Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is absent attending a funeral.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as we continue to debate the priorities of this year's budget resolution, I want to take this opportunity to discuss a growing problem in America--one that has had an especially devastating impact on South Dakota and other rural States. That problem is the spread of methamphetamine. Over the course of the last decade, there has been a dramatic increase in the trafficking and abuse of methamphetamine in rural States. In fact, a spokesman for the Drug Enforcement Agency recently stated, ``Meth is now the number one drug in rural America--absolutely, positively, end of question.'' South Dakota, like many States across the country, is struggling to find ways to combat this latest drug epidemic. Methamphetamine is highly addictive, and can have devastating health effects, including psychotic behavior and brain damage, and produces withdrawal symptoms of depression, anxiety, fatigue, paranoia, and aggression. Chronic methamphetamine use can cause anxiety, confusion, and violent behavior. Every year, hundreds of people die from methamphetamine-related causes, and the number of admissions to treatment for methamphetamine throughout the United States increased from 14,554 in 1992 to 80,678 in 2001, an increase of over 500 percent. The problem is getting worse. In 2001, 10 percent of all South Dakotans who sought State-funded inpatient treatment services indicated that meth was the primary substance of abuse. In 2002, the number grew to 17 percent. In June 2003, that percentage jumped to 33 percent. Fifty-seven out of 66 counties in South Dakota in 2001 reported problems with methamphetamine use, and because meth-related problems are showing increased movement from the outside edges of the State toward the center, the sad truth is that soon there won't be a single county in my State that is not seriously affected by methamphetamine. In addition to having serious adverse health affects, methamphetamine presents our Nation's law enforcement agencies with unique and significant challenges. Unlike other illegal drugs that are produced in foreign countries and smuggled into America, meth is being produced and distributed right here in America. Methamphetamine can be manufactured in small, clandestine labs that operate out of homes, barns, hotel rooms, and even car trunks. The equipment, ingredients, and even the recipe are readily available in pharmacies, hardware stores and on the Internet. Producers of methamphetamine tend to be small-scale operations seeking to make only enough for personal use and minor sales--much like the old alcohol stills--so that police can't simply choke off a major supply by targeting a big dealer. And because these clandestine operations are usually making only small quantities, shutting down a single meth lab does little to limit supply. So law enforcement faces one of its most urgent and complex challenges. It is being asked to shut down something as deadly as heroin, but as easy to make as bathtub gin. We must act to reverse this trend before it is too late. That is why I am supporting amendments to the budget resolution that will provide needed assistance to rural communities in their efforts to combat methamphetamine. Programs such as COPS, Byrne Grant, and Local Law Enforcement Block Grants play an essential role in providing the resources for our State and local law enforcement officers in their efforts. Just last night, on NBC nightly news, one of the lead stories was entitled ``Meth labs, a toxic threat to rural America.'' We don't need more stories in the news to know methamphetamine trafficking and abuse are already a major problem in rural areas. There is evidence that the drug is beginning to take hold in our Nation's urban and suburban areas. We must act now to prevent further damage.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as we debate the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution before us, each of us is obligated to measure the budget against our State and national priorities. Monday I talked about the many ways this budget shortchanges the Nation's priorities. Today I want to focus on the ways the budget shortchanges South Dakota's priorities. South Dakotans want to ensure that our fiscal health and Social Security remain sound and stable. They want men and women who have worked hard all their lives to retire with dignity. Since January 2001, they have watched with alarm as the Bush administration and Congress have spent both the budget surpluses it took us so long to accrue and the Social Security trust funds that, only a few years ago, both political parties declared untouchable. This budget exacerbates that dismal situation, and I will be supporting an amendment to protect Social Security for generations to come. South Dakotans want America's veterans to be treated with dignity, too. They want us to honor our commitments to them and ``care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and orphan.'' Here again, this budget fails. Nearly 60,000 veterans are on waiting lists for care at VA hospitals. When our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan return home, the lines could get even longer. But despite the extraordinary sacrifices our soldiers have made for us, the Republican budget offers veterans only longer waits and higher fees. I will be offering an amendment to fully fund veterans' health care. South Dakotans believe the men and women of the National Guard and Reserves should have the right to come home to health care, too. That is why I will be offering an amendment to allow those without health insurance to purchase TRICARE coverage when they return from active duty. The amendment would give Guard members and reservists permanent access to TRICARE coverage for themselves and their families. South Dakotans feel the pain of low wages, high unemployment, and American jobs going overseas. That is why I will be supporting an amendment to encourage job creation, discourage shipping American jobs overseas, and provide dislocated workers the assistance they need. South Dakotans want their children to have a world-class education. They believe that, in that effort, we should leave no child behind. Even if that child lives in a small, rural school district. Even if that child lives on an Indian reservation. The No Child Left Behind Act said, if you hold our students to higher standards, we will guarantee you the funding to meet those standards. Schools are holding up their end of the bargain, but the President and this budget are not. I will support an amendment to make good on our national promise and fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act, including the Rural Education Assistance Program. South Dakotans believe we should also make good on our promises to Native Americans. In that regard, and in so many areas, our Government has fallen short. Perhaps the most flagrant violation of our commitment to Native Americans is our failure to provide essential health care services to the people who depend on the Indian Health Service. This budget provides less than 40 percent of the funding needed to provide basic health care services to Indian Country. On a per capita basis, that equals about half of what our nation spends on federal prisoners' health care. Again, I will be offering an amendment to right that indefensible wrong. South Dakotans value clean water. The President's budget and this budget resolution shortchange critical drinking water projects, as well as basic water and sewer services for rural communities. Throughout this year's budget and appropriations processes, I will be working to restore those funds. South Dakotans value their forest land and want to protect it. Last December, Congress and the administration enacted the Healthy Forests Restoration Act to authorize funds for hazardous fuels reduction in our national forests. The President's budget underfunds that program, leaving our forests vulnerable and many communities at high risk of devastating fire. These funds must also be restored. South Dakotans believe that the communities that put food on our table deserve our gratitude and a fair chance to maintain their way of life. The President's budget and this budget resolution cut essential conservation and rural development programs and threaten the economic future of rural communities. I will be working to restore those funds, too. This budget, like all budgets, is about more than numbers. It is about choices. It is about priorities. And from the looks of this budget, our priorities are all wrong. Our Nation is at war, our economy is flagging, our schools are struggling, our people are going without health care, and our government is facing record deficits as far as the eye can see. But despite the tremendous challenges our nation faces, this budget inexplicably proposes a staggering $1.3 trillion in new tax breaks, primarily for the wealthiest among us. South Dakotans have a different set of priorities. In the course of this debate, I plan to support a series of amendments that aim to reflect those priorities. The amendments will offer a strategy to repair our fiscal problems, keep our promises, and prepare our country for the challenges of the future. Each amendment will fix a glaring weakness in this budget and each will be fully paid for. In fact, most will actually reduce the deficits that Republican budgets have created. And they will reflect the priorities of South Dakotans, who, like virtually all other Americans, expect us to make responsible choices.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is absent attending a funeral.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise to bring to the attention of my colleagues the passing of a true American patriot and hero--Mike O'Callaghan. While I mourn Governor O'Callaghan's passing, I am heartened that we here in this Chamber will continue to feel the impact of this great man through the service of his protege and former student--Assistant Democratic Leader Harry Reid. The essence of Governor O'Callaghan is perhaps best captured by an effort he undertook in Nicaragua in 1996. He was in that war-torn country to observe elections that would mark its first ever peaceful transition of power between democratically elected presidents. At 66, Governor O'Callaghan could have asked to observe elections in the nation's capital or its second city, but he insisted on going north to the Honduran border to observe elections among some of the most marginalized people in a country of marginalized people. He had to go there in a battered truck over rained out roads because, he said, these were his people whom he had gotten to know in the 1980s, and he wanted to be with them as they celebrated the democracy they had earned. That determination and generosity of spirit marked Governor O'Callaghan's life. He was highly decorated--with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star with a V for valor, and the Silver Star--during the Korean War, during which he lost a leg. Aware of that bravery and personal strength, Sargent Shriver reached out to Mike O'Callaghan to make him a point man in President Kennedy's and President Johnson's fight against poverty. Also aware of that bravery and strength of character, the people of Nevada made him their Governor from 1971 to 1979. It was Harry Reid's awareness of O'Callaghan's bravery and character that led me, with great pride, to recommend him just last month to serve on the Veterans Benefit Commission. Governor O'Callaghan died last Friday morning doing what he did each and every morning of his life attending daily mass before he went to work at the Las Vegas Sun. He also fought for the poor and the disenfranchised--from Korea to Nicaragua to Nevada--each and every day of his life. While we are saddened by the loss of Mike O'Callaghan, we can take comfort in the knowledge that his generosity of spirit, his strength of character, and his devotion to his State and country will not soon be forgotten, and that his values and commitment to public service live on in our colleague, and his close friend, Harry Reid.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this Nation has always been driven forward by a passion for discovery and a sense of adventure. From our earliest days as a nation, these deeply rooted American qualities have spurred our determination to explore new scientific frontiers and sparked our entrepreneurial spirit of technological innovation. We know in our very fiber that America's strength, prosperity, and global preeminence depend directly on scientific research and technological innovation. This is not conjecture. The scientific and economic record of the past half-century constitutes overwhelming proof. Yet, today, our scientific progress, and the high-tech, high-wage jobs it creates, are at risk because the Bush administration is failing to sustain America's commitment to basic research. The Federal Government has seen its research and development, R&D, investments steadily decline as a share of the U.S. economy, bringing the federal investment down to levels not seen since the midsixties. Federal R&D has declined in dollar terms over many years, and even in years when the investment has increased, it has declined sharply relative to our economic growth rate, barely keeping pace with inflation. Physical sciences, math, and engineering have been particularly affected. Unfortunately, the administration's R&D budgets only worsen this trend. Although Federal funding is set to increase 4.7 percent, nearly all of that increase would go to only two Departments--the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security--for the development of weapons systems and counterterrorism technology. These are necessary investments that will make our Nation safer. But the remaining Federal R&D investments, which generate new knowledge, improve healthcare, and protect the environment, will actually shrink. This failure to adequately invest in America's research portfolio is taking a toll on the work of America's scientists, and it will affect the lives of all Americans. In my home State of South Dakota, the Earth Research Observation System does work that helps us become more responsible stewards of the environment, while increasing the yields of farmers all over the world. But this research is being endangered because of the administration's severe budget cuts. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out why funding is being cut for nearly all nondefense basic-science and technology programs. These vital investments in America's future are being cut to provide enormous tax breaks for large corporations and the wealthy elite. This is short-sighted, and it is dangerous. The President's own science advisors warn that Federal support for physical sciences and engineering is dropping, while U.S. student enrollment in those disciplines also continues to fall. Reversing these trends is crucial to our Nation's future. We are on the verge of a new industrial world order. Already, almost any service that can be delivered in bits and bytes and does not require face-to-face interaction with customers is up for grabs. The big winners in the intense global struggle for economic predominance will not be those who simply produce products cheaper and faster than their competition. The big winners will be those countries that nurture the talent, discover the techniques, and invent the tools so advanced there is no competition. Unfortunately, measured in terms of the number of scientific publications, science is growing faster in the European Union than in the U.S., according to 15 key indicators related to human resources, investment, and scientific productivity. This ought to raise red flags for all of us. Economic growth follows scientific discovery, and if America falls behind in science, the fallout will ripple throughout our economy, dragging down productivity and slowing job creation. The administration's disregard for science extends beyond budgetary choices. Just last month, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report charging that the White House has systematically undermined the spirit of objective science. The report states that the Bush administration ``has suppressed or distorted the scientific analyses of federal agencies to bring these results in line with administration policy.'' Time and again, the administration is choosing politics over rational science. South Dakotans know what this is like. The Missouri River is part of the cultural and economic heart of our State. In recent years, a broad scientific consensus has developed that mismanagement by the Army Corps of Engineers is harming the Missouri River, and that the flow of the river should be restored to a more natural state to protect the ecology and habitat of endangered species. Just last year, an analysis by the top scientists at the administration's Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed this consensus. And yet the administration set aside the scientists' report, replaced the scientists with another panel more to its liking, and today continues to fight court orders requiring more responsible stewardship. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch recently ran an editorial saying, ``As purges go, this one has Stalinesque subtlety.'' And that is from a leading newspaper in the area that supposedly would benefit economically from the Corps' decision. The White House's 2001 report on global warming is another troubling case study in the politicization of science. When the science pointed to the fact that fossil fuel production and consumption contributes to global warming, the White House deleted that finding from the report. In its place, they inserted a reference to an opposing study that was financed by the American Petroleum Institute. Whenever the administration has had the opportunity, it has stacked the deck by staffing research boards and advisory councils with researchers who have shown allegiance to the White House's political goals. Just last week, the President dismissed two advisers from his Council on Bioethics because of their positions on stem cell research. And last month, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson admitted that his agency had made a mistake in altering the conclusions of scientists who found significant and pervasive racial disparities in health care in the United States. I am pleased that this ``mistake'' has been rectified, but concerned that it only happened after an investigation uncovered that the Department had altered scientific conclusions in order to downplay the problem of unequal health care for minorities. This is not real science. This is ``vending machine science.'' The administration thinks it can pull a lever and get the results it wants. For the sake of short-term political gain, the administration is basing its decisions on weak science. As a result, it is putting at risk America's economic strength, our future prosperity, and our health and safety. That is why increasing numbers of leaders in government, industry, and academia--all concerned about sustaining U.S. leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge--are beginning to question whether the United States is starting to lose its edge in basic scientific research. They worry that the Bush administration, by undercutting scientific research in key areas, has lost sight of the importance of long-term investments that help create the necessary conditions for prosperity. They worry that this failure of intellectual leadership will erode the high standing American science has achieved in the past half-century. Their apprehension is well justified. The pace of scientific discovery is quickening. Research is more important to the day-to-day lives of Americans than ever before. Cutting back on research at the dawn of this new century would be like cutting our defense budget at the height of World War II. Leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge is not merely a cultural tradition of our Nation; today, it is an economic and security imperative. We must ensure that America remains at the epicenter of the ongoing revolution in scientific research and technological innovation that generates new knowledge, creates new jobs, and builds new industries. By sustaining our investments in fundamental research, we can ensure that America remains at the forefront of scientific capability, thereby enhancing our ability to shape and improve our Nation's future and the world's future.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, those of us who have spent this long day on the floor recognize that there has been an absence in our caucus-- and I think both of our caucuses have noted his absence--and that is the distinguished assistant Democratic leader. Normally, he would have been moving around the floor for the last several hours, working with the managers and making sure things were done in an orderly way. Our dear friend Senator Reid has attended a funeral of one of his very close friends today. I want the Record to show the only reason he missed the votes and was not here to help orchestrate our successful conclusion of the budget is because of his need to be in Nevada. I thought it was important we make note of that in the Record. I appreciate the majority leader yielding for that purpose.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, the degree to which our Nation prospers in the 21st century will depend on our abilities to develop scientific talent in our youth, to provide lifelong learning to a well-educated workforce able to embrace the rapid pace of technological change, and to raise the level of public scientific and technological literacy. That is why I am proud to announce a very exciting series of events taking place this week in my home State of South Dakota. We urgently need to upgrade American students' knowledge and skills across the educational spectrum, particularly in mathematics, science, and technology. Results of an international science and mathematics study conducted in 2000 indicate that ``children in the United States were among the leaders in the 4th grade assessment, but by high school graduation they were almost last.'' Part of the problem is that many girls and young women in junior and senior high school lose interest in science and technological careers. As we work to develop the finest scientists and engineers for the 21st century, our human resources policy must move beyond simply the supply and demand of personnel and address the composition of the science and engineering workforce. Achieving diversity throughout the ranks of the scientific and technical workforce presents a formidable challenge; the number of women and minorities in science and engineering, relative even to professions such as medicine and law, remains low. We need to draw upon the full talent pool. Quality of education and equality of educational opportunity are central to our political future as well as to producing the workforce needed to maintain American leadership in the century ahead. To address this challenge, the National Weather Service Forecast Offices in Aberdeen and Rapid City, with the support of local and State agencies, schools, and businesses, are co-hosting Women in Science conferences in Aberdeen, Watertown, Pierre, and Hot Springs the week of March 8 through 13, 2004. Governor Rounds has declared that week to be ``Women in Science Week'' in South Dakota. These conferences provide a forum for young women and girls to learn about the virtually limitless opportunities available in math- and science-related careers and to create personal connections with professional women scientists. These positive role models encourage young women to develop or continue to cultivate an interest in science and technological careers. A total of over 700 junior and senior high school students and teachers will attend these conferences. The work of all these individuals and organizations to inspire and mentor young women, and offer role models is crucial. My special thanks and appreciation go to everyone involved in this partnership--teachers, workers, State, local, and Federal Government, academia, and businesses--who will make this a successful and an inspiring conference.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last Friday we were presented with the latest report on the creation of new jobs in our economy. The administration predicted about 200,000. In February, unfortunately, we only created 21,000--180,000 short of what the administration predicted. If you don't count the increases in Government payroll, there was actually no job growth whatsoever in the entire year of 2003. Unfortunately, that could also be said of 2002, and 2001. The administration's economic forecasts appear to be little more than wishful thinking. A chart appeared in the New York Times yesterday that lays out very graphically how inaccurate the job predictions have been. In his column yesterday, Paul Krugman wrote about this unfortunate miscalculation in the prediction of jobs. His most graphic illustration of this miscalculation is entitled ``Promises, Promises.'' It is a chart. It is easy to understand. The administration predicted in 2002 the creation of 138 million jobs. Then in 2003 they corrected that prediction. They said it isn't going to be 138 million; it will be 135 million. In 2004, they said it isn't going to be 138 million, it isn't going to be 135 million, now it's going to be 132 million. Now we find out, in 2004, it wasn't 138, 135, or 132 million; it was 130 million jobs, which means they were 8 million jobs off the mark in predicting where the non-farm payroll employment rolls would be during the course of their term in office. From the very first days in office, the Bush economic team has failed to understand what it takes to create jobs. I might say, as we look at the job creation, this is American job creation. Unfortunately, I fear, while we don't have any numbers, the outsourcing job creation probably does exceed the prediction. I wouldn't be surprised if, under the watch of President Bush, we have actually seen more than 8 million jobs created. The problem is, most of them have been in India and China, and countries in south Asia. It is American jobs we are gauging here, and it was a prediction that it was American jobs that would be created at that 138 million level. We know how to create jobs, but for some reason this administration has not been willing to commit, in policy or in resources, the effort that must be made to ensure those jobs are created. We had the most recent illustration of that a couple of weeks ago. The transportation bill the Senate has now voted on, on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, we are now told would create 1.7 million jobs in 6 years. South Dakota would see over 5,000 jobs created; California, 87,000 jobs created; Texas, 60,000; New York, 61,000; Virginia, DC and Maryland, 45,000 jobs. Thirty percent of our roads and bridges are in a state of severe disrepair and those jobs would go to dealing with the incredible problem we have with infrastructure deconstruction. I think the broad support, 76-21, in the Senate marked yet another statement about our appreciation of the magnitude, the importance of that bill; yet what the administration has done in response to our passage of that bill is to say they would veto it today, veto it because they say we cannot afford it. We just talked yesterday about the fact we are spending $27 billion this year to provide those who are making incomes of more than $1 million a tax break. We can afford to give millionaires a tax break of $27 billion, but we can't afford the commitment this country must make in infrastructure. Ironically, that is about the difference between where the Senate is and where the administration wants to go with regard to highway construction funds. They would rather spend it on millionaires. Many of us feel very strongly it is important to spend it where we can create jobs--not jobs in India, not jobs in China, but jobs here at home, trying to meet that target the administration said was so important, 138 million. They are right. It is important. We need to create those jobs. But we are not going to do it with the policies that have so far been articulated by this administration. Later today, Senator Boxer will be offering an amendment that will create jobs beyond those we now know could be created in the highway bill. We are going to allow for an amendment that would discourage the flow of jobs overseas and give assistance to workers whose jobs have been actually eliminated in the Bush economy. It would offer tax credits to companies that create manufacturing jobs by making it more affordable for small businesses to offer coverage to their employees. It would discourage the exporting of American jobs by eliminating the tax advantages for companies that take their plants overseas, and by prohibiting the Federal Government from dealing with contractors who outsource the work of their Government contracts to workers overseas. It would also help workers who are dislocated by global economic forces by including service workers in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program and by extending health care coverage to trade-dislocated workers. Most of us believe families should not have to lose their health coverage because of economic forces beyond their control. The amendment we will be offering today says, while they are still trying to get back on their feet, they must have the opportunity to access health care in some form. Since the administration has come to office, its economic policy has been to borrow money from foreign bankers, hand it over to the wealthiest people in the country, and hope for the best. The result is a $9 trillion meltdown of our fiscal position and now the loss of 3 million jobs. We need a new direction. Yesterday in the Washington Post the poll suggested 57 percent of the American people shared that view. We have come to a point where we must take a different direction. Economists are worried if jobs are not created soon, Americans could lose confidence and spur an even steeper downturn in the economy. We know how to create jobs. Let's pass the highway bill. Let's pass the Boxer Democratic amendment today. Let's ensure we send the right message about the direction we want this country to take. We can do that with this budget resolution and with legislation that has come before the Senate. I hope, on a bipartisan basis, we can send that message to the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator for his kind words. I have to say, this has been an equal joy for me. The Senator from South Carolina has been an extraordinary partner in this effort. I applaud him for the extraordinary efforts he has made to get us to this point and the leadership he has provided. As he has noted, we may disagree on other issues, but on this there is very strong bipartisan support. I cite his leadership as one of the reasons why. I can speak for all of those on this side of the aisle who have worked to try to pass this legislation. Senator Graham's efforts, his persistence, and the extraordinary effort he brings to ensuring we succeed is a big reason why we are going to be successful today. We have actually voted on this three times in the Senate. We have done so with overwhelming margins. It is not often on an amendment that you can generate 80-plus votes. But 87 Senators have already said this ought to be law. Because they have said it ought to be law, we are confident it will become law sooner or later. The legislation we are offering today very simply recognizes, first, that there are differences between members of the Reserves and the Active Duty. The Active Duty don't have to pay for their health care. We believe that is the way it should be. If you are on active duty and you are defending your country, that ought to be one of the prerequisites of Active-Duty service. We are suggesting that if you serve your country alongside that member of the Active Duty, you ought to have access to that health care, and maybe you ought to pay a little premium. Our guardsmen and reservists are determined and are accepting of that difference. They just want access to the care. They are willing to pay a premium, unlike our Active-Duty personnel who get it as part of their job, but they do want access. So that is the first big difference. Clearly, what most people don't understand is this premium is a very significant differentiation between Active-Duty personnel and the Guard. The second is, this will not be taken out of the Pentagon budget. What we are proposing with this amendment is we add $5.6 billion. We recognize there are some very important needs within our defense budget that have to be met. We don't want to see this compete with other needs, and that is why we are adding on. But we are also not adding to the deficit. There is a significant unobligated balance in the Iraq reconstruction fund, money that would go to Iraq normally, that is not going to be required in this fiscal year from which this money is taken. So first, we are not exacerbating the deficit. Secondly, we are not competing with any other programs in the Defense Department. And third, we recognize the difference between members of the Reserve and Active- Duty personnel. So for all those reasons, we think this amendment is very carefully drawn. Obviously, there is no question about the importance of what it does. It extends coverage to all reservists who are willing to pay the premium. You pay the premium; you have access to the health insurance. Secondly, we provide offsetting coverage when people are called up and they have private coverage that they want to maintain. We are saying, if you are called to service by your country and you are fighting in a faraway land, we are going to ensure that if you have private coverage that you think is important and you want to keep for your family, you ought to have a right to do that. Finally, we make it permanent. We ought to take out the guessing game. There shouldn't be any question as to whether it is going to be here this year, gone the next, whether some people are going to have to sign up, worrying whether they can sign up in subsequent years. What Senator Graham suggests with our amendment is, No. 1, it ought to be permanent. We have seen, as the Senator from South Carolina so aptly noted, the biggest callup of members of the Guard and Reserves since World War II. Our dependence upon the Guard and Reserves continues to grow. Forty percent is now the number that is widely recognized; 40 percent of those serving in Iraq are members of the Guard and Reserves. So there is no question this integration of forces is a fact of life. If we are going to see this integration of forces in the future, we have to recognize that we are going to have to change our benefits and pay structure to meet the demand and to put some element of fairness back into the system. This amendment is needed for two reasons. One, it is the right thing to do. When you have 30 percent of those members of the Guard and Reserves who are called up today who have no health insurance, many of whom can't even get the kind of health care they need to be compliant physically with the demands of their job, you need this amendment. Secondly, when you look down the road and you talk to Governors and the Guard and Reserve decisionmakers, what they will tell you privately, and for good reason, is they are understandably concerned about retention, understandably concerned about meeting the needs. You will not find more patriotic Americans anywhere than those who serve through the Reserve and the Guard. Nobody is more committed. They give up their jobs, time with their families, and they go to faraway places and sacrifice salary in order to defend their country. All we are saying is, for all of that, we want you to stay in the Guard and continue to serve your country, so we are going to be a little more fair regarding your access to health insurance. That would be one less problem for them. This amendment does that permanently, and it deserves to be passed overwhelmingly. We are not going to ask for a rollcall vote because we have had three of them. We think the Senate is on record adequately regarding this legislation. We will be back. This only authorizes it in the budget. We are going to come back with Defense Appropriations to make sure it is also a part of the law as we consider the important aspects of public policy relating to defense in the future. Again, let me end where I started. Senator Graham deserves great credit for the effort he made to bring us to this point. I am pleased that, on a bipartisan basis, we can pass this with an exclamation point this afternoon. This deserves to be law. This year is the year to do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, given all that the brave men and women in uniform have done for our country, there should not be any disagreement that veterans should be our top budget priority this year. This is especially true now during a time of war when hundreds of thousands of future veterans are on the front lines in Iraq in the war on terrorism sacrificing everything for this country. Unfortunately, the budget before us does not make veterans a priority. It does not demonstrate that we recognize and respect all that we have asked of them. It does not keep the commitment this Nation made to them when we asked them to lay their lives on the line. The budget before us proposes a funding level for veterans health care that is more than $200 million below last year's level adjusted for inflation. In other words, veterans do not even receive what they received last year. Despite our best efforts, last year's level was also insufficient. There are 60,000 veterans who are already wait- listed for health care as we speak. This budget gets worse. The budget proposes a $250 enrollment fee for middle-income veterans to receive health care. The budget seeks to more than double the prescription drug copayment for low-income veterans. It would prevent priority 8 veterans from enrolling in veterans health care. Despite the fact that the average veteran must now wait for more than 6 months to have his or her disability claim processed and a backlog of 348,000 claims, this budget proposes eliminating 540 claims-processing staff. That is a remarkable development. At a time when we have 348,000 pending claims, this budget proposes we eliminate 540 of the very staff whose responsibility it is to process these claims. As a result of this increased fee and barriers to access to the veterans health care system, the administration's own budget estimates more than 1 million veterans will drop out of the veterans health care system. My amendment would prevent all of this. It would give the veterans the resources and care they have earned. It would restore funding to the level called for by the Independent Budget, a national coalition of leading veterans organizations that have made an assessment of what veterans need and deserve. My amendment would add $2.7 billion to the veterans health care account and $2.7 billion for additional deficit reduction. The cost of this amendment would be fully offset by reducing the tax breaks for those earning $1 million a year or more. This chart illustrates how the amendment would be paid for. Taxpayers with incomes in excess of $1 million will receive a tax cut under this budget of $27 billion this year. Coincidentally, that is almost exactly the amount of money that veterans are now given in the health care budget in this year. They will receive a benefit, under these cuts, of about $140,000 a person under the current budget rule. My amendment would reduce that $140,000 to $112,000. Every millionaire in this country would still get a $112,000 tax cut, and we would simply use the difference between $112,000 and $140,000 to pay for the extra $2.7 billion to go first to pay for the veterans health care, and the other to reducing the size of the debt. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have served their country honorably. Before we prevail in Iraq and the war on terror, hundreds of thousands of other Americans are going to be asked to lay their lives on the line. In order to demonstrate our appreciation for what so many have already done, and will be asked to do, we have an obligation in this body to do our share. We have an obligation to provide our veterans with the resources and care commensurate with what they have done for us. The amendment is very simple. It simply restores to the level the independent budget has required in order to ensure that we eliminate the backlog, and provide the veterans with the care they need while we refrain from asking them to pay additional costs. We eliminate that $250 annual fee some veterans will now have to pay. We eliminate the increase in payment for prescription drugs and the per-office visit. We do that simply by reducing the amount of tax cut, only to millionaires, by approximately $28,000 per year. They still will receive $112,000 in a tax cut in the next fiscal year. That, in my view, is a reasonable sacrifice, given the message this amendment and this budget, if it were amended, would send to our veterans and to those soldiers in Iraq who are counting on us to do the right thing, who are counting on us to remember not only to support our troops, but to support our veterans. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I think we are about to wrap up the debate on this amendment. I know the Senator from Arkansas wants to be recognized for a couple minutes. Once she finishes, I will have the final comments on the amendment and we will prepare to have a vote. I yield the floor to accommodate the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes. Are we under a time agreement now?

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I yield time off the resolution, 3 minutes, to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I yield the Senator 2 additional minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I thank very much the distinguished Senator from Arkansas for her strong statement. Does the Senator from Iowa seek recognition to speak on this amendment, as well?

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I yield the floor to accommodate the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I have great respect for the Senator from Iowa. He does a terrific job as our chair of the Finance Committee. I would ask him to read the amendment. He gave a great speech on fairness among taxpayers. I am concerned about fairness in this budget between millionaires and veterans. That is the fairness I am looking for. In this budget, there is a $27 billion tax cut for millionaires alone. What I am asking is the $27 billion we have for veterans for their health care, which is also in this budget, be increased by a mere $2.7 billion. How do I do it? Not by raising taxes. We are not talking about raising taxes. Each millionaire in this budget will get a $140,000 tax cut this year. We are simply suggesting maybe we could reduce that $140,000 to $112,000 so veterans are not going to have to wait in line up to 6 months to get health care today, so veterans who are concerned about whether their VA facility is going to close do not have to be concerned about it, so veterans who are being told today they are going to have to pay $250 to walk in the front door will be told, you don't have to worry about that anymore because now the millionaires only get $112,000 and you are going to be able to walk in the door without having to pay that fee. That is the fairness I am talking about. We don't want to raise taxes, but we certainly want to see some fairness when it comes to veterans. I have seen countless bumper stickers in South Dakota, across the country that say support our troops. I think we ought to add three words: ``and our veterans.'' If we really are serious about supporting our veterans and our troops, we ought to be willing to say to our veterans: You know the billion dollars you are now being asked to pay for your health care? We are actually going to find a way so you are not going to be asked to pay anymore, that billion dollars can be reduced somewhat. I actually have had veterans in the last couple weeks ask me about having to pay double for prescription drugs, which is also in this budget. We increased the fee for each prescription drug from $7 to $15, each office visit to $20. We are telling category 7s and 8s they are now going to have to pay $250 to walk in the door. That accumulated amount of money is a billion dollars paid for by veterans after they have fought and defended their country. Is it fair to simply say: We are going to give the millionaires of this country a $112,000 tax cut so we have an opportunity here to provide some fairness to veterans in a budget as the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism go on? I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to speak to the budget resolution for a couple minutes, if I can. I know we are getting closer to the end of the day. This budget, obviously, maps out this Nation's fiscal present and future in great detail, but this budget, as all budgets, is more than about numbers. It is about choices. The choices we make in a budget tell us who we are and what we value as a nation. Unfortunately, the budget resolution brought to the floor by our Republican colleagues, like the budget proposed by President Bush last month, makes the wrong choices, sets the wrong priorities, and fails to prepare our Nation for the challenges we will face in the future. Since President Bush took office, 3 million private sector jobs have been lost. Today, 8.2 million Americans are out of work, and the number of long-term unemployed is at the highest point in 20 years. But even with so many Americans looking for work, the Republican budget fails to provide a strategy for creating new jobs. Nearly 60,000 veterans are on waiting lists for care at veterans hospitals. When our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan return home, the lines could get even longer. But despite the extraordinary sacrifices our soldiers have made for us, the Republican budget offers veterans only longer waits and higher fees. School districts across the country are facing an early end to classes because they do not have the resources to offer students a full year of learning. Despite the strain on local school budgets and the promises the President made in the No Child Left Behind Act, the Republican budget falls $9.4 billion short of their commitment and leaves millions of children behind in the process. Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups are still plotting against Americans and still capable of carrying out catastrophic attacks on American soil. Despite CIA Director Tenet's warnings of continuing threats, the Republican budget fails to provide our first responders and port officials the resources they need to make us more secure. Our Nation is at war, our economy is flagging, our schools are struggling, and our Government is facing record deficits as far as the eye can see. Despite the tremendous challenge our Nation faces, this budget inexplicably proposes a staggering $1.3 trillion in new tax breaks primarily for those at the very top. When President Bush took office, he inherited record surpluses that ensured a rock solid fiscal foundation for a generation to come. But in 3 years, due to these reckless policies and irresponsible choices, this administration has steered our country toward an unprecedented fiscal meltdown. Rather than try to repair the damage caused by these policies, this budget continues these policies and digs an even deeper hole. This is not an accident. It is becoming increasingly clear that supporters of these policies have pursued them knowing that--some would say hoping--the record deficits would unravel the Nation's retirement security net. Three years ago, the administration and Republicans tried to obfuscate this fact with budget gimmickry. During the 2000 campaign and numerous times since then, the President assured us that under his watch none of the Social Security surplus would be used to fund other spending initiatives or tax relief. But late last month, Federal Chairman Alan Greenspan blew the cover off this budget strategy. He, too, said, in 2001, that the President's tax breaks would not endanger Social Security, but now that the deficits caused by the tax breaks are unmistakable, Chairman Greenspan and the Republican leadership say it is Social Security that must be cut rather than the tax cuts that drove us into deficits in the first place. In the face of the unending flow of red ink, President Bush publicly shifted his position as well. When asked his opinion of Chairman Greenspan's comments, President Bush responded: My position on Social Security benefits is this: Those benefits should not be changed for people at or near retirement. The President appears to be indicating that cutting Social Security benefits for the coming generation of retirees, including the baby boom generation, is an option he is prepared to take. The choice many of our colleagues are making is now apparent for all of us to see. They are choosing tax breaks for the wealthy elite over a strong Social Security system upon which every American can depend. Democrats have a different set of priorities. In the course of the coming debate, we plan to offer a series of amendments aimed to repair our fiscal problems, keep the promises made to our seniors and veterans, and prepare our country for the challenges of the future. Each amendment will fix a glaring weakness in the Republican budget, and each will be fully paid for. In fact, most will actually reduce deficits that the budgets have created. First, we will offer an amendment to strengthen Social Security. As I noted earlier, when President Bush was elected, he promised not to touch the trust fund. The administration flip-flopped on that promise, and in the last 3 years has taken $550 billion from Social Security to pay for the tax breaks. But they are not done yet. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Republican budget spends every penny of the 10-year $2.4 trillion Social Security surplus on tax cuts and other Government programs. In other words, in 3 short years, the Republicans have gone from promising not to touch a penny of the Social Security surplus to proposing that we spend all $2.4 trillion to fund their tax breaks and other Government spending. We believe the Social Security system represents a solemn promise to our seniors, and we will propose an amendment that protects Social Security for generations to come. Second, we will offer an amendment to help end the jobs crisis and get more Americans back to work. On average, more than 80,000 private sector jobs have been lost each and every month since this President took office. The manufacturing sector alone has lost 2.8 million jobs. We will offer an amendment that encourages the creation of American jobs, discourages shipping American jobs overseas, and provides dislocated workers the assistance they need. Third, we will offer an amendment to provide the resources necessary to ensure that our veterans receive the care and treatment they deserve. According to CBO, the President's request is $257 billion below last year's level when adjusted for inflation. With 60,000 veterans already on waiting lists for health care and tens of thousands of military personnel scheduled to return home from Iraq and Afghanistan as the newest generation of veterans, this underfunding will only increase an already unacceptable backlog. Moreover, just as the administration last year, the budget also contains policies--higher fees and copayments--that will drive 800,000 individuals out of the system and make those who choose to stay pay more. When our soldiers in uniform come home from Iraq and Afghanistan, they will deserve a parade, and they will get it. But our obligation to our veterans does not end with the parade. Our amendment will give all Members of the Senate an opportunity to demonstrate their recognition of and appreciation for all these veterans have done for our country. Fourth, Democrats will offer an amendment to fully fund the Leave No Child Behind law. This law offered schools a deal. It said, if you hold your students to higher standards, we will guarantee you the funding to meet those standards. Schools are holding up their end of the bargain, but the President has reneged. In the years since the bill was passed, President Bush has failed to request the funding he committed in this legislation. This year, the President's budget request is $9.4 billion short. The Democratic amendment will keep the promise we made to our children. This budget is a portrait of broken promises, bad choices, and misplaced priorities. At a time when it is critical that we begin to regain a firm fiscal footing, this budget drives us even deeper in the hole. The White House and Republican leadership have chosen to continue their reckless fiscal policy all in the name of providing massive tax breaks to the privileged few and giveaways to special interests. As a result, their budget fails our veterans, our seniors, our children, and millions of Americans who are looking for work. We could do better. We must. Our Nation has the resources to fulfill our promises to seniors, our veterans, and our schools. We need to make responsible choices. We need to honor the promises we have made. Our budget should reflect the priorities and choices of the American people. Democrats are ready to make sure it does. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Brad Seely is a South Dakota native who was a standout player at my alma mater, South Dakota State University. He has since developed into one of the best special-teams coaches in the National Football League. When another South Dakota native, Adam Vinatieri, kicked the Super Bowl-winning field goal, it was the culmination of a lot of great coaching and coordination under the leadership of Brad Seely. Brad has long been an outstanding coach, serving with the Indianapolis Colts, New York Jets, and Carolina Panthers. Since 1999, Brad has been a member of the New England Patriots coaching staff and has played an integral role in the organization's two titles in the past 3 years. Prior to his career in the NFL, Brad coached throughout the college ranks at Colorado State, Southern Methodist, North Carolina State, Pacific, and Oklahoma State. It is my great pleasure to honor Brad today. He has been a key part of the New England Patriot's success and has made his home State proud.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, later this week, President Bush will host Mexican President Vicente Fox for 2 days of meetings in Texas. Three years ago, in the months after President Fox's historic election ended seven decades of one-party rule, we were all very hopeful that the United States and Mexico were prepared to move beyond decades of mistrust and miscommunication. In the aftermath of 9/11, the Bush administration chose to relegate improved relations with our neighbor to the bottom of its priority list, unfortunately. The meeting this week represents a long overdue but welcome step toward regaining the lost momentum in United States-Mexico relations. I hope the President will use the renewed public focus on Mexico this week not just for a photo opportunity but also to revive the administration's efforts to address many of the pressing challenges throughout this hemisphere. The need for such a revival is clear. Early last month Secretary Powell told a House committee that the United States ``had higher priorities'' than Latin America. The fact that the United States has important priorities in the rest of the world is indisputable. Hundreds of thousands of our young men and women are deployed throughout the Middle East. North Korea is adding to its nuclear capability, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction presents us with a chilling specter that terrorist groups could get their hands on the world's worst weapons. But the sad truth is that we do not have the luxury of worrying only about the crises of the day. If we fail to attend to emerging threats today, they will quickly become tomorrow's crises. Rather than relying on diplomatic means, we will be forced into a situation so dire that only the deployment of U.S. troops--already stretched far too thinly-- can stabilize the situation. For an example of this phenomenon, we need look no further than recent events in our own hemisphere. Statements from administration officials leave the impression that the administration was caught off guard and unprepared to respond to the evolving crisis in Haiti, just 600 miles off the coast of Florida. On February 17, Secretary Powell had this to say about Haiti: We cannot buy into a proposition that says the elected president must be forced out of office by thugs and those who do not respect law. But just over a week later, the White House released a statement that said: This long-simmering crisis is largely Mr. Aristide's making. . . . We urge him to examine his position carefully, to accept responsibility, and to act in the best interests of the people of Haiti. The administration's initial lack of attention and subsequent response left us with no policy levers to pull and no Haitian institutions to call upon to quell the crisis. In that situation--faced with violence and instability that threatened to lead to a refugee crisis--we deployed American Marines. Emerging crises in the rest of the hemisphere are potentially as dire, but the administration still appears no more engaged. Take, for example, Venezuela. Political turmoil and mismanagement have had a serious and adverse impact on economic growth in that country. In 2003, real GDP shrank by nearly 10 percent--after contracting 9 percent the year before--and inflation was the region's highest at 27.1 percent. All of this in a country that has the largest oil reserves outside the Middle East--providing the United States 14 percent of its oil--and increasingly sizable natural gas stores. Moreover, slow economic growth may be the least of Venezuela's problems. The country is caught in a political crisis over a recall referendum that could bring the Chavez government to an abrupt end. The situation was exacerbated by clear missteps on the part of the administration in April of 2002, when the administration overturned decades of American policy in the hemisphere by seeming to endorse, however briefly, an unconstitutional change of government. Former President Carter has done us proud by stepping in to pick up the pieces in order to ensure that the problems of this democracy can be resolved democratically. But with deepening polarization and new developments in Venezuela each day, there is no substitute for official American leadership in pushing for the respect of democratic institutions over personalities and power. As in Haiti, if we wait for others to take the lead in Venezuela, we will have waited too long. There are other emerging threats to stability and democracy in the region--from Peru to Bolivia to Argentina. Economic growth is down, poverty and drug trafficking are increasing, and corruption is rampant. Perhaps most alarming are observations from recent public surveys that anti-Americanism is approaching all-time highs while respect for democracy is reaching an all-time low. Such a precarious time demands engagement and leadership from America. Instead, the administration has decided to limit American investments in the region this year, arguing, as I noted, that we have other priorities. As one leading expert pointed out: Relations between the United States and Latin America have acquired a rawness and a level of indecorum that recall previous eras of inter-America strain and discord. It is not too late, and I hope the meeting tomorrow in Texas marks the administration's renewed interest in the hemisphere. If it does, we are prepared to work with the President and our friends in Mexico and in Argentina and in Venezuela and in Peru and in Bolivia, and in Colombia to build the institutions needed for peace, prosperity, and stability. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will.