Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will have a short statement but I ask unanimous consent that, following that, Senator Hatch be recognized for a statement as well.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to commend the distinguished Senator from Nevada for his sponsorship of this amendment. There has been some discussion already about the importance that we as a country need to put on the extraordinary challenges we face with regard to the education of Hispanic children. The number of school-age Hispanic children has actually grown by 61 percent in the last 2 years, a rate faster than any other American community. One out of every 6 children who attends public school today is Hispanic. Hispanic children continue to perform below their non-Hispanic peers in reading, math, and science. By age 9, more than one-third of Latino students in high school are enrolled at below grade level today. Hispanic youths suffer from the highest dropout rate of any group. Hispanics over the age of 16 are more than twice as likely to drop out of school as African American students and four times as likely to drop out today as white students. In the Nation's 17 largest Hispanic-serving school districts, Hispanics lag behind white students in reading achievement by an average of 30 points and in math achievement by an average of 27 points. Yet the bill before us cuts $21 million in bilingual education, $11 million in dropout prevention programs, $10 million in high school migrant education, and $15 million in college migrant education. What Senator Reid has done is simply propose to reverse these proposed cuts and enhance English instruction for non-native speakers, dropout prevention, and migrant education funding. This really sets the tone for a series of amendments that I know my colleagues will be offering over the course of the next several days. It is important for us as a country to make the investment in education perhaps more than in any other endeavor in Government. If we empower our youth--Hispanic, African American, Asian American, Native American, in addition to European American--we give them the opportunity to be the productive, capable, and contributing citizens we know they can be. It is so much easier to build a child than to repair an adult. We are talking about building children. The only way we are going to build those children is to give them opportunities in education by funding these programs at a level that will allow us to meet the expectations and, I would say, the obligations our country holds today. This is a very good amendment, and I hope the Senate will support it on a bipartisan basis. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come for a couple of minutes this afternoon to reflect on both the recent holiday yesterday as well as my experiences in South Dakota over the last 4 weeks. We celebrated Labor Day yesterday with parades and celebrations around the country. We have been doing so now for 120 years. Peter McGuire was a carpenter and a labor organizer who brought 20,000 workers to march in New York for better working conditions some 120 years ago. Still today it is a day to honor our working people and their contribution and to recommit ourselves to advancing their rights and protections. I spent the August recess driving through South Dakota, as I do every year, without schedule or staff, talking to South Dakotans about the concerns they have. We have 66 counties in our State. I get into all 66 every year. I went to just under 30 counties during the month of August. Driving as I did, talking to working men and women, families, business people, farmers, and ranchers, I heard a great deal about jobs, about health care, about the state of agriculture. Joblessness in our country has now reached 9.1 million people; 3.2 million private sector jobs have been lost since January of 2001. That is a 50-percent increase. Another 5 million, we are told, are underemployed, forced to take part-time work because they cannot find good jobs. As I traveled the State, I talked to people who are unemployed, people who had good jobs. Surprisingly, large numbers of white-collar workers, people whose incomes exceeded $20,000 or $30,000, are now out of work. They expressed to me their concern for the state of the economy and the great difficulty so many South Dakotans are facing. That is true in small towns as well as large towns. There is more bad news for working families as they consider the implications of higher deficits on the interest rates we are now experiencing. It is harder to buy a home, to pay for college, invest in business, in part because, as we have predicted, as the budget deficit increases, so do long-term interest rates. The CBO has now projected we will see a $400 billion deficit in 2003, $450 billion if you eliminate the impact Social Security trust fund surpluses have had on the budget, and over $650 billion in fiscal year 2004. We expect to add $1.3 trillion of additional debt, not to mention the higher increases in interest rates that everyone will be forced to pay, offsetting whatever marginal value to most working families the tax cuts have had now over the course of the last 2 years. I spent the bulk of my time talking to South Dakotans about health insurance. As I do my travels each year, normally it is to listen to others. It is my home. In so doing, I have the opportunity to listen to South Dakotans express themselves on whatever issues may be of interest and concern to them and I can come back with a better understanding as we consider the issues in the Senate. This year I asked more questions about health care, talked a good deal about health insurance to South Dakotans. We have over 100,000 of over 700,000 South Dakotans who at some point through the year do not have health insurance. I was at a barbecue early in August talking to a number of South Dakotans about the issues and about health care in particular. There must have been 300 or 400 people there. After I spoke, about half of them, I suppose, lined up to say hello. It took a couple of hours to say hello to those who had come. As I said my final farewell to the last person who had waited in line, I noticed over on a park bench there was an older man--older; I would say probably in his early seventies--who had waited all this time just to talk to me. He told me what had happened in his own circumstances. He said he and his wife had saved over $350,000 over their entire lives. About 6 months ago, his wife learned she had terminal cancer. She was too young for Medicare so they began spending their savings. They spent $200,000 and John's wife finally told him: ``I would rather die than have you spend the final $150,000. Let me die.'' She did. That was my first story that I recall, over a month of stories. I talked to Florence, who lives in Sioux Falls, SD. She drives all the way. She is 72 as well--early seventies. I can't recall now if it is 72 or 73. She just got a job about a month ago because she can't afford the $400 she pays every month for prescription drugs. Every 3 months she goes to Canada because she can't afford to buy them in the United States. She saves $300 every 3 months on that trip to Canada. She is a woman who now has been forced to go back to work at her age, just to pay for the drugs she needs. I talked to Alicia at the Brown County Fair. Alicia has diabetes, juvenile diabetes. She was just kicked off her family's insurance rolls because she is now over 18. She doesn't have insurance and can't get it because the insurance companies won't sign her up. She asked them what to do. They said: Go look for a job where they have group health insurance. Alicia broke down when she was telling me she hasn't taken the diabetes medication as regularly as she should because she can't afford it. I could take the rest of the afternoon talking about the stories I heard, about the crisis we face in health care today. I don't know about you, but when you are out there, outside of this town, and you are allowed to clear your mind, you wonder, with the positions we hold, how it is that year after year, session after session, these problems go by and in most cases continue to worsen. We come back and it just seems business as usual. I don't know how we solve the health care problem. But I must say I think it is the most pressing, most serious, most vexing, most troubling problem that most South Dakota families face, at least. All I had to do was ask the first question, and one after another came forward with their own nightmare about the crisis that they or their family are facing. So I learned a lot. I think I am far more aware today of the extraordinary problems and complications our South Dakota families are facing, but none like what they are facing with health care. We have to do something. Our first opportunity of course is to deal with this Medicare prescription drug benefit. We are going to redouble our efforts to see if we can find some solution, but I will say I am very concerned and troubled by the lack of progress we made at the staff level in the month of August. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. I will continue to go home of course and talk to South Dakotans. I will always remember the conversations and the willingness on the part of so many to open up, to share their private stories, to share their nightmares, to plead with me that Congress do something to address those concerns. Whether it is John, Florence or Alicia, they are watching, they are waiting, and they are hoping. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Shawn Gallagher, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of Senate consideration of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to add my congratulations to Mike McGhee on his career here in the Senate and to wish him well on his retirement. His rise, over nearly a 30-year span, from clerk in the Stationery Room to become the 17th Keeper of the Stationery shows the dedication and hard work that everyone has come to expect from Mike. The stationery office serves the entire Senate community and involves managing over a $4 million budget. He has accomplished this task both efficiently and effectively. His commitment to public service has been exemplary. I wish him and his family all the best in the years to come, and I congratulate him on a job well done.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the acting majority leader modify his request to include an amendment which provides $20 million for air marshal training, $289 million for the emergency firefighting and wildfire suppression, $100 million for AmeriCorps, $50 million for the Space Shuttle Columbia accident, the remaining $567 million for FEMA, which is not part of the House-passed bill. This is the supplemental which passed in the Senate, except for the $20 million for air marshal training which has now been recognized as a need of great import, especially within the last few weeks. I ask unanimous consent that the request made by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire be modified.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Feinstein has a market manipulation amendment that she was seeking a vote on. It is my understanding that the Agriculture appropriations bill would be the appropriate bill for that amendment. I would inquire of the majority leader that should she offer her amendment to that bill would she be assured of a vote on, or in relation to, her amendment with no second degree amendments prior to such vote?

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Cantwell has a market manipulation amendment that she was seeking a vote on. It is my understanding that the agriculture appropriations bill or the energy water appropriations bill is where she would like to offer her amendment. I would inquire of the majority leader that should she offer her amendment to either of those bills would she be assured of a vote on, or in relation to, her amendment with no second degree amendments prior to such vote?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, could the Chair inform the Senate as to what the pending business is?

Mr. DASCHLE. Do I understand the Chair that the answer is the pending business is the motion to commit the bill, not the electricity title, is that not correct?

Mr. DASCHLE. I inform my colleagues that is the issue. Last night, the majority leader filled the tree and made a motion to commit, moving off of the floor for consideration of the energy title. I will talk about that for a couple of minutes as I consider those actions last night. We have heard some very creative explanations from the majority about how the Senate has gotten into the mess we are in this morning. They are doing their best to blame Democrats, as usual. There is one simple explanation for why the Senate has not finished its work: Politics. The majority has been playing politics with this bill and with other issues. That is just not conducive to reaching the good bipartisan outcome we expect in the Senate. Republican leaders have been playing politics so much that some Members of the Republican caucus have themselves begun to protest. Conservative Republicans now say their leadership could have finished this Energy bill if the Senate had not been repeatedly distracted by political matters. I agree. In an article headlined ``Frist Schedules Judicial Votes, Slowing Energy Bill'' in today's addition of Rollcall, it reported that: Though most Republicans are publicly blaming . . . ``obstructionism'' for the sputtering energy debate, many GOP Senators privately acknowledge that the [majority leader's] decision to pepper this week's schedule with unrelated votes on controversial judicial nominees has made it less likely the Senate will pass the energy bill before the August recess. That is not Democrats talking; that is what Republicans have said. The Rollcall article goes on to quote one Republican Senator: It might have been better not to have brought [judges] up. I think it was a mistake. That is according to Jim Inhofe, quoted in Rollcall. It quotes Senator Larry Craig, ``who is one of the many conservative Republicans who have complained about Frist's unwillingness to push the energy bill to Senate passage, [and] said the majority leader could have avoided the time issue on judges by not bringing them up at all. ``It was unwise,'' said Craig, former chairman of the Republican Policy Committee. I've been in the leadership--never at [Frist's] level--but I clearly realize the pressures put on you to do other things in the runup to a recess. I've also been involved in tough floor debates before, and once you get on them, you stay on them, and you drive it until you finish it. Senator Craig Thomas agreed: I wish we hadn't gone off it, frankly. The Rollcall article went on to state that relatively few debate days spent on energy ``have been spread out over the past three months causing Craig and others to complain that the on-again, off-again schedule has prevented the bill from gaining the momentum to pass.'' Again, all quotes from Rollcall this morning. Last evening provides a good but regrettable example of how this on- again, off-again Republican schedule has slowed the energy debate. The Republican leadership scheduled a vote for this morning on cloture on the nomination of one of the most highly controversial nominees we have had in this Congress. The outcome of today's vote was never in doubt. It was scheduled purely for political reasons, to satisfy a segment of the far right. A schedule of this vote elicited a vote last night not on energy but on a controversial judicial nominee. The Senate spent from 6 p.m. yesterday until 10:17 p.m. debating something other than energy, 4\1/2\ hours wasted on political debate brought on by Republicans, 4\1/2\ hours that could have been spent productively on the Energy bill. That is not the only kind of interruption we have had this week. We even stopped action on the Senate floor on Tuesday for 2 hours so the Senators could attend a meeting at the White House. Guess what the purpose of that meeting was. For the Senate to be urged to complete the Energy bill. So we took 2 hours off of the floor debating the Energy bill to talk about how important it was to complete it--a few blocks from here at the White House. Hurry up and wait seems to me to be the adage. Stop and start, switch gears. That has been the pattern all week long. In fact, that has been the pattern now for months. At one point we interrupted the Energy bill on June 12th and we did not return to it until the evening of July 24th, an interruption of 5\1/2\ weeks. To make matters worse, we are told the topsy-turvy schedule will continue tomorrow. As if the schedule were not bollixed up enough already, Senate Republican leaders now say we will be taking up the nomination of yet another controversial nominee for another political vote tomorrow. As Republican Senators said today in Rollcall, that is just not the way to complete action on a major, complex piece of legislation. Something else is very important about this debate. It has been omitted from what the majority is saying this morning. It is what this Energy bill and its debate is supposed to be all about. It is about ensuring Americans will have a comprehensive, balanced, reliable energy policy that protects consumers from energy market manipulation and high energy prices. These are important issues. It takes time to get them right. We have a duty to the American consumer to ensure that we fully consider what our energy policy should be in the future. Without further amendments, this bill, unfortunately, could be billed ``the Enron Production Act.'' Despite the massive problems experienced in our energy markets recently, this bill fails to address some of the most basic problems we are facing in our country today. It fails to outlaw many of the most egregious scams and frauds that have been perpetrated against energy ratepayers all across the country. The round-trip trading was one of the scams used in manipulating the markets by Enron. Round-trip trading was actually covered in the Domenici bill and was also covered in the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Washington, Senator Cantwell. Fat Boy, hiding the profits and then making a number of different calculations and begging for others to get involved, the Fat Boy scam is not included in the bill. It was included in the Cantwell amendment that came up yesterday. Ricochet, which allows Enron and other companies to dodge the price caps, was not in the Energy bill but was in the Cantwell amendment yesterday. Death Star, the leaking air out of tires and then paid to tow, that, also, is something that was not covered in the Energy bill but is covered in the Cantwell amendment. All the way down, every single one of the scams used by Enron, except for one, was intentionally eliminated, removed from the Energy bill. There is no protection against the very scams that devastated California and devastated Washington and are going to devastate the country unless we deal with it. Why have they been left out? I can't tell you. But they are left out, leaving consumers with the very likely prospect they will get gouged this winter with natural gas prices and you will see manipulation like we saw with Enron, over and over again, because this bill is unwilling to address those key manipulation practices that made Enron the scorn of the country that it is today. Democrats are willing to work, as I have said 100 times on the Senate floor over the course of this year. We are willing to work with our colleagues to come up with a bill that works, that addresses these scams, that addresses all the shortcomings, that provides a meaningful, comprehensive piece of energy legislation. But to do that, we have to address electricity in a meaningful way; we have to look at global warming; we have to pass a renewable portfolio standard; we have to address CAFE; we have to ensure that hydroelectric dam relicensing is included; we have to ensure Indian energy is part of our plan, nuclear subsidies, natural gas, energy efficiency incentives, wind energy, carbon sequestration. All of those issues are legitimate, worthy considerations for debate, amendment, and ultimate decision by the Senate as to what kind of energy policy we ought to have in this country. These are not single amendment issues. Each one of these areas is going to take a little time. But you don't have that time to deal with these questions when you have debated William Pryor for 4 hours in a prime time opportunity last night. You are not going to deal with it today when we have to explain why Carolyn Kuhl is a nominee about whom we have great concern. You are not going to do it, as our Republican colleagues have said, when you get waylaid and you are taken off the bill for days, if not weeks, at a time. So it is no surprise that we are in this mess this morning. We faced a very difficult time last year passing an Energy bill. But you know what we did? We stuck to it; we stayed with it. It took us days and days. We entertained 144 amendments. We had rollcall after rollcall on every one of these issues. We ultimately passed the bill 88 to 11. But that is how you work in the Senate. That is how you get the job done. You don't bounce around taking this from that, moving from this to that, and ultimately not having the kind of momentum it takes to finish a bill on time. We have only spent, realistically, 8 days on this bill--8 days. We have only had a few rollcall votes. We have considered 102 fewer amendments than we did last year. I am not suggesting that somehow we have to replicate what happened last year. I think we can do it faster than that, and I have come to talk to the distinguished manager on more than one occasion to say we are prepared to work with him. I don't know of anybody who has worked harder to accommodate our majority and to work to see that we find ways in which to work through these amendments such as the Energy title, more than Senator Reid has, our assistant Democratic leader. No one has worked harder than he has to get to a point where we can actually consider these amendments one by one. Nobody is trying to delay this bill. But it is impossible to finish it with all of the extraordinary diversions we have had. I will end where I started. This is politics. This is blame the other guy. This is, we can't get it done so we will just tell everybody it is the Democrats' fault. I thank our colleagues for their candor in Roll Call this morning because they have laid the facts bare. They know and we know why we don't have this bill done. They know and we know that until we get serious about meaningful consideration of amendments on these difficult issues, we are not going to get it done. We are prepared to work. But as long as we have nominations such as we have this morning that is impossible. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to the distinguished majority leader. I would offer him advice again, for whatever it is worth. I have offered him advice as we have personally and publicly discussed progress on the Energy bill. Rather than shrill charges of obstructionism that nobody believes, I suggest that he tear down the tree, take away all of the obstacles that he laid down last night to considering the Energy bill, and I believe we could make constructive progress. I think we could perhaps finish the electricity title by the end of this week, but we cannot do that and then also do what he is now asking of us, which is to debate one of the most controversial nominees to be passed out of the Judiciary Committee. We cannot do both. He wants us to have a vote on that nominee tomorrow morning, and I see no other option but simply to debate the nominee. He also would like very much for the trade bill to come up. There are 6 hours of time locked in for that. I do not know how we do the trade bill, an extraordinarily controversial nominee for the Ninth Circuit, and then I know he wants to do the supplemental bill as well. That is going to take some time. So how do we do all of these? Having been the majority leader, I must say it is one of the most challenging parts of the job, but I think his colleagues were right; they said publicly he made a mistake, and I think they were right in their estimation of the schedule for this week. If we really wanted to finish the bill, we would not have had all of these diversions. If we can learn from our mistakes this week, I think the only answer is to let us not repeat them. The only way one can avoid repeating the same mistakes is to take out from underneath all of the underbrush the obstacles, the diversions, the other priorities that the majority leader has. As I say, the Senator from Washington has been sitting in the Chamber. She sat here last night for hours waiting to debate another amendment on the electricity title. There are other Senators who have expressed an interest in coming to the floor to debate the electricity title. How do we do that, No. 1, when we are not even on the electricity title anymore? We are actually on a motion to commit. We cannot even offer an amendment to the electricity title given the majority leader's current parliamentary maneuvers. Then, of course, we have this enormously controversial nominee from California. If I could offer one more piece of advice--and as I consider this, it is all the more troubling. If our Republican colleagues really wanted to get a bill, what would have been wrong with taking the bill that 88 of us voted for last year and starting with that? What would have been wrong with saying, we spent 8 weeks on a bill last year, how about taking that 8 weeks' of effort, that investment in time, bringing that to the committee, and then bringing it to the floor? My guess is we could have avoided hundreds of amendments. We could have said, what reason would there be to offer an additional amendment because we have now taken up the very thing the Senate passed last year? But for whatever reason, the committee decided to pass an ``Enron protection act.'' They wanted to be sure, apparently, that they could lock in protection for these incredibly manipulative schemes used by Enron to bilk consumers that changed dramatically the nature, the character, of the bill itself. If our Republican friends would have wanted to complete the bill or at any time if they would want to do so in the future, we could take up where we left off. As it is, we are left with a bill that many have not seen. We are left with titles given to us virtually at the last minute and expected to offer amendments under those circumstances. I say to my distinguished colleague and friend, it is still within our grasp to finish this bill in a meaningful and timely way. In order to do that, we have to work at it. We have to finish this work on the electricity title, we have to go to the other titles in a way that accommodates Senators with amendments, and we have to stay on the legislation. Diversions, especially ones involving issues of great controversy, will never allow the Senate the luxury of the confidence we need to finish this bill at any time in the foreseeable future. I stand ready to work with him, to work with the manager of the bill, the chairman of the committee, to work with our distinguished ranking member and others so we can finish the bill. Shrill charges of obstructionism will not get the job done, nor will it get the job done to finger point and try to lay blame. We are here; they have the majority. We are willing to work with them to see under their leadership we accomplish a good deal. We have on so many other bills already this year. We can do it on this bill if we have the determination to show the bipartisanship it will require. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have long supported initiatives to expand foreign markets for American goods. Trade liberalizing agreements with other countries, if negotiated correctly, can benefit American farmers, ranchers and manufacturers. Likewise, strengthening economic ties with these countries can advance our foreign policy interests. The agreements pending before us today, the Chilean and Singaporean Free Trade Agreements, fit both of these criteria, and I intend to support them both. The agreement with Singapore, our twelfth largest trading partner, is the first such FTA with an Asian nation. Singapore is a long-standing ally in this vitally important region and has worked closely with the United States in the war against terrorism. Currently, for instance, Singapore is building an aircraft carrier pier at its port, the largest in the world, specifically for U.S. vessels. Under this agreement, Singapore will eliminate duties on all U.S. products and broadly open its service sector across a wide range of industries. These and other commitments, such as strong protection of intellectual property rights, will benefit American investors and exporters. With regard to Chile, I am pleased that after years of much anticipation this agreement is finally complete. Chile has stood out as one of South America's economic leaders for some time, and this agreement will serve to solidify our support for its continued progress. Today, Chile has free trade arrangements with Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. This United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement will provide important parity for American exporters. This is very important for wheat growers who have lost substantial market share as a result of the Chile-Canada trade agreement. Our agreement should provide an opportunity to re-gain those exports. The issue that has concerned me most is what will the impact be on our beef producers. The impact is more complex than the clear advantage for wheat farmers. Chile potentially is a consumer market for beef. Chile is a substantial importer of beef and the U.S. produces the finest beef in the world. The agreement takes important steps to open the Chilean beef market to U.S. producers, many of whom are from my home State of South Dakota. My concern and that of many South Dakota farmers is that beef born and raised in Argentina will be sent to Chile for slaughter and be labeled as Chilean beef under the existing rules of origin law that only requires the product to be slaughtered in a country. After careful examination, it is my expectation, however, that the administration will prevent such transhipment for other countries in the region and protect our own farmers and ranchers from injurious imports from abroad. Therefore, I believe that on balance the U.S. Chilean agreement is good for our beef producers. The agreement is good for our other exporters and it advances our foreign policy interests and I support it. I support the agreements before the Senate today and will vote for their passage. I do want to take this opportunity, however, to raise my strong concern about a possible trade agreement with Australia. Australia has long been one of America's staunchest allies. Our shared commitment to freedom and democracy is the foundation of a relationship that has grown even stronger since September 11. Indeed, Australia was among the first countries to offer its support in the wake of terrorist attacks on our country last year. Australia is an important American ally and one who we can and should work with closely within the WTO multilateral negotiations. I am, however, deeply concerned about the effect that a potential free trade agreement with Australia could have on our own beef, lamb and wool producers. Australia is increasingly involved in grain feedlots for cattle. Grain feed beef more directly compete with U.S. beef in the higher end beef market because of its higher quality. Australian farmers receive the benefit of a state trading enterprise, the Australian Wheat Board, which manages the supply of all grain in that country, and thus influences the price of grain. Ranchers in Australia receive assistance, not only from the wheat board, but also receive various other subsidies. Australia is the world's largest beef exporter and with fewer people than cows, the country is not a significant import market. Finally, Australian live cattle are increasingly being exported. In fact USDA projects that over 900,000 head will be exported in 2003 using, among other means, huge ocean-going ships that can deliver up to 25,000 head per vessel. As a potential FTA with Australia progresses, I am hopeful that we will be able to address these very real concerns. Without some remedy, I will not be able to support the agreement. With regard to lamb, there are not U.S. tariffs on lamb today. Currently one-third of our domestic lamb consumption is imported lamb and we are Australia's biggest export market for lamb. The U.S. currently takes in 20 percent of all of the lamb Australia produces. However, Australia's prices are well below our market, and rather than work to develop new markets, most often they come into our best markets, and underprice our domestic producers. In fact, I am told that they have even compensated supermarkets in the U.S. with advertising budgets on the condition that they sell only imported products. With regard to wool, we need to protect the existing tariffs. Australia has a record of vastly over-producing for the market and negatively impacting our domestic prices. The current tariffs are important to keep in place. As a potential FTA with Australia progresses, I am hopeful that we will be able to address these very real concerns. Without some acceptable remedy, I will not be able to support the agreement. A year ago, we worked on a bipartisan basis to pass Trade Promotion Authority. This law was employed to pass the two trade agreements before us. The administration is to be commended for the successful conclusion of these agreements and again I will support both. However, it is clear that support for trade liberalization is fragile both in the Congress and around the country. I urge the administration to work with us and to take steps to build greater consensus and to avoid taking steps that undermine that consensus: Trade Promotion Authority is a delegation of the Congress's authority. The administration jeopardizes future such delegations if it oversteps its bounds. This Congress did not vote last year to delegate the authority to make immigration policy. The administration must avoid such over reaching in the future. I continue to have concerns about how rules of origin are applied. The Bush administration should insist on a strict standard for designating the country of origin of both live cattle and beef. At a minimum, the ``born in country'' standard should be adhered to. Although I would certainly prefer that we work with our trading partners to obtain a ``born, raised, and slaughtered'' standard for designating the country-of-origin of beef. This latter standard reflects the current country of origin law in place in the United States. This tighter standard is advocated by the major farm organizations in our country in addition to cattle ranchers and consumer groups who all believe this is a better definition. Last year, we put top priority on helping those Americans who are on the losing side of trade. The administration made an agreement with us, but to date the administration has not honored that agreement. TAA for Farmers was supposed to be operational 6 months ago, yet has still not gotten off the ground. The Health Tax Credit was to be made available and advanceable this month, yet only 22 States have made the appropriate steps. More importantly, a number of technical corrections to the program have been stalled in Congress and the administration has not helped advance them. These technical corrections are essential to ensuring that the targeted workers, which we agreed on, receive their much-needed health benefits. The wage insurance program for older workers has remained completely dormant and the administration has taken no steps to implement this program. Since the beginning of 2001, more than two million manufacturing jobs have been lost. I strongly urge the administration to join with us and let's use the replacement of the FSC regime as an opportunity to promote U.S. manufacturing jobs. We must recognize that there is no ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to dealing with labor and environmental standards in other countries. While I applaud the provisions included in these agreements, they should not, I repeat, should not, be perceived as some sort of template for future negotiations. The conditions of countries in Central America are significantly different than those in Chile or Singapore and should be treated as such. We need to have strong enforcement of our trade laws. Currently, for example, the United States International Trade Commission is reviewing the section 201 tariffs in place against injurious imports of steel. So far, the temporary restrictions have provided some mills the time needed to make modest steps towards recovery. Repealing these measures now, however, would greatly undercut this moderate success, and I therefore urge the President to maintain these safeguards for the full three years. Finally, today is a good day for relations between the United States and our friends and partners in Singapore and Chile. By strengthening our economic ties, we have benefitted the people of all our countries and encouraged a mutually supportive partnership that will benefit all aspects of our bilateral relationships.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is with reluctance and disappointment that I must rise in opposition to another cloture vote for a judicial nominee. But once again, the extreme ideology of a nominee has left us with no other option. But even if there were no questions about Mr. Pryor's ability to apply and interpret the law fairly, the open questions surrounding Mr. Pryor's ethical fitness, the unfinished investigation in the Judiciary Committee, and the fact that his nomination was reported out of committee in violation of committee rules, should compel the Senate to delay voting on this nomination. For both substantive and procedural reasons, Mr. Pryor's nomination should be put on hold. For that reason, I must oppose cloture. I would remind my colleagues that we have invoked our right to unlimited debate with great rarity. Since President Bush took office, Democrats have been eager to cooperate in the nomination and confirmation of qualified judges who will enforce the law and protect the rights of all Americans. And we are proud of our record. When the Democrats held the Senate, we confirmed 100 of the President's judicial nominees. We rejected only two, Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen. This year, we have already approved 40 more judges, and only 2 nominees, Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen, have previously met with sustained opposition. Democrats have sought compromise and consensus. And today, there are 140 judges sitting on the bench who serve as testimony to our cooperation. But the importance of the Federal judiciary is too important to stand silently by and allow a nominee who has expressed hostility to the laws that protect the rights of all Americans. Mr. Pryor has repeatedly put his own personal and political beliefs above the dictates of the law. Throughout his career, he has been unable to find constitutional protection for even those rights that are clearly written and firmly established in case law. Not civil rights. Not voting rights. Not the right to privacy. In fact, Mr. Pryor has argued before the Supreme Court that it should cut back on the protections of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the American with Disabilities Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. He referred to a recent decision reaffirming Miranda rights as ``preserving the worst examples of judicial activism.'' And he was, in fact, the only State attorney general in the country to challenge the constitutionality of the Violence Against Women Act. Adhering to an extreme interpretation of States rights, Mr. Pryor has stated that, ``Congress . . . should not be in the business of public education nor the control of street crime.'' Mr. Pryor has taken this position, even as President Bush has touted the importance of the Federal role in education and the COPS Program has put tens of thousands of new police officers on patrol in American towns and cities, contributing to the historic reduction in the crime rate of the 1990s. But even if we disagree on the merits of Mr. Pryor's record, there can be no disagreement on the incompleteness of this debate. The Senate rules have preserved the right of unlimited debate because, as a deliberative body, we have an obligation to wait until all relevant information is available. In the case of Mr. Pryor's nomination, there are vitally important outstanding questions regarding his ethical fitness to serve. There was a bipartisan investigation that could have settled these questions once and for all. But in order to shield this nomination from legitimate questions, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee shut the investigation down. Then, in clear violation of the committee's rules, he pushed the nomination out of committee and onto the Senate floor. In the process, the chairman has not only allowed a cloud of suspicion to hang above Mr. Pryor's nomination, he has denied the Judiciary Committee the right to determine whether or not the nominee was forthright. Esteem for the Federal bench, and the Judiciary Committee, should prevent such questions from going unanswered. And I would hope that my colleagues would share that view. This is a body of rules. And this is a country of laws. I cannot imagine that there is ever a time that any one of us ought to be in a position to say the rules in this case are simply not going to apply. But that is precisely what was done by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee--ironically the committee which passes judgment on those who will interpret the rule of law. Members of the committee called attention to this extraordinary development with grave concern about its implications, about its precedent, about the message it sends. After assurances by the majority leader that this would not occur, this nomination has nonetheless made it to the floor. We should not reward this disregard for the rules of the Senate by permitting the nomination to go forward. Amazingly, this is not the ugliest aspect of this debate. Because we have expressed our opposition to Mr. Pryor, Democrats have been accused of anti-Catholic bigotry. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. I am proud of my Catholic faith. That pride is shared by many members of our caucus. Many of us grew up listening to our parents or grandparents tell stories of seeing signs that said No Catholics Need Apply on storefront windows. In 1960, the Democratic nominee for President, John Kennedy, faced questions regarding whether a Catholic could be sufficiently independent of church doctrine in order to serve his country. John Kennedy put those questions to rest and a generation of Catholics have been able to serve their country without being forced to justify their loyalty or patriotism. This line of attack has resuscitated a profoundly un-American idea. The charge that our opposition to Mr. Pryor is rooted in bigotry is repugnant and divisive. This is an egregious misuse of religion for profane political purposes. All Americans should be offended by this charge and disappointed that the discourse has degraded to such an extent. These are slanderous charges, and they have no place in this body. Each time Democrats have risen to oppose cloture on a judicial nomination, the majority's attacks against us have grown more vehement and abrasive. We can't control that. But we can control our response. Each Member of the Senate has sworn an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution. That is precisely what we are doing today by opposing the nomination of William Pryor. No attack, no matter how offensive, will shake us from our duty.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Parity Act of 2003. This legislation is intended to provide additional and final compensation to the Lower Brule Sioux and Crow Creek Sioux Tribes for losses from the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program, commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act of 1944''. The Pick-Sloan Program inundated the fertile bottom land of the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Sioux Tribes, which greatly damaged the economy and cultural resources of the Tribe. Congress has provided compensation to several South Dakota Indian tribes, including Lower Brule and Crow Creek, that border the Missouri River. The compensation provided, however, has not been consistent in terms of either criteria, or methodology. Based on the methodology determined appropriate by the General Accounting Office and used by Congress to determine the compensation for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, new calculations have determined that Lower Brule is entitled to additional final compensation of $137,065,558 from the United States. The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe is entitled to additional compensation of $100,244,040. The legislation I am introducing will provide parity for the Lower Brule Sioux and Crow Creek Sioux Tribes. These two tribes are entitled to a final parity payment based upon this GAO-approved methodology. I look forward to moving ahead with this legislation for the benefit of the people of Lower Brule and Crow Creek. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today should be important to all Americans--Indians and non-Indians alike. The primary goal of the ``Indian Trust Payment Equity Act of 2003'' is to start a process for repaying the debt owed by the United States of America to Indian tribes and individual American Indians. For over one hundred years, the Department of Interior has managed a trust fund containing the proceeds of leasing of oil, gas, land and mineral rights on Indian land for the benefit of Indian people. 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. It is estimated that the trust fund may owe anywhere from $10 billion to over $100 billion to Indian tribes and Indian people. This is money that everyone agrees is rightfully theirs and desperately needed to address a host of human needs. There is little disagreement that the Interior Department's stewardship of the trust fund, through administrations of both political parties, has been a colossal failure. Rather than just continue the debate over how best to reorganize the Department of Interior, this legislation is intended to jumpstart the process of repayment by establishing an Equity Payment Trust Fund. The Indian Trust Payment Equity Act calls for appropriating $10 billion to the Trust Fund over five years, as $10 billion is an undeniably low estimate of what is owed by the United States. If an account holder accepts the results of a certified audit of their account, then the Equity Payment Trust Fund would provide for a partial payment until a full accounting is satisfied. Indian tribes would be able to voluntarily contract with the Secretary to assist in the audit process. This bill provides a means for tribes to assist individual allottees to obtain an accounting and a more prompt settlement than any proposal put forward to date. Treaties entered into by the United States constitute a significant element of the law of the land. Unfortunately, the Untied States has abridged its treaty obligations by grossly mismanaging the trust fund it holds as trustee for Indian tribes and people. It is a particularly sad story given the high level of human need that exists on Indian reservations throughout South Dakota and across the country. Last Friday, Senators McCain, Johnson and I introduced S. 1459, ``the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act Amendments Act of 2003.'' We were joined in this effort by Representatives Mark Udall and Nick Rahall who introduced the House companion measure, H.R. 2981, that same day. The Indian Trust Payment Equity Act of 2003 is intended to complement S. 1459 and create a multifaceted solution to the underlying problem of trust fund mismanagement. Restoring accountability and efficiency to trust management, and paying account holders what they are owed, is a matter of fundamental justice. And 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 Indian people. It is time to expedite the historical accounting of what is owed and deal with the trust management issue once and for all. This legislation makes a strong statement about the importance of completing the historical accounting and making payments to the tribes and individual Indian allottees who are waiting for what is rightfully theirs. They have waited long enough. I look forward to comments, suggestions and feedback from those interested in this issue and hope this bill can serve as a basis for serious discussion. I do believe this issue should be of interest and of importance to all Americans and, therefore, all members of Congress, as it addresses a debt and responsibility of the United States. I hope I can count on the support of my Senate colleagues for this effort to address the challenging and complex Indian trust reform issue.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Parity Act of 2003. This legislation is intended to provide additional and final compensation to the Lower Brule Sioux and Crow Creek Sioux Tribes for losses from the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program, commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act of 1944''. The Pick-Sloan Program inundated the fertile bottom land of the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Sioux Tribes, which greatly damaged the economy and cultural resources of the Tribe. Congress has provided compensation to several South Dakota Indian tribes, including Lower Brule and Crow Creek, that border the Missouri River. The compensation provided, however, has not been consistent in terms of either criteria, or methodology. Based on the methodology determined appropriate by the General Accounting Office and used by Congress to determine the compensation for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, new calculations have determined that Lower Brule is entitled to additional final compensation of $137,065,558 from the United States. The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe is entitled to additional compensation of $100,244,040. The legislation I am introducing will provide parity for the Lower Brule Sioux and Crow Creek Sioux Tribes. These two tribes are entitled to a final parity payment based upon this GAO-approved methodology. I look forward to moving ahead with this legislation for the benefit of the people of Lower Brule and Crow Creek. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today should be important to all Americans--Indians and non-Indians alike. The primary goal of the ``Indian Trust Payment Equity Act of 2003'' is to start a process for repaying the debt owed by the United States of America to Indian tribes and individual American Indians. For over one hundred years, the Department of Interior has managed a trust fund containing the proceeds of leasing of oil, gas, land and mineral rights on Indian land for the benefit of Indian people. 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. It is estimated that the trust fund may owe anywhere from $10 billion to over $100 billion to Indian tribes and Indian people. This is money that everyone agrees is rightfully theirs and desperately needed to address a host of human needs. There is little disagreement that the Interior Department's stewardship of the trust fund, through administrations of both political parties, has been a colossal failure. Rather than just continue the debate over how best to reorganize the Department of Interior, this legislation is intended to jumpstart the process of repayment by establishing an Equity Payment Trust Fund. The Indian Trust Payment Equity Act calls for appropriating $10 billion to the Trust Fund over five years, as $10 billion is an undeniably low estimate of what is owed by the United States. If an account holder accepts the results of a certified audit of their account, then the Equity Payment Trust Fund would provide for a partial payment until a full accounting is satisfied. Indian tribes would be able to voluntarily contract with the Secretary to assist in the audit process. This bill provides a means for tribes to assist individual allottees to obtain an accounting and a more prompt settlement than any proposal put forward to date. Treaties entered into by the United States constitute a significant element of the law of the land. Unfortunately, the Untied States has abridged its treaty obligations by grossly mismanaging the trust fund it holds as trustee for Indian tribes and people. It is a particularly sad story given the high level of human need that exists on Indian reservations throughout South Dakota and across the country. Last Friday, Senators McCain, Johnson and I introduced S. 1459, ``the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act Amendments Act of 2003.'' We were joined in this effort by Representatives Mark Udall and Nick Rahall who introduced the House companion measure, H.R. 2981, that same day. The Indian Trust Payment Equity Act of 2003 is intended to complement S. 1459 and create a multifaceted solution to the underlying problem of trust fund mismanagement. Restoring accountability and efficiency to trust management, and paying account holders what they are owed, is a matter of fundamental justice. And 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 Indian people. It is time to expedite the historical accounting of what is owed and deal with the trust management issue once and for all. This legislation makes a strong statement about the importance of completing the historical accounting and making payments to the tribes and individual Indian allottees who are waiting for what is rightfully theirs. They have waited long enough. I look forward to comments, suggestions and feedback from those interested in this issue and hope this bill can serve as a basis for serious discussion. I do believe this issue should be of interest and of importance to all Americans and, therefore, all members of Congress, as it addresses a debt and responsibility of the United States. I hope I can count on the support of my Senate colleagues for this effort to address the challenging and complex Indian trust reform issue.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use some of the allocated time on the nomination to make a comment. We have been debating the Energy bill for the last couple of days and, of course, for good reason; the distinguished majority leader has said he wants to move this legislation forward and that we ought to do all we can to find a way to resolve the many issues that are still pending on energy prior to the end of the week. I cannot think of a more counterproductive effort, a more counterproductive device, than to bring back a nomination that has already been before the Chamber six times. I certainly am not questioning the majority's motives. I do not question their desire to finish the Energy bill, but I do question the management of our time when I think with every bit of sincerity our Republican friends tell us they want to finish this bill. We are now in a quorum call in the middle of the day on a nomination that has already been before the Senate six separate times this year. Six times we have debated whether Miguel Estrada ought to be required to do what every nominee is required to do, which is answer the questions and fill out the job application. Six times, without equivocation, Senators said you do that and we will take another look at your nomination. Here we are now for the seventh time, in the middle of an energy debate that we are told by the majority must be done, debating once more this very issue. That is not all. Yesterday we debated Priscilla Owen, and I think that was for the third time. Tomorrow we may debate another nominee, William Pryor, for the first time. Who knows what could come on Friday. The majority needs to show us they are truly intent on working with us through these many important issues before they can convince us that they want to finish the job on energy. It is 1:25 and for the life of me I cannot understand why we are in the middle of a quorum call on a judicial nomination that has come before us on six other occasions. That is not good time management. It is not a good practice. It obviously has not generated much interest, and I think it is a huge waste of time. I only come again to express my disappointment and my puzzlement, my lack of ability to answer the question why is this happening now, when we have so much work to be done. I will make another prediction. This vote will not change. If we do it 18 more times, it will not change. So we can continue to waste our time or we can continue to find ways to work together to use our time a lot more effectively than we are using it now. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator yielding. I will not take a lot of time now.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct. I don't have the Internet reference in front of me.

Mr. DASCHLE. It is my understanding they are actually encouraging investors to trade in this terrorist probability or possibility. Their view is that somehow, by those who invest, in watching or monitoring those who invest, they can better determine where this terrorist attack may occur. What they don't fail to appreciate is that investors try to make good on their investments. So would it not stand to reason that once this investment was made and the market moved in the direction of assassinating a given leader, indeed, that would be the ultimate outcome?