Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I answer the distinguished Senator from Florida that, indeed, he is correct. So as not to further compound the problem, I have made it a practice not to reference the agency with which she was associated. I think we have to be very sensitive about that. But not only was an agent outed but an agency within the CIA was outed as well, something that was not well known. So the depth of damage, not only in exposing an individual but in exposing, as well, a kind of operation underway within the CIA is extraordinary in the magnitude of concern that it ought to cause all of us. It is all the more reason this investigation is so critical and why we should do all that is possible to find out who may be responsible. For the President to say it is unlikely we will ever come up with who it may have been, I think is deeply troubling because I think it is critical that the laws be upheld and those responsible be prosecuted.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have been discussing how we might proceed between now and 6:30. As I understand it, we have a unanimous consent request ready to propound. There is no objection to the request on this side. I see that the distinguished manager has the unanimous consent request, and I yield the floor so he can offer that.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am submitting a concurrent resolution to honor a special group of women who served their Nation during World War II, veterans of the Cadet Nurse Corps. During World War II, 250,000 nurses were sent to the front lines to care for Allied troops. By 1942, there was such a shortage of civilian nurses in the United States that many immunizations were cancelled and hundreds of clinics were closed. An alarmingly high number of babies were being delivered at home, without the assistance of medical professionals, and some hospitals were forced to shut wards. To alleviate this shortage, nearly 180,000 young women answered the call of government recruiters to join the Cadet Nurse Corps. These young women staffed domestic hospital wards while the overseas nurses cared for wounded troops on the front lines. The Cadet Nurses comprised nearly 80 percent of the nursing staff for civilian hospitals during World War II, and, without their service, our Nation could not have afforded to make such a tremendous commitment to providing medical attention to our troops overseas. Recently, a number of former Cadet Nurses who trained at St. Luke's Hospital in Aberdeen, SD, gathered for a reunion. This year, as you may know, marks the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the Cadet Nurse Corps. The reunion drew about a dozen former members of the Corps, including several who now live out of State. Among the participants was Esther Roesch Buechler, and her story provides insight into what it was like to serve as a Cadet Nurse. Esther, now 78 years old, grew up in Roscoe, a small community in north-central South Dakota. She was born with a number of medical problems that have inspired her to help others in need. With great support from her father, she was determined to devote her life to medical care. Upon her graduation from high school in 1943, Esther joined the Cadet Nurse Corps. Assigned to St. Luke's, she recalls long, arduous hours at a clinic whose nursing staff had been decimated by the war. Later in her training, she was sent to the VA nursing home in Des Moines, Iowa, where she treated World War I veterans, as well as new veterans from the World War II campaign. Following her Cadet Nurse Corps experience, Esther served in various hospitals for nearly 10 years before she retired to raise her children. And she passed her commitment to medical service on to her children--her oldest son currently works as a paramedic. Cadet Nurses like Esther were an essential part of our military force. They were members of the Public Health Service, one of our Nation's seven uniformed services. They served under the authority of commissioned officers, wearing patches certified by the Secretary of the Army. And they treated the injuries of troops returning home from the war front. Despite their dedicated service to our Nation, it is unfortunate that the Department of Defense has elected to block efforts to recognize these women as military veterans. During the existence of the Cadet Nurse Corps, more than 124,000 Cadet Nurses graduated from 1,125 schools operating nurse training programs around the country. Without the Cadet Nurses, our battlefield medical services, as well as our health care here at home, could not have carried on with the same proficiency. For their tremendous service to our nation, I salute the Cadet Nurse Corps, and I ask you to join with me in supporting this resolution honoring their patriotism.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I take just a moment to thank the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I know how strongly he feels--and I understand the reasons he feels this way because I share them--that these are very important matters that should not be relegated necessarily to voice votes. But he has, once again, demonstrated a real appreciation of Senators' schedules and his understanding of the need for other Senators to offer amendments on this very critical bill we are dealing with. And in order to accommodate Senators who have amendments to offer, once again, he has agreed with my request that we do a rollcall on the first vote and then voice votes on the other ones. So I just want to publicly acknowledge his cooperation and his assistance on this matter and thank him since he is currently in the Chamber. But I appreciate that. I have no objection.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to note the absence of a quorum so that we can just finalize some comments before we make an announcement about the remainder of the evening.

Mr. DASCHLE. Six o'clock.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Leahy amendment. The amendment is very straightforward. It puts the State Department in charge of reconstruction of Iraq. It says that we ought to relieve our military of the burden of running this nationbuilding program, and we ought to put it in the hands of the U.S. Government agency that has successfully run such programs for decades. The President recognized the wisdom of such a decision last fall when he directed the State Department to conduct its year-long study called ``The Future of Iraq.'' The study apparently cost $5 million. It convened countless meetings with independent experts on Iraq and on post-conflict reconstruction. And, unfortunately, the study's findings were completely ignored. According to a remarkable story in this week's Newsweek, when it came time to send the reconstruction team into Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld ordered the State Department expert who had spent the previous year preparing the United States Government for post-Saddam Iraq to stay home. Apparently, his absence meant something. Another member of the reconstruction team who did go to Iraq came home about a month later and wrote a remarkable article for the Washington Post. He offered a series of stories about his time in Iraq to demonstrate ``how flawed policy and incompetent administration have marred the follow-up to the brilliant military campaign to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime.'' Unfortunately, the civilian leadership continues to rely on overly rosey scenarios and unrealistic plans while the risk to our troops grows. Last week, we were presented a plan by Ambassador Bremer that was supposed to set everything right in the reconstruction effort. His plan lays out five security goals--which are to be completed by October. Let me walk through just three of them. The Bremer plan will ``locate, secure, and eliminate WMD capability.'' Yet, today the lead man on the search for weapons of mass destruction was to brief Congress on his efforts to date. According to press reports, he will report that he has not found any unconventional weapons. The Bremer plan will also ``eliminate munitions caches, unexploded ordinance and excess military equipment.'' Yet the New York Times reported last weekend that 650,000 tons of ammunition remains at thousands of sites used by the former Iraqi security forces, and that much of it has not been secured and will take years to destroy. The Bremer plan will also ``defeat internal armed threats'' by October. Just today in Iraq, our commanding general on the ground in Iraq, said that our troops are facing increasingly sophisticated attacks and it would take years before Iraq could maintain internal security without backup. The Leahy amendment simply says that we have had enough of unrealistic plans and inexperienced planners. It says we are not comfortable that our troops--overstretched and at risk--are being forced to lead the nationbuilding effort in Iraq. It says what every independent assessment of our Iraq effort has urged us to do: put the experienced reconstruction experts at the State Department--not our military--in charge of nationbuilding. I urge my colleagues to support the Leahy amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, before we go to the vote, I know our colleagues will be coming to the floor to vote on these two matters. The distinguished majority leader and I have been talking about the schedule tomorrow. And without in any way preempting him and the decisions he will make about the schedule, there is a possibility that we will not be in session tomorrow but that we will have a window for Senators to offer amendments. The only reason I say that now is if Senators would contemplate the offering of an amendment tomorrow, I would like them, at least on the Democratic side, to consult with Senator Reid and myself during these votes so that we have an understanding of how many of those amendments might be offered. We would only have about a 2-hour window. But if Senators are interested, during these votes I hope they will come to either Senator Reid or myself to discuss the queuing of those amendments and whether or not we will have an opportunity to consider them all. So I hope we will use the time available to us for discussion of that. And we will have more to say about that sequencing once those votes have been completed. Vote on Amendment No. 1803

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina and I have been negotiating and working with the distinguished manager of the bill regarding an amendment we have been attempting to pass now over the course of this entire session of Congress. Our view has been from the very beginning that members of the National Guard and Reserves need the opportunity to have access to TRICARE health insurance. And now, on three occasions, the Senate has been on record--with increasing numbers--in support of this concept, this idea that TRICARE ought to be offered to members of the Guard and Reserves. We have been gratified with the strong bipartisan support that has been indicated with each one of the votes. Our concern, however, is it does not do us much good to continue to pass these measures on the Senate floor only to see the amendments dropped by the time they get to conference. We want to pass something into law. We want something to be provided to as many of these members of the Guard and Reserves as we possibly can this year. So in trying to figure out what might work best, and in working with the distinguished Senator from Alaska, we have concluded perhaps the best way to do this is to ensure we go to those people who need it the most, that is, those members of the Guard and Reserves who have no health insurance today, and that when members of the Guard and Reserves are called up to active duty, they also are compensated for the TRICARE insurance that would be provided to them while they are on active duty. Now, we will say from the very beginning this is not what we would like. We would like to do more, but we know that doing something is better than doing nothing if, in the end, that is what happens. So I first thank the distinguished Senator from South Carolina for his tenacity and persistence. He has done an outstanding job in working on this issue and has provided great leadership. He has been a very helpful partner. I also say there are Senators on my side of the aisle, Senator Leahy in particular, and Senator Clinton, who have been especially helpful in this effort. So I appreciate very much the Senator from Alaska working with us. I am satisfied this is a reasonable compromise. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I do not know--I haven't seen the list of cosponsors--but if they are not listed, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Leahy, Reid, and Clinton be added as cosponsors.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have been discussing the schedule. Everyone now has agreed Senator Dodd will offer an amendment. It is our understanding he will require about 20 minutes to make his presentation. The manager of the bill wants 5 minutes to respond. It is our expectation a vote will occur on the Dodd amendment in about 25 minutes. My preference is to ask unanimous consent to lock it in so this does not get extended to 15 or 20 minutes more. I propound that request, that a vote occur on or in relation to the Dodd amendment at 7:40.

Mr. DASCHLE. I renew my request.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today we begin the most consequential national security debate in a generation. At stake is more than just the fate of $87 billion in spending. This debate will speak to the lives of hundreds of thousands of our men and women in uniform, who are being asked to risk everything for their country. It will speak to America's taxpayers who are being asked to shoulder the burden of the administration's Iraq policy with little or no help from our friends and allies around the globe. And it will speak to our Nation's responsibilities and its role in the world today and for years to come. Let me begin, though, by talking specifically about what this debate is not about. Democrats and Republicans are united in our support for all our brave service men and women. They continue to bring honor to their country. Inspired by their performance of duty to us, we pledge to live up to our duty to them. Democrats will do everything in our power to ensure that our troops have every tool and resource necessary to do the job we are asking of them. Democrats and Republicans are also united in our commitment to a free, stable, and secure Iraq. Terror must not be the successor to tyranny. Therefore, Democrats are committed to doing everything possible to keep Saddam Hussein from returning to power and to keep terrorists from exploiting Iraq as a base of operations. Our mission in Iraq will remain unfinished until Iraqis are governed by a constitutional government, defended by their own security forces, protected by their own police and judicial system, and provided for by a functioning infrastructure financed with Iraqi resources. The United States must not and will not prematurely abrogate its responsibility to a fully liberated and self-sufficient Iraq. In short, this debate is not about whether or not we should run from our obligations to our troops and to rebuild Iraq. We will not. Simply, this debate is about how to ensure our objectives for Iraq are met successfully and our troops brought home to their loved ones as safely and quickly as possible. Day after day, we receive more evidence of the inadequacy of the administration's plan for the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that 650,000 tons of Iraqi munitions lie unprotected. There is evidence the 500 pound bomb that terrorists used to destroy the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad may in fact have been stolen from one of Saddam's old munitions depots. This news comes to us 3 weeks after the Pentagon assured us that all known weapons sites had already been secured. In spite of these concerns, the administration continues to say that its pre-war planning was adequate to the task, and that it has the right prescriptions for Iraq's future. But an objective look at the record indicates that the White House's plan for post-Saddam Iraq was either inadequate or altogether non- existent. In its post-combat report, the Joint Chiefs of Staff concluded that the post-war plan was not sufficient to some of the most critical challenges we face in post-Saddam Iraq. I quote from that report: Late formation of [post-conflict] organizations limited time available for the development of detailed plans and pre- deployment coordination. . . . Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) elimination and exploitation planning efforts did not occur early enough in the process to allow CentCom to effectively execute the mission.'' It concludes, ``The extent of the planning required was underestimated.'' Just yesterday I learned from Iraq's Governing Council that the administration had failed to consult them when putting together its proposal to rebuild Iraq. Think about that. At the same time the administration professes its desire to put Iraqis in charge of Iraq, it failed to seek their counsel about Iraq's most urgent needs. Instead, the administration chose to have Ambassador Bremer and its experts here in Washington determine what was best for the citizens of Baghdad and Basra. The administration's inadequate post-Saddam planning continues to have gravest consequences. On a daily basis, our soldiers follow orders that place them in mortal danger because they understand their work serves a greater purpose and a larger strategy. But when we place them in situations where there is no effective strategy or plan, this danger is greatly increased. Sadly, this is a lesson our Nation has had several opportunities to learn. Retired General Anthony Zinni put it best. He said in a recent speech: [Our troops] should never be put on a battlefield without a strategic plan, not only for the fighting--our generals will take care of that--but for the aftermath and winning that war. Where are we, the American people, if we accept this, if we accept this level of sacrifice without that level of planning? Almost everyone in this room, of my contemporaries--our feelings and our sensitivities were forged on the battlefields of Vietnam; where we heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. We swore never again would we do that. We swore never again would we allow it to happen. And I ask you, is it happening again? And you're going to have to answer that question, just like the American people are. And remember, everyone of those young men and women that do not come back is not only a personal tragedy, it's a national tragedy. By asking the right questions and making the right changes to the administration's supplemental request, the Senate can act to correct these mistakes and ensure success in Iraq. But time is running short-- in Iraq and here at home. As Iraqis become accustomed to terrorism as a daily fact of life, they are looking to U.S. leadership for reasons to be hopeful. They want to work with us to build a better future for themselves, but they need to know that we are committed to that future. At the same time, Americans are growing impatient. The costs of success, both in lives and in money, appear without end. For both Iraqis and Americans, the window to demonstrate a clear plan for Iraq's future is closing. The next 3 months are crucial to turning around the security situation, which is volatile in key parts of the country. Iraqis, Americans, and the entire world are watching closely to see how resolutely the coalition will handle this challenge. The Iraqi population has high expectations, and the window for cooperation may close rapidly if they do not see progress on delivering security, basic services, opportunities for broad political involvement, and economic opportunity. The ``hearts and minds'' of key segments of the Sunni and Shi'a communities are in play and can be won, but only if the Coalition Provisional Authority--CPA--and new Iraqi authorities deliver in short order. To do so, the CPA will have to dramatically and expeditiously augment its operational capacity throughout the country, so that civilian- led rebuilding can proceed while there are still significant numbers of coalition forces in Iraq to provide maximum leverage over those who seek to thwart the process. We believe the greatest opportunity for success lies in internationalizing the effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq. It reduces the risk to U.S. service men and women and the cost to U.S. taxpayers. It increases the international legitimacy of the post- Saddam effort. It makes Iraq the world's challenge and the world's responsibility. This can be accomplished through two simple steps. First, the President needs to make obtaining greater cooperation among our allies his top national security priority and be willing to do what is reasonable to obtain their support. It is not enough for the President to make speeches or insist on resolutions at the United Nations that essentially restate policy positions that to date have left us working largely alone. Second, the administration needs to produce a clear plan that demonstrates both to our Armed Forces and to our taxpayers precisely what sacrifices will be expected of them, both now and in the future, in order to accomplish our objectives. This supplemental budget request does not take either of those steps. Before the Senate is one bill, but in truth, there are two separate and distinct requests. First, is the $67 billion requested to equip our troops to do their job. Democrats have no objection to this request and we would be willing to approve this funding this very day. Alongside funding to support our troops stands an additional $20 billion to aid in the rebuilding of Iraq. As I said earlier, Democrats remain committed to doing whatever it takes to provide Iraq with the tools and resources necessary to join the community of nations as a safe, responsible, self-sufficient member. But a supplemental request is not a plan. And we have serious misgivings about providing the funds requested until we have confidence they will be used in service to a plan that will successfully achieve our objectives in Iraq. That confidence is undermined when Americans read reports that firms with close personal and financial ties to the White House are winning no-bid contracts, raising the appearance of impropriety and cronyism. That confidence is further eroded when Americans learn that many of the items within this supplemental request seem grossly inflated or dubious. The American taxpayer is being asked to pick up the cost of 600 radios and telephones at the cost of $6,000 apiece, pickup trucks at $33,000 a piece. Iraqi prisoners will be incarcerated at $50,000 per year, more than twice the cost in American prisons. And Iraqi entrepreneurs will receive business training costing $10,000 per month, more than two-and-a-half times the cost of an education at the Harvard Business School. To be sure, many investments within this bill are worthwhile. But we should bring the same vigilance to control unnecessary spending that we bring to spending here at home. That is the root of the questions we will ask and the amendments we will offer. We have sought to raise important questions such as these since the very beginning of the Iraqi conflict. Unfortunately, upon each occasion, Republicans opted to question our motives and in some cases, even our patriotism. Senate Armed Forces Committee Chairman John Warner said last week of our soldiers, ``Their fathers, their uncles, their grandfathers have served in previous military conflicts, and they look upon the Congress as that bastion that safeguards those that are put in harm's way. I ask, do these comments constitute embracing, as we should, those families, those children? Is that safeguarding those put in harm's way? I say no.'' Senate Intelligence Chairman Roberts even suggested that the posing of questions put the lives of our soldiers at risk. ``I'm very concerned that if the criticism is so harsh as to create the impression of lack of resolve, I wonder what goes through the minds of . . . not only our men and women serving in uniform, but the very terrorists who are killing our troops and their fellow Iraqis.'' These comments represent a low-point in the Senate's proud tradition of deliberation and debate. The right to question our leaders is the foundation of our democracy. Demanding answers in a time of war strengthens our democracy, rather than weakening it. President Teddy Roosevelt once said, ``To announce that there must be no criticism of the President or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile but it is also morally treasonable to the American public.'' As American citizens, we are obligated to ask these questions. And as Senators, we are not only obligated but empowered by our Constitution to demand answers. That is precisely what we will do during this debate. As this debate proceeds, Democrats will offer a series of proposals that are designed to win back the trust of the Nation and the support of the world for our Iraq policy. First, the White House must develop and inform Congress and American people about plans for success before gaining access to reconstruction funds. Second, the President should increase efforts to gain international involvement, both in terms of financial support and commitment of troops. Third, those who have benefitted most from our Nation's prosperity should help pay their fair share for its defense. By rolling back the President's tax cut for the wealthiest one percent of Americans for just 1 year, we can pay for the full cost of this request without increasing the national debt. Fourth, we need to ensure fair, open competition for contracts. Finally, the White House should to transfer control of the reconstruction of Iraq from the Defense Department to the State Department, which has expertise and experience in nation building. History will remember what we say in this debate, because it will shape not just the fate of this spending request but the fate of Iraq, the Middle East, and America's foreign policy for years to come. I am confident that the Senate will live up to its responsibility to our troops and provide them with the support they need and have earned. I am hopeful that Republicans will join Democrats in insisting that the White House offer a clear plan to go along with the unprecedented level of funding we have been asked to provide. When our armed forces toppled Saddam Hussein's regime, Americans became bound to the Iraqi people and responsible for their fate. We are committed to fulfilling that responsibility by providing the resources and support they need to become fully independent members in the community of nations. But our vision cannot be clouded by false optimism or blinded by stubborn pride. It is not too late to change course and bring a real plan and real cooperation, to the American rebuilding of Iraq. This opportunity will not last much longer. We can't afford to let it, and the future of a secure Middle East, slip through our fingers. The cost of success is great; the cost of failure is even greater.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank all of those involved in the discussion and the agreement we have just reached procedurally. This is an important issue and it deserves the consideration of the Senate. I want to especially acknowledge the leadership Senator Schumer has shown on this matter, and I expressed the gratitude of our caucus to him for providing this legislative leadership as we consider what to do in this particular case. I think there are several facts we know for sure. We know the law was violated. We know what the law says with regard to violations of this magnitude. We know the chilling effect it has on our intelligence- gathering capability and on personnel involved in the front lines with regard to intelligence-gathering responsibilities. We know, if we can believe the reports that have already been printed and reported, what motivated someone in the White House or someone in this administration was retaliation, retribution for being critical of the administration. Those things we know. What we don't know is how it happened. What we don't know is who is responsible. What we don't know is whether or not the perception that the Justice Department can investigate this independently, objectively, and thoroughly is something we can answer today. I would say the answer is no. It would be very difficult to put John Ashcroft in the position of investigating the very people who hired him for the job. We no longer have the independent counsel law. That has expired. I am on record as having said I support the expiration of the independent counsel law because of the abuses that I believe have occurred. What we do have is an independent prosecutor set up by regulation throughout the Justice Department to create more of an independent review, an outside analysis of all of the outstanding questions regarding this particular case. So that is really what the Senator from New York is saying. Because the law was violated, because of the perceptions created about the inability of this Attorney General to create an independent, thorough investigation, we have no choice. We have no choice but to encourage and to demand that a special counsel be appointed. Mr. President, I don't know that there could be anything more egregious--in fact, I thought President Bush's father said it about as well as anyone can. Anyone who is guilty of doing something such as this is what President Bush said, an insidious traitor. I believe those are strong words, because they deserve the kind of repudiation that words such as that connote. The only way we can ensure that those responsible for insidious acts involving the very essence of our ability to stay strong is to ensure that when we pass laws involving violations, we deal with them effectively and directly, regardless of who it may be. Our country is based on the premise, on the foundation, of the rule of law. There can be no respect for the rule of law if laws as essential to our national security as this are violated and there is no followup, no responsibility, no actions taken. I do not care how one connotes the importance of this law, one cannot minimize its impact in this country today, especially now. So all that the distinguished Senator from New York is saying and what many of us are saying with him is let us uphold the law; let us say, as we demand of others that they respect the rule of law, that we set the example, and that in encouraging the rule of law and respecting the extraordinary consequences of the law those who violate it are held accountable. I hope this Congress will act unanimously in this sense of the Senate, in this statement of purpose that the Senator from New York is offering today. Let us simply say with one voice that there can be no excuses, there can be no explanation, there can be no other option than pursuing the law vigorously. The only way to do that is to recognize the importance of what the Justice Department itself recognized, that there are times when conflicts of interest stand in the way of pursuing justice effectively. In those times, the only option we have available to us is the creation of an independent counsel. In essence, that is what we are proposing today. I strongly support the letter as well as the spirit and the intent of the resolution, and I hope my colleagues will do so as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would simply acknowledge that the majority leader has described our understanding very accurately. I believe we are in a position now to agree to the motion to proceed. It would be our expectation we could take the bill up tomorrow morning. I understand the majority leader has suggested maybe an hour of morning business and then we would take up the bill and begin the debate with amendments to be offered by colleagues on both sides. It is our expectation that we will have an opportunity to offer these amendments and get votes, either on or in relation to--that is a tabling or an up-or-down vote--on these amendments. But it is also our understanding that we will work to finish this bill, as the majority leader has described, by I believe it is October 17, which is that Friday after we return. I think that gives the Senate adequate time to address the bill, to consider amendments. Obviously we need cooperation from Senators on both sides of the aisle with regard to the time requirements because, as the majority leader noted, there are a number of amendments to be offered. The only way we can assure Senators have a voice and have the opportunity to be heard is to accommodate all of those who wish to offer amendments by limiting some of the time that will be required for the debate on these amendments. So it is my hope that working through our managers and my extraordinary partner, the assistant Democratic leader, we can orchestrate the debate with amendments in a way that will accommodate this schedule. But it is a fair schedule, it is an appropriate schedule, and I think we have the basis of experience now from which to draw the confidence that we can make this work. We have tried this now on several appropriations bills with success without exception. I am hopeful we can demonstrate once again that we can be successful in this--I think the majority leader used the right phrase--good-faith understanding of the way this bill is going to be considered. I strongly support the effort and hope we can have the good debate we anticipate and expect the cooperation of all Senators as we enter into this arrangement. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate has a special bipartisan tradition of support for child nutrition, and I am pleased to promote that tradition by joining with Senators Elizabeth Dole and Pat Roberts in cosponsoring S. 1549, which would expand children's access to the free school lunch and breakfast programs. This idea was first suggested to me by Senators Bob Dole and George McGovern at a conference last year at Dakota Wesleyan College in Mitchell, SD. Since our conversation, I have heard from a number of schools in South Dakota that many families whose children qualify for a reduced price lunch find it difficult to pay even the reduced fee. For some families, the fee can actually be an insurmountable barrier to participation. The main purpose of the school lunch program is to make sure that children have a reliable, nutritious lunch every day. If a lower income family can't afford to pay for a reduced price lunch, it follows that they will also struggle to afford to provide a bag lunch for their child. S. 1549 has strong support within my State. The South Dakota State Board of Education and more than two dozen local school boards have passed resolutions urging Congress to eliminate the reduced price school meal program. Expanding children's access to the free school lunch and breakfast programs would unquestionably help promote better child nutrition in America. I have cosponsored S. 1529 because I support that goal. I also support other equally important child nutrition and food program improvements. For example, lowering the area eligibility guideline in the summer and child care food programs from the current 50 percent to 40 percent would provide services to more children in low-income communities. Increasing children's access to fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, low-fat dairy products, and lean meats are important steps in improving overall health and reducing obesity. Reducing the paperwork burden for participants in the Summer Food Program would help make sure more children have access to healthy food when school is not in session. Making for-profit child care centers that serve low-income children eligible to participate in the Child and Adult Care Food program, and additional improvements to other nutrition programs, including food stamps, are long overdue. Strengthening food support for low-income families is a sound investment in the long-term health and well-being of our children, and each of these initiatives is a worthy goal. Collectively, they are goals, I believe, a nation as great as the United States should strive to achieve. However, the current budgetary climate makes any of these investments extremely difficult. Just 2 years ago, record budget surpluses were projected that could have been used to fund this priority. Today, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, projects massive deficits for many years to come, nearly 40 percent of which CBO attributes to the Bush tax cuts. The President chose to make tax cuts his economic priority, effectively at the expense of investments in our children. The Republican budget resolution, adopted earlier this year, made the same choice. It prioritized additional tax cuts, while providing no additional resources to the Senate Agriculture Committee for child nutrition or other improvements to food programs. Unless we can take steps to reorder the priorities in the federal budget, this means any costs resulting from improvements we might make in nutrition programs must be paid for by cutting the same programs or by increasing the deficit. The administration has proposed to require schools to increase their efforts to verify participating families' incomes which would have the result of generating budget savings. Sound reasonable? But the Department of Agriculture just released results from several new studies that show increasing income verification does virtually nothing to reduce errors but will significantly diminish participation by eligible children. The burden would be particularly acute for small, rural schools, like many in my state, that do not have the personnel to handle the increased paperwork. We clearly should not attempt to feed one group of children by forcing another group of eligible children out of the program. I support harmonizing the school meal income guidelines with the WIC income guidelines, as S. 1549 proposes. Under current circumstances, this may take some time to achieve. I will continue to work with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to explore how we might make improvements in our nutrition programs, including advancing the goal of S. 1549. I encourage my colleagues to take a serious look at S. 1549 and consider promoting this legislation as part of a comprehensive, long-term strategy to invest in important national nutritional priorities.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor and rise in strong support of the resolution submitted by the distinguished assistant Democratic leader, Senator Reid, this afternoon. It was 3 years ago that we had an opportunity to bring real peace to the region. In September of 2000 there was a great deal of optimism, a great deal of hope, a great promise that after months and months of negotiation we could have finally found a peaceful resolution and move to the next step in the peaceful coexistence of people in the Middle East. For reasons still unclear, Yasser Arafat walked away from that agreement, disappointing, disillusioning, and, in so many ways, undermining the peace process. Over the course of the last 3 years, 800 Israelis have been killed, 2,400 Palestinians have died. Where he has had an opportunity to renounce violence, he has condoned it. Where he has had an opportunity to embrace peace, he has repelled it. At virtually every turn, regardless of circumstance, Mr. Arafat sends the wrong message about leadership, about commitment, about the spirit that was so alive just 3 years ago. In the creation of a new government, Mr. Arafat had yet another opportunity to stand behind his new Prime Minister, Abu Mazen, and to say, through him and through this new office: We will resolve our differences. We will bring violence to an end. We will find ways with which to establish a peaceful coexistence. Yet he chose once again to walk away from that opportunity, if not undermine it in every way. Now there is a new government, at least under consideration. Again, Arafat sends all the wrong messages about what he expects from that new government, its allegiance to him, not to the process, not to the people, not to a commitment for a better future--it is to him. Some of us want to use this occasion, through this resolution, to make it clear that Mr. Arafat has been an impediment to peace. Mr. Arafat has done virtually everything to thwart peace. As a result, we find ourselves in a situation far worse than it was just 3 years ago. It is a tragedy--a tragedy that has amounted to the loss of 3,200 lives in 3 years. I hope my colleagues will join us in sending a clear message that we cannot have peace, we cannot have any expectation, any hope of stability and the realization within our grasp that death can end, without sending a clear message to those responsible: We cannot tolerate this kind of leadership. We cannot tolerate this kind of irresponsible and dangerous direction. We will speak out in every way, shape, and form we can until this matter is resolved.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana. I appreciate all of her effort in providing leadership to the Senate on this appropriations bill. We will have more to say about it next week.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to use leader time to talk briefly about another matter I call to my colleagues' attention. Late last year, I had the opportunity--indeed the obligation--to work on and support the most important commission that has been established in all my years in public service. In the aftermath of the terrible terrorist attacks of September 11, the families of the victims and all Americans turned to their elected leaders in the White House and the Congress to help them obtain some answers to how this tragedy occurred and what steps should be taken to prevent future 9/11s. Senate Democrats, led by Senators Lieberman and Torricelli, proposed that the best way to provide these answers was to establish a blue- ribbon, independent panel to carefully sort through all the facts and evidence and interview key policymakers. The record will clearly show that this commission was strongly opposed by the White House. In fact, Vice President Cheney called me twice to indicate, incorrectly in my view, that creating such a commission could jeopardize the administration's efforts in the war on terrorism. Other Bush officials in other settings made it clear to the families and Democratic and Republican members of Congress that they were less than enthusiastic about having a commission examine the administration's actions prior to 9/11. After it became clear that their opposition was politically unsustainable, the administration switched gears and decided to support a commission provided that Congress remove several key elements of the Lieberman/Torricelli proposal designed to ensure the commission functioned as effectively and independently as possible. Congress was effectively asked to take it on faith that the executive branch would work with the commission on a nonpartisan effort to shed light on the tragedy of 9/11. Regrettably, that promise has not been realized as the administration continues to throw roadblocks in front of the commission's work. In July, the Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman Hamilton stated publicly that the Bush administration has been slow and unresponsive in producing information sought by the commission. Shortly after receiving this report, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment offered by myself and several other Senate Democrats urging the President to immediately and publicly call for all executive branch agencies to provide their fullest and most timely cooperation to the commission. Unfortunately, no such call was issued, 2 more months have elapsed, and we have another report form the chairman and vice chairman that should provide no comfort to those seeking the truth about what happened on 9/11. While stating that administration cooperation has improved, at the half-way mark of the commission's life, Chairman Kean said, ``We have not got everything. We have not gotten everything that we feel we need to do our job.'' Chairman Hamilton indicated that the commission's work is at a crunch point and that unless the commissioners receive satisfactory cooperation from the White House the Commission will be unable to meet its May, 2004 reporting deadline. Other commissioners have been more stark in their assessment. According to a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, two commissioners said, ``the investigation is still hampered by heel- dragging by the White House and federal agencies.'' Despite the administration's attitude toward the creation of this commission, all of us who supported it hoped that once established the administration would recognize the significance and importance of its work and cooperate fully. We all owe an immense debt of gratitude to the commissioners for their hard work and dedication to this effort. Each of them has already spent countless hours on this task and the families and the nation appreciate their work. It would be a shame if the administration's lack of cooperation prevented them from completing their important task. As Vice Chairman Hamilton's remarks indicate, time is running out on the administration to reverse course and do right by this investigation. Time is running out on the commission to get the information it needs to complete their work. And time is running out on the families and all Americans to get the answers they deserve. I urge the administration to immediately and completely cooperate with the commission so this work can be completed successfully to the expectations of those families who have given so much. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I see the Senator from New Mexico is ready to speak, as well, and I will be brief. We had a caucus last night, and I don't know that I can recall ever having witnessed the depth of anger and deep-seated frustration expressed by all of our membership as a result of the scheduling decisions made with regard to the supplemental next week. It started with the decision that may have been necessary but made last week with regard to calling Ambassador Bremer to a hearing on Monday, the very day the hearing was scheduled in the afternoon. No Senators were notified ahead of time. Senators had very little time to prepare. Very few Senators could attend because they were out of town. Many expressed the view that this was orchestrated in a way to minimize the amount of scrutiny and attention Mr. Bremer would receive. Throughout the week, similar experiences have been noted. And now we have a markup on Monday, when, again, Senators have made travel plans and the real prospect for a good attendance is minimal at best. The frustration, the anger, the venting that I witnessed, and that most people felt, was as palpable as any caucus I can recall holding in the 9 years I have been leader. I have not had the opportunity--I just tried to call the majority leader, and I will talk to him in private in, hopefully, a couple minutes, but I would ask that we reconsider holding that markup on Monday. I would ask that in the name of comity, but also in the name of just ensuring that there be an opportunity to do this right, it be postponed until Tuesday. I think we would actually accelerate the prospects of completing the work. I will guarantee you, there will be very little prospect for comity and accommodation as we go through this already very vexing and controversial supplemental request by the administration--in order for the Senate to complete its work, it is going to take cooperation. But when our caucus feels as jammed as they do, as shut out as they are, it will be very difficult to reach some degree of procedural accommodation. So I will tell you that this matter needs more thought. I would hope we could have more consultation. But I will say, unless something changes, this is going to be exceedingly difficult. So I only put the Senate on notice. And, again, as I said, I attempted to call the majority leader prior to the time I came to the Senate floor to impress upon him privately the same message I am sharing with our colleagues in this public way. We will have more to say about it later. But this matter has generated far greater anxiety and anger than virtually anything I have seen in a long time. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, again, I would respond to the distinguished majority leader in several ways. First of all, the Ambassador, in speaking to our caucus on Tuesday, noted he does not need this money until January. Now obviously one could make the case that there really is not any rush to do this in September. I would also say the House has not acted. Until the House acts--and they are not going to act until next week--many of my colleagues wonder what the rush is. If we are denied the right to offer amendments, there are those who could make a point of order that many of the amendments we will be offering involve legislating on appropriations because of the germaneness questions. And if that becomes an issue, then I doubt very much that there will be any way we can finish next week. As I think I heard the distinguished assistant Democratic leader note, this bill will come back, and we will have to have a second debate when the House bill comes to the Senate if points of order are raised on the amendments, denying us the opportunity to have this debate in the first place. So I guess my answer to the distinguished majority leader would be threefold: No. 1, will we have an opportunity to offer the amendments without points of order being raised against them? No. 2, when will the markup actually occur? And if it does occur on Monday, I fear there could be some procedural delays involved in bringing the bill up. No. 3, we need to have a clear understanding of just when this legislation needs to be passed to accommodate the schedule Ambassador Bremer noted to our caucus. If we do not need to finish this until January, that is another matter. So some clarification with regard to the urgency of this issue also needs to be provided. I certainly will work with the majority leader as we follow through with these questions.