Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Each of the items that the Senator from Illinois has reported were on the Web site yesterday: When the first biological attack would occur in Israel, when the King of Jordan might be assassinated. Each of these were listed as possible investment opportunities. Of course, our distinguished colleagues--I cite them for their efforts, Senators Wyden and Dorgan--called attention to these particularly unusual investments, and they were pulled from the Web site once the fact that these were listed was made public.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, am I not recognized on leader time?

Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate that.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor in part to call to the attention of my colleagues an article which appeared in the New York Times this morning. The article is entitled ``Pentagon Prepares A Futures Market On Terror Attacks.'' The article reports that the Bush administration is prepared to spend $8 million on a program that actually encourages betting on the probability of future terrorist attacks. I am really amazed. This fits in that category: ``We are not making this up.'' You ask whether there are traders or traitors--T-R-A-D-E-R-S or T-R- A-I-T-O-R-S. As we understand it, even terrorists would be allowed to bet on the likelihood of future terrorist attacks. This program could provide an incentive, actually, to commit acts of terrorism. We are asking the administration this morning to renounce this plan to trade in death. The administration should issue a public apology, especially to the families of the victims of September 11. This is just wrong: The Pentagon calls its latest idea a new way of predicting events and part of its search for the ``broadest possible set of new ways to prevent terrorist attacks.'' I don't know how one can possibly use the marketplace for that purpose. The initiative, which is called the Policy Analysis Market, is to begin registering up to 1,000 traders on Friday. It is the latest in a series of projects advanced by DARPA, a Pentagon unit that has run into a great deal of controversy over other issues. But I must say, this is perhaps the most irresponsible, outrageous, and poorly thought out of anything I have heard the administration propose to date. For the life of me, I cannot believe anybody would seriously propose that we trade in death, that we set up a futures market on when, as the Web site proposed, the King of Jordan could be overthrown, when a leader would be assassinated, when a terrorist attack would occur. Most traders try to influence their investments. How long would it be before you saw traders investing in a way that would bring about the desired result? I hope the administration will explain what it is they had in mind, why they are doing this, why we are investing taxpayer dollars in the probability of future terrorist attacks.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois has exactly stated the fact. Policymarket.com can be called up on your Web site today. The Web site can be called up on the Internet and you can see for yourself.

Mr. DASCHLE. I sought recognition and the Chair recognized me.

Mr. DASCHLE. Responding to the Senator, I would simply say where do we limit this? What would prevent somebody from offering a futures market on terrorist acts within the United States on a leader of the United States? If these markets were available to leaders in the Middle East, countries in the Middle East, it doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to suggest that perhaps these new investment opportunities on terror for U.S. leaders, U.S. politicians, U.S. locations would be a big part of this market of death in a very short time. Once this is in the marketplace, as we say, there is no telling what the market may do. This policyanalysismarket.org is something I would encourage my colleagues to check out. It is the most amazing Web site I think I have seen in my life. I just cannot imagine that somebody seriously would propose something as outrageously irresponsible as this.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I answer the Senator from Illinois by saying yes, indeed, the same John Poindexter with the checkered past that we have known him to have is back again. This time policyanalysismarket.org apparently is one of the projects for which he is responsible. This new trade in death is something that I am told he is heading. I am anxious to get more information, of course, from the administration and others about how this individual as well as this Web site came to be. Just very quickly, this is the Web site the Senator from Illinois cited, the specific possibilities for investment: The King of Jordan overthrown, the price they suggest starts at just 23 cents on that one. Arafat assassinated, that is worth 23 cents as a possibility. The price range may be anywhere from 22 to 33 cents. They expect a volume of 2,333 investors. We can move to the second chart. This is the actual Web site from DARPA: King of Jordan overthrown, North Korea missile attack, Arafat assassinated. All of these are on the Web site. Whatever a prospective trader's interest in the web site, the involvement in this group prediction process should prove engaging and may prove profitable. This is one of the most intriguing parts of their assertion, that these actual investments in these incidences could actually prove to be profitable, as they consider investments in any one of these tragedies. I should say, investing in these incidences for purposes of profit.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. I actually thought it was a hoax. I could not believe that we would actually commit $8 million to create a Web site that would encourage investors to bet on futures involving terrorist attacks and public assassinations. For the life of me, I cannot believe that we would spend the money this administration has committed for that purpose. But, as you said, according to the article in the New York Times this morning, that is indeed what has happened. The Web site is up. I encourage my colleagues to check policyanalysismarket.org for themselves and consider what this remarkable development may mean for us in public policy and for the safety and security of our country as we consider its ramifications. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion be withdrawn.

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but I publicly express my appreciation to the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, who has some very strong concerns that she hopes to express once we get on the electricity title. She has several amendments. I have asked the distinguished manager if it would be his intention to allow the Senator from Washington to offer some of these amendments tonight. It is my understanding--and he can confirm this-- that he is prepared to allow the Senator from Washington to offer these amendments tonight. I know that the distinguished ranking member, the Senator from New Mexico, also has an amendment he is prepared to offer. So it is with that understanding that the ranking member and the Senator from Washington will have amendments, and that the Senator from Washington will be recognized to offer those amendments. We do not object now to moving to the electricity title and setting aside the amendments that have been pending.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I just wanted to respond briefly to the comments made by the distinguished majority leader. I, again, will publicly affirm what I have said to him privately-- that we are more than ready to grind out amendments and work through the many contentious issues. I listed them last night. He knows very well what those issues are. We have a very controversial electricity title that was redrafted. Once the bill was reported out of committee, for whatever reason, the majority decided they didn't like the electricity title and redrafted an entirely different electricity title that we had not seen until Friday. So we were not able to examine it for purposes of consideration of amendments and other issues until this weekend. But we also have the question of nuclear licensing, the conservation questions which we have talked about, the renewable portfolio standards, and a number of issues that hopefully we can address in addition to the electricity matter. The tax title has yet to come up. You can't slow walk a bill that has not been pending. And it has not been pending. We have urged our colleagues to bring the bill to the floor so we could walk through these issues one by one and address them constructively. For good reason, yesterday we were not able to come to the bill, in part because the two managers, out of necessity, had to be in New Mexico. So we are prepared to deal with the Durbin amendment and then the Levin amendment. I know the Campbell amendment is pending after that. If we could dispose of that, there is no reason whatsoever we could not go to the electricity title and begin debating that and consider amendments to the electricity title. So I will certainly again offer my cooperation to the distinguished majority leader in an effort to begin addressing these issues. But I wish it were the beginning of this work period rather than the end. I would feel a lot more confident about our ability to complete our work. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I might respond quickly to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, I simply say that however he wants to address the Campbell amendment managerially is his decision. I think it is important to dispose of it. You have plenty of options. Even though we have a finite list of amendments, you can easily bring it back if it is in other forms and address it later on to clear the path, if you wish, to bring up the electricity title. So whether or not there are objections to setting it aside should not be an impediment. There ought to be ways in which to address it, and I know he will find one. Again, I will work with him to see if that can be done.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, just to clarify, because I think this is an important scheduling to note, if I could ask the distinguished Senator from Alabama, under this unanimous consent request, it would then appear that there would be a vote on the Owen nomination at 12:15 but that votes on the two pending CAFE amendments, the Durbin amendment and the Levin amendment, could occur prior to 11:15, which is when we are scheduled to debate the Owen nomination; is that correct?

Mr. DASCHLE. That is my understanding, that we will have a vote at 12:15 on the Owen nomination and Senators should be advised there could be one vote, perhaps two votes, prior to 11:15 on the two amendments offered by the Senators from Illinois and Michigan having to do with the CAFE standards. I thank the Senator for his answer.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of this resolution. As the distinguished Senator from Alabama noted, this was introduced today by the two Senators from Indiana and by the two leaders. We express our heartfelt condolences to the family of Vance Hartke. I was one who admired his work, his leadership. While I did not have the opportunity to serve directly with him, his legacy remains today in the many ways he affected public policy during his 18 years in the Senate. He will be missed. We are grateful for his service.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to touch on a couple of matters prior to the time we adjourn for the day. I have come to the floor now on several occasions to talk about the concern I have with regard to the schedule for the consideration of energy. We have a mere 3 or 4 days left before the August recess is supposed to begin. As we debated the Energy bill last year, I can recall so vividly how frustrated many of us were with the length of time it took to work through the many very controversial issues. Energy is controversial. At the end of the day, we, in spite of our frustration, passed a bill that ultimately acquired 88 votes. The vote was 88 to 11. Because we were persistent and because we stayed on the legislation, we were able to complete our work and ultimately get a strong bipartisan vote--88 votes. That vote came after 24 days of debate, over the course of 8 weeks. We considered 144 amendments. At the end of that period of time, people felt as if they had their say. They had been able to offer their amendments. They expressed themselves and ultimately voted for the bill by an overwhelming margin. Unfortunately, so far, we have not been able to allow the Senate to work its will in that way with the pending energy legislation. We have been on it 12 days. We have only had 12 rollcall votes. So we have averaged one rollcall vote per day. We have considered 35 amendments, but, as I say, only 12 of those actually required rollcall votes. So we find ourselves now, at the end of the first day of the final week before the August recess, where we only saw the new electricity title on Friday--Friday night. I must say, that amendment alone--the electricity title--with all of its extraordinary geographical repercussions, poses very serious challenges to the Senate as we try to resolve the differences. So we have an electricity title that, I assume, could be laid down tomorrow. There will be amendments offered to the new electricity title because we know that, on a bipartisan basis, there is still a great deal of concern about it. We have not dealt with global warming. That, too, is going to generate controversy and amendments. There are also the issues of the Renewable Portfolio Standard, CAFE standards, hydroelectric dam relicensing, Indian energy, nuclear subsidies, and natural gas. In my part of the country, in South Dakota, natural gas alone warrants all the attention of the Senate to absolutely assure that we somehow can acquire available supply and stabilize price. There are also energy efficiency incentives, wind energy, carbon sequestration, exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf and, of course, the energy tax package. All of those issues have yet to be resolved. That was why on the last day prior to the July 4 recess I came to the floor to say if we are going to finish this bill, we better return to the legislation almost as soon as we come back because it will take that amount of time to accommodate the legitimate debates that must be a part of consideration of this comprehensive bill. Well, that has not happened. Now we find ourselves in the last week before the August recess with, I am told, over 380 amendments pending. Somehow there is an expectation that we can finish. I can hear, perhaps, the charge at the end of the week that, well, the Democrats just didn't want to finish the bill. Opponents just didn't want to deal with it. So they were dragging it out. I must again insist that there is no desire to drag this out. There are many very deeply held feelings about many of these issues because they affect the pocketbook and ultimately the very security of a vast number of people in this country whose reliance upon energy is perhaps as consequential as their reliance on food or anything else. It is a commodity that we must have. So, clearly, we want to resolve these issues. But we are not going to be jammed. We are certainly not going to treat lightly or minimize the consequences and the extraordinary importance of these issues as we continue this debate. I told the distinguished majority leader a few hours ago that I was in favor of grinding this out, trying to find as many ways to take up these issues and deal with them as we can. But nobody should be surprised if, at the end of the week, given the complexity and importance of these issues, that we have not completed our work. One of the reasons we have not completed our work, so far, is because we have had some other issues that have been the focus of attention in the Senate. One of those was the supplemental that passed. I want to comment on that briefly as well. On July 8, President Bush proposed a supplemental for $1.9 billion that consisted of three very critical parts: $1.55 billion for FEMA disaster assistance; $289 million for Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to cover the costs of fighting wildfires all over this country; and $50 million for NASA's investigation of the Challenger disaster. The Appropriations Committee supported the President's request, but they added one more thing. On a bipartisan basis, and with the approval and support of the White House, they added an additional $100 million to head off a looming funding crisis that would force AmeriCorps to cut from its rolls 15,000 volunteers. The committee's decision to add AmeriCorps' funding to the package was affirmed on the floor by a vote of 77 to 21 to defeat an amendment to strip out AmeriCorps' funding, and then by a vote of 85 to 7 to support final passage of the underlying legislation. So we went into conference with our colleagues in the House with every expectation--given the President's support, given the overwhelming bipartisan vote on AmeriCorps and these other key issues, but most importantly, given the urgency that is evident to anybody who knows the circumstances--that before the House adjourned, we would have voted on all four of those components. Instead, for reasons I can only begin to imagine, the House Republican leadership cut nearly $600 million from the President's request for FEMA disaster assistance. The result is that with that cut, we are told today that disaster assistance funds could run out before we come back in September. You are going to have States all over this country needing disaster aid, and it will not be available because those funds were eliminated. They also eliminated all the money that we need to fight wildfires. We have a fire that has now consumed over 2,500 acres just on the Wyoming side of the South Dakota border. To my knowledge, it still burns out of control. As a result of the funding cut, we may not have adequate funding to fight the fires that we know will occur in August, and perhaps in September, as a result of the elimination of this $289 million. The money will not be there. And then, of course, the money for AmeriCorps was eliminated as well. Hundreds of worthy programs, serving tens of thousands of Americans, are going to be terminated because the AmeriCorps volunteers will be without funding. Mr. President, the state of affairs, and the reasons for the actions taken in the House, are simply unacceptable. We have to find a way this week to resolve these outstanding questions. I do not know what could be more important than ensuring that as these fires burn out of control, we are going to get the necessary resources to the Federal agencies so they can get needed resources to the sites of the disaster. That is true of FEMA. It is true of AmeriCorps. And, I must say, I am troubled with the message it sends about Challenger. It ought to be true of our commitment to find ultimately a successful conclusion to the NASA investigation of Challenger as well. Mr. President, I did not hear his remarks on the Senate floor, but the distinguished Chair of the Appropriations Committee expressed himself very clearly this afternoon, and it is my desire to work with him and others to see that we find a way to resolve this issue successfully. We cannot leave this week with the extraordinary message we would be sending to the entire country about FEMA, about forest fires, about the Challenger disaster, and about AmeriCorps. We have to find a bipartisan solution, just as we did earlier this month, to address those matters prior to the time we leave. The majority leader has noted that he feels so strongly about the Energy bill that we should not leave before we finish the Energy bill. I will say, we should not leave before we have resolved this crisis in funding for these four agencies. I hope on a bipartisan basis we can say that, we could reassert ourselves, or we could assure that somehow this matter can be resolved. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on July 27, 1953, our country signed an armistice agreement that ended the Korean War after 3 years of devastating combat. Yesterday marked the 50th anniversary of the war's end. Today I rise to honor the courage and sacrifice of the military veterans who fought this war and to proclaim that our country has not forgotten their service. More than 1.8 million Americans fought on the front lines of our battle to defend freedom and democracy on the Korean Peninsula. They joined with allies from 21 different nations to ensure that the people of South Korea would not be ruled by the tyranny and oppression of communism. More than 36,500 soldiers committed the ultimate sacrifice in this effort, and another 103,000 Americans were wounded in some of the bloodiest and most traumatic fighting the world has ever seen. Currently, around 12,000 veterans of the conflict live in South Dakota. They are now among the elder statesmen of our country's long lineage of heroism, true role models to our youth and an inspiration to those service members now fighting around the world against terrorism and brutal dictatorship. On June 25, 1950, North Korean dictator Kim Il-Song sent 135,000 troops to invade South Korea. The international response was immediate, and President Truman sent troops to defend the South Koreans 2 days later. For more than 3 years, these troops fought to preserve the integrity of South Korea. But this conflict was not simply about protecting the sovereignty of one nation against the designs of its invader. Rather, the Korean War represented an epic struggle of two political ideologies: the democratic values of peace, freedom, and self-determination against a communist system based on tyranny and violence. No less than the fate of the world was at stake on the hills and plains of the Korean peninsula. With some of the century's most infamous tyrants Mao and Stalin backing the North Koreans and the world's beacon of democracy fighting alongside the South Koreans, this conflict could not have had higher stakes. Consequently, we future generations of Americans are deeply indebted to the veterans of the Korean War; it is to them we owe the preservation of our very way of life. And yet, despite the significance of their achievement, these soldiers were never greeted with the type of homecoming befitting their heroism. A nation that, after World War II, was weary of war never fully grasped the enormity of the military's mission in Korea. Few returning troops were greeted with the ticker-tape parades and community celebrations that were common after World War II. The Korean War became the Forgotten War. As our country honors the 50th anniversary of the Korean War, I say to America's veterans of this war, you are forgotten no more. Your legacy is our nation's prosperity, our continuing commitment to liberty and democracy. Your legacy is a thriving, democratic nation of 40 million souls on the southern half of the Korean Peninsula. With great personal sacrifice and tremendous dedication, you secured our future. And while we sometimes take our way of life for granted, the veterans of the Korean War remind us that, as their Korean War Commemoration Flag proclaims, ``Freedom is not free.'' Without the dedicated service and sacrifice of the soldiers we celebrate in this, the Year of the Korean Veteran, our nation would not be able to enjoy the freedom and prosperity that we too often take for granted. So, on behalf of later generations of veterans, like myself, and on behalf of all the citizens of South Dakota and all Americans, thank you for your lasting contribution to our nation's greatness. You, the veterans of the Korean War, are true American heroes, and we salute you.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today South Dakotans will welcome home the 109th Engineering Battalion of the South Dakota National Guard. This unit, headquartered in Sturgis, was among more than 20 Guard and Reserve units from my State called to active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. On March 23, it became the first South Dakota unit to enter Iraq, and was the only South Dakota unit to operate in Iraq during the early days of combat. Today, these soldiers and their achievements become a part of South Dakota's military heritage. Like those who served in the two world wars, in Korea, in Vietnam, and in numerous other places, this new generation has answered the call. They have offered to make every sacrifice, including life itself, to protect our freedom and security. We must never forget them or the honor with which they served. The 109th Engineering Battalion is a headquarters battalion of 39 members, responsible for the management of several other units in carrying out engineering missions. The 109th was a critical part of our Nation's efforts in Iraq, completing a wide variety of missions, from force protection, to mine clearing, to construction of the Cedar II Logistical Support Area. The unit managed the activities of the 68th Engineering Company, the 95th Firefighters, the 520th Firefighters, and the 562nd Firefighters. After being stationed in Kuwait during the month leading up to the conflict, the 109th moved to Tallil Air Base in southeastern Iraq, just outside of al Nasiriyah, where some of the war's most fierce fighting occurred. When the members of the 109th arrived at their destination, Logistical Support Area Adder on Tallil Air Base, they found an encampment that was quickly filling up with soldiers from the Army, Air Force, Marines, and from the British military. Force protection would be essential to guaranteeing these troops a swift victory over the stiffening opposition in the region. At LSA Adder, the 109th oversaw the preparation of the battlefield for combat, preparing fighting positions, constructing guard towers, building a 3-mile protection berm around the perimeter, establishing supply routes, and building two Patriot Missile launch sites. In addition, the 109th managed the establishment of critical life support structures for the camp, including a water well, nuclear-biological- chemical (NBC) decontamination sites, a major Convoy Support Center, latrines, showers, and roadways. I am proud to welcome home the members of the 109th Battalion and to commend them on a job well done. All of us know about the tremendous courage and commitment of the infantry soldiers and others who engage the enemy directly. But often we don't recognize the vital efforts of those units behind the scenes--units like the 109th that prepare the battlefield, provide medical care, establish life support services, and transport supplies. Their work ensures the success of our front-line troops and helps to hold casualties to a minimum. In 3 short weeks of fighting, the United States military was able to overthrow a tyrannical regime that had reigned in Iraq for 45 years and utterly vanquish its military, with very few casualties. Support units like the 109th were the backbone of this effort. The 109th Engineering Battalion participated in a mobilization with few precedents in South Dakota history. Nearly 2,000 Guard and Reserve troops were called to active duty in our State, by far the largest mobilization since World War II. At the time the fighting began, units from more than 20 communities had been called up, from Elk Point in the south to Lemmon in the north, from Watertown in the east to Spearfish in the west. Indeed, our State's mobilization rate ranked among the highest of all the States on a per capita basis. In addition to the service of the 109th, I want to acknowledge the sacrifices and dedication of the families who stayed home. They are the unsung heroes of any mobilization. They motivate and inspire those who are far from home, and they, too, deserve our gratitude. Today, I join these families and the State of South Dakota in celebrating the courage, dedication, and success of the members of the 109th Engineering Battalion, and I honor their participation in this historic event in our Nation's history. Welcome home. Thanks to all of you for your hard work, your sacrifice, and your noble commitment to this country and its ideals.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I once again join with Senators John McCain and Tim Johnson in introducing legislation that addresses the longstanding problem of mismanagement of assets held by the United States in trust for federally recognized Indian tribes and individual American Indians. Indian country has faced many challenges over the years. Few, however, have had more far-ranging ramifications on the lives of individual Native Americans, or been more vexing, than that of restoring integrity to trust fund management. For over 100 years, the Department of the Interior has administered 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, that trust fund may owe as much as $10 billion to as many as 500,000 Indians. To provide some perspective, the 16 tribes of the Great Plains in South Dakota, North Dakota, and Nebraska hold 10 million acres of trust lands representing over one-third of the tribal trust assets. Many enrolled members of the nine South Dakota tribes have individual trust accounts. There is little disagreement that current government administration of the trust fund is a failure. However, there is no consensus on how to reform it. Senators McCain, Johnson, and I believe that Congress should be more assertive in promoting a solution to the trust management problem and in ensuring that tribes and individual Indian account holders have a true voice in shaping that solution. That is why we have proposed legislation that would redesign the trust management process. Today, Senators McCain, Johnson, and I are introducing a revised version of S. 175, a trust reform proposal we introduced earlier this year. This bill incorporates feedback we received from interested stakeholders and responds to developments that have occurred since S. 175 was introduced. We are joined in this effort by Representatives Mark Udall and Nick Rahall who are introducing a companion measure in the House. I commend them for their commitment to correcting the trust management problem and value their leadership on this issue. This legislation lays out legislative standards that form the cornerstone of the United States of America's trust responsibility to Indian nations. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a historical accounting for all trust accounts, regardless of amount, and authorizes an Indian tribe to manage Indian trust funds or trust assets through contracts or compacts. The trust responsibility of the Secretary or the trust status of funds and assets is not terminated but a voluntary option of cobeneficiary management is allowed if a tribe chooses that option. A clear line of authority for trust management is established by elevating the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs to Deputy Secretary of Indian Affairs status. The special trustee's responsibilities are transferred to the Deputy Secretary, and the special trustee is terminated as intended in the 1994 act. Finally, a temporary congressional commission is created to review trust funds management by the Department of the Interior. Comprised of 12 members, it will review and assess Federal management of trust funds and provide recommendations relating to the administrative and management duties of the Department. It is our hope that this proposal will encourage more constructive dialog among the Congress, the Interior Department, and Indian country on the trust management problem and lead to a true consensus solution. With that goal in mind, the bill has been reviewed by representatives of the Great Plains tribes, the Native American Rights Fund, the National Congress of American Indians, the InterTribal Monitoring Association, and the tribes of Arizona. With respect to the Great Plains tribes, I would like to note that Mike Jandreau, chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, has been a particularly eloquent advocate and effective champion of trust reform. Mike and Cheyenne River Sioux tribal chairman, Harold Frazier, led very productive working sessions with tribal leaders from South Dakota, North Dakota, and Nebraska that both raised awareness of the importance of this issue and built support for the bill that is being introduced today. I commend the commitment and contribution of the participating Great Plains tribal leaders who have been an integral part of a public process that will not stop until the trust management problem is solved. The McCain-Daschle-Johnson bill is intended to contribute to this result. It should also be noted and understood that we are not addressing the Cobell litigation or settlement issues in this bill. Our focus is the broader trust responsibility of the Department of the Interior. The issues of trust reform and reorganization within the Bureau of Indian Affairs are nothing new to us here on Capitol Hill or in Indian country. Collectively, we have endured many efforts--some well intentioned and some clearly not--to fix, reform, adjust, improve, streamline, downsize, and even terminate the Bureau of Indian Affairs and its trust activities. These efforts have been pursued under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Unfortunately, they have rarely included meaningful involvement of tribal leadership or respected the Federal Government's treaty obligation to tribes. Restoring accountability and efficiency to trust management is a matter of fundamental justice. 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. I am deeply disappointed that this problem has not been solved to the satisfaction of tribal leaders by now. That fight is not over. An effective long-term solution to the trust problem must be based on government-to-government dialog. The McCain-Daschle-Johnson bill will not only provide the catalyst for meaningful tribal involvement in the search for solutions, it can also form the basis for true trust reform. I look forward to participating with tribal leaders, administration officials, and my congressional colleagues in pursuit of this essential objective.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I once again join with Senators John McCain and Tim Johnson in introducing legislation that addresses the longstanding problem of mismanagement of assets held by the United States in trust for federally recognized Indian tribes and individual American Indians. Indian country has faced many challenges over the years. Few, however, have had more far-ranging ramifications on the lives of individual Native Americans, or been more vexing, than that of restoring integrity to trust fund management. For over 100 years, the Department of the Interior has administered 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, that trust fund may owe as much as $10 billion to as many as 500,000 Indians. To provide some perspective, the 16 tribes of the Great Plains in South Dakota, North Dakota, and Nebraska hold 10 million acres of trust lands representing over one-third of the tribal trust assets. Many enrolled members of the nine South Dakota tribes have individual trust accounts. There is little disagreement that current government administration of the trust fund is a failure. However, there is no consensus on how to reform it. Senators McCain, Johnson, and I believe that Congress should be more assertive in promoting a solution to the trust management problem and in ensuring that tribes and individual Indian account holders have a true voice in shaping that solution. That is why we have proposed legislation that would redesign the trust management process. Today, Senators McCain, Johnson, and I are introducing a revised version of S. 175, a trust reform proposal we introduced earlier this year. This bill incorporates feedback we received from interested stakeholders and responds to developments that have occurred since S. 175 was introduced. We are joined in this effort by Representatives Mark Udall and Nick Rahall who are introducing a companion measure in the House. I commend them for their commitment to correcting the trust management problem and value their leadership on this issue. This legislation lays out legislative standards that form the cornerstone of the United States of America's trust responsibility to Indian nations. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a historical accounting for all trust accounts, regardless of amount, and authorizes an Indian tribe to manage Indian trust funds or trust assets through contracts or compacts. The trust responsibility of the Secretary or the trust status of funds and assets is not terminated but a voluntary option of cobeneficiary management is allowed if a tribe chooses that option. A clear line of authority for trust management is established by elevating the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs to Deputy Secretary of Indian Affairs status. The special trustee's responsibilities are transferred to the Deputy Secretary, and the special trustee is terminated as intended in the 1994 act. Finally, a temporary congressional commission is created to review trust funds management by the Department of the Interior. Comprised of 12 members, it will review and assess Federal management of trust funds and provide recommendations relating to the administrative and management duties of the Department. It is our hope that this proposal will encourage more constructive dialog among the Congress, the Interior Department, and Indian country on the trust management problem and lead to a true consensus solution. With that goal in mind, the bill has been reviewed by representatives of the Great Plains tribes, the Native American Rights Fund, the National Congress of American Indians, the InterTribal Monitoring Association, and the tribes of Arizona. With respect to the Great Plains tribes, I would like to note that Mike Jandreau, chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, has been a particularly eloquent advocate and effective champion of trust reform. Mike and Cheyenne River Sioux tribal chairman, Harold Frazier, led very productive working sessions with tribal leaders from South Dakota, North Dakota, and Nebraska that both raised awareness of the importance of this issue and built support for the bill that is being introduced today. I commend the commitment and contribution of the participating Great Plains tribal leaders who have been an integral part of a public process that will not stop until the trust management problem is solved. The McCain-Daschle-Johnson bill is intended to contribute to this result. It should also be noted and understood that we are not addressing the Cobell litigation or settlement issues in this bill. Our focus is the broader trust responsibility of the Department of the Interior. The issues of trust reform and reorganization within the Bureau of Indian Affairs are nothing new to us here on Capitol Hill or in Indian country. Collectively, we have endured many efforts--some well intentioned and some clearly not--to fix, reform, adjust, improve, streamline, downsize, and even terminate the Bureau of Indian Affairs and its trust activities. These efforts have been pursued under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Unfortunately, they have rarely included meaningful involvement of tribal leadership or respected the Federal Government's treaty obligation to tribes. Restoring accountability and efficiency to trust management is a matter of fundamental justice. 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. I am deeply disappointed that this problem has not been solved to the satisfaction of tribal leaders by now. That fight is not over. An effective long-term solution to the trust problem must be based on government-to-government dialog. The McCain-Daschle-Johnson bill will not only provide the catalyst for meaningful tribal involvement in the search for solutions, it can also form the basis for true trust reform. I look forward to participating with tribal leaders, administration officials, and my congressional colleagues in pursuit of this essential objective.