Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I would just ask the majority leader if it is his view as well, since these amendments require legislative drafting, that all Senators ought to understand that the period for drafting these amendments could expire as early as tomorrow. So they need to get their amendments to legislative counsel to make sure they are in concert with the pending bill. I ask if the majority leader shares that view.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the majority leader and I have been talking the last couple days with regard to the schedule for this particular bill. I would ask the majority leader if he could again indicate his desire, and certainly one that I can support, which would set in motion a series of events requiring today that all amendments be listed; that is, we would have a finite list, and that by tomorrow all amendments be filed, and that at some point in this debate, in the next couple of days, all amendments be offered. I think it is very important for us to have a clear understanding of the universe of amendments that are there. If we get that finite list this morning, or sometime through the earlier part of the day, and then the order requiring that all amendments be filed so we know exactly what the language is for those amendments, and then offered, we would be in that position. I ask the majority leader if that is his intent. And we could work through the day with that expectation in mind.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Farm Credit System is a nationwide network of borrower-owned financial institutions consisting of four farm-credit banks, one agricultural-credit bank, and nearly 100 locally owned farm-credit associations. These institutions were created as a result of the 1916 Farm Credit Act, whose fundamental purpose was to establish a network of government-sponsored enterprises that would provide America's farmers and ranchers with a reliable source of credit at fair and competitive interest rates. Over the years, the Farm Credit System has provided critical credit and related services to farmers, ranchers, rural homeowners, farm- related businesses, and cooperatives, including rural utilities. In fact, the Farm Credit System provides over $90 billion in loans to more than a half-a-million producers, agribusiness, and agricultural cooperatives. Overall, more than 25 percent of the credit needs of American agriculture are met by these important farm credit institutions. These institutions have the unique attribute of being organized as cooperative businesses, each owned by its member-borrower stockholders, who have the right to participate in director elections and vote on issues impacting business operations. One of the largest farm-credit institutions serving South Dakota is Farm Credit Services of America, or FCSA. FCSA also provides services in Iowa, Nebraska, and Wyoming, and it holds nearly $8 billion in assets, which is about 8 percent of the entire Farm Credit System portfolio. On July 30, the board of FCSA approved an agreement to be acquired by the Rabobank Group, a Dutch banking giant and international farm lender. The agreement is subject to approval by the regulatory agency which oversees these institutions--the Farm Credit Administration or FCA. It is also subject to stockholder approval and the expiration or termination of antitrust waiting periods. Under the agreement, FCSA would become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rabobank and would seek to exit the Farm Credit System under the termination provisions of the FCA's regulations. FCSA has over 51,000 farmer and rancher customers--thousands of which are in my State of South Dakota. Having spent a great deal of time in South Dakota over the past few months, I can say without any doubt that this proposed sale of one of our leading Farm Credit System institutions to a foreign bank has created a whirlwind of confusion and uncertainty. While the tentative deal would pay producer-members $600 million in patronage, FCSA would also have to pay the Federal Government an $800 million ``exit fee,'' which is required should a member-institution pull out of the system. The $800 million would go to the system's insurance fund. If the agreement is approved, FCSA would no longer exist. At the same time, another banking interest--AgStar, which is also part of the Farm Credit System, and which operates out of Minnesota-- has also sought to enter into a merger with FCSA. Under AgStar's proposal, the new, merged AgStar would pay producers- owners $650 million in patronage--a full $50 million more than the Rabobank offer. Plus, AgStar would not have to pay the $800 million termination fee that the Rabobank deal would require. Finally, AgStar would make a commitment to provide future patronage payments to farmers and rancher-owners. Looking solely at these figures, the Babobank offer appears questionable. But a decision like this should not be taken lightly, and more time is needed to fully analyze all the facts and determine what would be in the best interest of the producer-owners of FCSA, and in the best interest of the overall Farm Credit System. Senator Johnson and I have sought to ensure that public hearings on these matters be held by both the FCA and the appropriate committees in Congress. The FCA has said that they will hold at least one meeting or hearing. In addition, the first of what I hope could be several congressional hearings will be held by a House Agriculture Subcommittee tomorrow. Unfortunately, the current time line under which the Farm Credit Administration must operate would require a decision within 60 days of FCSA's submission of a termination notice--a notice which could be filed as early as this week. If the FCA approves the sale, a final vote by the FCSA shareholders could theoretically come before the end of the year, when Congress will likely be out of session. It would be extremely difficult for the FCA to hold the public meetings or hearings that many of us think are needed, and make a thoughtful decision about the termination, within the initial 60-day time frame. That is why, today, Senator Johnson and I are introducing legislation to ensure that when a Farm Credit System institution seeks to leave the system and terminate its status, the FCA will hold no less than one public meeting or hearing in each of the States in which that institution is chartered. In this case there would be no less than one meeting or hearing in South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska and Wyoming. The bill would also require the FCA to wait at least six months before making a decision on the termination request by the institution--in this case, FCSA. At best, the proposed sale of FCSA to Rabobank raises more questions than answers. Farmers and ranchers in South Dakota and in the other impacted States fear they will have to vote on a deal before studying it and having all the appropriate information they need. And the Farm Credit Administration, which is not a large agency, is at risk of being overburdened by an unrealistic time line. A decision to leave the system is really monumental in the world of rural credit, and it could have a huge impact on rural America. The Farm Credit System has served our Nation's rural communities exceedingly well for nearly 90 years. Before any action is taken that may jeopardize that impressive record, we need to ensure that farmers, ranchers, and rural residents, as well as members of the FCA, have the time they need to analyze this profoundly important decision and reach the right conclusion. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I confirm the schedule as Senator Frist has laid it out. The majority leader has been very clear about the intent that we both have to try to finish this work as quickly yet as thoroughly as we can. I would hope that we could work on a finite list. I would hope that we could reach time agreements on amendments. This is a piece of legislation that should be familiar to all Senators. It has been out there. The committee has done very good and deliberative work on both sides. It has been one of the better demonstrations of the cooperation that we used to take for granted around here. I would hope that we could continue to show that same level of cooperation as we work through this bill. I reiterate my strong support for what the majority leader has noted. He may have said this, and I just didn't catch it, but I know we have to take up some expiring legislation this week. We have a CR. We have a transportation bill. We have TANF. All of that has to be addressed this week as well. It is my hope that we can get agreements on those and not devote a good deal of time on the Senate floor to those and keep our focus first on 9/11 and then other agreements we could get on appropriations bills. We will work throughout the day to clarify the schedule with regard to those bills.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, South Dakotans have always been generous when our fellow Americans, even those living thousands of miles away, are suffering. After September 11, we saw equipment makers, firefighters, school children, scout troops, church organizations, and countless other South Dakotans donate whatever they could to the victims. One ranch couple, themselves struggling, even sold 100 calves and dedicated the proceeds to the victims. As hurricanes ravaged, and continue to threaten, Florida, South Dakotans sent not only their prayers, but also generators and plywood. Yet, while all of these things have taken place, South Dakota has been experiencing its own disaster, the slow-motion disaster of drought. For the last several years, South Dakotans have been impacted to varying degrees by drought. In fact, 2002 was the worst drought since the Dust Bowl year of 1936. That is why I have worked so hard to get natural disaster aid for our state in the 2002 farm bill. The provision was not in the House-passed farm bill, and it was opposed and eventually stopped by the administration. That is why I felt that as the Senate considered disaster assistance for the people of Florida, it was time for us to look for ways to help the people of South Dakota and other areas of the Nation who have been the victims of agricultural disasters. Make no mistake about it, this aid would help farmers and ranchers in Florida who have lost a majority of their citrus crop, much of the nursery stock and hundreds of head of cattle. In fact, farmers in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Georgia and all along the eastern seaboard were seriously damaged by the myriad hurricanes, and the devastation may not be over. But for farmers and ranchers in the upper Midwest, the drought has continued for years. On August 17, I wrote to the President expressing my support for assistance to hurricane victims and asking him to include other natural disaster victims, including drought-related disaster relief, in any emergency-funding request that he might send to Congress. While the Bush administration did not include this funding in its emergency hurricane funding requests, I still believed there was a way to secure this assistance. When the first disaster assistance bill for Florida was on the floor of the Senate, I attempted to include agricultural disaster assistance in that legislation. While a procedural maneuver blocked that effort, we were able to secure a commitment from Senator Frist to allow a vote on drought relief as part of the Homeland Security appropriations measure. On September 15, we got that vote, and the Senate passed a bipartisan provision for $2.9 billion in emergency disaster relief to agricultural producers. This is a tremendously important for farmers and ranchers throughout the Nation, including those in South Dakota. It is important for our nation's rural economy, and for all of the communities that have waited too long for this relief. The package includes $2.5 billion in assistance to crop producers through the crop disaster program, $475 million to livestock producers through the livestock assistance program, and $20 million for the tree assistance program. While some of us would have preferred assistance for both 2003 and 2004, the provision that passed would allow producers to choose compensation for either the 2003 or 2004 crop year. The Senate's passage of this assistance is not the final step in this process, and the Senate and the House are currently meeting to resolve the differences they have with the Homeland Security bill. I am deeply troubled by news reports that some in the House Republican leadership and the Bush administration are opposed to this most recent emergency aid provision. I would hope that the broad bipartisan support for this disaster provision in the Senate will convince the House and the President to provide the support farmers and ranchers across the country so badly need. I wholeheartedly support providing States like Florida with the assistance they need to bounce back from a hurricane. By unanimously approving this agriculture-related disaster aid, the Senate also acknowledged something South Dakotans know far too well: victims of agricultural natural disasters are no less deserving of assistance than victims of hurricanes, floods, or tornadoes. In South Dakota, we believe in helping our neighbors through tough times. But sometimes, we need some help, too. I am hopeful that help will soon be on the way, and the administration will reverse its long-standing opposition to agricultural disaster aid for farmers and ranchers throughout the Nation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the state of the transportation bill. That bill expired a year ago, and we have been operating on short-term extensions ever since. The delay has denied us the opportunity to create over 100,000 jobs and has led to continuing uncertainty in the States as they try to make contract and construction decisions without knowing what funding will be available. Our states, our communities, and our infrastructure deserve better. It is not as if there have been no efforts to pass a new and stronger transportation bill. The Senate-passed transportation bill was a model of bipartisanship. It met the needs of States like South Dakota, which have a sparse population, but have a large geography and many miles of roads. Likewise, it ensures that the more populated States were treated fairly. In the Senate bill, we were able to reach an agreement that worked for everyone. Our bill not only treated States fairly, but it treated transit fairly. There has often been a struggle between highways and transit, and the Senate bill struck a good balance. More importantly, it was a bill that did right by America's families, making critical investments in our infrastructure, and creating nearly 2 million jobs in the process. The one area where we were unable to reach agreement was on the rail provisions, and I am hopeful that we can work to remedy that as we move forward. Having a dependable and affordable rail system to transport goods, including agricultural commodities, is critical to our Nation. It is clear to me that despite the broad bipartisan agreement we were able to reach in the Senate, the rejection of that agreement by the President and some of the House majority leadership means that we are being denied the opportunity to debate and pass a bipartisan transportation bill. Senators Bond and Reid have suggested that we give some certainty to the States by ensuring that they will have a steady funding stream for the next 6 months. Senator Shelby and Senator Sarbanes, our leaders on the Banking Committee and on transit issues, agree. I, too, think that this is, unfortunately, the best course of action given the situation in which we find ourselves. And so I am hopeful that the majority leader will take up the bill early next week. The reason for not completing this bill is clearly over the question of resources. The administration has not been willing to consider any bill that is anything other than their proposed $256 billion. In fact, the President threatened to veto both the House and Senate-passed bills because they contained greater levels of investment. And yet, to invest significantly less than the Senate was willing to invest fails to meet the goals I just discussed: to treat all States and modes of transportation fairly. That does not mean that the Senate level is the only level and that a long-term bill cannot be completed at a lower investment level. But I have not seen, nor do I believe that anyone has seen, a willingness to seriously discuss that possibility. Thus, we find ourselves in the unfortunate position of once again being up against the end of another extension. Rather than keeping States in the dark about their future, it seems to me that the bipartisan approach of Senators Bond, Reid, Shelby and Sarbanes makes sense. In fact, several transportation groups have also called for a longer-term extension. As I said, I hope and urge the majority leader to take up the Bond-Reid transportation extension early next week. Transportation has, by and large, been a bipartisan endeavor. After all, our economy, our infrastructure, and our Nation's families need and deserve a good transportation bill, one that will create good jobs and provide the investments in our Nation's infrastructure that are so desperately needed. I am hopeful that we can do better, that we will renew our efforts and continue to work as hard as possible to find the bipartisan solution that has been so elusive. And I hope that we can reach that compromise sooner rather than later. 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. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I agree wholeheartedly with the majority leader. We have a window of about 24 hours. A number of colleagues have indicated to us that they would prefer that we not have any votes at all tomorrow, and that would be our first choice. But we also have Senators who have expressed an interest in offering amendments. We know if the hour gets too late, we will have no choice but, of course, to put these amendments over until tomorrow morning, but we will finish this bill either tonight or tomorrow morning. It will be up to Senators. So I ask Senators on this side of the aisle if they have amendments to speak to me immediately so that we know just how much time they are going to need and how many amendments they intend to offer. It would be our hope that we could have a finite list of amendments certainly within the next 10 minutes. This should not be a surprise to anyone. We have talked about this all day long. I think the two managers of the bill have done an outstanding job and we ought to be prepared to go immediately to the bill and finish our work shortly, but please, if Senators have amendments, let me know immediately so we know exactly what our circumstances will be.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Arizona for his strong and powerful statement with regard to fiscal responsibility. We need to find offsets. Many of us have shared the sentiment expressed by the Senator from Arizona on several occasions, and he is absolutely right. I am very concerned, as he has expressed, about the repercussions this is going to have not for this year but for years in the future. We hear a lot about taxes. I think we ought to be concerned about what I call the birth tax. The birth tax is the tax every child pays or at least is responsible for when he or she is born. It is now $26,000. Every child in America has a birth tax of $26,000. That is his or her share of the Federal debt. And unless we address it, it is going to get worse. We ought to be embarrassed by the irresponsibility of doing things that are not properly offset and paid for. This bill presents a dilemma for many of us because we have expressed great need for this Congress and this Senate in particular to address tax cuts with offsets. We have proposed, as the Senator from Arizona has noted, on several occasions ways to have done that. This bill could have been offset as well. It is not, and that is regrettable, but it is also a bill which recognizes that it is imperative that we continue to find ways with which to deal with the pressures, economically and financially, the middle-class families are feeling today. Over the course of the last 4 years, the income for a typical American family has actually been reduced by $1,500 in purchasing power, and yet the prices families today experience have gone up dramatically. Health costs have now exceeded 50 percent in those 4 years. Tuition costs have exceeded 28 percent. Gasoline prices have gone up 21 percent. Grocery prices overall have gone up 18 percent. So while middle income has declined, the prices those middle-income families are feeling has gone up. And that is why this middle-class squeeze becomes more and more of a concern to families. Household incomes are down and expenses families face go up. People I talk to in South Dakota are determined to try to find a way to make a better tomorrow for themselves and their families. As they continue to be frustrated by their inability to make ends meet, it is matters such as this that can make a difference. That is why we are on the verge of doing right by these families by providing for tax relief that for a typical family could mean $700 in savings. Yes, I wish it were offset. Yes, we should have done the responsible thing and found ways with which to ensure these cuts are paid for. We have been trying to find ways to provide that middle-class relief now for years. Many of us were hoping we could have done it earlier this year, but because the administration balked at finding ways to resolve the differences that existed months ago, we find ourselves today in a situation where we finally can address what has been an unsatisfactory solution to the offsets but a widespread recognition that we have to address these tax cuts in a meaningful way before the end of this Congress. So this bill first provides, as others have said, the child tax credit, which is designed to make it easier for families to make ends meet, to pay those bills, to recognize their income has declined. The tax credit was scheduled to fall to a maximum of $700. With this legislation, 70,000 families in South Dakota will benefit from this $1,000-per-child tax credit. I am particularly proud that this group includes 15,000 South Dakota families, including many military families we had fought to include in the initial tax cut in 2001 who had received no tax credit under the initial plan that was produced as we considered this legislation now a couple of years ago. We also ensure that getting married does not mean paying higher taxes. The marriage penalty relief is a matter of fairness for about 90,000 married couples in South Dakota, and we extend, of course, the 10-percent tax bracket that would have expired had this legislation not been agreed to. That ensures that 245,000 South Dakotans continue to benefit from the full 10-percent bracket. For a typical South Dakota family of four making $30,000, this legislation delivers a tax cut of more than $725. That is real money. It can make a real difference in the lives of families I have talked to, and it is exactly the kind of tax cut we ought to be supporting more regularly, not those at the very top who with billions of dollars do not need the tax relief, but families who need the help, who cannot make ends meet, who are having trouble paying their bills. They will welcome this relief. I am very pleased that, at long last, we can provide it. There are other components of the bill that are also good for America and good for places like South Dakota. It extends the tax credit to encourage investments in wind energy. South Dakota has the potential to become a national leader in the production of wind-generated facilities. In fact, in both North and South Dakota alone, they could supply over two-thirds of the entire electricity needed for our Nation if we fully develop capacity to generate power from this renewable resource. The conference report provides energy companies with a 1.8-cent tax credit for every kilowatt hour of electricity produced by wind energy. The extension of the producers tax credit which expired at the end of 2003 will guarantee investment in this industry and will hopefully lead not just to greater energy independence but jobs and economic growth as well. The bill also includes two important provisions affecting Native Americans. The Indian employment tax credit encourages businesses to hire Native Americans by providing a tax credit to those providing employment, and the accelerated appreciation for business property on Indian reservations provides for faster tax writeoffs on certain business property on reservations. This encourages much needed investment. For obvious reasons, this bill is far from where it ought to be. We had bipartisan support for a proposal sponsored by Senator McCain to crack down on corporate tax cheaters as a way to help offset the cost of this legislation. Unfortunately, some in the Republican leadership opposed outlawing those tax shelters. I wish we had been able to make this bill a win/win by providing tax relief for middle-class families while cracking down on corporate tax cheaters. Had we done that, we would have significantly reduced the cost of this bill to the deficit. But I do not believe it would be fair to penalize middle-class families simply because someone blocked this provision to prevent corporations from cheating on their taxes. We have not given up on this effort to close those loopholes, nor have we given up on the effort to correct an error in the Tax Code that actually penalizes soldiers in combat by making it harder for them to receive the earned-income tax credit. Senator Pryor has long advanced this idea. Senators Lincoln and Baucus proposed this change in the conference committee and were rebuffed. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would want to penalize our soldiers. If there is one group in America we should be doing all we can do to help, it is our soldiers fighting in combat. In the final analysis, this is the kind of tax cut that will help America, that rewards work and not wealth, that strengthens the middle class and provides America with so much of its strength. In spite of its flaws, it deserves our support, and I am hopeful that we will pass it this evening. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have just two short weeks before the Senate is scheduled to adjourn. Regrettably, this Congress seems on track to be remembered for all the different challenges it failed to confront. Forty-five million Americans lack health insurance, and this Congress has done nothing to lower the cost of health care. Medicare premiums are set to rise 17 percent next year, and yet this Congress has done nothing to keep these increases from eating into seniors' Social Security benefits. Eight million Americans are out of work, and we have let a jobs bill that would stop the flow of American jobs overseas languish on the shelf. America deserves better. Today I want to talk specifically about an issue that has strong bipartisan support, is vitally important to millions of Americans, and one that we felt the majority leader was committed to considering. I am talking, of course, about the price of prescription drugs. Each year, the cost of prescription drugs outpaces inflation and moves further out of reach for far too many Americans. This is particularly tough on seniors, many of whom are living on fixed incomes. The AARP revealed last week that during the first quarter of 2004, drug prices rose more than three-and-a-half times the rate of inflation, and there is no end in sight. The typical senior will pay $191 more for their drugs this year than they did in 2003. This has sent a lot of seniors looking for solutions, and many are looking to Canada. Recently, a man in the town of Mitchell, SD contacted my office with a question: Was the prescription drug card he was considering better than the savings he was getting in Canada? The answer is that it wasn't. He and his wife were saving 50 percent when they got their drugs from Canada, much more of a benefit than they would get from the drug card. His doctor told him what he was doing was safe; his wife's quilting group was very excited about the savings they could get. There was only one problem: they were afraid what they were doing was illegal. Technically, what they wanted to do--purchase in Canada the same, safe, doctor-prescribed and FDA approved drugs that they would get in America--is illegal. And the only reason that it is illegal is because there are those who would put the profits of drug companies over the needs of America's seniors. That needs to change. The drug companies and their friends in Congress have tried to stop straightforward reforms by making the issue of health care appear complicated or even dangerous. The White House tells us that reimportation wouldn't be safe. But just the other day, an executive from Pfizer said it was ``outright derogatory'' to suggest that reimportation wasn't safe. These are the same drugs, manufactured to the same safety standards. What is not safe is when seniors skip doses or split pills because they can't afford their full prescription. That is the real safety issue. There is not mystery to bringing down drug costs. You don't need a PhD in economics. You just need common sense. If two stores offer the exact same product, you save money if you buy it from the store that is selling it for less. It works the same for medicine. Drug companies charge American consumers the highest prices in the world. Some medicines cost American patients five times more than they cost patients in other countries. By giving Americans the freedom to find the best price, we can lower the cost of prescription drugs for all Americans. This isn't a Republican solution or a Democratic solution. It is a common-sense solution. What doesn't make sense is why we haven't done this already. In March, the Republican leader said that we would begin a process of ``developing proposals to allow for the safe re-importation of FDA- approved prescription drugs.'' But, the Republican leader was quoted as saying it was doubtful that we would have the opportunity to vote on prescription drug reimportation legislation. A number of us have sent a letter asking the Republican Leader to reconsider his position and allow us to vote on our legislation legalizing reimportation before the Senate adjourns. This problem isn't going to go away if we ignore it. It has gotten worse for the past decade, and it will keep getting worse until we act. Tomorrow, hundreds of seniors will gather outside the Capitol to make their voices heard on this issue. Those voices must also be heard inside the Capitol as well. It is time we make the statement that the pocketbooks of Americans are more important than the profits of big drug companies. It is time the Senate got a chance to provide seniors real, meaningful relief from high drug costs. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I also note the interest of leadership on both sides in following through with what the majority leader has just described. I think it is important for us to complete the work on the tax bill this morning, or this afternoon at the latest. I have no indication there is an objection to bringing up the conference report. I hope we could have a short period for deliberation and a vote. We would be prepared to move to the Foreign Operations bill with or without an agreement. There is no opposition to moving to the bill on our side. Again, it provides an opportunity to complete yet one more appropriations bill this week. So I am hopeful we can complete our work on time. I would hope we could do so this afternoon. I do think that in respect for the Jewish holiday it is important for us to complete our work to allow Senators the opportunity to travel tomorrow. Next week, we look forward to the debate on the legislation passed out of the Governmental Affairs Committee regarding recommendations from the 9/11 Commission. Again, as I have said several times this week, I think that our two leaders, Senators Collins and Lieberman, have done an outstanding job. I would hope that the spirit of bipartisanship that was so clearly on display during those deliberations could be achieved in equal form here on the Senate floor next week and, I might say, as we go to conference. I heard some disconcerting news this morning that there are some in the House of Representatives who may want to insert in this legislation extremely divisive and counterproductive language having to do with expansion of the PATRIOT Act. Whether we ought to expand the PATRIOT Act is certainly a matter for debate, but if we are going to maintain that kind of bipartisan spirit, provisions such as those could be extraordinarily counterproductive. I think we need to be very concerned as we complete our work that we do so in as broad a bipartisan fashion as was demonstrated in the Governmental Affairs Committee.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I share the view of the majority leader that we have just experienced a historic moment. Prime Minister Allawi spoke for all of us as he expressed the hope and vision for democracy in his country. His speech was eloquent, and I believe it was a stirring reminder of the importance that we all must place on the ongoing effort to ensure that the people of Iraq have an opportunity to experience democracy for the first time in their history. I ask unanimous consent that the speech be made a part of the Record. (The speech is printed in today's Record of the House Proceedings at page H7446.)

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when we move to morning business Senator Kennedy have the first 15 minutes of the time allotted to the Democratic caucus.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, recently, a new study confirmed a trend that most American families and businesses have known and felt for the past 3 years. Health care costs are rising at unsustainable rates, straining family budgets, weakening our economy, hampering job growth and forcing millions more Americans every year to go without insurance. According to the annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, health premiums increased 11.2 percent last year, more than five times the rate of wages. This is the fourth consecutive year of double-digit increases. Since 2000, health care premiums have increased by 59 percent and 5 million fewer Americans have access to employer health care coverage. Last month the Census Bureau also reported that in 2003 alone, the number of uninsured Americans jumped by 1.4 million. Seniors are among the hardest hit. In addition to facing record increases in the price of prescription drugs, Medicare recipients recently learned they will be forced to pay a 17.5 percent increase in premiums, the steepest increase in Medicare's history. The true costs of this crisis can't be depicted by statistics. There is no way to measure the stress caused by exorbitant health care bills. There is no way to measure the cost of the fear of families who worry that they are one layoff, one bad crop, one accident, or one illness away from being totally vulnerable, and they fell helpless to protect themselves. Not long ago, I heard from the Imm family of Turton, SD. A few months back, their 24-year-old son, Monte, came down with a case of Crohn's disease. As his disease grew worse, he couldn't work and he had to quit his job. After his insurance lapsed, he tried to buy coverage for himself, but with his condition, no insurer would offer him a policy. Monte's monthly prescription bill is $500, and that is on top of the tests and emergency room visits that have become all too routine. Doctors in Sioux Falls have recommended a trip to the Mayo Clinic, but the clinic requires a $1,500 deposit just to see Monte. The total cost will be much, much higher. Monte's parents are trying to help and are reaching into their retirement savings to do so. But Monte's health care costs will surpass $10,000 this year alone, and without good insurance, eventually the medical bills will eat up all they have worked for. Millions of American families are in the same position as the Imm family, and the implications of this crisis are rippling outward throughout our country. There is new evidence that as the cost of health care goes up, it is eating away at America's economy, holding back job creation, and stifling growth. A recent article in the New York Times showed that the cost of health insurance is preventing businesses, large and small, from hiring new workers, even if the workload demands it. One small business owner said: Before, we hired based on workload. Now it's a question of affordability. Economists are finding that high health care costs are a major reason our economy has been unable to create jobs. Not long ago, when I asked a businessman why he outsources his jobs overseas, he said the reason was health care. He did not have to pay it in India. He did not have to pay it in countries abroad. He pays it here at home. Small businesses, which employ 50 percent of the Nation's workforce, face the greatest pressure of all. Because they are not big enough to bargain with insurers for better rates, and they cannot spread risk among larger pools of employees, small businesses too often are forced to pay for the nationwide increase in health care costs. In the past year, in the midst of the toughest business environment in a generation, the total cost for insuring employees of small businesses alone rose 18 percent. Those small businesses that try to do the right thing and offer their employees health benefits are finding it more difficult to do so with each passing year. I was recently contacted by Skip VanDerhule, who runs VanDerhule Moving and Storage, in Yankton. Even after raising employee premiums and copays, Skip's monthly premiums have risen 252 percent in 6 years. Skip has tried to look for better coverage, but recently an employee needed a kidney transplant, and he requires $30,000 per year in medicine alone just to keep his body from rejecting the new kidney. ``As soon as the insurer sees that,'' Skip said, ``they don't want us. And they'll quote us a price to make sure that we don't want them.'' So Skip is stuck with the prospect of higher health care costs with absolutely no end in sight. In most businesses, the costs are passed along to their employees. Jana Schroeder, a medical professional from Sioux Falls, wrote me to say that even with good, dependable health insurance, her family pays $10,000 a year in health care costs. A recent, routine mammogram cost $2,700, of which she was asked to pay $850. She said: I guess I should feel lucky I have insurance, but $848 is a full paycheck [for me]. So, do you pay that medical bill or the house payment? I surely can't pay it all at once. Even with 100,000 Americans losing their health insurance every month since January of 2001, the White House has not provided any real options, no leadership in stopping the growth of this crisis. Some of the most promising possibilities for bringing down the cost of health care, such as drug reimportation, the administration has opposed. Yet this crisis will not solve itself. Unless we act, health care premiums will continue to rise, driving more people into the ranks of the uninsured, and holding back more businesses from earning profits and creating jobs. We have to do better. This is a national problem, and fixing it demands national leadership. Medical research is producing miracles quite often. Yet we are not solving a problem that is dragging tens of millions of Americans into poverty and poor health. This is not a question of ability or capacity; it is a question of will and leadership. It is time we seek out new ideas to help bring down the cost of health care. One promising new initiative would create a reinsurance system to help blunt the cost of catastrophic medical illness. Some researchers have suggested that such a program could save South Dakota employers tens of millions of dollars each year and billions nationwide. We need to debate these issues in Washington, but, regrettably, we have not had the opportunity to do so. In the past 2 years, we have spent 30 days discussing ways to limit access to the courtroom, but not 1 day to debate real ways to bring down the cost of health care for all Americans. It is time for real action. We have an obligation to focus on the troubles of our economy and the Americans who are struggling to work and raise families. Our citizens are asking for leadership, and we have an obligation to answer that call. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask, as is always the case, the leader time not be taken from the Democratic time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the majority leader with regard to the progress we have made on both fronts, both the reorganization of the executive branch as well as the reorganization of the legislative branch with regard to the 9/11 recommendations. I think both efforts have been laudable, they have been bipartisan, and they have been cooperative. I don't think that being deliberate and being expeditious is a mutually exclusive proposition. We have to be deliberate but I don't see any reason why we can't also be expeditious. Three very important commissions have analyzed and advised over the course of the last 3 years. It is not as if this came up within the last couple of weeks. It has been under consideration and very thoughtfully and carefully considered. I found it somewhat remarkable that all three commissions had many of the same recommendations to the Congress. So this is in keeping with those experts who have very thoughtfully and carefully deliberated about this matter. We are simply continuing in that deliberative fashion, first in the committee and then on the task force. I am hopeful we can continue to be both deliberate as well as expeditious as we consider our responsibilities before the end of this session of Congress. Order of Procedure During the Democratic period this morning, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy be given 10 minutes; Senator Murray, 5 minutes; Senator Conrad, 25 minutes; and Senator Reid, 5 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I may respond to the distinguished Senator, I compliment him on his insistence and extraordinary determination. One of the reasons we have made progress is because of his great persistence and his ability to bring together the consensus that is so necessary if we are going to achieve final success. As he has noted, we have come a long way. It has been my pleasure to work with him as we have traveled the road together to reach this point where we find, as he has noted, just a few differences. It is my hope we can still work it out prior to the end of this session of Congress. I thank him for his kind words and for his leadership. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my leader comments not be taken from the first hour of the Democratic allocation of time.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, like the exhibits in the new museum, the Dakota Letters illustrate in a powerful way that we do not have separate histories, but we see the same history through different eyes. This gift of being able to see our history from others' perspectives can only help heal our Nation and make us stronger. I believe strongly that the Federal Government, which had such a direct hand, for so long, in efforts to destroy Native cultures, has a responsibility to help preserve these cultures not just on the National Mall in Washington, but in tribal communities throughout America. And we are making a start. Next month, the first applications will go out for a new grant programs for tribal museums. Under the Native American/Native Hawaiian Museum Services Program, tribes can receive grants of up to $20,000 a year. The museum program, and a similar program to support tribal libraries, are both administered by the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences. The Tribal Historic Preservation Program in the National Park Service gives tribes control of decisions about cultural preservation on tribal lands by establishing tribal historic preservation offices, just like State historic preservation offices. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, passed in 1990, lays out a process to identify Native American sacred and funerary objects and return them to their people. In Sisseton Wahpeton, tribal elders and educators hope to use technology to record translation sessions of the Dakota Letters and use the recordings to teach the Dakota language. They also want to use distance learning to teach Dakota history and culture lessons based on the letters. They can't do that now because they have run out of money for the Dakota Letters project. An amendment Senator Inouye is sponsoring to the Native American Languages Act might help the tribe finish the Dakota Letters project. It would provide additional resources for immersion schools and other intensive efforts to save Native American languages--which we are now losing at the alarming rate of one each month. All of these efforts, and more, need and deserve the support of Congress. Newspaper accounts of the executions of the Dakota prisoners at Mankato note that the men met their deaths with courage and dignity, chanting a Dakota death song. One reporter recorded that their final words were a simple plea for recognition: ``I am here.'' Those same words echo from every ancient corner of this Nation. Long before Europeans and others arrived, Native Americans were here. And they are still here today, greatly enriching our national identity and culture. On this happy and historic day, as we celebrate the opening of America's spectacular new National Museum of the American Indian, let us also celebrate the Native American history and culture that exists all across America. And let us vow to work together to preserve that history and culture everywhere it exists. exhibit 1 1. mitakuye ito wowapi cicage kta wacin nakaha wotanin naonhonpi 2. Well, my relative, I want to give you this paper now we have heard news 3. Well, my relative I wish to write you a letter, we have heard news. 1. tonkansidon ktepi keyapi 2. They said they killed Grandfather. 3. They have said that Grandfather (Abraham Lincoln) was killed. 1. tuka hecen tuwe taku tanyan onkokiyakapi kta iyecece sni 2. But then someone should tell us if this is not true. 3. But someone of authority should tell us if this is not true. 1. hecen mitakuye wowapi cicu 2. Thus, my relative, I give you this paper 3. Thus, I write to you this letter. 1. eya taku wanjikj nawahon 2. To say, I have heard several rumors 3. Also I have heard some rumors 1. tonkansidan he onsiondapi qa dehanyan nionyakonpi 2. Grandfather had compassion for us, and so far we are still alive 3. Grandfather has compassion for us, and so far we are still alive. 1. tuka hecen nakaha ktepi keyapi heon cante onsicapi 2. but then now they killed him they said therefore our hearts are sad. 3. but they told us he was killed, and we are saddened. 1. tona onkiyukcanpi hecinhan ehna cante onsicapi 2. Some we think if this is so, we are heartbroken. 3. Those of us here think if this is so, we are heartbroken. 1. hehan hecan isantanka kin hecen tokan kante onkiyuzapi kta naceca 2. Then this Big Knives the thus how heart hold us will maybe 3. Perhaps the attitude of the calvary soldiers may change toward us. 1. idukcan hecinhan omayakidaka wacin qa heon wowapi cicage ye do 2. what you think, if you tell me, I want, therefore paper I make for you. 3. Tell me what your thoughts are, I want to know, that's why I write to you. 1. hehan tonkansidan token ktepi hecinhan he tanyan nawahon kta wacin 2. then Grandfather how they killed him if this is good I hear will I want. 3. Then I wish to hear exact1y how they killed Grandfather. 1. hehan eya anpetu waken eca token owakihi waokun wicawakiye 2. Then to say day holy when how I am able to preach to them 3. Then, also on Sundays when I am able I do the preach to them. 1. henana epe kte owasin nape ciyuzapi 2. That's all, I say will all hand they shake, 3. This is all I'm going to say, I shake all your hands. Mowis Itewakanhdiota--he miye Moses Many Lightning Face--This is me. Translation key: 1. original Dakota 2. Dakota to English 3. English translation