Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I could just intercede for a moment, I have been discussing this matter with the distinguished majority leader. It is regrettable that, at least at this point, we have not reached a time agreement on the FAA conference report. A lot of work has gone into the bill on both sides. A lot of negotiation has gone into the conference agreement itself. Because there is no public assurance on the part of the administration that they are not prepared to at least examine the impact of privatization, we are unable to reach agreement with regard to the time on the FAA conference report at this time. I am still hopeful that perhaps before the time we reach the cloture vote, the scheduled time for the cloture vote on Monday, the administration will at least give additional thought to a proposal that has been made now on both sides of the aisle that they simply join with us in examining more carefully the implications of privatization prior to the time it is decided. A 1-year moratorium, an examination of the ramifications of privatization is what we are seeking. With that assurance I think we could get a vote of 100 to 0, perhaps, on this bill. I am very hopeful that is still within the realm of possibility. If it were not for that, I think we would have agreement this afternoon. So I only note that, given the fact that we still have time before next Monday to come to some agreement with regard to how to proceed on privatization. I thank the majority leader for his intervention. I will await further word. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor to express my strong support for the Syria Accountability Act. I commend the distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for his leadership and the efforts he has made on this legislation to bring us to this point. Let me also thank my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, for her tireless and effective advocacy of this legislation. I am very pleased this legislation is now pending. I congratulate my colleagues as well as others who have made the effort to bring us to a point where I believe on a strong bipartisan basis this legislation will pass this afternoon. This day has been a long time coming. We have heard administration officials argue that this straightforward response to the behavior of the Syrian Government reduces the President's flexibility to deal with the ``bigger picture.'' We believe that it is not only morally right, but will actually strengthen the President's hand in explaining the ``big picture'' to the Syrians. Had our years of entreaties to the Syrians not fallen on deaf ears, and had promises from Syria over the last several years not turned out to be little more than empty rhetoric, this bill might not have been necessary. However, it appears to many of us that the point where we can continue to sit back and hope for Syria to change course has passed. The time has come to show Syria that continued inaction will no longer be tolerated and will come at a price. The behavior we seek from Syria is not different than what we expect of every other country in the world community--an end to its support for terrorism, and enforcement of its own international agreements and United Nations Security Council resolutions. Syria simply has failed one too many times to live up to these obligations, and this legislation backs up our hopes for Syrian compliance along with the very real threat of sanctions. The Syria Accountability Act holds Syria accountable for its behavior by imposing sanctions unless the Syrian Government certifies that: It is no longer providing support for terrorists and terrorism; it has withdrawn all of its military and intelligence personnel from Lebanon; it has ceased its attempts to produce, acquire, or transfer weapons of mass destruction; and it has ended its support for terrorists in Iraq. I am pleased with the bipartisan process that produced this landmark legislation, and I especially want to commend Senator Levin for his leadership in ensuring that the President maintains the maximum flexibility to wisely wield the tools created by H.R. 1828. The national security waiver, which allows the President to waive certain sanctions if they are deemed counterproductive to U.S. security interests, will allow our government to effectively press for reform in Syria without endangering our efforts in the global war against terrorism. There are three reasons we need to pass this unambiguous statement of U.S. intent. First, as remarkable as it is to imagine, the Government of Syria still provides safe haven and material support for some of the most objectionable terrorist organizations in the world. Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, PIJ, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Abu Musa Organization, and the Popular Struggle Front all maintain offices in Damascus. Members of the Syrian Government have, on occasion, condoned suicide bombings against civilians within Israel, calling them legitimate military operations. Syria alternates between defending these offices in Damascus as solely for press purposes, uninvolved in the conduct of terrorist attacks, and promising they will shut the offices down. To date, its promises have amounted to nothing. Meanwhile, its defense of these offices is as unfortunate as it is inaccurate. It is simply not acceptable to provide support for an office whose sole purpose is to call attention to, and encourage support for, attacks on innocent civilians. Moreover, reports indicate that planning for the recent and horrendous attack at a restaurant frequented by Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs in Haifa is connected to offices in Damascus. We are also beginning to learn from the intelligence community that Syria may have allowed military equipment and personnel to flow into Iraq on the eve of and during the war, both of which were used against our troops in that country. Although the administration reports that the situation on the Syria- Iraq border is ``improving,'' the international community should expect nothing but full cooperation from Syria on something so basic as stopping the flow of terrorists through its territory. Second, in signing the 1994 Taif Accords, Syria pledged itself to the ``security and independence of Lebanon.'' To date, it has helped with neither. Instead, it continues to support the Lebanese Hezbollah and undermine the democratic aspirations of the people of Lebanon by occupying that country. In 1999, Israel withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon after being told by the international community that doing so would increase its security. Cynically, Syria exploited the resulting security vacuum and permitted attacks on Israel from that region, all in contravention of Security Council Resolution 425. It is especially disappointing that we have to come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to call on a member of the United Nations Security Council to enforce its own resolutions. Third, the Syria Accountability Act--a clear statement of America's resolve--should help put an end to the series of mixed signals coming from the Bush administration. Over the course of the last 3 years, we have heard various policies from the different spokes-people for different agencies of the U.S. Government. In fact, we have even heard competing policies and concerns from offices within the same State Department. As I said at the beginning, I wish this bill were not necessary. Unfortunately, we all recognize that it has become necessary. This bill will make clear to Syria what we expect of it. If it is not willing to end its support for terrorism or uphold its agreements, it should not be accepted as a full partner in the international community. I urge adoption of the legislation and again congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, each year, America honors its veterans on this day with solemn pride. But this year, Veterans Day arrives with uncommon poignancy. As we show our gratitude to our veterans here at home, a new generation of soldiers is thousands of miles from their loved ones, facing danger on our behalf. There is an immediacy to this year's Veterans Day. The risks our soldiers are facing today have not yet been softened by memory. Without the filter of history, we see clearly the dangers they face every day when we learn of yet another attack on American soldiers, yet another death, yet another family that must go on without a loved one. At the same time, we see clearly the good that American service men and women can perform when we witness the hopeful faces of Iraqis eager for a better, more peaceful life. Within the service of today's soldiers, we may see a clear reflection of the service of our veterans. Just as our soldiers today, our veterans, too, left families behind. They, too, woke up to uncertain dangers. They, too, saw friends and comrades injured or killed. Yet, knowing both their risks and their obligations, they, too, performed their duty each day. Forty years ago, President Kennedy noted that no nation ``in the history of the world has buried its soldiers farther from its native soil than we Americans--or closer to the towns in which they grew up.'' At our proudest moments, the American people have sent our sons and daughters across the globe to fight for freedom. And once the fight was done, we have welcomed them home with honor and gratitude. Today, too, the honor of defending those who cannot defend themselves is carried forward by young American soldiers. And their families and friends wait anxiously for their safe return. South Dakota is proud of the role its sons and daughters have played in Operation Iraqi Freedom. At the start of the war, it was a B-1 bomber crew from Ellsworth Air Force Base's 28th Bomb Wing that hit that bunker in Baghdad where it was thought the Iraqi leadership might have been hiding. All four members of the crew were awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. Staff Sergeant Randy Meyer, a Marine from Big Stone City, was part of a unit that discovered 22 American prisoners of war along a highway near Baghdad. Sergeant Meyer noticed that Specialist Shoshanna Johnson was too hurt to walk--she had been shot in both ankles--so he picked her up and carried her to safety. And South Dakota's National Guard and Reserve units have been on the front lines, both during the active fighting and today as we work to stabilize Iraq and rebuild the nation of Iraq. Their service on this day is doubled. Because in addition to advancing democracy and security, their brave acts make us still more aware of, and still more grateful for, the brave acts of our veterans. But alongside our pride, Veterans Day comes with a challenge. Each year we should ask ourselves, have we done enough to honor the sacrifices of our soldiers and veterans? This year, if we are honest with ourselves, the answer must be no. Mr. President, in keeping with our agreement to stop for a moment of silence at 11 o'clock, I will do so and return to my remarks as soon as the moment of silence has been completed.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am hard pressed to recall a time when the gap between the demands we place on our soldiers and the thanks we offer them once they return home has been wider. It is bitterly ironic that on this Veterans Day, while soldiers are facing danger far from home, the gap is still growing. Today, more than 500,000 American soldiers are stationed in 137 different countries around the world. More than 300,000 are engaged in active combat or peacekeeping missions in seven different countries, including more than 140,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 400 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 2,400 have been wounded. Meanwhile, our military is stretched so thin we cannot tell many of our soldiers or their families when they might be coming home. And despite the added strain and the ever more complicated mission, we are failing to provide for our soldiers, our veterans, and their families. Veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom will join 250,000 veterans who must wait 6 months just to see a V.A. hospital doctor. This wait will be lengthened by the administration's closing of seven Veterans Hospitals and a budget that under-funds veterans health by $1.8 billion. In addition, the administration has opposed expanding health care benefits to Guard Members and Reservists and their families. It proposed cutting the pay to troops facing imminent danger. Schools for the children of military families are being threatened with cuts. And the Defense Department is closing 19 commissaries and considering whether to close 19 more. In a recent article in ``The Army Times,'' a representative from the National Military Family Association was quoted asking a question familiar to many of us today. ``How can leadership be talking about cutting back on quality-of-life benefits right now when the force and everyone supporting the force is at such a high stress level?'' One colonel quoted in the article expressed it more simply: ``Betrayal,'' he said to the reporter. ``Write that down and put it in your report.'' In signing the GI Bill of Rights in 1944, President Roosevelt noted that ``the members of the Armed Forces have been compelled to make greater . . . sacrifice than the rest of us, and they are entitled to definite action to help take care of their special problems.'' Each year, we are in danger of falling further behind in our obligation to our veterans. Recently, ``definite action'' has given way to little more than indefinite praise. Veterans deserve better. Some within this administration seem to believe that our responsibility to our soldiers ends when they come home. We disagree. These men and women risked their lives to defend our own. They stood up for us; now we must stand up for them, not with words but with deeds. Mr. President, not long ago, a teacher from a small town in the Black Hills of South Dakota gave her students an assignment. She asked them to tell the stories of each of the 2,200 South Dakotans who gave their lives in the fight for democracy during World War II. As word spread of the children's work, the teacher was asked to bring the program to the entire State. In doing their research, South Dakota's children discovered some amazing things. They found that Native American--treated within their own country as second-class citizens--rushed to enlist in record numbers. They found young men who had failed their physicals, but used a cousin's or a sibling's results to sneak into the service. They found youngest sons--and only sons--who could easily have gotten deferments, but instead demanded to serve. They also found official military records that listed the wrong home county for an extraordinary number of the South Dakotans killed in the war. At first, the students were puzzled. After a while, though, they discovered the reason: So many counties had overfilled their enrollment caps, that young men would claim to be from another county, just to be allowed to serve their Nation. All told, 68,000 South Dakotans enrolled in the Armed Services in WWII. My father was one of them. Two thousand two hundred of them never came home--a greater percentage of World War II deaths than any other State. Those who did make it home passed that same sense of loyalty and duty onto their sons and daughters. During the Vietnam war, 78 percent of South Dakota's eligible young men chose to serve. That was, by far, the highest percentage in the Nation. I was one of them. I was lucky. Two hundred South Dakotans who went to Vietnam didn't make it back. This year, too, South Dakotans have proven eager to serve. South Dakota has one of the highest proportions of our citizens serving in active duty in Iraq of any State in the country. South Dakota knows the true meaning of patriotism. We have sent out sons and daughters off to war, welcomed those who returned, and buried those that did not. We volunteer without boast or complaint. The rewards of citizenship are great, therefore, the demands are great. Having sent so many young people off to war, South Dakotans feel the tight bond that develops between soldiers and the communities they defend. And we know that the debt we owe to veterans cannot be repaid on this day alone. We enjoy our freedoms every day, and every day we must remember those by whose courage they were purchased. We must express our gratitude in both word and deed and commit ourselves to their care, as they committed themselves to our protection. Today, we witness the courage of our soldiers serving throughout the world and remember the courage of veterans throughout our history. Never once did they fall short of our expectations of them. Today, we must recommit ourselves to making sure we do not fall short of their expectations of us. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be taken from my leader time, not from the morning business time allocated for this tribute this morning.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this Veterans Day, members of the Rapid City and Ellsworth Air Force Base communities will gather to honor Everett ``Ep'' Howe for his lifetime of dedicated service. Today I salute the life and work of one of South Dakota's finest patriots. For nearly 70 years, Ep has dedicated himself to serving his community and his country. He began his career in the public service, joining the Civilian Conservation Corps in 1921, and serving as Park Ranger and U.S. Border Patrol Officer before joining the military in 1944. He proudly served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1944 to 1948, including a tour with the 9th Marine Aircraft Wing during World War II. Discharged as a Marine Sergeant, he returned to Rapid City, his wife, Grace, and a career in construction. To say that, in many ways, Ellsworth Air Force Base is ``The House That Ep Built,'' is no measure of hyperbole. Not only has he donated land and raised money for the base, he actually contributed to the construction of some of its buildings. During his time with both Hacket Construction and Corner, Howe, & Lee Construction, he worked on a number of projects at what is now Ellsworth, including the construction of the original Rapid City Air Force Base, which opened in 1942. Throughout his life, Ep has been a tremendous supporter and friend of the military. A longtime committee member of the South Dakota Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve and of the Rapid City Chamber of Commerce Military Affairs Committee, he has been particularly dedicated to strengthening relationships between civilian and military communities. He has received several awards for his work in the military community, including the Department of Defense ``Lifetime Achievement Award'' and the South Dakota National Guard Major General Williamson Militia Award. In addition to supporting the military, he has been a tireless and dedicated servant of his community. He has served on the South Dakota Highway Commission, the Rapid City Area Disaster Foundation, the YMCA Board of Directors and Board of Trustees, and the American Legion. He has also been a dedicated member of First Presbyterian Church in Rapid City, the Rapid City Chamber of Commerce, and the local Elks Lodge. Not surprisingly, Ep has received a number of awards for his work in the community as well, including being named ``Mr. Rapid City'' for his lifelong service as a community leader. On Veterans Day, a bust of Ep will be unveiled in Building 450 on Ellsworth Air Force Base. It is only fitting that this bust will occupy the building where leaders of the South Dakota National Guard regularly meet. Ep's bust will look down on the proceedings and provide these leaders what he has provided so many South Dakotans over the years; a friendly countenance, moral support, and a model for community leadership. I commend Ep for his lifetime of accomplishment, and offer my deepest gratitude for the work he has done and continues to do.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to speak about an important ceremony occurring this Veterans Day in my home town: the dedication of a new terminal at Aberdeen Regional Airport. Community leaders have chosen Veterans Day for this event because the terminal will be called the War Memorial Building. It will be located on the grounds of Saunders Field, named for General LaVerne Saunders, a World War II hero from Aberdeen. A plaque inside the new building proclaims: The City of Aberdeen dedicates this building and sculpture to the brave men and women who served and continue to serve to protect the values we all cherish: freedom, justice and democracy. The War Memorial sculpture recognizes the courage they have shown and continue to show in the service of our great nation. They will never be forgotten. Let us reflect on the past and hope that we might learn as a world to live in peace. Those words are a fitting tribute to our nation's heroes, past and present, and are especially fitting in a year that has seen a new generation take up arms in defense of the homeland. Aberdeen is one of the communities that has been touched by the largest call-up of South Dakota Guard and Reserve troops since World War II. This terminal was constructed with funds from the Federal Aviation Administration, State and local government, and a Senate amendment to the fiscal year 2001 transportation appropriations act. I remain grateful to Senator Frank Lautenberg, former ranking member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, for helping me secure $2.5 million in that legislation. The Senate funds completed the financing for this project and allowed it to move ahead without further delay. The project is a step into the future for one of the busiest airports in South Dakota. It replaces a 50-year-old facility, providing improved security measures, additional ticket counter space, and expanded baggage claim areas. It will improve access for disabled passengers. It will shorten the time that planes spend taxiing, thus resolving a long- standing problem of flight cancellations due to wing icing. Given the critical role that airports play in economic development, I also see this new terminal as a long-term investment in Aberdeen's prosperity. This project required a great deal of hard work and dedication, and I would like to thank some people who made it possible: Mayor Tom Hopper, the airport board and staff, the Aberdeen City Commission, the Brown County Commission, the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce, architects Herges Kirchgasler Geisler & Associates, engineers Helms and Associates, Transportation Director Dave Osborn, and former airport managers Tom Wylam and Rebecca Hupp. This facility is a wonderful tribute to America's veterans, and a valuable asset for the people of northeastern South Dakota. Congratulations, Aberdeen, on another job well done.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to begin by complimenting the distinguished Senator from South Dakota for his remarkable statement. I am not sure anything is left to be said. I think he covered it so well and so eloquently. He, as I think all of our colleagues recall, is the true author, the founder, the initiator of this issue during our deliberation on the farm bill itself. It is with great wisdom he spoke today and I think with great persuasion. We ought to listen to the Senator from South Dakota. Again, I thank him for all he has done to get us to this point and the efforts he has made to ensure we understand the consequences of our actions today. Let me also thank the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, for all of his work and help in making this amendment a bipartisan effort, to ensure that we, as colleagues interested in agriculture, a strong economy, and rural America, do the right thing with regard to this particular question involving better information and better choice for all consumers and an effort to help producers as well. There are others also who have played a very significant role; my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan; Senator Grassley, who gave a passionate speech earlier today on this amendment, Senator Burns, Senator Bingaman, Senator Baucus, Senator Conrad, Senator Harkin, Senator Thomas; a number of Senators have expressed themselves and have been the driving force from the very beginning as we have urged careful thought about how the Congress ought to proceed with regard to this question. The Senator from South Dakota made several important points, but if there is one that is most important it is simply we are now in a very delicate, deliberate rulemaking stage. What our colleagues in the House have chosen to do is to say, we want that stage to end; we want to terminate rulemaking before we even see what the rule is; we want to make a decision about the decision prior to the time the decision has even been made. For us through legislation to interject our own voice, without allowing the Department of Agriculture to respond, as they are required to do in the farm bill itself, passed last year, I think is terrible policy but also premature. What we said in the farm bill, and what my colleague from South Dakota said so well this afternoon, is we ought to bring agriculture, consumer protection, and information into the modern era. As he noted, 48 other countries, 84 percent of our trading partners, already do that. They have already recognized the importance of good consumer information. I find it ironic we can tell people where bananas come from, where lettuce comes from, where our clothing comes from, where just about everything else comes from, but we have those who say it is impossible for us to tell people from where our meat comes. When it comes to meat, we can tell people whether it is choice or whether it is prime, but we just cannot tell people from where it is imported. I do not think anybody can accept that logic. If we can decide the difference between choice and prime, we can decide the difference between Mexico and the United States. That is all we are talking about, a recognition that consumers have just as much right to know where their meat comes from as they have a right to know how good the quality. When we passed the legislation, frankly on a overwhelming bipartisan basis, we said yes; we said the consumers ought to have that right. That is what we are trying to do today: First, to allow the rulemaking process to go forward. But, second, to come down to a pretty fundamental question. It is pretty fundamental. Should consumers have the right to know? I believe the answer to that question is yes. I believe it is in keeping with a long tradition of legislation passed in this body, in both Republican and Democratic majorities. I recall 13 years ago, so vividly, Congress passing legislation back then that we were told was impossible to enforce, impossible to administer. It was legislation that required nutrition labeling. Howard Metzenbaum, that Senator from Ohio who was a passionate advocate for consumers in so many ways, was the author of that legislation. I can recall at the time opponents of his bill said: We are going to see costs soar just as soon as this legislation is implemented; it is impractical to talk about how many calories, or what the nutrition balance is going to be, with every single product in the market. But Congress passed it anyway and, in fact, now the labeling law has become what is widely described as the most successful consumer information tool in all of history and now we consider it almost daily as a matter of course as we look at the labels when we buy the products, the packages. There are those, in packing in particular, who have attempted to say for a lot of reasons that this legislation could carry that same ominous effect on the market once more. Four meatpackers control 80 percent of the meat market. They operate multibillion-dollar empires. We know how powerful they are and we know when they speak there are a lot of people who listen. But I believe we ought to go beyond what special interest concerns there are. We ought to have a right to know. When there is mad cow disease, as we have seen in Canada, if we are going to import meat from Canada, we ought to know those circumstances exist. And before we buy, if we have a choice between American beef and imported beef, whether it is Canada or Mexico or anyplace else, consumers ought to know. Consumers ought to have the right to make that choice for themselves. I believe this may be one of the single most important consumer bills that our Congress is going to take up in this session of this Congress. We are told by the packers especially that this is too expensive, that we simply can't afford to implement the plan. Estimates rose as high as $2 billion. In fact, even USDA expressed real concern about the cost, advocating a review of the costs. We did just that. We asked the General Accounting Office, as my colleague from South Dakota said, to look at the facts. Forget all the assertions; forget all the hyperbole. Let's really look at what the cost will be. They did that. They reported back not long ago and they said the cost is not $2 billion; it isn't even half of the $2 billion that was originally alleged to be the cost of the implementation of this rule. In fact they said the cost in the first year would be less than $600 million--about $582 million. I believe the USDA cost estimates are still too high because they don't take into account the extraordinary economic benefits that could be derived with this information. Studies have shown that if we have this kind of information the actual sales of U.S. meat could increase anywhere from 1 percent to 5 percent, and that isn't taking into account bringing down the per- product cost. So, clearly, it is a fraction of the cost that was originally attributed to this rule. The second problem we have with regard to the rule and the effort to thwart the rule is the packers are simply requiring too much paperwork and recordkeeping from the rule itself. We have to fix that. We have to ensure that we make this a practical application. I believe we can do that as well. I believe we can create the kind of opportunity for practical application of common sense just as we have shown in so many other instances--as we have shown with meat labeling, as we have shown with grading, as we have shown with consumer information provided routinely now throughout the marketplace. I believe what we ought to do, in short, is give USDA the authority and the opportunity to work their will, to do what we hired them to do, to give us the rule, to allow us to analyze it. If we have problems at some point down the road, we can change it. We can ask the administration to work with us to come up with something better. But at least let's give them that opportunity to produce what they are required to produce under law. I believe that is the right course of action. That is what this amendment says. It simply says, with a bipartisan voice, that we believe we are on the right track. We believe producers would benefit if consumers knew they could buy products made, produced, and marketed in this country. That is what the amendment says, and I urge its adoption. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge as well the efforts the Senator from New Mexico has made to get us to this point. Many of us had hoped we could complete our work on the bill in the Senate this year. I know it is a disappointment to him we have not been able to do that, but with the assurances he has given us tonight, working with the chairman, the ranking member, and certainly the majority leader, it would be my hope the very first legislation we take up in the second session will be this legislation. We will work with him, and I hope we could have that commitment from people on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate his efforts tonight to bring us to this point. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today Senator Frist and I are offering an amendment to authorize a new program that we call the Sun Grant Initiative. The Sun Grant Initiative--or SGI--is an effort to provide an innovative approach to creating new biobased products and markets for farmers, thereby enhancing the environment and developing new industries in our Nation's rural communities. The SGI would establish five Sun Grant Centers across the Nation to stimulate needed research and development projects, while providing leadership and coordination for a regional competitive grant program that will address national research issues and educational needs at the regional and local levels. This new program will provide a much-needed bridge between our Government's current national research efforts and the State-based research education networks of the Land-Grant universities. The SGI will forge a new partnership between the national leadership and energy expertise of the Federal Government and the agricultural and rural community development expertise of the Agricultural Experiment Stations and the Cooperative Extension System. The United States has steadily increased its reliance on imported oil. Alternative sources of energy and industrial chemicals must be developed as soon as possible. The Sun Grant Initiative will stimulate the production of bioenergy resources to complement and augment petroleum energy resources, while helping to reduce our dependence on imported oil and constrain energy costs for American industries and consumers. Additionally, American farmers need new products and viable market alternatives. Sun Grant research, development and education programs will stimulate the development bioenergy and bioproducts on American farms, creating an opportunity for an additional, significant source of income to farmers. The SGI will encourage new biobased industries and new capital investments, stimulating the economies of these rural communities. I want to thank Senator Frist, Chairman Bennett, and Senators Kohl, Cochran, Harkin and Smith for their support of this innovative and exciting effort to build a biobased economy that can assist our Nation in so many ways.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, before the Senator from Alabama moves to table, first of all, I know we are getting close to the end of deliberations on this bill. I think that it merits broad bipartisan support. I appreciate very much the efforts that have been made by the chairman and ranking member. Both Senators have worked very closely together to get it to this point. Obviously, there are outstanding issues that still have to be resolved. We have a couple of amendments. I wanted to take a moment--I didn't realize we were this close to having the vote on the amendment itself--to draw a distinction in this legislation. Obviously, because of the extraordinary effort that has been made on both sides to work together and the assurances I have been given by the chairman that it is not his intention to conduct a conference that would not involve the ranking member and members of the minority with regard to this bill and issues to be resolved in conference, I will recommend to our caucus that we move forward with a conference on this bill. I wish I could say that with regard to other legislation, but we have not been given the same assurances. We are not at that point yet. But in this case, we certainly intend to work with our colleagues and with the chairman in particular. I applaud him for his efforts and thank him for the kind of working relationship that our two colleagues have. It is a tribute to both of them. I acknowledge that prior to the time we take our vote.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, with that explanation of our circumstances involving this bill, as I say, we will not object to going to conference. I wish our colleagues well as we finish our work on this legislation before the end of the year. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to express my objection to a provision in the conference report the Senate just passed regarding management and accounting of the American Indian trust fund. Just over a month ago, on September 25, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the U.S. Department of the Interior to conduct a full and accurate historical accounting of the assets held in trust by the Department for hundreds of thousands of individual American Indian account holders. In his ruling, Judge Lamberth charged that the Interior Department's handling of the Indian trust funds ``has served as a gold standard for mismanagement by the federal government for more than a century.'' The trust fund language inserted into this conference report--behind closed doors--would stay Judge Lamberth's decision. It would effectively halt the Cobell v. Norton lawsuit and further delay justice for 300,000 to as many as a half-million Indian trust fund account holders. This provision is unconstitutional and, I believe, unconscionable. Partly because so many Americans Indians live on remote reservations, not many Americans understand what the Indian trust fund dispute is about. This dispute stretches back to the 1880s, when the U.S. government broke up large tracts of Indian land into small parcels of 80 and 160 acres, which it allotted to individual Indians. The government, acting as a ``trustee,'' then took control of these lands and established individual accounts for the land owners. The government was supposed to manage the lands. Any revenues generated from oil drilling, mining, grazing, timber harvesting or any other use of the land was to be distributed to the account holders and their heirs. The government has never--never--lived up to its trust fund responsibilities. The Indian trust fund has been so badly mismanaged, for so long, by administrations of both political parties, that today, no one knows how much money the trust fund should contain. Estimates of how much is owed to individual account holders range from a low of $10 billion to more than $100 billion. As Tex Hall, president of the National Congress of American Indians has said, ``This is the Enron of Indian Country.'' In fact, it may well be bigger than Enron. The people who are being denied justice in this case include some of the most impoverished people in all of America. More than 68,000 are enrolled members of South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska tribes. Some live in homes that are little more than shacks, with no electricity and no running water. They are being denied money that is rightfully theirs--money they need, in many cases, to pay for basic necessities. The court has ordered an accounting. This rider will undermine that order. It will delay resolution and delay justice. What other group of Americans would we dare to treat this way? I don't know of one, Mr. President. Why target American Indians? Many account holders are older people, ``elders'' who have suffered extreme economic deprivation their entire lives. If this rider staying Judge Lamberth's ruling becomes law, as I expect it will, many of them may not live long enough to see justice. This is shameful. When the Senate debated the Interior appropriations bill, several of us offered an amendment that would have strengthened accountability for the Indian trust fund. Instead, unbelievably, the provision in this conference report would weaken accountability of the trust fund. Judge Lamberth's decision directed the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a full and fair historical account of the trust. Such an accounting is the first, critical step in reaching a fair resolution to the Indian trust fund dispute. The mismanagement of the Indian trust fund is a national disgrace. It stretches back generations and, as I have said on numerous occasions, administrations of both parties share the blame. In the seven years since the Cobell lawsuit was filed, Congress has appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars on litigation-related activities. This is money that is desperately needed and would have been much better spent funding health and education and housing programs in Indian Country. In addition to the gross injustice, there are three additional aspects of this provision that are deeply troubling. First, this rider is unconstitutional. By telling the court how it must construe existing law, Congress would be violating the constitutional separation of powers. In addition, by denying account holders a full accounting of their trust fund monies and other assets, this rider constitutes a taking of property without just compensation or due process of law. Second, there has been virtually no public debate or discussion of this rider. It was drafted without any consultation with tribes, with plaintiffs in the Cobell Indian trust fund lawsuit or with the membership of the Congressional committees of jurisdiction. This rider ignores the government-to-government relationship between tribes and the Federal Government, and is almost universally opposed in Indian Country. Since any effective, long-term solution to the trust fund problem must be based on government-to-government dialogue, this rider is likely to prove deeply counter-productive. Last week, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee held a hearing on a settlement bill where both parties agreed to mediation. The House Resources Committee has been holding field hearings on settlement. This is the way the trust fund dispute should be resolved--not in back-room deals. Third and finally, this provision perpetuates a shameful pattern of neglect of American Indians and tribes and a failure of the Federal Government to meet its legal and moral obligations to them. Mr. President, there's another shameful truth about this bill--and that is what is not in it. Earlier this month, during Senate debate on the Interior appropriations bill, Democrats offered an amendment to address a critical funding shortfall for the Indian Health Service--a shortfall so acute that Indian people are frequently turned away from IHS clinics and hospitals unless they are literally in danger of losing a life or limb. They are denied earlier, less expensive care that might prevent such a dangerous condition in the first place. We asked our Republican colleagues to restore the $292 million that they had promised, during the budget debate, to support. They refused. The actual shortfall in IHS clinical services is over $2.9 billion. And our colleagues refused to provide one-tenth of that amount in this bill. They refused to support one-tenth of what is needed to provide basic health services to American Indians. Our Republican colleagues said they agreed on the need for better health care for Indian people; they said they agreed that much of the care being denied is truly essential; but they said, we simply can't afford to do more. Given some of the spending we've seen lately, that excuse rings pretty hollow to Indian people. And it rings pretty hollow to me, too. We spend twice as much on health care for Federal prisoners as we spend for American Indians. The Indian Health Service has to ration care because of lack of funding. That is inexcusable. Despite these deep flaws with the Indian trust fund and the Indian Health Service, the Senate has approved this rider, in part because this conference report contains many other programs that are urgently needed. But this is not the end. This in no way absolves the Interior Department of its legal and moral obligation to restore integrity to trust fund management as soon as possible. We will continue to press for a full and fair accounting of all assets in the Indian trust funds. And we will continue to push for full funding of Indian health care. It is long past time that we keep the promises we have made to American Indians and tribes. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last week the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on Universal Service, taking testimony from Michael Powell, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. I want to commend the committee for examining issues affecting the preservation and advancement of universal service. This is a discussion that is of great interest to me and great importance to my State. We have long sought to ensure that telephone service is available in rural America, through direct infrastructure programs like those of the Rural Utilities Service, through internal telephone company cross- subsidies and, more recently, through the universal service fund. The low population density in so much of our Nation makes some assistance necessary; the costs of wiring such areas is simply too high. Phone service is simply too important to our social fabric to ignore this challenge. We must keep it affordable for all Americans. That is why we need universal service. Access to modern telecommunications services is vital to the economy of my home State of South Dakota and in rural areas throughout the Nation. It helps new businesses develop, even if they are far away from their customers or clients. Telecommuting is already allowing many of my constituents to remain in, or move back to, their home towns rather than having to leave in search of employment. That is a trend we need to encourage and build upon. But it is only possible if rural America has a modern telecommunications infrastructure. Universal service is vital to South Dakota. Yet universal service is not just about rural America. It also supports telephone service for low-income individuals throughout the country, and telecommunications services and Internet access in our schools and libraries. I believe it is important that the country remain committed to these goals and the principle of universal service. Despite its importance, the future of universal service is uncertain. Some question the long-term viability of the current structure, as its funding base of interstate telephone revenue declines. I believe that we will need to reevaluate the universal service structure and consider comprehensive legislation to ensure that the program remains effective and affordable in the future. I am pleased that the Commerce Committee has begun that process. The committee includes the Senators who have been the most engaged on this front. I want to commend Senator Burns for his leadership on the issue, along with Senator Dorgan, Senator Stevens, Chairman McCain, and Ranking Member Hollings. I look forward to working with them to keep the universal service system strong and effective. Senator Gordon Smith has introduced legislation that addresses an important component of universal service, high cost funding for nonrural carriers. Today, I am cosponsoring that legislation, S. 1380, the Rural Universal Service Equity Act of 2003, which seeks to more equitably distribute that portion of universal service. Today, telephone companies in only eight States receive all of these funds. Nonrural carriers in the rest of the country, even those in rural States like South Dakota, receive nothing. We should reevaluate that distribution as part of universal service reform. I fully appreciate that S. 1380 only addresses one small, albeit significant, portion of Universal Service. It is important to focus attention on the need to understand and address it. That point made, I favor reforming the high cost support program for non-rural companies within the context of reform of the entire system. Telephone service has developed in different ways throughout the country, with service provided to various degrees by the Regional Bell Operating Companies, independent phone companies, cooperatives, wireless, and competitive carriers. We should keep that in mind when we consider alternative approaches and look at the system as a whole, not just focus on each individual component of universal service separately. When we do consider universal service legislation, I think the approach taken by S. 1380 shifting the basis of support for nonrural companies to costs at the wire center level, rather than statewide costs deserves consideration as part of a broader package. Using statewide costs makes it difficult for a company that serves a relatively large city to obtain support for rural areas that it serves in the same State. That can limit its ability to invest in and modernize its rural infrastructure. I do want to raise a specific concern about S. 1380. In reallocating some universal service funding, the bill shifts funds around, creating winners and losers. I am worried that this approach pits carriers and regions against each other, rather than uniting in a common goal of protecting universal service and the people who depend upon it for affordable telephone service in rural and low-income communities throughout the country. We can and should fix that problem. That is another reason why I think the bill should be considered within the context of broader universal service reform. I want to note a special problem with one potential loser under the bill. It shifts some funds that are currently allocated to Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is not represented in this body. Without an advocate of its own to force attention to the Commonwealth's concerns, it is important that we all carefully consider the impact legislation can have upon Puerto Rico and its residents. When we address universal service, we should not take steps that might inadvertently reduce the availability and affordability of telephone and telecommunications services to the residents of Puerto Rico. In conclusion, I want to again thank the Commerce Committee for focusing greater attention on the future of universal service. I look forward to working with Senators on the committee and others concerned about universal service for rural residents, low-income consumers and our schools and libraries to lay the groundwork for legislation to reform and strengthen the universal service system.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Bingaman amendment, which would transfer $200 million dollars from the Millennium Challenge Account into programs designed to help us fight our struggle against the spread of HIV/AIDS. I commend my friend and colleague from New Mexico for his leadership on this critical issue. Along with several of our colleagues, the Senator from New Mexico and I traveled to South Africa, Botswana, Kenya, and Nigeria to look at this heart-wrenching challenge. And I believe his amendment is an important step toward relieving the intense suffering we saw on that trip. Let me say, too, that I support the Millennium Challenge Account. With the crushing poverty affecting nearly a third of the world's citizens, the MCA is clearly an idea whose time has come. I support it, and that is why I worked hard to ensure that this foreign operations bill contains the legislation to create that important program. But the bill also includes $200 million more than the President has requested and $200 million more than his Secretary of State has said he can use this year. So rather than have that money sit unused--in the face of the gravest public health crisis the world has ever known--we propose to put that money to use immediately to confront HIV/AIDs. Less than 4 months ago, the President signed into law a bill authorizing his administration to spend $3 billion a year for the next 5 years on a comprehensive program to combat AIDS. Congress passed this legislation in response to the President's call for action in his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, President Bush's own budget request has fallen fall short of his promises, seeking just under $2 billion, more than $1 billion less than what he is authorized to spend. Nearly 30 million people in sub-Saharan Africa are currently living with the AIDS virus, and the President's emergency plan for AIDS will begin to help those countries that are worst hit. But the reason we need to invest this additional $200 million--on top of the $289 million we just agreed to--is because the President's emergency plan focuses only on Africa and the Caribbean. Take one country not addressed in the President's emergency plan. At the end of 2002, over 4.5 million Indians were infected with HIV, making India the nation with the second-highest population of AIDS patients in the world behind South Africa. Experts there warn that the disease has spread from high-risk populations in urban areas into rural India. As a result, the infection rate will dramatically increase, in much the same pattern it followed in sub-Saharan Africa. A recent United States National Intelligence Council report predicted that India could have 25 million of its citizens infected with HIV/AIDS by the year 2010--less than 7 years from now. Such an incidence of this disease would mean that India will have nearly as many people living with the AIDS virus as the entire sub- Saharan African region does today. But our investments to fight HIV in India at the moment are less than $40 million per year. By continuing that trend line, we are in effect requiring even more expensive investments within a decade. I urge my colleagues to support the Bingaman amendment, which follows the recommendation of President Bush regarding the amount of money needed for the Millennium Challenge Account, and devotes the additional resources to a problem that demands our immediate attention.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will comment briefly on the schedule. I think that the majority leader has set exactly the right tone. We have to recognize the days for this session are numbered. We have a lot of work to do. I agree with his prioritization in terms of his urgency in bringing up the forest health bill, given our circumstances now in California, particularly. Senator Reid and I have had conversations with Members of our caucus and have expressed our strong desire to keep amendments to the forest health bill relevant. Now, ``relevant'' is loosely interpreted, but it is important they stay relevant. We can give the assurances to the majority leader that we will maintain relevancy in that loosely structured definition in order to complete the work on the bill. I am hopeful, as he is, if we cannot complete it today, or certainly completing it by tomorrow, recognizing that we may move to the climate bill tonight. I also think it is critical we keep our emphasis on the appropriations process. We have a lot of work there to do and, frankly, I must say, through no fault of the majority leader, we are in a real dilemma right now with completion of the work on the foreign operations bill. We made such progress yesterday and everyone worked to try to bring it to closure. We have an AIDS amendment that deserves a vote. With that vote we could go to final passage. There is no reason we cannot complete our work on that and move to Agriculture appropriations and all the remaining bills that are to be considered. I hope all Senators will recognize, given the plethora of work we have to do, we cannot afford to delay indefinitely appropriations amendments. We will work on this side to try to expedite consideration of these bills. But it has to be a cooperative effort on both sides. Right now that is not the case. So I thank the majority leader for outlining the schedule. We will work with him to see if we can complete our work on time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleagues in supporting the bipartisan forest health legislation. Catastrophic wildfires raging in California today underscore the urgent need for action. We must reduce the risk that other communities and other States will face with regard to the devastation that Californians are experiencing today. In South Dakota we also know from experience how destructive forest fires can be. In the Black Hills, we have experienced five major fires in the last 3 years. We are committed to finding a solution that will enable the Forest Service to reduce the threat of wildfire effectively and efficiently and that can become law. We must do more to expedite hazardous fuels reduction activities, and I believe this compromise will help the Forest Service to do so. This past August I toured the Black Hills with Dale Bosworth, chief of the U.S. Forest Service. It is clear that the Forest Service needs additional tools to address the increasing fire risk to South Dakota and other State communities. Today more than 460,000 acres of the Black Hills National Forest are in moderate to high fire risk. If we do nothing, the Forest Service warns the number of acres at risk in the Black Hills will grow dramatically to more than 550,000 acres. That is unacceptable. During our visit, Chief Bosworth asked that any reforms we undertake allow Forest Service personnel to spend less time in the office planning and more time in the forest actually clearing high fuel load. This bipartisan compromise meets that standard, and it helps in other ways as well. First, this legislation clarifies how much detail is needed for environmental analysis of fuel reduction projects. Instead of analyzing anywhere from 5 to 10 alternatives--as is current practice--this bill specifies that the Forest Service must consider only three alternatives: The preferred alternative, a ``no- action'' alternative, and an ``additional-action alternative.'' The Forest Service currently spends over 50 percent of its time and money planning a given project. This will help reduce the costs of the environmental analysis and allow the Forest Service to treat more acres each year. Second, this legislation streamlines the appeals process within the Forest Service by mirroring what is already done at the Bureau of Land Management. In talking with Forest Service personnel in the Black Hills, one of the figures that struck me most is that 100 percent of proposed projects are appealed. This legislation will help streamline the appeals process while still protecting the public's right to be heard before final decisions are made. A third strength of this legislation--the pending amendment--is that it encourages speedy disposition of any projects that are challenged in court, without giving undue deference to any party. The bottom line is that this bipartisan compromise will enable the Forest Service to spend more time conducting on-the-ground fuels- reduction projects, which is the key to reducing the risk of fire risk in America's forests and the communities that surround them. While this compromise is not exactly the plan I would have crafted, I believe we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good in this situation. I am committed to working with all of my colleagues to pass a forest health bill this year. I believe this bipartisan compromise can be enacted into law and I am hopeful that the administration will be helpful in convincing the House to join us in making that happen. As we see today in California, the risks of delay are simply too high.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 13 years ago, Habitat for Humanity International, HFHI, decided to expand its services to include projects in my State. Today, I would like to congratulate HFHI's 14 South Dakota affiliates on the occasion of the 200th Habitat home constructed in South Dakota since 1990. I believe I speak for all South Dakotans when I say that their services have been invaluable to many families in our State. The lack of affordable housing for the lowest income households is a serious problem across the country. According to the 2003 State of the Nation's Housing report issued by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, three in 10 U.S. households have housing affordability problems. More than 14 million households spend more than half of their income for housing, and 75 percent of them are in the bottom 20 percent of the population by income. Having to pay a disproportionate share of income for housing frequently leads to other problems and tensions for many families. Too often, the available housing is substandard, and overcrowded. Many of these families live on the edge, financially, and live in fear of eviction or foreclosure. Families may have to sacrifice spending for other basics, including food and utilities. Children in these families also tend to pay a price. They suffer when their parents have to work two or more jobs, or odd hours, sacrificing family time. Unstable housing arrangements and frequent moves can also interfere with a child's ability to succeed in school. Habitat for Humanity recognizes that when communities come together, they can help solve this problem, one family at a time. Their accomplishments would not be possible without the thousands of volunteers who help support a struggling family, and provide them with the opportunity to turn a Habitat house into their very own home. Volunteers from across South Dakota have donated thousands of hours of hard labor to give 200 families a shot at the American dream. I would like to take a moment to thank Pat Helgeland, the Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity in South Dakota, and everyone associated with South Dakota's affiliates for their solid commitment and hard work. They are truly making an important difference in the lives of their partner families. Every time I visit with Habitat volunteers, I am impressed by their energy and spirit as they raise funds, select a site, select a partner family, and build the house. I was pleased to sponsor a house in Brookings, SD, that will now become a home for a mother and her three children. I am also encouraged to know that Habitat for Humanity is engaged in a similar effort at the international level. From Thailand to Zimbabwe to Peru, its services provide exciting opportunities for home ownership. We should be proud, for example, that HFHI played a key role in providing tools and materials needed to rebuild or repair family homes damaged by years of conflict in Afghanistan. So today I wish to extend my congratulations and thanks to all those who helped build 200 new houses in South Dakota, as well as those who are involved in bringing this important model to communities across the globe. Their efforts are truly inspirational.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, a number of us have come to the floor today to remember and celebrate someone most of us knew and many of us loved. Paul Wellstone believed that politics is about more than money; it is about more than power. As he said so often, in the last analysis politics is what we create by what we do, by what we hope for, by what we dare to imagine. Paul Wellstone dared to imagine so much. There is a quote he loved from the famous abolitionist, Wendell Phillips. One day, after Phillips had given a speech, a friend told him: Wendell, you were on fire. Phillips replied: Brother, I'm on fire because I have mountains of ice before me to melt. Paul Wellstone saw good in everyone, including people whose politics he disagreed with strongly and who disagreed just as strongly with him, but Paul also saw injustice and he had the fire and the conviction to end it. He used his wit, his charm, his astonishing organizing abilities and every ounce of his hyperkinetic energy to fight for people with few champions in places of power. He fought for family farmers on the edge of foreclosure. He fought for workers facing layoffs, for older people trying to decide which prescription to fill this month. He and Sheila, his indispensable partner, fought for women and children threatened by violence. He fought for teachers and coal miners, for Vietnam veterans. He fought for immigrant parents who work at less than minimum wage jobs and who worry about not being able to give their children what they need. He listened to them and looked them in the eye, and when he did he used to say he saw his own parents. He gave voice to the voiceless. He demanded fairness for those to whom life had been unfair. He gave people hope and courage. He himself had that rarest sort of courage. It was a moral courage. Even when he knew the vote was likely to be 99 to 1, he was not afraid to speak and vote his conscience. It was a reflection of his respect for the people who elected him, that he trusted they would respect him for doing what he believed was right. Saturday we mark the 1-year anniversary of the plane crash on the Iron Range that claimed the lives of Paul and Sheila Wellstone, their beloved middle child, Marcia Wellstone Marcus, their campaign aides and friends, Mary McEvoy, Tom Lapic, Will McLaughlin, and their pilots, Richard Conry and Michael Guess. To keep their parents' work alive, Paul and Sheila's other two children, Mark and David, have started a progressive democracy organization. Through their advocacy, which they call, appropriately, Wellstone Action, the spirit of Paul and Sheila is very much alive. If you go to the Wellstone Action Web site, you can read hundreds of messages from people the Wellstones inspired. One is from John Nichols, the editorial page editor of The Capital Times newspaper in Madison, WI, and the Washington correspondent for The Nation magazine. Mr. Nichols was in rural Wisconsin at a conference of family farm advocates. He had just finished giving the keynote address about the need for activists to go into politics when the news came. When he told the audience, he wrote: Cries of, ``No'' and ``My God, my God'' filled the room. Grown men felt for tables to keep their balance. Husbands and wives hugged one another and everyone began an unsuccessful effort to choke back tears. People wept in silence until finally a woman began to recite the Lord's Prayer for the son of Russian Jewish immigrants who had touched the lives and heart of solid Midwestern Catholic and Lutheran farmers who do not think of themselves as having many friends in Congress.'' Another message is from a man who was a junior at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota. When he volunteered to help on Paul's first and improbable Senate campaign in 1990, they met when Paul visited the campus for a Fourth of July parade. He writes: It was stifling hot that day in St. Cloud--at least 95 degrees with stick-to-your-shirt humidity. The plan was for the two staffers and me to hand out Wellstone literature while Paul would walk along and wave to the crowd. Much to my amazement, Paul proceeded to run--not walk, not even jog, but to run from left to right, for the entire two-mile route, which took about an hour to complete--trying to shake the hand of every single parade-goer. Almost no one knew who he was--and most probably weren't likely Wellstone voters, anyway. Didn't matter. He even said that to people . . . ``Vote for me or vote for someone else. Just make sure you vote in November.'' He was always moving, always smiling, always talking. This former campaign volunteer wrote that when he got back to his dorm room he called a few friends and told them: You wouldn't believe the guy I just met. I don't think he has a prayer of winning but, by God, it is not going to be for lack of effort. In the last few years Paul didn't run much. He had that pronounced limp that he and his doctors first attributed to old wrestling injuries but that turned out to be a symptom of multiple sclerosis. Even though he was in pain most of the time, his illness never dulled his sense of humor. He joked that at least he had gotten a progressive disease. His efforts never flagged. Until the end he gave every ounce of energy he had to try to bring hope and help to others. I have been told there is a tradition in Judaism, on the first anniversary of the death of someone you love, you pray his soul will find proper rest. Well, I loved--I loved Paul Wellstone. But it is still hard to imagine him at rest. I know, with absolute certainty, he would not want us to mark this first anniversary by resting or by talking. How many times did we hear Paul say: Intentions are good. But it's not intentions that count. What counts is action. One of the injustices that made Paul Wellstone the most angry, that offended him the most deeply, was the stigma attached to mental illness and the discrimination and suffering people with mental health problems suffer as a result of that stigma. He thought it was cruel that people with mental health problems very often received lesser care than those with physical health problems. He was outraged by the terrible toll such discrimination often takes on the people with mental illness, and their families. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 486 So, Madam President, now, in the name of Paul Wellstone, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 486, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. I am told at the request and on behalf of the majority leader and others on the Republican side, there is an objection to this legislation. I acknowledge that and I present that objection on behalf of the majority leader at this time.