Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the announcements regarding the schedule of the distinguished majority leader. I simply say that I think the debate on homeland security this week has been a good one. I credit the chairman, as well as our ranking member, Senator Byrd, for the vigorous debate we have had on a number of issues relating to homeland security. We still have a number of amendments left to be resolved today, and I expect it will take a good part of the day before we are able to finish. I can also appreciate the majority leader's desire to get as much work done prior to the August recess as possible, and his desire to move to other appropriations bills is understandable. However, I must say--and I have said privately and publicly--that his decision to wait until next week to begin and then finish the Energy bill leaves open the possibility that we will not finish, unless he is prepared to stay longer than next Friday. We have 382 amendments. That is about 77 amendments a day. I know some of those amendments will melt away, as oftentimes happens. But we have not seen the electricity title. I am told there are other portions of the bill that are being revised as we speak. Senators cannot even offer amendments to those portions of the bill because they have not seen the draft. So it presents some logistical as well as really substantive questions and problems that, unfortunately, complicate the schedule even more and the majority leader's understandable desire to finish. So I just warn my colleagues that, as much as I would like to see an Energy bill passed, we have a lot of concerns and some misgivings about the current bill. We hope we can address the renewable portfolio standard, the conservation issues, and a whole array of issues that have yet to be resolved. We have not been able to do that. So we are rolling the dice, in a way, and gambling, in a sense, that we can somehow accommodate all of these questions, all of this debate, and these very serious issues in a matter of a couple of days. I do not know how one does that. Obviously, it is certainly the majority leader's right to make these decisions so long as we all are aware of the challenges it presents and the complications to completion it would anticipate. I again warn my colleagues and certainly in a most sincere way express a desire to complete the work, but we have to have time to do that. We do not have, in my view, adequate time with that schedule to complete the work on the Energy bill, as much as we would like to do that. Child Tax Credit I also note the majority leader talked to another issue we have been discussing on and off for a long time. I believe it is 48 days since we made the effort initially to reinstate the tax credit that was eliminated when the tax bill was signed into law for those whose incomes fall below $26,000. There are 12 million children--200,000 children of military families--who were intentionally left out of the legislation the majority leader referenced a moment ago. That has troubled us. We have attempted on several occasions to reinstate that tax credit for those millions of families left out. We had a motion to proceed a couple of weeks ago, and we have indicated that we will continue to ask unanimous consent to ensure we have an opportunity, once more, to send as clear a message about the unfairness, the inequity, the extraordinary insult this represents to those families who are even, I would argue, more deserving of a tax credit than families with higher incomes. So far our efforts have been unsuccessful because of the opposition expressed by our colleagues on the other side. But we will continue every day to find a way to see if this matter can be resolved prior to the time we leave for the August recess. Unanimous Consent Request I again renew the request. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1434; that the bill be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. This is the Lincoln-Snowe child tax credit bill for those working Americans who will not get checks this week and which we have attempted to address now for several weeks.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the optimistic forecast of the distinguished assistant Republican leader. I will say, we have heard this now for some 48 days. The House leaves tomorrow, and they will have left without addressing this issue. So as checks are received for millions of families whose incomes exceed $26,000, all of those 12 million kids whose incomes are below $26,000 are going to be left empty-handed, in part because of objections, in part because of intransigence on the other side, in part simply because, by design, they were left out when this bill was written several months ago. It is unfortunate but, as I say, we will continue to draw this matter to the attention of our colleagues, continue to find a way to resolve this so that some measure of equity can be provided, especially with regard to families who need it the most. Mr. President, I know there are some Democratic Senators wishing to come to the Chamber soon to offer amendments. I understand we have morning business until 10 o'clock. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, since September 11, 2000, Congress has provided the President, our military, our intelligence agencies, and our Federal law enforcement officials with the resources and tools needed to hunt down members of al-Qaida and to break up their activities and the activities of other terrorist organizations. In addition to the regular appropriations bills that provide funding to our troops and our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, we have passed several supplemental appropriations bills totaling close to $100 billion to cover the unanticipated costs of these operations. Regrettably, the record is not as good when it comes to making our homeland and home towns more secure. Within weeks of the 9/11 tragedy, Senate Democrats, led by Senator Byrd, launched an effort to begin addressing the major gaps in our Nation's efforts to defend itself from future attacks. Senator Byrd proposed that we provide $15 billion for first responders and to address the vulnerabilities of our Nation's transportation system, chemical and nuclear facilities, public health system, and borders. Sadly, the administration adopted a view that we did not need additional resources for homeland defense. Hundreds of billions of additional resources for the Pentagon? The administration stated, and I agreed, that we must give our troops what they need to wage the war on terrorism. Billions in additional resources for intelligence? The administration stated, and I agreed, that we needed to strengthen our intelligence capabilities. Billions more for Federal law enforcement? The administration stated, and I agreed, that Federal law enforcement officials needed more resources to tackle the terrorist threat. But for some reason, in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the administration decided to draw the line on providing additional resources to protect America and Americans. In a November 28, 2001, letter to Senator Byrd, Tom Ridge, then the President's Homeland Security Director, said, ``No additional resources to protect the homeland beyond what the President has already requested are needed at this time.'' No additional resources were needed beyond what the President requested before the 9/11 tragedy had exposed to America and the world how vulnerable we were to terrorist attack. And what has happened since then? Study after study has affirmed this country's vulnerability to terrorist attack and the need for additional resources. According to America--Still Unprepared, Still In Danger, a bipartisan study by former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart published in October, 2002, ``America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack.'' Our newspapers are filled almost daily with reports about the vulnerability of various aspects of our economy, our infrastructure, and our communities to terrorist attacks. In a follow-up report entitled ``Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared,'' the authors concluded, ``Nearly two years after 9/11, the United States is drastically underfunding local emergency responders and remains dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil.'' In the words of Warren Rudman, former Republican Senator and one of the principal authors, ``There isn't a place in America today, that if we had a nuclear, biological, or a chemical attack, that the fire and police departments could respond to it and survive the response.'' Only a small percentage of the 21,000 containers that arrive in our ports every day are inspected. Little has been done to enhance the security of our Nation's 103 nuclear plants and scores of chemical facilities, despite the fact that many of them are located near populated areas. According to the EPA, there are 123 chemical facilities in 24 States where an attack could expose more than 1 million people to highly toxic chemicals. Our rail lines carry more than 23 million passengers and 40 percent of the Nation's freight. Yet the administration has done very little to improve rail security. This is only a sample of the many challenges we must confront before we can look the American people in the eye and say we have done everything we can to make them and their families more secure. Time and again, Senate Democrats led by Senator Byrd have led the charge to begin addressing these vulnerabilities only to be rebuffed by the administration and Senate Republicans. By their words and their votes on this bill, Republicans have confirmed that the position espoused by Secretary Ridge in the days after 9/11 is a position they remain largely committed to today. On the bill before us, they defeated Democratic efforts to add resources for States and local communities to hire, equip, and train thousands of additional police, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians. They have opposed Democratic efforts to provide resources to hire, equip, and train more than 1,000 Border and Customs personnel to police our porous borders. They voted against Democratic attempts to hire 1,500 port security personnel to enhance port security. Republicans defeated a Democratic effort to provide funds to mass transit agencies and our railways. And they opposed a Democratic proposal to provide an assessment of the vulnerability of our nuclear and chemical plants to terrorist attack. Democrats will not give up in our attempts to protect the American people. We will return again and again in the days and months ahead to see that we provide the resources needed to make our homeland and our home towns more secure. Finally, before leaving the floor, I would like to say a few words about Senator Byrd's latest homeland security effort his amendment to help ensure that the homeland security funds we do appropriate are spent on the proper priorities and for the proper reasons. Hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars will be dedicated to homeland security in the coming years. The ethical standing of the Federal employees making these life-and-death decisions that affect the security of all Americans must be above reproach. Even the appearance of impropriety could be damaging. Yet news reports indicate at least four of Secretary Ridge's senior aides have left government service and are working as homeland security lobbyists trying to influence the decisions of their former colleagues. Trying to deliver millions of dollars in contracts to their new employers. Senator Byrd's important amendment merely says we should employ the same post-employment ethical standards to homeland security employees as we do to Senators and their senior staff. Based on the critical nature of their work, we should ask no less of these employees and I hope all of my colleagues join me in supporting Senator Byrd's amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The poet Archibald MacLeish was an ambulance driver in World War I. Years later, in a poem about soldiers lost in battle, he wrote: The young dead soldiers do not speak. Nevertheless, they are heard in the still houses. Who has not heard them? They have a silence that speaks for them at night and when the clock strikes. It is right, and it is important, that we stop every year at this moment to remember in silence the courage and sacrifice of Officer J.J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson. But it is not only at this moment, on this day, that we remember these fallen heroes. We remember Officer J.J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson every time we pass the Memorial Door and see that bronze plaque that bears their likenesses. We remember them whenever we see Capitol Police officers working double shifts to protect us. We remembered them yesterday, when we heard the awful news about the shooting at New York City Hall. Like the young soldiers in the poem, 5 years after that terrible Friday afternoon, J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson are still heard in this house--the people's House. We hear them in the conversations, the questions and the laughter of the schoolchildren and scout troops and all the others who visit this Capitol. Five years ago, we probably did not understand fully the risks the Capitol Police take every day when they put on their badges and come to work, but Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson understood. They knowingly risked their lives because they loved this building and what it represents, and they wanted others to be able to see their Government at work. We are not as innocent now as we were then. September 11 and the anthrax attacks made us all more aware that there are those who want to see the people's House closed, even destroyed. The fact that this Capitol remains open--that visitors can still walk these majestic halls and sit in these galleries--is a powerful symbol of America's commitment to democracy. It is a testimony to the skill and courage of the Capitol Police. And it is a daily, living tribute to Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. Today is a sad day for the members of the Capitol family, but it is not just with sadness that we remember our two fallen heroes. We also remember how much we liked and respected them. We remember how much J.J. Chestnut loved his garden, and how crazy John Gibson was about his Red Sox. We remember how proud they were of their work, and how deeply they both loved their families. Our hearts, and our prayers, go out today to their brothers and sisters in arms, the members of the Capitol Police, to the many friends they left behind, and especially, to their widows and children and, in Officer Chestnut's case, his grandchildren. We think of them often, as well. Their sacrifices, too, will never be forgotten. Officer J.J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson gave their lives to protect something that is sacred to all of us. In doing so, they surely saved the lives of countless others. They are heroes. Five years later, we remain in awe of their courage and sacrifice. And we are grateful to them beyond words. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I wish to inform Senators about the schedule. Since they pertain to amendments on our side, I will announce that the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, has an amendment. She indicates she will need about 15 minutes. Senator Corzine has an amendment which will require approximately the same amount of time. Then Senator Baucus has an amendment as well. We have about 45 minutes of time on our side. I assume there will be some time required on the managers' side. We expect that there will be three votes stacked at approximately 7:15 this evening. That may be the last business of the evening. But at least between now and then we will have debate on those three amendments. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to acknowledge the schedule the distinguished majority leader has enunciated and to respond to a couple of remarks he has made. I share his view that we ought to do all we can to address the question of energy policy in this country. I certainly recognize its priority as we consider all of the competing issues we have to address. I have indicated to him on several occasions that I was very concerned about the decision he has made to limit the amount of debate on the Energy bill to a matter of a couple of days. We will start on Monday and obviously the scheduled recess is to begin on Friday. We have a lot of amendments. If I recall, it is over 320 amendments pending. Frankly, I don't know how one can accommodate the amendments contemplated in that brief period of time. In the last Congress, we voted 88 to 11 to pass a comprehensive Energy bill, but it took 144 amendments and 8 weeks of floor debate to reach that accomplishment. We spent significantly less time debating the Energy bill this year. In total, we have spent about 9 days, with 24 amendments, and only 12 rollcall votes. We have not addressed the many issues remaining. I am told not 320 amendments but 382 amendments are currently pending, including a renewable portfolio standard to require utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by the year 2020. It was in the Senate bill last year but dropped in the conference. That is very critical to a number of Senators. I am told the electricity title is now the subject of a redraft. We have not had the opportunity even to see this title yet. I understand it is being drafted; it is going to be one of the most critical parts of the debate. The longer we go without having had the opportunity to see it, the more difficult it will be to address it ultimately when it is brought to the floor. It is an understatement to say electricity policy is complicated. All one has to do is look at the experience over the last few years in California to know how challenging and how complicated those issues involving electricity are. Last year's bill included a comprehensive framework to address global warming. The current bill eliminates those provisions. We think that also is a very important issue. There are many other issues, including hydroelectric dam relicensing, nuclear power subsidies, the Indian energy programs and policies that remain unresolved, and of course the energy tax package that passed out of the Finance Committee has yet to be included in the Energy bill. That is a lot of work to do in a matter of a couple of days. I hope we could take it up this week so we could be sure we can address all of these issues in a timely way, in a way that would accommodate a good and full debate. Even if we took up the Energy bill this week and spent the next 2 weeks debating it, we would still be approximately a month shorter in the overall consideration of the bill than we were last year. Last year, we spent 2 full months. We have spent a little more than a week debating the bill so far this year. We are far short from the time dedicated, devoted to the issue of energy policy last year. If we cut what remains of this month in half and limit the debate to a matter of a few days, I am very concerned about our ability to complete the work. I am very concerned about the ability to address in a meaningful way many of the outstanding issues that still remain. The distinguished majority leader also noted that he would hope that this Energy bill would add to the economic portfolio we have attempted to address this year. He mentioned the checks that will be going out later this week. I am still troubled--in fact, I would hope the whole Senate is troubled--by the fact that 6 million families with 12 million children were left out when this bill was signed into law. These families will not receive child care tax credit checks. We have attempted to come to the Senate on several occasions to address this inequity. On an overwhelming basis the Senate has committed to addressing the inequity. Yet our House colleagues and this administration have not engaged and have not weighed in on their behalf to allow this work to be completed. We will look for ways to address that particular issue this week, next week, whatever length of time it takes because it is inexcusable that we would literally carve out those who would benefit most. It could generate the most economic activity were they included as we had originally intended. That, too, is an issue of great concern. We have to be concerned about the economy. We have lost, now, 3 million jobs since this administration has taken office. We have to go all the way back to Herbert Hoover to find a time when any administration has lost jobs. In every administration since Herbert Hoover we have actually allowed the economy to grow to a net gain of jobs being realized. This is now the first time in some 70 years where that is not the case. Many believe that, in part, is a result of the horrendous fiscal policy we faced. We are facing indebtedness now in this fiscal year of some $400 billion. Take away Social Security and it is over $550 billion, and that fiscal policy alone has resulted in this devastating economic circumstance we are facing. We will have a lot of discussion, and there is a great deal of work to be done. First, on the economy; secondly, on fairness within the economy especially for those working families whose incomes were dramatically affected by the carveout, intentionally, of many of our Republican friends as they wrote the tax bill but on energy, as well. I hope we could begin sooner than next Monday so we could address these issues in a meaningful and constructive and bipartisan and comprehensive way. I will certainly talk to the majority leader about this more directly and personally as the occasions arise.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the assistant Democratic leader makes a very compelling argument. No one knows the management of the Senate floor better than he does. He is here every day, and he is right. You can't deal with 15 or 20 amendments a day, much less 70 or 80. I think it minimizes, in some ways it demeans the debate about energy policy in this country. To say about important issues such as the ones we have outlined again this morning on renewable fuels, on conservation, on nuclear energy, on electricity, on taxes, that we are going to have debates about those extraordinary policy questions and condense them somehow in a matter of a few hours as we debate energy policy that could affect us for the next generation--that is not the way to legislate, certainly not the way to manage an important bill such as this. These issues deserve attention. They deserve our careful consideration, and they will simply not have that if we wait until next week to address these issues. So, again, I thank the Senator for his calculations about the management of these amendments. I hope we could entertain this bill a lot sooner than next Monday to accommodate that very problem. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask that the order be reversed; Senator Biden be recognized first and then Senator Byrd second.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Byrd has once again laid before the Senate a critical challenge. The numbers he has cited are staggering, confirming what we all know too well: that the world has never known a pandemic greater than the AIDS pandemic. At the end of last year, there were nearly 43 million people living with HIV. Since January 1, there have been at least 15,000 new HIV infections daily, meaning that we can expect another 45 million infections by 2010. These numbers do not begin to tell the story of the suffering--that story I have seen in the faces of suffering mothers and fathers, daughters and sons throughout Africa and Central Asia. We simply must do more to stop this crisis. Given the enormity of this challenge, I regret that I cannot vote for Senator Byrd's amendment. The amendment would pay for this vital increase with a rescission in other defense programs. Just as I have objected to the President's cuts in other vital global health programs to fund the limited AIDS funding increase in his budget, I must vote against this important amendment. But this will not be the last word. As soon as we can--on the Labor appropriations bill or on the foreign operations appropriations bill--I will work with my colleagues to provide new money for this vital fight. New resources that will fund the promise we made earlier this year with the global AIDS authorization. New resources that will not come out of a bill that must fund our Armed Forces and other emerging threats. New resources that will help us get a leg up on this deadly pandemic. We must not--we will not--stand down in this battle.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Louisiana have 4 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DASCHLE. I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we have received word of four more reservists killed in Iraq and Kuwait over the past week. They are the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st reservists who have made the ultimate sacrifice during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and numerous others have been wounded. Four other reservists have died this year in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Their deaths offer a stark reminder of how our military functions today. A National Guard or Reserve member is more likely to serve on active duty than at any other time in our nation's history. In fact, reservists have been called to support every military operation since Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, whether it was peacekeeping in the Balkans, defending our Nation's airspace after the September 11th attacks, or neutralizing the Baathist regime in Iraq. These troops work hard to stay prepared for the time when their Nation calls, and they are eager to prove themselves when summoned to active duty. Nonetheless, we have been demanding more and more of them, and it's time that we as a Nation considered what we can give back. For that reason, a bipartisan group of us introduced legislation earlier this year to allow reservists to pay a premium and receive coverage from TRICARE, the military health program. I joined with the Senator, from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, Senator Clinton, Senator Leahy and Senator DeWine, to press for inclusion of a similar proposal in the Fiscal Year 2004 Defense Authorization bill. The outcome was a strong, bipartisan vote, 85-10, in favor of allowing reservists to buy into TRICARE. Today, we are asking the Senate to underscore our resolve to move forward on this issue. We are asking our fellow Senators to join in affirming the importance of the reserves to our national security and the necessity of a new TRICARE benefit to keep this force intact and improve its readiness. Some have argued that we would diminish the value of active-duty service by providing the same health benefit to part-time soldiers. In fact, we are requiring reservists to pay for a benefit that comes at no charge to active-duty troops and their families. Other have said we would be undermining recruiting and retention and quality of life programs. This argument fails the laugh test, as any Guard and Reserve recruiting officer will tell you. Still others say this is too costly. But when we rely so heavily on the Guard and Reserve to protect our national security, I question whether we can afford not to provide this benefit. CBO says the price tag would come to just over one-tenth of one percent of the President's proposed Fiscal Year 2004 defense budget. In return, we will take a major step toward ensuring the integrity of this force, by improving its medical readiness when called to active duty, by streamlining and accelerating the mobilization process, and by enhancing our military's ability to recruit and retain qualified personnel to reserve duty. Today, 40 percent of our reservists between the ages of 19-35--and that represents a pretty broad spectrum of reservists on active duty today--are uninsured. It is in our national security interest to make sure they have health insurance and do not have to go for long periods of time without being able to see a doctor or provide for the most basic health needs of themselves or their families. Today, more than 200,000 reservists are on active duty, having left behind families, careers, and their everyday lives to serve their Nation. Some may never come home. Our military relies on this force to protect our borders, our national interest, and our people. I think it is important once again the Senate go on record and send as clear a message as we can that we are not going to rest and we are not going to quit until they have the access they deserve to the health care program they so badly need. At this time, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. I wouldn't be calling for the vote at this point. I am just asking for the yeas and nays and for a vote later on.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from South Carolina for his great effort on this amendment and for his generous words. He speaks from experience--first, as a member of the Guard but then also as a member of the Armed Services Committee. I appreciate the work he has done in getting us to a point where we have a commitment from the administration that they will work with us. I hope we don't have to wait a year. But I recognize reality. I believe it is important to get a commitment regardless of how long it takes. The message we want to send today with this sense-of-the-Senate resolution is that there is strong bipartisan support for the concept that we ought to be able to allow the Guard and Reserve to access TRICARE as soon as possible so that in the very situation the Senator from South Carolina has noted--this recognition that they may be called to active duty not once but several times as they go in and out of their role as active guardsmen--they have the time to transition with the coverage and the peace of mind required as they commit themselves once again to their country. I hope we can get a strong bipartisan vote. I hope we recognize that, while this is not inexpensive, we estimate that one-tenth of 1 percent of the overall cost of the defense budget is a price worth paying for the commitment and the message that we send about our recognition of the important role the Guard and Reserve play today as they serve in Iraq and around the world. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise for a couple of minutes to compliment the distinguished Senator from Michigan for her very eloquent statement and for the leadership of the Senator from New Jersey, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Both Members have made their points very ably. I am grateful to both of them for their leadership in this effort. The real question is, How do we assert the facts in the most logical and the most bipartisan manner? As we have seen on so many other occasions, the only way to ensure that is done with a public review of the information provided and all of the facts available to us is through this independent approach. The Intelligence Committee has done an outstanding job. I commend them for their session, even this afternoon as we speak, looking into the facts as they are presented from those within the intelligence community. As Senator Rockefeller has noted on several occasions, they are constrained by their own understandable jurisdictional review and do not have the capacity to go beyond that jurisdictional review when issues involving other branches of the Government, other agencies of the executive branch, and certainly the White House itself, are involved. So this affords an opportunity to do the right thing, to give the American people the confidence they need that we understand now what the facts are, what the story is, and how we can ensure as we make these judgments we are doing so with the very best policy and goals in mind. I think this is a very worthy amendment. I think it ought to pass on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. I am hopeful we can do that this evening, and I am grateful to those who have committed to this amendment, and especially for the leadership of Senators Stabenow and Corzine. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I complement the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for her bill and her leadership on the issue of mentoring. She knows a great deal about foster care. I am grateful to her for the commitment she had made to the issue. Recent statistics have shown that 45 percent of those children who are in foster care are less likely to begin using drugs; 59 percent do better academically; 73 percent set and attain a higher life achievement goal. So there is a lot to be said for fostering. I believe the Foster Care Mentoring Act that she has now just introduced is meritorious and certainly deserves our support. I ask to be a cosponsor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I complement the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for her bill and her leadership on the issue of mentoring. She knows a great deal about foster care. I am grateful to her for the commitment she had made to the issue. Recent statistics have shown that 45 percent of those children who are in foster care are less likely to begin using drugs; 59 percent do better academically; 73 percent set and attain a higher life achievement goal. So there is a lot to be said for fostering. I believe the Foster Care Mentoring Act that she has now just introduced is meritorious and certainly deserves our support. I ask to be a cosponsor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Michigan for his thorough and thoughtful statement involving many of the questions that need to be asked and need to be answered. His recommendation to the Senate and to our country that there be a thorough investigation, a bipartisan investigation, where these questions can be answered and the information provided, in my view, is essential. We have become more and more confused over the course of the last several days with regard to the conflicting information provided by the administration on these and other key questions. We must find a way with which each of these questions can be clarified and for the administration to come forth with a clear acknowledgement of the need for this clarification is essential. The American people deserve a thorough, complete, open review of each and every one of these questions. The Intelligence Committee has begun its work, and I commend the distinguished ranking member for his efforts and his persistence in bringing it to this point. I think this has now gone beyond the matter of just intelligence, as the Senator from Michigan has pointed out with questions and the concerns he raised in his speech this morning. We will address these questions both legislatively and rhetorically over the course of the next several days. But I have very fundamental questions with regard to the bill itself. Others have raised them. Why is it that there is not one dime requested for the Iraqi operation in the Defense appropriations bill? Why is it that there is not one dime requested for the Defense Department's efforts in the war on terror? Not one dime. I am just baffled. It is sort of legislative never-never land for us to be involved in a war that we are already told by the Secretary of Defense--at least with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan--is costing this country $5 billion a month, and there is not $1 requested in this bill for that operation. How in the world can we be on the Senate floor talking about something as consequential as this--not only to us but to the world-- and not have a better appreciation of what the costs and implications and fiscal consequences are? So that, too, will be a matter that I hope will be the subject of great debate in the Senate Chamber. We admire the work done by our military. We are grateful for the extraordinary effort and sacrifice made by the Armed Forces. Many of our National Guard and Reserve personnel have been in that country now for over 6 months. The sacrifice and the extraordinary effort they have made on behalf of their country ought to be commended. But another question comes to mind as we consider that sacrifice: Why are we doing it alone? And why is it the administration continues to refuse to request additional resources, officially, from NATO? Why is it they are unwilling to ask the United Nations to urge its members to provide military force and civilian police? Why is that not a part of the administration position? We find ourselves in a very unusual set of circumstances. We are debating the single largest Defense appropriations bill in history but a bill that does not in any way reflect the cost of our presence and the effort being made at this very moment in Iraq or in Afghanistan or the war on terror. We know it is going to continue to cost this country billions of dollars each and every month, but we do not know why the administration refuses to ask others officially for help, especially NATO, and we certainly do not know the answers to the questions raised by the distinguished Senator from Michigan just moments ago. We must have those answers, and I hope during the course of this debate we can find mechanisms and subscribe to procedures that will ensure that the American people have all the facts. I yield the floor.