Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today the Washington Post reported that the United States Department of Agriculture secretly allowed American meatpackers to resume imports of ground and processed beef from Canada last September, just weeks after Secretary Veneman publicly reaffirmed the Department's ban on such importation as a result of mad cow disease being found in Canadian-born cattle. The article states that a total of 33 million pounds of Canadian processed beef came into the United States and went straight to American consumers under a series of undisclosed permits USDA issued to the meatpackers. This is how today's article describes Secretary Veneman's public position last August: She and her top deputies said ground beef imports would resume only after the agency completed a formal rulemaking process, with public debate. There was no public debate. Instead, there were undisclosed permits allowing banned Canadian beef in the United States. Not only am I extremely concerned that the Department of Agriculture deceived American consumers by allowing the import of Canadian beef that was previously banned, but I am also disappointed that the Bush administration is actually working to prevent American consumers from knowing where the food they buy comes from. That is why I am introducing a bill today that will require USDA to implement country-of-origin labeling on schedule this September. That was the date agreed upon in the Farm Bill which the President signed into law in 2002. Unfortunately, at the urging of the Bush administration and the large meatpackers--most likely the same people who urged USDA to issue permits to allow the importation of banned Canadian meat products-- Republican leaders in Congress inserted language into last year's omnibus appropriations bill in the dead of night delaying implementation of country-of-origin labeling for 2 years until September 2006. The bill I am introducing today is what the Senate has voted to do several times: Inform consumers about the origin of their food. Over 80 percent of American consumers have said they want to know the country of origin of their food, and over 170 groups representing over 50 million Americans support mandatory food labeling. We must not allow anyone who may represent special interests, anyone who now abrogates the spirit as well as the letter of the law to choose big business interests over the interests of the average American family. We must ensure consumer confidence, particularly now in light of recent developments. We would have not had the situation of 33 million pounds of banned beef entering the United States if it couldn't have been properly labeled. This legislation is long overdue. It is time that it become the law of the land. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this past Saturday, thousands of people in Sioux Falls, SD, and 35 other cities across America, took part in walks to raise public awareness of mental health. The walks were sponsored by the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. In Sioux Falls, more than 300 people dodged rain showers to walk through Falls Park. They were different ages, with different backgrounds. But most shared at least one important distinction: They, or someone close to them, has a mental illness. The same is true of nearly all Americans. A 1999 report by the Surgeon General found that more than 50 million Americans--one in five--suffer from mental illness each year. Many Members of this Senate--Republicans and Democrats--have spoken bravely and movingly about how mental illness has devastated their own parents, children or siblings. No Senator who is with us today has demonstrated greater leadership on issues involving mental health than our distinguished colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici. He knows--from watching a daughter he loves very much struggle with schizophrenia--that mental illnesses don't affect just one person; they affect whole families. Senator Domenici also knows about the stigma attached to mental illness, and the discrimination and suffering that people with mental health problems suffer as a result of that stigma. Almost a decade ago, this proud conservative Republican found a proud liberal Democratic ally in the Senate. Like Pete Domenici, Paul Wellstone had seen someone he loved battle a serious mental illness. In Paul's case, it was his older brother. Pete Domenici and Paul Wellstone were an ``odd couple.'' But they were fiercely united in their determination to end discrimination against people with mental illness. In 1996--thanks to their leadership--Congress passed the Mental Health Parity Act. The law--for the first time--prevented private health insurance plans that offer mental health coverage from setting annual or lifetime limits that are lower than those set for other illnesses. It was an important step forward. But it left a loophole. It allowed companies to set much higher deductibles and co-payments for mental health coverage. It also allowed insurers to set lower limits for outpatient visits or the number of days of inpatient treatment for mental illness. As a result, effective, affordable mental health treatment remains unaffordable for millions of Americans who need it. The General Accounting Office estimates that nearly 90 percent of the Nation's health plans engage in legal discrimination based on mental health diagnoses. The results can be devastating: unemployment, broken homes, shattered lives, poverty, poor school performance--even suicide. In 2000, Senator Domenici and Senator Wellstone introduced a new bill--the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act--to close the loopholes. It is a modest proposal. It does not require employers to provide health insurance. It does not require employers that provide health insurance to offer mental health coverage. It simply says that, for employers that choose to offer mental health benefits, insurers cannot provide more restrictive coverage for mental health benefits than they do for other medical and surgical benefits. In late Fall 2001, the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act was unanimously added to the Senate version of the FY 2002 Labor HHS Appropriations bill. But it was stripped out of the final conference report at the insistence of the White House and the House Republican leadership. More than two years ago, in April 2002, President Bush traveled to New Mexico with Senator Domenici and announced that he supports ``full mental health parity.'' After listening to families talk about their mental health horror stories, the President said, ``Americans with mental illness deserve our understanding and they deserve excellent care. They deserve a health care system that treats their illness with the same urgency as physical illness.'' Months later, in late October 2002, Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash, along with his wife, Sheila, their daughter, Marcia, and four others. At a memorial service for them in Washington, Senator Domenici delivered a beautiful eulogy to his friend; he announced that he was renaming the bill ``The Senator Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act,'' and vowed to pass it. Despite having 69 Senate co-sponsors, more than a year-and-a-half after it was re-introduced in this Congress, the Wellstone bill--S. 486--remains stuck in the HELP Committee. Wellstone Action, the grassroots organization frmed by Paul and Sheila Wellstone's two sons to continue their parents' work, has set passage of the Wellstone mental health bill as its only legislative goal this year. Over the last several months, Wellstone Action members have sent more than 32,000 faxes and letters to Congress asking us to pass the Wellstone bill. Bernie Cameron is one of these letter writers. She lives in Deerfield, NH. Her brother Joe was diagnosed with schizophrenia 50 years ago, when he was just 12. By the age of 14, Joe was living in a State hospital for children. He has spent a total of only about 5 years outside of institutions since then. Bernie Cameron's parents were both Portuguese immigrants who came to this country when they were 16 years old. Her father worked as a furniture refinisher. Her mother worked at a shoe store. They had 6 children and never had much money. They visited Joe at least three times a week. ``Can you imagine visiting your child in a place that smells of urine, where people are screaming,'' Bernie asks. ``It was so frustrating to them that they couldn't afford a better place for Joe.'' The powerful medications Joe was prescribed gave him tremors and other health problems. In 1983, after Joe's father died, his mother sold the family home. With the proceeds of the sale, the family sent Joe to McLean's, a very good private psychiatric hospital in Boston. He was then in his late 40s. The hospital changed Joe's medication, which finally brought his seizures under control. But, after a year, they told his family there was nothing else they could do that would make a real difference in the quality of his life; to much time had been lost. Before Joe got sick, he was a straight A student. Today, he lives in a sheltered halfway house. He still has flashes of unusual intellect and wit. When that happens, his sister wonders, ``If we could have gotten him into a place like McLean's early on, would it have made a difference?'' Bernie Cameron calls her brother's story ``a perfect illustration of the 2-tier health care system in this country.'' If you have insurance and your illness involves a part of your body other than your brain, you get health care. But if your brain is affected--even if you have insurance--there's a good chance you won't get the health care you need. A new poll by the Coalition for Fairness in Mental Health Coverage shows that 83 percent of Americans surveyed support mental health parity in insurance. When asked whether they would support parity if it raised the premiums one percent--the high-end cost estimated for the Wellstone bill--66 percent of Americans continued to say yes. The Wellstone bill, as I said, has 69 co-sponsors in the Senate, and 245 co-sponsors in the House. It is also supported by more than 360 national organizations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete list be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yet the Wellstone bill remains stuck in the HELP Committee because of fierce opposition from the insurance industry and its allies. Opponents of mental health parity claim it will drive up the cost of health coverage, which will result in more people losing their insurance. Let me be clear. Their claims are not true. They are scare tactics. We have heard them all before. To begin with, small businesses with fewer than 50 employees would be totally exempt. In addition, two highly respected organizations have analyzed the Wellstone bill. The private accounting firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers predicts it would increase health insurance premiums by 1 percent. That is it, 1 percent. That works out to $1.32 per month. The Congressional Budget Office predicts an even smaller average increase, nine-tenths of 1 percent. I think most families would think that is a pretty good deal. Senators Domenici and Wellstone modeled their bill on the mental health parity provisions in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. According to the Office of Personnel Management, those provisions have increased FEHB premiums only 1.3 percent, and that includes treatment for substance abuse which is not part of the Wellstone bill. Even these very small cost estimates are probably high because they do not factor in the cost savings resulting from parity. The National Institute of Mental Health estimates the cost of untreated mental illness, including criminal justice and social welfare costs, at about $300 billion a year. A 1999 Surgeon General report on mental illness estimates the direct business costs of lack of parity at $70 billion a year, mostly in reduced productivity and increased use of sick leave. By comparison, when workers with depression were treated with prescription medications, medical costs declined by $882 per employee per year, and absenteeism dropped by 9 days, according to a study published in the Health Economics journal. Why single out people with mental illness to hold down health care costs? Why not deny treatment for heart disease or diabetes or cancer? Psychiatric treatment does cost money, but so do heart surgeries, kidney dialysis, and chemotherapy. Health insurers are using incorrect and outdated ideas about the nature and causes of mental illness to deny millions of Americans essential health care and maximize their profits. Thirty-four States already have mental health parity laws on the books, but the laws vary widely. Many cover only a handful of illnesses, and they cannot cover large, multistate employers or employers who self-insure. Only a Federal law can guarantee real mental health parity for all Americans. Last October, on the first anniversary of the plane crash that killed Paul and Sheila, their daughter Marcia and four others, I asked unanimous consent that the Senate take up and pass the Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act. It would have been a perfect tribute to Paul. The Republican leadership blocked that request, but they gave us their word that the Senate would consider the Wellstone mental health bill early this year. We are now closing in on the Memorial Day recess. Time is fast running out on this Congress, too. We have been waiting months now to see a proposed amendment from Senator Gregg and the scope of the bill. On June 10, people are coming to Washington from all over America for a mental health rally to urge passage of the Wellstone bill. Two years ago in New Mexico, the President said he would work with Congress to help press a mental health parity bill. The true test of the President's leadership is not what the President says; it is his ability to convince Republican leaders in the House and Senate to allow votes on the bill. Congress can pass this bill quickly, if the President will help. We cannot do this alone; we need his help. What we cannot do is allow mental health benefits to be a luxury only for the very wealthy or the very fortunate. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his eloquent comments regarding our deceased colleague. I share his admiration for our departed colleague. He was a man who had passion, conviction, and yet a good sense of humor that allowed that passion and conviction to be embraced by even those who may not have agreed with him on every issue. But his passion about mental health, his conviction that it was the right thing for us to do, to pass mental health parity, lasts way beyond his life. It is not only in tribute to Paul, but I think in recognition of the appropriateness of his conviction and his passion that we remind our colleagues of the debt we owe to him and to our country in passing meaningful legislation at long last to address this embarrassment and this extraordinary deficiency in society today. I again thank the Senator from Nevada and yield the floor. Exhibit 1 366 Organizations Supporting the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act Advocates for Youth, Alaska State Medical Association, Alliance for Aging Research, Alliance for Children and Families, Alliance For Mental Health Consumers Rights, Alzheimer's Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Neurology, American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, American Academy of Physician Assistants, American Academy of Psyciatry and the Law, American Academy of Sleep Medicine, American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, American Association for Psychosocial Rehabilitation. American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Association of Children's Residential Centers, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, American Association of Pastoral Counselors, American Association of Practicing Psychiatrists, American Association of School Administrators, American Association of Suicidology, American Association on Mental Retardation, American Board of Examiners in Clinical Social Work, American College of Cardiology, American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Emergency Physicians, American College of Medical Genetics, American College of Mental Health Administration, American College of Nurse-Midwives, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians, American College of Osteopathic Surgeons, American College of Physicians. American College of Preventive Medicine, American College of Radiology Association, American College of Surgeons, American Congress of Community Supports and Employment Services (ACCSES), American Counseling Association, American Diabetes Association, American Family Foundation, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, American Federation of Teachers, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, American Gastroenterological Association, American Geriatrics Society, American Group Psychotherapy Association, American Heart Association, American Hospice Foundation, American Hospital Association, American Humane Association, American Jail Association, American Managed Behavioral Healthcare Association (AMBHA), American Medical Association. American Medical Directors Association, American Medical Group Association, American Medical Rehabilitation Providers Association, American Medical Student Association, American Mental Health Counselors Association, American Music Therapy Association, American Network of Community Options and Resources, American Nurses Association, American Occupational Therapy Association, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society, American Orthopsychiatric Association, American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics, American Osteopathic Association, American Pediatric Society, American Political Science Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychiatric Nurses Association, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychological Association, American Psychotherapy Association. American Public Health Association, American School Counselor Association, American School Health Association, American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, American Society for Clinical Pathology, American Society of Addiction Medicine, American Society of Anesthesiologists, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Pharmacology, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Therapeutic Recreation Association, American Thoracic Society, America's Health Together, Anna Westin Foundation, Anorexia Nervosa and Related Eating Disorders, Inc., Anxiety Disorders Association of America, Arizona Medical Association, Arkansas Medical Society, Association for the Advancement of Psychology, Association for Ambulatory Behavioral Healthcare. Association for Clinical Pastoral Education, Inc., Association for Science in Autism Treatment, Association of American Medical Colleges, Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations, Association of Jewish Aging Services of North America, Association of Jewish Family & Children's Agencies, Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs, Association of Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Surgeons, Association of University Centers on Disabilities, Association to Benefit Children, Attention Deficit Disorders Association, Autism Society of America, Barbara Schneider Foundation, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Brain Injury Association of America, Inc., California Medical Association, Camp Fire USA, The Carter Center, Catholic Charities USA. Center for the Advancement of Health, Center for Women Policy Studies, Center on Disability and Health, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Chicago Public Schools, Child & Adolescent Bipolar Foundation, Child Neurology Society, Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Children's Defense Fund, Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty, Children's Hospital Boston, Child Welfare League of America, Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, Church of the Brethren Washington Office, Clinical Social Work Federation, Coalition for Juvenile Justice, College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists, Colorado Medical Society, Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism. Connecticut State Medical Society, Corporation for the Advancement of Psychiatry, Council for Exceptional Children, Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation, Council on Social Work Education, County of Santa Clara, CA, Cure Autism Now, Dads and Daughters, Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc., Disability Service Providers of America, Disabled American Veterans, Division for Learning Disabilities (DLD) of the Council for Exceptional Children, Easter Seals, Eating Disorders Coalition for Research, Policy & Action, Employee Assistance Professionals Association, Epilepsy Foundation, Families For Depression Awareness, Families USA, Family Violence Prevention Fund, Family Voices, Federation of American Hospitals. Federation of Behavioral, Psychological & Cognitive Sciences, Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, Florida Medical Association, Freedom From Fear, Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quaker), Harvard Eating Disorders Center, Hawaii Medical Association, Human Rights Campaign, Idaho Medical Association, Illinois State Medical Society, Inclusion Research Institute, Indiana State Medical Association, Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research, International Association of Jewish Vocational Services, International Association of Psychosocial Rehabilitation Services, International Community Corrections Association, International Dyslexia Association, International Society of Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurses, International Spinal Injection Society, Iowa Medical Society. Iris Alliance Fund, Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, Johnson Institute, Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, Kentucky Medical Association, Kids Project, Kristen Watt Foundation for Eating Disorder Awareness, Latino Behavioral Health Association, Learning Disabilities Association of America, Legal Action Center, Louisiana State Medical Society, Lutheran Ofc. for Governmental Affairs, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Lutheran Services in America, Maine Medical Association, Massachusetts Medical Society, MedChi, the Maryland State Medical Society, Medical Association of Georgia, Medical Association of the State of Alabama, Medical Group Management Association, Medical Society of Delaware. Medical Society of the District of Columbia, Medical Society of New Jersey, Medical Society of the State of New York, Medical Society of Virginia, Medicare Rights Center, MentalHealth AMERICA, Inc., Michigan State Medical Society, Minnesota Medical Association, Mississippi State Medical Association, Missouri State Medical Association, Montana Medical Association, NAADAC, The Association for Addiction Professionals, National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National Alliance for Austism Research, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Affective Disorders, National Alliance to End Homelessness, National Asian American Pacific Islander Mental Health Association, National Asian Women's Health Organizations, National Assembly of Health and Human Service Organizations. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Association for the Advancement of Orthotics & Prosthetics, National Association for Children's Behavioral Health, National Association for the Dually Diagnosed, National Association for Medical Direction of Respiratory Care, National Association for Rural Mental Health, National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders--ANAD, National Association of Case Management, National Association of Children's Hospitals, National Association of Community Health Centers, National Association of Counties, National Association of County Behavioral Health Directors, National Association of County and City Health Officials, National Association of Development Disabilities Councils, National Association of Mental Health Planning & Advisory Councils, National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems, National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems, National Association of School Nurses, National Association of School Psychologists. National Association of Social Workers, National Association of State Directors of Special Education, National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, National Center for Policy Research for Women & Families, National Center on Institutions and Alternatives, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Coalition for the Homeless, National Coalition of Mental Health Consumers and Professionals, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of La Raza, National Council on the Aging, National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, National Council on Family Relations, National Council on Problem Gambling, National Council on Suicide Prevention, National Down Syndrome Congress, National Down Syndrome Society, National Eating Disorders Association. National Educational Alliance for Borderline Personality Disorder, National Education Association, National Exchange Club Foundation, National Foundation for Depressive Illness, National Health Council, National Health Law Program, National Hispanic Medical Association, National Hopeline Network, National Housing Conference, National Latino Behavioral Health Association, National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, National Leadership on African American Behavioral Health, National League of Cities, National Medical Association, National Mental Health Association, National Mental Health Awareness Campaign, National Mental Health Consumers' Self-Help Clearinghouse, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Network for Youth, National Organization for Rare Disorders. National Organization of People of Color Against Suicide, National Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, National Osteoporosis Foundation, National Partnership for Women and Families, National PTA, National Recreation and Park Association, National Rural Health Association, National Schizophrenia Foundation, National Senior Citizens Law Center, National Therapeutic Recreation Society, National Treatment and Research Advancements Association for Personality Disorder, Native American Counseling Inc., Nebraska Medical Association, NETWORK, a Catholic Social Justice Lobby, Nevada State Medical Association, New Hampshire Medical Society, New Mexico Medical Society, NISH (National Industries for the Severely Handicapped), North american Association of Masters in Psychology, North Carolina Medical Society. North Dakota Medical Association, Obsessive Compulsive Foundation, Office & Professional Employees International Union, Ohio State Medical Association, Oklahoma State Medical Association, Older Adult Consumer Mental Health Alliance, Oregon Medical Association, Organization of Student Social Workers, Partnership for Recovery, Pennsylvania Medical Society, People For the American Way, People With Disabilities Foundation, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office, Prevent Child Abuse America, Rebecca Project for Human Rights, Renfrew Center Foundation, Rhode Island Medical Society, Samaritans Suicide Prevention Center, School Social Work Association of America. Screening for Mental Health, Inc., Service Employees International Union, Shaken Baby Alliance, Sjogren's Syndrome Foundation, Society for Adolescent Medicine, Society for Pediatric Research, Society for Personality Assessment, Society for Public Health Education, Society for Research on Child Development, Society for Social Work Research, Society for Women's Health Research, Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons, Society of Medical Consultants to Armed Forces, Society of Professors of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, South Carolina Medical Association, South Dakota State Medical Association, STOP IT NOW!, Suicide Awareness Voice of Education, Suicide Prevention Action Network USA, Tennessee Medical Association. Texas Medical Association, The Arc of the United States, Title II Community AIDS National Network, Tourette Syndrome Association, Treatment and Research Advancements Association for Personality Disorder, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, United Cerebral Palsy Association, United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministry, United Jewish Communities, United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, Utah Medical Association, Vermont Medical Society, Volunteers of America, Washington State Medical Association, Wellstone Action, West Virginia State Medical Association, Wisconsin Medical Society, Working Assets, Women of Reform Judaism, Wyoming Medical Society, Yellow Ribbon Suicide Prevention Program, Youth Law Center.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, first, I wish to indicate that I share much of the sentiment expressed by the distinguished majority leader about the importance of the oversight responsibilities that we hold to be very critical in this difficult and challenging time. I want to single out, in particular, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee for his valiant effort in trying to establish just what went wrong, why it went wrong, and how we can prevent it from occurring again. He has been criticized, in some cases, by members of his own party. I think that is very unfortunate. I think we have a role and that role ought not to be minimized at times of crises. I think we ought to take these investigations where the facts lead us. I do believe other committees ought to be involved as well, and in some cases they are. I also compliment the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, who always seems to be as engaged, in a constructive way, as anyone can be given his responsibilities. I think he ought to be recognized as well. There is work that should be done on the Judiciary Committee, Governmental Affairs Committee, and other committees that I think have yet to pursue the responsibilities they have for oversight as fully and completely as perhaps they should. But certainly one would not have to look beyond the Armed Services Committee and Foreign Relations Committee for models. We can all be very proud and appreciative of the job they currently are doing.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, earlier today I heard a particularly egregious comment made on the Senate floor that I cannot in good conscience allow to pass unchallenged. If there is one individual whose support for our troops and their effort I never thought would be subject to attack, it is John Murtha. I served with Representative Murtha in the House. I know full well the honorable service he has rendered to his country. And I know how hard he labors every day to promote the interests of our nation and its citizens--in particular our men and women in uniform. John joined the Marine Corps during the Korean War, and he later volunteered to serve in Vietnam. His public service continued back home when he became the first combat Vietnam veteran elected to Congress. John has been awarded both the Navy Distinguished Service Medal and the USO's Spirit of Hope Award. As most know, Representative Murtha was a strong advocate for the Iraq war. And not too long ago, my Republican colleagues were praising him for his position. But now that he has raised reasonable questions about how the war has been handled by the Administration, he is being accused of aiding our enemies. There should be no room in our debate for such personal attacks. John McCain. Max Cleland. And now John Murtha. All of these men honorably served our country, and all have had their character impugned. John Murtha is an honorable man with a long history of public service. No one should question his dedication to our troops and their families, and to the national interest.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his leadership. I have discussed this with my colleagues and can commit wholeheartedly to the good-faith process he has proposed. Our side understands that changes will have to be made, and we are not entering this process demanding a specific outcome on any provision. Instead, we are asking any changes to S. 1072 be the result of the mutual agreement of the lead Senate conferees acting in good faith. By moving S. 1072 through the Senate, Senators Inhofe, Bond, Jeffords, and Reid have already demonstrated they can make that process work. If the process should break down due to disagreements over either transportation policy or extraneous provisions, then we understand he and I will not bring such a conference report to the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the leader again for his leadership. He has agreement from our side, and we look forward to the successful conclusion of this important legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time and save what Democratic morning business is still allocated to others. I compliment the distinguished Senator from Illinois for his comments this morning. This week it will be our hope to discuss the question about how it is that Americans view themselves as we enter this critical decisionmaking period for our country, choosing its national leadership for the next 4 years. Senator Durbin has put his finger on the question that was so appropriately posed by then-candidate Reagan in 1980. The question he asked in 1980 to the American people was: Are you better off? In many cases, Americans had a right to say yes in 1980, but there was a perception that on many specific issues and circumstances they were not better off. So we felt it was appropriate that we have some analysis of our circumstances today in the year 2004. Are we better off than we were in 2000? Are we better off in education today than we were back then, having passed but not funded the No Child Left Behind Act? Are we better off with our own national security and homeland security today than we were in 2000? Are we better off in our fiscal policy, our economic policy? Are we better off with regard to crime statistics? Are we better off with infrastructure? Where is it that we are better off? I dare say no one could possibly say we are better off. Well, this week, we hope to analyze a little bit of the lay of the land as the American people see it today. Wondering out loud, expressing concern, and certainly providing some of our own reaction to the question, Are you better off today? Senator Durbin, our distinguished colleague from Illinois, said it so well with regard to our circumstances for average working families. In asking the question, Are you better off than you were 4 years ago, when you look at the first 2 years of the Bush administration, real income actually dropped by $1,500 per household, and throughout the last 4 years growth in wages has actually been very weak. After growing at a healthy rate during the Clinton administration, wages have barely kept up with inflation under the Bush administration. In fact, the Labor Department recently reported that in the last 12 months wages and salaries grew at the slowest rate in 20 years. At the same time, Americans are facing skyrocketing costs. Whether it is a 25- percent increase in gasoline prices at the pump, a 28-percent increase in college tuition, a 36-percent increase in family health care premiums, the middle class is being squeezed. This chart says it as graphically as one can. Here you have the average weekly earnings for a typical American household. It has gone up 1 percent over this period of time. In that same timeframe, while wages have only gone up 1 percent, gasoline prices have gone up 25 percent; college tuition, 28 percent; health care premiums, a whopping 36 percent. So at times like these, the last thing you want to do is threaten wages, but that is exactly what the Bush administration is planning to do in August, by implementing rules that will actually strip millions of Americans of the ability to cope with this situation. Here you have an increase in earnings of 1 percent. One of the ways Americans have historically coped with that situation is to say: OK, if I am only making a 1-percent increase, I am going to work harder and longer. We already have the longest workweek in the world with regard to industrialized nations--the longest workweek in the world and Americans respond to these increasing pressures by saying: I am going to work longer. If they work longer, under current law, they are allowed overtime. But what the administration says is: We are going to make you work even harder and longer because we are going to take away some of your overtime. So the pressure is even greater. For many Americans, the problem is even worse than just flat wages and high costs. For millions, the problem is no wages because they have lost their jobs. We have actually lost 2.2 million private sector jobs under President Bush, compared to 21 million jobs created during the time President Clinton was in office. The manufacturing sector has been particularly hard hit, with jobs lost in 36 out of 39 months under the Bush administration. In all, we have lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. And a net of 2.2 million private sector jobs lost--the first time since the Hoover administration we have actually seen an actual job loss over the 4 years of any one President's term in office. So here you have it: During the Clinton administration, 21 million private sector jobs created; under the Bush administration, a loss of 2.2 million private sector jobs. In 2000, the unemployment rate was 4 percent. Today, it is 5.6. Mr. President, 8.2 million Americans are actually out of work, a third more than when President Bush took office. In addition, long-term unemployment has nearly tripled in the last 4 years. In 2000, the number of long-term unemployed people was 649,000. Now there are 1.9 million long-term unemployed people, three times what it was in 2000 when President Bush took office, chronically long-term unemployed people who have virtually given up any real prospect of gaining employment any time in the short term. Put simply, the Bush administration has the worst jobs record since the Great Depression. As a result, millions of Americans are now worse off than they were 4 years ago. It is not just jobs and unemployment, however. As I said, these cost pressures that American families are feeling go beyond their income and they go beyond their employment. They go to the very nuts and bolts of making ends meet on a weekly basis. There is no better illustration of the problem they are facing with pressure on prices than we have seen in gas prices over the last several months. In 2001, gas prices were averaging $1.47 per gallon. Today, the nationwide average is $2.01 per gallon, and the Bush administration recently announced that it expects the average price to climb even higher by June. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has done nothing to help consumers relieve that pressure. During the 2000 campaign then-candidate Bush urged President Clinton to put pressure on OPEC to increase oil production. But today, President Bush is actually refusing--refusing--to follow his own advice, and his administration has said it won't call on OPEC to increase production. The administration has also failed to take other action that could help stem the rise in gasoline prices. It has refused to defer deliveries of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and, in fact, has not investigated anticompetitive actions in the gasoline market. While Americans struggle to pay higher prices at the pump, oil companies are posting record profits. In the first quarter of 2004, British Petroleum reported a 165-percent increase in their profits; Chevron-Texaco reported a 294-percent increase in their profits; Conoco-Phillips, a 44-percent increase in their profits; and Exxon Mobil, a 125-percent increase in their profits. The Bush administration has been totally unengaged, not providing one scintilla of leadership in addressing gasoline prices as these prices continue to flummox the American people and press them into longer working hours without the wage increases through overtime. There is also a concern for fiscal irresponsibility. The Bush administration has turned record surplus into record deficit. When President Bush took office, we were on track for a 10-year surplus of $5 trillion. Now we are headed for a 10-year deficit of $3 trillion. This graph shows the budget surplus/deficit just in the 4 short years President Bush has been in office. In 2000, we had a $236 billion surplus. This year, we are going to have the largest single deficit in our Nation's history. We're now on track to take $2.9 trillion from the Social Security trust funds. On an individual basis, that means the Government will end up borrowing an average of $18,500 for every worker covered by Social Security last year. Much of that money, which belongs to the workers, will be used to finance the tax cuts we have heard so much about with this administration. While millionaires get billions in Federal tax breaks, middle-class Americans are facing dramatic increases in their State taxes. State taxes actually rose by $14.5 billion in 2002 and 2003, after 7 straight years of decline. Household debt has climbed from $7.1 trillion in 2000 to $9.4 trillion at the end of last year. That is a 32-percent increase. What does that tell you? What that tells you is that American households, because they are paying higher State taxes, higher gas prices, higher health insurance premiums, and higher tuition costs, what they are now doing is borrowing more and more. They are putting more of that debt on their credit cards, maxing out their credit cards at the very time when they do not have the ability to pay back that debt on a monthly basis. By 2001, we had actually seen a reduction in the amount of public debt. It had fallen for 4 years, and we were on track to eliminate the debt by 2009. Now we are on track to reach $5.9 trillion in public debt by 2009. That is more than $20,000 for every American child, every American parent, every American family member. We have heard a lot about the death tax, the so-called death tax, which is the estate tax paid by some who have large property transfers from one generation to the next. I do not hear my Republican colleagues talk about the birth tax. There is now a birth tax of more than $20,000 because of fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement. That birth tax is paid not just by people who inherit but by every single American child when they are born. The consumer confidence index has fallen by 20 percent in the last 4 years. The NASDAQ has dropped over 30 percent. Standard & Poor's 500 has dropped by over 18 percent, and the Dow Jones by 5 percent. We come back to the question posed famously by President Reagan: Are we better off? Are wages better off? Are gasoline prices better off? Are we better off with college tuition or health care costs? Do we have more or fewer jobs? Have we provided more or less tax relief when the entire picture of taxes paid by workers is taken into account? The question provides a simple and very obvious answer to all of us: We are not better off. Americans are not better off than they were 4 years ago. But we can do better. We are a ``can do'' country. We can be stronger economically, stronger in national security. We can be strong in meeting the values and ideals of our heritage. We proved during the Clinton administration that Federal deficits can be eliminated, that the stock market can boom, that 22 million jobs can be created, and that low interest and inflation rates could increase the quality of life for families from Maine to Washington. We are not better off than we were, but we can be and we will be with a new majority, with a change in administration policy, and new leadership in the White House. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the majority leader is correct. With these 25, we will have confirmed 198 of the President's judicial nominees, 100 of which were confirmed thanks to the efforts of Senator Leahy and the other members of the Judiciary Committee while the Democrats controlled the Senate. In return for the President's commitment, which Mr. Card has conveyed to us, that there will be no further judicial recess appointments for the remainder of his term, we have committed to confirm now 25 of the judicial nominations currently on the Executive Calendar by the end of June. Some may entail more floor time than others, but there will be a vote on each of the 25 nominations and, if necessary, I will support cloture on any of these 25 that should be necessary.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this week our country observes National Police Week, a time to honor the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to bring peace--and peace of mind--to America's cities, towns, and neighborhoods. Tomorrw, Police Week culminates in Peace Officers Memorial Day, when we pay special honor to those officers who gave their lives in he line of duty. This memorial has a long history. In 1789, a U.S. Marshal named Robert Forsyth was shot and killed in the line of duty. Since then, over 14,000 law enforcement officers have given their lives to protect the liberties upon which America was founded. Police officers have always served as the first line of protection for our communities. But 3 years ago, on September 11, our Nation gained a new appreciation both for the dangers they face and for the courage they routinely exhibit. We owe our police officers a debt of gratitude that is immeasurable and unending. Every year we honor those that lost their lives in the line of duty and carve their names into the Police Memorial so that future generations will know who they are, and that they lived, and died, as heroes. This year, one of South Dakota's heroes will be honored and remembered. Deputy Bill Davis joined the Moody County Sheriff's Office in 1982, where he served as deputy sheriff for 21 years. Like so many of our officers, Deputy Davis's service to his community was bigger than his badge. Bill Davis was a veteran of the U.S. Navy and the National Guard. He embodied the values of community service and civic duty throughout his life. Last November, while investigating a car accident, Deputy Davis was struck by a car and killed. As we commemorate the heroism of Deputy Bill Davis, and all those who lost their lives in the line of duty, we cannot help but acknowledge the risks undertaken each and every day by America's police officers. Our police officers do not ask for reward or recognition, merely the tools they need to do their job. And in return for all they have given us, we have an obligation to ensure they have every available resource necessary to keep our neighborhoods safe. Over the past year, I have spent a lot of time meeting with South Dakota's police officers, asking about the specific challenges they face, and what we can do here in the Senate to support them. The most pressing issue for our Nation's law enforcement is the added responsibility and burden of being first responders in the event of terrorist attack. The complexity of this new role requires training and tools that no small local police department could be expected to have on its own. That is why I am pleased that South Dakota recently received $15 million in grants from the Department of Homeland Security to pay for new counterterrorism training and technologies. In addition, dozens of our local police and sheriffs' departments received Federal grants last year for first responder training and equipment, such as bulletproof vests. I was pleased that because of the great work being done in my State, we were able to ensure that the South Dakota Police Chiefs and Sheriffs Associations received $1.5 million in Federal funding in 2003, and an additional $250,000 in 2004. Rural communities, such as those in South Dakota, have a number of unique law enforcement challenges, as well. People in rural areas face the same problems of gangs and drugs as their urban counterparts, but with fewer officers and across broader geographic areas. Methamphetamine production and use, for example, is a growing concern for South Dakota's communities and families. Because the ingredients and the equipment used to produce methamphetamines are so inexpensive and readily available, the drug can be produced in homes. Over the past several years, methamphetamine labs have proliferated throughout South Dakota, and law enforcement has struggled to keep up with its troubling growth. To help law enforcement combat the spread of methamphetamine and other challenges, I have introduced the Rural Safety Act, which would authorize grants to establish methamphetamine prevention and treatment pilot programs in rural areas, and provide additional financial support to local law enforcement. In addition, I have recently joined with Senator Johnson in cosponsoring the Federal Emergency Meth Lab Cleanup Funding Act of 2004, which helps our local law enforcement and communities with the contamination left behind by meth labs. For all the work we are doing to support our police, this weeks reminds us that we are asking them to do more with less. Unfortunately, under the administration's Fiscal Year 2004 budget, funding for several important programs related to State and local law enforcement are drastically reduced. Of particular concern is the administration's cut to the COPS program. Since 1994, South Dakota has received $43.7 million from the COPS program for much-needed training, equipment, and new police officers, including officers for the Spearfish, Custer, Huron, and Tripp police and sheriff departments. In the finest tradition of community policing, these officers are out in our neighborhoods, working with schools, churches, and businesses to find new ways to make our streets safer. Over the past 10 years, COPS is responsible for putting more than 100,000 new police officers on the streets throughout our country and was pivotal in the historic reductions in crime we saw during the 1990s. But despite its ongoing success, the COPS budget has been targeted for cuts by this administration every year--in fact, last year the administration proposed eliminating COPS altogether. For FY 2005, the administration has proposed a staggering 86 percent cut for the COPS program--from $703 million to only $44 million. More than ever, we depend upon our police officers' ability to protect our communities from combating terrorism, to protecting our citizens from the dangers of drug abuse, to helping young people stay clear of trouble. State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers are contributing on a daily basis to the effort to make our Nation safer and more secure. We have a responsibility to provide them the support they need. This week, we honor officers, such as Deputy Bill Davis who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our communities and for our safety. The debt we owe them can never be repaid. But this week, and every week, we have an obligation to commit ourselves to ensuring that the priorities of America's police men and women are at the very top of our agenda. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am proud to announce to the Senate today the names of the young men and women who were selected to receive special awards from the American Automobile Association. Eight safety patrollers will receive the 2004 AAA School Safety Patrol Lifesaving Medal Award, the highest honor given to members of the school safety patrol. Another safety patroller will receive the special honor of the AAA National Patroller of the Year. They will receive their awards this weekend and I want to say how proud we are of them. There are roughly 500,000 members of the AAA School Safety Patrol in this country, helping in over 50,000 schools. Every day, these young people ensure that their peers arrive safely at school in the morning, and back home in the afternoon. Most of the time, they accomplish their jobs uneventfully. But on occasion, these volunteers must make split-second decisions, placing themselves in harm's way to save the lives of others. The heroic actions of this year's recipients exemplify this selflessness. The first AAA Lifesaving Medal recipient comes from Centereach, NY. His name is Shawn Rooney. On the afternoon of November 18, 2003, Shawn, age 13, was on patrol in front of St. Joseph School. A 9-year old boy, Zachary Chase, ran into the street to catch up with his class as a mini school bus was approaching. Shawn noticed that Zachary was in danger, grabbed his backpack, and pulled him back. Zachary was only one step away from the front of the bus. This year's second AAA Lifesaving Medal honoree comes from Manassas, VA. Josh Wampler, age 11, of Weems Elementary School, was approaching his bus stop on October 9, 2003, when he heard a woman yelling to a young body. Josh saw that a 3-year-old, Isaac, was standing in the middle of the street as a car was approaching. Josh carefully checked the traffic and met Isaac in the middle of the street. The driver of the car saw the patroller and child and was able to stop in time. Josh escorted Isaac safely to the side of the road and out of harm's way. The next AAA Lifesaving Medal winner comes from Bristow, VA. On the afternoon of October 14, 2003, Andrew Deem, age 11, was at his patrol station at Bristow Run Elementary School, when he saw a 2-year- old, Anthony D'Areagelis, walking with his mother. His mother was pushing a small child in a stroller, and Anthony ran away from his mother, down a hill, and into the busy street. Andrew quickly saw that Anthony was in danger, grabbed him, and brought him back to safety. Andrew also stopped Anthony's mother from running out into the street after her child. The fourth AAA Lifesaving Medal recipient is also a student at Bristow Run Elementary School in Bristow, VA. On October 14, 2003, John Hickey, age 10, witnessed the event that took place with Patroller Andrew Deem. As Mrs. D'Areagelis ran after her 2-year-old, Anthony, the stroller that she had been pushing with Patrick D'Areagelis aboard began rolling into the street. John Hickey acted quickly and placed his foot into the street to stop the stroller from rolling any further. As he did this, an SUV drove by at a considerable speed, grazed Anderw's shoe, and did not stop. The next AAA Lifesaving Medal honoree comes from Culpepper, VA. Vincent Verardo, age 10, is a patroller at Epiphany Catholic School. On a morning in April, 2003, Vincent was at his patrol station in the school's parking lot, when he saw 4-year-old Paul Thomas run back to his car to retrieve something he had left behind. Paul ran in front of a car leaving its parking space, and Vincent quickly ran to the car, took Paul by the arm, and brought him back to safety. The driver of the car attested that they had not seen the 4-year-old until Vincent was present. The sixth AAA Lifesaving Medal winner is from Harrah, WA. Martay Gunnier, of Harrah Elementary School, was at her post on the afternoon of October 28, 2003, when she saw Raymond James, age 7, run out into the street to meet his mother on the other side without stopping to wait for a clear crossing. Martay acted quickly by taking Raymond by the arm and pulling him back to safety and out of the way of two oncoming vehicles. This year's seventh AAA Lifesaving Medal recipient is from Milwaukee, WI. Michael Chobanian, age 13, is a student at James Fennimore Cooper Elementary School. Michael was at his post on December 3, 2003, when he saw a 6-year-old, Chantal Hill, approach the street. Michael told her not to cross it, but she did not hear him and darted out into the street just as a parked car pulled away from the curb and began approaching quickly. Michael realized that the driver of the moving vehicle would not be able to see Chantal because their view was blocked by another parked car. He quickly yelled, ``Watch out!'' and reached to pull her out of the path of the moving car. The driver of the car swept by and slowed farther down the street, after realizing what could have happened. The eighth AAA Lifesaving Medal winner is from Akron, OH. On the morning of October 23, 2003, Robert H. Clement, age 10, was at his post at Pfeiffer Elementary, when he saw Aidan Robertson, a 2-year- old, slip away from his mother and run out into the street. Robert immediately dropped his patrol flag and ran into the street to help Aidan. Robert returned Aidan to his mother after narrowly escaping oncoming traffic by an estimated margin of only 4 feet. In addition to honoring safety patrollers with the Lifesaving Medal Award, AAA also recognizes the School Safety Patroller of the Year. This award is presented to patrollers who perform duties above and beyond their normal responsibilities and demonstrate outstanding leadership, dependability, and academic strength. This year, the Safety Patroller of the Year is Katie Wright, age 11, a safety patroller at Randolph Howell Elementary School in Columbia, TN. Katie was selected because of her leadership abilities, academic achievement, and involvement in numerous school and civic activities. Katie wrote an essay on her school safety patrol experience and said, ``Safety Patrol has provided me with several qualities that have helped me in becoming a leader.'' Among the qualities she mentions are patience, compassion, self-respect, charisma, responsibility, and self- discipline. She and all of the other AAA winners deserve our thanks and admiration. On behalf of the Senate, I extend congratulations and thanks to these young men and women. They are assets to their communities, and their families and neighbors should be very proud of their courage and dedication. I would also like to recognize the American Automobile Association for providing the supplies and training necessary to keep the safety patrol on duty nationwide. Since the 1920s, AAA clubs across the country have sponsored student safety patrols to guide and protect younger classmates against traffic accidents. Easily recognizable by their fluorescent orange safety belts and shoulder straps, safety patrol members represent the very best of their schools and communities. Experts credit school safety patrol programs with helping to lower the number of traffic accidents and fatalities involving young children. We owe AAA our gratitude for their tireless efforts to ensure that our Nation's children arrive to and from school safely and soundly. And we owe our thanks to these exceptional young men and women for their selfless actions. The discipline and courage they display deserves the praise and recognition of their schools, their communities, and the Nation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last month the Department of Commerce reported that my home State of South Dakota had the Nation's second- highest rate of growth in per-capita personal income during 2003. This surely comes as welcome news to many South Dakotans who have struggled to make ends meet during our Nation's recent economic downturn. But now is not the time for us to congratulate ourselves. Too many Americans still can't find work. Too many Americans still don't have health insurance. And of those lucky enough to have health insurance, too many Americans can barely afford it. Last Thursday, Alan Greenspan warned that rising deficits threaten the long-term stability of our economy and he is right. We need sound fiscal policies that preserve and protect the health of our economy. We must do everything we can to ensure that the economic recovery finally takes hold, and that the benefits of the recovery extend to all Americans, not just to a privileged few. Unfortunately, even after last year's encouraging growth in personal income, South Dakotans still tend to earn far less than the national average, and the same is true for many other rural States in our region. Even worse, average income figures conceal wide disparities in wealth between those at the top and those at the bottom even within our States. Sadly, rates of poverty in many parts of rural America are worse than we find in countries we often consider to be ``developing.'' This is a quiet national crisis that we must address. To reduce the prosperity gap between rural States and the rest of the Nation, Congress has created a variety of Federal programs designed specifically to promote rural economic development. Unfortunately, the administration proposes to cut many of these programs, despite the positive results they have achieved. Instead of pulling the rug out from under those who need our help the most, we should be supporting programs that provide a helping hand to farmers, ranchers, and small businesspeople in rural areas. With our help, they can bring the benefits of economic recovery to more Americans than ever before. Small businesses are the backbone of this economy. According to the Small Business Administration, or SBA, businesses with 500 or fewer employees are responsible for roughly three-quarters of net job creation in this country. In my State, and in many other rural States, this figure is even higher. According to the FDIC the 7(a) program is one of the single largest sources of long-term capital to small businesses in this country. By providing lenders a guarantee against default by small borrowers, it provides capital to those borrowers on more favorable terms than they could get anywhere else. This is not a big-government handout, as some might be tempted to claim. It is a helping hand from the government to the invisible hand of the market. So I was disappointed in January when the SBA was forced to temporarily suspend its most successful small business loan program, the 7(a) Loan Guarantee Program, because the Bush administration failed to support sufficient operating funds. Unfortunately, this is the most recent manifestation of the administration's history of underfunding successful small business programs. According to the FDIC, the 7(a) program is one of the single largest sources of long-term capital to small businesses in the country. By providing lenders a guarantee against default by small borrowers, it provides capital to those borrowers on more favorable terms than they get anywhere else. This is not a big government handout as some might be tempted to claim. It is a helping hand from the government to the invisible hand of the market. With the funds acquired through the 7(a) program, small businesspeople are free to expand their operations as they see fit, and their positive record of job creation shows plainly that they know how to do so effectively. For all of its rhetoric about supporting small business, how much did the Bush administration devote to this key program in the proposed budget for the upcoming year? Not one dollar. The administration actually proposes to eliminate the funding for the 7(a) program--in effect, doing away with the single most helpful nudge the Government can provide to these businesses. In my view, this is not the way to boost job creation. The abandonment of the 7(a) program is not an isolated case. It is part of a larger pattern of cuts to programs that always have assisted small business especially. Consider the SBA's Microloan Program. Under this program, the SBA provides funds to qualified nonprofit organizations which then make up loans of up to $35,000 to new and existing small business. According to the SBA, the average loan is around $10,500. The nonprofit lenders that participate in the program also provide management and technical assistance to borrowers to ensure that they have the skills necessary to succeed. Since the Microloan Program was established in 1992, it has facilitated more than 12,500 loans with $102 billion. Despite the fact that the borrowers who benefit from this program tend to have relatively low credit ratings which makes them unattractive to commercial lenders, the program has had only one loss to date. Few government programs can match that record of success. And few provide as much value to able entrepreneurs. Regrettably, the administration has proposed eliminating this program, as well. Another critical area that has been shortchanged is the small business outreach in Indian country. Native Americans continue to suffer from rates of unemployment far greater than those that existed in America even during the Great Depression. Part of this problem stems from the lack of an active small business community in much of Indian country and a lack of resources to help stimulate the creation of such a community. Years of experience with efforts to reduce poverty in Indian country have taught us that market-based, business-oriented approaches hold the greatest promise for success. But the market will not eliminate poverty on its own in Indian country. The neglect by the Federal Government has gone on far too long. The poverty is too extreme, too deep rooted. We need special outreach efforts dedicated to bringing new business skills and financial resources to Native-American communities. But these efforts have fallen victim to the administration's budget priorities. For the second year in a row, the administration has proposed to eliminate all funding for Native-American business outreach. The list of small business programs on the chopping block is too long to mention here. Cumulatively, the SBA has already seen its resources reduced by this administration by 25 percent, giving it the unfortunate distinction of being the most cut of all 26 Federal agencies. This, to me, does not demonstrate a commitment to economic development in job creation. We need to restore adequate funding to the SBA. While the SBA's budget has suffered the deepest cuts under the administration, it is not the only agency that has seen its small business and rural development programs cut. The Treasury Department oversees a fund that provides capital to community development financial institutions, or CDFIs. These are specialized private sector institutions that provide financial products and services to people and communities underserved by traditional financial markets. The Treasury Department estimates that every dollar it invests in a CDFI leverages 12 non-Federal or private sector dollars. There are 13 CDFIs in South Dakota, and they do enormous good. The Lakota Fund is one that operates on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The two counties that make up the reservation are the twenty-sixth and second poorest counties in America. Few areas need economic development as badly as Pine Ridge. When the Lakota Fund began lending in 1986, there were 40 businesses on the reservation, and most of them were owned by nontribal members. Today, thanks in large measure to the financial and technical assistance delivered by the Lakota Fund, Pine Ridge has nearly 100 businesses, and many of them are owned by members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. If the more than 800 CDFIs around the United States had more funds to lend, there is no telling how much good they could achieve. But instead of helping CDFIs meet the growing demand for their services, the administration has underfunded them dramatically. This year, like last year, it requested only three-fifths of what the CDFIs received in 2002. The President's proposed budget cuts also provide cuts in the 2002 Farm Bill. Democrats worked alongside Republicans to establish new initiatives under the Department of Agriculture to bring new jobs and opportunities to rural communities. When the President signed the Farm Bill into law, many people believed those programs would become a reality. I believed the President when he expressed his support for those programs with the stroke of his pen. But since then, many of these programs have languished due to inaction or even opposition by the White House. From my State and several neighboring States, including Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Dakota, the establishment of a Northern Great Plains Regional Authority was one of the most exciting features of the Farm Bill. This authority was modeled on the successful Appalachian Regional Commission, which demonstrated the power of a regional approach to economic development. Unfortunately, nearly 3 years after its creation, the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority has yet to fulfill even a fraction of its promise, in large part because the administration has not fulfilled the responsibilities to the Authority. The administration failed to appoint Federal and tribal cochairs to lead the Authority, and it has failed to support any funding for the Authority's activities. Other programs in the Farm Bill are also neglected. The Rural Business Investment Program, which is supposed to provide millions of dollars to private companies willing to invest and leverage that money in rural areas, has not been implemented even though the Farm Bill was enacted over 2 years ago. The same goes for the Rural Strategic Investment Program which was designed to help rural areas develop plans to attract new investment. And the list of underfunded programs goes on and on. They include cuts to firefighter assistance grants, coupled with proposed changes in the eligibility criteria to favor urban areas; cuts in assistance for rural hospitals, where costs are rising fast--many rural hospitals are already in danger of having to close their doors; cuts to USDA community facility loans, which help finance construction of fire halls, clinics, daycare centers, senior centers, and critical community facilities; cuts to rural housing loans; cuts to rural electric contribution and telecommunication programs. It is hard to understand how we can slash and eliminate programs that are designed specifically to strengthen the economy of rural America and then claim to be champions of rural communities and small business. Unfortunately, the President's two-word solution to the economic struggles of rural America is the same two-word answer he offers on virtually every other problem: tax cuts. In the face of exploding deficits and rising health care costs that threaten the long-term sustainability of our economy, the President continues to insist on the wrong kinds of tax cuts. Many of us support tax cuts if they are smart, if they are targeted, if they are fair, if they are affordable. The right kinds of tax cuts can help stimulate the economy during times of economic distress. That is why some of us introduced S. 2245 to create a small business health tax credit that would reduce the burden of health costs on small business and enable them to retain and hire more workers. That is also why we worked to reach a compromise on the estate tax that would exempt all but the very richest Americans and fully exempt farms, ranches, and small businesses that parents pass on to their children. But tax cuts cannot be our only weapon in the battle against rural poverty. Independent analysis shows the vast majority of small businesses receive little or no benefit from the President's tax cuts. And let us not forget that these cuts have a cost, or as Chairman Greenspan put it, ``The free lunch has still to be invented.'' In order to help finance his tax cuts, the President has proposed cutting or eliminating program after program designed to help small business and residents of rural America. If the choice is between ruinously expensive tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans and proven, cost- effective, and desperately needed economic development programs for rural America, I think the answer should be clear. We should stick with what works. We should invest in the targeted, proven solutions we know will bring new prosperity to Main Street, not just to Wall Street. We need to continue to support programs designed to improve the quality of life in rural America, and we need to uphold our common commitment to ensuring that those programs succeed. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, tomorrow is a very special day for two little twin brothers in Rapid City, South Dakota. Ethan and Abraham Allen turn 2 tomorrow. Among the people who will be there to celebrate with them is their father, Lt. Jeff Allen. Lt. Allen came closer than he likes to think to not seeing his sons' birthday. On April 6, he was in a convoy near Mosul, traveling south through Iraq, when a homemade bomb exploded under his Humvee. The explosion filled the calves on both of Lt. Allen's legs with shrapnel. His right ear drum was shattered, the retina in his right eye was torn, and he suffered serious lacerations on his face. He had been in Iraq for just under a month. Like more than 40 percent of the American troops in Iraq today, Lt. Allen is a reservist. He is a nurse anesthetist with the Army Reserve's 348th Combat Support unit. When he is not on active duty, he works at Rapid City Regional Hospital. Like so many others civilian and military--he was in Iraq trying to save lives. Before he arrived home on Monday night, Lt. Allen spent a month at Brooks Army Medical Center in San Antonio, where he underwent three surgeries, including skin grafts to his legs. He's likely to need more surgery, but doctors are hopeful about his recovery. He and his wife, Andrea, have been married for 6 years. He has been in the Army Reserve for 5 years. At the beginning of our life as a nation, Thomas Paine said, ``If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace.'' America is fortunate today that we still have people, like Lt. Jeff Allen, who are willing to sacrifice so much and risk their lives so that their children will know peace. As he and his wife prepare to celebrate their sons' birthdays, we thank Lt. Allen and wish him a full and speedy recovery.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, by reauthorizing IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, today, the Senate reaffirms America's commitment to ensure that every child is given the opportunity to develop his other God-given talents and abilities to their fullest potential. I commend our colleagues, Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy, for their diligence and bipartisan leadership. This bill demonstrates that the Senate can indeed do good and important work when both sides are willing to listen to each other and make principled compromises. IDEA is more than simply an education program; it is one of our Nation's most important civil rights programs. Because of this law, America now provides real educational opportunities for children who, in an earlier time, might never even have attended a school. It is not only the children who benefit; all Americans benefit when we develop the potential of every American. This bill strengthens America's commitment to ensure that every student has access to a free and appropriate education. It holds accountable for helping each child achieve his or her potential at the same time it reduces the paperwork burden on schools and increases local flexibility. This bill makes it easier for parents to participate in their children's education and improves the process for resolving disputes. It provides resources to make sure that special education teachers and other personnel are well trained and well supported. It strengthens early intervention and preschool services, to make sure that children with disabilities get the best possible start in school. It also creates a stronger bridge between high school and post- secondary education or employment, to help young people with disabilities become full contributing members of American society. WE know that schools often face challenges in meeting IDEA's requirements. We also know that man parents of children with disabilities consider the law complicated, and they sometimes don't know where to turn for help. It is my hope that improvements in this bill will make the law easier to understand and follow for everyone involved--parents, teachers and school administrators. I also hope that Democrats and Republicans will continue to work together to make additional improvements and changes in the future. But even the best laws cannot work if they are not funded. I am greatly disappointed that our Republican colleagues have refused to adequately fund this law. It has been 29 years since the Federal Government promised to provide 40 percent of the cost of special education in America, yet we still provide only 19 percent of those costs. But schools have to provide the services--even if Congress doesn't provide the funds. This places tremendous pressure on local school districts to shortchange other education programs, and can create unnecessary tensions between families of children with special needs, and other families. The bipartisan Harkin-Hagel amendment would have guaranteed full funding for IDEA. When we first considered that idea, the Republican leadership told us, ``That's a great idea--but first we have to reform the program.'' So we worked with our colleagues to make those reforms. Yet most of our Republican colleagues still refused to support full funding. Unfortunately, the Republicans' idea of meeting us halfway seems to be to create a program but not fund it--to pass an authorization bill but then refuse to pay for it. They would rather spend the money on more tax breaks for millionaires. I think that is a shame. I urge the President and our Republican colleagues to reconsider their priorities and work with us in good faith to honor the Federal Government's promise to provide 40 percent of all special education funding. As I have said before, real reforms require real resources. I have spoken with many teachers and parents in South Dakota who tell me that, in an ideal world, every child would have an individual education plan. Every child has strengths and abilities, just as every child faces challenges. And every child benefits when the adults in his or her life work together to develop those strengths and abilities, and help them deal with their challenges. This bill provides a blueprint to make sure that young people in greatest need of such individualized attention and instruction get those opportunities. It is a bipartisan victory for those children, their families, and all Americans. There are significant differences between the House and Senate bills that will need to be resolved if Congress is to complete action on this legislation. Senator Kennedy has informed me that he hopes to work out a preconference agreement on several key issues. I will support him in this effort and look forward to working with the majority leader to make progress on this important legislative issue.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this morning the distinguished majority leader made some comments regarding ambassadorial nominations. This is an important issue, and I thought I would take a minute to talk about it and respond to some of the concerns we heard expressed on the floor over the last several days. Last Thursday, I was pleased the Senate confirmed 20 ambassadors, including Ambassador Negroponte for the tough assignment in Iraq after June 30. I note Ambassador Negroponte's nomination was completed with near record speed, given that he was confirmed 1 week after he was nominated by the President. The other 19 ambassadors were confirmed less than a week after they were reported out of the Foreign Relations Committee. By confirming those 19, the Senate filled three vacant U.S. Embassies. We had hoped to confirm other career Foreign Service officers for the vacancies that exist, including the Embassy in Nepal, which has been the site of some considerable violence over the last several months. Unfortunately, I am told there is still an objection to his confirmation from the Republican side, meaning the Embassy will continue to be vacant for the foreseeable future. At the moment, I am told the State Department has nearly 170 Embassies around the world. Eight are currently vacant, meaning they have no confirmed ambassador. Of those eight, the President has chosen not to fill two of them, and two are currently too dangerous to fill. One is awaiting action in the Foreign Relations Committee, and the Republicans are objecting to another. The last two, in Sweden and Finland, are vacant because the political appointees who previously served in those posts did not serve out the terms they were committed to serve. Last week, several of our Republican friends noted that the vacancies send a negative signal to these countries. I hope the President will move with dispatch to fill these vacancies as soon as possible. I also hope the President will work with us to address another problem: Ambassadors pulled out of the duties for which they were confirmed so that they can assume assignments in or related to Iraq. Here are three examples. Our Ambassador to the Philippines has not been in Manila for the last several months, even though that country, which is hosting American forces that are training Filipino forces, just went through a tight national election. Our Ambassador to Kuwait is resident in Baghdad. And our Ambassador to the Bahrain has been in Iraq since February. That is not to say these jobs they are performing in Iraq are not important; they are. But if we are going to come to the floor and call attention to problems filling vacancies in the diplomatic corps, we ought to be sure we are considering the whole picture.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this morning in the New York Times, there was yet another reminder of the great difficulty seniors are having in dealing with the Medicare prescription drug discount card, so-called. I noticed with some amusement a number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle came to the floor highly critical of those of us who have expressed skepticism and concern about the drug card. Some have even expressed the belief that our motivation in coming to the floor to talk about these shortcomings in the drug card and the prescription drug benefit were politically motivated. The New York Times has an article this morning quoting people who have nothing to do with politics. The title of the article is ``73 Options for Medicare Plan Fuel Chaos, Not Prescriptions.'' I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, to excerpt from this article, it talks about: Last week, when the federal government rolled out a new discount drug program, Mrs. Fruhling-- Mildred Fruhling studied her options with the same thoroughness with which she has been reviewing all of this now for some time. ``What she found,'' according to the article, ``was confusion: 73 competing drug discount cards, each providing different savings on different medications, and all subject to change.'' Quoting Mrs. Fruhling: ``I personally feel I can do better on my own,'' she said. But she added, ``At this point, I don't think anyone can make an evaluation.'' The article goes on to say: Even before they go into effect on June 1, the cards--which are approved by Medicare but offered by various companies and organizations--have been the subject of heated political debate, an AARP advertising campaign about how confusing they are and anxious speculation from those they are supposed to help. Among retirees of different income groups interviewed last week, the initial reaction was incomprehensible. It goes on to quote Mrs. Florence Daniels, a retired engineer who gets less than $1,000 a month from Social Security. She did not use the Government Web site that is currently available to compare drug cards, in part because she cannot afford a computer. She states: I'm trying to absorb all the information, but it's ridiculous. Not just ridiculous, it's scary. If there was a single card and it was administered by Medicare, and it got the cost of drugs down, wonderful, marvelous. But with these cards, the only thing we know is that we'll have to pay money to other people to administer what we can get and what we can't get. Sidney Bild is another retiree quoted in the article, a retired doctor in Chicago. He compared the drug discount cards with prices he paid ordering his drugs by mail from Canada. Dr. Bild pays $4,000 to $5,000 a year for five medications. When he checked the Government Web site, he said the best plans were about 50 to 60 percent higher than he was paying. At the Leonard Covello Senior Center in East Harlem, the article quotes another senior, Ramon Velez, a 72-year-old taxi driver who is retired. He said: I was laughing at the people in the ads [that I have seen on television] but it's true. Everyone's confused. That summarizes what many of us have expressed now for some time. People are confused. They are terribly frustrated. They are anxious. They do not want to have to deal with 73 different options and there is chaos as a result. Unfortunately, the Congress had an opportunity to side with seniors or side with the drug companies, and clearly this is a drug company benefit, this is a drug company program. It has nothing to do with helping seniors.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, first, I express my support for the remarks just made by the majority leader with regard to the position of the Senate on a bipartisan basis regarding the tragedy involving prisoner abuse. I hope the limited debate that was devoted to the resolution last night will not be seen by anyone as minimizing our strong feelings and the unanimity with which we wanted to express those feelings through that resolution. I appreciate the effort made by many of our colleagues who participated in the drafting of the resolution, and I am grateful for the strong show of support expressed through the resolution last night. We condemn these acts. We apologize to the world community for the involvement of the United States in the humiliation and the extraordinary violation of human rights that we have witnessed with the photographs themselves. We also wanted to say again that we recognize this is the exception to U.S. military deportment, not the rule, and that the vast majority of military men and women have served admirably, served their country and the cause, have advanced the goal, and have deserved our commendation and thanks. I think it is critical that we keep that in balance. I hope that as we continue to conduct oversight properly, we maintain not only the interest in holding those at the lower ends of the military echelon accountable, but I would hope we would not allow anyone to use those directly involved, whose pictures are shown, as the scapegoats for everything else that happened. I still have yet to see the degree of accountability up and down the chain of command that I would think would go without question. We will have a lot more to say about accountability, responsibility, and those in the higher echelons of Government and the military who themselves ought to be asked to account for their actions and their decisions. In that regard, I would hope we could continue to press for even more oversight as the Armed Services Committee is doing today. Someone proposed a select committee, a bipartisan, bicameral select committee to allow for a more thorough investigation in a collective way, rather than have the scores, I guess, of subcommittees and full committees on both sides of the Congress reviewing this material. Perhaps one committee, which could be formed with the exclusive purpose of reviewing the facts and coming to some conclusion, may be of value. I am not proposing it today. I noted that others have made this suggestion, and I think it merits our consideration. I know the majority leader also talked about nominations. Last week, we confirmed I believe it was 19 ambassadorial nominations and a number of other executive appointments. We will continue to work with our Republican colleagues, but as many have heard me say on countless occasions, this has to be reciprocal. We cannot be confirming nominations and dealing with the judicial appointments and all of the other things expected of us if the Democratic nominees continue to languish on the calendar and in the administration itself. We have over a dozen Democratic nominees who have not yet been given even vetting, much less the actual official nomination. We will continue to work with our Republican colleagues and with the administration, but we have to be given the confidence that there will be reciprocity and some degree of appreciation for the need to move all nominees, regardless of political affiliation or of position. There are two other issues I wish to talk about briefly. First of all, I wish to thank Judge Becker, who has been involved now for many months in helping the Senate find a resolution to the complicated, controversial, and complex array of challenges we face with regard to asbestos. After the vote on asbestos a few weeks ago, Senator Frist and I asked Judge Becker if he would be willing to engage in mediation to see if we can move forward on a number of the outstanding questions. Judge Becker worked tirelessly for the last couple of weeks and met with Senator Frist and me almost on a daily basis to provide us with his progress reports. We focused on claims values, projections, and the overall amount of the fund. Unfortunately, we were not able to move nearly as far as many of us would have hoped on the issue of claims values. Some movement I think was made but little on projections. Perhaps the greatest movement was made on the overall amount. Business came up a little bit, from 114, with a $10 billion contingency, to 116, with a $12 billion contingency. Labor came down from 154 to 134, with a $15 billion contingency. I am deeply troubled by the insurance industry. The insurance industry again issued a statement in the form of a letter that said they will not support a legislative response to asbestos. Their intransigence was a major problem in bringing any kind of resolution to this matter. I am not giving up. I am pleased that Senator Frist has agreed to meet again this week to ensure that our discussions and perhaps our negotiations can continue as well. This is too important an issue simply to say we failed. We need to keep the pressure on. We need to find a way with which to resolve these three outstanding issues in particular: the overall funding level, the issue of claims values and appropriating the necessary values to circumstances, and then certainly our projections, how many people will definitely be affected, and how can we then come to some conclusion about the other outstanding questions involving existing cases as well as what happens if the fund runs out and is sunset. Finally, let me just say later on today we will have a vote in relation to the FSC bill. It is a cloture vote. I urge my colleagues to support cloture today. This has been a long and unnecessarily complicated struggle. All we have wanted from the beginning was an opportunity to vote on a number of key amendments. We have had the vote now on overtime. We have had the vote on outsourcing. We intend to have a vote today on unemployment compensation and a number of other issues we felt were very important in the overall context of the creation of good jobs. We are not finished. There will be other amendments offered to other vehicles, but, in large measure, because we held our position on cloture, we are now at a point where we have been able to protect our Members and offer the amendments we thought were most important. We will certainly work with our Republican friends to bring the debate to a close, deal with a number of still germane amendments that have to be addressed on FSC before we move on to other important legislative matters, including IDEA. We hope to complete our work on FSC today; if not today, certainly tomorrow. We will then move on to other matters. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this Senate resolution expressing our clear condemnation of the despicable abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. Nearly a week ago, I called on the Senate to clearly and forthrightly condemn the despicable acts perpetrated at Abu Ghraib prison. The pictures and description of the treatment inflicted on Iraqi detainees was too brutal, too inconsistent with what this country stands for, and far too consequential for our troops for this body to stay silent. Given the severe consequences on our troops and our efforts in Iraq, it is important that the Senate say to the world that: No. 1, the Senate commends the American forces serving honorably in Iraq; No. 2, the Senate condemns the mistreatment of Iraqi detainees and apologizes to the victims of this abuse; No. 3, the Senate is prepared to exercise its oversight responsibility and fully investigate these incidents; and No. 4, the United States government--both the executive branch and the legislative branch--will hold accountable all of those responsible for these despicable acts. This resolution does each of these and makes clear that the Senate will fulfill its responsibility in the face of these troubling revelations. That's what the resolution does. Let me say a few words, Mr. President, about what it does not do. The resolution does not spell the end of our work, In fact, the Senate is just getting down to the business of investigating what happened and how widespread these practices are. The Armed Services Committee has another hearing tomorrow. We look forward to hearing the testimony of General Taguba, someone who had the courage to fully document these abuses not just in Iraq but Afghanistan as well and bring them to the attention of his civilian and military superiors. The hearing also comes as news agencies publish reports of even wider spread abuse practices in Iraq, all of which apparently began in Guantanamo when senior administration officials adopted a policy to permit interrogation tactics that this country has never before allowed. So we are at the beginning of this effort, not the end. Nor does this resolution limit in any way whom or what Congress should and must investigate. As horrendous as they are, we are now told that these pictures may only be the tip of the iceberg. And we learned today that the International Committee of the Red Cross was expressing concerns directly to the administration as early as March 2003--over a year ago. Lastly, this resolution does not absolve anyone. We will have done a great disservice in this investigation if only a handful of enlisted men and women are held accountable and the actions and decisions of those higher up in the military and civilian chain of command are ignored. Anyone who ordered these actions, tolerated these abuses, or contributed to an atmosphere that led to this mistreatment must be held accountable. I join with several of my colleagues--Republican and Democrat--who have made clear that we need to ensure that the entire chain of command is held accountable for these despicable acts, and we will have failed the American people if we do otherwise. Like most Americans, we learned about these horrific acts on national television. And like the overwhelming majority of Americans, we were shocked at the brutality the pictures depicted. The simple truth is that America stands for democracy and the unalienable rights of individuals, and the vast majority of Americans serving in Iraq embody those principles--and do so under unimaginably difficult and dangerous circumstances. In order to uphold the service and sacrifices of these fine men and women and to demonstrate to the world--yet again--what America truly stands for, we must send this clear message. The stakes here could not be higher. We are at a dangerous and difficult crossroads in Iraq. If these pictures go unanswered, the consequences could not be more grave for our troops and their security, for our goal of a free and unified Iraq, and for our hope for a stable Middle East.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I, too, will use my leader time and reserve the remainder of the allocation for our Democratic colleagues to use the other time in morning business. I share the sentiment expressed by the majority leader with regard to S. Con. Res. 99, regarding the Sudan. It is past time that we were heard on this troubling situation. I commend Senators Feingold and Brownback as well for their leadership. Late last year, United Nations Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland called the developing situation in the Darfur region of Sudan, where two rebel groups have been locked in a battle with Sudanese government forces and government-backed militias since February 2003, ``the world's worst humanitarian catastrophe.'' Mr. Egeland has seen a lot of disaster, and he does not use terms like catastrophe loosely. In a world increasingly torn asunder by ethnic and regional conflicts, calling Darfur the world's worst catastrophe is saying something. Unfortunately, it appears that Egeland has chosen the right word to describe this situation. Amnesty International has reported that it ``continues to receive details of horrifying attacks against civilians in villages by government warplanes, soldiers, and pro-government militia.'' Doctors Without Borders reported that the regions is the scene of ``catastrophic mortality rates.'' And American government and international estimates suggest that nearly 3 million people have been affected by the terrible fighting in Darfur; 700,000 have been displaced; 100,000 have fled to neighboring Chad, and 30,000 have been killed. Meanwhile, international aid agencies estimate that, as a result of this fighting, they have been able to help only 15 percent of the people who need it. The Sudanese Government has systematically and deliberately denied humanitarian assistance for, and international access to, this region. At the same time, credible reports suggest the militia forces backed by the Government of Sudan are engaged in the use of rape as a weapon of war, are abducting children, and are destroying food and water sources. If all this were not sad and outrageous enough, the Sudanese Government--the same one that is complicit in these atrocities--just Tuesday was chosen to serve on the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times recently described the situation in the Darfur region this way: I can't get the kaleidoscope of genocide out of my head since my trip last month to the Sudan-Chad border: the fresh graves, especially the extra-small mounds for children; the piles of branches on graves to keep wild animals from digging up corpses; the tales of women being first raped and then branded on the hand to stigmatize them forever; the isolated peasants, unfamiliar with electricity, who suddenly encounter the 21st century as helicopters machine-gun their children. Each of us hoped we would leave this hatred, violence and ethnic cleansing behind in the 20th century. At the very least, we must now ensure we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. I was heartened when the United States recently voted against a resolution backed by the United Nations Human Rights Commission because it didn't do enough to condemn ethnic cleansing in Darfur. And I am pleased that the President condemned the Sudanese Government's actions there. But that is just a first step. If the Government of Sudan ever wants to be welcomed into the community of nations, it must take concrete steps that befit a member of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. It must immediately take actions to cease the attacks in Darfur. It must allow the delivery of humanitarian assistance to people in the Darfur region. President Bush must direct the United States Representative to the United Nations to seek an official investigation by the United Nations to determine if crimes against humanity have been committed by the Government of Sudan in the Darfur region. This is the very least the international community must do, and we must do it now. Any delay will have a terrible cost in human lives.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise to comment as well on another matter closer to home. It is graduation season. Over the next several weeks, in cities and towns in South Dakota and across America, hundreds of thousands of young people will graduate from high school. Parents will tell their graduating sons and daughters, ``I'm proud of you.'' Unfortunately, many parents will also have to tell their children, ``I'm sorry.'' ``I'm sorry that we can't afford to send you to college.'' The novelist James Michener grew up dirt poor in Pennsylvania, but he got a good education. He once told an interviewer, ``I went to nine different universities and never paid a nickel of my own money. My wife got many scholarships. We are children of the United States.'' James Michener was able to graduate from college because America invested in him. In his case, it was the GI bill that opened the doors of higher education. In my own case, it was the Air Force ROTC that opened those doors. I was the first person in my family ever to go to college. I worked to pay part of my tuition, and my parents helped; my mother went back to work when I was in high school just to help pay for my college education. Even with all of us pitching in, I still could not have paid for college without help from the United States Government. I am deeply mindful of, and grateful for, the investment America made in me. It is partly because of my own background that I am troubled today to see many families in America priced out--or on the verge of being priced out--of the college market. Since President Bush took office, the average tuition at a 4-year public college has increased 28 percent. This year, tuition increased at State universities in all 50 States. In some States, tuition shot up as much as 40 percent. And more increases are slated for next year. The University of Kentucky is raising tuition for freshmen and sophomores by $618 next year. That is a 14-percent increase--on top of this year's 14-percent increase. The University of Missouri will see a 7.5-percent tuition increase next year--on top of this year's increase of 20 percent. In Texas, the University of Houston recently raised tuition by 25 percent. The University of Texas at Austin plans a 26-percent increase. And Texas A&M University will charge students 21 percent more. In Washington State, community college tuition is going up 7 percent, bringing the total increase over the past 5 years to more than 35 percent. In California, where budget cuts and tuition increases this year shut an estimated 175,000 students out of community colleges, State lawmakers are now considering a 44-percent increase in community college fees; that would be on top of last year's 64-percent increase. They are also looking at a 10-percent tuition increase for University of California students and a 9-percent budget cut for the Cal State system. At the same time tuition is increasing dramatically, the value of the Pell Grant, America's main college tuition assistance program, is declining. In 1979, the maximum Pell Grant covered 77 percent of the tuition at a 4-year public college or university. By 2001, that percentage had dropped to just 42 percent. Today, the average college student needs to come up with $3,800 per year out-of-pocket--that's after grants and loans. Most college students today work. In fact, more than three-quarters of all full-time students at public colleges and universities work, and they work an average of 22 hours per week. Yet student debt has doubled over the last decade. Students graduating from college this month will leave school with $17,000-worth of student loan debt; that's for undergraduate students. Professional and graduate students often graduate with $100,000--or more--in student loan debt. And they are luckier than some. The rise in college costs is outpacing the ability of many low-income families to pay for college. At 4-year public colleges, tuition costs for the lowest 20 percent of wage earners rose from 12 percent of family income in 1980 to 25 percent of family income in 2002. At 4-year private colleges, tuition costs for low-wage earners rose from 58 percent of family income in 1980 to 117 percent of family income in 2002. And according to the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, in the fall of 2003, at least 250,000 prospective college students were priced out of the college market. They had the grades to go to college; they just couldn't afford the tuition. When I graduated from high school, a college education was a big advantage. Today, it is rapidly becoming a necessity. The fastest- growing and best-paying jobs today require at least some college. Over the course of his or her career, a person with a 2-year college degree will earn an average of $400,000 more than a high school graduate. Someone with a 4-year degree will earn nearly $1 million more. But it is not just individuals who suffer when middle- and lower- income Americans are priced out of college. Our entire Nation suffers. Broad access to higher education is critical to America's economic future, our national security, our intellectual and cultural life, and our democracy. There was a story on the front page of the New York Times on Monday that ought to alarm us all. The headline read: ``U.S. is Losing Its Dominance in the Sciences.'' It said: The United States has started to lose its worldwide dominance in critical areas of science and innovation, according to federal and private experts who point to strong evidence like prizes awarded to Americans and the number of papers in major professional journals. . . . Foreign advances in basic science now often rival or even exceed America's. . . . It quoted John Jankowski, a senior analyst at the National Science Foundation, saying: The rest of the world is catching up. Science excellence is no longer the domain of just the U.S. The article cited three statistics to support that claim: First, in international competition involving industrial patents, the percentage won by Americans ``has fallen steadily over the decades and now stands at 52 percent.'' Second, the percentage of research papers by Americans published in top physics journals has declined from 61 percent in 1983 to just 29 percent this year. Finally, the share of Nobel Prizes for science won by Americans has fallen to 51 percent. These are prizes America dominated heavily from the 1960s well into the 1990s. Unless we reverse this decline and regain America's scientific and technological edge, our children will grow up in a less productive, less prosperous America. If we are going to meet the challenges of the future, we need the best thinking and best efforts of every American. Yet the doors to college are narrowing. What has the administration's response to this problem been? Deafening silence. The Higher Education Act is up for reauthorization. Yet this administration has put forward no real plan to make college more affordable. The Bush administration has stood by while States have slashed their education budgets and raised college tuition to close State budget shortfalls. The President's oversized tax cuts have eaten up Federal resources that we could otherwise invest in higher education, and in basic research and investment. Despite his repeated promises to increase the value of the average Pell Grant, the President's proposed budget for next year freezes the Pell Grant for the third year in a row. The President's budget also cuts the Perkins Loan program--the Federal work-study program that has helped tens of millions of middle- and lower-income students work their way through college. I hope we can come up with a better answer, and many of us have proposed one. We believe the Government can, and must, create an opportunity society, where every college-ready student or worker who needs to update his or her skills has the chance to go to college, or get additional training, without having to take on back-breaking debt to do it. We want to increase the maximum Pell Grant from $4,050 to $5,100, to double the HOPE Scholarship tax credit from $1,500 per student to $3,000 per student, and to make the education tax credits refundable. We also support efforts to help more African American, Hispanic, Native American, and other minority students attend college, because diversity strengthens our democracy and our economy. James Michener fought in World War II. He helped win perhaps the greatest battle of the last century. Americans in the 21st century will fight different battles. But the stakes are just as high. We need to make sure that every son and daughter of America has the chance to go to college if he or she can do the work. It is not just a matter of individual self-interest. In a real sense, it is a matter of our national survival.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, and I certainly will not object, we hope to work very closely with our Republican friends and have a good discussion and debate about the Negroponte nomination. I understand there are a number of other Senators who wish to be recognized in regard to this nomination. Last night, we confirmed two members of the Federal Marine Maritime Commission and the nominee for chief executive officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation. We are now going to get the agreement on Ambassador Negroponte, and we hope before the end of the day to announce an agreement on additional ambassadors who might be confirmed yet today as well. I hope all of the cooperation that is being demonstrated will allow the administration to reciprocate with a number of our nominees to various boards and commissions from whom we have yet to hear. So I look forward to working through the confirmation of the Negroponte nomination today and the ambassadors tonight, and our hope is we can get additional cooperation from the administration on our board nominees very shortly. I have no objection to going forward as the majority leader has now proposed.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I ask the majority leader if it is his intention to go back to the FSC bill after we have completed this work. I have consulted with the assistant Democratic leader. We are now down to four amendments which will only require 1 hour 35 minutes on our side. We are getting down to a very small number. Only 1 hour 35 minutes on four amendments, and we would be finished with the bill as far as our side is concerned. I ask the majority leader if it is his intention to complete work on the FSC bill.