Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 1734 be modified.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I offer these modifications in part because I have been informed that there are concerns about the germaneness of the offset we had included in the health amendment (No. 1734), and to make a minor technical correction to the trust reform amendment (No. 1739). The customs user fee is a very legitimate and, I would say, appropriate offset; but under the constraints presented to us under the rules, there is a technical point of order that can be raised. So in order to avoid points of order, we will avoid using this offset. I regret that because I do believe that the offset would help us alleviate some of the appropriations pressures that understandably the ranking member and the chairman had to confront as they were addressing the issues of the overall allocation and availability of funding. Let me just go back to my comments last week when I offered the amendments. Very briefly, the first amendment would provide for $292 million in additional funding for the Indian Health Service. This was the amendment that, on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, we passed during the budget resolution. I had offered an amendment that would have provided for, I believe, $2.9 billion to fully fund the Indian Health Service, in terms of meeting the basic health care needs of their current user population. The President has asked for $1.9 billion, and it falls so dramatically short of what is needed that there is a severe rationing of health care now on every reservation in the country. That rationing has affected the quality of life and, in fact, life itself in so many cases. The allocation of resources on a per capita basis on the reservations today is about $1,900. That is half of the $3,800 that we spend on Federal prisoners today on a per capita basis. Federal prisoners today are allocated, per capita, about $3,800 for the health care they receive in Federal prison. An Indian child born on the reservation is given $1,900. Yet the incidence of diabetes, fetal alcohol syndrome, and some of the most difficult, challenging, and vexing problems we face in health care today--alcoholism, violent death--all are problems of far greater magnitude on reservations than anywhere else in the country. So their problems are worse than they are in prison, worse than in the general population in the country. The resources we allocate are a fraction of what they are in prison or what we spend per capita in the country. Per capita health care spending for the U.S. general population is about $5,000. So all this amendment says is we are going to put our money where our mouth was last spring. We said we will give at least $292 million. I do not think there was a dissenting vote. I think it passed virtually unanimously, and yet here we are with efforts, I am told, to defeat this almost embarrassingly minimal amendment as we address the consequences of life and death on the reservations today. The other amendment said, basically, the same thing. We are not anywhere close to dealing with public policy issues involving trust reform, trust policy. Unfortunately, the problems associated with government-to-government relationships and trust responsibility are as problematic as anything we are dealing with on reservations today. I cannot think of a more vexing issue maybe except for the health care problems we are facing. Since we do not have the policy, it is almost impossible for us to put together the infrastructure within the bureaucracy to implement the policy. One has to have a policy before they know what kind of a bureaucracy they are going to set up to implement it, and yet this budget has $79 million to start creating the infrastructure for the implementation of the policy without having a clue what it is going to be. So what some of us are suggesting is that before we start spending another dollar on bureaucracy and infrastructure, let us, No. 1, agree on the policy but then, No. 2, let us put the money where it could do some good. Let us put it in the health care area, where we are so deficient today. We have a problem. Just this weekend I was home and was reminded again what a dentistry problem we have. I think on all nine reservations in South Dakota I was told this weekend that we have five dentists--nine reservations, five dentists. We have such a chronic shortage of dentists, and I will have to go back and verify whether that number is accurate but whether it was five or six we do not even have one dentist per reservation. We are saying we do not have the money to allocate to health care, but we have the money to allocate $79 million to this reorganization within the BAA dealing with trust land responsibilities, and we do not even have the policy. So we are putting the cart before the horse, and we do not even have enough money to feed the horse when it comes to health care. Both of these amendments are minor in scope and impact but could send a significant message that we understand the chronic problems we are facing in health care, and I hope that on a bipartisan basis we can support these amendments. I understand there was some confusion about whether I was prepared to offer these modifications today and have votes on them. I would very much like to have the votes this evening. We had said we would work with our Republican colleagues to finish this bill tomorrow, but it is pretty hard to finish the bill if nobody is going to vote. So I want to have both of these votes this afternoon. That is two votes we can have this afternoon, and we can have a vote on the Bingaman amendment. Senator Bingaman has indicated he is willing to have a vote. So now we have three Democratic amendments on which we are prepared to vote. We can do it at this moment. We could do it at 5 or 5:30. In order to accommodate Senators who are traveling, we generally agree not to have votes before 5, but I am certainly prepared to hold the vote open to accommodate those Senators who are traveling. Let's have at least those three votes this afternoon so we can work to complete our scheduled debate on this bill by the end of the day tomorrow. I know the distinguished Senator from Montana, the chair of the subcommittee, has offered a very important amendment on emergency funding. I hope to have that vote as well. There is nobody on this side holding up votes on these amendments, and I would certainly hope that nobody on that side would, either. If we are going to do what I had committed to last week, I had indicated to the distinguished majority leader that we want to work with him to see if we can finish this bill by tomorrow night, and so I do not want anybody operating under an assumption that for some reason now we have offered these amendments and we are not prepared to vote. We are prepared to vote, and I hope we would begin doing so at 5. I see my friend and colleague from Montana is standing and may want to address these votes as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as always, I appreciate the response of the distinguished Senator from Montana. I argue that the court decisions have actually made the situation even murkier and have created and compounded problems with regard to trust responsibility that have to be clarified through a legislative decision. He is absolutely right, this thing has gone on and on, but that is my point. For us to lock into place, in bureaucracy somehow, a response to these court decisions compounds and makes even more unlikely some resolution to this issue, but that is obviously a view that is arguable. For whatever reason, the administration continues to persist in trying to lock in these court decisions, in my view in a very shortsighted and unacceptable manner for those who are involved in its implementation, especially on the reservations themselves. This is not going to work. I can't find a tribal chairman, I can't find a tribal council, that will tell you this is going to work. So to say we don't care what you think and we are going to override the rule, your own observations, or your own positions--our recognition of the need to work this out jointly--is not the way to go about it. But that is what this amendment is all about. I appreciate, once again, the observations and the leadership provided by the Senator from Montana. I hope we could have votes at least on the two amendments that were offered last week. I await the word from our colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I want to offer my warmest regards and sincere congratulations to Laird Larson of Clark, SD, and Bob Duxbury of Wessington, South Dakota, on their receipt of South Dakota State University's Eminent Farmer award for 2003 in Brookings last Friday night. Laird Larson and Bob Duxbury are well known and highly respected within SD, not only as dedicated farmers, but also as innovative community leaders. I know of no individuals more deserving of this recognition than Laird and Bob. Laird and his wife, Kathy, have farmed in Clark County, SD, for almost 30 years. They are active in a number of farm organizations, including the South Dakota Crop Improvement Association, SDCIA, where Laird has served on the county board of directors for nearly 20 years and as State president. This year the SDCIA recognized Laird as is its Premier Certified Seed Grower. Laird also has a long history promoting agricultural education. He has raised funds for renovating greenhouses at South Dakota State University and is currently working to develop a seed science center at the school. Laird and Kathy Larson understand the unique character of rural life and have passed on its values to their three accomplished children: Heidi, who works for Wisconsin Crop Improvement; Shane, who I had the pleasure of getting to know when he worked on my Senate staff several years ago; and Sara, who is majoring in special education at Augustana College in Sioux Falls. The Larson family reflects the strength and character of rural life in America today. Bob Duxbury and his wife, Rose, farm and ranch near Wessington, in central South Dakota. In a landscape dotted with farms, ranches and small communities, farmers and ranchers not only are called upon to feed our Nation with safe and affordable food, but in many instances are also called upon to serve in public office. Bob exemplifies that dual commitment, standing today as a shining example of Thomas Jefferson's enduring ideal of the citizen farmer. Bob's commitment to agriculture started at a very young age, with his own participation in 4-H and continued with his degree from South Dakota State University in 1956, which he used to teach animal science. He served as the State's Secretary of Agriculture from 1975 to 1978 and was a member of the State Fair Board from 1971 to 1975. He also has been a member of the South Dakota legislature for nearly 20 years, many of those in leadership positions. It is instructive that Bob has maintained his interest in 4-H programs for six decades, serving as president of the South Dakota 4-H Leaders Association, and was a recipient of the first National 4-H Alumni Award for South Dakota in 1973. As chair of the Hand County 4-H Leaders Association, he helped secure the current county 4-H site and assisted with construction of the other facilities. His love of agriculture and rural South Dakota is being carried forward, as his grandchildren are now involved with 4-H. Again, congratulations to Laird Larson and Bob Duxbury for their recognition by South Dakota State University for their contributions to South Dakota agriculture.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana who has done a great job of working with this legislation once again this year. I commend him for his efforts. Amendment No. 1739

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and that amendment No. 1739 be considered.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for over 100 years, the Department of Interior has managed for the benefit of Indian people a trust fund containing the proceeds from the leasing of oil, gas, land and mineral rights on Indian land. Today, far from enjoying a sense of security about the investment of these assets, tribal and individual Indian account holders cannot even be assured of the accuracy of the balances that the Department of Interior claims are in their accounts, and the Interior Department's discharge of its trust responsibility is being litigated in Federal court. There is little disagreement that the Department of Interior's stewardship of Indian trust funds has been a colossal and longstanding failure. But rather than get directly at the underlying problem, the department continues to focus on reorganization of the bureaucracy. Adding insult to injury, department officials refuse to collaborate with the tribes on a government-to-government basis as the department promised. It is my strong belief that Congress should not appropriate any additional funds for reorganization of the BIA until tribal leaders are fully consulted on, and can fully participate in, the design of the reorganization plan. Many of us received a letter yesterday from the National Congress of American Indians suggesting that Congress not fund the department's ill-considered reorganization. According to NCAI, ``The reorganization, because it is being executed in advance of the reengineering of the trust accounting systems, is premature, expensive, and will not improve trust management.'' NCAI goes on to say that: ``Instead the funding should be directed back to basic Indian programs from which the money has been reallocated.'' I agree with NCAI and the tribal leaders of my State, who are saying the same thing. I am, therefore, proposing that we transfer $79 million from accounts that would fund a reorganization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Indian Health Service. We are all painfully aware of the acute human need that exists on the Nation's Indian reservations. Education, unemployment programs and infrastructure are all underfunded by the Federal Government. But no human need cries out more than health care. The health care statistics on the reservations of South Dakota, and throughout the country, are closer to the statistics of the developing third world than they are to the national statistics for the United States. Infant mortality rates, diabetes rates, fetal alcohol syndrome rates and SIDS rates on the reservations far exceed that of the rest of the Nation. Every health barometer calls out for prompt intervention and assistance. We must increase Federal funding for health care on the reservations. It is the key to a better education, which is the key to a more productive life. Yesterday on the Senate floor I showed my colleagues a chart that showed the per capita commitment to health care on the reservations. It is exactly one-half the per capita commitment to Federal prisoners in the United States today. One-half, about 1,900 versus 3,800. Restoring accountability and efficiency to trust management and paying account holders what they are owed is a matter of fundamental justice and should be a national priority. Nowhere do the principles of self- determination and tribal sovereignty come more into play than in the management and distribution of trust funds and assets clearly owed to Indian tribes and their people. However, the successful resolution of this challenge, which has eluded the reach of administrations of both political parties for years, depends on meaningful dialogue and true partnership between the Federal Government and Indian people and their representatives. That standard is not reflected in the Interior Department's current reorganization plan. Therefore, when I contrast the relative merits of more funding for this reorganization with more funding for health care, it is not a close call. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment transferring $79 million from BIA and the Office of the Special Trustee reorganization to Indian health care. I ask unanimous consent that letters from the National Congress of American Indians and the Native American Rights Fund be printed in the Record along with a resolution regarding this issue passed by the National Congress of American Indians.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I don't disagree with most of what my friend and colleague from Montana has said. He is trying to do the best he can given the allocation he has. I don't deny his responsibility to make the decisions as best he can, given the allocation. I didn't vote for the budget so I don't feel constrained by those budgetary allocation decisions that have been made within the Appropriations Committee. Let me talk briefly about the two issues the Senator addressed. First, with regard to the trust fund. The $79 million is for reorganization of the BIA to adapt itself to the policy once the policy is implemented. The question I have is, how can you reorganize a bureaucracy before you know what that policy is going to be? How can you say we are going to put it in this agency or in that department or in that bureau or that desk without knowing what the policy is going to be? And the policy is being contested. It seems to me we are putting the cart before the horse. We need to decide on the policy and then do the reorganization. That is what I am saying. Yet there is $79 million for the reorganization before we even have a clue what the policy is going to be. With regard to the Indian Health Service, the President requested about $1.9 billion for IHS. The analysis done by independent sources has indicated if we are going to do it right, if we are going to provide coverage anywhere near the coverage provided to others in the rest of the country, we would have to put another $2.9 billion into the Indian Health Service budget to reach a per-capita equivalency, that parity. But we are not going to do that. We obviously cannot do that. We had that debate on the budget resolution. I don't recall what the exact number was. We offered an amendment to add about $2.9 billion, and that was defeated. What the Senate budget resolution included, and I believe it was the amendment of the Senator from Montana, but it could have been someone else's, was another $292 million, not the $2.9 billion. We passed that, but it was not in the final bill, so that was the subject of the amendment I offered last night, an amendment to put that agreed-upon $292 million in the appropriations bill. We will have that vote, as well. We are simply saying we ought to try to begin addressing this extraordinary deficiency we have. To say to a Native American, on a per-capita basis you are only going to get one-half of what we give our Federal prisoners is to defend a disparity that I cannot imagine we can defend. I hope first we can commit to the $292 million. But since we are not ready to move forward on this BIA-OST reorganization plan that really isn't a plan, or to spend the $79 million wisely, I am arguing that we are certainly ready to spend it through the provision of Indian Health Service clinical services. That is where it ought to go right now until we know about trust land policy and how it will be implemented and how we reorganize to implement that policy once it is decided. I thank my colleague. I know there are concerns about the weather. To accommodate staff and others I will not belabor this. I appreciate the opportunity to offer the amendment and look forward to the debate on Monday and the vote on Monday evening. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will consult with the majority leader with regard to his intention for additional rollcall votes, and we can continue our discussion following this vote. I think we ought to proceed with the vote.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, prior to the start of the vote, I know there are a number of Senators concerned about the schedule, given the conditions. I ask the distinguished Senator from Vermont, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, what his intentions would be with regard to additional rollcall votes. We anticipated taking up five nominations this afternoon. I have been consulting with him, and I really appreciate, as always, his cooperation on this matter. I ask if he has any intention of seeking rollcall votes on the other nominees who are currently pending?

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I appreciate the announcement of the schedule by the majority leader. I will say to my colleagues, I have every expectation that we can complete our work on this bill on Tuesday. I intend to work with the majority leader to complete our work on the Interior bill by Tuesday. That will require Senators who have amendments to come to the floor for the remaining hours of today and tomorrow morning. I know I have one or two amendments, and I intend to offer them either today or tomorrow morning in order to allow those votes to be cast and stacked on Monday night. So there is no reason we cannot finish our work on this bill on Tuesday, assuming--and the majority leader has assured me--that we will go to another appropriations bill once we complete our work on this one. I would also want to say to my distinguished colleague who was here just a moment ago, the Senator from Vermont, I am, once again, grateful for his cooperation. He is a man of his word. He, again, had indicated to me, on the understanding there would be no more rollcall votes, that he would be willing to allow the three remaining votes on these judges today to be taken by voice. So I want to express for the record and publicly, once again, my gratitude to Senator Leahy for his cooperation and his understanding of the need for some Senators to catch planes this afternoon. I appreciate, again, the majority leader's comments and will work with him to complete the schedule.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I would only say for the record, the votes today will take us to 151 judges that the Senate has cast votes on since this administration has come to office--151 district and circuit court judges. So, obviously, we are making great progress on those numbers. For the record, I want to be sure our colleagues are aware of where we are, where we stand with regard to the number of confirmations.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, once again I come to the floor to bring to the attention of the Senate the critical shortfall in funding for the Indian Health Service. Through treaties and Federal statute, the Federal Government has promised to provide health care to American Indians and Alaskan Natives. Sadly, we have not even come close to honoring this commitment. The Indian Health Service is the only source of health care for many Indians and is required to provide it, yet funding has never been adequate. The chronic underfunding has only grown worse in recent years, as appropriations have failed to keep up with the steep rise in private health care spending. Last March, we offered an amendment to the budget resolution to provide $2.9 billion to the Indian Health Service for the budget for the fiscal year 2004. Our amendment would not have met all of the health care needs in Indian country, not by far, but it would have provided enough room in the budget to fund basic clinical health care services for American Indians and Alaskan Natives. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated by a vote of 48 to 51, on a party-line vote. The Republican leadership made a counteroffer. They proposed an amendment to increase IHS funding next year by $292 million, one-tenth of what our amendment called for. The Senate adopted that amendment. Since then, two important reports have been released. In July, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released a report documenting shocking health care disparities between Indians and other Americans. In August, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control issued a report showing that Native Americans live sicker and die younger than other Americans as a result of inadequate health care. Another important thing happened since the Senate voted last March to add $292 million to the Indian Health Service's budget next year. Our colleagues on the other side agreed in conference to kill that funding increase. I am now offering an amendment that simply does what the Senate is on record having supported last March. The amendment would restore the $292 million increase for the Indian Health Service that this Senate supported overwhelmingly last March. The Civil Rights Commission report compared health care funding for Native Americans to that for other groups for which the Federal Government has direct responsibility for health care. The report compared per capita health expenditures for 2003 by category. This chart describes in detail the comparison, I would say in somewhat embarrassing detail when you look at where we are. For the general U.S. population on an annual per capita basis, about $5,000 is spent. We spend in the VA a little more than what we spend on a national per capita basis, $5,214. For understandable reasons, seniors generate more expense, and the per capita cost for Medicare is $5,915. Medicaid drops somewhat below, about $2,000 or $1,500 below what we spend for the general population. Prisoners actually do almost as well as Medicare beneficiaries with $3,803 for Federal prisoners and $3,879 for Medicare. Look where we are for the Indian Health Service clinical services per capita spending, $1,914, well below what we pay for Federal prisoners; about half, frankly, of what it is we pay for prisoners today. This is what the Indian population gets per capita, this is what Federal prisoners get per capita: $3,800 to $1,900. I have to say that I don't know what clearer message we could send than that if we only spend per capita half for the Native American and Alaska population than what we spend for Federal prisoners in this country. This funding is obviously woefully inadequate to meet the health care needs of Native Americans who, as I already noted, have a lower life expectancy than other Americans and a disproportionate number of serious medical problems. Indians have the highest rates of diabetes in the country, the highest rates of heart disease, the highest rates of sudden infant death syndrome, the highest rates of tuberculosis. There is also a great need for substance abuse and mental health services. So while they have the greatest need, the greatest incidence of these extraordinarily difficult health problems, they have one-half the resources of what we commit to our Federal prisoners. Native Americans are often denied care most of us take for granted, and in many cases would even consider essential. They are often required to endure long waits before seeing a doctor and may be unable to obtain a referral to see a specialist. Sometimes lack of funds means care is postponed until Indians are literally at risk of losing their lives or their limbs. Others receive no care at all. I will never forget talking to a man who is now a tribal leader from the Yankton reservation. He told me he was hunting and he stepped in a hole. This was before he was elected. He stepped in a badger hole or one of the holes in the field as he was hunting. He broke his leg, went to the hospital, and they said there was nothing they could do. They told him to come back. He came back the next day. They said there was nothing they could do. They said, we do not know when we can help you. You may need to go somewhere else. Well, he was in such pain that he ended up lying in bed for close to 6 months and healed without any help whatsoever. Today he walks with a limp, he has deep scars on his leg, and he considers himself lucky, lucky because he can walk again. That is happening today in America, and I think that is so intolerable, so unacceptable, so contrary to the commitment we made to Native American people. This is rationing at its worst. Rationing of care means all too often Indians are forced to wait until their medical condition becomes even more serious and more difficult to treat. It is a situation none of us would find acceptable, but this is the reality in Indian country. Right now, the IHS service unit at Eagle Butte in South Dakota does not have an obstetrician. The Eagle Butte service unit is funded at 44 percent of the need calculated by the Indian Health Service. The facility has a birthing room and 22 beds, but there are only 2 to 3 doctors to staff the clinic, hospital, and emergency room. Naturally, as a result, many children and expectant mothers do not receive the care they need and deserve. Due to budget constraints, the IHS policy is to allow only one ultrasound per pregnancy. The visiting obstetrician is available only every couple of weeks. The story of Brayden Robert Thompson points out how dangerous this situation is. On March 3, 2002, Brayden's mother was in labor with a full-term, perfectly healthy baby. Brayden's umbilical cord was wrapped around his neck, but without ultrasound that went undetected. The available medical staff did not know what to do about his lowered heartbeat, abnormal urinalysis, or the fact his mother was not feeling well. Despite the symptoms, IHS refused to provide an ultrasound or to send her to Pierre, which is the closest city off the reservation, to see an obstetrician. Brayden was stillborn. This tragic death was completely preventable, but tough choices are being made every single day at IHS facilities throughout the country because there simply is not enough money to provide the care every American deserves. I received a letter not long ago from Michelle German about her daughter Brittany. This is Brittany. I have the letter, and I will read portions of it. Michelle writes: My daughter Brittany is thirteen years old and for the last couple of years has suffered from a skin disorder called polymorphous light erosion/eruption, which basically means she is allergic to UV rays (the sun). We had visited many doctors, at the Sisseton Indian Health Service and the Coteau des Prairie Clinic (also located in Sisseton) before being referred to a dermatologist in Fargo. . . .The Indian Health Service denied our request for a referral due to the lack of funding, but I find this very ironic because I had my own insurance. However, I was told that her condition has already been diagnosed, it is not life threatening and that the Indian Health Services were not going to be responsible for any debt that my insurance would not cover. Since this had all taken place, I had lost my job and my insurance. I find it frustrating that we were over income to qualify for Medicaid or the CHIPS program through the State of South Dakota! To make a long story a little shorter, we have been doctoring back at the Indian Health Service and now we are battling the pharmacy because it does not carry the medication that has been prescribed to her by the dermatologist. Brittany has been [on] various medications throughout her clinic visits at the Indian Health Service without success. The prescribed medications, that are working, are not available through the Indian Health Pharmacy and I have been purchasing it from our local drug store in the amount of forty-five dollars per forty-five gram tube. Brittany has gone through quite an ordeal because of the question ``what is the matter with your face?'' and now it is on her arms and legs which are beginning to scar due to the scratching. She has been limited to being kept indoors from the hours of 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. to prevent any outbreaks and the itchiness that follows. This is very hard for both of us because she is a very active teenager who enjoys playing golf, softball and swimming. We have had to change the type of clothing worn in the summer, the bathing soaps and lotions; she is now required to wear sunscreen and lip screen throughout her time outside. . . . I could go on, . . . but I think you get the idea. I have attached a picture of my daughter when the skin rash started on her face for your review. I hope this helps explain her story. We have case after case. This may not be life-threatening. But Brittany is not able to get the help she needs, the attention she needs, the treatment she needs, in large measure because IHS has said in her case they do not see a life- threatening problem. This is not solely an Indian issue. It affects surrounding rural community hospitals, ambulance services, and other health care providers who work with the IHS. The Lake Andes-Wagner ambulance district in southeastern South Dakota is facing financial disaster, in part because they have not been reimbursed properly by the Indian Health Service. This ambulance service offers emergency transport for citizens of Charles Mix County and Yankton Sioux tribal members, since the Wagner IHS hospital cannot afford to operate its own service. If this ambulance service shuts down, what will these residents, Indian or non-Indian, do when they face an emergency? Bennett County Hospital in southwestern South Dakota suffers similar IHS reimbursement problems, as do others in the non-IHS areas throughout rural America. In his budget request for the next fiscal year, the President requested only $1.9 billion for clinical services for Indians. This represents a very small increase over what the President requested for fiscal year 2003 and no increase over what was finally included in the omnibus appropriations bill. We can and we must do better. The amendment I am proposing again would increase funding for clinical services by a mere $292 million. I would like to say that this is the minimum amount that is necessary to provide basic health care to the current IHS user population, but I can't say that. The minimum amount necessary is an additional $2.9 billion, and this is one-tenth of that amount. Today, I am asking the Senate to live up to the commitment it made last March, to make that extremely modest $292 million increase real by including it in this appropriations bill. It is nowhere near enough, and it is sorely needed to address the severe funding shortfall the Indian Health Service faces. The cost of the amendment is offset by revenue raised from an extension of the customs user fee that will otherwise expire on September 30. We all agree the extension is inevitable. This will require only a small portion of those funds, and I can think of no better use for the money. Native Americans are facing a literal ``life or limb'' test before they can access health care today. We are spending twice as much per capita on Federal prisoners' health than on the health care for the Indians to whom we promised full health benefits. We simply cannot tolerate this. The problem is real. The solution is simple. We must start giving the Indian Health Service the funds it needs to provide Native Americans the health benefits they were promised. Let's take this modest step toward that end. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time to make a statement on the matter before us. Mr. President, the Senate faces a critical decision today--whether new media ownership rules proposed by the FCC truly serve the public interest. They do not, and we should pass this resolution of disapproval and force the FCC to rework them. On June 2, 2003, the Federal Communications Commission adopted new broadcast media ownership rules that would allow greater concentration of ownership of U.S. broadcast television stations, both at the national and local levels. At the national level, a single owner could own stations capable of reaching up to 45 percent of the national audience--up from 35 percent--under the new rules. A single entity could reach up to twice that percentage of the national audience if he or she owned UHF stations. In most markets, duopolies ownership of two stations in the same market would be allowed, and triopolies would be allowed in the largest markets. The new rules would also allow cross-ownership of broadcast television stations and major newspapers in all but the smallest of media markets as well as greater cross-ownership of television and radio stations. The rules would theoretically allow one owner to reach 90 percent of national TV audience and, in a large market, own three television stations, eight radio stations, the only daily newspaper, and the cable company. The public overwhelmingly opposes these new rules. In fact, a recent CNN poll found that 96 percent of Americans believe there is already too much media concentration--that ownership of too many media outlets is already under the control of too few corporations. Why should Congress care? For several reasons. Congress has repeatedly mandated, most recently in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, that the FCC serve the public interest by promoting competition, diversity of viewpoints, and localism. These rules fail on all counts. First, competition. Remember that there are a limited number of broadcast licenses available. Ted Turner, who bought one station and turned it into a media giant, addressed the rules' potential effect on competition. Turner wrote in an op-ed that if he had been faced with the FCC's new rules, he never could have started his own media company: ``If a young media entrepreneur were trying to get started today under these proposed rules, he or she wouldn't be able to buy a UHF station, as I did. They're all bought up,'' he wrote. Turner added that even if that young entrepreneur could buy a UHF station, he or she wouldn't have access to the programming and distribution needed, as both are largely controlled by the major media companies. ``Today both (programming and distribution) are owned by conglomerates that keep the best for themselves and leave the worst for you if they sell anything to you at all. It's hard to compete when your suppliers are owned by your competitors,'' he said. Second, independence and diversity of viewpoints. Many argue there are an infinite number of media outlets today, especially given the huge growth in cable channels and internet addresses. But the vast majority of Americans get their news and information from television news and/or their local newspaper. And realize that none of the cable news channels have anywhere near the viewership of the broadcast media, and that most of the major cable and internet news outlets are affiliated with the print and broadcast media that are already controlled in large part by just a handful of companies. Diversity of viewpoints is already in jeopardy, and the new rules would only exacerbate the situation. Third, localism. If many of those so-called diverse viewpoints are actually controlled by a handful of companies, then one can see that localism, too, is in trouble. The loss of localism in radio is well known, sometimes with dangerous consequences like the famous Minot, ND case that Senator Dorgan has talked about. In fact, the lack of localism in radio is so undeniable that even the FCC has agreed to address it in the one aspect of the proposed rules that makes sense. But localism in television is also at risk local entertainment choices as well as news. James Goodman of Capital Broadcasting in North Carolina explained it well in his testimony before the Commerce Committee. He owns Fox and CBS stations in Raleigh. Out of respect for his local audience's sensibilities, he has refused to carry either network's ``reality TV'' shows, including ``Temptation Island,'' ``Cupid,'' ``Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire,'' and ``Married by America.'' His actions have met with intense resistance from the networks, and he has expressed his grave concern that if the networks' ability to own more and more of the broadcast outlets goes unchecked, local stations and communities won't have any ability to choose their own programming. They will be forced to air the network fare, even when it is offensive to local viewers. Finally, and most important, there is an even more basic threat posed by these new rules: It is a threat to democracy itself. The integrity of our democracy depends on an informed electorate. Again, the vast majority of Americans get their news and information from television and/or their local newspaper. If we allow the limited broadcast spectrum to be controlled by a handful of companies, how can we maintain the free marketplace of ideas? Those in the print media rightfully chafe at the prospect of government restrictions. Anyone in America has the right to print their ideas. But when we talk of broadcast media, we are talking about public airwaves, and that is a different matter altogether. Again, space on the spectrum is limited, and so are broadcast licenses. And the FCC was created to regulate them in the public interest--not to rubber-stamp the industry's wish list. Not only are the new rules a threat to democracy, but the process by which they were approved is a threat to democracy. In response to pressure from the Democratic appointees to the Commission, FCC Chairman Michael Powell called only one official field hearing. Field hearings are intended to solicit input from the general public from across the country to overcome the ``inside the Beltway'' virus that often infects policies born in Washington, DC. Chairman Powell's ``field'' hearing was held 90 miles from Washington, and much of his invited testimony came from industry representatives, many of whom, in fact, live and work inside the Beltway. It appears the Chairman thought a pro-industry decision would sail through with minimal attention. After all, other than paid lobbyists, how many people have the time to follow the details of an FCC decision- making process? But a funny thing happened on the way to the vote. As soon as people outside the Beltway did learn what the FCC was planning to do, they protested, and they protested in large numbers. Of the 2 million individuals who commented on the FCC's proposed rules, 99 percent opposed them. Ninety-nine percent. Of the first 10,000 comments that were sampled separately, there were only 57 comments in favor of the rules, and only 11 of those 57 were from people with no vested interest in the rules changes. Those margins are essentially unheard of in American politics. Near unanimity. But in the halls of the FCC, that overwhelmingly negative input was essentially ignored. The votes of the American people didn't count. Only three votes counted--the votes of three commissioners who decided that they knew better than 99 percent of the people who commented on the rules. The FCC's hasty process also effectively blocked public comment on many issues. Allowing for public comment isn't just the right thing to do. It generally leads to a better product. The FCC has an expert staff. But mistakes can and do happen. And an agency as determined to act quickly as the FCC was on this matter is more likely to make mistakes. One such apparent mistake affects my state of South Dakota and would classify Sioux Falls as having more television stations than Detroit. It does so by counting five public broadcast stations as separate stations even though they broadcast the same signal. As a result, Sioux Falls is considered to have 11 stations instead of 7. And Sioux Falls, the 112th-largest market by population, is counted as having more stations than Detroit, the 10th-largest market. Some commercial broadcasters own multiple stations that broadcast identical signals. FCC rules appropriately treat them as one station. But the exemption applies only to commercial stations, not public television stations. FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, a South Dakota native, identified the error and encouraged his colleagues to correct it, but the Commission has not done so. The consequences of such an error are real. Because the new rules consider Sioux Falls to have 11 stations instead of 7, the city is placed in a category without any cross-ownership restrictions. That would allow the newspaper to acquire two television stations instead of one, and own twice as many radio stations as would be permitted if Sioux Falls were properly classified. Fortunately, I don't see any rush for that to happen. But who knows what a future owner of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader or one of the Sioux Falls television stations might wish to do? This is just the kind of mistake that could have been avoided if the FCC had employed the more deliberative, inclusive process that so many of us advocated. Let's review the mission of the Federal Communications Commission, as stated repeatedly by the Commission and by acts of Congress: to serve the public interest by promoting competition, diversity of viewpoints, and localism. The public interest--that phrase should be italicized in this debate. As we define the public interest, the public--the people who receive the radio and TV news and programming that beams across the airwaves their taxes paid for--has a right to be heard. Public comment, input, and involvement in our democratic processes is not a box to be checked before the petitions, call, e-mails, and letters are thrown in the trash and disregarded. It is a basic tenet of our social contract and the principle that underlies our form of government. Of the people, by the people, for the people. I am all for ensuring the rights of the minority. Indeed, I feel strongly about our civic responsibility to ensure that a reactionary or powerful majority does not trample on the rights of those in our society whose voices are not as easily heard or fully represented. In fact, that's one key reason I oppose the substance of these rules--I fear the voices of those who may have quite valuable things to say, but lack the means to gobble up TV and radio stations, will not be heard. But in this case we don't have a powerful majority trampling on the rights of the vulnerable. We have three people--with an obvious push from the current administration--trampling on the rights of the majority. To add insult to injury, they are telling the majority--the American people--that they are doing this in their interest. Of course, the interests being served are those of the handful of large media companies that already control a huge percentage of America's major media outlets. Let me be clear: I don't blame the media companies for advocating for their own interests. They have every right to fight for their interests. I do blame the Chairman of the FCC and the other commissioners who voted for these rules for failing to give the rest of the country the consideration they deserved in this debate. The Congressional Review Act was intended for exactly this kind of situation. A Federal agency has turned a deaf ear to the very public it was intended to serve. It is appropriate to send them back to the drawing board, especially if that is the only option available to us. The Commerce Committee actually reported a bill that deals with the issues individually, and I would be happy to debate that bill. But it has been made clear to us that the majority has no intention of bringing the Commerce Committee bill to the floor, and we have no ability to force it to the floor before these rules take effect. Mr. President, I want to make one final point. This isn't a partisan issue. The Republican supporters of this resolution of disapproval include Republican Party stalwarts like Trent Lott and Kay Bailey Hutchison. It is not a liberal versus conservative issue, either. The list of well-recognized people and organizations who oppose all or part of the FCC's media ownership rules is one of the strangest list of strange bedfellows you will ever hear. Opponents include Walter Cronkite, William Safire, the National Rifle Association, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Organization for Women, Senator Jesse Helms, the National Council of Churches, MoveOn, the Parents Television Council, former Universal Studios Chairman and CEO Barry Diller, Mort Zuckerman, and many, many more. That sampling of the list gives you a sense of how broad and deep the opposition to these FCC rules is. We should respect that overwhelming opposition and vote accordingly. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, ``A government of the people, by the people and for the people.'' In his immortal description of American democracy, President Lincoln made self-government sound almost easy. The truth is, democracy is challenging, continuous work. No war, no sacrifice made by one generation--no matter how enormous--can sustain our democracy forever. Ultimately, each generation of Americans must do the work of democracy itself or our democracy atrophies. ``Civic education'' is the term we use to describe the process by which we transmit the knowledge, skills and attitudes that people need in order to be responsible citizens. It is at least as important to the future of our democracy as our economic might or our military power. For that reason, I am very pleased to announce today that the Joint Leadership of the Congress of the United States will host a 3-day Congressional Conference on Civic Education later this month--September 20, 21, and 22. This Congressional Conference on Civic Education will bring together educators and other experts from every State to focus national attention on the state of civic education in America. I am honored to serve as an honorary host for the conference, along with the majority leader, Senator Frist, and our counterparts in the House, Speaker Hastert and Democratic Leader Pelosi. It is our hope and our expectation that the conference will help launch a nationwide movement, and produce strategic plans to strengthen civic education and civic participation at every level of government-- local, State, and national. It is the first of five annual civic education conferences planned by the Joint Leadership. The goals of this first conference include: increasing public understanding of America's representative democracies and the need for Americans to play a responsible role in their Government; underscoring for policymakers that America's schools play a critical role in preparing students for effective citizenship, and expanding the opportunities for policymakers to participate in carrying out this civic mission; and encouraging the formation of State delegation working groups that will take the lead in improving civic education in their respective States. The Congressional Conference on Civic Education is a fitting and appropriate way for Congress to join the Nation in commemorating Citizenship Week. The conference is a project of the Alliance for Representative Democracy, a national project designed to reinvigorate and educate Americans on the critical relationship between Government and the people it serves. The Alliance's members are the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Center on Congress at Indiana University, and the Center for Civic Education. The Alliance for Representative Democracy project is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress. There is no more important or urgent task facing our Nation than making sure that this and future generations of Americans have the skills, knowledge and attitudes required to maintain this Government ``of the people, by the people and for the people.'' Every State delegation attending this first annual Congressional Conference on Civic Education will identify its own specific goals for improving civic engagement in our society and citizenship education in our schools. I am sure my colleagues join me in applauding the dedicated educators and others who will be traveling to Washington from all over the country for this important conference. We thank them for their time and their commitment to this worthy endeavor. We look forward to hearing their ideas--and hearing about their progress at the second annual Congressional Conference on Civic Education in September 2004. Among those who are volunteering their time and energy to make this conference possible, and who deserve special thanks are the following, whose names I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I would like to congratulate Chapter 0336 of the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, NARFE, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. Fifty years ago, Chapter 0336 was formed by 17 NARFE members in Rapid City, SD. Today, the chapter's membership has grown to include over 200 persons. As many of my colleagues know, NARFE has been instrumental in protecting the rights of retired Federal and civilian employees. The importance of Federal employees is well illustrated by the overwhelming majority of those in the Chamber today. Federal and civilian employment is an essential component of governmental efficiency. These employees are the backbone of our great country, and those who devote their lives to public service deserve to know that they will retire with dignity. By acting as an advocate for these retirees, NARFE not only ensures that retirees receive the benefits that were promised to them but also aims to improve future conditions for current Federal and civilian employees. The years of experience on Capitol Hill and in Federal agencies have made NARFE a name respected by Members of Congress and a key player in the Federal community. Throughout my congressional career, NARFE offices across my State have contacted me on numerous occasions urging me to support legislation beneficial to those who helped strengthen our country over the past decades. Its members have always been forthright in suggesting legislative remedies for their problems--I appreciate that. Again, I wish to extend my congratulations to all involved in making this momentous occasion possible, and I look forward to working closely with Chapter 0336 and other NARFE offices well into the future.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I would like to salute a great American and South Dakotan, Mr. Al Neuharth. As the founder of USA Today, former chief executive officer of Gannett New Service, and founder of the Freedom Forum, he has made immeasurable contributions to our understanding of the world. Mr. Neuharth's commitment to free speech and the press began with a paper route in Eureka, SD, when he was 11 years old. Al continued to work in local media throughout his youth, later in the composing room at the weekly Alpena Journal in neighboring Alpena. Following his service in World War II, Al returned home to South Dakota, graduating from the University of South Dakota in 1950 with a degree in journalism. Upon graduation, Al Neuharth began what would be a historic career in print media. He began working for the Associated Press in Sioux Falls, SD, as a reporter and soon launched his first publication, a statewide weekly tabloid called SoDak Sports. While SoDak Sports would not prove to be his most successful venture, Mr. Neuharth pressed forward as a journalist. In 1954, he became a reporter at the Miami Herald, quickly ascending the ranks, and in 1960 he was named assistant executive editor of the Detroit Free Press. This remarkable success demonstrates that Al's talent for straight truth and love of communication was visible to all who worked with him. In 1963, Neuharth began his career with Gannett News Service as the general manager of its two Rochester, NY, newspapers. Only 7 years later he was named president and chief executive officer of Gannett News Service, a position he held until his retirement in 1989. Under Al's leadership, the company launched USA Today in 1980--the first national daily newspaper--and their reputation for quality journalism has grown each year since. Upon retiring from Gannett News Service, Al Neuharth founded the Freedom Forum in 1991 and has since dedicated his work to the pursuit of ``free press, free speech, and free spirit for all people.'' I have had the pleasure of working with Al on many occasions and have seen his genuine commitment to preserving free expression for all Americans. In addition to his ongoing efforts to preserve free speech, Al Neuharth has also dedicated both time and treasure to his hometown of Eureka, SD, and has never forgotten his South Dakota roots. Most notably, he contributed greatly to the Eureka Information Center. This center houses community nonprofits and civic organizations, providing a space for the involvement and dialogue that strengthens small towns. On September 25, 2003, Mr. Neuharth's alma mater, the University of South Dakota, will dedicate its Al Neuharth Media Center. This center, funded by the Freedom Foundation and the University Foundation, will house the Freedom Foundation's regional offices, South Dakota Public Broadcasting, the University's Department of Contemporary Media and Journalism, the Native American Journalists Association, the University's publication The Volante, campus radio station KAOR and television station KYOT. Freedom of the press is an essential component of America's experiment in democracy and one of the principal reasons the experiment has succeeded. By training future journalists and defenders of the first amendment, the Neuharth Media Center will convey Al's passion for free speech and help ensure that this great experiment in democracy will be preserved for generations to come. I am proud to honor Al Neuharth and the University of South Dakota Neuharth Media Center and proud to know Al Neuharth.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce a bill that is as simple as it is significant. It promises our soldiers that while they fight to protect us, we will do what we can do protect them and their families by not allowing their pay to be cut. Each day brings a fresh reminder of the debt we owe our men and women in uniform. Today, well over 200,000 Americans are stationed abroad, many facing hostile fire in difficult conditions, thousands of miles from home. In spite of enormous difficulties, they have served magnificently, bringing honor to their families and their country. In light of all that we read in our daily newspapers about our soldiers' heroic performance, it should be unthinkable that anyone would consider cutting their pay. But this isn't a rumor or some errant bureaucratic proposal. Unless the President and the Congress act soon, many of our soldiers will see their monthly pay reduced by as much as $225 at the end of the current fiscal year. My legislation would help us honor the debt we owe to our soldiers by making permanent the rates of pay currently provided to our soldiers. Unfortunately, we have received very mixed messages from the administration about their position on this issue. In July, the Defense Department issued a position paper to the Congress expressing its views on military pay and a series of other legislative proposals. According to the official Pentagon document, the Defense Department urged Congress to reduce our troops' pay. Last month, the San Francisco Chronicle, in an article entitled ``Troops In Iraq Face Pay Cut,'' reported, ``The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness, and 120-degree plus heat. . . . The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't sustain the higher payments and a host of other priorities.'' Not surprisingly, these reports triggered a fire storm. The administration quickly backpedaled. Its latest position is that pay will be kept at current levels for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but pay for troops deployed abroad in other countries should be cut. This does a disservice to the men and women who have chosen to risk their lives for their country and have been deployed far from their homes and their families. At a time when we are asking so much of these troops and their families, it is inconceivable to me that this Nation can't sustain current pay levels for all troops deployed abroad and that the administration would not fully support this proposition. The legislation would send a clear signal to all of our troops, both those deployed abroad and those facing the possibility of deployment in the coming weeks and months. This Nation recognizes and appreciates the risks they take on our behalf and we honor our commitment to them. I urge the administration and my colleagues to join with me in this effort. Our troops and their families deserve no less. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last night, family members and friends of those who perished in the World Trade Center held a candlelight vigil at Ground Zero, creating what they called a ``circle of hope'' around that hallowed ground. Tonight, twin towers of lights will stretch once again from the ruins of the Trade Center up to the heavens. In a few moments, here in the U.S. Senate, we will observe the first of four moments of silence marking the exact moments, 2 years ago today, that the four hijacked airliners crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and that lonely field in Shanksville. Later this afternoon, a new playground will open at Leckie Elementary School, here in the Nation's capital--a memorial to three bright sixth- graders from Washington, D.C. and four district teachers--all lost when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. This evening, in Mitchell, SD, people will gather to honor the firefighters and other emergency workers who perished on September 11, and those who toiled in the rubble for months after the attacks to try to bring order out of chaos. In countless other ways, in communities across our Nation and throughout the world--in churches, parks, town halls, and in the privacy of their own thoughts--people will pause to remember, to mourn and to honor the victims, the survivors and the heroes of September 11. Two years later, the enormity of the tragedy remains nearly incomprehensible. Just 3 days ago, a vial holding the blood of a young Brooklyn firefighter who died at Ground Zero was placed in a coffin, along with his uniform, at a Mass, making him the last of the 343 firefighters killed at the World Trade Center to receive a memorial. A year ago, on the first anniversary of September 11, the names of all those who died at the World Trade Center were read aloud. It took 2\1/ 2\ hours just to recite the names. First on the list was Gordy Aamoth, a 32-year-old investment banker who grew up in Minneapolis and always knew that he wanted to work on Wall Street. The last name on the list belonged to Igor Zukelman, a 29-year-old naturalized American who moved to this country from the Ukraine. The day he became an American, he called his mother and told her, ``You can congratulate me now, I'm a citizen.'' The terrorists of September 11 meant to strike at the heart of America. Yet their crime was more than an attack on America. It was an attack against humanity. Ninety-one nations lost citizens in the attack on the World Trade Center. Today, we remember and honor all of them. We also pray for those who were injured, especially the many who still suffer, and for the families and friends who lost loved ones, particularly the children who lost parents. We pray for ourselves and our Nation, that we may seek justice for the victims of September 11 with wisdom. And we are also filled today with an abiding sense of gratitude for the heroes of September 11, especially the courageous firefighters and other rescue workers. In the countless acts of heroism and compassion, they inspired a stunned and wounded nation and showed us how to go on. This morning, the sky bears an eerie and almost disconcerting resemblance to that cloudless blue sky on this morning 24 months ago. Pilots have a term for visibility conditions like that. They call it ``severe clear.'' In our memories, we all see with severe clarity the horrific images of September 11. Today and always, let us strive to remember, with equal clarity, the many acts of sacrifice and compassion we witnessed that day. Let us remember the unshakable unity we felt as a nation in the aftermath of that terrible day. Even more than that, let us resolve to continue to demonstrate that same commitment to our nation and to each other as we saw that day. In that way, we can defy the terrorists. We can honor those we lost. And we can keep their spirits alive.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I offer my best regards and sincere congratulations to Mary Thompson as she is being honored as the First Lady of Aberdeen, SD. As you know, Aberdeen is my hometown. Since 1948, we've had the tradition of naming a First Lady of the town. The First Ladies of Aberdeen, sponsored by Beta Sigma Phi, are selected for their outstanding service to the community in many areas including culture, religion, education, arts and politics. Mary has been very active in each and every one of these areas. Mary has served the Plymouth Congregational Church as secretary- treasurer, as leader of Puritan Circle, and she has held various officer posts with Women's Fellowship and numerous other committees. As a proud born Norwegian, Mary has actively participated in Sons of Norway for many years. She and her husband, Robert, have opened their home and welcomed visitors from across the country and the world. Mary is also an Avera St. Luke's Hospital Auxiliary member; for several years, she has worked in the gift shop and on special projects. Now retired, Mary records movies and television specials and takes them to the sick, lonely and shut-ins. I have had the pleasure of knowing Mary since I was a small child, and I consider her a dear friend and gracious lady. Mary and my mother, Betty, have been friends for many years, and both love playing bridge. For nearly 50 years, Mary has played bridge with the Northern State University Faculty Bridge Club. She attended college at NSU, earning an elementary education degree. There, she met and married the love of her life, Robert Thompson. They celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary May 29, 2003. On May 3, 2003, Mary was named Aberdeen's 55th First Lady. This Sunday, September 14, she will be celebrated at a special reception at the Plymouth Congregational Church in Aberdeen. I know of no one more deserving of this very special honor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from California from leader time.