Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I join my colleague from Alaska and all of our colleagues in congratulating our special colleague, Senator Inouye. It is not just the quantity of days he has served that makes him unique and special; it is the quality of the days he has served. Over these years, he has provided remarkable leadership not only for his State but for his country. He has inspired us and he has provided remarkable demonstrations of commitment to his country and commitments to his people in Hawaii. I was in ninth grade when Senator Inouye was elected to the Senate. I look back at all of those years since being in ninth grade, and I can only imagine what it must seem to him having served this number of years in the Senate. We wish him many more. I always admire Senators with longevity, but it is no secret why Senator Inouye has experienced his longevity. It is his respect, amazing dedication, and the extraordinary and remarkable way with which he conducts himself in public life that has earned him respect on both sides of the aisle. Senator Inouye, we congratulate you, we thank you, and we are honored to serve with you. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I compliment the Senator from Montana for his words. I have not heard all of his remarks this morning, but I could not agree more that this is a problem that has to be addressed head on. As he noted, this legislation gives us an opportunity to do so. It may not be the ultimate solution, but it is a critical building block in our effort to restore the economy and create new jobs. I hope that very shortly we can get on with the debate. We had an agreement not to offer amendments, of course, until people have had a chance to make opening statements. I intend to make a short one. I hope in the not too distant future we can begin the real debate. We don't have a lot of time. We have 3 days. Senator Frist is right that we have a lot to do in a short period of time. If we are going to maximize the use of these 3 days, it is time to get on with amendments. I know Senator Hatch is prepared to offer the first one. We hope that certainly before the end of this noon hour, we will have offered the first amendment. Mr. President, these are very difficult times for millions of American families. Nine million Americans can't find jobs. We have the highest long- term unemployment rate in 20 years. And in the last 3\1/2\ years, our economy has lost 2.9 million jobs; 2.8 million of those jobs were manufacturing jobs. These aren't abstract numbers. They have real world, dramatic impacts in South Dakota and across our country. And the millions of affected families are looking to us for answers. They don't want hand- outs; they want jobs. Unfortunately, American has lost manufacturing jobs every month since this administration took office--every single month. This is unprecedented. It's also dangerous for our economy. Manufacturing is more productive, it pays higher wages, and provides more benefits than other sectors of the economy. Manufacturing jobs are the kind of jobs you can raise a family on. They're the kind of jobs that make it possible for middle-class families to put their kids through college, and put something away for retirement. We have clear choices in facing this problem. We can let jobs move overseas--or we can fight to keep them here. We can try to create jobs here, or we can do nothing in the face of globalization. We can provide help for workers who are losing their jobs, or we can look the other way. And we can strengthen worker protections, or we can strip away overtime and other benefits that have been a hallmark of the American workplace. A couple of weeks ago, President Bush and his economic advisors weighted in on this issue and told Americans it was a good idea to ship jobs overseas and we ought not worry about it. I don't see it that way, and I know people in South Dakota don't see it that way. And we need to do something about it. Today's legislation is the second step in this process. The first step was the creation and the passage of a very important highway bill, which will create hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of new jobs over the course of the next 6 years. This is the second step. The foreign sales corporation regime was created to counterbalance provisions in the Tax Code that create incentives to move operations overseas. It provided tax advantages for American companies that keep their jobs in America and ship their products overseas. But the World Trade Organization has decided that these advantages were an unfair subsidy and needed to be eliminated. And if they weren't eliminated, international sanctions would follow. Those sanctions kicked in beginning March 1. The question before us is what to replace the old export tax regime with? The Bush administration is completely focused on overseas activities and has proposed nothing to encourage manufacturing job creation at home. But thanks to Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus, we have another solution before us. The centerpiece of their legislation is creating tax incentives for manufacturers that will keep and create good jobs in America. Their proposal is one of the most important opportunities we will have this year to begin addressing America's manufacturing crisis. Just as importantly, this bill gives us an overdue opportunity to do more. We need to accelerate and increase domestic manufacturing tax incentives, and establish a strong job creation tax credit. We need to prohibit tax deductions for outsourcing expenses, and require notice to employees about outsourcing plans. Every community has a right to know how many employees are losing their jobs, why then are losing their jobs, and where those jobs are being sent. We need to restrict outsourcing of government contracts. We need to help workers who are hurt by outsourcing, and make sure they have access to training and health care while they get back on their feet. And we need to reverse some of the Bush administration's worst policies--like eliminating overtime for 8 million workers, including veterans who have been given training in the military and are now ineligible for overtime pay as a result of this regulation. We need to do that. American workers have the same rights they have always had. That fact needs to be reemphasized with the legislation we will offer on this bill. We can't wait until next year to make these improvements. Millions of American families need them today. And I have seen firsthand, in South Dakota, why this is so important. I recently toured a manufacturing plant in Sioux Falls. Graco Incorporated is the world's leading manufacturer of fluid-handling systems and equipment. They've been in business for 78 years. They employ about 165 people. The plant manager showed me two, nearly identical parts. The first was made in Sioux Falls. The other--made overseas--wasn't quite as high-quality, but it cost a little less because the people who made it were paid less, with no benefits. The manager showed me those two parts. Then he introduced me to the workers who would lose their jobs if Graco took the easy, offshoring route. He said, ``I don't want to be the one to have to tell them they don't have jobs anymore.'' The people at Graco are resisting the temptation to export their workers' jobs. They're doing everything they can think of to be good, responsible corporate citizens of my State. The last thing the Federal Government should do is make that job any harder. Our responsibility is to make it easier for Graco and thousands of other companies to keep and create jobs here at home. As I said, this bill is one step in a long process. By itself, it will not completely reverse the unpredecented decline in American manufacturing that has occurred since 2001. That will require a comprehensive plan and sustained bipartisan cooperation over a period of time. In the short term, we have to work together to restore fiscal sanity to the budget. The Federal deficit this year will be half-a-trillion dollars--with no end in sight to the red ink. This debt could cripple our economy and destroy our children's future. In the longer term, our Government should assist people with education and training so they can seize the opportunities that rapid change creates. We need to help people who are displaced by change, and we need to make sure America remains on the cutting edge of innovation. The administration is not facing either of these challenges. We have the largest budget deficits in all of American history, and the administration is drastically underfunding training and education. The President's budget recommends $9.3 billion less for the President's own educational reform plan than the new law calls for. By choosing tax cuts for those at the top over assistance for States, the President has forced drastic increases in tuition at public colleges and universities. The administration has fought Democratic efforts to help dislocated workers upgrade their skills at community colleges. At a time when other countries are feverishly trying to challenge America's preeminence in critical technology, the administration, through neglect and politicization has weakened America's science and technology infrastructure and undercut America's scientific edge. The decline in American manufacturing isn't just happening on President Bush's watch. It is happening in part because of President Bush's policies. Our choices are clear. We can follow the administration's path and make it easier and cheaper for companies to ship American jobs overseas, or we can fight to keep good jobs in America. We can turn our back on millions of workers and families who cannot find jobs, or we can help them get back on their feet and get back to work. It is our hope that, in a bipartisan way, we can find ways to ensure that these goals can be achieved, not only with this legislation but certainly beginning with the amendments we will offer throughout the debate on this bill and hopefully with final passage accorded this legislation someday soon. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I respond to the Senator from Nevada, the distinguished assistant Democratic leader, that the schedule is clear. We have this afternoon, we have tomorrow, and, let's face it, honestly, we only have Friday morning, and we will be under great pressure, I am sure, not to have any amendments offered beyond midmorning on Friday. So for all intents and purposes, we have a little bit more than a day to debate this critical legislation prior to the time the majority leader has already indicated we are going to be moving to the budget, setting aside this legislation. We are going to be assessed $4 billion in tariffs beginning this week if we do not correct the current situation. So this legislation is urgent. It needs to be addressed. I think we have some very critical amendments that ought to be offered in this very narrow window to accommodate concerns on both sides of the aisle. I hope we can do so. Frankly, as the Senator suggests with his question, we need to do it soon.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Nevada is correct. We have agreed with our Republican colleagues to limit the amount of time devoted to each of these amendments. I see the distinguished chair of the Finance Committee, and it looks as if he may be about to propound a unanimous consent request. Perhaps we can yield the floor to accommodate his interests in doing so. I think we all hope to achieve the same goal. Let's move this bill forward. Let's have a good debate about amendments, up or down, and let's see if we can complete our work on this legislation in a timely way. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in recent weeks, Americans have witnessed a steady stream of reports that raise grave questions about the accuracy of statements made by senior Bush administration officials leading up to the war in Iraq. The unequivocal administration pronouncements that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, was pursuing nuclear capabilities, and had close ties with al-Qaida have not been proven or been proven unequivocally wrong. Implications of these intelligence failures are far-reaching. While Saddam Hussein may be in prison, just this week CIA Director Tenet indicated America is still the target of terrorists who seek to kill as many Americans as possible in any way available to them. At no time in our Nation's history has the integrity of the people who use intelligence and the people who produce intelligence been more vital to national security. Americans need to have confidence in both our policymakers and our intelligence community. To rebuild that confidence, Americans have a right to know how the administration and how our intelligence community could have been so wrong on matters of such grave import. For a failure this massive, every aspect of America's national security policymaking process should be put under the microscope: How we collect information, how we analyze it, how it gets interpreted by administration officials, and how the Senate performs its oversight responsibilities. Much of the discussion about our Iraq intelligence failures thus far has focused on our incorrect assessments of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. While important, there is another vital piece of this story that has been overlooked until this point. That is, the administration's failure to plan for postwar Iraq and the consequences that would arise from toppling Saddam Hussein. The administration's myopic approach to planning for post-Saddam Iraq continues to have consequences for the safety of our troops and the long-term security of our Nation and its interests. As a result, it is critical that the Nation learn more about why the administration failed to plan for the contingencies of a post-Saddam Iraq. As officials from the Bush administration, the United Nations, and the Iraq Governing Council seek to reach agreement on the administration's third and latest proposal for forming the first official post-Saddam government, we would be wise to look back at what went wrong. A thorough, bipartisan investigation is warranted. What makes the unfolding evidence of insufficient post-war planning most troubling is that, in this instance, contrary to the questions of weapons of mass destruction, it appears that our intelligence was right. There was a consensus among the intelligence community that removing Saddam would be the easiest part of our efforts to secure and rebuild Iraq. Our intelligence community, our military, and numerous independent groups all concurred in the assessment that our gravest challenges would come in the days after Saddam was ousted. The greatest difficulty, all agreed, would come in the days following the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Senior administration policymakers were repeatedly warned by other officials within the government, as well as a raft of independent outside experts, to plan accordingly. Months before the start of the conflict, these officials and experts carefully examined these issues and offered concrete proposals to maximize our chances for bringing about a stable Iraq while minimizing the risks to our troops and our taxpayers. For instance, as far back as March 2002, a year before the invasion, the State Department was working on a $5 million project entitled the Future of Iraq. Experience from previous conflicts demonstrated the importance of preparing in advance for our postwar duties. And experience from the past gave us all a guide as to what to expect in Iraq. Although there were many other officials and organizations making similar assessments, the State Department's Future of Iraq project provides some useful insights into the information available to the administration had it chose to listen. In its 13-volume study plus a one-volume summary and overview, the Future of Iraq project reached some prescient conclusions. First, the project said Iraq would be disorderly after liberation and stressed that the days immediately after liberation would be critical-- to both those who seek to work with us and those who do not. The removal of Saddam's regime will provide a power vacuum and create popular anxieties about the viability of all Iraqi institutions . . . the traumatic and disruptive events attendant to the regime change will affect all Iraqis, both Saddam's conspirators and the general populace. Second, this report stressed the importance of restoring basic services as quickly as possible after the regime change. The report ``stressed the importance of getting the electrical grid up and running immediately--[this is] key to water systems, jobs. [This] could go a long way to determining Iraqis attitudes' toward coalition forces.'' Third, the report warned about the problems created by a wholesale demobilization of the Iraqi military. The decommissioning of hundreds of thousands of trained military personnel that [a rapid purge] implies could create social problems. Each of these conclusions should have waved a red flag to administration officials: if addressed effectively, the transition will be smoother; if ignored, the transition will be more difficult. More difficult for our troops and more difficult for the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, the administration apparently chose to ignore these and many other similar findings offered up by other groups. In fact, news reports indicate that White House and senior Defense Department civilian officials actually worked to exclude people who worked on or shared the views contained in the Future of Iraq report--views that have proven to be 100 percent correct. One of the most comprehensive reports about this issue can be found in James Fallows' article in the January/February 2004 Atlantic Monthly entitled ``Blind into Baghdad.'' I highly commend this article to my colleagues. Unfortunately, the many warnings about post-war Iraq fell upon deaf ears in the administration. For a variety of reasons, senior administration officials in the White House and senior civilians in the Defense Department ignored these warnings, instead apparently opting to rely on dubious sources to back up their rosy predictions about how our troops would be received by Iraqis and how smooth the transition would be. For example, the administration was repeatedly pressed for an estimate before the start of the war on the number of troops and the cost of the operation. Even though press reports indicate administration officials had signed off on a war plan in November 2002 that spelled out the size of the forces necessary for an Iraq mission, the administration persistently claimed not to know the size of the forces needed or their cost. As late as February 2003, 2 months after the President had authorized the deployment of 200,000 troops to the region and less than 2 months before the start of the conflict, Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz said, ``Fundamentally, we have no idea what is needed unless and until we get there on the ground.'' Even worse, the administration suggested that there would be no cost at all. Administration officials stated that the proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil would be used to pay for the American military presence. On March 27, 8 days after the war had started, Wolfowitz was again pressed on a figure and indicated that whatever it turned out to be, Iraq's oil supplies would keep it low: ``There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.'' In April, after more than a month of conflict, Andrew Natsios, the director of USAID, said the total cost to the taxpayer would be no more than $1.7 billion. ``We have no plans for any further-on-funding for this.'' The administration either knew better at the time or should have known better. And our troops and the American people certainly deserved better. Over 500 Americans have been killed and over 3,000 wounded in Iraq. Unfortunately, these numbers are likely to continue to grow before our mission there is complete. We have already appropriated over $150 billion for this operation, and this cost could easily double before we are through. Let me take another example--the administration's statements about the post-war environment we would encounter and the challenges we would face. Although there are a few instances where administration officials went on the record before the war warning that a war with Iraq could require a lengthy commitment, administration officials repeatedly painted the most optimistic portrait possible in order to gain support for its strategy. Vice President Cheney's remarks 3 days before the start of the war typify much of what the administration was telling the American public. When asked if the American people are prepared for a long, costly battle with significant casualties, the Vice President said, ``Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way . . . because I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators.'' This tragic miscalculation allowed the administration to abandon the intelligence-based, analytical process needed to plan successfully for the occupation of Iraq. The administration sent a smaller force than our senior military officials initially recommended. Our personnel were not suitably prepared for the immense economic, social, and political complexities that we should have known would inevitably arise after the fall of Saddam Hussein. And our troops and the American people were not adequately equipped for the guerrilla tactics that have become all too common since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations. Overall, the administration's overly optimistic attitude about post- war Iraq has contributed to a far more costly and arduous effort than needed to be the case. Mr. President, not long ago, many of my colleagues and I had the honor of having dinner with more than 100 soldiers and their families at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. These soldiers had all been wounded while serving their country in Iraq. I hope my colleagues will take the opportunity to visit these young men and women. After seeing first-hand the kind of people our country has produced, I have never been more proud to be an American. As I think of my night with these brave men and women who have sacrificed so much and asked for so little in return, I cannot help but think: Did we do right by them? Did we do everything possible to put them in a position to succeed at the least possible risk? Did we provide them with a plan for success and the tools needed to carry it out? In a statement last year, General Anthony Zinni, one of the most respected and distinguished military leaders this country has produced, commented on what we owed those who we placed in harm's way. He said: They should never be put on a battlefield without a strategic plan, not only for the fighting--our generals will take care of that--but for the aftermath and winning that war. Where are we, the American people, if we accept this, if we accept this level of sacrifice without that level of planning? The administration based its post-war planning on blind hope, and hope is not a plan. We owe it to our troops and ourselves to determine whether we did everything we could to succeed in Iraq. Our success in Iraq and future conflicts depends on it. Our need to ensure that we do right by our troops demands it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as the majority leader has indicated, the time is allocated now for the debate on the amendments that are pending. At 11:15, I will yield 5 minutes of my time to Senator Kerry and yield 10 minutes each to Senators Jack Reed, McCain, and Feinstein, with the remainder of the time outside of that allocation to Senator Harry Reid for his own managerial decisions with regard to the allocation of the balance of the time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Ross Baker, a fellow with the office of Senator Leahy, for the remainder of the debate on S. 1805.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Feinstein will be managing the first hour of the debate today on assault weapons; and Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island will be the manager of the second hour relating to gun show loopholes. Let me wish my colleagues a good afternoon. The Budget For Veterans Affairs Mr. President, I want to talk, on my leader time, about an issue that will be the subject of a good deal of attention next week; and that is the budget, especially as it relates to our veterans. The budget this year has many reasons for concern for all of us. I will address many of those concerns at a later time. But I want to focus, this afternoon, if I can, on just one; that is, the budget for Veterans Affairs. The legislation before the Budget Committee would increase the Veterans Affairs budget by about 2 percent. Unfortunately, that represents about a $700 million increase in health care for veterans going from approximately $28.5 billion to $29.2 billion--a $700 million increase for veterans health. What is disturbing to me about that number is what one finds when you look at what it means a little more closely. What it means is that, for the first time, veterans themselves will be required to pay fees in excess of $1 billion for health care that they were promised. People probably cannot fully appreciate what that means--a billion-dollar fee requirement from veterans themselves for the first time. We have never, in all of history, had a requirement that veterans pay at this level-- $1 billion--for health care. For now, categories 7 and 8 will be charged $250 a year before they can walk in the door the first time. Their fees--which have been $7, and were $2 just a couple years ago--for prescription drugs now go up to $15. Their per-office doctor visits go from $15 to $20. So for the first time, veterans, in many cases, will be denied care, not because they do not need it but because they cannot afford it. When I was home over the last week or so, it was troubling to me how many veterans said: Senator Daschle, $250 may not seem like a lot to you, but there is no way I can pay $250. I just won't get care; or: I will try to find care at some clinic where it's free. It is so troubling to me that I would be hearing that from veterans who gave so much to their country, at a time when we are counting on our soldiers to do so much for us in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and now in Haiti. Time after time, we send our soldiers into harm's way. They come back now, having felt the brunt of that war, and we tell them we just can't afford to give them the care they need. This is only one of the issues that will be debated during the veterans budget. But I hope all of us--Republicans and Democrats alike--will be very careful before we commit to this new fee structure. Some of us have argued for a long time that it is now time for us to pass what we call mandatory funding--to treat veterans health the way we treat Medicare, the way we treat Social Security--to recognize that we have an obligation, and it ought to be met. Mandatory funding is a bill that has been offered to authorize this new status in health care delivery, and I hope that our colleagues would consider it very carefully. What is all the more troubling is that there is also a provision in our veterans health care system that is very ironic, it seems to me, in so many ways. We actually require a veteran, after he has gone to a private physician and has been prescribed prescription medicine, to go to a VA doctor to have it verified. Sometimes the VA doctor requires additional physicals. But this duplicative process, this requirement for yet another VA physician review now costs the Veterans' Administration a billion dollars. So the irony is that now that we are asking veterans to pay for fees they cannot afford--now in excess of a billion dollars--we are actually spending a billion dollars we would not have to spend if we simply said we are going to trust the decisions made by those physicians in the first place. We tested it with 8,000 veterans over the last couple years, and we found there was absolutely no problem associated with having this requirement that a VA doctor be consulted eliminated. We could save a billion dollars. I argue that billion dollars ought to come out of the fees required of our veterans. That alone would reduce some of the anxiety and extraordinary frustration so many of our veterans now experience. This, too, is a veterans budget matter that I hope we can address both in the Budget Committee, as well as on the floor of the Senate in the coming days as we debate the veterans budget. There are two other issues of budget connection and budget relevance that I think we ought to address. The next is the concurrent receipt problem. It is still remarkable to me in this day and age that we deduct disability compensation from retirement income for veterans. Those who gave the most are now required to pay the biggest financial sacrifice. For the life of me, I cannot understand why. We are told we cannot afford it, but those men and women could not afford to give up their jobs, sometimes their good health, to go into war either. Where there is a will, there is a way. We ought to be cognizant of the incredible disparity and extraordinary unfairness for every disabled American veteran today by this practice of deducting disability pay from retirement. Over the last couple of years, we have actually ultimately passed compromise legislation that would allow veterans who are at least 50-percent disabled from beginning to receive their full compensation for both disability and retirement. But it will be phased in over the next 10 years. A lot of veterans in South Dakota told me they will be gone before this legislation is fully phased in. So I hope we can also look at concurrent receipt. Let's eliminate the disability tax. Let's recognize that we owe these disabled veterans more than just lipservice. Let's recognize in this day and age, especially now as some are even required to pay fees, that this disparity, this unfairness, this embarrassment in our Veterans' Administration health delivery and compensation system has to be addressed. Finally, while the President pro tempore has been as sensitive to this issue as anybody in the Chamber, we still have a long way to go in providing TRICARE to all members of the Guard and Reserve. I was reminded, as I talked to another guardsman who has been permanently injured as a result of wounds incurred in Iraq, he has no health insurance. I worry about all of those veterans who come home, about the prospect of losing their health insurance not only for themselves but for their families. In this day and age, with the extraordinary role now played by the National Guard and the Reserve, we can't accept a double standard with regard to the way health care is provided. If we are forcing these young men and women into battle, if we are forcing them to endure the pain, suffering, anxiety, the loss of life and limb, we ought to at the very least provide them with the health insurance they have earned and they deserve. So we will be offering legislation once again to provide full funding for TRICARE health insurance for members of the Guard and Reserve. It is my hope that on a bipartisan basis, as we have done now on several occasions, we can pass it, enact it into law, and send a clear message that that double standard, too, will end in this Congress. Mr. President, there are a lot of issues relating to veterans that I hope will be provided the time, attention, and priority they deserve. We will have the first opportunity during the budget debate next week. I look forward to that debate and to the consideration of amendments to address many of these concerns. I am hopeful that on a bipartisan basis we can address them successfully. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last week members of the Senate Armed Services Committee heard deeply disturbing testimony about unspeakable acts of violence committed against at least 112 of our military personnel deployed in Afghanistan and the Iraq theater. Unfortunately, the acts of violence discussed in the committee were not committed by the Taliban or terrorists, but by fellow American troops who have sexually assaulted their female counterparts. This egregious situation is unacceptable. Back home in South Dakota, I have met so many female soldiers who have proudly volunteered to serve this Nation. Like their male colleagues, they demonstrate tremendous patriotism and love for America. They also share the strong sense of duty and pride in being a member of our great military. They deserve the country's and their fellow soldiers' wholehearted respect. Sadly, the Armed Services Committee testimony suggests that too many of our women soldiers must be concerned not just about combating enemy soldiers, but also about a soldier who is fighting beside her. Over 30,000 brave women answered our Nation's call to duty to support Operation Iraqi Freedom. Fourteen of them have given their lives to ensure that democracy flourishes in a country that has only recently been liberated from brutality and repression. These soldiers are performing their duties with courage and honor. At a time when the insurgency and unrest continue in Iraq, these women continue to defend Iraqi citizens from senseless violence. They should not have to be concerned about having to defend themselves against the most senseless violence of all--sexual assault perpetrated by their fellow soldiers. Women make invaluable contributions to our armed forces. In fact, it is safe to say that our military could not perform all that we currently require of it without the service and sacrifices of female soldiers. When we brutalize the very people who are willing to sacrifice their life for the defense of liberty and freedom, we harm the institution that protects us all and undermine the principles upon which this great Nation was founded. What makes last week's reports on sexual assault more distressing is that this is not the first time female service members have come forward with allegations that they were raped and assaulted by their male compatriots. We have heard these accusations before the Navy's Annual Tailhook Symposium, the Army's Aberdeen Proving Grounds, and the Air Force Academy in Colorado. I commend the women who have come forward to report these reprehensible acts. Far too often women suffer in silence, too afraid of possible reprisals that may come from reporting a sexual assault. This is true in civilian life and must be doubly so in military life. To help these victims, the military must take immediate and concrete steps to address their needs. We must ensure that victims have access to medical care and confidential counseling. If we fail to create an environment where women feel safe to report their assaults, we risk teaching them that, in order to advance their military careers, they must remain silent. I am pleased that the Department of Defense has launched an investigation into these allegations, and that my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee recently heard testimony addressing this issue. Still we must do more. It is imperative that we all continue to work together to send to send a clear signal to the entire military that any sexual misconduct will not be tolerated, and offenders will be vigorously prosecuted and punished. It is time to ensure this issue is given the urgency and attention it deserves.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I know the distinguished Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan have just a couple of minutes they wish to speak--actually Senator Levin had only asked for 3 minutes--so I ask unanimous consent that Senator Levin and Senator Warner be recognized prior to Senator Schumer, Senator DeWine, and Senator Dayton.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. And then I ask consent that I be recognized to offer an amendment, and I send my amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I will not object, but I am told we have not had the opportunity to see the text of these amendments. If we are going to work in good faith, it is very important that on all of these alternative amendments the text be provided if they are available and certainly before they are offered.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Boxer amendment be set aside temporarily.

Mr. DASCHLE. I acknowledge, again, as I did yesterday, the partnership that I have had especially with Senator Craig, Senator Baucus, and others in the Senate. I express my gratitude to Senator Craig and my appreciation for his efforts at accommodating many of the concerns we have had as we address this bill. I intend to support this bill, in part because of the acknowledgement of the need to address some of these concerns, as we do with this amendment. The amendment we are offering right now strikes a balance between the need for the safety of Americans and the rights of gun manufacturers and dealers. That balance is critical. We recognize the vast majority of gun owners and manufacturers and sellers are honest and decent people who obey the law and ought to be recognized for their honesty and the contributions they make to our economy. The firearm industry is an important source of jobs, not only in those States where those jobs actually are dedicated to the manufacture of firearms but to all other States where not only the manufacture but the sale and distribution of those products are so much a part of our economic base. But we should not invalidate the legitimate claims from being heard in court when those claims have a basis in fact--cases involving kids, cases involving defective products, cases involving gun dealers or manufacturers who broke the law. So our concern was, as originally drafted, the legislation adversely impacted many of these cases. That is why I went to Senator Craig and Senator Baucus and others and expressed the hope that we could address some of these issues and concerns in a way that would accommodate a solution. And that is what I believe this amendment does. We have worked in a bipartisan manner. I would hope this legislation could certainly be supported in a bipartisan manner. It goes a long way to balancing what are the rights of victims as well as the needs of the gun industry. Our amendment makes several key changes in the legislation that was originally offered. It ensures the cases in which Federal or State laws have been broken can move forward. There was some lack of clarity with regard to that particular need. It restores the basic product liability standards so, in particular, if a child is injured by a defective gun, the victim's loved ones can still hold accountable those responsible. It includes a provision to remove immunity from dealers who sell to straw purchasers; that is, purchasers who have no interest in buying the gun for themselves but passing on the gun, selling the gun to somebody who should not have it. Finally, it ensures that only trade associations connected to the business of manufacturing and selling firearms would be covered. I think all of these changes--and many more; there are eight specific changes--do a great deal to enhance the bill, to make it a better, stronger bill and, at the same time, address the concerns that many of us have had. It strives to preserve the long-term vitality of an important American industry, one that is very important to people in the West and Midwest, in particular, but all over the country. It protects the rights and safety of the American public. So I am very appreciative of the effort that has gone into this amendment. This took a lot of time, a lot of negotiation. Obviously, the subtleties in some of the language has more than a subtle impact ultimately on how legislation is interpreted and how laws are ultimately enforced. We think this amendment takes us a long way in addressing the needs of both our manufacturers as well as those who are concerned for safety on the streets and in our neighborhoods today. Madam President, I might just take a moment, if I could, prior to relinquishing the floor, to talk about another matter. I appreciate the accommodation of my colleagues in so doing. America's Unfulfilled Treaty Obligations to Native Americans Madam President, all week long, tribal leaders from Indian nations throughout America have been in Washington for the winter conference of the National Congress of American Indians. They include leaders from the Great Sioux Nation of South Dakota, and many others. Democratic Senators just met with many of these leaders; and some are in the gallery now, listening to these words. I am honored by their presence. South Dakotans are very proud of our State's tribal heritage. Some of the greatest leaders South Dakota has ever produced were Native Americans. They include Crazy Horse, the legendary warrior-leader; a man of extraordinary nobility, the great Lakota spiritual leader, Sitting Bull. Sitting Bull helped lead his people in defense of their lands. When it became clear that defeat was inevitable, he helped lead his people's efforts to secure a fair and just peace. In negotiating the treaty under which the Lakota ceded their lands, Sitting Bull asked representatives of this Government: ``Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children.'' More than a century later, the tribal leaders who have come to Washington this week are asking us to do the same thing: ``Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children.'' Last July, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released a report that has already become a landmark. It is entitled ``A Quiet Crisis.'' It documents the harsh realities of life in Indian country today. I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the report be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. DASCHLE. We cannot undo the damage caused by more than a century of neglect and broken promises in 1 year or even one decade. But we must make honoring our trust obligations under those treaties we signed a real priority now. And we must take steps this year to address two of the most urgent obligations of Native Americans. The first of these obligations is the need to find a just and fair settlement of the Indian trust dispute. Partly because so many American Indians live on remote reservations, not many Americans understand what the Indian trust fund dispute is about. It stretches back to the 1880s, when the U.S. Government broke up large tracts of Indian land into small parcels, which it then allotted to individual Indians and tribes. The Government, acting as a ``trustee,'' took control of the Indian lands and established individual accounts for the land owners. The Government was supposed to manage the lands for account holders. It would negotiate sales or leases of land, and any revenues generated from oil drilling, mining, grazing, timber harvesting--or any other use of the land--was to be distributed to the account holders and their heirs. But that is not what happened. The Indian trust fund has been so badly mismanaged for so long by administrations of both political parties that today no one knows how much money the trust fund should contain. Estimates of how much is owed to individual account holders range from a low of $10 billion to more than $100 billion. The people who are being hurt by this mismanagement are some of the poorest people in America. Many live in houses that are little more than shacks, with no heat, no electricity, and no phones. Many of them are elderly. They have been waiting their whole lives for money that belongs to them--money that our Government is holding and refuses to account for. Ten years ago, Congress passed legislation requiring the Department of the Interior to make a full and accurate historical accounting of all trust assets and obligations. Seven years ago, a banker named Elouise Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Indian Nation, sued the Department to force it to comply with our order. Last fall, a Federal judge finally agreed. It seemed that was going to be the beginning of the end of the trust fund dispute, and it was now finally within reach. Then, shockingly, the administration and leadership in Congress on the other side, behind closed doors, added language to the 2004 Interior appropriations conference report ordering the Interior Department actually to ignore and defy the judge's ruling. Clearly unconstitutional, it violates the separation of powers and due process protections. It has become increasingly clear that this administration's interest is in limiting the Government's financial exposure rather than seeking a just settlement of the trust dispute. Despite its obligations to consult with the tribes, the Interior Department is now trying to push through its own plan to reorganize the Indian trust. Tribal leaders have not been consulted. Deep skepticism and opposition in Indian country continues to exist. Earlier this month, the administration sent Congress its budget for next year. It now makes deep cuts in every program affecting Indians, except one. There is a 50-percent increase for the Department's trust reorganization plan. The BIA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, divides America into 13 regions. Yesterday, congressional and tribal leaders held a ``summit'' on trust reform. At that summit, the tribal representatives to BIA in all 13 regions pleaded with Congress to slow the Department's unilateral reorganization of the trust. No trust reorganization plan can succeed without the involvement, support, and leadership of the tribes. It is time for Congress to take a more active role in trust reform. Three things are essential. First, we need a new round of comprehensive public hearings. This week, Senator Ben Nigthorse Campbell announced that the Indian Affairs Committee would hold hearings. I thank him. Second, congressional meddling in the Cobell litigation must end. The ``midnight rider'' putting court orders on hold must not be extended; courts must be allowed to do their job. Last year Senators McCain, Johnson, Inouye and I introduced a bill, the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act Amendments, requiring the Interior Department to conduct an historical accounting for all trust assets. Third and finally, the Federal Government should start budgeting for an eventual solution. Money in those accounts belongs to Indians, and the Government cannot continue to hold it. Last year, In introduced the Indian Payment Trust Equity Act. It would create a $10 billion fund to begin making payments to trust holders who have received an objective accounting of their trust assets. Somehow, the Federal Government must put its money where its mouth is and begin making trust holders whole. The complexity of the challenge cannot be used as an excuse to continue denying account holders what is rightfully theirs. Another injustice that must end is the chronic underfunding of the Indian Health Service. The report last summer by the Civil Rights Commission, and another by the Centers for Disease Control, show that Native Americans live sicker and die younger than other Americans as a result of inadequate health care. The Indian Health Service budget accounts for one-half of 1 percent of 1 percent of the Department of Health and Human Services budget. The health system with the sickest people and the greatest needs get the smallest increases. Last week, I held health care ``town hall meetings'' on Pine Ridge and Rosebud reservations in South Dakota. We expected 200; we got 700. I heard horrific, heartbreaking stories. People talked about losing parents, children, and spouses because health care wasn't available. Some people had waited months to see an IHS doctor. Finally, they couldn't take the pain any longer. They went to a non-IHS hospital, and they ended up with hospital bill they couldn't pay, so they lost their good credit rating as well as their good name. It is unacceptable that the Federal Government spends twice as much on health care for Federal prisoners as it does for Indian children and families. It is immoral that sick people are turned away every day from IHS hospitals and clinics in this country unless they are in immediate danger of losing life or limb. ``Life or limb'' is not a figure of speech. It is an actual standard for care, and it is a national disgrace. Last March, I offered an amendment to the budget resolution to provide $2.9 billion in order to fully fund one part of the IHS budget. Unfortunately, every Republican Senator voted against it. They offered an amendment with $292 million, one-tenth of the amount we proposed. It was inadequate, but we accepted it, only to find when we went to conference, the Republicans killed their own amendment in conference. We tried repeatedly last year to increase funding by $2.9 billion, and we will do so again this year. More than a century ago, our Government signed treaties with the Indian nations promising to provide them and their descendants three things forever: health care, education, and housing. The Federal Government must now keep its promise and provide these benefits which the Indian people have already paid for in full with their lands. Tribal leaders are in Washington this week asking once again that we live up to our ideals. Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Executive Summary The federal government has a long-established special relationship with Native Americans characterized by their status as governmentally independent entities, dependent on the United States for support and protection. In exchange for land and in compensation for forced removal from their original homelands, the government promised through laws, treaties, and pledges to support and protect Native Americans. However, funding for programs associated with those promises has fallen short, and Native peoples continue to suffer the consequences of a discriminatory history. Federal efforts to raise Native American living conditions to the standards of others have long been in motion, but Native Americans still suffer higher rates of poverty, poor educational achievement, substandard housing, and higher rates of disease and illness. Native Americans continue to rank at or near the bottom of nearly every social, health, and economic indicator. Small in numbers and relatively poor, Native Americans often have had a difficult time ensuring fair and equal treatment on their own. Unfortunately, relying on the goodwill of the nation to honor its obligation to Native Americans clearly has not resulted in desired outcomes. Its small size and geographic apartness from the rest of American society induces some to designate the Native American population the ``invisible minority.'' To many, the government's promises to Native Americans go largely unfulfilled. Thus, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, through this report, gives voice to a quiet crisis. Over the last 10 years, federal funding for Native American programs has increased significantly. However, this has not been nearly enough to compensate for a decline in spending power, which had been evident for decades before that, nor to overcome a long and sad history of neglect and discrimination. Thus, there persists a large deficit in funding Native American programs that needs to be paid to eliminate the backlog of unmet Native American needs, an essential predicate to raising their standards of living to that of other Americans. Native Americans living on tribal lands do not have access to the same services and programs available to other Americans, even though the government has a binding trust obligation to provide them. In preparing this report, the Commission reviewed the budgets of the six federal agencies with the largest expenditures on Native American programs and conducted an extensive literature review. department of the interior The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), within DOI, bears the primary responsibility for providing the 562 federally recognized Native American tribes with federal services. The Congressional Research Service found that between 1975 and 2000, funding for BIA and the Office of the Special Trustee declined by $6 million yearly when adjusted for inflation. BIA's mismanagement of Individual Indian Money trust accounts has denied Native Americans financial resources that could be applied toward basic needs that BIA programs fail to provide. Insufficient program funding resulted in $7.4 billion in unmet needs among Native Americans in 2000. Of this amount, a shortfall in tribal priority allocations (TPA), which provides such basic services as child welfare and adult vocational training, alone totaled $2.8 billion that year. Over the last few decades, Congress has minimally increased TPA funding. Unmet needs are also evident in school construction. In December 2002, the deferred maintenance backlog of BIA schools was estimated at $507 million and increasing at an annual rate of $56.5 million due to inflation and natural aging and deterioration of school buildings. BIA and its programs play a pivotal role in the lives of Native Americans, but mismanagement and lack of funding have undercut the agency's ability to improve living conditions in Native communities. Department of Health and Human Services Native Americans have a lower life expectancy than any other racial/ethnic group and higher rates of many diseases, including diabetes, tuberculosis, and alcoholism. Yet, health facilities are frequently inaccessible and medically obsolete, and preventive care and specialty services are not readily available. Most Native Americans do not have private health insurance and thus rely exclusively on the Indian Health Service (IHS) for health care. The federal government spends less per capita on Native American health care than on any other group for which it has this responsibility, including Medicaid recipients, prisoners, veterans, and military personnel. Annually, IHS spends 60 percent less on its beneficiaries than the average per person health care expenditure nationwide. The IHS, although the largest source of federal spending for Native Americans, constitutes only 0.5 percent of the entire HHS budget. Moreover, it makes up a smaller proportion of HHS' discretionary budget today than five years ago. By most accounts, IHS has done well to work within its resource limitations. However, the agency currently operates with an estimated 59 percent of the amount necessary to stem the crisis. If funded sufficiently, IHS could provide more money to needs such as contract care, urban health programs, health facility construction and renovation, and sanitation services. Department of Housing and Urban Development The availability of safe, sanitary housing in Indian Country is significantly less than the need. Over-crowding and its effects are a persistent problem. Furthermore, existing housing structures are substandard: approximately 40 percent of on-reservation housing is considered inadequate, and one in five reservation homes lacks complete plumbing. Native Americans also have less access to home-ownership resources, due to limited access to credit, land ownership restrictions, geographic isolation, and harsh environmental conditions that make construction difficult and expensive. While HUD has made efforts to improve housing, lack of funding has hindered progress. Funding for Native American programs at HUD increased only slightly over the years (8.8 percent), significantly less than the agency as a whole (62 percent). After controlling for inflation, HUD's Native American programs actually lost spending power. The tribal housing loan guarantee program lost nearly 70 percent of its purchasing power over the last four years, and the Native American Housing Block Grant has lost funding for three years in a row. Given the unique housing challenges Native Americans face, greater and immediate federal financial support is needed. Housing needs on reservations and tribal lands cannot be met with the same interventions that HUD uses to meet rental housing or homeownership goals in the suburbs or inner cities. Innovation and a more comprehensive approach are needed, and the government's trust responsibility to provide housing to Native Americans must be fully factored into these efforts. Department of Justice All three components of law enforcement--policing, justice, and corrections--are substandard in Indian Country compared with the rest of the nation. Native Americans are twice as likely as any other racial/ethnic group to be the victims of crime. Yet, per capita spending on law enforcement in Native American communities is roughly 60 percent of the national average. Correctional facilities in Indian Country are also more overcrowded than even the most crowded state and federal prisons. In addition, Native Americans have long held that tribal court systems have not been funded sufficiently or consistently, and hence, are not equal to other court systems. Law enforcement professionals concede that the dire situation in Indian Country is understated. While DOJ should be commended for its stated intention to meet its obligations to Native Americans, promising projects have suffered from inconsistent or discontinued funding. Native American law enforcement funding increased almost 85 percent between 1998 and 2003, but the amount allocated was so small to begin with that its proportion to the department's total budget hardly changed. Native American programs make up roughly 1 percent of the agency's total budget. A downward trend in funding has begun that, if continued, will severely compromise public safety in Native communities. Additionally, many Native Americans have lost faith in the justice system, in part due to perceived bias. Many attribute disproportionately high incarceration rates to unfair treatment by the criminal justice system, including racial profiling, disparities in prosecution, and lack of access to legal representation. Solving these problems is vital to restoring public safety and justice in Indian Country. department of education As a group, Native American students are not afforded educational opportunities equal to other American students. They routinely face deteriorating school facilities, underpaid teachers, weak curricula, discriminatory treatment, outdated learning tools, and cultural isolation. As a result, achievement gaps persist with Native American students scoring lower than any other racial/ethnic group in basic levels of reading, math, and history. Native American students are also more likely to drop out. The lack of educational opportunities in Native communities extends to postsecondary and vocational programs. Special Programs for Indian Adults has not been funded since 1995, and vocational rehabilitation programs are too poorly funded to meet the abundant need. Although 14 applications for such programs were submitted in 2001, only five tribal organizations received funding. Tribal colleges and universities receive 60 percent less federal funding per student than other public community colleges. The federal government has sole responsibility for providing education to these students--an obligation it is failing to meet. Funding for DOEd's Office of Indian Education (OIE) has remained a relatively small portion of the department's total discretionary budget (ranging from 0.2 to 0.3 percent) between 1998 and 2003. OIE funding has undergone several reductions over the last few decades and, in may years, its budget has failed to account for inflation. At no time during the period under review in this report have all OIE subprograms been funded. department of agriculture The USDA is largely responsible for rural development and farm and business supplements in rural communities. Native Americans rely on such programs to foster conditions that encourage and sustain economic investments. However, insufficient funding has limited the success of development programs and perpetuated unstable economies. Poor economic conditions have resulted in food shortages and hunger. Native Americans are more than twice as likely as the general population to face hunger and food insecurity at any given time. The inaccessibility of food and economic development programs compromises their usefulness. By its failure to make programs accessible to Native Americans, the federal government has denied them the opportunity to receive benefits routinely available to other citizens. USDA's set-aside for the Rural Community Advancement Program fluctuated between 2000 and 2003. The 2004 budget proposes to reduce funding by more than 18.2 percent from 2003. The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) lost funding when accounting for inflation (2.8 percent) between 1999 and 2003, reducing available food resources. FDPIR alone is not meeting the food assistance needs of Native Americans since many participants are also enrolled in other food assistance programs. The continuously high rates of hunger and poverty in Native communities are the strongest evidence that existing funds are not enough. conclusion In short, the Commission finds evidence of a crisis in the persistence and growth of unmet needs. The conditions in Indian Country could be greatly relieved if the federal government honored its commitment to funding, paid greater attention to building basic infrastructure in Indian Country, and promoted self-determination among tribes. The Commission further finds that the federal government fails to keep accurate and comprehensive records of its expenditures on Native American programs. There is no uniform reporting requirement for Native American program fundings, and because agencies self-report their expenditures, available information varies across agencies, rendering monitoring of federal spending difficult. While some agencies are more proficient at managing funds and addressing the needs of Native Americans than others, the government's failure is systemic. The Commission identified several areas of jurisdictional overlap, inadequate collaboration, and a lack of articulation among agencies. The result is inefficiency, service delay, and wasted resources. Fragmented funding and lack of coordination not only complicate the application and distribution processes, but also dilute the benefit potential of the funds. In this study, the Commission has provided new information and analyses in the hope of stimulating resolve and action to address unmet needs in Indian Country. Converting data and analyses into effective government action plans requires commitment and determination to honor the promises of laws and treaties. Toward that end, the Commission offers 11 recommendations, which if fully implemented will yield (1) a thorough and precise calculation of unmet needs in Indian Country; (2) increased efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of services through goal setting, strategic planning, implementation, coordination, and measurement of outcomes; (3) perennial adequate funding; and (4) advancement of Indian nations toward the goal of independence and self- goverance. Failure to act will signify that this country's agreements with Native people, and other legal rights to which they are entitled, are little more than empty promises. Focused federal attention and resolve to remedy the quiet crises occurring in Indian Country, embodied in these recommendations and the results that flow from them, would signal a decisive moment in this nation's history. That moment would constitute America's rededication to live up to its trust responsibility for its Native people. Only through sustained systemic commitment and action will this federal responsibility be realized. Recommendations 1. The Native American crisis should be addressed with the urgency it demands. The administration should establish a bipartisan, action-oriented initiative at the highest level of accountability in the government, with representatives including elected officials, members of Congress, officials from each Federal agency that funds programs in Indian Country, tribes, and Native American advocacy organizations. The action group should be charged with analyzing the current system, developing solutions, and implementing positive change. 2. All agencies that distribute funds for Native American programs should be required to regularly assess unmet needs, including gaps in service delivery, for both urban and rural Native individuals. Agencies should establish benchmarks for the elevation of Native American living conditions to those of other Americans. Agencies should document Native American participation in programs and catalog initiatives. 3. Agencies should replicate IHS' Federal Disparity Index assessment for tracking disparities in services and needs. Tribal organizations and Native American advocacy groups should be consulted when agencies develop measures. The results of such examinations should be used to prepare budget estimates, prioritize spending, and assess the status of programs. Congress should require and review unmet needs analyses annually as a component of each agency's budget justification. 4. All Federal agencies that administer Native American programs should be required to set aside money for infrastructure building that will benefit all. Such a fund should be jointly managed by the BIA, representatives from each contributing agency, and a coalition of tribal leaders. The contributing agencies should develop memoranda of understanding and other formal coordination mechanisms that outline precisely how the money will be spent. 5. Federal agencies should avoid implementing across-the- board budget cuts when the effect on already underfunded Native American programs is so severe. Agencies must prepare budgets that account for the proportionality of Native American funding. 6. Native American programs should be situated within the Federal agencies that have the requisite expertise, but agencies should continually improve processes for redistributing funds to other agencies or tribal governments. Funds for a common purpose should be consolidated within a single agency so there is less overlap and clearer accountability. 7. To the extent possible, programs for Native Americans should be managed and controlled by Native Americans. Distribution of funds to tribes should be closely monitored by the source agencies to ensure that funds are used as directed in a manner developed in consultation with Native Americans and tribal governments. 8. Federal appropriations must compensate for costs that are unique to tribes, such as those required to build necessary infrastructure, those associated with geographic remoteness, and those required for training and technical assistance. The unique needs of non-reservation and urban Native Americans must also be assessed, and adequate funding must be provided for programs to serve these individuals. 9. Congress should request an analysis of spending patterns of every Federal agency that supports Native American programs, either by the U.S. General Accounting Office or the Congressional Research Service. In addition, an independent external contractor should audit fund management of all Federal agencies distributing Native American appropriations. 10. Each agency should have one central office responsible for oversight and management of Indian funds, and which prepares budgets and analyses that can be compared and aggregated across agencies. 11. The Office of Management and Budget should develop governmentwide, uniform standards for tracking and reporting spending on Native American programs. Agencies should be required to include justifications for each Native American project in annual budget requests, as well as justifications for the discontinuation of such programs. They should also be required to maintain comprehensive spending logs for Indian programs, including actual grant disbursements, numbers of beneficiaries, and unfunded programs. [Disturbance in the galleries.]

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the legislation we consider today attempts to strike a careful balance between the safety of Americans and the rights of gun manufacturers and dealers. As I have said on many occasions, the vast majority of gun owners, manufacturers, and sellers are honest and certainly obey the law. Moreover, the firearm industry is an important source of jobs and tax revenue for our country. It is wrong, and it is a misuse of the civil justice system, to punish honest, law-abiding people for the illegal acts of others. At the same time, Americans who are injured due to defective products have a right to seek justice in the courts. In our efforts to protect the gun industry from meritless lawsuits, we should take care not to invalidate legitimate claims from being heard in court. There are several ongoing cases that involve product defects or cases where manufacturers or gun dealers may actually have broken the law, and those victims have a right to be heard. As this bill was being written, many individuals raised concerns that the bill failed to consider the many important claims of victims of defective products or illegal actions. Because of these concerns, I have worked with my colleagues, Senator Craig in particular, Senator Baucus, and others to draft a commonsense, bipartisan amendment that improves this legislation by providing stronger protections for meritorious cases. This amendment is not perfect, but it goes a long way toward balancing both the rights of victims and the needs of the gun industry. Our amendment makes several important changes. First, the language in the original bill forced plaintiffs to prove defendants knowingly and willfully broke the law before a suit could proceed. This is a high standard that would deny many victims the right to pursue legitimate claims. The amendment we now offer removes this language, to ensure cases in which Federal or State firearms laws have been broken can move forward without meeting an artificially high threshold of proof. Second, as originally drafted, the bill created a few exceptions, where gun manufacturers' and dealers' immunity would not apply. These exceptions were tailored too narrowly. In fact, one of the exceptions could have invalidated cases in which an individual had sold a firearm to someone who committed a drug offense or violent crime simply because the individual had not yet been convicted of that offense. This amendment, our amendment, modifies this language to ensure these bad actors would not be protected from accountability merely because they were not successfully prosecuted. Third, when a gun is defective, the manufacturer should be held responsible. However, as originally drafted, the bill limited product liability to such degree that it would be virtually impossible to bring cases against manufacturers. Our amendment provides greater protection for product liability cases, so, in particular, if a child is injured by a defective gun, the victim's loved ones can hold those responsible accountable. Fourth, the original legislation did not specifically address businesses that sell to the straw purchasers; that is, people who buy guns only to resell them in the black market to criminals or children. With this amendment, the bill would include a provision to remove immunity from those dealers who sell to so-called straw purchasers. Fifth, the amendment Senator Craig and I will offer addresses concerns about this bill's definition of trade associations. Many advocates indicated that, as drafted, even extremist organizations could have obtained immunity. Obviously, this is not the intent of the bill's sponsors, nor is it the intent of the gun industry. Therefore, we modified the definition to ensure that only trade associations connected to the business of manufacturing and selling firearms would be covered. The Protection of Law Commerce in Arms Act, as amended by the Daschle-Craig amendment, strikes a meaningful balance between the rights of legitimate business owners and the rights of individuals who have been injured by gun violence. The Senate achieves the goal of protecting manufacturers from illegitimate lawsuits, while maintaining the rights of victims to hold those responsible for their injuries accountable. With the inclusion of our amendment, immunity will not cover a number of cases including those where a dealer sells a gun to someone who is prohibited from owning a gun, whether not they have been convicted of a crime; a dealer sells a gun to a juvenile or to an undocumented alien; a manufacturer develops a defective gun that injuries a child; or where a dealer fails to report the theft of a gun as required by law. In each of these cases, a business loses its immunity only as a result of its own actions, not the actions of a third party. The cosponsors of this amendment have worked hard to ensure that the gun immunity bill does not inadvertently harm important cases. The principle of equality before the law demands that everyone-- individuals and businesses alike--can be held accountable for their actions. This legislation should not provide blanket immunity that protects ``bad actors.'' By striking a more sensible balance, my amendment strives to preserve the long-term vitality of an important American industry, while protecting the rights and the safety of the American public. I hope my colleagues, when the legislation is offered later, will support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind words of the Senator from Idaho. I also share his view that it is important we move to the bill so we can begin entertaining amendments. I think there are a number of thoughtful amendments which deserve our consideration. The sooner we move to the bill, the sooner we can begin the amendment process. Some will pass and some will be defeated, but I think it is critical we get on with that debate and offering amendments today. It is 4 o'clock. We have had a good debate about the motion to proceed, and certainly about the bill itself. It is my hope that not in the too distant future--sometime perhaps within the hour--we might move to allow floor amendments. I would certainly be prepared to offer mine at that time. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it has obviously taken a good deal of time to reach this agreement due to the complexity that is apparent as Senator McConnell has read it. There are two matters that ought to be recognized. First, this does not preclude Senators who are not listed in this unanimous consent agreement from offering an amendment sometime either this week or early next week. Senators who have additional amendments are certainly welcome to do so. Second, this does not preclude those who have amendments on Tuesday from discussing and speaking to those amendments at any time between now and when those amendments are raised. There was some question about whether 2 hours on Tuesday for three very important amendments is adequate. My answer is that it is more than 2 hours if people want to devote more than that time between now and the time they are offered. I encourage Senators who wish to speak longer to come to the floor over the course of the next week to do so. This is a very fair agreement. It is one that takes into account a lot of concerns and interests on the part of many Senators. I am supportive of the agreement and hope that we can have a good debate as a result of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use leader time for a statement unrelated to the legislation before us. Every year since 1926, Americans have set aside time in February to recognize and celebrate black history. We owe this celebration of Black History Month to Carter G. Woodson, a brilliant and determined son of former slaves, who made it his mission to write African Americans into America's history books. Black History Month actually started out as Black History Week. Dr. Woodson chose the second week in February because it marks the birthdays of two men who greatly influenced African American history: Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. Dr. Woodson said: We should emphasize not Negro history, but the Negro in history. What we need is not a history of selected races or nations, but a history of the world void of national bias, race hate, and religious prejudice. In 1870, in order to rejoin the Union, the Mississippi State Legislature needed to choose someone to fill the seat in the Senate once held by Jefferson Davis. They chose an ordained minister named Hiram Rhodes Revels. On February 25--134 years ago today--visitors in the Senate galleries burst into applause as Senator Revels became the first African American ever to serve in the Senate. Five years later, Mississippi sent America its second African American Senator, Blanche Kelso Bruce, the first African American to serve a full term in the Senate. Although he served only 6 years, Senator Bruce distinguished himself as a passionate advocate of civil rights for blacks, Native Americans, Chinese immigrants, and even former Confederates. Besides Mississippi, there was another bond that connected these extraordinary men: a fierce commitment to education. During the Civil War, Hiram Revels not only raised two black regiments for the Union Army and fought at one of the war's bloodiest battles, he established a school for freedmen in St. Louis. After serving in the Senate, he became president of a college in Mississippi. Blanche Bruce was born a slave. His first teacher was a tutor hired to teach his master's son. At 20, he escaped slavery and became a teacher in Missouri. He later attended Oberlin College and spent much of his life after the Senate working to bring learning to former slaves, their children, and grandchildren. It is fitting we remember these two great men of history in this Chamber where they made history, and it is especially appropriate that we remember them this year, on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruling that declared once and forever that in America, no child can be consigned to a second-class school on the basis of race. All Americans--not just African Americans, all Americans--are the beneficiaries of the Brown decision. It has made America stronger spiritually by realigning our public institutions with our great guiding principles. It has also made America strong economically, socially, politically, intellectually, artistically, militarily, and in so many other ways by requiring every child in America--every child--be given the opportunity to make the most of his or her God-given potential. In this Black History Month especially, America remembers and honors Thurgood Marshall and Linda Brown, the giant at the head of the NAACP brilliant legal team in Brown, and the brave little 8-year-old girl at the center of the case. We also remember and honor all those who helped them--and there were many--because it takes many people of good will to right great wrongs. But it is not enough to remember great turning points in our past. We should also rededicate ourselves to the great principles at the heart of the Brown decision. This Black History Month, the right of every child in America to attend a good school and get a good education, regardless of race or income, is once again in jeopardy. The threat to equal educational opportunity today is not as obvious or virulent as it was before Brown. We no longer tolerate laws that say some children can be consigned to second-rate schools and third- or fourth-rate futures. In fact, our laws today promise to leave no child behind. But the law is not being funded. It is a check written on insufficient funds. I was the first in my family to graduate from college. I could not have gone to college had it not been for the ROTC scholarship I had. I voted for No Child Left Behind because I believe every child in America deserves the same opportunities I have been given. I voted for No Child Left Behind because I know investing in the minds of young people is the smartest, most productive investment a nation can make. I voted for No Child Left Behind because I support accountability and because I have no doubt that students, teachers, principals, parents, and school board members in South Dakota and across the country can meet higher standards as long as they are given the resources. I voted for No Child Left Behind because President Bush gave his word that the law would be funded, but that is not what has happened. In the 2 years since President Bush signed the law, he has proposed three budgets to Congress. All three times, the President has drastically underfunded his own education reform plan. The education budget President Bush recommended for next year falls $9.4 billion short of what was originally promised in No Child Left Behind, $9.4 billion less than what is needed to make it work. The program that is most critical to closing the achievement gap between minority and nonminority students, title I, is cut the deepest--more than $7.1 billion below what the law promises. The President's education budget does not leave one child behind; it leaves 4.6 million children behind, and a disproportionate number of them are African American and members of other minorities. The President's budget also makes deep cuts in afterschool programs despite strong evidence that good afterschool programs keep children safe and help them academically. It provides less than half the share of special education costs the Federal Government committed in 1975. It slashes career and technical education. It eliminates dropout prevention programs. Despite promising during the campaign of 2000 and again last month in the State of the Union Address to raise the maximum Pell grant by $1,000, the President's budget actually freezes Pell grants next year for the third year in a row. Three years ago, the maximum Pell grant paid 42 percent of the average annual cost of attending college. Today, it covers only 34 percent. The President's neglect of education and his repeated refusal to fund even his own educational plan is hurting America. It is hurting African-American and other minority children disproportionately. This is not a partisan criticism. Republican legislators in Arizona and Minnesota have introduced bills that would allow their States to partially opt out of No Child Left Behind. They consider it an unfunded mandate. Legislatures in at least 10 other States have adopted resolutions criticizing the law and seeking waivers from parts of it. In Utah, a Republican-dominated House has voted not to implement No Child Left Behind unless Federal funds are provided adequately. States are being put in a horrible bind: Accept huge, costly, unfunded mandates or give up tens of millions of dollars or more in Federal education aid, much of which is intended and which works to close the achievement gap. Brown v. Board of Education is one of the most inspiring chapters in our Nation's history. It gave all American children the promise of equal educational opportunity and the No Child Left Behind Act reaffirmed that promise in principle, but the promise is hollow unless we fund it. When the Senate debates the budget resolution, we will be offering amendments to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act and to make other critical investments in education and training. It is important we remember our history. It is also essential that we keep our promises and invest in our future. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to congratulate Virginia Schuyler, a woman from my hometown of Aberdeen, SD, who has dedicated her life to helping those in need. Virginia is the recipient of South Dakota's 2003 Outstanding Older Worker Award, an honor bestowed by Experience Works, an organization committed to improving the lives of seniors in South Dakota through quality job training and employment programs. Virginia decided early on that she wanted to be a nurse. From a very young age, Virginia knew she wanted to travel. When her mother told her that nurses travel on boats and planes, her mind was made up. For 60 years she has been a registered nurse, and she has traveled all over the world. For the past 5 years, Virginia, 81, has cared for residents at the Bethesda Towne Square, an assisted living facility. The residents there deeply appreciate her dedication--she insists on working every weekend--as well as everything she does for them, activities that range from bringing them hot tea at night to painting stained-glass windows for the residents in her spare time. Virginia earned an RN degree in 1943. She joined the U.S. Army, serving in England, France, and Germany, and recalls treating as many as 500 patients daily from the Normandy invasion in France. After her discharge from the Army, she stayed in Germany, where her volunteer work at an orphanage led her to adopt two children who were on the brink of starvation. In 1954, she earned an RN in Pathology degree, the equivalent of a master's degree, from St. Joseph's Hospital in Burbank, CA. After she earned her pathology degree, Virginia worked in pathology for 7 years at St. Joseph's Hospital, and at St. Luke's Hospital in Aberdeen for 25 years. She also spent 5 years working with Alzheimer's patients at Arcadia in Aberdeen. Today, in addition to her work at Bethesda Towne Square, Virginia works between 30 and 50 hours a week on her stained-glass window business, and acts as her church secretary. I join Virginia's many admirers in congratulating her on receiving this prestigious and well-deserved award.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask uanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask uanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

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