Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this month we celebrate an important milestone in South Dakota: The opening of the first Super 8 Motel. In 1974, the first Super 8 Motel opened in my hometown of Aberdeen, SD. This motel is a pioneer of the economy motel industry, and a perfect example of entrepreneurial success. In its first year of operation, Super 8 showed that its founders, Dennis Brown and Ron Rivett, were surpassing their goals by leaps and bounds--one year after its first motel opened, an additional three motels sprang up in the cities of Pierre, Mitchell, and Yankton. This unprecedented growth continued, and today, in Super 8's thirtieth year of operation, this small business venture has resulted in over 2,000 motels opening throughout the United States and Canada. Super 8's success is predicated on the core operating values that Dennis and Ron instilled in their employees and motel owners: cleanliness, efficiency, and friendly service. From its inception, the founders and board members continually strived to better serve their customers. Some examples of their strong commitment to customer service are the implementation of one of the first toll-free reservation lines in the early 1970s and the VIP club, which currently has over 7.5 million members. I will never forget when I returned home to Aberdeen and saw the first Super 8 Motel: a two story stucco building on Sixth Avenue, Southeast. At that time, very few people could conceive that this start-up business would reshape the hospitality industry. Thankfully, Dennis and Ron had the plan and the motivation to realize their goals and make believers out of ordinary folks in need of a place to stay on the road. After my stays at Super 8 Motels, it was clear that this company was destined for greatness. Super 8 is a true American success story, which could not have been achieved without the hard work and determination of Dennis, Ron, and all of their hard-working staff. I am confident that Super 8 will continue to grow for many years to come, and I wish to extend my congratulations to everyone that has been involved in this monumental effort over the past 30 years.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last night, we reached agreement on a finite list of amendments to the intelligence reorganization resolution. As I understand it, there are six amendments that will be addressed today following cloture, so we have made good progress. It is a resolution I strongly support. Like the 9/11 Commission legislation, it is imperative that we finish it. It is imperative that we have an opportunity to work through these amendments. I hope everybody could cooperate with regard to time on the amendments. I again commend the two managers. This has not been an easy task. Dealing with legislative jurisdiction is one of the trickiest of all the challenges and efforts we as legislators face. They have done a masterful job. I commend them again this morning and look forward to completing our work today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, every American knows this photograph. It is one of the great iconic images of American courage and determination: the Marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima. What many Americans probably do not know is that one of the six Marines in this photo was a Native American. His name was Ira Hayes. He was a full- blooded Pima Indian, raised on a small farm on the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona. Raising the flag with Ira Hayes that day on Iwo Jima were: a coal miner's son from Pennsylvania who came to America as an infant from Czechoslovakia; a farm boy from the Rio Grande Valley of Texas; a mill worker's son from New Hampshire; a former altar boy from Wisconsin, and a poor kid from eastern Kentucky. One writer has called this photo `` a triumphant metaphor for the very soul of the (Marine) Corps.'' It is also something else. It is a reflection of every war our Nation has ever fought. In every major military conflict in our Nation's history, Indians have fought side-by- side with non-Indians. Native Americans served with honor and distinction in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. They served on both sides in the Civil War. Stand Watie, a Cherokee, was the last Confederate brigadier general to surrender to the Union troops. And Eli Parker, a Seneca from New York, was at Appomattox, serving as an aide to General Ulysses S. Grant when Robert E. Lee surrendered. Native American soldiers rode with Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders in the charge on San Juan Hill in the Spanish-American War. Twelve- thousand Indians served in World War I. Even though Native Americans were denied U.S. citizenship at the time, many were so eager to serve that they went to Canada to enlist before the U.S. even entered the war. Their tremendous demonstration of patriotism finally moved Congress to pass the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924. In World War II, more than one-third of all able-bodied Indian men between the ages of 18 and 50 served. The most famous were the ``Code Talkers'' from the Navajo Nation and other tribes--including the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota tribes of the Great Sioux Nation. During the Korean War, two Native American soldiers were awarded posthumous Congressional Medals of Honor. Another Korean War veteran, a Northern Cheyenne from Colorado, served with distinction in the Air Force and later in the United States Senate. He is our friend and colleague, the chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. In Vietnam, nearly 42,000 Native Americans served--90 percent of them volunteers. Native Americans served with honor in Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf war, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo. And they are serving our Nation today in Afghanistan and Iraq. Given the tragic history between Indian tribes and the U.S. military, some might regard it as remarkable that Native Americans choose to serve in the military at all. Yet, not only do Native Americans serve, they have the highest rate of military service of any ethnic group in America. Today, one in four Native American men is a military veteran, as are nearly half of all tribal leaders. Incredibly, despite this extraordinary history of service and sacrifice for our Nation, there has never been a national American Indians veterans organization. Until now. Last week, a new organization, the National American Indian Veterans Association, held its first annual meeting in Arizona. At that meeting, members voted unanimously to approve the organization's charter. Today, I am introducing a bipartisan proposal to grant the National American Indian Veterans Association a Federal charter. I am proud to sponsor this proposal, along with four great champions of Indian people and tribes: my fellow South Dakotan, Senator Johnson; Senator Bingaman; Senator Campbell, the distinguished chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee; and the committee's ranking member, Senator Inouye, a noble warrior himself and a Medal of Honor recipient. The National American Indian Veterans Association is long overdue, and it is desperately needed. Native Americans are the most likely of all Americans to volunteer for military service. But they are the least likely of all veterans to apply for the benefits they have earned. When they do try to claim those benefits, too often, the First Americans find themselves last in line. Too many Native American veterans go without urgently needed medical care because they can't get appointments or they can't overcome bureaucratic hurdles at the VA or the nearest clinic is too far away. Too many Native American veterans are living in crowded apartments and crumbling houses and trailers, partly because homeownership assistance programs that work for most veterans don't take into account the specific needs of many Indian veterans. Many Native American veterans don't claim the education benefits they have earned. Too many Native American veterans don't get the retirement benefits they deserve. And when they die, too many of their families don't get the survivors' benefits they should. A Federal charter does not grant the National American Indian Veterans Association any special legal status or favors. It will simply enable Native American veterans from all tribes to speak with one voice to Congress and to the Nation. The National Commander of the National American Indian Veterans Association is a man I am proud to know. Don Loudner is from Mitchell, SD. He is a member of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and a Korean War veteran with 35 years in the Army Reserves. He is also a member of the VA's Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, a former Commissioner of Indian Affairs for the State of South Dakota, a former superintendent of the Crow Creek Sioux Reservation, and one of the most tireless, articulate advocates for Native American veterans I have ever known. Congress has chartered many veterans organizations representing specific groups: the American War Mothers, the Blinded Veterans Association, Catholic War Veterans, Italian American War Veterans of the USA, Jewish War Veterans of the USA, the National Association for Black Veterans, Polish Legion of American Veterans. I believe the guidance and collected wisdom of the National American Indian Veterans Association will enable America to better honor its commitments to Native American veterans and their families. In doing so, it will strengthen Native Americans' long and exceptional tradition of military service to our Nation. And that will make America even safer and stronger. Five Native American warriors have already given their lives in Iraq. They include three members of the Navajo Nation: Army Private First Class Lori Piestewa, a young Hopi mother and the first Native American woman soldier ever killed in combat; and a young Army Private First Class from the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation in South Dakota. Sheldon Hawk Eagle was a member of the Army's 101st Airborne Division, the famed ``Screaming Eagles,'' the same unit that parachuted into Normandy on D-Day. He was also a descendant of the legendary Lakota warrior leader, Crazy Horse. There are many reasons that these young warriors and so many other Native Americans have risked--and given--their lives for this Nation. Clarence Wolf Guts may have said it best. Mr. Wolf Guts is from the Oglala Sioux Tribe and one of the last two surviving Lakota Code Talkers from World War II. Two weeks ago, he testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs about a bill I am sponsoring to honor all Native American Code Talkers, from all tribes. In Clarence Wolf Guts' words, ``Indian people love America, and we will do whatever it takes to protect our freedom from all aggressors.'' By formally recognizing the National American Indian Veterans Association--America's first and only Native American veterans organization--America will be better able to honor the extraordinary patriotism of these heroes and provide them with the respect and benefits they have earned. I urge my colleagues to join us. Let's pass this bill this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Max Baucus in introducing legislation that addresses the longstanding problem of dilapidated tribal detention facilities on Indian reservations. There is a tremendous need for replacement construction of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) operated and funded facilities, and I am pleased that this legislation offers a creative and innovative bonding approach to address the construction backlog. USA Today reported that Federal investigators have uncovered evidence of abuse, neglect and inhumane conditions in Native American prisons and jails. This troubling report suggests that the conditions in Indian detention facilities are not improving and, in fact, appear to be getting worse. It is my hope that this hearing will help shed additional light on these allegations, and lead to solutions to improve conditions in facilities across Indian country. According to recent statistics from the Department of Justice report on Indian jails and prisons, there are 70 detention facilities in Indian country, supervising approximately 2,100 inmates. Many of these facilities are in an appalling state of disrepair, and face problems that range from overcrowding and understaffing to sheer neglect and abuse. According to the most recent statistics from the Department of Justice, over half of all detention facilities in Indian country were operating at 100-percent capacity in 2002, and nineteen were operating at 150-percent or higher capacity. Of those nineteen, three are located in my state of South Dakota: Pine Ridge's Medicine Root Detention Center, operating at 250-percent capacity; Crow Creek's Fort Thompson Jail, operating at 242-percent capacity; and the Pine Ridge Correctional Facility, which is operating at a staggering 400 percent of its capacity. Inmates in South Dakota's BIA facilities are housed in dilapidated buildings and are forced to endure extraordinarily harsh conditions. Even though the Lower Brule tribal detention facility was condemned by the BIA in 1987, it was still being used to house inmates as recently as two years ago. Because the new facility is still under construction, Lower Brule prisoners are sent 13 miles away, across the Missouri River, to the Crow Creek facility in Fort Thompson. Because there aren't enough BIA officers to transport them back to Lower Brule, detainees released from Crow Creek are often forced to make the return trip to Lower Brule on foot. It is shocking that this is allowed to happen at all, but especially in South Dakota where harsh winters and sub-zero temperatures are routine. Moreover, the Fort Thompson facility is equally understaffed. One person serves as both police dispatcher and detention officer in a facility that houses up to 30 prisoners. These conditions have a devastating impact on prisoners. Nationally, between July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2002, 282 inmates in tribal jails attempted suicide, up from 169 the previous year. In the last five years, the number of admissions rose 32 percent, and the annual number of attempted suicides more than doubled, from 133 to 282. On Crow Creek, which is located in one of the most impoverished counties in the U.S. and experiences inordinate suicide rates among its general population, several suicides have occurred in the local jail. Even more troubling, inadequate detention facilities pose a serious threat to the surrounding communities. With a limited number of officers responsible for large inmate populations, the risk of prisoner violence--against both prison staff and, in the event of an escape, local citizens--is much greater. Moreover, the culture of neglect and abuse found in many of our Indian jails is indicative of broader trends within the communities. The Lower Brule jail doubles as a suicide-watch center for troubled teens, since there is nowhere else in the community to take them. Several Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) have either resigned, or are on the brink of resigning, due to the stress of the situation. Law enforcement officials are at a loss about how to address this disturbing pattern, and are overwhelmed by the feelings of hopelessness that accompany it. Clearly, the impact that overcrowding, dilapidated conditions, and neglect are having on inmates in these facilities, as well as local communities, is reaching a critical mass--both in South Dakota and across the Nation--and we must act now to reverse the trend. While addressing the problems that exist in jails and prisons clearly isn't the whole answer, such an approach will meet a critical need in Indian country, and will represent an important step toward increasing public safety and reducing incidences of abuse and neglect. We can start by increasing funding for BIA facilities. Unfortunately, this Administration has demonstrated a complete unwillingness to give Indian detention facilities the resources they need, and has actually reduced funding for jails and prisons in Indian country. It wasn't always so bad. Under the Clinton Administration, then-Attorney General Janet Reno created the Department of Justice--Department of Interior Indian Law Enforcement initiative with the objective of creating an effective way to address law enforcement, facilities, juvenile justice, and rehabilitation efforts in Indian country. Although funding for these programs, which increased under the Clinton administration and was consistent until the FY2002 appropriations cycle, was not enough to meet all of Indian country's needs, the initiative represented an unprecedented step toward addressing some of these problems. Unfortunately, the current Administration, while budgeting hundreds of millions of dollars for Federal prison construction, has proposed eliminating the tribal facility program for the second year in a row. While Congress appropriated $35 million per year for construction of BIA detention facilities between 2000 and 2002, we appropriated only $2 million in FY2004. Now, with an even tighter budget to work with, the outlook for this year is especially bleak, and conditions at BIA facilities are likely to get even worse. For too long, we have neglected our obligations to Native Americans. We are seeing the effects of that neglect in South Dakota. These are once again examples of the abrogration of the trust responsibility by the Federal Government to the tribes and its people. We need to do a better job of funding Indian detention centers, and we need to do more to address public safety, tribal courts, and rehabilitation efforts. We cannot ask tribes to choose between funding crisis intervention and law enforcement. We cannot force tribes to make the choice between funding education and after school programs for their children, and repairing cracked walls and inoperable surveillance cameras in their jails. While national rates are the lowest in years, crime on Indian lands continues to rise. Particularly disturbing is the violent nature of this crime; violence against women, juvenile and gang crime, and child abuse remain serious problems. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that American Indians experience the highest crime victimization rates in the nation--almost twice the national average. The law enforcement, public safety, and tribal detention facility issues are of critical importance to Indian country and surrounding communities. If this were happening in any other part of the country, it would be met with public outrage and swift government action. However, in Indian country, it is met with silence and reduced funding. For the safety of our Indian people and the well-being of their communities, we must take action. I am pleased that on September 21, 2004, the Senate Finance Committee held an oversight hearing on these issues, and that this legislation has emerged as a step in the right direction to address the construction backlog of much-needed facilities in rural, tribal communities. I support this legislation which authorizes eligible Indian tribes to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance tribal prison facilities, ``tribal prison facility bonds''. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address these important issues and to advance this legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, every American knows this photograph. It is one of the great iconic images of American courage and determination: the Marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima. What many Americans probably do not know is that one of the six Marines in this photo was a Native American. His name was Ira Hayes. He was a full- blooded Pima Indian, raised on a small farm on the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona. Raising the flag with Ira Hayes that day on Iwo Jima were: a coal miner's son from Pennsylvania who came to America as an infant from Czechoslovakia; a farm boy from the Rio Grande Valley of Texas; a mill worker's son from New Hampshire; a former altar boy from Wisconsin, and a poor kid from eastern Kentucky. One writer has called this photo `` a triumphant metaphor for the very soul of the (Marine) Corps.'' It is also something else. It is a reflection of every war our Nation has ever fought. In every major military conflict in our Nation's history, Indians have fought side-by- side with non-Indians. Native Americans served with honor and distinction in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. They served on both sides in the Civil War. Stand Watie, a Cherokee, was the last Confederate brigadier general to surrender to the Union troops. And Eli Parker, a Seneca from New York, was at Appomattox, serving as an aide to General Ulysses S. Grant when Robert E. Lee surrendered. Native American soldiers rode with Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders in the charge on San Juan Hill in the Spanish-American War. Twelve- thousand Indians served in World War I. Even though Native Americans were denied U.S. citizenship at the time, many were so eager to serve that they went to Canada to enlist before the U.S. even entered the war. Their tremendous demonstration of patriotism finally moved Congress to pass the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924. In World War II, more than one-third of all able-bodied Indian men between the ages of 18 and 50 served. The most famous were the ``Code Talkers'' from the Navajo Nation and other tribes--including the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota tribes of the Great Sioux Nation. During the Korean War, two Native American soldiers were awarded posthumous Congressional Medals of Honor. Another Korean War veteran, a Northern Cheyenne from Colorado, served with distinction in the Air Force and later in the United States Senate. He is our friend and colleague, the chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. In Vietnam, nearly 42,000 Native Americans served--90 percent of them volunteers. Native Americans served with honor in Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf war, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo. And they are serving our Nation today in Afghanistan and Iraq. Given the tragic history between Indian tribes and the U.S. military, some might regard it as remarkable that Native Americans choose to serve in the military at all. Yet, not only do Native Americans serve, they have the highest rate of military service of any ethnic group in America. Today, one in four Native American men is a military veteran, as are nearly half of all tribal leaders. Incredibly, despite this extraordinary history of service and sacrifice for our Nation, there has never been a national American Indians veterans organization. Until now. Last week, a new organization, the National American Indian Veterans Association, held its first annual meeting in Arizona. At that meeting, members voted unanimously to approve the organization's charter. Today, I am introducing a bipartisan proposal to grant the National American Indian Veterans Association a Federal charter. I am proud to sponsor this proposal, along with four great champions of Indian people and tribes: my fellow South Dakotan, Senator Johnson; Senator Bingaman; Senator Campbell, the distinguished chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee; and the committee's ranking member, Senator Inouye, a noble warrior himself and a Medal of Honor recipient. The National American Indian Veterans Association is long overdue, and it is desperately needed. Native Americans are the most likely of all Americans to volunteer for military service. But they are the least likely of all veterans to apply for the benefits they have earned. When they do try to claim those benefits, too often, the First Americans find themselves last in line. Too many Native American veterans go without urgently needed medical care because they can't get appointments or they can't overcome bureaucratic hurdles at the VA or the nearest clinic is too far away. Too many Native American veterans are living in crowded apartments and crumbling houses and trailers, partly because homeownership assistance programs that work for most veterans don't take into account the specific needs of many Indian veterans. Many Native American veterans don't claim the education benefits they have earned. Too many Native American veterans don't get the retirement benefits they deserve. And when they die, too many of their families don't get the survivors' benefits they should. A Federal charter does not grant the National American Indian Veterans Association any special legal status or favors. It will simply enable Native American veterans from all tribes to speak with one voice to Congress and to the Nation. The National Commander of the National American Indian Veterans Association is a man I am proud to know. Don Loudner is from Mitchell, SD. He is a member of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and a Korean War veteran with 35 years in the Army Reserves. He is also a member of the VA's Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, a former Commissioner of Indian Affairs for the State of South Dakota, a former superintendent of the Crow Creek Sioux Reservation, and one of the most tireless, articulate advocates for Native American veterans I have ever known. Congress has chartered many veterans organizations representing specific groups: the American War Mothers, the Blinded Veterans Association, Catholic War Veterans, Italian American War Veterans of the USA, Jewish War Veterans of the USA, the National Association for Black Veterans, Polish Legion of American Veterans. I believe the guidance and collected wisdom of the National American Indian Veterans Association will enable America to better honor its commitments to Native American veterans and their families. In doing so, it will strengthen Native Americans' long and exceptional tradition of military service to our Nation. And that will make America even safer and stronger. Five Native American warriors have already given their lives in Iraq. They include three members of the Navajo Nation: Army Private First Class Lori Piestewa, a young Hopi mother and the first Native American woman soldier ever killed in combat; and a young Army Private First Class from the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation in South Dakota. Sheldon Hawk Eagle was a member of the Army's 101st Airborne Division, the famed ``Screaming Eagles,'' the same unit that parachuted into Normandy on D-Day. He was also a descendant of the legendary Lakota warrior leader, Crazy Horse. There are many reasons that these young warriors and so many other Native Americans have risked--and given--their lives for this Nation. Clarence Wolf Guts may have said it best. Mr. Wolf Guts is from the Oglala Sioux Tribe and one of the last two surviving Lakota Code Talkers from World War II. Two weeks ago, he testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs about a bill I am sponsoring to honor all Native American Code Talkers, from all tribes. In Clarence Wolf Guts' words, ``Indian people love America, and we will do whatever it takes to protect our freedom from all aggressors.'' By formally recognizing the National American Indian Veterans Association--America's first and only Native American veterans organization--America will be better able to honor the extraordinary patriotism of these heroes and provide them with the respect and benefits they have earned. I urge my colleagues to join us. Let's pass this bill this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Max Baucus in introducing legislation that addresses the longstanding problem of dilapidated tribal detention facilities on Indian reservations. There is a tremendous need for replacement construction of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) operated and funded facilities, and I am pleased that this legislation offers a creative and innovative bonding approach to address the construction backlog. USA Today reported that Federal investigators have uncovered evidence of abuse, neglect and inhumane conditions in Native American prisons and jails. This troubling report suggests that the conditions in Indian detention facilities are not improving and, in fact, appear to be getting worse. It is my hope that this hearing will help shed additional light on these allegations, and lead to solutions to improve conditions in facilities across Indian country. According to recent statistics from the Department of Justice report on Indian jails and prisons, there are 70 detention facilities in Indian country, supervising approximately 2,100 inmates. Many of these facilities are in an appalling state of disrepair, and face problems that range from overcrowding and understaffing to sheer neglect and abuse. According to the most recent statistics from the Department of Justice, over half of all detention facilities in Indian country were operating at 100-percent capacity in 2002, and nineteen were operating at 150-percent or higher capacity. Of those nineteen, three are located in my state of South Dakota: Pine Ridge's Medicine Root Detention Center, operating at 250-percent capacity; Crow Creek's Fort Thompson Jail, operating at 242-percent capacity; and the Pine Ridge Correctional Facility, which is operating at a staggering 400 percent of its capacity. Inmates in South Dakota's BIA facilities are housed in dilapidated buildings and are forced to endure extraordinarily harsh conditions. Even though the Lower Brule tribal detention facility was condemned by the BIA in 1987, it was still being used to house inmates as recently as two years ago. Because the new facility is still under construction, Lower Brule prisoners are sent 13 miles away, across the Missouri River, to the Crow Creek facility in Fort Thompson. Because there aren't enough BIA officers to transport them back to Lower Brule, detainees released from Crow Creek are often forced to make the return trip to Lower Brule on foot. It is shocking that this is allowed to happen at all, but especially in South Dakota where harsh winters and sub-zero temperatures are routine. Moreover, the Fort Thompson facility is equally understaffed. One person serves as both police dispatcher and detention officer in a facility that houses up to 30 prisoners. These conditions have a devastating impact on prisoners. Nationally, between July 1, 2001, and June 30, 2002, 282 inmates in tribal jails attempted suicide, up from 169 the previous year. In the last five years, the number of admissions rose 32 percent, and the annual number of attempted suicides more than doubled, from 133 to 282. On Crow Creek, which is located in one of the most impoverished counties in the U.S. and experiences inordinate suicide rates among its general population, several suicides have occurred in the local jail. Even more troubling, inadequate detention facilities pose a serious threat to the surrounding communities. With a limited number of officers responsible for large inmate populations, the risk of prisoner violence--against both prison staff and, in the event of an escape, local citizens--is much greater. Moreover, the culture of neglect and abuse found in many of our Indian jails is indicative of broader trends within the communities. The Lower Brule jail doubles as a suicide-watch center for troubled teens, since there is nowhere else in the community to take them. Several Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) have either resigned, or are on the brink of resigning, due to the stress of the situation. Law enforcement officials are at a loss about how to address this disturbing pattern, and are overwhelmed by the feelings of hopelessness that accompany it. Clearly, the impact that overcrowding, dilapidated conditions, and neglect are having on inmates in these facilities, as well as local communities, is reaching a critical mass--both in South Dakota and across the Nation--and we must act now to reverse the trend. While addressing the problems that exist in jails and prisons clearly isn't the whole answer, such an approach will meet a critical need in Indian country, and will represent an important step toward increasing public safety and reducing incidences of abuse and neglect. We can start by increasing funding for BIA facilities. Unfortunately, this Administration has demonstrated a complete unwillingness to give Indian detention facilities the resources they need, and has actually reduced funding for jails and prisons in Indian country. It wasn't always so bad. Under the Clinton Administration, then-Attorney General Janet Reno created the Department of Justice--Department of Interior Indian Law Enforcement initiative with the objective of creating an effective way to address law enforcement, facilities, juvenile justice, and rehabilitation efforts in Indian country. Although funding for these programs, which increased under the Clinton administration and was consistent until the FY2002 appropriations cycle, was not enough to meet all of Indian country's needs, the initiative represented an unprecedented step toward addressing some of these problems. Unfortunately, the current Administration, while budgeting hundreds of millions of dollars for Federal prison construction, has proposed eliminating the tribal facility program for the second year in a row. While Congress appropriated $35 million per year for construction of BIA detention facilities between 2000 and 2002, we appropriated only $2 million in FY2004. Now, with an even tighter budget to work with, the outlook for this year is especially bleak, and conditions at BIA facilities are likely to get even worse. For too long, we have neglected our obligations to Native Americans. We are seeing the effects of that neglect in South Dakota. These are once again examples of the abrogration of the trust responsibility by the Federal Government to the tribes and its people. We need to do a better job of funding Indian detention centers, and we need to do more to address public safety, tribal courts, and rehabilitation efforts. We cannot ask tribes to choose between funding crisis intervention and law enforcement. We cannot force tribes to make the choice between funding education and after school programs for their children, and repairing cracked walls and inoperable surveillance cameras in their jails. While national rates are the lowest in years, crime on Indian lands continues to rise. Particularly disturbing is the violent nature of this crime; violence against women, juvenile and gang crime, and child abuse remain serious problems. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that American Indians experience the highest crime victimization rates in the nation--almost twice the national average. The law enforcement, public safety, and tribal detention facility issues are of critical importance to Indian country and surrounding communities. If this were happening in any other part of the country, it would be met with public outrage and swift government action. However, in Indian country, it is met with silence and reduced funding. For the safety of our Indian people and the well-being of their communities, we must take action. I am pleased that on September 21, 2004, the Senate Finance Committee held an oversight hearing on these issues, and that this legislation has emerged as a step in the right direction to address the construction backlog of much-needed facilities in rural, tribal communities. I support this legislation which authorizes eligible Indian tribes to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance tribal prison facilities, ``tribal prison facility bonds''. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address these important issues and to advance this legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Our two managers have done a wonderful job in getting us to this point. It is very important now to know what amendments are left. If they can be submitted tonight, we will work on a finite list and try to get that finite list locked in tonight or first thing tomorrow to work through what amendments remain. Our two managers are to be congratulated for a job well done today. We will try to finish tomorrow.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the majority leader. He made note of the fact that this is a historic day. This is a day when the Senate, with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, responded to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and other commissions that have urged our Government to take action to make us safer. We made a major step today in creating the infrastructure to make America safer. I compliment the majority leader for his efforts and also, of course, the two managers. Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman deserve great credit for the work product we voted on only moments ago. This is historic not only for its substance, but I would like to think it is also historic for the process that brought us here. As the majority leader has noted, we have an opportunity to replicate the substance and the process with the second piece of our work. I think in an equally bipartisan fashion, Senator McConnell and Senator Reid have worked hand in glove. They deserve great commendation and credit for the work they have done. They have consulted with every Member of the Senate. They have worked particularly with our chairs and ranking members, and they have now brought us a work product that was amended slightly as a result of that consultative process last night. After working and laying out the work product, they listened, they responded, and we have the response they put into the Record last night. So everybody has had a chance to review their work, and we are now, as the majority leader noted, asking for the same degree of cooperation and bipartisanship on this legislative work as we have on the bill. In that context, it will be important for Senators to indicate to us as quickly as possible their intent with regard to amendments. I know both cloakrooms are going to be seeking the response of Senators who may wish to offer amendments. Based on that response, because of the time of year, we may be required to file cloture just so we can accelerate the consideration of this effort. I will support that effort if it may be required, but, again, as we have done each day during the deliberations of the bill, I hope we could start the day with somewhat of a status report on where we are and what needs to be done and a reiteration of the importance of this work and our efforts in doing it in the same manner. So I hope we can continue as we have. As I said, this is a historic day, but there is much more history to be made and so much more work to be done. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Congress has no more solemn obligation than to ensure our Government can effectively defend the American people. We must put America's security first. The attacks of September 11 exposed serious weaknesses at every level of our Government's response to terrorism. Since that awful day, many of us in Congress have resolved to do everything possible to understand how a handful of terrorists could defeat the entire U.S. Government's defenses and then adapt those defenses in order to prevent future attacks and make America safer. The bill we are about vote on reflects the lessons of our inquiries. It is thorough, thoughtful, bipartisan, and most important, rooted firmly in the facts behind the greatest failure of American intelligence in our lifetime. When enacted, this legislation will improve our Government's ability to disrupt and prevent the kind of devastating attacks we witnessed that fateful day 3 years ago. In short, it will make America and Americans more secure. I can think of no more important action this Senate can take in the remaining days of this session than to pass this legislation and move it to a conference with the House. Immediately following the attack of the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Congress began a thorough investigation to uncover precisely what went wrong in the days leading up to September 11. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees conducted a bipartisan inquiry. They received thousands of pages of documents, conducted hundreds of hours of hearings, and heard from scores of Government and nongovernment witnesses who offered meaningful insights into what happened and how. The unanimous, bipartisan recommendations of that report were available in December 2002. Independent of this effort, President Bush had asked GEN Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor to former President Bush, to examine our intelligence community and suggest reforms that could make it function more effectively. According to press accounts, the recommendations of that investigation were available in March 2002. In addition, despite opposition from the White House, a strong bipartisan coalition was forged in the Congress to establish an independent, blue ribbon commission to investigate the circumstances surrounding the 9/11 attacks and provide us with a roadmap for how to improve our defenses, specifically those of our intelligence community. The White House eventually gave the Commission its support and its cooperation. The unanimous, bipartisan recommendations of that commission were released in July 2004. That is three separate investigations in less than 3 years--three separate investigations that originated in either the Congress or the Bush administration. Each investigation represented different points of view and perspectives. Yet each investigation reached the same conclusion: If our intelligence community is to respond quickly and effectively to terrorism, there must be a single person in charge with the authority to allocate resources and direct personnel. There must be a single person responsible for setting the direction of our intelligence operations. And there must be a single person accountable for the success or failure of those operations. The legislation before us reflects the lessons learned from these investigations and it is particularly faithful to the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. Not only does this legislation establish a national intelligence director with real power, it goes on to make a series of fundamental changes in the intelligence community and related Government agencies. Just as important as what it does, is what it does not do. It does not stray from the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. It avoids extraneous issues that would have only brought divisiveness and delay to this debate. Time is of the essence. As Governor Kean said when releasing his commission's report: Every day that passes is a day of increased risk if we do not make changes. America could not wait and the Senate wisely focused on the most urgent challenges at hand. I am especially grateful to Senators Collins and Lieberman, the managers of this important legislation. Shortly after the 9/11 Commission issued its report, Senator Frist and I assigned them the difficult task of taking the Commission's recommendations on the executive branch and producing a bill that converts these proposals into legislative language. They have not only done that, they have managed to grasp the details of this complicated bill and produce strong bipartisan support for their bill. As I noted above, Senate passage will get this bill to a conference with the House and their version of this legislation. Unfortunately, it appears that some in the other body do not share this goal of swiftly enacting the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. They do not believe we should limit our work to the 9/11 Commission's work. Nor do they believe our top goal should be to defeat terrorists rather than push partisan political agendas. Many of the people who are apparently willing to pursue this course have fought real reform efforts from the start. They opposed forming the 9/11 Commission. They opposed cooperating with the 9/11 Commission. They opposed giving the Commission the time and funding it needed to do its job. It is not surprising to learn now that they are now opposed to giving the Commission's recommendations a fair hearing. We can't afford to keep kicking this can down the road. It may seem obvious, but there are some who seem not to understand that American lives are at stake. This is the best--and perhaps last--opportunity to enact meaningful comprehensive reform legislation to make Americans more secure. With today's strong bipartisan vote, the Senate can make a clear statement that we are ready to seize this opportunity to protect America and more effectively fight terrorism. I hope our colleagues in the House who have opposed the Commission's work to this point will be able at long last to set aside their partisan agenda and follow the bipartisan example of the Senate. The families of the victims of 9/11 and, indeed, all Americans should expect no less from their elected representatives.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 18 months ago, a group of 450 economists, including 10 Nobel laureates, made it clear that because the White House put the narrow interests of a few ahead of our Nation's economy, its jobs plan would fail. It would fail to create jobs, it would fail to lift wages, and it would fail to bring down our deficit. The warning was clear. Now the record is undeniable. In the last 3 years, we have lost 1.6 million private sector jobs. The last time the economy took this long to replace jobs lost in a recession was the Great Depression. Mr. President, 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost, and many sent overseas on a one-way ticket. Unemployment has increased 40 percent, and today 8 million Americans are out of work. And 1.7 million have been out of work for 6 months or longer. That is horrible news for a couple that is hoping to retire, a family that is trying to put a child through college, or anyone who has been living from paycheck to paycheck. But this situation touches all Americans, including those who have jobs today. That is because the weakness in the job market has undermined wage and salary growth. Real household income has dropped 3.4 percent since 2001. Adding to the squeeze, college tuition is up, gas prices have risen to all-time highs, and the cost of health care has risen by 45 percent since 2001. Middle-class families are beginning to believe that the deck is stacked against them, and for good reason. The CBO recently confirmed what many of us have been saying for the past few years: The President's economic plan rewards wealth and punishes work by shifting the tax burden onto the shoulders of middle-class families. Even with middle-class families bearing more than their fair share of the tax burden, the country is looking at years and years of record deficits and debt. This past weekend, I traveled around South Dakota, meeting with people and going door to door. More than any time in my memory, people tell me they need two or three jobs--not to get ahead, not to save for a house or their child's education, but simply to make their monthly bills. Many good manufacturing jobs have left the State, and it is getting more difficult to find full-time jobs that pay a wage good enough to raise a family. Recently, I received a letter from a young woman in Lake Andes. She has done everything right. She went to college, got a master's degree, and got advanced skills that could help move our economy forward. But because there are so few good jobs, she has been out of work now for months. Just to get by, she has applied for lower skilled work. But often she is passed over for those jobs because employers worry that she is overqualified. What does it say about our economy that someone with real skills, willing to work hard, cannot get a job? Out in our small towns and farming and ranching communities, the story can even get worse. I have been visiting these communities for more than 25 years. There is nothing more gratifying to me than to see a family farmer or rancher raise their children, teach them how to farm, and then pass their land down to them. That is why we led the fight to create an exemption in the estate tax to allow families to pass from one generation to the next the farms they have lived on for generations before. But too many family farms are getting swallowed up. More often, children are forced to leave the communities they know and the families they love to find work in other places. They don't want to leave, but they cannot find work good enough to allow them to raise a family. So the way of life their families have enjoyed for generations is being lost. These families have been struggling for years, watching all they have worked for slip away from them. Yet when they look to Washington, they do not see their Government fighting for them, or even hearing them at times. The administration continues to say the economy has turned a corner. When these families look ahead, they don't see a corner, they see a cliff, and they are worried they are going to fall off. Americans do not want to wait until after the election to do something. They need help now. I am glad we extended the middle-class tax cuts. Middle-class families need relief. Previous tax cuts were unfairly skewed to the very wealthiest of Americans. This was the right thing to do. It will probably help those people who are struggling, but there is much more that we need to do. First, we need to pass a real jobs bill, one that puts top priority on creating jobs at home, closes corporate tax loopholes, and ends the incentives that encourage companies to ship American jobs overseas. Second, we need to extend the unemployment benefits. Every week, another 85,000 Americans exhaust their unemployment benefits. They should not be punished because the economic policies that are in place have created the longest jobs slump since the Great Depression. Third, it is time to raise the minimum wage. Today, the minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, and it is worth less than $3 when using 1968 wage indicators. Americans who work at the minimum wage for 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, still fall $5,000 short of the poverty line. No American who works full time, 52 weeks a year, should live in poverty. In the time we have left this year, we should increase the minimum wage to $7. It will not lift every working family out of poverty, but it will move millions of minimum wage workers closer to the life of security and dignity they deserve. Fourth, we need to pass a Transportation bill that would provide needed infrastructure improvements across the Nation. Fifth, we need to help workers whose jobs have been outsourced overseas to get back on their feet. Finally, we need to pass the renewable fuels standard. In South Dakota alone, a renewable fuels standard would create 10,000 jobs and revitalize the rural economy. By reducing reliance on foreign oil, families would be less vulnerable to high energy costs. It looks as though this Congress will end having failed to take strong action on behalf of American working families. Unfortunately, the leadership has stood in the way of commonsense proposals that would create jobs and improve the lives of working people. Republican opposition to legislation designed to create jobs and help workers would be troubling at any time, but considered together, at a time when working families continue to feel the effects of a 3-year- long jobs slump, their stubborn opposition demonstrates a troubling indifference to the needs of American middle-class families. Americans still dream of a better life. They still dream of a better future for themselves and their families. We have a responsibility to give Americans a chance to make that dream real. But it is time we tell Americans who are struggling that help is on the way. We are not helpless. We can create jobs, lift wages, and stop the outsourcing of the American workplace. All it takes is leadership. Americans have been looking to Congress to provide the new direction of economic leadership they need. We have 1 more week before the Senate recesses. The American people are demanding action, and we have an obligation to deliver it. I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join the majority leader and others who I understand will come to the floor to call attention to the need for recognition of the problems of domestic violence. October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. As the majority leader noted, last week we passed a resolution supporting the efforts to address more effectively domestic violence in this country. This is an important issue, a very troubling issue to people all over this country. We have been lax in recognizing the depth and the breadth of the problem within our country. In South Dakota and across the land, new efforts are being made to address the need for greater awareness, the need for greater education, the need for greater prevention, the need for greater response. And it is only if we as Senate leadership ensure that the people of this country recognize the importance of making this a higher priority will those needs be addressed throughout the Nation. So I commend those who are taking the floor this morning to once again draw attention to these needs, draw attention to our need to respond, and to draw attention to the important priority it ought to have as we consider public policy.

Mr. DASCHLE. Senator Biden has long been a champion in bringing domestic violence to the forefront of the national agenda. He was a leader in the bipartisan effort to pass the Violence Against Women Act, and I worked with him last year to ensure the independence of the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice. The Violence Against Women Act made a statement in law that fighting domestic violence is not just sound family policy, it is a moral imperative. It made a statement that domestic violence is not the shameful secret of a select few families, it is an issue with immense repercussions for all of us. Most importantly, it made a statement that as a country, a society, and a national family, we can do something about domestic violence. As a direct result of the Violence Against Women Act our Nation has made significant strides in the fight against domestic violence. There are more domestic abuse hotlines and more shelters today than there were 10 years ago. There are more doctors, nurses, therapists, teachers, police officers, judges and other community leaders today who recognize the signs of domestic violence, and know how to help when they see those signs. VAWA has also provided financial means to Native American communities and tribes to combat domestic violence. Before 1994, domestic violence and sexual assault services and resources were rare in Indian Country. VAWA has enabled Native communities to provide safe locations, counseling services, and technical assistance and training, and it has given these communities the flexibility to tailor those services to the unique needs of Indian people. In addition, just last Wednesday, the Senate passed a VAWA STOP grant technical fix that would allow for a direct Federal tribal coalition relationship. This fix provides an important clarification to ensure that tribal domestic violence and sexual assault programs have a direct link with the Department of Justice underscoring the unique Federal- tribal relationship. In South Dakota, in Rapid City and on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, a non-profit organization known as Cangleska is helping to break the cycle of violence by providing domestic violence prevention and intervention advocacy and services. Cangleska works with organizations like Sacred Circle that serve as a vital national resource for Native women, and I am proud to have it based in South Dakota. There are similar organizations doing good work in communities all across America, Native and non-Native, rich and poor. We have made progress. But there is much more to be done. Each year, more than 1 million women in America are victims of domestic violence, and more than 3 million American children witness domestic violence. Protecting the victims of domestic violence is essential, but it is not enough. Domestic violence does not just destroy families, it cascades through generations. Children who get abused or witness abuse are more likely to become parents who abuse. Next year, when Congress re-authorizes the Violence Against Women Act, in addition to taking further steps to prevent domestic violence, we need to do more to help the children who witness it. This is the only way to begin to break the cycle of domestic violence. This month, we acknowledge the strength and bravery of the victims and survivors of domestic violence, and we rededicate ourselves to raising awareness about and confronting this deeply disturbing issue. Let us also vow to do even more in the months ahead to create a country and a climate where home is a refuge, and domestic violence a thing of the past.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have come a long way and I congratulate our managers and thank, once again, our assistant Democratic leader for his assistance in moving our effort along. We will complete our work on the bill today. That is very gratifying. I only hope now once we have completed our work we can expedite consideration with the House. We will await their decisions with regard to how they might proceed. Clearly, we are in a position to complete our work in a reasonable time. I hope the same spirit of bipartisanship that was so clearly demonstrated from the very first day with regard to consideration of this legislation can be equally as evident and apparent as we finish our work. It is the only way the bill will get done under these circumstances. Again, I thank the majority leader for setting that tone. I also say we are in a very good position to do the same with the legislative reorganization. A lot of thought and effort has gone into the working group's recommendations. I am one who believes this resolution is as close to the consensus within the Congress, within the Senate, at least, regarding how we might respond to the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission as we will get. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We have provided the Senate with an opportunity to address the concerns raised by the 9/11 Commission in a very reasonable, thoughtful, and comprehensive way. I thank the assistant Republican leader and the assistant Democratic leader for their work and hope we can complete our work as a result of their contribution in the next couple of days. We could have a very productive week. As the majority leader has indicated, there are other bills that could be addressed, as well. We have made a lot of progress and I hope we continue to do so. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I join the majority leader in our enthusiastic support for the vote we will soon cast. I hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle will take this important step. This is an opportunity to make a statement about our determination, on a bipartisan basis, to move this legislation forward. Senators have come forth with a lot of good ideas. I respect them. I appreciate the quality of the debate that we have had. It has been a very good debate. But now comes a time when I think we need to limit further amendments to those which are very relevant to the legislation, germane, and that is what this vote will do. Three commissions have made recommendations that are reflected in the legislative work that is before us today. Now is our opportunity to build upon that commission work, to build upon what the committee has done so diligently, and to work together to move this legislative vehicle along to accommodate the schedule we have here in the Senate, as well as the recognition that we still have to work with our House counterparts to resolve whatever outstanding differences there may be with them. This is an important vote. I hope, as I say, that we can speak with one voice with regard to completing our work and moving on to the second phase of our 9/11 response, which is the legislative reorganization. I join with the leader and express the hope we can have a resounding vote on cloture this morning. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Congress, unfortunately, is going to miss many important deadlines this year and many critical opportunities to help relieve the increasing economic squeeze on America's families. This morning, I would like to talk about one of those missed opportunities, which is helping families pay for college. We knew for 6 years that the Federal Higher Education Act would expire on September 30. Despite that, the majority failed to set aside time to reauthorize the law. That leaves the Senate in the unfortunate position of having to simply extend the current law--with no improvements, and no additional help for the millions of middle-class families in South Dakota and across America who are struggling to put their sons and daughters through college. Kim and Todd Dougherty are two of those parents. They live in Chamberlain, SD. They have three children: two sons, ages 20 and 22, and a daughter who is a junior in high school. Todd is a salesman. Kim teaches second graders at a tribal school. Both of her parents were teachers, too. This is a family that believes in education. The Dougherty's older son, Scott, started college at a small college in Minnesota 4 years ago but left after two semesters because of frustration with a learning disability and came home to consider other schools and options. Shortly after he returned home, Scott tore the ACL ligament in his knee. Unfortunately, he had let his health insurance lapse because he couldn't pay his tuition and insurance premiums at the same time. His knee surgery cost him $12,000. After his surgery, he had to start paying back his student loans. Today, Scott works as a cook in a restaurant. He pays $409 each month towards his medical and student loan debts, and another $200 a month for health insurance. That leaves him $75 a month for everything else. He can't go back to college until he pays off a sizable portion of his debts, and he worries that he can't get a better-paying job because he has so much debt. All across America, there are tens of thousands of families who are in situations similar to the Doughertys'--or soon could be. They are hard-working, middle-class families in which parents have saved for years to pay for their children's college educations. There is no margin for error in their family budgets. If one thing goes wrong--if a parent loses a job unexpectedly, or someone in the family has a serious illness or accident--the debts start to pile up and suddenly, college starts to feel unattainable. Middle-class parents watch their dreams for their children's future start to slip away. We need to do right by these families, and that means keeping the doors of college open to all Americans, no matter what their family's economic circumstances. Unfortunately, we are moving in the opposite direction. This year, nearly a half-million Americans will be turned away from colleges strictly for financial reasons. They can do the work, they just can't afford the tuition. Since President Bush took office, the average tuition at a 4-year public college has increased 28 percent; when this year's increases are released in about a month, that number is likely to climb to well over 30 percent. College costs are rising faster than inflation--faster than average family incomes--and much faster than increases in student financial aid. Every 2 years, a non-partisan group called the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education releases State-by-State report cards on higher education. The report cards grade each State on six different criteria. One is affordability: How large a share of their income do families have to pay for college at a public 4-year college or university? Their latest report, released in early September, ought to concern us all. Thirty-seven States--including South Dakota--got an ``F'' for affordability. Thirty-seven of 50 States. Ten additional States received ``Ds,'' two States got ``Cs,'' and one State received a ``B.'' No State earned an ``A.'' Even in the best-performing States, we are losing ground; college is less affordable today than it was a decade ago. This is a serious national problem. What is the response from the administration and congressional Republicans? Silence. They failed to bring the Higher Education Act up for reauthorization. Their oversized tax cuts have eaten up Federal resources that we could otherwise invest in higher education, and in basic research and investment. The President's proposed budget for next year provides no new money for the Perkins low-interest loan program, no new money for the College Work Study program, and the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, and no money at all for the LEAP program--all of which help lower-income students pay for college. Despite the President's campaign promise in 2000 to increase the maximum Pell grant, his proposed budget for next year freezes Pell grants for the third year in a row. Even worse, the administration is once again proposing changes to the eligibility rules that would reduce Pell grants by 270 million overall and cause 84,000 families to lose their Pell grants altogether. I joined a bipartisan coalition of Senators to protect students and families from these unwise changes last year--and we are determined to prevent these cuts again this year. Making it even harder for the sons and daughters of America's working families to afford college is the wrong direction for America. The repeated attempts to cut Pell grants are part of a pattern by this administration and the Republican leadership in this Congress to deny educational opportunities. Earlier this year, Democrats made a simple proposal: Let's help those Americans whose jobs are being shipped to China or India attend a community college, where they can learn new skills to get new jobs. The administration said, flatly, ``no'' and shut the doors of college in the faces of these Americans. But we want to do right by America. We support increasing the maximum Pell grant from $4,050 to $5,100-- the amount candidate Bush called for in 2000 but has never supported as President. We support doubling the HOPE Scholarship tax credit from $1,500 per student to 3,000 per student, extending the deductibility of tuition expenses, and making the education tax credits refundable for the poorest families. We support Senator Kerry's proposed $4,000-a-year ``College Opportunity Tax Credit'' which would be refundable for low- income families. Instead of the cuts the President proposes for tribal colleges and the minuscule increases he recommends for historically black colleges and universities, and Hispanic serving institutions, we support significantly increasing support for these minority-serving institutions because we believe diversity strengthens our democracy and our economy. We believe in expanding the use of loan-forgiveness programs to reduce student debt while addressing crucial needs, such as placing doctors and teachers in rural communities and inner cities. We believe our brave National Guard and Reserve members in Iraq and Afghanistan who are facing the same bullets as full-time military members deserve the same education benefits. The National Guard Bill of Rights provides that educational equity. We should pass an entire National Guard Bill of Rights this year. Over the course of a 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 $1 million more. It is not just individuals who benefit when we open the doors of college to the sons and daughters of working families. America's economic future depends on our ability to develop the potential of all of our people. A while back I read a story in the New York Times. The headline read, ``U.S. Is Losing Its Dominance in the Sciences.'' The story 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. Unless we reverse this decline and regain America's scientific and technological knowledge, our children will grow up in a less productive, less prosperous America. Keeping college affordable is a very personal issue for me. I was the first person in my family to go to college. I worked to pay for part of my tuition, and I also had help from my parents. My mother went back to work when I was in high school to help pay for my college education. Even with all of us pitching in, it was still not quite enough. As so many others today, I joined the ROTC program and I spent 3 years in the Air Force after I graduated to pay back my loans. I know what a difference it makes when America invests in the children of regular working people. I also know the pride a parent feels watching his child receive a college degree. I have seen all three of my own children graduate from college. We believe every American deserves those same opportunities. We will continue to fight for them as we resolve these matters in the Senate and elsewhere throughout our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will have more remarks on another matter, but I wanted to start this morning by acknowledging yet another remarkable year by the Minnesota Twins. Tonight, the Twins will be playing in the Major League Baseball playoffs, and this marks the third year in a row that the Twins have made the playoffs. We follow the Twins in South Dakota because we have no team ourselves in the eastern part of the State. So the Twins have become very special to many South Dakotans as well. I might remind my colleagues that this is the same small market Minnesota Twins team that was threatened not long ago with ``contraction''--a euphemism cooked up by big city owners for shutting down a team that generations of South Dakotans have come to call their own. Tonight the Twins will face off against the New York Yankees, whose huge payroll ensures that it is never a surprise when they make it to the playoffs. The Twins will pitch their ace, YO-han Santana--who also happens to be a leading contender for the Cy Young award. His dominance is in many ways a symbol of what has made the Twins so solid. After being cast off by another team, he was brought up in the Twins system, which rewards dedication and loyalty. And like so many of the Twins stars, he is a hard worker who leaves everything on the field. It is no mistake that the Twins' strengths--dedication, loyalty and hard work--are the same traits that have made the Midwest strong. So let me add my voice to those of thousands of Twins fans across South Dakota and Minnesota in saying to Grady and his boys, good luck. You have made us proud, and we know you will continue to do so in the days ahead.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join the majority leader in applauding the remarkable career of Helen Dewar, the dean of the Senate press corps. As Senator Frist mentioned, Helen will be leaving her beat as the Washington Post's Senate correspondent at the end of this Congress. If I can borrow a phrase, not having Helen Dewar to kick us around anymore will be a loss for the Senate and for America. Helen Dewar is a dogged reporter and graceful writer, and those gifts are rare enough, but she has possessed an even rarer gift. From the day she started the Senate beat, she has always known that you cannot understand the Senate just by walking these marbled Halls and making phone calls from a desk in the Capitol; you have to go out into America and talk to the people. I recently came across what may be the first story Helen ever wrote from South Dakota. The date was July 2, 1980. It was a story about the centennial celebration of Arlington, SD, population 953. The headline read: ``Celebrating 100 Years Against the Odds.'' Helen described the town's parade as 2 miles long, ``considerably longer than the town itself.'' She recounted people's complaints--farm prices were too low and gas prices were too high. Mostly, she captured the incredible pride people in Arlington felt for their community. ``The pride was so intense,'' she wrote, ``that a visitor from Washington, offering Arlingtonians a chance to sound off about government and politics, was told to forget all about that unpleasantness, grab a plate of barbeque and simply enjoy Arlington.'' Helen Dewar is a Washington institution, but she has never worn beltway blinders. For nearly 25 years, she has worked long, hard hours in the Senate, and when the Senate recesses, she has crisscrossed America to get the story--to explain to reporters what their Government is doing and why. She is a reporter's reporter--tough, persistent, perceptive, and always fair. She has earned the respect of her colleagues, her sources, and her readers. She has served American democracy well by helping to hold our Government accountable and to give the people the information and knowledge they need to make informed decisions about their Government. After nearly 25 years covering this body, Helen is part of the institutional memory of the Senate. More than that, she is part of the heart of this place. It is a privilege and a pleasure to work with Helen, and I know we all wish her well in all her future endeavors.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to let my Senate colleagues know about a wonderful event going on back in my home state of South Dakota later this week. For 3 days starting on Friday, October 8, the 18th Annual He Sapa Wacipi (Black Hills Powwow) and Fine Arts Show will be taking place in the beautiful Black Hills, traditional homeland of the Oceti Sakowin Oyate, or Great Sioux Nation. I can think of no better way, or place, to celebrate life and the vibrant cultures of the bands of the Oceti Sakowin Oyate, and of the many other tribal nations who live throughout the Great Plains. I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the tribal citizens of the Oceti Sakowin Oyate, the board of directors of the Black Hills Powwow Association, the organizers and event staff, and the all those participating in the Wacipi. In Washington on September 21, 2004, we celebrated the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian. The events associated with the museum's dedication marked the first time in history that so many people from throughout the Western Hemisphere have gathered to celebrate a museum dedicated solely to their historic contributions to humankind, their many struggles for survival, and their present-day accomplishments and life-ways. Featured prominently in the museum and accompanying celebrations were the tribal nations of the Great Plains. The opening week of the museum was also historic because the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held an oversight hearing on the contributions of Native American code talkers in World War I, the Korean War, and World War II. There have been code talkers from at least 17 tribes, the Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota among them. As a cosponsor of legislation that would honor all Native American code talkers, I was especially proud to have met and visited with Clarence Wolf Guts, of the Oglala Lakota Nation, the last surviving Lakota code talker. I had the honor of presenting Clarence with a framed copy of a recent Senate floor speech I delivered that was submitted to the Congressional Record in Lakota, marking the first time a Native American language has been memorialized in the Record. Like the National Museum of the American Indian, and the legacy of the code talkers, the He Sapa Wacipi is a living testament to the tribal nations of the Great Plains. It brings people from across North America, young and old, Indian and non-Indian, together to celebrate life through song and dance. It is a chance for old friends to see one another, and for new ones to be made. The art show gives Native American artists the opportunity to showcase their talent, and there are various other activities, including traditional hand-game tournaments, contemporary Native American music concerts, and activities targeted to the youth. It is more than just a dance; it is a modern expression of the traditional values of respect, honor, devotion to family, and patriotism that so many of our tribal nations have embodied throughout history. For my part, I am sorry that my schedule keeps me from attending such a wonderful event. But I am proud to officially acknowledge and honor all those participating in the He Sapa Wacipi.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, before we left for the August recess, I came to the Senate floor to express my serious concerns about this administration's policies towards rural America. On several critical issues, including disaster aid, renewable fuels, and market concentration, the decisions the President has made have been right for a very few large corporations, but wrong for the large majority of rural Americans. And now it appears the administration will once again stand against farmers and ranchers by opposing the bipartisan disaster aid approved by the Senate 2 weeks ago. I am hopeful that given the extent of disaster all across the nation and the large bipartisan support for this aid, the administration will withdraw its opposition and agree that farmers and ranchers who are impacted by natural disasters should not be treated differently than others who are victims of hurricanes, tornadoes or floods. Unfortunately, the pattern of neglect for rural residents has continued as the administration has made yet another decision that diminishes the importance of family farmers and ranchers. As part of the ongoing negotiations being held by the World Trade Organization, the Bush administration has agreed to a 20-percent cut in the allowable level of farm support and safety net programs for American producers of corn, soybeans, wheat, and other crops. Remarkably, the administration made this concession without receiving any assurances from our trading partners that American producers will get increased access to foreign markets in return. In other words, the administration has agreed to unilaterally disarm our nation's farmers. For the owners of large corporate agribusinesses, this deal may mean increased profits. But for thousands of family farmers and ranchers, this decision deepens their insecurity, and could lead to devastating consequences the next time we enter a period of low prices. The last time we confronted an extended period of low prices, in 1999 and 2000, our domestic support and safety net programs played a key role in helping our rural communities weather the storm. But if the deal that the Bush administration cut had been in effect then, the consequences could have been even more devastating. We could have fallen billions of dollars short of what was necessary to provide an adequate safety net for our Nation's farmers and ranchers. In my home State of South Dakota alone, we could have fallen short by tens of millions of dollars, cuts that could have had a crippling impact on my State's No. 1 industry, and the overall health of our rural economy. One of the specific programs put at risk by the Bush administration's proposed cuts is the new countercyclical farm program. Many States, including South Dakota, were pleased with this program, which pays producers when prices are low but allows no payments when prices are high. It uses a formula that updates bases and yields to the greatest extent possible, and that was a big improvement for many States. But this important countercyclical program could now be in jeopardy because of the administration's framework agreement. For producers in South Dakota who have seen years of drought and have now suffered a large production loss due to an early frost, the President's trade negotiators have once again called into question whether this administration is willing to back up its rhetorical support of farmers, ranchers, and rural Americans with the policies that will actually make a difference for our rural economy. South Dakotans understand the benefits of free trade, but they also understand that free trade must be fair if we are going to avoid a destructive race to the bottom. And right now, the situation confronting American producers is anything but fair. The average worldwide tariff facing American producers is now 62 percent, while the average U.S. tariff on imported goods is only 12 percent. With the playing field already so slanted, it is inexplicable to me that we would do anything to further tip the scales against American producers. But that is exactly what the Bush administration has done by agreeing to cut domestic farm support without getting anything concrete in return. Even worse, the President's top agricultural negotiator has already indicated that the administration may agree to further reductions, and he has actually told the media that the cuts to domestic support programs could be as high as 50 percent. This is no way to conduct negotiations on behalf of America's farmers and ranchers. We should be demanding mutual concessions from our trading partners, not giving up vital safety-net programs based on some vague hope that other countries might open their markets in the future. When I spoke about the challenges facing our rural communities back in July, I said we had a moral obligation to do right by our family farmers and ranchers. That should be our standard whenever we make decisions on agricultural policy: Are we doing right by rural America? The administration's proposal to cut farm support and safety-net programs fails that basic test. Like so many other decisions this administration has made, it puts the interests of large agribusinesses ahead of farmers and consumers, and it threatens the future health of our rural communities. In short, the administration's proposal does wrong by rural America. Last month, I wrote a letter to President Bush asking him to rescind his administration's offer to cut farm support programs. Much to my disappointment, the President's top trade negotiator, Ambassador Zoellick, responded by saying that my concerns were outside the ``mainstream of American agriculture.'' Well, I have some news: In South Dakota and across rural America, selling out farmers and ranchers for the benefit of big agribusiness is not part of the mainstream. I am also not reassured by Ambassador Zoellick's claim that, somehow, the 20-percent cuts will not actually impact our support and safety net programs. Ambassador Zoellick has already touted these cuts as ``concessions'' that brought other nations back to the table. So, which is it, are they concessions or not? Who is being fooled, the other 146 nations or American farmers and ranchers? The administration can't have it both ways. Either the concessions mean something and that is what brought the negotiators to the table, or the administration fooled all our trading partners. Neither is good policy. My experience with this administration--an administration which opposed a robust farm bill--tells me that if there is a trade deal that is bad for agriculture but good for other segments of our economy, agriculture will lose out, whether that means a 20-percent cut, or even a 50-percent cut. And at that point, States like South Dakota, and all of rural America, will be on the short end of the stick. That is simply unacceptable. We can do better. We can return mainstream values to our agricultural policies, and we can do right by America's heartland. It is not too late to reverse the administration's misguided agricultural and rural policies. The WTO negotiators are going back to the negotiating table early next month. They can ensure that we do not give up important safety-net programs without getting anything in return. Those of us who stand with America's farmers and ranchers will continue to fight to ensure that they are once again treated with the dignity and respect that they not only deserve but are entitled to as the anchors of so many of our Nation's communities, and a vital part of our Nation's economy. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as we have now done several days in a row, both the majority leader and I have felt the need to impress upon our colleagues the urgency of completing our work on this bill. It is important that we maximize the next 2 days. I think my advice to the majority leader will be that we have votes on Friday unless we can specifically enumerate at least 10 amendments that can be offered and debated and considered tomorrow. There is absolutely no reason this body, with 100 Senators, if we are serious about completing our work, cannot find the time and the effort to use tomorrow to its fullest. So I am very hopeful Senators will come to us throughout the day to volunteer their willingness to come to the floor tomorrow to offer these amendments. If that does not happen, then our only other recourse will, of course, be to have votes tomorrow and force our colleagues to use the day that otherwise will be lost. So please let either our managers know or leadership know your intent regarding these amendments. As the majority leader noted, you have until 4 o'clock this afternoon to file your amendments. As we noted yesterday, because of the backlog of legislative counsel, we appreciate the logistical challenge this may require, but we are going to be understanding and flexible with regard to your ability to refine your amendment at that time when it is considered. We have done that before. It is important we accommodate Senators' needs to do that again this time. So I ask, on behalf of leadership in particular, that we have the cooperation of all Senators. We had a reasonably good day yesterday, but a lot more needs to be done. We have about 300 amendments pending. Senators are going to have to be more realistic about their expectations with regard to offering amendments. It is my hope that over the course of the next several days we can find a more realistic appreciation of how many amendments there really are and what kind of time will need to be allocated to consider those amendments in the coming days.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I add my voice of support for what the majority leader said. We want Senators who have amendments to come to the floor to offer them. As we get this filing deadline agreement, we are also going to ensure that Senators are protected. We know there is a backlog with the legislative counsel and that it will take a little time to draft them. So we will accommodate Senators with that practical consideration in mind, but we hope that Senators understand Friday is going to be a full day of work, and we need a lot of amendments offered on Friday. We are going to have to have all of these amendments debated, and we will look at the circumstances at some point. I will support the cloture motion if we are not making adequate progress. So Senators need to offer their amendments, agree to time limits, and move this legislative process along. We will get that filing agreement this afternoon, and Senators then will have the opportunity to be clearer as to their intention with regard to these amendments. It is not our desire to hold them precisely to the language of the amendment, but we need to know how many real amendments there are. I support the majority leader's commitment to both the bill pending as well as to the organization of the legislative branch prior to the time we leave. Both of these matters have to be addressed, and I think as we continue to work as successfully as we have, we can accomplish this work before we leave. We just need the cooperation of all Members in that regard.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, over the past 4 years, as we have watched the heroism of our men and women in uniform, our Nation has gained a new awareness for the service and sacrifice of American soldiers. In communities all across our country, Americans are praying for the safe return of loved ones serving abroad. They are sending letters and care packages and small reminders of home. But they are counting the days until they can show the thanks they feel and our soldiers deserve face to face. Few values bring Americans more closely together than our gratitude and respect for the men and women who serve in uniform to protect us. And today, all America is united in gratitude for the service of our Armed Forces and for the many sacrifices their families must make to accommodate their absence. Regrettably, there are troubling signs that the tremendous burdens we have placed on their shoulders have begun to come at a cost. In recent weeks, we have learned that the National Guard and Reserves are having difficulty recruiting and retaining enough soldiers to defend our country. For the first time in a decade, the Army Guard is unable to meet its requirement for 350,000 soldiers. Too many soldiers are leaving and recruiting can't keep up. A regular survey of reservists has found that the percentage of Army Reserve members who plan to reenlist has fallen from 69 percent in May 2003 to 59 percent in May 2004. There can be no doubt, the stress of long deployments and active duty are having an effect on recruiting. Increasingly, our national security is put in the hands of the citizens soldiers of our National Guard and Reserve. When recruitment for the Guard and Reserve falls off, it threatens to undermine the readiness and the effectiveness of our Armed Forces. Let there be no doubt: Now more than ever, we need our Armed Forces to be strong and prepared enough to meet the threats we face today and those we may see tomorrow. Earlier in the week, the New York Times reported that the Army is considering cutting the length of its 12-month combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to relieve the stress of duty. This could be a positive step. Special attention also needs to be paid to considering new ways to honor the service of our reservists and offer new incentives for signing up. The debt we owe our soldiers shouldn't be limited to a welcome-home parade. It begins before we send them abroad and it shouldn't end when they return home. This is a debt we must honor every day. But consider the welcome home thousands of Guard members received when they returned stateside recently only to find they had lost their jobs while they were fighting in Iraq. Over the past 3 years, thousands of Guard members and reservists have come home to find themselves out of work. Ron Vander Wal, a member of South Dakota Guard's 200th Engineer Company had to sue his employer just to get his old job back. Ron is now back at work, but he never should have had to go to court to get what was rightfully his. Thousands more aren't as fortunate. And every time a soldier returns home to find that he has less than when he left to fight, we have failed that soldier. How can we ask our soldiers to fight for us overseas and then force them to fight for their jobs once they get home? Sadly, this is only the tip of the iceberg. More than 400,000 reservists and National Guard members have been mobilized since September 11, 2001. They represent 40 percent of our forces in the region. Their bravery and professionalism have been vital to every aspect of our mission in Iraq. Many of them have been working to improve the lives and health of average Iraqis. And yet, when they return, one out of every five Guard members and Reservists--and 40 percent of junior enlisted personnel--will have no health insurance of their own. That is simply unacceptable. This kind of neglect is regrettably reflected in our treatment of veterans, as well. Last month, I spoke to a woman from Hartford, SD, whose father served in the Navy--in Vietnam and elsewhere. Recently, her father died, and in his final months the family struggled with the VA to get the benefits he needed. This woman became quite frustrated with the VA and its ability to care for veterans. Today, this woman who loves her country and is proud of her father's service says she will advise her children against joining the military, because she feels our country just doesn't take care of its vets in their hours of greatest need. That is intolerable. Not only is it morally wrong not to honor the service of our veterans, but it directly affects our ability to recruit the next generation of American heroes. Something needs to be done. Let there be no doubt, the problems with the VA health system are not the fault of the doctors and nurses and the other men and women who work at VA hospitals and clinics. They are among the most talented, most dedicated health professionals in this country. But they can only do so much with the resources they are given. And from the first days of this administration, the White House has systematically tried to reduce veterans benefits, cut funding to the VA, and shortchange the healthcare of America's veterans. Over the past 4 years, the budget for veterans health has risen far less than has the cost of delivering health care, forcing VA hospitals to meet rising demand with shrinking resources. The White House's 2005 budget deepens this trend by including less than a one-tenth of one percent funding increase, while health costs nationwide are rising at double digit rates of inflation. Overall, the White House budget falls nearly $4.3 billion short of veterans' needs, according to the independent budget created by leading nonpartisan veterans groups. The veterans least able to pay are being asked to pick up the difference. Over the course of the last 3 years, the amount vets have paid toward their own care has increased a staggering 340 percent, or $561 million. And if the White House gets its way, vets would need to pick up more than a half billion dollars more of their care in 2005. This is wrong. Americans treasure their freedom and we treasure those who have sworn to defend it. The kind of treatment our veterans and reservists are receiving defies the gratitude Americans feel in their hearts and betrays our tradition of caring for those who wore the uniform of their country. There are two steps Congress should take immediately. First, we should pass the National Guard and Reservist Bill of Rights which I introduced earlier this month. This bill codifies a set of rights the men and women serving in our National Guard and Reserve have earned with their service to our Nation. It states that every reservist has the right to straight answers about his or her deployments, and deployments that are no longer than those of full-time soldiers; the right to the best equipment the Nation has to offer; the right to adequate, timely, and problem-free compensation; the right to child care for his or her family; the right to quality, affordable health care; the right to employment when he or she returns home; the right to education benefits; the right to a fair retirement plan; and the right to representation at the highest levels of the Department of Defense. Perhaps most important, this bill of rights would ensure that the Guard and Reserve remain attractive opportunities for Americans who want to serve their country. Second, it is time we made good on a simple promise to veterans: If you wore the uniform of our Nation, if you fought under our flag, your health care needs will be met for life. The full funding of veterans health care should be made mandatory under law. For too long, the VA budget has been subject to the give and take of budget politics. We need to set things straight. The funding for the VA should no longer be set by political convenience, or backroom deals, or the zero-sum game of budget politics. One thing, and one thing alone, should govern the care of our veterans; that is, the needs of our veterans. How could we do otherwise? How could we let our country move forward and leave behind the men and women whose bravery has won our freedom and prosperity? Moreover, how could we let our children grow up believing that our Government fails to honor and repay those who risk their lives in service to the Nation. We cannot afford to wake up one day and discover that our military lacks the manpower it needs to defend our country. The signs of an impending recruitment crisis are all around us. We should not let this Congress adjourn without taking real steps to prevent this developing problem from undermining the strength of our military for years to come. It is time to act. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in discussing these matters with the majority leader, there is somewhat of a rare consensus here that the two matters he has raised once again this morning are critical, not only to this body but to the country, and must be addressed prior to the time we leave. The bill currently pending, managed so well by Senators Collins and Lieberman, and the task force and the effort to reorganize the legislative branch creating greater oversight and clearer lines of responsibility for intelligence are critical matters and high priorities. I hope we can continue to keep the discipline and focus on this legislation until we have successfully completed it. I am optimistic, given the cooperation and the degree of comity on these matters, that we can complete our work, but I do believe it is going to take the kind of schedule that the majority leader and I addressed a moment ago.