent commissions have reviewed these issues, and they have all made remarkably similar recommendations. They have all said we need a national intelligence director someone whose job it is to manage the national intelligence program and oversee the agencies that make up the intelligence community. Right now, the CIA director also serves as the Director of Central Intelligence. But whoever is in that job simply doesn't have the authority to reposition our intelligence community to face new threats. We know al-Qaida is adapting every day. We are not. They have all said we need a national Counterterrorism Center, to bring together all sources of information so that we can eliminate the barriers that kept one agency's information from another's and kept all of that information from getting analyzed. We need to do more to understand and disrupt terrorist finances; improve the FBI's counterterrorism capabilities; and work with our allies to abolish terrorist sanctuaries. When you have all of these experts saying all of the same things, it would be foolish for us not to listen and dangerous for us not to act. The 9/11 Commission has made a series of additional recommendations. They include: Securing weapons of mass destruction and keeping them out of the hands of terrorists; using the full array of our power-- military, diplomatic, law enforcement, and humanitarian--to combat Islamic extremism; finishing the job in Afghanistan with a long-term commitment to reconstruction and security, so that land never again becomes a haven for terrorists; openly confronting the ongoing Saudi- based terror financing and official tolerance of extremists, and reconfiguring our relationship so that it is not based simply on oil. Of course, one of their most significant recommendations was for us to do more to protect the homeland. Recent disclosures have demonstrated that al-Qaida is an opportunistic organization. They don't attack where we are well defended. They attack where we aren't. And so it is vitally important that we make America a harder target, while also preparing for attacks that may take place, so that we can contain the damage and save lives. The way we do that is through the Homeland Security appropriations bill. This bill includes the funding necessary to improve border security and customs inspections, to hire 570 new border agents, to make our ports safer by inspecting more shipping containers, and to make America's transportation systems safer. It also includes funding to protect America against bioterrorism, cyberterrorism and to ensure our first responders have the tools and training they need in case they are called upon to respond to an attack. Right now, we face a test of seriousness. The September 11 Commission has made 41 recommendations. One of them can be addressed by completing work on the Homeland Security appropriations bill. But we need to act on all of them. As Lee Hamilton has said: We believe that the reforms are a package and that if some are broken off, then the result is that you diminish the impact of our recommendations . . . You end up with something of less value. We need to put security first. I don't think the Senate should be allowed to leave town until we have acted on all 41 of these recommendations. Certainly, there will be some disagreement on some. I know that others have suggested different approaches and different reforms entirely. All of these things deserve debate and discussion. But debate and discussion are meaningless if the 9/11 Commission's recommendations don't also receive action. Time is of the essence. Every day the Congress spends not doing the 9/11 recommendations is a day we ignore the threat and neglect our most solemn duty as leaders. As Governor Kean has said: We all think that if we do not act quickly, we increase the risk to the American people. We all agree that the status quo is unacceptable Every day that passes is a day of increased risk if we do not make changes. In the words of the families of the victims of September 11: Nearly three years have passed since our nation's homeland security was cataclysmically breached. Far too little has been done to better secure our homeland. We therefore request that Congress and our President act with the greatest urgency. We need to listen to the experts. We need to listen to the voices of those who have lost loved ones and are working to see that the horror that was visited on their families is not visited on others. We need to listen to the American people who are concerned about the safety of their families and communities. And then we need to do what the American people expect of us. Senators McCain and Lieberman have put together comprehensive legislation that covers each of the 9/11 Commission's 41 recommendations. They will be introducing that legislation this afternoon. We all understand that we have limited time in this session and a great deal of unfinished work. This should be our first order of business. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join my colleague, the majority leader, in welcoming all of our colleagues back, and also our staff and a new class of pages who are starting today. We are pleased they could join us. We know they will be enjoying their experience, and we are delighted they could be here as we begin this important business. I had the opportunity to talk with Senator Frist briefly this morning. He and I come to the floor this morning with the realization that, with what limited time is left, we must do what our eloquent Chaplain has just prayed we would do; that is, we find the common ground required to deal with the array of legislative challenges that we face as a Senate body and as a country. It would be my hope we could do what the majority leader has suggested, which is to begin deliberations on the Homeland Security appropriations bill very early in the session, hopefully as early as tomorrow. I will be discussing this matter and other scheduling issues with our caucus and our leadership tomorrow morning, but I can say, even having not had the benefit of those discussions, there is a great deal of interest in working with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to achieve completion of the Homeland Security bill, as we have called for now for a couple of months. We also have, of course, 11 other appropriations bills that have not yet reached completion. Most have not even been considered on the Senate floor. It would be my hope we could devote all of our energy, all of our attention, all of the effort at addressing that need. We are only 3 weeks away from the end of this fiscal year, and clearly a lot of work has to be done if we are going to be able to complete our work on time. So the appropriations bills, especially the Homeland Security appropriations bill, need our attention. I will say publicly what I have already said privately to the majority leader: that he can count on our cooperation and partnership as we address that bill in particular. There are also a number of bills in conference. The highway bill ought to be completed this month. The FSC bill, the foreign sales credit bill, the Energy bill, the Defense bill--all of those bills need attention, need completion. So we have a lot of work to do. It would certainly be my hope our Republican colleagues would send the right message not only to all of us on this side of the aisle but to the country about their determination to put those priorities first. We can always score cheap political points, but I hope we would resist that temptation on both sides of the aisle and get on with the work of the Senate and the country in a way that will accomplish this very extraordinarily long list of legislative challenges and needs that we face as we begin our session. I also note we will be taking up additional judicial nominations, I am sure. The three judges confirmed today will bring the total for this administration to 201, which is the fourth highest member of judges ever confirmed in a single term. I think it goes again to the extraordinary cooperation the administration has received on nominations.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as we all painfully know, the United States has broken its word to Indian people, disregarded its treaty obligations, and breached its fiduciary trust responsibility. Litigation has been filed, and administrations of both political parties say the right thing, but then do not follow through to redress legitimate grievances. The concepts of sovereignty and government-to- government dialog are acknowledged, only later all too frequently to be ignored. This sad history was elevated to a new level of concern this spring by the resignation of Mr. Alan Balaran as Special Master in the Cobell class action against the Department of the Interior. On April 5, 2004, Mr. Balaran made some very serious charges against the Department of the Interior in his official letter of resignation. He alleged that energy companies, abetted by the Department of the Interior, routinely pay Indian people less than they pay others for oil and gas easements. He further alleged that Interior officials regularly put the interests of private companies ahead of the Department's fiduciary responsibility to Indian people. These are disturbing charges leveled by an individual knowledgeable about the long history of trust mismanagement. Congress must get to the bottom of this situation to fully satisfy our own fiduciary responsibility to Indian people. It is clear that neither the executive branch nor the Congress's hands are clean on the trust management issue. And this not a partisan failure. It is a governmentwide failure that requires independent review. I am, therefore, today introducing legislation to create a National Commission on American Indian Trust Holdings. This Commission will be unique in several respects. First, it will be composed of 10 prominent U.S. citizens. Two individuals will each be appointed by the President, Senate majority leader, Senate minority leader, Speaker of the House, and House minority leader to place the Commission beyond politics. Second, it will have the resources to hire the technical expertise needed. Professionals with expertise in land and resources management, accounting, Federal Indian policy, and trust law, among other disciplines will be included. The Commission will build upon past efforts without duplicating past efforts. Finally, the Commission will be charged with the responsibility of reporting to the President and the Congress within 1 year on: One, how to recoup, if possible, any damages that have resulted from the breach of fiduciary responsibility; and, two, how to prevent any such breaches in the future. We are looking for specific recommendations on how to fairly account for past mistakes, how to find closure on the trust issue, and how to prevent those mistakes from again happening in the future. The overall goal of the Commission is to fully and completely examine the very serious charges made by Mr. Balaran, as outlined in his letter to Judge Lamberth. The Commission would also be authorized to examine other breaches of trust and to report back to the Congress and such executive departments as may seem appropriate. Many words have been spoken over many years about trust responsibility and the breach of trust and fiduciary obligations, but very little concrete action has resulted from these words. Mr. Balaran's charges should be a wake-up call to all civic-minded Americans to demand that fairness be restored to the administration of Indian trust accounts. I sincerely hope that, given the track record of the past 10 years, an independent panel of distinguished Americans will be given an opportunity to succeed where the executive and legislative branches have fallen short. Their review will at least get to the bottom of Mr. Balaran's charges. And perhaps we can use the results of this examination to generate momentum for exploring the larger trust issues. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Balaran's letter of resignation and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, recent media reports indicate that at least two companies are actively considering plans to import Brazilian ethanol into the United States duty-free through the Caribbean Basin. These reports have generated understandable anxiety within the farm community. Cargill, the Minnesota-based agri-business giant, has confirmed that it is considering importing 63 million gallons of Brazilian ethanol into the United States each year. And it has been reported that Chevron-Texaco, one of the largest oil companies in the United States, is planning construction of a plant that will enable it to import 50 million to 100 million gallons of ethanol. Farmers in South Dakota and throughout the Midwest are concerned that such import schemes could threaten the growth of the domestic ethanol industry and undermine our effort to establish ethanol as a major domestic energy source. They should be concerned. These import plans would establish a dangerous precedent for other importers and dramatically undercut the ability of the pending Renewable Fuels Standard to enhance our national energy security and boost farm income. The key to the next growth spurt in the domestic ethanol industry is bipartisan legislation I wrote with Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN) that would set mandatory annual production targets for ethanol for the next 10 years. Senator Lugar and I proposed the Renewable Fuels Standard, or RFS, 4 years ago as a means to grow the domestic ethanol industry in a way that both encourages investment in new community-sized ethanol facilities and expands markets for farmers. We remain hopeful that this proposal will clear Congress before adjournment this year. Under our proposed RFS, domestic ethanol demand would grow from 3 billion gallons per year in 2004 to more than 5 billion gallons in 2012, providing ethanol plants and farmers with a steady growth schedule that encourages investment in this domestic industry. This RFS would create over 214,000 jobs, increase farm income by $1.3 billion annually, and save the U.S. $4 billion in imported oil each year. Plans to import ethanol threaten these benefits by injecting an element of market uncertainty into the RFS discussion that could dampen investment in community-sized ethanol facilities. Ethanol importation would put the producers of Brazilian sugarcane in direct competition with American corn growers. That is why today Senators Lugar, Hagel, Nelson, and I are introducing legislation to clarify that ethanol imports will not count toward the RFS targets. This bill will ensure that farmers and domestic ethanol investors will get the full benefit of the RFS, and it tells Cargill and Chevron accountants not to count on the new demand created by the Renewable Fuels Standard to justify any scheme to import ethanol. I understand that corporate executives feel an obligation to their shareholders. My obligation is to South Dakota farmers, ethanol producers, and motorists who view increased ethanol demand as a means to establish greater control over their economic and energy future. I have fought my entire public career against outright opposition and indifference from the giant corporate interests whose balance sheets don't consider the value-added contribution of local economic development. This situation is no different. As a result of our efforts, Chevron won't get to import as much oil and refine and sell as much high-priced gasoline as they may like, and Cargill won't get to import ethanol and compete against South Dakota producers. The RFS program is designed to stimulate domestic production and enhance U.S. energy security, not to create a market opportunity for foreign ethanol. The bill I am introducing today will help make sure that rural communities are able to attract investment capital to produce clean burning energy, create quality jobs for their kids, and expand local tax bases to accommodate better schools and community services. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 8 months ago, the Republican leadership pushed through Congress a lemon of a Medicare prescription drug bill that has been breaking down part by part since the day it was passed. First, we learned drug companies were raising the prices of many drugs, erasing what little discounts the administration's drug card program might have offered. Next, we learned the administration concealed its cost estimates, misled Congress, and threatened the Medicare actuary with termination for trying to respond to Congressional requests for information. Then, we heard that some seniors who enrolled in the program were going to see reductions in other benefits, such as food stamps. Later, days after the Drug Card program began, seniors from across the country began to report that it was too confusing and studies revealed there were lower prices available from major online pharmacies. Finally, we learned that the HHS website established to help seniors navigate their way through the labyrinth of the myriad cards was riddled with false information. The most recent discovery, however, is the most troubling of all, because what we're talking about is not policy breakdown, but policy sabotage. Let me explain: Every senior has his or her Medicare Part B premium withdrawn from their Social Security check. But when the increase in health care inflation began to outpace seniors' Social Security cost of living adjustments, Congress protected seniors by making it impossible for a senior's Medicare premiums to go up more than the value of his or her Social Security COLA. It's called the ``hold harmless'' protection, and it makes a simple promise to seniors: The cost of health care will not come at the expense of the cost of living. We have now learned that behind closed doors and in the dark of night, Republican leaders undermined this promise. Like Part B premiums, the new prescription drug premiums will come out of a senior's Social Security check. But unlike in traditional Medicare, the new drug bill does not protect seniors with a ``hold harmless'' provision. It was never mentioned in the debate and no one has stepped forward to take responsibility in the months since. But if we don't fix the problem, it will eventually result in the decimation of seniors' Social Security annual cost of living adjustment. Never have these protections been more important. In the past several years, the consumer price index, on which Social Security COLAs are pegged, has remained very low. At the same time, the cost of health care has been skyrocketing by double- digit percentages. In the 4 years of this administration, the cumulative increase in the Medicare monthly premiums will be at least $26, nearly twice as much as in the prior eight years under the Clinton administration. In addition, the Medicare Part B premium increase for 2005 is projected to be $114, the largest ever. For seniors on a fixed income, every dollar counts. The hold harmless protection is the only thing standing in the way of lower and lower Social Security checks. But the Republican leadership chose not to protect seniors in this drug bill, despite the fact that the cost of pharmaceuticals is increasing even faster than the cost of health care overall. Medicare Part D premiums are expected to rise 7.5 percent per year. The result will be a steady erosion of Social Security checks, and real damage to seniors' ability to pay their bills and keep up with inflation. According to a new report by the Joint Economic Committee, one in four seniors will lose a quarter of their COLA just on Medicare premium increases by 2007. In 2014, nearly two in three seniors will see the same level of loss. And those most vulnerable will be the ones most severely harmed. For an elderly woman with a monthly benefit of $500, the increase in Medicare premiums will take an average of 60 percent of her COLA from 2007 to 2010, and an average of 66 percent from 2011 to 2014. Let's not mince words. This is the worst kind of bait and switch. We cannot stand by and allow seniors to be cheated out of their cost of living increases in exchange for a confusing drug benefit that fails to bring down the cost of drugs. Today, I am introducing the Social Security COLA Protection Act of 2004 to make sure that senior citizens continue to receive a COLA that helps them keep pace with inflation. This bill would restore seniors' protections and ensure that no more than 25 percent of their annual COLAs could be taken away by increases in Medicare premiums. The remaining 75 percent would be secure. For a senior citizen receiving a $600 monthly benefit, this bill would protect more than $2,200 over the next 10 years. That's money seniors will need to cover increases in clothing, food, housing and energy prices. We're not talking about adding an extra benefit to Social Security. We're talking about protecting seniors' existing benefit from a drug plan that appears now to be little more than a wolf in sheep's clothing. This wasn't the prescription drug bill seniors were promised. Upon the passage of this bill, President Bush said, ``Some older Americans spend much of their Social Security checks just on their medications. . . . Elderly Americans should not have to live with those kinds of fears and hard choices. This new law will ease the burden on seniors and will give them the extra help they need.'' As we have seen so often, there has been a gap between what this administration promised, and what it delivered. In the guise of easing one burden on seniors, the administration has added yet another. I wish the White House and the Republican leadership in Congress had listened more closely to some of the voices of seniors during the debate last Fall. One man from Nashville, Tennessee looked at the details of this bill and asked, ``Do you think anybody in Washington has any idea what people on a limited income have to do to live?'' If the authors of the prescription drug bill truly understood what seniors on fixed incomes must go through, they never would have passed it. Democrats are fighting to make things right again. We do understand the struggles of America's seniors and the burden drug costs put on their finances. Seniors were promised a real prescription drug benefit for Medicare. The Republicans' prescription drug bill has proven to be tragically inadequate. The COLA protection bill we are introducing today represents an important step in repairing the damage, and Democrats will keep fighting until seniors get the help they were promised and the benefit they deserve. I want to thank the Joint Economic Committee Democrats for their efforts to identify and highlight this problem. Senator Jack Reed is the senior Democratic Senator on the Committee, and the lead cosponsor of the COLA protection bill. Senator Patty Murray joined us in highlighting the problem yesterday. She is also a cosponsor, along with five other Senate Democrats. This is truly a bicameral effort. My South Dakota colleague, Stephanie Herseth, is sponsoring the House bill. This is the first bill she is introducing in Congress, and I am proud that she is helping lead this fight for seniors in South Dakota and across the country. Many other House Democrats are joining her in this effort. Senator Reed will be inserting the JEC report into the Record. I encourage my colleagues to read it. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a fact sheet on the bill that was prepared by Representative Pelosi's office, as well as a document prepared by the House Ways and Means Committee staff that provides several illustrative examples of how the bill would work, how much retirees would save if it becomes law, and what percentage of Medicare enrollees will benefit. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. We will continue our effort to protect America's seniors and address the problems created by last year's prescription drug bill when Congress returns in the fall.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Advancing FASD Research, Prevention, and Services Act. For many years now, I have met and worked with people whose lives have been profoundly affected by the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy. Prenatal exposure to alcohol can cause a wide range of serious, life-long problems known as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorders. Individuals with FASD can have a low IQ, behavioral impairments, growth retardation, facial abnormalities, and birth defects. About 40,000 children are born with FASD each year. A great deal of progress has been made in raising awareness of the dangers of alcohol consumption during pregnancy, but much more needs to be done. The bill I am introducing today addresses the need for more research, better screening systems to identify children with FASD, effective prevention programs, and enhanced access to treatment and support services. It is my sincere hope that this bill--when combined with the tireless efforts of parents, health professionals, teachers, and countless others--will help prevent FASD and support the children and families who are living with its consequences. I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet containing a description of the bill be printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, every year, I spend time driving across the State of South Dakota, and every year, I hear unbelievable stories from my constituents about the growing health care crisis in South Dakota and across America. One issue that comes up repeatedly in my travels is South Dakota's dental shortage. The statistics speak for themselves. Almost one-third of my State's 66 counties have been designated Dental Health Professional Shortage Areas. In total, over 97,000 South Dakotans live in a county that does not have enough dentists to meet the needs of the population. Nationally, 25 million Americans reside in such shortage areas. South Dakota has only one dentist for every 250 square miles, which means that many South Dakotans must travel more than 100 miles to visit a dentist. To see a pediatric dentist, parents often have to travel up to 400 miles. I've heard stories of families driving clear across the State so that their children can receive urgent dental care. Comparatively, Minnesota's rate is 28 square miles per dentist. Massachusetts's rate is less than 2 square miles per dentist, and here in Washington, DC, the rate is 0.1 square miles per dentist. In addition, the dentists my State does have are getting older. A study conducted in South Dakota found that roughly half of the dentists currently practicing there are over 50 years old, and that 30 percent plan to retire within 10 years. Nationally, more than 20 percent of dentists will retire in the next 10 years, and the number of dental graduates by 2015 may not be enough to replace them. The problem in Indian country is even worse. Indian pre-school children have 5 times the rate of dental decay experienced by other children in their age group. Despite this great need, the Indian Health Services estimates that one-third of its dental positions are vacant. A report by the Government Accounting Office in 2000 found that, while several factors contribute to the low use of dental services among low-income individuals, the most important factor was the inability to find a dentist to treat them. That is simply unacceptable. Another report by Oral Health America in 2003 found that the United States does poorly in several areas that measure access to dental care. In fact, in the report's assessment of dentist availability, the majority of States received a grade of C or lower. The report card also found that those with the greatest need have the hardest time finding care; 18 states received a failing grade for the availability of dentists who provide significant services under Medicaid, contributing to an alarming D grade for the entire nation. In an effort to address this urgent problem, I have been working with representatives from the South Dakota Oral Health Coalition to develop a legislative remedy at the Federal level. The culmination of that effort is the bill I am introducing today, the Dental Health Provider Shortage Act. Together with Senator Collins--herself a longtime supporter of expanding access to dental care--I am proud to introduce this bill, which would help to expand the number of dentists and dental hygienists, both nationwide and in rural and underserved areas. Specifically, the Dental Heath Provider Shortage Act would work to increase the overall number of dentists and dental hygienists by providing faculty loan repayment programs for dentists who agree to teach, especially in general and pediatric training programs. It would also provide incentives for dentists and dental hygienists to work in rural and underserved areas by expanding both the National Health Service Corps and the Indian Health Service; providing support to Community Health Centers, which play a critical role in the delivery of dental care; and helping these centers and other providers that work in underserved areas to expand their practices. Finally, to encourage participation in State Medicaid programs, the bill would provide funding for states to simplify the Medicaid enrollment and payment process. In this day and age, people should not be forced to travel great distances--let alone more than 100 miles--just to see a dentist. We can and must do better. The Surgeon General's report, ``Oral Health in America,'' reinforced that oral health is essential to the general health and well-being of all Americans. In its ``Call to Action,'' the report challenged the Nation to build a health infrastructure that can effectively meet the oral health needs of all Americans. By passing the bipartisan Dental Health Provider Shortage Act, we can begin to do just that. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Americans are united today in concern for the safety and well-being of our men and women in uniform--especially those who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, risking their lives to advance human freedom. This morning, I would like to speak about the extraordinary service of a group of soldiers from two earlier wars. We know these men today as ``the code talkers.'' They were Native American soldiers who used the languages of their tribes to send strategic military communications during World Wars I and II. Their impenetrable codes saved the lives of countless American troops in Europe and throughout the Pacific. The Navajo code talkers are the best-known of these men. Three years ago, they were honored, rightly, with congressional medals. But the Navajo were not the only code talkers. Soldiers from at least 15 other Indian Nations--including the Cherokee, Choctaw, Comanche, Pawnee, Seminole, Osage, Kiowa, Hopi and other nations--also served as code talkers. And 11 code talkers came from the Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota nations, known to many as the Great Sioux Nation. Of those 11, nine--John Bear King of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe; Simon Broken Leg and Iver Crow Eagle, Sr., of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe; Eddie Eagle Boy and Phillip LaBlanc, of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe; Bap-TEEST Pumpkinseed of the Oglala Sioux Tribe; Edmund St. John of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe; and Walter C. John of the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska--have all passed on. Charlie Whitepipe is one of the two surviving Lakota code talkers. In 1941, he enlisted in the United States Army. He was already in training in California when Pearl Harbor was attacked. The following day, he shipped out to Hawaii. From Hawaii, his unit was sent to the Pacific island nation of New Guinea. It was in New Guinea that another soldier, from Sioux Falls, told his commanding officer that Charlie Whitepipe would make a good forward observer because--in his words--``the Sioux are stealthy, sneaky, people.'' The characterization angered Whitepipe, but it apparently impressed his commanding officer. Charlie Whitepipe spent the next 2 years in New Guinea as a forward observer and radio man, moving ahead of his unit and communicating in Lakota with a ship-based partner to direct artillery fire at enemy troops. In 1944, he was shipped home, suffering from malaria and jungle rot, the result of months spent in water-filled foxholes. After an honorable discharge, he returned to Rosebud, married, and raised six children with his wife. He spent 30 years working as a lineman with the rural electric association, helping to bring electricity to the Rosebud Reservation and other parts of rural South Dakota. In his son's words, ``He got up and went to work 6 days a week and on the 7th day, he got up and took his family to church.'' Charlie Whitepipe turned 86 this month. He suffers today from a profound hearing loss caused in part by artillery explosions. His family remains the center of his life. Clarence Wolf Guts is the other surviving Lakota code talker. He enlisted in the Army 7 months after Pearl Harbor with his friend and cousin, Iver Crow Eagle, Sr. During Ranger training in Alabama, an officer discovered that the cousins could both speak, read, and write Lakota. As Mr. Wolf Guts recalls it, that officer ``thought he'd hit the jackpot.'' Clarence Wolf Guts was assigned to travel with a general in the Pacific, and Iver Crow Eagle was assigned as a radio operator for a colonel. For the next 3 years, the cousins jumped from one Pacific island to the next, pushing the Japanese back. They also helped develop a phonetic alphabet based on Lakota that was later used to develop a Lakota code. One day, as bullets and shrapnel exploded around him, Clarence Wolf Guts whispered a prayer in Lakota: Bring me home, God, and I will praise your name always. His prayer was answered. Clarence Wolf Guts returned safely to Pine Ridge in 1946, married and--like Charlie Whitepipe--raised six children. Today, at 80, he marches with veterans groups whenever he can. The Yankton Sioux were among the first Native American soldiers to use a native language to confound enemy troops, in World War I. Through two world wars, no native language or code based on an indigenous American language was ever broken. What makes the code talkers story even more extraordinary to some is the fact that these men chose to fight for the United States at all. As young boys, Charlie Whitepipe and Clarence Wolf Guts spoke only Lakota. Like most of the code talkers, however, they were forced to attend schools in which they were forbidden to speak their native language. Students who broke the English-only rules were punished harshly; many were beaten, some even to death. It was part of a sad, brutal chapter in our Nation's history in which the United States Government and other institutions tried to strip Indian children of their tribal identities. Despite that history, despite the failure of the United States Government to honor its treaty obligations and other commitments to tribes, Native Americans have long had a higher rate of military service than any other group in America. Another young Lakota soldier, Sheldon Hawk Eagle, was laid to rest in the National Cemetery in the Black Hills just before Thanksgiving last year. Like so many Lakota people before him, he died serving this Nation. This past Fourth of July, I was honored to march with other veterans at a powwow at the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Reservation in South Dakota. Among the veterans who marched with us that day were two members of the tribe who were home on leave from Iraq. That evening, at our State's annual Fourth of July fireworks celebration at Mount Rushmore, South Dakotans paid special tribute to the Lakota code talkers. There have been other tributes as well. But there is at least one more honor the Lakota code talkers are due. I strongly believe that Congress should pass the Code Talkers Recognition Act this year to award our Nation's highest honor, the Congressional Medal, to the Lakota code talkers and all Native American code talkers who served in both world wars. This is a bipartisan bill. Senator Inhofe introduced it, and I am proud to be a cosponsor, along with my fellow South Dakotan, Tim Johnson, and others. A similar bill passed the House in 2002 but was blocked in the Senate by members of the other party. Historians can debate which code talkers communicated in actual codes and which communicated essential military information using only their native languages. What is beyond debate, however, is the courage of veterans such as Charlie Whitepipe and Clarence Wolf Guts and the extraordinary value of their wartime service to our Nation. Let us work together to pass the Code Talkers Recognition Act this year before we lose any more of these heroes. Let us also agree that we will honor the service of the code talkers by funding veterans health programs adequately, and ensuring that veterans in tribal communities have reasonable access to VA facilities. Let us also honor our Government's treaty obligations to fund Indian health care, so that tribal veterans and their families are not denied essential care. Finally, we should honor the code talkers by working to preserve the rich, ancient languages they used to preserve our freedom. Many of those languages are on the verge of extinction. Of the 300 indigenous languages once spoken in America, only 150 are still spoken today. Of those, only 20 are still spoken by several generations. Experts warn that without immediate, dramatic action by Native Americans, tribal governments and schools, and the Federal Government to encourage their preservation and perpetuation, Lakota and all of the native languages of America will die by the year 2050. Language is the most effective means we have to transmit our values, our beliefs, and our collective memories from one generation to the next. For that reason, Native Americans and tribal communities particularly benefit from preserving the languages of their ancestors. But they are not alone. Imagine how World War II might have turned out had we not had the code talkers. In 1990, with Senator Inouye's leadership, Congress established the Native American Languages Act to ``preserve, protect and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice and develop Native American languages.'' Last year, Senator Inouye introduced amendments to that law to support the creation within tribal communities of immersion schools and language survival ``nests,'' to teach these languages to the next generation. Let's pass those amendments this year. There is no time to waste. Let's also work together to adequately fund Indian schools and to include in all Federal education policies the flexibility tribal educators need to include native languages, history and culture in their curriculums. Indian parents, and tribal leaders and educators, in South Dakota care deeply about this. And President Bush specifically called for such flexibility in the Executive order on Indian education he signed less than three months ago. Soldiers go to war to give their children the chance to live better lives. What better way can we honor the code talkers than to support schools in which their descendants can learn the native languages that helped to save our Nation? The result of such efforts will be a healthier, happier Indian population. And who knows what we will all learn in the process? Mr. President, these remarks have been translated into Lakota by Elizabeth Little Elk, a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. I ask unanimous consent that the Lakota translation of my words be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time and ask that it not be taken from the allocated time to our Democratic caucus this morning.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are about to take up a number of matters that are in a position to be passed by unanimous consent. One of those includes a concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 133, on Sudan. It is a clear statement from the Senate that what is occurring in Sudan is genocide. Many of us have felt the need to express ourselves on this important matter prior to the time we leave for recess. I thank the distinguished majority leader and a number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It is an important statement to be made. The administration needs to hear it, the international community needs to hear it, and certainly the Sudanese Government, which tolerates if not assists in genocide, needs to hear it. I note, also, this concurrent resolution would not have been possible without the tireless effort of the Congressional Black Caucus. I especially want to note the efforts of Congressman Don Payne, Congressman John Conyers, and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Their tireless efforts for human rights ought to be recognized tonight. I congratulate them and I thank them for their work. I am very proud to be associated with that effort and with this resolution tonight. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join with the distinguished majority leader in expressing my gratitude to Commissioner Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice Chairman Hamilton and the rest of the Commissioners as well. They were able to operate above partisan differences and produce a unanimous report in an incredibly charged political environment. The Commission has painstakingly outlined the numerous missed opportunities to prevent the tragic events of September 11 and provided the Bush administration and the Congress with a solid set of recommendations that I believe, if enacted, can help make us more secure.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Commission divided its recommendations into two major categories. The first lays out a new global strategy for dealing with the threats we face today. This section contains 28 recommendations on what our Government should do to enhance our national security. The second section contains 13 suggestions for how our Government-- executive branch as well as Congress--should be reconfigured to increase our prospects for achieving our national security objectives. Senator Frist and I intend to work together with our colleagues in a bipartisan manner to examine all of the Commission's proposals. We both agree change is long overdue, and we cannot afford to let another opportunity to make these changes slip by.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Frist and I have also agreed to set up a working group that examines how best to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations that deal with reform of the Senate, such as improving intelligence oversight. Over the coming days we will meet to discuss how best to organize and focus this group. Our intent would be for this group to similarly present a plan of action by October 1 on how to implement the recommendations made by the Commission that deal with the Congress.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, every year, I spend time driving across the State of South Dakota, and every year, I hear unbelievable stories from my constituents about the growing health care crisis in South Dakota and across America. One issue that comes up repeatedly in my travels is South Dakota's dental shortage. The statistics speak for themselves. Almost one-third of my State's 66 counties have been designated Dental Health Professional Shortage Areas. In total, over 97,000 South Dakotans live in a county that does not have enough dentists to meet the needs of the population. Nationally, 25 million Americans reside in such shortage areas. South Dakota has only one dentist for every 250 square miles, which means that many South Dakotans must travel more than 100 miles to visit a dentist. To see a pediatric dentist, parents often have to travel up to 400 miles. I've heard stories of families driving clear across the State so that their children can receive urgent dental care. Comparatively, Minnesota's rate is 28 square miles per dentist. Massachusetts's rate is less than 2 square miles per dentist, and here in Washington, DC, the rate is 0.1 square miles per dentist. In addition, the dentists my State does have are getting older. A study conducted in South Dakota found that roughly half of the dentists currently practicing there are over 50 years old, and that 30 percent plan to retire within 10 years. Nationally, more than 20 percent of dentists will retire in the next 10 years, and the number of dental graduates by 2015 may not be enough to replace them. The problem in Indian country is even worse. Indian pre-school children have 5 times the rate of dental decay experienced by other children in their age group. Despite this great need, the Indian Health Services estimates that one-third of its dental positions are vacant. A report by the Government Accounting Office in 2000 found that, while several factors contribute to the low use of dental services among low-income individuals, the most important factor was the inability to find a dentist to treat them. That is simply unacceptable. Another report by Oral Health America in 2003 found that the United States does poorly in several areas that measure access to dental care. In fact, in the report's assessment of dentist availability, the majority of States received a grade of C or lower. The report card also found that those with the greatest need have the hardest time finding care; 18 states received a failing grade for the availability of dentists who provide significant services under Medicaid, contributing to an alarming D grade for the entire nation. In an effort to address this urgent problem, I have been working with representatives from the South Dakota Oral Health Coalition to develop a legislative remedy at the Federal level. The culmination of that effort is the bill I am introducing today, the Dental Health Provider Shortage Act. Together with Senator Collins--herself a longtime supporter of expanding access to dental care--I am proud to introduce this bill, which would help to expand the number of dentists and dental hygienists, both nationwide and in rural and underserved areas. Specifically, the Dental Heath Provider Shortage Act would work to increase the overall number of dentists and dental hygienists by providing faculty loan repayment programs for dentists who agree to teach, especially in general and pediatric training programs. It would also provide incentives for dentists and dental hygienists to work in rural and underserved areas by expanding both the National Health Service Corps and the Indian Health Service; providing support to Community Health Centers, which play a critical role in the delivery of dental care; and helping these centers and other providers that work in underserved areas to expand their practices. Finally, to encourage participation in State Medicaid programs, the bill would provide funding for states to simplify the Medicaid enrollment and payment process. In this day and age, people should not be forced to travel great distances--let alone more than 100 miles--just to see a dentist. We can and must do better. The Surgeon General's report, ``Oral Health in America,'' reinforced that oral health is essential to the general health and well-being of all Americans. In its ``Call to Action,'' the report challenged the Nation to build a health infrastructure that can effectively meet the oral health needs of all Americans. By passing the bipartisan Dental Health Provider Shortage Act, we can begin to do just that. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Advancing FASD Research, Prevention, and Services Act. For many years now, I have met and worked with people whose lives have been profoundly affected by the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy. Prenatal exposure to alcohol can cause a wide range of serious, life-long problems known as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorders. Individuals with FASD can have a low IQ, behavioral impairments, growth retardation, facial abnormalities, and birth defects. About 40,000 children are born with FASD each year. A great deal of progress has been made in raising awareness of the dangers of alcohol consumption during pregnancy, but much more needs to be done. The bill I am introducing today addresses the need for more research, better screening systems to identify children with FASD, effective prevention programs, and enhanced access to treatment and support services. It is my sincere hope that this bill--when combined with the tireless efforts of parents, health professionals, teachers, and countless others--will help prevent FASD and support the children and families who are living with its consequences. I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet containing a description of the bill be printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 8 months ago, the Republican leadership pushed through Congress a lemon of a Medicare prescription drug bill that has been breaking down part by part since the day it was passed. First, we learned drug companies were raising the prices of many drugs, erasing what little discounts the administration's drug card program might have offered. Next, we learned the administration concealed its cost estimates, misled Congress, and threatened the Medicare actuary with termination for trying to respond to Congressional requests for information. Then, we heard that some seniors who enrolled in the program were going to see reductions in other benefits, such as food stamps. Later, days after the Drug Card program began, seniors from across the country began to report that it was too confusing and studies revealed there were lower prices available from major online pharmacies. Finally, we learned that the HHS website established to help seniors navigate their way through the labyrinth of the myriad cards was riddled with false information. The most recent discovery, however, is the most troubling of all, because what we're talking about is not policy breakdown, but policy sabotage. Let me explain: Every senior has his or her Medicare Part B premium withdrawn from their Social Security check. But when the increase in health care inflation began to outpace seniors' Social Security cost of living adjustments, Congress protected seniors by making it impossible for a senior's Medicare premiums to go up more than the value of his or her Social Security COLA. It's called the ``hold harmless'' protection, and it makes a simple promise to seniors: The cost of health care will not come at the expense of the cost of living. We have now learned that behind closed doors and in the dark of night, Republican leaders undermined this promise. Like Part B premiums, the new prescription drug premiums will come out of a senior's Social Security check. But unlike in traditional Medicare, the new drug bill does not protect seniors with a ``hold harmless'' provision. It was never mentioned in the debate and no one has stepped forward to take responsibility in the months since. But if we don't fix the problem, it will eventually result in the decimation of seniors' Social Security annual cost of living adjustment. Never have these protections been more important. In the past several years, the consumer price index, on which Social Security COLAs are pegged, has remained very low. At the same time, the cost of health care has been skyrocketing by double- digit percentages. In the 4 years of this administration, the cumulative increase in the Medicare monthly premiums will be at least $26, nearly twice as much as in the prior eight years under the Clinton administration. In addition, the Medicare Part B premium increase for 2005 is projected to be $114, the largest ever. For seniors on a fixed income, every dollar counts. The hold harmless protection is the only thing standing in the way of lower and lower Social Security checks. But the Republican leadership chose not to protect seniors in this drug bill, despite the fact that the cost of pharmaceuticals is increasing even faster than the cost of health care overall. Medicare Part D premiums are expected to rise 7.5 percent per year. The result will be a steady erosion of Social Security checks, and real damage to seniors' ability to pay their bills and keep up with inflation. According to a new report by the Joint Economic Committee, one in four seniors will lose a quarter of their COLA just on Medicare premium increases by 2007. In 2014, nearly two in three seniors will see the same level of loss. And those most vulnerable will be the ones most severely harmed. For an elderly woman with a monthly benefit of $500, the increase in Medicare premiums will take an average of 60 percent of her COLA from 2007 to 2010, and an average of 66 percent from 2011 to 2014. Let's not mince words. This is the worst kind of bait and switch. We cannot stand by and allow seniors to be cheated out of their cost of living increases in exchange for a confusing drug benefit that fails to bring down the cost of drugs. Today, I am introducing the Social Security COLA Protection Act of 2004 to make sure that senior citizens continue to receive a COLA that helps them keep pace with inflation. This bill would restore seniors' protections and ensure that no more than 25 percent of their annual COLAs could be taken away by increases in Medicare premiums. The remaining 75 percent would be secure. For a senior citizen receiving a $600 monthly benefit, this bill would protect more than $2,200 over the next 10 years. That's money seniors will need to cover increases in clothing, food, housing and energy prices. We're not talking about adding an extra benefit to Social Security. We're talking about protecting seniors' existing benefit from a drug plan that appears now to be little more than a wolf in sheep's clothing. This wasn't the prescription drug bill seniors were promised. Upon the passage of this bill, President Bush said, ``Some older Americans spend much of their Social Security checks just on their medications. . . . Elderly Americans should not have to live with those kinds of fears and hard choices. This new law will ease the burden on seniors and will give them the extra help they need.'' As we have seen so often, there has been a gap between what this administration promised, and what it delivered. In the guise of easing one burden on seniors, the administration has added yet another. I wish the White House and the Republican leadership in Congress had listened more closely to some of the voices of seniors during the debate last Fall. One man from Nashville, Tennessee looked at the details of this bill and asked, ``Do you think anybody in Washington has any idea what people on a limited income have to do to live?'' If the authors of the prescription drug bill truly understood what seniors on fixed incomes must go through, they never would have passed it. Democrats are fighting to make things right again. We do understand the struggles of America's seniors and the burden drug costs put on their finances. Seniors were promised a real prescription drug benefit for Medicare. The Republicans' prescription drug bill has proven to be tragically inadequate. The COLA protection bill we are introducing today represents an important step in repairing the damage, and Democrats will keep fighting until seniors get the help they were promised and the benefit they deserve. I want to thank the Joint Economic Committee Democrats for their efforts to identify and highlight this problem. Senator Jack Reed is the senior Democratic Senator on the Committee, and the lead cosponsor of the COLA protection bill. Senator Patty Murray joined us in highlighting the problem yesterday. She is also a cosponsor, along with five other Senate Democrats. This is truly a bicameral effort. My South Dakota colleague, Stephanie Herseth, is sponsoring the House bill. This is the first bill she is introducing in Congress, and I am proud that she is helping lead this fight for seniors in South Dakota and across the country. Many other House Democrats are joining her in this effort. Senator Reed will be inserting the JEC report into the Record. I encourage my colleagues to read it. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a fact sheet on the bill that was prepared by Representative Pelosi's office, as well as a document prepared by the House Ways and Means Committee staff that provides several illustrative examples of how the bill would work, how much retirees would save if it becomes law, and what percentage of Medicare enrollees will benefit. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. We will continue our effort to protect America's seniors and address the problems created by last year's prescription drug bill when Congress returns in the fall.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, recent media reports indicate that at least two companies are actively considering plans to import Brazilian ethanol into the United States duty-free through the Caribbean Basin. These reports have generated understandable anxiety within the farm community. Cargill, the Minnesota-based agri-business giant, has confirmed that it is considering importing 63 million gallons of Brazilian ethanol into the United States each year. And it has been reported that Chevron-Texaco, one of the largest oil companies in the United States, is planning construction of a plant that will enable it to import 50 million to 100 million gallons of ethanol. Farmers in South Dakota and throughout the Midwest are concerned that such import schemes could threaten the growth of the domestic ethanol industry and undermine our effort to establish ethanol as a major domestic energy source. They should be concerned. These import plans would establish a dangerous precedent for other importers and dramatically undercut the ability of the pending Renewable Fuels Standard to enhance our national energy security and boost farm income. The key to the next growth spurt in the domestic ethanol industry is bipartisan legislation I wrote with Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN) that would set mandatory annual production targets for ethanol for the next 10 years. Senator Lugar and I proposed the Renewable Fuels Standard, or RFS, 4 years ago as a means to grow the domestic ethanol industry in a way that both encourages investment in new community-sized ethanol facilities and expands markets for farmers. We remain hopeful that this proposal will clear Congress before adjournment this year. Under our proposed RFS, domestic ethanol demand would grow from 3 billion gallons per year in 2004 to more than 5 billion gallons in 2012, providing ethanol plants and farmers with a steady growth schedule that encourages investment in this domestic industry. This RFS would create over 214,000 jobs, increase farm income by $1.3 billion annually, and save the U.S. $4 billion in imported oil each year. Plans to import ethanol threaten these benefits by injecting an element of market uncertainty into the RFS discussion that could dampen investment in community-sized ethanol facilities. Ethanol importation would put the producers of Brazilian sugarcane in direct competition with American corn growers. That is why today Senators Lugar, Hagel, Nelson, and I are introducing legislation to clarify that ethanol imports will not count toward the RFS targets. This bill will ensure that farmers and domestic ethanol investors will get the full benefit of the RFS, and it tells Cargill and Chevron accountants not to count on the new demand created by the Renewable Fuels Standard to justify any scheme to import ethanol. I understand that corporate executives feel an obligation to their shareholders. My obligation is to South Dakota farmers, ethanol producers, and motorists who view increased ethanol demand as a means to establish greater control over their economic and energy future. I have fought my entire public career against outright opposition and indifference from the giant corporate interests whose balance sheets don't consider the value-added contribution of local economic development. This situation is no different. As a result of our efforts, Chevron won't get to import as much oil and refine and sell as much high-priced gasoline as they may like, and Cargill won't get to import ethanol and compete against South Dakota producers. The RFS program is designed to stimulate domestic production and enhance U.S. energy security, not to create a market opportunity for foreign ethanol. The bill I am introducing today will help make sure that rural communities are able to attract investment capital to produce clean burning energy, create quality jobs for their kids, and expand local tax bases to accommodate better schools and community services. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as we all painfully know, the United States has broken its word to Indian people, disregarded its treaty obligations, and breached its fiduciary trust responsibility. Litigation has been filed, and administrations of both political parties say the right thing, but then do not follow through to redress legitimate grievances. The concepts of sovereignty and government-to- government dialog are acknowledged, only later all too frequently to be ignored. This sad history was elevated to a new level of concern this spring by the resignation of Mr. Alan Balaran as Special Master in the Cobell class action against the Department of the Interior. On April 5, 2004, Mr. Balaran made some very serious charges against the Department of the Interior in his official letter of resignation. He alleged that energy companies, abetted by the Department of the Interior, routinely pay Indian people less than they pay others for oil and gas easements. He further alleged that Interior officials regularly put the interests of private companies ahead of the Department's fiduciary responsibility to Indian people. These are disturbing charges leveled by an individual knowledgeable about the long history of trust mismanagement. Congress must get to the bottom of this situation to fully satisfy our own fiduciary responsibility to Indian people. It is clear that neither the executive branch nor the Congress's hands are clean on the trust management issue. And this not a partisan failure. It is a governmentwide failure that requires independent review. I am, therefore, today introducing legislation to create a National Commission on American Indian Trust Holdings. This Commission will be unique in several respects. First, it will be composed of 10 prominent U.S. citizens. Two individuals will each be appointed by the President, Senate majority leader, Senate minority leader, Speaker of the House, and House minority leader to place the Commission beyond politics. Second, it will have the resources to hire the technical expertise needed. Professionals with expertise in land and resources management, accounting, Federal Indian policy, and trust law, among other disciplines will be included. The Commission will build upon past efforts without duplicating past efforts. Finally, the Commission will be charged with the responsibility of reporting to the President and the Congress within 1 year on: One, how to recoup, if possible, any damages that have resulted from the breach of fiduciary responsibility; and, two, how to prevent any such breaches in the future. We are looking for specific recommendations on how to fairly account for past mistakes, how to find closure on the trust issue, and how to prevent those mistakes from again happening in the future. The overall goal of the Commission is to fully and completely examine the very serious charges made by Mr. Balaran, as outlined in his letter to Judge Lamberth. The Commission would also be authorized to examine other breaches of trust and to report back to the Congress and such executive departments as may seem appropriate. Many words have been spoken over many years about trust responsibility and the breach of trust and fiduciary obligations, but very little concrete action has resulted from these words. Mr. Balaran's charges should be a wake-up call to all civic-minded Americans to demand that fairness be restored to the administration of Indian trust accounts. I sincerely hope that, given the track record of the past 10 years, an independent panel of distinguished Americans will be given an opportunity to succeed where the executive and legislative branches have fallen short. Their review will at least get to the bottom of Mr. Balaran's charges. And perhaps we can use the results of this examination to generate momentum for exploring the larger trust issues. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Balaran's letter of resignation and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.