Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 5 additional minutes of leader time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to talk today about several agricultural issues. First, last week, I met with John Stewart and Bill Fielding. They run a company called Creekstone Farms that sells premium Black Angus beef cattle. Creekstone had a good marketing idea: In the wake of the mad cow scare, Creekstone thought that one way to re-open the Japanese markets, which had accounted for 28 percent of our Nation's beef exports, would be to privately test all of their cattle for BSE, or mad cow disease, at no cost to the taxpayers. The Japanese markets have been closed for several months, but they have said that they would re-open their markets for Creekstone's beef. Creekstone has built a top-notch laboratory at their headquarters in Kansas, and they have hired several full-time animal health experts. But they wanted to do this the right way, so they asked USDA to support them in their efforts. The Department actually said ``no.'' They said Creekstone could not test. You see, USDA doesn't want to set a precedent that all beef needs to be tested. They suggest that large meat packers might essentially be forced into testing all animals. That, USDA contends, would be expensive and, well, inconvenient. But nobody is suggesting that the Government mandate 100 percent testing. If a meat packer wanted to test, however, it might be a good marketing tool for them. But the packers say testing would be too cumbersome, that consumers don't want and don't need testing information. All of those arguments ring very familiar and very hollow. Remember, the packers and the Bush administration opposed another marketing tool--country-of-origin labeling for those very same reasons. USDA says that mad cow disease, or BSE, isn't even a public health issue. They say it is only an animal health issue, but tell that to the more than 120 people who died from the human form of BSE in Britain. It was a food safety issue for them. It is a public health issue. Creekstone even acknowledges, and I agree, that the science does not now suggest that all cattle need to be tested for BSE. They acknowledge that. Most experts do. But consumers don't always base their purchasing preferences on science. The Japanese, who, by the way, test all of their beef for BSE, want their imported beef tested, and Creekstone was willing to do so, but USDA said ``no.'' Isn't this the administration that wants the free market to prosper? Yet, here we have a willing buyer, the Japanese, a willing seller, Creekstone, and the Government says ``no.'' Government is telling a U.S. business what they can and can't do to add value to their product and create a market. It is kind of like the Government telling automakers they can't have leather seats. Leather seats aren't needed, but they add value to the cars and make the product more marketable. So I am hopeful that USDA will revisit this issue. Creekstone and other companies want the ability to meet consumer demand, and the Government should not get in the way. If USDA wants to establish a testing protocol or some other structure for the testing to ensure that it is done in an appropriate manner and that we don't get false positives, I think we can all agree that such an approach would make some sense. But to deny producers the ability to use another marketing tool baffles me. I think USDA could and should have done better, and I urge them to re-examine the issue immediately. It is also clear that some of the other things that USDA has been doing need to be reassessed. For example, on Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Cebull granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting USDA from importing ground beef and bone-in beef from Canada. The judge said, and I agree, that the risk of BSE is simply too great for us to fail to ensure that we have taken a thoughtful and deliberate approach to resuming beef imports from Canada. Both animal health and food safety demand that we take a science- based approach to the reopening of our border with Canada. Producers are extremely concerned that USDA has not done so. The judge has scheduled a May 11 hearing, at which time I hope there will be a full examination of the process USDA did or did not use in making their decision to reopen the border. Ensuring that we get this right is not only important for our Nation's ranchers. It is important for our export markets and consumers of U.S. beef. Another issue I want to discuss today is what I see as an emerging drought in many parts of the country. The Drought Monitor--a government map that documents the ongoing extent of drought--already shows some problem areas. The yellow here--and you can see this on the map--denotes conditions across the Southeast, conditions which have continued to deteriorate for most of that region. Southern California, the area in Oklahoma, Arkansas, through southern Missouri and into southern Illinois, and up all the way through Indiana and Ohio and Michigan. You can see that there is abnormal dryness occurring in that area, even getting into the lower parts of the northern regions of Texas. While there were some rains in parts of the upper-Midwest recently, they missed the western part of Minnesota. And you can see here this is where the extraordinary conditions are now becoming even more adverse, creating what the Drought Monitor categorizes as ``severe drought'' conditions, represented of course in the areas here in the orange and darker areas. The darker the color, the more severe the drought. In my State of South Dakota, we have been able to avoid some of the most severe parts, but you talk to ranchers and farmers today and it is clear that this drought that we now see through almost the entire western part of the United States is moving east. South Dakota has now experienced a drought in each of the last 5 years. The experience has been daunting. But there is one thing we have learned in dealing with drought and other weather-related natural disasters: Our national polices are wholly inadequate. By any legitimate standard, our policies have failed. In 2002 the Senate approved, on a bipartisan basis, an amendment that I offered to provide $6 billion in disaster assistance. Unfortunately, the administration blocked its enactment. But that was then, and today is, hopefully, a different story. Today, I think we need to take a serious look at what more we can do this year. That is why today I am asking the President again to re-examine this issue, while we still have time. I am urging him to take a fresh look at what we can do, through an interagency approach, to address what appears to be another extreme drought this year--already extreme in some parts of the country, and certainly moving, as we have said, to the Great Plains States as well. Although USDA should take the lead in this effort, the SBA, the Economic Development Administration, and other agencies, including, but not limited to, FEMA, can all play a role in finding a solution to this ongoing problem. That is why I have requested that the President immediately ask the Federal agencies involved to develop a comprehensive legislative proposal to address weather-related natural disasters that impact our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. If he does this now, and receives a report back within 45 to 60 days, the Congress will still have time this summer to enact meaningful disaster assistance. In my letter to the President sent earlier today, I pledged that, once he has provided Congress with such a proposal, I will work with him and all of my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to approve whatever disaster-related assistance is necessary to adequately compensate producers and keep our nation's rural communities vibrant. We can prepare now for what looks like another very bad year for agriculture. Drought victims are no less deserving of Federal assistance than those who are impacted by a flood, tornado, or hurricane. As Federal officials, we have an obligation to respond more effectively than we have in the past. Working together, with the leadership of this administration, I hope we can.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk to the underlying bill.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want very much to be able to continue to work on the underlying bill and find a way to resolve many of the outstanding issues. I think we have made some progress today. Obviously, this is a piece of legislation that provides an opportunity for many of us who have concerns about other matters relating to our Senate agenda as well. I was very concerned this morning to read in Energy Daily that the leadership has abandoned its plan to bring up the comprehensive Energy bill in May, and may wait now until fall to revisit comprehensive energy legislation. Now, nearly 6 months after we could have enacted an Energy bill with the renewable fuels standard and other important components there is no prospect now of action on the legislation any time soon. So I have no recourse but to offer the renewable fuels amendment to another legislative vehicle, which I have done with this amendment. The amendment is very straightforward. It is based on language that has passed in the Senate on two previous occasions. It eliminates the reformulated gasoline program, RFG, oxygenate standard and replaces it with a renewable fuels standard that sets a 10-year schedule for assured growth in ethanol demand. It contains the same waiver authority agreed to in the energy conference report, strikes all liability protection for MTBE as well as ethanol. It also bans MTBE within 4 years. Over two-thirds of the Senate has now gone on record in support of a renewable fuels standard and the renewable fuels standard we create with this legislation. It has been reported out of committee twice, passed by the Senate twice, both times by a margin of more than two- thirds. A similar proposal has been reported out of the Environment and Public Works Committee and is pending now on the Senate calendar. Last June, 68 Senators voted to add at that time the Frist-Daschle RFS amendment to the Energy bill. It is time to break the impasse. As I said, my first choice would have been to bring the Energy bill to the floor, have a good debate, and send it on to the President without the MTBE liability immunity. However, the Energy bill conference report stalled last November because of bipartisan opposition to the special interest MTBE liability relief provision included in that legislation, in spite of the efforts made by many of us to warn that is exactly what would happen. Dropping the liability protection from the bill for both MTBE and ethanol would have attracted more than enough votes to enact the Energy bill. Yet despite the direct intervention by President Bush, the defenders of MTBE liability relief remain defiant. Senator Frist placed a revised energy bill without MTBE on the Senate calendar last February, now almost 3 months ago. He has not chosen to call up that bill. Today, Energy Daily has reported our Republican friends have abandoned plans to move comprehensive energy legislation any time in the near future. That is troubling for many of us who wanted to see it pass. Now we have little choice but to offer very important components of this bill to other legislation that may move through the Senate as well as the House. The energy tax provisions, for example, that Senator Frist placed on the calendar have now been added to the FSC/ETI bill. Senators Cantwell and Bingaman are leading the effort to pass stand-alone electricity standards to address the circumstances that caused the blackout last August. It appears it is time to shift gears, not only for the tax provisions and the reliability standards, but for the renewable fuels standard as well. This bipartisan amendment is a careful balance of the often desperate and competing interests and a compromise in the finest tradition of the Senate. As I have said on many occasions, two-thirds of the Senate is on record in support of the bill. So I hope we can get legislation such as this considered quickly. Cloture Motion

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk. We can vitiate it if we get an agreement on a rollcall vote shortly. I am very concerned that we move this legislation quickly and comprehensively. This amendment is yet another attempt to do that in this body. I ask that the motion be reported.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to talk this morning about the ambitious education reforms the President signed into law just 2 years ago. We all recall 2 years ago when President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act. We also know it requires States to set high standards for all students and place a well-qualified teacher in every classroom and holds schools responsible for results. In exchange, it promises schools they will have the resources to meet the new standards and to make the law work. When the President signed it, No Child Left Behind enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. It also had strong public support. Unfortunately, when implementing the law, the administration has often acted in a heavy-handed manner, and it has failed to provide schools the resources they need to make sure every child is given the opportunity to learn. As a result, there is now a growing backlash against No Child Left Behind. This is not a partisan issue. A good deal of criticism is coming from Republican lawmakers. In Utah, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted 64 to 8 not to comply with any requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act that are not paid for by the Federal Government. In Virginia, the Republican-controlled House of Delegates voted 98 to 1 to ask Congress to exempt it from the new law. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 23 States have now lodged formal complaints against No Child Left Behind. One reason for the erosion of support is the initial difficulty many school districts had getting answers from the Department of Education on how the law would work. It took the Department a long time to issue its regulations, and when the rules were finally announced, many educators considered them overly rigid. Fortunately, the administration has begun to address some of these concerns. In recent months, the Department of Education has announced changes in the testing requirements for students with serious disabilities and for children who speak English as a second language. It has announced it is giving schools more leeway to meet the requirement that 95 percent of all students be tested. Last month, the Department announced it is giving States more flexibility to determine when a teacher is highly qualified. In addition, it announced it is giving teachers in rural school districts an extra year, until 2007, to show they are qualified in all of their subjects. These are all important changes. The extra year for teachers in rural districts to meet the new standards is especially important to rural States such as mine which have a harder time attracting and keeping good teachers. I commend the administration for its newfound willingness to try to address some of the real problems. None of us who voted for No Child Left Behind ever intended for the Federal Government to dictate to local communities exactly what they should teach their children and how they should test them. It was never the intention of Congress to strangle local decisionmaking and creativity with Federal redtape. It is important the Department of Education continue to listen. It is counterproductive when the education Secretary labels as ``terrorists'' people who raise questions about the way the law is being implemented. It may be, and certainly in this case if it is going to be successful, that No Child Left Behind requires something we have not seen enough of: a committed partnership. It is the most comprehensive overhaul of our Nation's education laws in a generation. Making adjustments is not admitting defeat; it is a necessary part of making this ambitious law work. But some of the most serious concerns being expressed about No Child Left Behind cannot be fixed simply by rewriting legislation or the regulations. Since he signed No Child Left Behind into law, President Bush sent Congress three proposed budgets. When you add all three of his budget proposals together, the President has recommended underfunding No Child Left Behind by a staggering $26.5 billion. The President's proposed budget for next year contains $9.4 billion less for the act than the law promises. More than $7 billion of that shortfall is in title I, the very program that is most critical to closing the achievement gap for minority students, poor children, and children who do not speak English. The President's education budget does not leave no child behind; it leaves 4.6 million children behind. The alternative budget proposed by our Republican colleagues in the Senate is much better. It underfunds No Child Left Behind by $8.6 billion. The reason we are underfunding education is clear: The administration and congressional leadership would rather take more of these resources for tax breaks to the very wealthy than keep the promise we made when we passed No Child Left Behind. The repeated refusal to adequately fund education is hurting schools and not just in big cities. In my State, schools in small towns and rural communities are stretched thin because of their shrinking tax bases and high transportation and other costs. They cannot afford any more unfunded mandates from Washington. They need help attracting and keeping good teachers. They need help to keep up with advances in technology. I talk to teachers and principals in South Dakota all the time who tell me, ``We're not afraid of accountability. We welcome high standards; we know we can meet them. Please, just don't set us up to fail.'' Last month, during the Senate debate on the budget resolution, we offered an amendment sponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Patty Murray to fully fund No Child Left Behind. Our amendment would have provided exactly what Democrats and Republicans agreed was needed to make the law work when we passed it 2 years ago. Regrettably, Republicans defeated our amendment. But this is not over. There are still months to go before Congress passes a final budget. At every opportunity, we are going to continue to press for full funding of No Child Left Behind. We will also press for the Federal Government to honor its commitment to shoulder 40 percent of the cost of special education. Accountability in education is essential. But accountability has to work both ways. Congress cannot pass the most sweeping education reforms in a generation and then refuse, year after year, to pay for them. The reforms in No Child Left Behind are the right reforms for our children's schools. But they will not work if we refuse to fund them. I recently received a letter from an elementary-school student in South Dakota. Because of budget shortfalls, her school district is considering merging with another district. She wrote, ``Even though we are just two small towns in South Dakota, the Burke school means very much to me.'' Then she added, ``I know that NASA is trying to help mankind, but right now, my school needs that $3 trillion more! . . . I'm in the fifth grade. . . . The school means very much to me, so please HURRY.'' Budgets are statements of our priorities and values. Before we vote to spend trillions of dollars to make permanent the President's tax breaks for the very wealthiest Americans, and before we spend hundreds of billions more to send a person to Mars, we need to fund our children's schools. In his first budget address to Congress, President Bush said, ``The highest percentage increase in our budget should go to our children's education.'' Yet, the President's proposed budget for next year includes the smallest increase for education in 9 years. We must restore the broad, bipartisan support for No Child Left Behind that existed 2 years ago. To do that, we must fund the law. The Federal Government needs to keep its end of the agreement. Words alone are not enough. Real reform requires real resources. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, South Dakotans have a proud tradition of military service and volunteerism. Today, in Iraq, a new generation is carrying that tradition forward. South Dakota's percentage of its citizens serving in active duty in Iraq is among the highest in the Nation. The spirit of service and volunteerism runs throughout South Dakota's towns and neighborhoods, and young children grow up learning that they have an obligation to one another, to their communities, and to their country. The families of South Dakota look upon the service of our young men and women with great pride, because they are carrying the values of South Dakota across the world and bringing freedom to the people around the world and the people of Iraq. Alongside our pride for our soldiers' service comes an awareness of the cost. As our soldiers shoulder much of the burden of battle, so, too, must our communities shoulder a greater burden of grief. We were reminded of this yet again this past week. On April 19, SGT Keith O'Donnell, a native of McIntosh, SD, and a member of the 141st Engineer Combat Battalion in the North Dakota National Guard, was injured when an explosive device detonated during his patrol. South Dakota this week also mourns the death of Staff Sgt. Cory Brooks, from Philip, SD. SGT Brooks was a Combat Engineer in the 153rd Engineer Battalion. SGT Brooks' death comes just 1 week after the death of another member of the 153rd, Specialist Dennis Morgan, from Winner, SD. Cory Brooks was typical of South Dakota's youth. He grew up playing backyard wiffle ball in the summertime and football in the fall. He was a loving son, a good student, and a caring friend. Ray Rhodes, the father of Cory's closest friend and one of Cory's high school football coaches said, ``He was just like family. He was one of those kids you love to work with. He was very happy-go-lucky.'' Cory's friend, Ray Coyle, remembered him for his sense of fun and his friendship. ``He was a very loyal friend. I could count on him for whatever,'' he said. ``We shared a lot of laughs. Cory was up for anything to have fun.'' Perhaps what made Cory most typical of South Dakota's children was his eagerness to serve his country. He joined the National Guard after high school, in 1989, and served continually for the past 15 years. His battalion was deployed in February. Staff SGT Brooks and his comrades were stationed at Forward Operating Base Chosin, south of Baghdad. They were engaged in the difficult and dangerous work of defusing roadside bombs and other explosives. It was the kind of service the friends of Sgt. Brooks would have expected from him: He put himself at greater risk in order to make things safer for those around him. Forty years ago, President Kennedy noted that no nation ``in the history of the world has buried its soldiers farther from its native soil than we Americans or closer to the towns in which they grew up.'' Cory Brooks learned the values of service growing up in South Dakota. And it is the measure of those values that he and so many other children of my State have volunteered to put their lives at risk to bring freedom and security to people all across the world. Cory Brooks, like those who preceded him in Iraq, was a hero in the truest sense. His Nation mourns his loss and offers his parents, Darral and Marilyn Brooks, its prayers, its condolences, and its gratitude.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, today is the funeral of another American. This American fought for 50 years, in her own inimitable way, to defend the ideals of our democracy. Mary McGrory was the most elegant political writer I have ever known, and one of the bravest. She loved many things in life: a well-told tale, a good joke, good books, good dogs, orphans, lazy August days in Italy, time with her family in Boston, and almost everything about her Irish-American heritage. Most of all, Mary McGrory loved politics and newspapering. I sometimes thought she had newspaper ink in her veins. She never tired of asking questions, chasing stories or writing truth. I can't count the number of times that I have held press briefings in the hallway just off this floor, surrounded by two or three dozen reporters, all jostling for position. And there, among them, was Mary, reporter's notebook in hand. She was 40, 50 years older than some of the other reporters, but there she was, in the thick of it. She didn't need to be there. She could have asked a colleague to pose her question for her and relay the answer to her. But that was not the way of Mary McGrory. She had an extraordinary eye for the telling detail. She wanted to see and hear things herself, and form her own judgments. President Nixon put her on his enemies list, but many of us adored her. In the last year, a stroke robbed Mary of her legendary ability to find just the right word. But she remained a passionate observer of politics and of life. Many of us hoped that she might regain her mastery of words and resume writing. If anyone could conquer the ravages of a stroke, Mary seemed like a likely candidate. But Mary will live through her words. She was an American treasure. Many times this past year, I have missed Mary's wise voice. I am sure I will miss her often in the future, too. These are hard times for our Nation. We could use Mary's insight, her passionate commitment to peace and her fierce belief in democracy. Fortunately, Mary has left us more than a half-century of extraordinary work--work for which she won a Pulitzer Prize and the respect of untold millions. There is more than enough beauty, wit and wisdom in her words to last a lifetime. I am honored to have known Mary McGrory. My thoughts and prayers are with her family and her many, many friends. We have lost a legend. Mary's cousin, Brian McGrory, is a columnist for the Boston Globe. Last November, he wrote a column for the Washington Post about what he called ``the amazing journey that is Mary McGrory's life'' and ``one of the most important, colorful and enduring newspaper careers that the American public has had the pleasure to experience.'' The headline on the column was ``The Best I'll Ever Know.'' I ask unanimous consent that his column be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I agree. I think the funding and the so-called economic issues are critical to finding a solution. If we can't get a fair funding level that provides just compensation to victims and certainty to businesses, then we won't be able to resolve the other interlocking issues.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, while I am disappointed that we find ourselves in this situation, I am pleased we are now going to begin the negotiations and move forward. As we have discussed, starting on Monday, we will convene meetings of interested stakeholders utilizing Judge Edward Becker as a mediator. I am strongly committed to getting the bill done and working through the serious issues that still divide us. The issue of asbestos is too vitally important to let this opportunity slip away. I know Senator Frist is committed as well.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, could the majority leader clarify the circumstances involving the victims' bill of rights? As I understand it, there have been some discussions, as the majority leader alluded, to a statutory approach to the victims' bill of rights. As I understand it, last night some agreement was reached. If that is the current situation, I am wondering whether it is still the intention of the majority leader to move a motion to proceed on the constitutional amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will take my leader time to comment on the privilege I had last week of spending some time with hundreds of South Dakota Guard members and their families. I wanted to say a few words today about the selfless and courageous sacrifice of the South Dakota Guard and, indeed, all of our soldiers who are placing their lives on the line so that the children of Iraq can inherit a nation safer, stronger, and freer than that of their parents. Too often, the contributions of our Guard members and reservists have gone unrecognized. But today, the brace soldiers in our Guard and Reserve have become indispensable to protecting our national security. With the end of the Cold War and the decision to draw down active duty forces, the Nation has dramatically increased its reliance on reservists. Guard and Reserve soldiers have been called up to active duty more frequently, and have been taken away from their families and communities for longer periods of time, than perhaps at any other time in our history. As a result, the line between active and reserve duty has become blurred. The service of the South Dakota National Guard and Reserve provides a perfect illustration. Two-thirds of South Dakota's National Guard members have been called up since September 11. On a per capita basis, South Dakota has had more of its Guard members activated than any other State. These call-ups have fallen heavily on South Dakota's Army Guard units. According to Governor Michael Rounds, nearly 8 of every 10 South Dakota Army Guard members have already been called up for active duty. The South Dakota National Guard has six units and 1,200 soldiers in the Iraq theater, including the 740th Transportation Company, the 842nd Engineer Company, the 2nd Battalion of the 147th Field Artillery, the 153rd Engineer Battalion, the 1742nd Transportation Company, and the 216th Engineer Detachment. These soldiers have the gratitude and admiration of our State and our Nation. Late last week, we were reminded of the dangers they face each and every day. As I noted on the floor Monday, Army Specialist Dennis Morgan, a member of the South Dakota National Guard, was one of the 12 American soldiers killed in Iraq this past weekend. Specialist Morgan was the sixth South Dakota soldier to die in this war, and the first member of the South Dakota National Guard. While South Dakotans' thoughts and prayers are with Specialist Morgan's family and, indeed, the families of all of those who have lost loved ones in Iraq, we also pray for the safety of the soldiers who remain in Iraq. Two South Dakota units have received the most public attention as of late--the 740th Transportation Company of Milbank and Brookings and the 842nd Engineer Company of Spearfish, Belle Fourche, and Sturgis. Unfortunately for the soldiers of these units and their families, the reason these units are in the news is not a happy one. Last week, nearly 300 soldiers from the 740th Transportation Company and the 842nd Engineer Company learned that they would not be coming home when they complete their year-long tour of duty. According to Jay Brozik, husband of 1LT Sally Brozik who serves in the 740th, members of this unit had been informed they would be heading home soon. Their personal belongings had been packed for the trip home. The troops had completed the medical briefing required prior to leaving the Iraq theater. Their equipment had been transferred to a replacement unit. Their families were eagerly awaiting a joyous return. All that came to a crashing halt late last week, when the Department of Defense announced that the tours of duty for this unit had been extended at least three months longer than promised. The story is similar for the 842nd Engineering Company and about 20,000 other active and reserve troops who were in formed that the administration had broken its commitment of one-year, ``boots on the ground'' in Iraq. Although I am confident all involved will continue to serve their country in the same exemplary fashion they have to date, the administration's decision was difficult to bear for the soldiers and families involved. In the words of Spearfish Mayor Jerry Krambeck, ``I don't know what I can say without putting tears in my eyes. All I can do is continue as we are and continue to support the families even more at this point.'' Jay Brozick said, ``I was thinking my wife would be back for our son's birthday, May 4. Now it's changed everything.'' And Ryan Lovrien spoke of his girlfriend, SGT April Semmler of the 740th: ``[April] had mentioned hoping after a year to be home and spend time with the family in the summertime and just be out of there. Now they're going to do three or four months.'' Mr. President, the cost of failure in Iraq is beyond comprehension. Given the stakes involved for the people of Iraq, the region, and the world, we have no choice but to maintain our commitment and do all we can to bring about a safe, secure, and democratic Iraq. But we do face a choice about how we fulfill this commitment. I urge the President to redouble his efforts to expand the international presence on the ground. We have the finest forces in the world. Breaking our commitment to these forces is not only unfair, it is shortsighted. Already we see soldiers re-enlisting at lower rates than in the past. Considering that the demands placed on our already overextended forces are unlikely to fall in the future, failure to at least sustain current force levels would undermine our national security. Mr. President, I know the Senate joins me in commending the service of the men and women in the South Dakota Guard and indeed all of our troops involved in the current conflict in Iraq. I particularly want to express my appreciation for the sacrifices made by the troops of the 740th and the 842nd and their families. They came when they were called, performed as requested, and, under any circumstances, will continue to perform magnificently. But the burden should be shared--so that we can sustain our current forces and give those who've already sacrificed so much a well-deserved rest. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to honor an outstanding collaboration taking place between organizations of the Yankton Sioux Tribe and the neighboring town of Wagner--the Native Family Wellness Conference. This 3-day initiative is the result of the tireless work and cooperation among the Boys and Girls Club of the Yankton Sioux, Brave Heart Society, Canku Teca Treatment Center, and the Indian Health Service's Wagner Service Unit. In particular, I want to commend Faith Spotted Eagle, Jenny Noteboom, and Amy Schwenk- Doom for their leadership in this effort. As we know all too well, the lack of quality health care in Indian Country is having a devastating impact on the health of far too many Native Americans. The availability of only ``life or limb'' treatment in our IHS hospitals has heightened the importance of health and wellness education in Native American communities, and I applaud the initiative demonstrated by this collaborative in developing the Native Family Wellness Conference. The great leader Sitting Bull once said: ``Come, let us put our minds together and see what kind of life we can make for our children.'' The Native Family Wellness Conference embodies Sitting Bull's hope for the future by teaching children, both Native and non-Native, about the importance of health and wellness in both their cultural heritage and personal future. Children and families will have the opportunity to learn about the effects of diet, drug abuse, and exercise on personal and family wellness during a series of breakout sessions on April 29 and 30. Those who participate in the sessions will be invited to join a fun run/walk with the Lakota Olympian Billy Mills and a concert by the band Brule of Lower Brule. Billy Mills and his organization, Running Strong for American Indian Youth, have dedicated almost 20 years to providing Native Americans with the tools needed for survival and to build self-esteem and self- sufficiency. Billy Mills' participation in this conference demonstrates the importance of this collaboration, and I also want to thank him for his dedication and commitment to the health and well-being of Native Americans. In recent months, countless organizations from the Yankton Sioux Tribe and Wagner have joined in support of the Native Family Wellness Conference. The Bureau of Indian Affairs police department, Fort Randall Casino and Hotel, Indian Health Services Diabetes Project, Native American Community Board, Lewis and Clark Mental Health Services, Marty Indian School, Wagner School District, Wellmark Foundation, the Yankton Sioux Tribe's Business and Claims Committee, Tribal Health Program, Healthy Start Program, Housing Authority, Tribal Courts, and Tribal Youth Program have also contributed their time and talents to the conference. These organizations and their members are to be commended for their involvement in this important event. Our children are our greatest resource, and the Native Family Wellness Conference is a great investment in the health of our future generations. That is why I am proud to honor this outstanding effort.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I have a statement as well. It would require about the same length of time. I will defer to the majority leader and make my comments after he has completed his.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will address a couple of issues. I am disappointed we have come to debate the asbestos issue under these circumstances. I agree with much of what the majority leader has said about the need for the Senate and our country to constructively address this problem. I agree there has been a negative economic impact on many of our most prestigious businesses throughout the country. I agree in many ways the current system has been deficient. So there is much of what the majority leader said in his description of the situation with which I agree. He did not mention, but I think it ought to be noted, that as we speak the estimate is 1.3 million Americans are still exposed to asbestos in their places of work; that asbestos is still legal in this country; and that we import 29 million pounds of asbestos each year, a 300 percent increase in the last decade. He did not mention, but I think it also is noteworthy, the peak death toll for asbestos is not likely to occur for approximately 15 years. The primary asbestos-related illnesses could cause at least 100,000 deaths: mesothelioma, asbestosis. An average 10,000 victims per year die from asbestos exposure. More Americans die of asbestos-related illness than drownings and fires combined already. Estimates range that current and future victims could be--and this is a stunning number--1.2 million to 2.6 million people. So we are called upon to write legislation that will become law that projects our best guess on how to address those numbers, not this year but for the next 20 to 30 years. If we are going to do this, I would hope in the deepest sense of what it means to be a Senator we do it right. I must say we are far from that point as we begin this debate this morning. We are not doing this right. I want to talk a little bit about why I do not believe we are, but it is not just the view expressed by some of us on this side--I will go into procedures and lost opportunities over the next couple of minutes--but there was an article in the paper this morning quoting a prestigious and engaged Member of the Senate, Senator Specter, who says the current plan is counterproductive and argues about why this legislation is not ready for the consideration the majority leader insists we give it today. I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE. It is counterproductive. We are concerned that in many respects the legislation before the Senate actually is a step backward from what was passed out of committee, and that was viewed by people in our country and in the Senate on both sides of the aisle as insufficient. One thing we do know is attempts to address this problem in other cases affecting other diseases has been an absolute fiasco. Ask the black lung victims today whether we did any good when we passed the black lung victims fund. If they are still alive, they will shake their heads in disbelief. Ask those victims of uranium whether we solved the problem, and again they will shake their heads and say how deeply disturbed they are with the outcome. I can recall how many Senators acclaimed these responses as finally having addressed the issue. Well, now people get sick, they die, and they have no recourse. While we know perhaps 2.6 million people could be affected by this over the next several decades, the bill before us actually reduces the compensation fund from $153 billion--and I might add parenthetically that the potential range of how much this could cost reaches $300 billion, so we are locking in a bill already that may be deficient--but we go from $153 billion down to $109 billion in the bill currently pending, which maybe one-third of what will be required to adequately deal with the compensation we already know will be needed. Then there is the issue of claims. For somebody working brake linings in an auto mechanics shop, filled with asbestos, 15 years of asbestos exposure, what this bill says is if they have lung cancer after having been exposed to asbestos for 15 years we are going to give them as little as $25,000, and that is it. Who conscientiously could look that victim in the eye and say, I am sorry, $25,000 is the best we could do? I cannot say that. We also have the problem of pending cases in this bill. I actually know victims who have attempted to do their best under the current system, have gone through approximately 10 years of extraordinarily complicated legal process to get to a verdict, they finally reach a verdict, there is finally some light at the end of the tunnel, they are going to get their award, and this bill says forget it, they have to start over. We are going to use a new system. All those years of waiting, all that pain and that agony, all of that potential for loss of life, it is over. We are going to make them reapply. Sorry about that. At least the committee bill acknowledged we do not know how much this is going to cost. This could be $300 billion. I know we only have $153 billion in the bill and now $109 billion if we look at this bill. Because of the work of Senator Biden we said, all right, if we run out of money, at least people ought to be able to go back to the courts. This bill says, you can go back to the courts, but only if you meet the strict new limits that we've added, and only Federal court. Your recourse is limited. Oh, yes, we put a $10 billion contingency in there, but it's not available until year 24. How cynical is that. Democrats want a bill. I want very much to resolve this matter, as Senator Frist has noted. I wanted to do it so badly that I asked my staff to meet with Senator Frist last fall, right after the August recess. They did meet five times at the staff level. Then Senators Dodd and Leahy and I met with a number of Republicans in November. My staff has participated in virtually all, if not all, of the meetings hosted by Senator Specter since the new year--and I must say what admiration I have for Senator Specter and the work he has done on this bill. He has been diligent, he has been studious, he has been thoughtful, and he has been inclusive. It is too bad it took a Senator from Pennsylvania to create that kind of environment for real work and progress, but he deserves a lot of credit, and I hope I am not getting him in more trouble for praising him this morning on the floor. But he deserves credit. Senator Dodd and Senator Leahy and I met with the manufacturers and insurers on several occasions through September, October, November, December, January, February, and March. We have met with advocates of the victims. I went to Senator Frist last year and I said: Could we meet? Could we resolve these issues, you and I? Let's see if we can put a draft together. That was impossible in December. I was told we just couldn't do it in January or in February or in March. I was hoping, at least at the staff level, that might afford us an opportunity to begin work together, but even at the staff level our efforts were repelled until mid-February. Finally, I was told I had a meeting on the 31st of March. I was very pleased, at long last, having waited 4 or 5 months to get one, we had one. I got there, to Senator Frist's office, and was told I had 10 minutes--10 minutes--to discuss this issue that we know will last decades. We stand ready to work out this legislation in a bipartisan way. There are many on both sides of the aisle who truly and deeply want a resolution. I am puzzled, mystified that without any warning, without any consultation this bill was laid down, put on the calendar, and is now called before us. It makes a mockery of the system and of any real serious and sincere effort to resolve this matter in a truly bipartisan way. I think those of us who are truly interested in a resolution ought to continue to meet with Senator Specter as should those who believe a solution can be negotiated. But this is not the way to do it. This is nothing more than a--well, it is nothing more than a lost opportunity. I could say more but I don't think incendiary language helps this process and I will forgo that. But I must say I am troubled that yet again, on an issue of this importance, there are those who will put politics and political posturing ahead of finding a real solution.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. DASCHLE. It was actually scheduled for a longer period of time, but once the meeting began, I was told the majority leader had about 10 minutes, correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is just about all that happened at that particular meeting. The Senator is correct.