Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, one of the surprising aspects of the debate about the amendment now pending has been the testimonials from some colleagues who say they like the current VA funding system. If you believe you can look veterans in the eye and tell them they are well served by the current VA health care system, then my amendment is not for you. If you are satisfied with telling 500,000 veterans they cannot enroll at the VA, then this amendment is not for you. If you think the system is performing well that results in hundreds of thousands of veterans waiting months, sometimes years, to see a doctor to get prescription drugs, then vote no on this amendment. If you feel good about voting to ask veterans to contribute more than a billion dollars out of pocket for their health care costs and send out the bill collectors to hunt them down and make sure it works, this amendment is not for you. Lastly, if you think it is appropriate to ask hundreds of thousands of men and women to sacrifice everything for their country and not ensure that they can get access to health care when they return, my amendment is not for you. Those considering opposing my amendment should take a look around. President Bush's own veterans health care task force, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, believe the current system is broken and that it urgently needs fixing and have endorsed the concept underlying this amendment. Every single veterans group in the country has done so as well. If you believe we have an obligation to our troops, I urge you to back it up with action by voting for this amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant sections of the Budget Act for my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in 1898, as the Spanish-American War drew to a close, then-COL Theodore Roosevelt warned his Rough Riders about the reception they would receive once they returned home: The world will be kind to you for 10 days. Everything you do will be all right. After that, you will be judged by a stricter code. We have come a long way in the treatment of our veterans, and our recent commemoration of Memorial Day, our dedication of the World War II Memorial, the observance of the 60th anniversary of D-day, attest to the gratitude our Nation feels toward the men and women who have defended our freedom. Ultimately, the real test of our gratitude, however, is not found in parades or ceremonies. The real test is whether we honor our promises and provide our veterans with the help and benefits they need. Sadly, we are not meeting that test. In recent years, large numbers of veterans have seen their health care delayed or denied outright. The reason is clear: Our system for funding the VA is broken. The VA's enrolled patient population has grown 134 percent since 1996, while appropriations have risen only one-third as quickly. The President's task force to improve health care delivery for our Nation's veterans, created by President Bush through Executive Order 13214, reported a significant mismatch in VA between demand and available funding. That mismatch is translated into lengthy waiting lists, forcing hundreds of thousands of veterans to wait for months, even years, to see a doctor, increased out-of-pocket payments resulting in veterans paying six times more for their health care than when this President took office, from $200 million in 2001 to an expected $1.3 billion next year, and new enrollment restrictions. Last year, Secretary Principi ruled that 200,000 priority 8 veterans could no longer enter the VA health care system. If nothing is done, the Congressional Budget Office now predicts the number denied access through this one policy will grow to 1.5 million by the year 2013. The Bush administration refuses to acknowledge the system is broken and preaches a policy of ``demand management.'' Let's be clear, demand management means taking any and all steps necessary to restrict the number of veterans treated by the VA, including rationing care, sending the bill collectors after veterans, and blocking enrollments. The principle of demand management says to the veteran: Take your health concerns somewhere else because we cannot help right now. That is not a policy, that is a disgrace, and it is time we reject that principle that governs the care we offer our veterans today. Veterans have a fundamental right to health care, and we have an obligation to ensure that the VA has the resources to provide them. The answer to the VA health care crisis is simple: We need a new funding system that will allow us to provide health care to every American who served in the Armed Forces of the United States. My amendment today would spell out that objective in the law. The amendment would remove veterans health care from the annual politics of appropriations cycles. Instead, veterans health care would be funded like other vital programs, including military retirement, Social Security, and Medicare. Each year, the Veterans Health Administration receives funding from two sources: First, an annual discretionary amount which remains unchanged from year to year locked in at the funding level for fiscal year 2004; second, an annual sum of mandatory funds. This amount would adjust each year to reflect changes in demand from veterans and the rate of health care inflation. At the end of 2 years, Congress will be required to revisit the decision, and the GAO would study whether this system has functioned according to plan and whether the funding formula should be refined. Congress would then be required to update the law to reflect the lessons learned after 2 years of actual operation. In effect, we would be creating a 2-year trial and then deciding how to refine the model and move forward. Meanwhile, every veteran who needs health care would receive it. President Bush's own task force recommended such a system saying: ``The Federal Government should provide full funding . . . through a mandatory funding system'' or other modifications to the current appropriations process. I reemphasize, that was the President's own task force on this system. The Committee on Veterans Affairs in the House of Representatives offered its own bipartisan endorsement of mandatory funding earlier this year. A February 25 letter signed by Republican chairman Chris Smith and Democratic ranking member Lane Evans stated: Rather than supporting administration proposals that could reduce demand . . . and shift costs to other parts of the Federal medical system, the committee recommends treating spending on veterans programs the same as spending on Social Security and Medicare. Leading veterans organizations have also joined in an unprecedented coalition to fight for health care budget reform. The American Legion, AMVETS, the Blinded Veterans, Disabled American Veterans, the Jewish War Veterans, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America--they have all banded together to work toward a system that guarantees health care for our veterans. I believe their coalition, the Partnership for Veterans Health Care Reform, has identified a compelling solution to the VA funding crisis, and I have pledged my support in making it a reality. South Dakota veterans associated with these groups have joined in enthusiastic support. This is not an abstract debate over numbers for my friends back home. These veterans have sat on waiting lists, these veterans take the phone calls from the VA's new bill collectors, these veterans have friends and neighbors who are prohibited from enrolling in the current VA health system. Earlier this year, these South Dakota veterans were moved to action. Nearly 500 veterans from nearly 50 communities in every corner of our vast State signed a petition urging us to adopt mandatory funding for the VA. South Dakota's American Legion CDR Wayne Vetter brought me this powerful statement, and I sent a copy to the White House. I am sorry to report that I have not yet heard a response from the President or anyone in the White House with regard to this statement. It is time that we recognized that health care for those who return from war is a cost that follows directly from our Nation's military operations. Ask any veteran. The burden of military service lives long after the parades are over and the medals and ribbons have been stashed in a closet. There are no more fundamental needs for these men and women than access to quality, affordable health care. Our veterans once kept this country safe and strong. Today they need a health care system to keep them strong. We must adequately fund the system that provides that care. We can eliminate the annual budget problems in Washington and create a system where veterans can rely on the VA to be there when they need it. We have done it for military retirees. We have done it for Social Security recipients. We have done it for Medicare. We ought to do it for veterans. The debt we owe our veterans must be something that lasts beyond the parade, beyond the ceremonies, beyond the 10 days of gratitude Teddy Roosevelt told his Rough Riders to expect. The debt is unending and our willingness to repay that debt must be unending as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to amendment No. 3409.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send a perfecting amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we will have a period for consideration of the bill for the purpose of debate only. No amendments will be offered until we clarify how we might resolve our parliamentary situation. I have to say our distinguished chairman has done an outstanding job in getting us to this point, as has our ranking member. I am very concerned that as close as we are to completion, we have not been able now to move forward. We have only had two votes on this bill so far today. It is now 4 o'clock. I have laid down an amendment. I am willing to do a side-by-side, if necessary. We have other legislation pending. I was told we cannot have a vote on my amendment because the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, is in town, and we cannot allow him to parachute down and have a vote. I think that is very unfortunate. He is here to vote, and I would think we would accord every Senator the right and opportunity to vote on this amendment and whatever other pending legislation. We can finish this bill. We have already agreed under unanimous consent to finish this bill for debate purposes by the end of the day. All we have left are whatever amendments are going to be offered between now and 6:30 p.m. We are so close. I only hope we consider the admonition of both of our managers, that we work together as we have for the last many days now to complete our work. Let's have a vote on the veterans amendment, let's have a vote on the other pending legislation, and let's move forward with these amendments in the same good faith we have demonstrated to date. We could have been far more confrontational with regard to unrelated amendments. We have not done that. At the urging of Democratic leadership, we have withheld many of those amendments. I hope we would show the same good faith as we complete this bill. Senator Kerry ought to have a chance to vote. There ought to be an opportunity to dispose of these amendments. How ironic it is that we are the ones who appear to want to finish, and certainly our manager wants to finish, but there are those on the other side, for whatever reason, who are unwilling, reluctant to allow us the votes that are pending on the amendments that have now been laid down. I urge reconsideration of that point of view at this point. It is counterproductive. It says all the wrong things about the desire to complete our work before the end of this week with all we have to do. I urge my colleagues to do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am not sure to which second-degree amendment the distinguished chairman is referring.

Mr. DASCHLE. If we can get a vote, we can certainly accommodate the Senator from Virginia. All we are looking for is a vote. It does not have to be on this particular amendment. If he wants to offer a second- degree amendment, we are certainly willing to look at ways with which to accommodate the majority in that regard. But a vote is important. It is relevant, of course. It ought to be offered. As to the Kerry matter, I do not know if the distinguished chairman heard--he was standing here--Senator Frist noted to me as he was standing here that he did not want to accord Senator Kerry the opportunity to vote today, knowing, of course, Senator Kerry was here today. We can work through these issues if we can demonstrate a little more patience and a little more good will, and we can get the job done.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. First of all, I share the recollection of the distinguished assistant Democratic leader. Yes, we did accommodate those who had to travel for purposes of national campaigns in past elections. One would think we would do so in this case. We are trying to govern. We have the campaigns to run. One would hope we could keep the campaigns off the Senate floor. It is ironic that some in the majority who have been pressing to get this legislation done now keep us from getting it done for that reason. We have wasted a couple of hours here. We could have finished this amendment and moved on. I think everybody agrees we need to finish this legislation. No one has worked harder at it than the distinguished chairman. But now we are being told we cannot do that. I did not know it was finished unless it involves giving Senator Kerry a chance to vote. It is not the right thing to do. We know that. I hope we come to our senses and get on with getting the business of the Senate done.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, no question more occupied the minds of our Founding Fathers than how to keep American democracy from devolving into despotism. The delicate and elaborate structure of our Government is designed not merely to represent the will of the American people but to prevent the concentration and abuse of power. To eliminate the prospects that tyranny could take hold, the Framers not only created a separation of equal powers, but they gave each branch authority over its peers. ``Unless these departments be so far connected and blended as to give each a constitutional control over the others,'' James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, ``the degree of separation . . . essential to a free government, can never in practice be duly maintained.'' For our system to work, no part of Government can be free from scrutiny--not Congress, not the judiciary, and not the White House. Unfortunately, Congress seems to have abdicated its role in our system of checks and balances. Partisan loyalty is taking precedence over our constitutional responsibilities, and oversight has ground to a halt. There are few clearer examples than Congress' failure to investigate the decision to withhold the cost estimates for its controversial Medicare proposal. There have been serious allegations that the administration misled Congress about the projected cost of the Medicare legislation, denying access to a study that projected much higher costs than those administration officials, including the President, discussed publicly. These allegations included charges that the former Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services violated Federal law by threatening to fire Medicare's Chief Actuary if he disclosed the cost information to Members of Congress. Yet the allegations are being ignored in both the House and the Senate. The White House, too, has stonewalled. There have been no hearings, no inquiries, nothing but silence. These charges are too serious to ignore. There are four crucial questions relating to those facts that urgently need investigation. First, who in the administration knew about the higher cost estimates? CMS Chief Actuary Richard Foster has said that the HHS cost estimates were shared with White House officials. To assess whether there was a coordinated effort within HHS and the White House to mislead Congress, we need to know who in the administration knew about the higher cost estimates and when they knew it. Second, who in the administration participated in the decision to withhold the cost estimates from Congress? According to the Congressional Research Service, Federal employees have a statutory right to communicate with Congress, as well as certain whistleblower and employment protections. Moreover, HHS is expressly prohibited from using funds to pay the salary of anyone who prevents or attempts to prevent an executive branch employee from providing information to Congress if that information relates to relevant official matters. CRS has found that the CMS may have violated these laws when the Administrator threatened Mr. Foster. We need to know if others above the Administrator's level participated in or authorized this activity. Third, were senior leaders in Congress part of the effort to withhold the cost estimates from the rest of Congress? In a letter to Representative Henry Waxman, the Department of Health and Human Services has asserted that ``[Health and Human Services] made conferees aware that HHS expected its final scoring to be higher than CBO's final scoring'' and cited Republican conferee Nancy Johnson as one of the Members who ``knew about these numbers.'' If the administration shared the cost estimates with selected Republican leaders, why did these leaders not share the estimates with all conferees and all Members? Fourth, is the administration seeking to obstruct congressional investigations? To date, the administration has refused to cooperate with legitimate efforts to investigate its actions. White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales has intervened to prevent officials from testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee about White House involvement. President Bush has failed to respond to a request for information from 12 U.S. Senators. These actions suggest there may be a concerted effort by the administration to block oversight of its actions. There could be no clearer case demonstrating the need for congressional oversight. To preserve our system of checks and balances and maintain citizens' trust that the power they have vested in their elected leaders is being exercised responsibly, we must take very seriously allegations that executive branch officials misled Congress in this case. Therefore, along with several of my colleagues, I have requested that the leadership in both the House and the Senate take the following two steps: First, Congress should ask the administration to provide copies of any documents relevant to this investigation. Second, Congress should hold hearings at which Mr. Scully; Doug Badger, Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; and James Capretta, Associate Director for Human Resource Programs at OMB, be called to testify. Mr. Scully's relevance is self-evident. Mr. Badger and Mr. Capretta received cost estimates from Mr. Foster and are likely to have information about the White House involvement in this matter. Their testimony would, therefore, be critical to establishing key facts about this affair. These actions are essential if Congress is to fulfill its oversight responsibilities. They are simple and straightforward and will enable Congress to learn why the Medicare cost estimates were withheld and who is actually responsible. In addition, we are writing President Bush to urge him to clarify what he knew about the Medicare cost estimates, the administration's attempts to suppress them, and the administration's communications with Congress about this issue. The credibility of the White House on all matters of policy is at stake. These concerns are not limited to the Medicare debacle. As the cost of operations in Iraq have climbed past $200 billion, American taxpayers have been asking questions regarding whether every dollar spent has been necessary. Of late, those questions have centered on Halliburton. Even before the invasion of Iraq, there were concerns about Halliburton's contracts. Very quickly, these concerns proved to be justified. Last year, an investigation found that Halliburton charged American taxpayers $2.64 per gallon for gasoline shipped into Iraq, which was double the price other suppliers were charging. That gasoline was then sold to Iraqis for as little as 5 cents per gallon. Recently, the reports of waste, fraud, and abuse have literally been piling up. This week, we learned Halliburton charged taxpayers $10,000 per day to house its employees in Kuwait's five-star Kempinski Hotel. The same employees could have stayed in air-conditioned tents like those used by American troops for $600 a day. The company purchased embroidered towels that cost three times that of standard towels. One employee discovered that Halliburton was charging for 37,200 cases of soda every month even though they were only providing 37,200 cans. In effect, Halliburton was charging the remarkable price of $45 for each 30-can case of soda for which supermarkets charge about $7. When the employee began making progress in reducing Halliburton's overcharges in this and other areas, she was taken off the accounts. Most troubling, a former Halliburton truck convoy commander disclosed that Halliburton removed all the spare tires from its brand-new $85,000 trucks. When the tires went flat, the trucks were abandoned or torched. In addition, there seemed to be near total disregard of maintenance on trucks. ``There were absolutely no oil filters or fuel filters for months on end. I begged for filters, but never got any,'' the convoy commander said. ``I was told that oil changes were `out of the question.' '' The convoy commander also indicated that convoys of empty trucks often were sent out. He said Halliburton ``would run trucks empty quite often. Sometimes they would have five empty trucks, sometimes they would have a dozen. One time we ran 28 trucks, and only one had anything on it.'' Well, whatever they are putting on the trucks, one thing is clear: The American taxpayer is being taken for a ride. When other Halliburton employees reported similar examples of waste, fraud, and abuse, they were told, ``Don't worry about it. It's a cost plus contract.'' ``Cost plus,'' evidently, is jargon for war profiteering. Despite these abuses, none of the Senate committees controlled by the Republican majority have investigated Halliburton's activities in Iraq or indicated that they intend to look into this matter. Such scrutiny, we are told, could jeopardize the rebuilding efforts. This attitude could not be more misguided. The danger in our rebuilding of Iraq is that the American people will lose faith in this effort because they feel it is too expensive or that they are being cheated. There is one way to guarantee that the American taxpayer is not being cheated: that is, for Congress to step up to its constitutional obligations to oversee the actions of the executive branch of government. Sunlight, it's been said, is the best disinfectant. But for too long, the administration has been able to keep Congress and the American people in the dark. Medicare and Halliburton represent only the tip of the iceberg. Still more major allegations of misconduct, such as the outing of the identity of a covert CIA agent for political gain, have been ignored. And other serious matters, such as the manipulation of intelligence about Iraq, have received only fitful attention. This is fundamentally wrong. Our constitutional oversight responsibilities should not be driven by political expediency. Regardless of the party affiliation of the President, there are some matters that are too important to be ignored. The American people are looking to us to provide leadership. If no wrongdoing has been committed, let our investigations reaffirm people's faith in the government's credibility. But if there has been wrongdoing, the American taxpayer has a right to see that those responsible are held accountable. Ensuring accountability is one of the roles the Framers set out for us. In a way, it is our most solemn obligation, because in fulfilling our task, we preserve the democratic nature of our government. Not only is a great deal of money at stake, the continuing faith of the American people in their system of governance is at stake. Safeguarding that democratic system is our responsibility, and it is time we met it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am honored today to present to my colleagues in the Senate an essay by Adam Hofer of Rapid City, SD. Adam is a student at St. Thomas More High School, and he has been awarded first place in the annual National Peace Essay Contest for South Dakota. ``Rebuilding Societies After Conflict'' examines how postconflict states transition to free elections, develop a national constitution, and incorporate demobilized soldiers into society. By using the case studies of Nicaragua and Mozambique, Adam deftly illustrates the importance of all three factors in a nation's transition to peace following civil war. I commend his essay to my colleagues' attention. I ask consent that Adam Hofer's essay be printed in the Record. The material follows. Rebuilding Societies After Conflict (By Adam Hofer) The Greek philosopher Aristotle noted, ``It is more difficult to organize peace than to win a war; but the fruits of victory will be lost if the peace is not organized.'' This idea of organization as central to lasting peace is as applicable today as it was over 2000 years ago. Yet, the question remains as to the means by which peace efforts should be organized. In the twentieth century, post-war countries like Nicaragua and Mozambique strove to organize peaceful, reconstructed nations. An analysis of the post- conflict reconstruction methods used in these countries shows that free elections, a national constitution, and the reintegration of demobilized soldiers are necessary conditions that must be incorporated for a post-conflict reconstruction program to achieve the stability and reconciliation necessary for lasting peace. In Nicaragua, several developments led to the end of almost a decade of civil war between the Sandinista government of Nicaragua and members of the Nicaraguan Resistance known as the Contras. The initial spark to end the violence was a negotiated stalemate between the two factions that occurred because foreign military support to both sides discontinued. The military stalemate gave Nicaragua the opportunity to sign a regional plan for peace in Central America, known as the Arias Plan, in 1987. Apart from bringing a negotiated cease- fire and national reconciliation, the Arias plan also paved the way for the 1989 free national elections in Nicaragua. The national elections resulted in the Sandinista government's losing to Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, the candidate of the opposition party. Led by a leader committed to a democratic government and national reconciliation, Nicaragua had finally stepped out of the Cold War spotlight and was ready to begin its reconstruction process. The reconstruction process in Nicaragua that began following the recent civil war is still evident in the country today. Years of conflict in Nicaragua had given the country a need for many elements of reconstruction, one being the country's security. Nicaragua acknowledged that the social reintegration of demobilized soldiers was essential to establishing security and beginning reconstruction. With the help of international organizations such as Network for Peace, many former soldiers were successfully reintegrated and became active models of reconciliation and peace for the Nicaraguan society. Efforts in rebuilding the governance and economy of Nicaragua continue to be key elements in sustaining peace as well. Organizing Nicaragua's government after peace involved the creation of a constitutional democracy. This type of democracy incorporated representation from both sides of the conflict, ensuring that the decisions of the government did not re-ignite the issues from the past conflict. The new government also created the freedom for Nicaragua's economy to begin development. An economic plan ``for regional cooperation in trade, financing, investment, and production,'' as well as the benefit of ongoing foreign assistance generated economic development in Nicaragua. This reorganization of the government and economy has helped the country become more stable and has inclined its citizens towards reconciliation. It is not by chance that the conflicts of Nicaragua's civil war have not re-ignited; their reconciliation is a direct result of the organized means of post-conflict reconstruction. Nicaragua obtained a national sense of security by organizing the demobilization and reintegration of many soldiers from both the Contra and Sandinista armies. The government, rooted in a national constitution, achieved stability and gave the country a solid foundation for recovery. Mozambique's successful transition from a warring country to a peaceful nation is comparable to that of Nicaragua. Like Nicaragua, Mozambique experienced an internal conflict, a civil war that was between the Frelimo Government and the Renamo, or National Resistance Movement in Mozambique. Conflict ended in Mozambique in 1992, and the country's efforts of reconstruction continue today. The opportunity for peace in Mozambique came in 1983 when the president of the ruling Frelimo government accepted the failure of socialism and recognized the need for reform. The government was unable to control a country that had already suffered about one million deaths from civil war. This acceptance eventually led to the enactment of a national constitution in 1992. The constitution ``provided for a multi-party political system, market-based economy, and free elections.'' These elements provided by the national constitution led to peace negotiations between the two factions and the beginnings of governmental and economical reconstruction in Mozambiue. The ``social fabric'' and ``economic infrastructure'' of Mozambique had been greatly disrupted by the 17 years of civil strife. A sense of security in the country was an important and immediate need. The reconstruction began with a United Nations' program for transitioning destructive soldiers into productive citizens. These efforts of reintegration and demobilization were so successful that the demilitarized soldiers were soon helping remove the approximately one million landmines still present from the country's civil war. During the first 5 years following peace, ``more than 6.5 billion in international aid flowed into Mozambique * * * most of which went to demilitarization and demining, infrastructure and capacity strengthening, and poverty reduction.'' These international efforts to rebuild Mozambique's security set the stage for the rest of the country's post- war reconstruction process. Reconstruction of Mozambique's economy began as the nation became more secure. Since much of Mozambique was drought- stricken and strewn with landmines, the agriculturally based economy relied greatly on international aid at the onset of peace. Fortunately, a more independent economy was soon underway as many landmines were removed, and good rains resulted in Mozambique's first bountiful harvest in years. This economic stabilization was felt throughout the country and encouraged a more suitable environment for reconciliation to occur. The unique cultural elements of Mozambique also proved helpful in reorganizing and rebuilding the country. Since Mozambique's people had ``little history of religious fundamentalism, warlords, or ethnic conflict,'' the reconstruction efforts faced less resistance. Also, local healers used traditional rituals to emphasize ``social precautions for retaining a well functioning society.'' In these ways, the naturally existing cultural unity of Mozambique helped the citizens to put the past conflicts aside and to focus on rebuilding their country. The reconstruction efforts that have taken place in Mozambique have been successful in sustaining this country's peace. One significant reason is that most members of the former Renamo guerrilla army have become responsible citizens. This successful reintegration has caused a peaceful attitude to filter throughout the nation and has brought confidence that violence will not re-ignite. The national constitution and developing economy provided Mozambique with stability and promoted national reconciliation, aiding the transition from war to peace. Evaluating the successful methods used in the reconstruction of Nicaragua and Mozambique reveals the necessary conditions for successful post-conflict reconstruction in any country. Free national elections secure a legitimate governing body and are an essential condition for a stable society. Such elections ensure that citizens are able to choose a leader who reflects their ideals and who can administer with majority support. A national election and an appropriate transfer of power should be organized almost immediately following any conflict. Anoter essential condition of post-conflict reconstruction, aimed at achieving a stable society, is the establishment of a national constitution. Representatives from all of the country's territories should cooperate to develop a constitution that addresses the political, economical, and social needs of the country. This diverse representation will guarantee that these elements are unbiased and endow the citizens with their proper rights and responsibilities. Treated justly, the citizens will be more willing to reconcile former conflicts and unite to maintain peace in their country. The final condition to achieve stability is reconciliation through the reintegration of ex-combatants. The traumas experienced by the soldiers during the conflict must be treated by local or international agencies at the on-set of peace. The ex-combatants, reconciled from the conflict, can become responsible citizens of their society. Upon successful reintegration, the ex-combatants will serve as examples to their communities and cause a contagious effect of reconciliation to permeate the country. This reconciliation, like that in Nicaragua and Mozambique, will prompt former soldiers and citizens from both sides of the conflict to contribute to a reconstruction process that will lead the country toward stability and lasting peace. Thus, the means of the post-conflict reconstruction used in Nicaragua and Mozambique can serve as examples for other countries trying to reconcile and stabilize to organize lasting peace. Although some aspects of the reconstruction process will be unique to individual post-conflict countries, it is crucial that a reconstruction program incorporate free elections, a national constitution, and the reintegration of demobilized soldiers for the post-conflict efforts to result in a stable society. These elements, integrated into any country's post-conflict reconstruction program, lead to lasting peace and stability because they provide the citizens with justice through a legitimate governing body and the conditions for social, political, and economical reconciliation. Bibliography The Diagram Group. African nations and leaders. New York: Facts on File, 2003. Merill, Tim, ed. Nicaragua: A Country Study. (Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1994) 48. Internet Sources Crawfurd, Jacob. ``Mozambique.'' The Crawfurd Homepage. June 2002. Crawfurd.dk. 24 Nov. 2003 <http://crawfurd.dk/ africa/mozambique.htm>. Gronow, Jane. ``After the Guns Stop.'' Oxfam Community Aid Abroad. Sept. 1996. Community Aid Abroad. 10 Nov. 2003 <http://www.caa.org.au.horizons/h18/jane/html>. Itano, Nicole. The Christian Science Monitor. April 12, 2002. ``Lessons for Afghanistan from Mozambique.'' Nov. 24, 2003 <http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0412/p08s01.html>. U.S. Department of State. 23 Feb. 2001. ``Nicaragua.'' 20 Nov. 2001 <http://www.state.gov.g.drl.rls.hrrpt/2000/wha/ 813.htm>. U.S. Department of State. Nov. 2003. Bureau of African Affairs. ``Mozambique.'' 20 Nov. 2003 . The World Bank Group. ``War to Peace Transition in Mozambique.'' July 1997. 23 Nov. 2003 <http:// www.worldbank.org/afr/findings/english/find90.htm>.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as my colleagues will attest, I routinely come to the Senate floor to discuss the numerous challenges facing Native Americans in my state, and across Indian Country. While I've spoken at length about the need to address Indian education, Indian health care, and economic development on Indian reservations, I am here today for a different reason: to congratulate one of my constituents on an extraordinary accomplishment. Earlier this month, Rae Ann Red Owl of the Pine Ridge Reservation became the first Lakota person, man or woman, to receive a master's degree from the nursing program at the University of North Dakota. More than that, when she walked across the stage, she became the first woman ever from Pine Ridge to earn a master's degree in nursing. While earning a master's degree is a remarkable achievement, for Rae Ann, this step represents yet another obstacle overcome in a long life of beating the odds. Rae Ann can trace her desire to attend college all the way back to when she was in fifth grade and had to get a ride to school with her grandfather because she had overslept and missed the school bus. As her grandfather drove her to school, he told her, ``education is the most important thing in life.'' That advice made her decide right then and there that she wanted to attend college. Unfortunately, fulfilling dreams like this one is easier said than done in Indian Country. Rae Ann grew up on Pine Ridge, one of the poorest Indian reservations in the country. In a community where rates of alcohol and drug abuse are well above the national averages, Rae Ann was not immune to such pressures. But, instead of succumbing to these problems, she defeated them, and set a new course for her life. Rae Ann applied for, and was accepted to, the Indians Into Medicine Program at the University of North Dakota. As she set out to pursue her dream, she found herself away from her home and her family for the first time, all the while caring for her two young daughters. In 1989, after years of studying, she graduated with a nursing degree, returned to Pine Ridge, and landed a job working for the Indian Health Service. Twelve years later, she realized that, with additional training, she could do even more to improve the quality of life on Pine Ridge-- especially at the IHS--and returned to the University of North Dakota in 2002. Last month, Rae Ann received her master's degree in nursing. After hearing about all of Rae Ann's accomplishments, and about the adversity she's overcome, it will come as no surprise to my colleagues that she plans to continue her education by enrolling in law school this fall. When so many stories exist about the tremendous obstacles Native Americans face--in getting an education, gaining access to health care, and improving their quality of life--it is important for all of us to recognize success stories like Rae Ann's. Not only is Rae Ann a role model for her tribe, she is an example for all people who face adversity as they strive to fulfill their dreams. I would like to extend my personal congratulations on her recent achievement, and wish her the best of luck in all her future endeavors.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today Senator Johnson and I are introducing a bill that reflects the concerns of tribal leaders about the lack of progress on trust management reform and their dissatisfaction with the Department of the Interior's reorganization plan to deal with it. It offers an alternative to the Department's approach that tribal chairmen in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain regions believe will better serve their members. Trust reform is a particularly vexing issue that has confounded Federal policymakers and frustrated Native Americans for years. But the bottom line is that when the United States Government divided Indian lands in 1887, it made a commitment, through solemn treaty obligations, to hold those lands in trust, to manage them wisely, and to give any income from the sale or lease of the land to its Indian owners. It has never fulfilled that promise. The Indian trust has been so badly mismanaged, for so long, by Administrations of both political parties, that no one today has any idea how much money should even be in the trust--let alone, how much is owed to individual account holders and to tribes, and for what. Meanwhile, too many individual and tribal community needs go unmet in Indian Country because of the lack of resources. That is the contradiction that simply cannot be allowed to continue. I know that the Interior Department has gone to great efforts to reform its internal structure to get a handle on the administration of the Indian trust fund. And I appreciate that Interior officials believe that their reorganization plan has been shaped, at least in part, by ``listening sessions'' it held in Indian Country. Yet, the fact remains that tribal leaders around the country do not accept the premise that those meetings represented true consultation, and they do not accept the Department's reorganization plan as a legitimate response to mismanagement of the Indian trust. A number of tribal leaders have told me that the Department's ``listening sessions'' were hardly that, but could more accurately be described as a notification of how the Department would proceed. Tribal leaders in my State believe strongly that the Department's reorganization plan moves in the wrong direction. Instead of integrating the trust and ``non-trust'' functions of the Department, it separates those functions even further. They also believe the plan ignores the unique character of each region's challenges. The Great Plains Region, for example, has more Individual Indian Money Account holders than any other region and holds 33 percent of the nation's tribal trust assets. I acknowledge that this is a difficult problem and that some in the Administration sincerely desire to solve the trust management problem in a way that ensures that stakeholders receive what is due them in a timely manner. I also greatly appreciate the attention devoted to this matter. However, I do believe some of that attention has been misdirected. And, given the recent history of the trust reform debate, I have no credible answer to tribal leaders' lament that the Department appears more interested in undercutting the Cobell v. Norton lawsuit than in considering the opinion of tribes in South Dakota or the rest of Indian Country. Since the Department formally unveiled its reorganization proposal earlier last year, numerous questions have been raised about exactly how this reorganization, which is currently being advanced administratively, will improve the present trust fund management and accounting procedures. What are the role and responsibilities of the Special Trustee's trust officers who will be dispatched throughout Indian Country, and how will these positions relate to the local and regional BIA offices? Is this a duplication of services? Who has oversight over these positions, and what accountability mechanism is in place to monitor their performance? What are the lines of authority? Will Indian preference apply to any new positions that are created by the reorganization? Why is the reorganization effort affecting the Office of Indian Education Programs when the court mandate affects only trust fund management reform? Does the plan violate the BIA amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization? The list of questions is long, and tribal leaders and their constituents deserve answers. Those answers cannot be gleaned from the 18 pages of organizational charts the Department has provided as a rationale for its plan to reorganize the BIA and the Office of the Special Trustee. This past February tribal leaders from nearly every Indian Nation in America traveled to Washington for a meeting of the National Congress of American Indians to discuss a variety of issues, including trust reform. They expressed unanimous opposition to the Department of Interior's reorganization efforts, and their urgent plea to Congress was that the federal government work with Native people to find an honorable and equitable solution to the Indian trust fund dispute. In March, in an appearance before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Tex Hall, Chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold and President of the National Congress of American Indians, testified that tribal leaders do not believe that their views are reflected in the Department's trust reorganization plan. And the Chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Michael Jandreau, a member of the BIA-Tribal Task Force on trust reform, told the Committee that ``meaningful involvement [of] and input from tribal leadership'' and the failure by the federal government to recognize ``obvious treaty obligations'' are contributing to the inability to reach consensus on trust reform. This disagreement between Indian Country and Washington runs deep and cannot be solved by Interior Department officials simply re-drawing lines on organizational charts. The search for resolution must include real, meaningful, and ongoing consultation between Department officials and the tribes and tribal leaders. After all, we are talking about Indian people's money. At the March Committee hearing, Harold Frazier, testifying in his capacities as Chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and as Chairman of the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association, offered both a critique of the Department's reorganization plan and an alternative to it. He emphasized that a majority of Indian tribes opposed the reorganization, not just because it was implemented without ``meaningful tribal consultation,'' but also because ``a one-size-fits- all approach to trust management reform is certain to fail.'' While acknowledging that some aspects of reform, such as land consolidation and improved record-keeping, are better managed at the national level, Chairman Frazier pointed out that basic services provided at the agency level are the key to the most efficient utilization of trust assets and that these resource decisions are best made at the local level so they may be adapted to serve tribal beneficiaries' unique needs. And he offered the Great Plains Regional Proposal for Trust Reform as an alternative to the Department's reorganization plan. Senator Johnson and I believe that Chairman Frazier has made a constructive contribution to breaking the trust impasse, and the bill we are introducing today codifies the Great Plains Regional Proposal for Trust Reform, as expanded by the inclusion of the Rocky Mountain Regional Tribes. It is based on the principle that differences among tribes in population, employment, revenue base, and even geographic location effect the type of trust reform suitable for each area, and it has precedent in a provision of the FY 2004 Interior Appropriations bill, Section 139, that exempted certain self-governance tribes from the Interior reorganization plan. Our proposal exempts the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain tribes from the Department of the Interior's trust reform reorganization, excluding current efforts to reform Indian probate and encourage land consolidation, thereby precluding the Department from reorganizing the BIA at the agency level. It also stipulates that any funds appropriated to accomplish trust reform at the agency level within the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain Regions can be expended only under plans developed by local tribes in cooperation with, and with the approval of, the Department of the Interior. And it authorizes $200,000 for the Great Plains Region and $200,000 for the Rocky Mountain Region to be used for the development of agency-specific reorganization plans. The legislation Senator Johnson and I are introducing today is not intended to end the trust reform debate. We still do not have an historical accounting of trust income; we still do not know if certain records exist; and we still do not know how much the United States of America owes to Indian people and to the Tribes. Neither is the legislation intended to limit other regions searching for their own solutions; to the contrary, we and the tribes of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain regions respect other regions' rights to develop proposals that meet their own unique needs. But we do hope our proposal will help refocus the debate in a more constructive, substantive, cost- effective manner, acknowledging that the tribes know what is best for them and should be consulted--in a meaningful way--and play a key role in this process. The tribes understand that the Interior and Treasury Departments, the BIA, and the Special Trustee for American Indians must be their allies in the search for a solution. But friction over reorganization has diverted attention from the more fundamental challenge of providing a full and fair accounting to Indian people, and ultimately paying the money that is owed to them and the tribes. Now that the Department has been given authorization to proceed administratively with its reorganization plan, I hope the Department will submit to Congress a legislative proposal on how to address the underlying, substantive problem that we have been wrestling with for far too long. I also hope the Department will embrace the pilot program Senator Johnson and I are proposing today, with the support of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain Tribal Chairmen's Associations. In closing, I think it is extremely important to reflect on two central facts about the Indian trust debate as we consider the proposed reorganization of the BIA and the OST, and the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains Tribal Chairmen's Associations' ideas for localizing trust reform. First, residents of Indian Country have been victimized for generations by persistent mismanagement of trust assets by the federal government. Far too many families for far too long have been denied trust assets to which they are entitled because of Federal mismanagement. And this situation has adversely affected their quality of life. Second, frustration with the Federal Government's failure to come to grips with this problem has not only led to litigation (Cobell v. Norton), it has also solidified the tribes' determination to be part of the solution to the problem. Effective trust management reform will remain an elusive goal if the tribes are not full participants in this exercise. We need to recognize the human dimension and consequences of trust mismanagement, and we need to accept that tribal leaders must be equal partners in its reform. The bottom line is that the tribes do not have the resources they need to adequately address the full range of socio- economic challenges they face. In the case of trust reform, the issue is not simply boxes on an organizational chart, but lives that literally hang in the balance. Yesterday I met with Chairman Frazier, Chairman Jandreau, and Oglala Sioux Tribal President John Yellow Bird Steele. Their frustrations with the Department's reorganization proposal could be summed up with the comments made by one chairman and echoed by the other two: ``They left us out of the equation. We have many of the records, and we know what adjustments need to be made at the agency level to address our local needs. Whether it's historical accounting or reorganization, we have to be part of the solution.'' It's a concept so simple that it should go without saying, but the Administration has not adhered to it. But we still have a chance to turn that around. The tribes of the Dakotas, Nebraska, Montana, and Wyoming have stepped up to the plate. They aren't just complaining about the Administration's proposal; they're offering their own. They've developed regional proposals to fit their unique regional needs. We should respect their judgment, and the judgment of other regions that will undoubtedly follow with their own proposals. The history of trust management has been a travesty, and, without a concerted and open-minded effort to address the issue, the future will not be any better. The United States has a fiduciary responsibility to Indian Country based on numerous treaty obligations. We must satisfy our obligations. We must work together to craft a solution to the underlying trust problem. Let's start by granting the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain Regions greater autonomy to fashion their own trust solutions.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today Senator Johnson and I are introducing a bill that reflects the concerns of tribal leaders about the lack of progress on trust management reform and their dissatisfaction with the Department of the Interior's reorganization plan to deal with it. It offers an alternative to the Department's approach that tribal chairmen in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain regions believe will better serve their members. Trust reform is a particularly vexing issue that has confounded Federal policymakers and frustrated Native Americans for years. But the bottom line is that when the United States Government divided Indian lands in 1887, it made a commitment, through solemn treaty obligations, to hold those lands in trust, to manage them wisely, and to give any income from the sale or lease of the land to its Indian owners. It has never fulfilled that promise. The Indian trust has been so badly mismanaged, for so long, by Administrations of both political parties, that no one today has any idea how much money should even be in the trust--let alone, how much is owed to individual account holders and to tribes, and for what. Meanwhile, too many individual and tribal community needs go unmet in Indian Country because of the lack of resources. That is the contradiction that simply cannot be allowed to continue. I know that the Interior Department has gone to great efforts to reform its internal structure to get a handle on the administration of the Indian trust fund. And I appreciate that Interior officials believe that their reorganization plan has been shaped, at least in part, by ``listening sessions'' it held in Indian Country. Yet, the fact remains that tribal leaders around the country do not accept the premise that those meetings represented true consultation, and they do not accept the Department's reorganization plan as a legitimate response to mismanagement of the Indian trust. A number of tribal leaders have told me that the Department's ``listening sessions'' were hardly that, but could more accurately be described as a notification of how the Department would proceed. Tribal leaders in my State believe strongly that the Department's reorganization plan moves in the wrong direction. Instead of integrating the trust and ``non-trust'' functions of the Department, it separates those functions even further. They also believe the plan ignores the unique character of each region's challenges. The Great Plains Region, for example, has more Individual Indian Money Account holders than any other region and holds 33 percent of the nation's tribal trust assets. I acknowledge that this is a difficult problem and that some in the Administration sincerely desire to solve the trust management problem in a way that ensures that stakeholders receive what is due them in a timely manner. I also greatly appreciate the attention devoted to this matter. However, I do believe some of that attention has been misdirected. And, given the recent history of the trust reform debate, I have no credible answer to tribal leaders' lament that the Department appears more interested in undercutting the Cobell v. Norton lawsuit than in considering the opinion of tribes in South Dakota or the rest of Indian Country. Since the Department formally unveiled its reorganization proposal earlier last year, numerous questions have been raised about exactly how this reorganization, which is currently being advanced administratively, will improve the present trust fund management and accounting procedures. What are the role and responsibilities of the Special Trustee's trust officers who will be dispatched throughout Indian Country, and how will these positions relate to the local and regional BIA offices? Is this a duplication of services? Who has oversight over these positions, and what accountability mechanism is in place to monitor their performance? What are the lines of authority? Will Indian preference apply to any new positions that are created by the reorganization? Why is the reorganization effort affecting the Office of Indian Education Programs when the court mandate affects only trust fund management reform? Does the plan violate the BIA amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization? The list of questions is long, and tribal leaders and their constituents deserve answers. Those answers cannot be gleaned from the 18 pages of organizational charts the Department has provided as a rationale for its plan to reorganize the BIA and the Office of the Special Trustee. This past February tribal leaders from nearly every Indian Nation in America traveled to Washington for a meeting of the National Congress of American Indians to discuss a variety of issues, including trust reform. They expressed unanimous opposition to the Department of Interior's reorganization efforts, and their urgent plea to Congress was that the federal government work with Native people to find an honorable and equitable solution to the Indian trust fund dispute. In March, in an appearance before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Tex Hall, Chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold and President of the National Congress of American Indians, testified that tribal leaders do not believe that their views are reflected in the Department's trust reorganization plan. And the Chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Michael Jandreau, a member of the BIA-Tribal Task Force on trust reform, told the Committee that ``meaningful involvement [of] and input from tribal leadership'' and the failure by the federal government to recognize ``obvious treaty obligations'' are contributing to the inability to reach consensus on trust reform. This disagreement between Indian Country and Washington runs deep and cannot be solved by Interior Department officials simply re-drawing lines on organizational charts. The search for resolution must include real, meaningful, and ongoing consultation between Department officials and the tribes and tribal leaders. After all, we are talking about Indian people's money. At the March Committee hearing, Harold Frazier, testifying in his capacities as Chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and as Chairman of the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association, offered both a critique of the Department's reorganization plan and an alternative to it. He emphasized that a majority of Indian tribes opposed the reorganization, not just because it was implemented without ``meaningful tribal consultation,'' but also because ``a one-size-fits- all approach to trust management reform is certain to fail.'' While acknowledging that some aspects of reform, such as land consolidation and improved record-keeping, are better managed at the national level, Chairman Frazier pointed out that basic services provided at the agency level are the key to the most efficient utilization of trust assets and that these resource decisions are best made at the local level so they may be adapted to serve tribal beneficiaries' unique needs. And he offered the Great Plains Regional Proposal for Trust Reform as an alternative to the Department's reorganization plan. Senator Johnson and I believe that Chairman Frazier has made a constructive contribution to breaking the trust impasse, and the bill we are introducing today codifies the Great Plains Regional Proposal for Trust Reform, as expanded by the inclusion of the Rocky Mountain Regional Tribes. It is based on the principle that differences among tribes in population, employment, revenue base, and even geographic location effect the type of trust reform suitable for each area, and it has precedent in a provision of the FY 2004 Interior Appropriations bill, Section 139, that exempted certain self-governance tribes from the Interior reorganization plan. Our proposal exempts the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain tribes from the Department of the Interior's trust reform reorganization, excluding current efforts to reform Indian probate and encourage land consolidation, thereby precluding the Department from reorganizing the BIA at the agency level. It also stipulates that any funds appropriated to accomplish trust reform at the agency level within the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain Regions can be expended only under plans developed by local tribes in cooperation with, and with the approval of, the Department of the Interior. And it authorizes $200,000 for the Great Plains Region and $200,000 for the Rocky Mountain Region to be used for the development of agency-specific reorganization plans. The legislation Senator Johnson and I are introducing today is not intended to end the trust reform debate. We still do not have an historical accounting of trust income; we still do not know if certain records exist; and we still do not know how much the United States of America owes to Indian people and to the Tribes. Neither is the legislation intended to limit other regions searching for their own solutions; to the contrary, we and the tribes of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain regions respect other regions' rights to develop proposals that meet their own unique needs. But we do hope our proposal will help refocus the debate in a more constructive, substantive, cost- effective manner, acknowledging that the tribes know what is best for them and should be consulted--in a meaningful way--and play a key role in this process. The tribes understand that the Interior and Treasury Departments, the BIA, and the Special Trustee for American Indians must be their allies in the search for a solution. But friction over reorganization has diverted attention from the more fundamental challenge of providing a full and fair accounting to Indian people, and ultimately paying the money that is owed to them and the tribes. Now that the Department has been given authorization to proceed administratively with its reorganization plan, I hope the Department will submit to Congress a legislative proposal on how to address the underlying, substantive problem that we have been wrestling with for far too long. I also hope the Department will embrace the pilot program Senator Johnson and I are proposing today, with the support of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain Tribal Chairmen's Associations. In closing, I think it is extremely important to reflect on two central facts about the Indian trust debate as we consider the proposed reorganization of the BIA and the OST, and the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains Tribal Chairmen's Associations' ideas for localizing trust reform. First, residents of Indian Country have been victimized for generations by persistent mismanagement of trust assets by the federal government. Far too many families for far too long have been denied trust assets to which they are entitled because of Federal mismanagement. And this situation has adversely affected their quality of life. Second, frustration with the Federal Government's failure to come to grips with this problem has not only led to litigation (Cobell v. Norton), it has also solidified the tribes' determination to be part of the solution to the problem. Effective trust management reform will remain an elusive goal if the tribes are not full participants in this exercise. We need to recognize the human dimension and consequences of trust mismanagement, and we need to accept that tribal leaders must be equal partners in its reform. The bottom line is that the tribes do not have the resources they need to adequately address the full range of socio- economic challenges they face. In the case of trust reform, the issue is not simply boxes on an organizational chart, but lives that literally hang in the balance. Yesterday I met with Chairman Frazier, Chairman Jandreau, and Oglala Sioux Tribal President John Yellow Bird Steele. Their frustrations with the Department's reorganization proposal could be summed up with the comments made by one chairman and echoed by the other two: ``They left us out of the equation. We have many of the records, and we know what adjustments need to be made at the agency level to address our local needs. Whether it's historical accounting or reorganization, we have to be part of the solution.'' It's a concept so simple that it should go without saying, but the Administration has not adhered to it. But we still have a chance to turn that around. The tribes of the Dakotas, Nebraska, Montana, and Wyoming have stepped up to the plate. They aren't just complaining about the Administration's proposal; they're offering their own. They've developed regional proposals to fit their unique regional needs. We should respect their judgment, and the judgment of other regions that will undoubtedly follow with their own proposals. The history of trust management has been a travesty, and, without a concerted and open-minded effort to address the issue, the future will not be any better. The United States has a fiduciary responsibility to Indian Country based on numerous treaty obligations. We must satisfy our obligations. We must work together to craft a solution to the underlying trust problem. Let's start by granting the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain Regions greater autonomy to fashion their own trust solutions.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time to make a relatively brief statement.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, over the past 4 years, our nation has gained a renewed awareness of the bravery and sacrifice of America's service men and women. And through the exceptional valor they have routinely displayed, America has also gained a renewed sense of gratitude for the service of our veterans. So it was with a heightened sense of respect and appreciation that America commemorated the recent anniversary of D-Day and Memorial Day, and dedicated the long-overdue memorial to the generation that fought and won World War II. The veterans who came to Washington expecting to find one tribute cast in stone, encountered many living tributes, just as meaningful, and just as enduring. Americans of all ages, of all backgrounds, said ``thank you'' to the veterans who fought for them. Some gave gifts of American flags. Others asked for pictures. I recently heard a story about two World War II veterans who were eating dinner at a restaurant, when a young man they had never met thanked them, and struck up a conversation. He asked about their service, and told them that two of his relatives didn't make it home from Europe. When it came time for the two older men to pay the tab, they found that the young man had already paid it. He left a card that said, ``To two old guys who paid the price, but who are not going to pay today.'' The memory of our veterans' achievements will live on long after them, and all Americans should feel proud that, in this way, we have kept faith with our veterans. But a shadow is cast over the tributes now paid to our veterans, and indeed, to our soldiers fighting in uniform today. There seems to be a gap between the thanks America offers its veterans in word, and the thanks our government shows veterans in deed. The waits at the VA hospital are too long. Veterans are paying record amounts out-of-pocket for VA health services. In recent days, we have learned that the White House is planning new cuts for FY06, even as the VA faces an influx of war veterans from Iraq. This year, as in every election year, Americans will ask themselves, am I better off than I was four years ago? Am I safer? Am I more financially secure? Do I have better access to prescription drugs and health care than before? In the coming months, America's 26 million veterans will be asking themselves those same questions. All America would do well to listen to their answers. Recently, I heard from a South Dakotan named Howard Anderson. Howard is 77 years old, a veteran of World War II. Howard is grateful to the doctors and nurses at the VA, but feels squeezed by the rising cost of prescription drugs. On average, he pays around $90 per month for medicine to treat his lung condition. The VA won't pay for his medications because he makes too much money even though he and his wife live on their Social Security. ``At the end of the month,'' he said, ``I couldn't write you a check for a dollar.'' Not long ago, the VA sent Howard a letter notifying him that he owed another $300 for prescriptions. After the shock wore off, Howard went back through his receipts and found he was being double-charged. It had happened before, but he didn't have the patience to battle through the bureaucracy to make it right again, so he just paid the bill. This time, he just couldn't afford it. The VA ultimately admitted it was making a mistake. But Howard is beginning to get the sense that tight budgets have forced the VA to become more aggressive about denying care or sending the bill to the veteran. ``They say these benefits are there for you,'' he says, ``but when you go to get them, they don't give them to you.'' Let me say that the problems with the VA health system are not the fault of the doctors and nurses and the other men and women who work at VA hospitals and clinics. They are among the most talented, most dedicated health professionals in this country. But they can only do so much with the resources they are given. And from the first days of this Administration, the White House has systematically tried to reduce veterans benefits, cut funding to the VA, and shortchange the health care of America's veterans. Over the past four years, the budget for veterans' health has risen far less than the rate of health care inflation, forcing VA hospitals to meet rising demand with shrinking resources. The White House's 2005 budget deepens this trend by including only a 1.9 percent funding increase, barely one-sixth of the rate at which health care costs are increasing nationwide. Overall, the White House budget falls over $4.1 billion short of veterans' needs, according to the Independent Budget created by leading nonpartisan veterans groups. Not only would the White House's budget strain VA hospital budgets to the breaking point, it would drive nearly 800,000 veterans out of the VA health system. Eight-hundred thousand Americans who were promised health care in exchange for their service to their country will be denied and kicked off the rolls for no reason other than the Administration's refusal to adequately fund veterans' health. This would be on top of a recent decision by President Bush to deny our obligations to 200,000 Priority 8 veterans and keep them from enrolling in the VA health care system. Those veterans who remain in the system have been forced to pay more, much more. Over the course of the last three years, the amount veterans have paid toward their own care has increased a staggering 340 percent, or $561 million. And if the White House gets its way, veterans would need to pick up over a half-billion dollars more of their care in 2005, if the budget proposals as we have now witnessed them go through. Some within this administration seem to believe that our responsibility to our soldiers is when they come home, but we couldn't disagree more. If it were not for the efforts of many in Congress, the story would be much worse. Since President Bush took office, we have led the charge to add a total of almost $2 billion in funding for veterans health care beyond what the President proposed. Moreover, in each of the last 3 years, Democrats have blocked Bush administration attempts to increase copayments and enrollment fees even higher. Is this the same President who ran for election with a pledge to veterans that ``help is on the way''? In the next few days, some of us will offer an amendment to make a simple promise to our veterans: If you wore the uniform of our Nation, if you fought under our flag, your health care needs will be met for life. The full funding of veterans health care would be made mandatory under the law. For too long, the VA budget has been subject to the give-and-take of budget politics. It is time we set things straight. Funding for the VA should no longer be set by political convenience, back-room deals, or zero sum game of budget politics. One thing, and one thing alone, should govern the care of our veterans: the needs of care for those veterans. Senate Democrats have also been fighting, and we will continue to fight, for full concurrent receipt of all disabled veterans under the remarkable leadership of my colleague, the distinguished assistant Democratic leader from Nevada. The Bush administration has repeatedly threatened to veto concurrent receipt, and last year the White House called together leading veterans organizations to propose a compromise: We will give you full concurrent receipt but only if you agree to end disability benefits for two-thirds of all veterans. Veterans organizations and their allies in Congress rejected the inadequate proposal. Instead, thanks in large part to Senator Reid, Democrats were able to pass a provision to allow veterans rated 50- percent disabled or more to receive full concurrent receipt. We have made progress on concurrent receipt since the last election, but it has been in spite of the administration, not because of it. What we have achieved so far is just a downpayment on what disabled veterans have been promised and what they deserve. How could we do otherwise? How could we let our country move forward and leave behind the men and women whose bravery has won our freedom and prosperity? The debt we owe our veterans is unending. But just because we could never hope to repay fully our obligations to our veterans does not excuse us from trying. Today we are further away from doing right by our veterans than ever before. America's veterans are not better off than they were 4 years ago. When he signed the GI Bill of Rights in 1944, President Roosevelt noted that ``the members of our Armed Forces have been compelled to make greater . . . sacrifices than the rest of us, and they are entitled to definite action to take care of their special problems.'' The current White House has allowed ``definite action'' to give way to little more than indefinite praise. Veterans deserve better. The soldiers fighting this very day, at this very moment, deserve better. I think back to that young man 2 weeks ago who looked upon two men to whom he owed his freedom and way of life, and he knew enough to say thank you. Then I think of Howard Anderson who did pay the price but is being denied help by the Government because it refuses to fully fund veterans health. Howard Anderson and all veterans are owed a debt. We should acknowledge that debt every day, not just in stone monuments or in lofty speeches or bright parades. It should be repaid in a real and concrete commitment to care for veterans in the days when veterans need it the most. These men and women risked their lives to defend our own. They stood up for us, and now we must stand up for them, not just with words but with action. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, hatred and violence are not traditional values and they are not American values. Vicious crimes tear at the very fabric of our society and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Sixty-five Senators--including 18 Republican Senators--voted today to expand hate crimes protection to all Americans. The overwhelming support for the hate crimes amendment is a victory for basic fairness and for victims' rights. This bipartisan amendment provides more help for local law enforcement--and tougher penalties for people who commit hate crimes. It also expands hate crimes protections to include gender, sexual orientation and disability. These are all reasonable changes that are supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans and by law enforcement agencies across the country. Those who say these protections are unnecessary because they protect only a small number of people miss the point. Even one beating, one murder, or one assault is unacceptable. Hate crimes diminish all Americans. This is not the first time the Senate has voted to strengthen existing federal protections against hate crimes. I brought these same protections to the Senate floor when I was majority leader in 2002. They were first introduced in 1997 and passed by the Senate in 1999. In 2000, majorities in both the House and Senate supported hate crimes legislation--only to have the provisions stripped out behind the closed doors of a conference committee at the insistence of the far right. We urge the far right to end their efforts to prevent these modest but important protections from being signed into law. We will continue to press this case until all Americans enjoy equal protection from hate crimes.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this week marks the 125th anniversary of the settlement of one of my state's oldest towns. Columbia, SD, located in Brown County in the northeastern part of my State, has a long and rich history that represents the spirit of hard work and community that defines what it means to be from South Dakota. In mid-June, 1879, a group of wagons loaded with supplies arrived at the spot that would one day become Columbia, South Dakota. Under the leadership of Byron M. Smith of Minneapolis, the settlers took advantage of the Elm River's abundant water supply, and began work on the new town. Once the first post office was built and officially recognized, the town of Columbia was born. Today, residents of Columbia proudly reflect on a 125-year history, and the seemingly endless string of goals they have accomplished--and hardships they have had to endure--along the way. From the establishment of the post office in 1879 to the dam that was built 3 years later--creating Lake Columbia--to the construction of the town's first school, courthouse, and roller-skating rink, Columbia's first decade saw its inhabitants lay the groundwork for the future of the community. More than a century has passed since then, during which Columbia has survived fire, drought, dust storms, blizzards, and even a tornado on the town's 99th birthday. After 125 years of both good times and bad, the people of Columbia have emerged as strong and united as ever. Truly, it is the people who have enabled Columbia to reach this remarkable milestone. The legacy of those original settlers has been carried proudly to this day, and its reach is not limited to the corner of South Dakota where the town resides. In fact, Ralph Herseth, a graduate of Columbia High School and a former Governor of South Dakota, is the grandfather of our State's newest representative, Stephanie Herseth. I am proud to join Representative Herseth and Senator Johnson in congratulating Columbia on its 125th birthday.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, our Nation celebrates two birthdays today. On June 14, 1775, the Continental Congress agreed to forge, from several different State militias, one single Army to fight America's War of Independence. Congress called for 10 companies of expert rifleman to be raised from among the colonies of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia and ordered them to march to Boston to meet the British Army. Two years later, Congress established a flag for the young Army to fight under. With the war still raging, and the future of the Revolution very much in doubt, the Continental Congress decreed it ``Resolved, That the Flag of the 13 United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; That the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.'' In a way, the entire history of our Nation is contained within these events. From diverse parts, America set forth to create a single nation, founded on common values and a shared vision for its future. Struggling against the preeminent military power of its age, our Founding Fathers looked upon the different rebellions waged by State militia, independent of one another, taking place throughout the colonies, and determined that if the 13 colonies were to share a single fate, it would be best if we chose to meet it together. The design of the new American flag reflected that wisdom and symbolizes the union of disparate parts. While the 13 stripes and the 13 stars represented the different colonies, the colors signified the common values that bound us together as a nation. Red for valor. White for liberty. Blue for justice. Today, Old Glory is America's most treasured national symbol. It captures the imagination of both young and old because, in a way, each American is represented. Each of us can see among the stars in the deep blue field one star that represents our State, our neighborhood, ourselves. And in the 13 stripes representing the colonies that banded together, each of us can also feel the connection to our history. In this way, the flag is alive. Each American adds to its meaning and significance through the work we do to build our Nation. Few expressed this better than Franklin Lane, Woodrow Wilson's Secretary for the Interior. Speaking to a group of civil servants in 1914, Secretary Lane imagined a conversation with, as he called it, ``Mr. Flag.'' ``Yesterday,'' the Flag tells Lane, ``the President spoke a word that made happier the future of ten million . . . but that act looms no larger on the Flag than the struggle which the boy in Georgia is making to win the Corn Club prize this summer. . . . ``Yesterday the Congress spoke a word which will open the door of Alaska; but a mother in Michigan worked from sunrise until far into the night, to give her boy an education. She, too, is making the Flag. ``Yesterday we made a new law to prevent financial panics, and yesterday, maybe a schoolteacher in Ohio taught his first letters to a boy who will one day write a song that will give cheer to the millions. . . . We are all making the Flag. I am your belief in yourself, your dream of what a people may become . . . I am no more than what you believe me to be and I am all that you believe I can be. . . . I am what you make me; nothing more.'' Looking back at 227 years under Old Glory, the American people can be proud of what we have made the flag. Throughout the world it is recognized as a symbol of freedom and valor. And, there can be no doubt, few American institutions have done more to make this true than the United States Army, the oldest institution in the world dedicated to defending a democracy. In its 229 years, the Army has engaged in more than 175 different campaigns to defend our Nation, and to defend freedom throughout the world. As we celebrate the Army and the incalculable contributions it has made to the life of our Nation, and the world, members of the Army are once again far from their families, fighting shoulder to shoulder, to extend freedom's reach throughout the world. Each day, we see new examples of the courage, loyalty, and fortitude that have been hallmarks of the Army since its birth more than two centuries ago. The stories of the heroism of Army troops rescuing our Nation from a pivotal moment are too numerous to count. But I would like to relate one of my favorites from the War of 1812. For the first 2 years of that war, the American forces had been beaten badly by the British. The English generals had become openly contemptuous of the American forces, which they considered little more than a ragtag band of untrained and unprofessional conscripts. As the British met the American Army on the banks of the Chippewa River, the British general looked out over the American Army and mocked them as little more than a militia--the same forces they had been routing for the past 2 years. The British opened fire, expecting the Americans to scatter. But the Army marched directly through the British fire. Seeing a bravery and professionalism he had never encountered, the British general cried out, ``Those are regulars, by God.'' Soon, the Army troops had encircled the British forces, catching them in crossfire. The Battle of Chippewa was soon won, and it brought about a turning point in the War of 1812, and the history of our young Nation. Countless times, the United States Army has stunned an enemy commander by its discipline, its skill, and its bravery. But while America continues to be awed by the achievements of the U.S. Army, we are no longer surprised. Whether on the banks of the Chippewa, the fields of Gettysburg, the banks of Normandy, or the streets of Baghdad, the U.S. Army continues to represent the best hopes and the best achievement of a single nation, united in common defense of its shared values and dreams. They have brought honor and freedom to our Nation for 229 years. And while it is historical coincidence that the Army birthday and Flag Day fall together on June 14 each year, it is altogether fitting that they do so. The same values the Flag represents, the Army exemplifies and defends. When we look upon the flag, we see the heroism with which our military has defended it, and we are proud. All this is represented in the American flag. And when Americans pledge allegiance to the flag, it is this history, these values, these ideals, to which we promise loyalty. Knowing the power of the Pledge to unite Americans, I was encouraged to learn that the Supreme Court has rejected the recent challenge to the constitutionality of the Pledge. I have long believed in the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, and though the Supreme Court Decision was made on procedural grounds, it represents a positive step forward in our efforts to affirm its central place in the life of our Nation. In a simple way, the Pledge gives us the chance to reaffirm the history and values that bind us together--the history and values represented by our flag. When I think of the importance of the flag to our country, I am reminded of the days after September 11, 2001. One week after the attacks, I recall walking into the Hart Senate Office Building to see American flags hanging from each window, on each of the eight floors of the building. Like the individual stars standing united together, the Senate offices were spontaneously united in a pure and impromptu display of patriotism and loyalty. If anyone ever had doubts about our Nation's resolve to persevere in the face of terrorism, they would be put to rest at that moment. As Franklin Lane said, each of us makes the Flag. As we work to build our Nation and extend its ideals throughout the world, we are extending the constellation of stars our Founding Fathers saw in the 13 colonies. And today, the light of this constellation extends throughout the world. This is what we celebrate on both Flag Day and the Army's birthday. Each in its way reminds us of the continuing work of our Nation, to create a more perfect union, united under one flag, defended by one force, and inspired by a shared vision of a future, as the Pledge states, ``with liberty and justice for all.''

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I recognize the Auld-Brokaw Trail Day that is scheduled for June 19, 2004, in Yankton, SD. This day-long initiative is the culmination of years of hard work from numerous Yankton leaders, including the Yankton Rotary Club, the Auld-Brokaw Trail Committee, the City of Yankton and the Yankton Parks and Recreation Department. This day also represents the completion of Tom Brokaw and Meredith Auld Brokaw's vision to further enhance the community where they first met nearly a half century ago. Several years ago, Yankton leaders designed the concept for an expansive walking trail as part of a flood mitigation project. Yankton raised $1 million for the Auld-Brokaw Trail, relying upon investments from residents--past and present. With a generous donation from the Brokaws, the dream soon became a reality. The city began construction in 2001. As the trail began to take shape, an Outdoor Classroom to further capitalize on the educational opportunities that it presented. The partnership that developed between the Brokaws, the Yankton Rotary Club and the Rotary Foundation is the way that most things get accomplished in my State--good people working together toward a shared vision. The Outdoor Campus along the Auld-Brokaw Trail will feature flowers and grasses native to the South Dakota prairie. The nearly 3 acres of natural lands will be a great resource to showcase the area's beauty. The Yankton Chamber of Commerce has already found the Auld-Brokaw Trail to be a strong regional recreational attraction. As we know all too well, Americans are spending less active time outdoors. This trend is having a negative impact on our country's collective health, and I was pleased to learn that the Avera Sacred Heart Hospital in Yankton will sponsor health and walking programs along the Auld-Brokaw Trail in conjunction with the upcoming events. A Pilates demonstration, nutrition forum and community walk will teach area residents about the important contribution that the Auld-Brokaw Trail can make to the community's health. The Auld-Brokaw Trail is an outstanding enhancement of Yankton's beauty, and the Outdoor Classroom addition will strengthen the trail's attractiveness. I am pleased that Yankton residents will soon come together to celebrate the completion of this outstanding project, and I am proud to recognize this outstanding effort. Tom and Meredith Brokaw's friendship began in high school. He went to Boys State, allowing him to have lunch with South Dakota Governor Joe Foss, a World War Congressional Medal of Honor winner. She went to Girls Nation, where she met President Eisenhower in the Rose Garden of the White House. They were class leaders; Tom's broadcast career began on KYNT Radio. Though they are far away geographically, their emotional bond remains strong. ``The world in which I work and live is a long way from home,'' Brokaw wrote in his 2002 book, ``but the early bearings I took as a child on the prairie, surrounded by working people and the communities they established, often in difficult circumstances, have been a steadying and reassuring presence. They are familiar markers and sentinels, useful and reliable even now, forty years after I left the land and the people that launched me.'' Yankton continues to be blessed by the generous way that Tom and Meredith Brokaw have chosen to give back to the community that provided so much to them. The Auld-Brokaw Trail and the Outdoor Classroom are two of the latest examples.