Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, during our spring recess, I had the opportunity to travel throughout my home State and visit with South Dakotans. These are proud days for South Dakota. Citizens are eager to welcome home hundreds of their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, who served so magnificently in Iraq. South Dakota boasts one of the highest proportions of service men and women in the country. We are proud of the job South Dakotans are doing to bring freedom to Iraq and security and stability to the Persian Gulf. But these are anxious days for South Dakota, as well. Jobs are hard to come by. The State's budget is under pressure. Meanwhile, the planting season has begun and farmers and the communities depending upon the land are hoping for some relief to the 5-year drought that continues to cause devastation. But amid all the concerns on the minds of South Dakota families, the most common and deeply felt, is the financial strain of skyrocketing health care costs and the fear that they may one day lose their health coverage altogether. Day after day, people know that they are one layoff, one bad crop, one accident, or one illness away from being totally unprotected. I met with veterans who are picking up a greater share of their health care costs, because cuts to their health benefits are causing longer waits and worse care. I met with self-employed people, small business owners and farmers, who buy their own insurance and as a result face premium costs as high as $20,000. I met with the families of National Guard members who just a few weeks ago were afraid that their loved ones might get hurt in the line of duty in Iraq. Today, they are worried that their husbands or wives will lose their health coverage when they return home. This is not a new problem. Health care costs were soaring during our last recession 10 years ago. But new financing structures and a good economy helped bring costs under control. People were working, business was booming, and employers were adding new and better benefits as they competed for the best workers. Today, the economy continues to struggle, jobs are scarce, and profits even scarcer. Businesses are trimming back benefits for their employees and pensioners. And each month brings a fresh round of layoffs, and with them, thousands more Americans without dependable health insurance. We have about 75,000 South Dakotans who are uninsured today. Of the uninsured South Dakotans, 60 percent have been uninsured for 2 years. Twenty-seven percent have been uninsured for 10 years or more. Some work for businesses that don't offer benefits. Some are self- employed family farmers who can't afford health insurance premiums even though they work in one of the most physically demanding and dangerous jobs there is. Health care is the most private of issues. But individuals' lack of coverage has broad and several public consequences. Because the uninsured are less likely to get preventative coverage, they are more likely to fall victim to more serious and more costly illnesses down the road. Communities lose good neighbors and productive workers. Sometime, the cost of care drives families into bankruptcy. And the cost of their coverage then gets passed on to the rest of us. This crisis is driving millions of Americans into poverty and poor health. And ever-higher numbers of uninsured people are driving the health care costs of every American higher and higher. This is a vicious cycle, destined to put good health care out of reach of everyone but the wealthy, and we need to stop it. I recently heard from Eugene and Karen Berg, who farm 500 acres of corn and soybeans in Emery, SD. Even though the Bergs pay more than $7,000 per year for health insurance, that only buys them catastrophic coverage--nothing for ordinary health expenses. They have a $10,000 deductible and they are responsible for one-fifth of all costs above that. Their insurance doesn't cover prescription drugs, and so the Bergs pay another $5,000 per year to cover the cost of medicine. They don't have dental insurance, and they cannot afford to visit the dentist. Eugene's doctor just told Eugene that an operation could fix his hearing. But because he cannot afford the cost and his insurance won't help him, he's resigned to living with only half his hearing. The Bergs decided to look for better, less expensive health coverage. They found a plan that looked promising, but when they applied, Eugene was rejected because he has diabetes and high blood pressure. The insurance company said it would accept his wife, but it wouldn't provide any coverage for her thyroid problem. Insurance companies, they learned, don't make money by covering the sick. Eugene is trying to appeal the insurance company's decision, but he is not hopeful. One way or the other, Eugene is thinking about dropping his current coverage because he can no longer afford the premiums. I recently heard from another family, Roger and Carrie Fischer, who are musicians living in Custer, SD. Their insurance company recently raised their premiums from $6,000 to $9,000 per year. They let their insurance lapse because they couldn't afford it. They, too, tried to find a different plan, but because Carrie had her leg amputated, no company would even give them a quote. Carrie's amputation requires a prosthesis to be fitted to her leg so she can walk, but she was told that a new one would cost $30,000. So she is making do with her old one as long as she can. Roger recently wrote me a letter. He said: If we were able, we'd surely like to be insured, but it's a choice between having light and heat and being insured. . . . Let's change things now. I cannot afford to wait any longer. Millions of Americans face the same challenges. They work hard, they take care of themselves, and they contribute to their communities. They try to put money aside for bad times. But they can't control when illness strikes. Nor can they control the finances of the insurers, who too often pass on the cost of their own financial mistakes to their customers. Last year, health insurance premiums increased by an average of 13 percent, three times faster than wages. The year before, premiums increased by 11 percent. Businesses trying to keep afloat during tough economic times are forcing their employees to shoulder more of the costs. But at this pace, the costs will double every 7 years. As the price of insurance increases, and as people lose their jobs in the current economy, more and more families are thrown onto the rolls of the insured. Over the past two years, 75 million Americans, nearly one in three, spent at least some time without insurance. Forty-one million lacked coverage for the entire year. Among them are 8.5 million children who are indeed being left behind. We can do better. This is a national problem and it demands national leadership to fix it. Medical research is producing miracles. And yet, Washington's neglect has allowed a crisis to emerge. Doctors and nurses are dedicating their lives to the care of their patients. And yet Washington cannot seem to dedicate any of its attention or its resources to helping Americans who are suffering. This is a critical moment in our Nation's history. As our attention turns back toward the troubles of our economy and the Americans who are struggling to work and raise families, I intend to do everything I can to keep the Senate's attention focused on the crisis in health care. Our citizens are asking for our leadership, and we have an obligation to answer their call. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the assistant Democratic leader for his excellent comments. He is absolutely right. Of all the priorities our country faces--as we look to the well-being of our youth, and as we look to the extraordinary challenges we face to remain competitive--our country cannot remain competitive if our youth do not have good health and access to health care in rural areas as well as in the inner cities. We can't stay competitive with businesses that have to expand costs by double or triple every 2 or 3 years. We have a financial crisis in health care today. It is a crisis that is being felt by thousands and thousands of people who were not affected the last time we addressed this issue. They had health insurance. But we can no longer afford to ignore it. We can no longer afford to postpone it. We can no longer afford to minimize the extraordinary impact this problem is having on society and our economy today. I appreciate very much the Senator's comments. I know he feels as deeply as I do and as our caucus does about the importance of putting this high on the priority list as we consider the legislative agenda for the remainder of this Congress. I yield the floor. 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, tomorrow marks a special milestone in the history of the Capitol: The 175th anniversary of the U.S. Capitol Police Department. Those of us who are privileged to work in the Capitol know, perhaps better than anyone, what a difficult and demanding job it is to protect the Capitol, and how extraordinarily well the men and women of the Capitol Police perform that job. We also know how dedicated they are to their duty. After September 11 and the anthrax attack on the Capitol itself, no one showed more courage, no one was showed more determination, and no one was more critical to ensuring that the ``People's House'' remained open to the people, than the members of the Capitol Police force. We, and all Americans, owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. Today, on the eve of the 175th anniversary of the department, we say ``thank you'' to Chief Gainer and all of the men and women of the Capitol Police. When we look at the highly trained, highly skilled professionals who protect the Capitol today, it is hard to imagine sometimes that the department is descended from such humble beginnings. The Capitol Police department traces its origins to 1801, when Congress moved from Philadelphia to Washington. At the time, the department had exactly one member, a watchman named John Goldin, who was not armed, had no power of arrest, and was paid an annual salary of $371.75. In 1827, the force was expanded for the first time, to four watchmen; two to work the day shift, one to work the night shift, and one to fill in as needed. One-hundred and seventy-five years ago tomorrow, on May 2, 1828, Congress passed a milestone piece of legislation titled, appropriately, ``the Act of May 2, 1828,'' bringing responsibility for policing the Capitol, for the first time, under the direction of the presiding officers of the House and Senate. This same law also empowered the Capitol watchmen with full law enforcement authority. It transformed a corps of watchmen into a police department. In 1854, the Capitol Police were armed for the first time with heavy hickory canes. In 1867, responsibility of the Capitol Police was transferred to the Sergeant of Arms in the House and Senate, where it remains today. In 1873, the U.S. Capitol Police Board was formed to oversee the department. At the beginning of the 20th century, the department had grown to 67 members. In 1909, the department expanded to just over 100 members; a move necessitated by the construction of the Russell Senate Office Building and the Cannon House Office building. This also marked the first time the authority of the Capitol Police stretched outside the Capitol building itself. In 1935, the Capitol Police Board, for the first time, set qualification standards for Capitol Police officers. In 1974, the first women officers joined the force. In 1981, the Capitol Police were authorized to protect Members and officers of Congress, and their families, anywhere in the United States. Since September 11, all Members of the House and Senate leadership have been required to have Capitol police protection whenever we travel, and throughout the day as we go outside the Capitol building. One happy result of that, for me, is that I have been able to show off my home State to a number of officers. And I am proud to say that a few of them now consider themselves almost honorary South Dakotans. From the beginning, protecting the Capitol has always carried the risk of personal injury, or worse. On 1814, during the War of 1812, the British set fire to the Capitol building. During the Civil War, the Capitol Police kept the ``People's House'' open to the public from sunrise to sunset, despite the fact that military troops were stationed around, and at times even in this building. Three times in the last century--in 1915, 1917, and 1983--bombs were exploded in the Capitol by groups seeking to advance political agendas. In 1954, four members of a Puerto Rican nationalist group entered the House gallery and fired more than 16 shots with .38 caliber pistols at the 243 Members who were then on the floor. Five Congress Members were injured. In response to each of these attacks, the Capitol Police Department strengthened its training procedures, and strengthened its ability to prevent and respond to such attacks. The fact that schoolchildren and other visitors can sit in the galleries today and watch their Government in action is a powerful symbol of America's commitment to democracy, and a testimony to the skill and courage of the Capitol Police. Given the risks, it seems almost miraculous that the department did not lose a single member in the line of duty until 1984, when Sergeant Christopher Eney was killed in a training exercise. And we all remember the terrible Friday afternoon, July 24, 1998, when Officer JJ Chestnut and Detective John Gibson were killed preventing a severely mentally ill man with a gun from entering the Capitol and killing others. We still honor and miss them today. Their deaths brought into sharp relief how difficult it is to protect ``the People's House'' and keep it open to the people at the same time. It is a complex balancing act that few other police departments in the world even attempt, and none performs better. On September 11 and during the anthrax attacks, the Capitol Police reacted with great courage and professionalism under circumstances few people could have imagined even a few years ago. Since then, the department has undergone an intensive process to be able to prevent, and respond to, the new threats posed by global terrorism. Capitol Police officers continue to work long days and long weeks in order to respond to the need for increased vigilance. It is not unusual to see an officer guarding a door to the Capitol when we arrive in the morning--and see that same officer, still on duty, when we leave at night. Without them, we could not do our jobs. And this Capitol could not keep its doors open to the more than 1 million people who visit it each year from across this Nation and the world. Over the years, many fine men and women have served on the Capitol Police Force--including my dear friend, the assistant minority leader, Harry Reid. As they prepare to celebrate 175 years of proud service to our Nation, we thank them all for their devotion to duty, their great skill and professionalism, and for their unyielding courage and sacrifice. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just say how disappointed I am at the decision made by our Republican colleagues. The distinguished chair of the Judiciary Committee made a comment that I may have misunderstood. I think he said there really is no difference between the Owen nomination and the Prado nomination with regard to Senate consideration. There is a huge difference. The Owen nomination, of course, came before the Judiciary Committee in the last Congress. Her nomination was defeated in the Judiciary Committee. It is rare, almost unheard of, for a defeated nominee to be brought back before the committee and then brought back before the Senate. There is a significant difference between the Owen nomination and the nomination of Edward Prado. Edward Prado was before the committee and now before the Senate in part because of his overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle, because he came before the committee, presented his qualifications and, as a result of those qualifications, was voted out unanimously. There is absolutely no reason to hold Mr. Prado hostage to other controversial nominees. If we wait until we resolve the Owen nomination, Mr. Prado will never be confirmed because I doubt that Ms. Owen will be confirmed. So that is a criterion I hope will be reconsidered by our colleagues on the other side. Again, let me express my disappointment and my hope that our colleagues will reconsider as we bring this unanimous consent request back to the floor at a later date. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I noted before, there are many concerns. This nominee was defeated before the Judiciary Committee in the last Congress, and for many good reasons. We will have the debate. There is no way that 10 hours will accommodate the debate that will be required on Ms. Owen.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I note we are now debating the Owen nomination. This morning we had a debate, as we have had over the last several days, on the Sutton nomination. There were those who supported Mr. Sutton. Many of us opposed him, we think for good reason. But there ought to be a recognition that, as we consider all of those nominees who come before the Judiciary Committee, there are those, of course, that will divide us but there are many that ought to unify us, that ought to bring us together in recognition of the importance of the record that has already been made with regard to judges these past 2\1/ 2\ years since this administration has come to office. In that time, the Senate has now confirmed 119 circuit and district judges. I am told that is a record in that period of time, that we have never confirmed that many judges over that period of time. But whether it is a record or not, arguably there are other times when we have been virtually as productive. We have only opposed two of those nominations. Judge Priscilla Owen was opposed before, and is opposed now. Judge Pickering, of course, in the committee was defeated 2 years ago. The only other nomination to come to the floor, as I said--the second one--is Judge Estrada, and that has to do with his lack of cooperation and his unwillingness to bring forward the documents that we think ought to be required if we are going to make a collective and a thoughtful judgment about his qualifications. There are others who have been considered in the committee that I have offered to the distinguished Republican leader, the majority leader, who could be brought up and passed in a very short period of time. One of those judges is Judge Edward Prado. Judge Prado happens to be in the same circuit as Judge Owen. Judge Owen is from the Fifth Circuit. So is Judge Prado. Judge Prado also happens to be Hispanic. There have been numerous statements on both sides of the aisle with regard to the importance of Hispanic nominees, nominees of any minority. Cases have been made for improving the diversity on the courts. It is in the interest of diversity and the interest of moving forward on those judges for whom there could be agreement that I wanted to come to the floor this afternoon and simply say: Let's take up those for which there is overwhelming agreement. As I noted, Judge Prado is one of those nominees. I intend to ask unanimous consent that we agree at least on this nominee and many others. We may continue to disagree on the Owen nomination, and we will get into the reasons in the course of the debate. But there is no reason to hold hostage those nominees for whom there is agreement. So I thought it would be appropriate for us to set aside the Owen debate for 3 hours this afternoon so that we can take up an Hispanic nominee who enjoys broad bipartisan support. I would guess if there were a rollcall on Mr. Prado this afternoon, it would pass, if not unanimously, virtually unanimously. We have a choice this afternoon. We have a choice of continuing this debate, this divisive debate on Priscilla Owen, which we may be forced to experience, or we could at least take a reprieve from that divisive debate and take up a qualified nominee, a Hispanic nominee on whom there is virtually no disagreement. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to Executive Calendar No. 105, the nomination of Edward C. Prado of Texas to be a U.S. Circuit Court Judge for the Fifth Circuit; that there be 3 hours of debate on the nomination equally divided between the chairman and ranking member; that at the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the Senate vote, without intervening action, on the confirmation of the nomination; that the motion to reconsider the Senate's action be laid upon the table; and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my time as leader to make a few comments regarding this nominee. Mr. President, I first want to commend the distinguished Senator from Iowa for his extraordinary work on this nomination. I watched him prior to the time we recessed a couple of weeks ago. His passion, his eloquence, and the power of his words were ones that I wish the rest of the country could have heard. I have no doubt he would have persuaded many had they heard him, as I did. He was back in the Chamber yesterday and again this morning. I thank him for that commitment and his extraordinary efforts to make sure that people understand the consequences of this decision and the great difficulty many of us have with this nomination. Let me also thank our distinguished ranking member for all his work, both in the committee and on the Senate floor, again, in opposition to this nomination. I have not seen the letter of Senator Dole, and I don't know that many of us have had the opportunity to talk to Senator Dole about it, but I will say this: Senator Harkin and Senator Dole were both very directly and successfully involved with the passage of the ADA some years ago. That legislation has been monumental in terms of the change it has meant for the rights of the disabled. The Americans with Disabilities Act passed in 1990. George Bush said at the time that ``as a result of its passage, every man, woman, and child with a disability can now pass through once closed doors into a bright new era of equality, independence, and freedom.'' Those were the words of President Bush when he signed this extraordinary legislation. But that legislation depends, of course, on interpretation, and interpretation depends upon the courts. What happens at the district and circuit court levels, not to mention the Supreme Court level, profoundly affects the words and, obviously, more important, the effect of the act as it is viewed today, 13 years later. I must say that we are considering a nominee today, to a lifetime position as a Federal judge, who has worked his entire career to roll back the progress of the ADA. Over the past several years, the courts have consistently acted to weaken and limit the important protections provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well, I might add, as the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Violence Against Women Act. Those doors to a bright new era, as President Bush once called them, are slowly being closed. Jeffrey Sutton is one of the most significant reasons why. He has spent years fighting aggressively to limit the legal protections of individuals who experience discrimination and restrict the authority of Congress to protect those who are most vulnerable to discrimination. Mr. Sutton was the lead attorney in the case of the University of Alabama v. Garrett. It has been discussed and noted on several occasions, of course, in the debate, but it bears repeating. In that case, he fought to limit, incredibly, the rights of a breast cancer survivor who was told by her employer, after she finished chemotherapy treatment, that she would have to quit, accept a limited demotion, or be fired solely because of her illness. He was the lead attorney in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents. In that case, he argued aggressively to limit the rights of Americans who experienced age discrimination. In both of these cases, Mr. Sutton acted as a private attorney, which means he chose to represent his clients. He didn't have to take those clients. No one forced him, saying, you have to go into court, regardless of your position, and you have to go make your defense, your arguments, as he did before the Court. In both cases, he argued aggressively that, despite clearly discriminatory actions, national legal protections were not only unnecessary; they were unconstitutional. In other cases, Mr. Sutton has fought to limit the protections under the Violence Against Women Act and to enable States to restrict access to health care for low-income children. He has made a career of fighting to weaken protections for some of America's most vulnerable citizens--the sick, the elderly, the disabled, battered women, and poor children. I don't know what ``compassionate conservatism'' is exactly, but I surely know this is not it. I must say, Mr. President, we will be casting a number of challenging and difficult votes as we consider the judiciary. Already we have confirmed 18 judges in this Congress. In the last Congress, we confirmed 100. I am dismayed that this nominee is before us today, given his record, given the implications of that record for his future decisions as a judge on such an important court. I am dismayed and concerned by its implications for all of the vulnerable people of this country, all of those who have already sacrificed, all of those who have hoped and dreamed that there could be a new day of freedom and independence for themselves as a result of the passage of this critical and monumental legislation just 13 years ago. I am dismayed that one person can be so effective in rolling back those protections and eliminating their access in dealing with their independence in such a crass and unfortunate way. Closing the door to those people, after waiting decades for them to reach this point of freedom and independence in our country today, is all the reason one needs to vote against this nomination. We will have many more nominees, many conservative nominees. Most, if not all, of the nominees who will come before us today will be conservative, and many will have the same Federalist mentality and philosophical approach that Mr. Sutton represents; but they will not be the opponents of those who seek independence, freedom, and equality as disabled people, as Mr. Sutton has done throughout his public career. I urge my colleagues, let us not retreat from the progress this country has achieved. Let us reject this nomination and protect the hard-won legal protections of America's most vulnerable citizens. Our only hope in doing so would be to reject this nomination, to speak out as loudly and clearly as we can that ADA is as important today, if not more important, than it was in 1990 when it passed, thanks to the leadership of Senator Harkin, the leadership of Senator Dole, the leadership of those who understood the importance of equality for everyone, especially those disabled, those who sought that same freedom we take for granted today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate this colloquy. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota did everything within his power to reach the bipartisan consensus required to achieve a budget last year. I give him great credit for the efforts he made, in so many ways, to reach across the aisle, to find that bipartisan consensus throughout the year. Unfortunately, we had very little response or help. When we came to the conclusion, finally, that perhaps the best thing to do would be to move a 2-year budget resolution, as he correctly noted, we did get a bipartisan consensus on that but not enough to reach the 60 votes. Unfortunately, had the Senator from Pennsylvania chosen to support that resolution, we would have had the necessary 60 votes and hopefully worked out the remaining differences with our House colleagues in spite of the chasm that existed between their proposal and ours. I appreciate very much the clarification made by the Senator from North Dakota. I again thank him for his efforts and the contribution he has made to this debate. I also thank him for his earlier presentation to the Senate. My only regret is that more people could not have had the opportunity to see it. I think it is very instructive. I am inclined, almost, to go through the charts once again just because they are so good and they have such a compelling message, but I will leave that to our distinguished manager on budget matters. I appreciate very much the presentation he has made. Mr. President, I come to the floor with sadness and with great regret at the position the Senate finds itself in today. I don't know that we have a clear indication whether the votes are there for this resolution. I hope we do not. But I assume our Republican friends would not come to the floor if they didn't have the votes. I am troubled by this resolution for a number of reasons. First, I am troubled by the obsession with tax cuts that appears to be so much a part of the motivation behind the construction of this resolution, an obsession with tax cuts that led the majority leader of the House a couple of days ago--I guess it was last week--to say: In the face of war, nothing is more important than cutting taxes. I have thought about that quote on so many occasions: In the face of war, nothing is more important than cutting taxes. I assume by that he meant nothing in terms of the commitment we make to our military, nothing in terms of the commitment we make to homeland security, nothing in terms of the commitment we make to education, to the needs of people at every level. So it is troubling to me, first, that this obsession with tax cuts articulated so succinctly by the House majority leader could be so much a part of this resolution. This obsession with tax cuts, as noted by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, will cause us to experience deficits and accumulated debt unprecedented in this country. We are told, as a result of this resolution, we will see unified deficits exceeding $300 billion. We anticipate under this resolution there will be a $1.95 trillion increase in the accumulated debt for the period 2002 through 2011. We began, 2 years ago in the 107th Congress, with a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion. We will now experience accumulated deficits of $1.95 trillion, leading us to a $7.6 trillion swing in our fiscal circumstances in just 24 months. That, too, is unprecedented. As the distinguished Senator from North Dakota noted, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, close to 40 percent of that swing is attributed to the tax cuts previously enacted or incorporated within this resolution. I don't know the degree to which we can calculate a direct connection between higher interest rates and the demise in our economy as a result of the fiscal problems we are likely to face if we adopt this resolution. But the deficits and the debt anticipated and actually outlined in this resolution present unprecedented and extraordinarily complex--in some ways, unimaginable--fiscal challenges as we look to the future over the next decade or so. I suppose some would argue that the tax cuts of this magnitude could generate an economic recovery that could bring about an improvement in both the deficit and debt projections and the economy. We will hear that argument, I am sure, throughout the day. But in a letter that addressed the President's economic stimulus package, 450 economists have said this package will not generate economic activity and will probably cause a loss of jobs. The CBO has actually reported that it is possible we could see a net decline in economic growth of just under 1 percent if the President's economic proposal, as it has been presented, goes into law. There is no economic stimulus involved here. The CBO says it. Most of the major mainstream economists say it. Therefore, we can't be motivated by any expectation that economic stimulus somehow drives the need for these tax cuts. On Wednesday, in the New York Times, there was an article coauthored by five public servants who, between them, helped pull our country out of four severe recessions in the last 30 years: former Secretary Robert Rubin, former Commerce Secretary Peter Peterson, former Senators Warren Rudman and Bob Kerrey, and former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker. This is what they had to say about the economic stimulus and the tax cuts incorporated in this particular resolution: Given the rapidly deteriorating long-term fiscal outlook, neither proposal is fiscally responsible. It is illogical to begin the journey back towards balanced budgets by enacting a tax cut that will only make the long-term outlook worse. Furthermore, the proposed tax cuts are not useful for short term fiscal stimulus, since only a small portion would take effect this year. Nor would they spur long-term economic growth. In fact, tax cuts financed by perpetual deficits will eventually slow the economy. . . . They lower future economic growth by reducing the level of national savings that can be devoted to productive investments. They raise interest rates higher than they would be otherwise. They raise interest payments on the national debt. They reduce the fiscal flexibility to deal with unexpected developments. If we forget these economic consequences, we risk creating an insupportable tax burden for the next generation. You can't be any more unequivocal, any more clear than that. Our best, most experienced minds in the country urge us, advise us, plead with us: Do not make this choice. Five percent of the tax cuts incorporated in the reconciliation package that we anticipate will be before us in a few weeks--5 percent of the total tax cuts assumed in this resolution will be realized this year: $61 billion, less than 1 half of 1 percent of our GDP. Yet what do the economists tell us? The economists tell us: First, if you are going to have an economic stimulus package, do it now. Make it immediate. Make it broad based. Make sure it is fiscally responsible. On those three counts, the tax cut legislation anticipated within this resolution all fail. So that leaves me with a third concern. The third concern is what it does to our national investment. This resolution assumes a $168 billion cut in domestic investments over the course of the next 10 years. That means there will be cuts in homeland security, cuts in education, cuts in law enforcement, cuts in health care for veterans, cuts in infrastructure--cuts in all of those specific needs that make this country stronger. I am troubled by that. I am troubled by the realization that, in part, I believe supporters of this resolution wish to reduce the flow of Federal funds to these investments for ideological rather than economic or fiscal purposes. So, Mr. President, this is a very difficult day for our country, a day when we will commit to deficits unlike we have ever seen before, a day when, as a result of those deficits, we are likely to see economic circumstances get worse, not better, a day when, by the admission of those who support this resolution, we can anticipate dramatic cuts in the investments in those areas for which there is great need. We have talked at length on the floor over the course of the last several months about homeland security and how badly our first responders need help and the importance of addressing the needs of the States as they confront their own immense fiscal challenges. We have talked about the need for providing additional funding for the No Child Left Behind Act, how critical it is that we find a way to bridge the shortfall between the expectations and the unfunded mandates incorporated within that bill, and the reality that funding for these programs does not just materialize unless we appropriate it. Serious problems with regard to law enforcement: As crime goes up, our investments in law enforcement, under this resolution, go down. Problems in Medicaid for the States: The shortfall has never been greater. And the health concerns that nursing homes and hospitals are experiencing, all through rural America in particular, are commensurate with the shortfall that we find in this resolution. So we can do better. While there are those who continue to talk about the budgets of last year, I think our focus now must be on the budget before us. And I think the first test legislation must pass before we support it ought to be: Do no harm. There is a lot of harm done in this resolution, and that is regrettable. I hope our colleagues will think very carefully prior to the time they cast their vote. I will be casting a vote in opposition to the resolution. I urge my colleagues to join me. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, today I join with my colleague, Senator Hagel, to urge adoption of a Senate concurrent resolution on behalf of our troops and their families. Specifically, the resolution encourages families of military personnel to display the Blue Star Service Banner, a tradition dating back to World War I. The Blue Star Service Banner indicates that a loved one is serving our country in the active duty military, and honors their devotion and sacrifice. The Blue Star Service Banner has its origins in World War I, when mothers of soldiers often sewed blue stars onto white flags by hand, in order to express their love, pride, and concern for their sons serving abroad. The practice was widespread throughout the two World Wars, coming to serve not only as a symbol of pride but also as a reminder to our Nation's citizens of their call to support the war effort. The flying flag urged civilians to remember their commitment to ration gas and food, to buy war bonds, or to work in the factories producing much- needed materials, all in support of the brave men who were placing their lives on the line in defense of our country. Today, as a new generation of brave men and women faces grave personal risk on the front lines of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, let us renew this time-honored tradition and again hoist flags in support of our troops. Let the families of these men and women display their love, pride, and concern for their loved ones, who have made such tremendous commitments to our country. And let these flags remind American citizens of the ways we can support our troops' efforts abroad: by expressing our gratitude, by making personal sacrifices through donations or volunteer efforts, and by continuing to demonstrate liberty and democracy to the world through vigorous debate and civic participation in the institutions that make our country great. Our Nation's active-duty military now consists of more than a million men and women, supported by even more families and households, and I introduce this bill today out of respect and solidarity with them all. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Tim Johnson, who is Congress' only ``Blue Star Parent.'' As you might imagine, given our relationship, I am particularly well acquainted with this family and their son, Brooks, a sergeant in the Army's 101st Airborne Division, now engaged in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Thank you, Barbara and Tim Johnson, and thank you, Brooks, for your contribution to our nation's security. As images of the conflict in Iraq fill up our television screens and newspapers, many Americans feel helpless and distant, and we long for a way to support our troops. The Blue Star Service Banner allows military families to demonstrate their support, their pride, and their concern for the young men and women who serve our nation with such dedication. I urge you to support the passage of this important resolution and to join with me in calling upon the military families among your constituents to fly the Blue Star flag high and proudly.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate is about to vote on the nomination of Ross Swimmer for Special Trustee for American Indians. Trust reform is a critical issue for the Native American community nationwide, and the Special Trustee is the official responsible for directing the Department of the Interior's efforts to correct this longstanding problem and provide sound fiduciary services to trust beneficiaries. This nomination and vote will affect the prospects for success of this critical reform effort. I think it is extremely important for the full Senate to reflect on two central facts about the trust debate as they consider Mr. Swimmer's nomination. First, for generations, residents of Indian Country have been victimized by persistent mismanagement of trust assets by the Federal Government. Far too many families for far too long have been denied trust assets to which they are entitled because of this mismanagement. And this situation has adversely affected their quality of life. Second, frustration with the Federal Government's failure to come to grips with this problem has not only led to litigation (Cobell v. Norton), it has also solidified the tribes' determination to contribute to the development of a workable solution to the problem. Effective trust management reform will remain an elusive goal if the tribes are not full participants in this exercise. The tribes understand that the Special Trustee for American Indians must be their ally in the search for a solution, not an independent actor balancing other agendas. In the past months, leaders of South Dakota's nine tribes have expressed to me their concerns about the administration's desire to entrust Ross Swimmer with this influential role. The bottom line is that trust beneficiaries deserve a Special Trustee in whom they can have confidence to restore sound accounting principles and integrity to the Federal Government's management of trust assets. There is a critical need to elevate the Indian trust issue to higher levels within the administration. The current state of Indian trust management is a debacle and has come to be known as the ``Enron of Indian Country.'' We need an individual who is able to tackle this issue with the interested stakeholders. I agree with South Dakota tribal leaders and the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen's Association that Ross Swimmer is not the right man for this job. Ross Swimmer has had many responsibilities at the Department of the Interior. But, most significantly for this debate, over the past several years, he has been an integral part of the Department's disappointing effort to impose a trust management solution conceived by Federal bureaucrats without the full engagement and consent of Native American leadership. It is time to make sure that trust beneficiaries receive the assets to which they are entitled. We must not allow the bureaucracy to ``run out the clock'' in the hope that the courts will ``save the day'' by absolving the Government of its trust responsibility. To provide some perspective, the 16 tribes of the Great Plains in South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska own 10 million acres of land held in trust by the U.S. Government. These lands represent over one- third of the tribal trust assets. They have huge interests at stake in ensuring that the Special Trustee is committed to a fair resolution of the trust assets management controversy. I value and respect the judgment of South Dakota tribal people, their tribal leadership and the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen's Association on this important issue. Therefore, I cannot support Mr. Swimmer's nomination as Special Trustee for American Indians.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I join with a bipartisan group of colleagues from the Senate Guard Caucus to introduce the National Guard and Reserve Comprehensive Health Benefits Act of 2003. This bill will allow reservists and their families to receive health coverage through Tricare by paying a modest premium. These dedicated men and women deserve a better benefit package, given the dramatic expansion of their role within our military. Indeed, there is concern that the high rate of mobilizations--which no one expects to abate--will erode this force's ability to recruit and retain top-notch personnel. South Dakota Guard leaders tell me this bill would be perhaps the most powerful tool we could give them for recruiting and retention. By providing access to quality affordable health care for reservists and their families, this bill will also ensure that when they are mobilized, they are healthy and ready to go. As I stand before you today, nearly 2,000 members of South Dakota's Guard and Reserves are deployed throughout the world--from force- protection missions at home to assignments in Europe and the Persian Gulf. Most of these reservists will be mobilized for 6 months, and some will stay activated for up to 2 years. And while South Dakota has one of the highest per-capita mobilization rates in the country, it is not unique. As the U.S. role as an international leader evolves, the National Guard and Reserves are being called upon at unprecedented rates to bolster our Nation's defense. Indeed, since the 1991 gulf war, and particularly since the terrorists attacks of September 11, the demands on Reserve and Guard units have increased steadily. Not only are more reservists deployed more often, they are also activated for increasingly diverse tasks. Historically, this force has helped address a wide variety of social needs--from enforcing civil rights laws to fighting forest fires--and homeland defense is shaping us a major new duty that will require its sustained engagement. While the demands we place on reservists have grown markedly in the last decade, the Federal Government's commitment to this dedicated group of men and women has not kept pace. In fact, the basic pay and benefit structure that was established during the cold war--when reservists could see their entire career pass by without being activated--remains in place today. As a result, leaders of the National Guard and Reserves are increasingly worried about their ability to recruit and retain new members. The legislation we are introducing today takes a major step toward providing the men and women of our Reserve components with the support they need to carry out their new, vital role in the total force structure. It will offer Reserve and National Guard members the opportunity to participate for themselves and their family members in the same Tricare program available to active-duty service members and their families. Reservists and their families will share the cost of premium payments with the Department of Defense, with the same cost distribution as used in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. This program will help the National Guard and Reserves attract and keep the best and brightest men and women in the Nation. The National Guard Association of the United States reports that the average cost of a family health care plan through a civilian HMO is $7,541 per year. In contrast, it estimates that the Tricare cost per family is only $5,173 per year, even without the Government sharing any of the cost. With Government cost-sharing, this will be an attractively priced option for securing health coverage. Beyond recruitment and retention, this program will improve readiness. More than 20 percent of the Ready Reserve--and as much as 40 percent of young enlisted personnel--do not currently have health insurance. Providing access to quality health care during all phases of service can drastically reduce the occurrence of situations in which large portions of a unit are unable to deploy because of medical reasons. Maintaining a healthy force is absolutely essential to maintaining a prepared force. Our legislation will also reduce the incidence of problems that invariably occur during mobilization, when families leave their private-sector health plan and enter a wholly new plan, Tricare. Last month, I worked with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to end a nationwide problem among families of mobilized reservists. Simply put, they were being forced, unfairly and improperly, to join a more expensive Tricare plan. We did solve that problem, but many families had to wait weeks without knowing whether they should try to extend their private coverage or whether they could afford Tricare. That is simply unacceptable. It is the last thing a reservist should have to worry about when preparing, possibly, for deployment to a war zone. Another challenge for families going through mobilization is learning the Tricare benefit structure and understanding its system for helping those with problems or questions. Again, all this would be eliminated if families could enroll in Tricare before mobilization. If a family believes its employer's civilian plan is superior, they would be free to remain, and, during periods of mobilization, those premiums would be partially subsidized. We have developed this bill in consultation with leaders of the National Guard and Reserves at the State and National levels. I appreciate their concern for this problem and their work to help develop a solution. In this regard, I would particularly like to acknowledge the efforts and strong support of the South Dakota National Guard, as well as the Military Officers Association of America, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard, the National Guard Association of the United States, the Reserve Officers Association, the Marine Corps Reserve Officers Association, the National Military Family Association, the National Association for Uniformed Services, and the National Military/Veterans Association. I would like also to thank my cosponsors, Senator Leahy, Senator DeWine, and Senator Gordon Smith, for helping advance this project. Guaranteeing that all reservists have access to health care--either through civilian employers or Tricare--will ensure that this force is ready to fight at a moment's notice. The bill we are introducing today will not only improve the readiness of the current Reserve Force, but will pay dividends in the future by improving our ability to recruit and retain the best and brightest men and women for the National Guard and Reserves. The Senate has set aside time each day for the last 3 weeks to honor and support the dedicated service of our troops in Iraq. Surely we can agree that one of our high priorities should be to ensure that, as long as they continue their service to our country, they will always have access to high-quality affordable health care.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I join with a bipartisan group of colleagues from the Senate Guard Caucus to introduce the National Guard and Reserve Comprehensive Health Benefits Act of 2003. This bill will allow reservists and their families to receive health coverage through Tricare by paying a modest premium. These dedicated men and women deserve a better benefit package, given the dramatic expansion of their role within our military. Indeed, there is concern that the high rate of mobilizations--which no one expects to abate--will erode this force's ability to recruit and retain top-notch personnel. South Dakota Guard leaders tell me this bill would be perhaps the most powerful tool we could give them for recruiting and retention. By providing access to quality affordable health care for reservists and their families, this bill will also ensure that when they are mobilized, they are healthy and ready to go. As I stand before you today, nearly 2,000 members of South Dakota's Guard and Reserves are deployed throughout the world--from force- protection missions at home to assignments in Europe and the Persian Gulf. Most of these reservists will be mobilized for 6 months, and some will stay activated for up to 2 years. And while South Dakota has one of the highest per-capita mobilization rates in the country, it is not unique. As the U.S. role as an international leader evolves, the National Guard and Reserves are being called upon at unprecedented rates to bolster our Nation's defense. Indeed, since the 1991 gulf war, and particularly since the terrorists attacks of September 11, the demands on Reserve and Guard units have increased steadily. Not only are more reservists deployed more often, they are also activated for increasingly diverse tasks. Historically, this force has helped address a wide variety of social needs--from enforcing civil rights laws to fighting forest fires--and homeland defense is shaping us a major new duty that will require its sustained engagement. While the demands we place on reservists have grown markedly in the last decade, the Federal Government's commitment to this dedicated group of men and women has not kept pace. In fact, the basic pay and benefit structure that was established during the cold war--when reservists could see their entire career pass by without being activated--remains in place today. As a result, leaders of the National Guard and Reserves are increasingly worried about their ability to recruit and retain new members. The legislation we are introducing today takes a major step toward providing the men and women of our Reserve components with the support they need to carry out their new, vital role in the total force structure. It will offer Reserve and National Guard members the opportunity to participate for themselves and their family members in the same Tricare program available to active-duty service members and their families. Reservists and their families will share the cost of premium payments with the Department of Defense, with the same cost distribution as used in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. This program will help the National Guard and Reserves attract and keep the best and brightest men and women in the Nation. The National Guard Association of the United States reports that the average cost of a family health care plan through a civilian HMO is $7,541 per year. In contrast, it estimates that the Tricare cost per family is only $5,173 per year, even without the Government sharing any of the cost. With Government cost-sharing, this will be an attractively priced option for securing health coverage. Beyond recruitment and retention, this program will improve readiness. More than 20 percent of the Ready Reserve--and as much as 40 percent of young enlisted personnel--do not currently have health insurance. Providing access to quality health care during all phases of service can drastically reduce the occurrence of situations in which large portions of a unit are unable to deploy because of medical reasons. Maintaining a healthy force is absolutely essential to maintaining a prepared force. Our legislation will also reduce the incidence of problems that invariably occur during mobilization, when families leave their private-sector health plan and enter a wholly new plan, Tricare. Last month, I worked with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to end a nationwide problem among families of mobilized reservists. Simply put, they were being forced, unfairly and improperly, to join a more expensive Tricare plan. We did solve that problem, but many families had to wait weeks without knowing whether they should try to extend their private coverage or whether they could afford Tricare. That is simply unacceptable. It is the last thing a reservist should have to worry about when preparing, possibly, for deployment to a war zone. Another challenge for families going through mobilization is learning the Tricare benefit structure and understanding its system for helping those with problems or questions. Again, all this would be eliminated if families could enroll in Tricare before mobilization. If a family believes its employer's civilian plan is superior, they would be free to remain, and, during periods of mobilization, those premiums would be partially subsidized. We have developed this bill in consultation with leaders of the National Guard and Reserves at the State and National levels. I appreciate their concern for this problem and their work to help develop a solution. In this regard, I would particularly like to acknowledge the efforts and strong support of the South Dakota National Guard, as well as the Military Officers Association of America, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard, the National Guard Association of the United States, the Reserve Officers Association, the Marine Corps Reserve Officers Association, the National Military Family Association, the National Association for Uniformed Services, and the National Military/Veterans Association. I would like also to thank my cosponsors, Senator Leahy, Senator DeWine, and Senator Gordon Smith, for helping advance this project. Guaranteeing that all reservists have access to health care--either through civilian employers or Tricare--will ensure that this force is ready to fight at a moment's notice. The bill we are introducing today will not only improve the readiness of the current Reserve Force, but will pay dividends in the future by improving our ability to recruit and retain the best and brightest men and women for the National Guard and Reserves. The Senate has set aside time each day for the last 3 weeks to honor and support the dedicated service of our troops in Iraq. Surely we can agree that one of our high priorities should be to ensure that, as long as they continue their service to our country, they will always have access to high-quality affordable health care.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, this is an important day for Senate. As American service men and women risk their lives to relieve the suffering of an oppressed people in Iraq, the Senate is setting aside ideological differences to energize American compassion to relieve suffering here at home. Over the past few years, the country's economic troubles have carried a double sting for America's charities. While more Americans are in need, charitable donations have dropped as families feel the pinch of the economic downturn. As a result, many charities have had to cut back on the services they provide. That means fewer meals for the hungry, fewer beds for the homeless, fewer safe havens for battered wives and children. This legislation, the CARE Act, expands our Nation's capacity to respond to the needs of its citizens who need help. With its passage, the Senate adds the resources of the Federal Government to the commitment of our charities and faith-based organizations. This bill won't solve every problem in our cities and towns. But it will get meaningful aid to organizations and institutions that are equipped to help those who need help the most. It also creates real incentives to encourage giving and makes it easier for Americans to come to the aid of their fellow citizens. Our country has a history of pulling together to help the less fortunate, and the religious community and private charities are an integral part of these efforts. I am pleased that the Senate is helping carry that spirit forward by reaffirming the relationship between the Federal Government and our community and faith-based groups. I want to commend Senator Lieberman and Senator Santorum for their leadership on this legislation. Throughout their work, they have kept sight of two fundamental goals: First, increasing assistance to those organizations that lend a hand to those in need; and second crafting a bill that reflects the Senate's strong bipartisan support for America's charities. Today all their hard work is being rewarded. And the result will be community and faith-based groups that are better equipped to tackle the challenges facing our families and neighborhoods today. This legislation increases funding for social services block grants and maternity homes that help teen mothers get their lives back on the right track. It also creates new avenues for giving, by making it easier to transfer retirement savings into charitable gifts and by expanding the range of deductible donations. While we are forgoing a stronger relationship between the Federal Government and the faith community, we have been able to accomplish this goal without undermining basic constitutional protections. I was particularly pleased that Senators Santorum and Lieberman were able to eliminate some of the more divisive elements of the version that passed the House of Representatives. This compromise package will not privatize Federal social service programs, or pre-empt State and local civil rights laws. These are difficult and divisive issues. But American charities need help today. And by passing this legislation, the Senate sends a message that when our citizens are in need, we cannot hold aid hostage to endless ideological debate. Compassion is not a partisan issue. All Americans, indeed, all human being, are bound by a common commandment to pursue justice, love kindness, and seek mercy for the oppressed. It is a standard that should guide all our work. Today, with the passage of this bill, we move a little closer to embodying the spirit of these words, and ever closer to fulfilling our obligation to one another.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to take just a couple of minutes of my leader time to make a statement with regard to a very special young woman. Throughout America--especially in Native American communities-- Americans are grieving the loss in combat of Army PFC Lori Piestewa. But we are also feeling pride for Lori Piestewa's remarkable life. PFC Piestewa was a member of the Army mechanics unit that was ambushed by Iraqi soldiers on March 23. Her body, and the remains of eight other soldiers, were recovered last week from a hospital in southern Iraq when Special Forces stormed the hospital to rescue another member of the 507th Maintenance Company, PFC Jessica Lynch. Private Piestewa is the first Native American woman in the U.S. Armed Forces ever to die as a result of combat. She was 23 years old. She leaves behind two small children--a 4-year- old son and a 3-year-old daughter. . . . She also leaves behind a broken-hearted but proud family--and countless friends. There are more than 12,000 Native Americans serving in our military today--including many from my State of South Dakota. They and Private Piestewa are part of a noble tradition that too few Americans know much about. It is a tradition that includes heroes like the ``Code Talkers'' of World War II--the service members from the Lakota, Navajo and other Indian nations who developed the only military code that was never broken by the Japanese. The Code Talkers were key to U.S. victories throughout the Pacific theater. Their service helped turn the tide of the war--and saved untold numbers of American lives. Today, Private Piestewa takes her place alongside them as an American who risked everything to protect her land and her people. Over the weekend, memorials began to appear all over the reservation near Tuba City, AZ, where Private Piestewa grew up and where her family still lives. At one of the memorials, someone left a group of red, white, and blue balloons. Included in the bunch was one green balloon, the team color for Tuba City High School, where Lori Piestewa had been a softball star and a junior ROTC commander. On May 24, Private Piestewa will be honored at another memorial. Red rose petals will be place in her honor in the reflecting pool of the Women in Military Service for American Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery. When I heard about the memorials to Private Piestewa, I thought of another cemetery--at Wounded Knee, on the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota. I remember the first time I visited it. As I walked toward the cemetery, I was surprised to see little American flags dotting many of the graves. When I got close enough to read the headstones, I could see that many of the people there were veterans. Some--like Private Piestewa--had died in the service. Others had died years after they took off the uniform. But they wanted it recorded on their graves: This person loved this Nation. I have never seen a more profound expression of American patriotism. The thoughts and prayers of our Nation are with the family and friends of PFC Lori Piestewa. She was an American hero. We are deeply grateful to her for her service and sacrifice--and to all Native Americans who are serving, and have served, our Nation in uniform. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the full attention of the Senate is focused today on legislation to fund our ongoing military campaign in Iraq. The newspapers this morning were focused on our latest military feats, including the apparent destruction of two important Republican Guard divisions and advances that leave us very near the outskirts of Baghdad. Senator Bob Graham, the ranking member of our Veterans' Affairs Committee, has asked us to look ahead and begin planning for the future to ensure that our veterans receive the counseling, health care, and other services we know they will need after the last battles are fought. The Graham amendment, of which I am a proud cosponsor, would provide $375 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs so the VA can provide adequate care for returning troops. I cannot stress enough how vital this amendment is. During my career, I have been involved in dealing with the aftermath of two major wars, Vietnam and Operation Desert Storm. In both cases, there was enormous confusion, frustration, and pain--much of it unnecessary, in my view--because our government assumed that veterans would come back and pick up their lives where they left off before the war. It didn't work that way, and it probably never will. I learned this the hard way, from talking to hundreds of veterans about post-traumatic stress disorder, Agent Orange, readjustment counseling, and Gulf War illnesses. A fascinating literature review, published in 1996, found that war syndromes, many of them poorly understood, have been associated with armed conflicts at least since the Civil War. Today's amendment would prepare us to assist veterans from day 1, hopefully allowing us to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. It is not the complete answer, but it begins to move us in the right direction, by adjusting VA funding levels to reflect the number of veterans who will be returning from Iraq. The funding level in this amendment has a very logical basis. We know that about one-third of veterans from the 1991 Gulf War have been granted service-connected disability claims, which makes them eligible for VA health care. We can expect, at a minimum, a similar number of veterans to turn to the VA after the conflict. The number may well be even higher than in 1991, since our troops so far are experiencing more ground combat and higher casualties than in Operation Desert Storm. So if one-third of our returning troops seek VA compensation or health care, we can multiply that figure by the VA's average per-patient cost and arrive at an approximate dollar figure: $375 million, the amount requested in this amendment. Remarkably, the Administration claims the VA already has sufficient resources to accommodate returning veterans. To that surprising claim, I would respond that the VA's wait list in the upper Midwest now forces 23,000 veterans to wait at least 6 months for health treatment. For next year, the Administration has told us that it needs to charge veterans $250 million in new fees and higher copayments, not to raise money, but to drive away 1.2 million veterans from VA hospitals and clinics. Everyone except the White House is using the word ``crisis'' to describe the current state of affairs at the VA. Senator Graham has a recent newspaper article from Florida, in which VA Secretary Anthony Principi reportedly claims that the VA can take care of returning troops because it blocked access to VA health care for thousands of middle-income veterans. But in January, when the regrettable eligibility decision was announced, the Secretary said this move was necessary just to begin working down the atrocious backlogs at VA hospitals and clinics. Sadly, this is all just another chapter of an old story with this administration. When it comes to the VA, their budget claims long ago ceased to be credible. The ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Graham, deserves our thanks for stepping into the leadership void and proposing a constructive solution. We are all proud of the spirit, valor, and selflessness exhibited by our troops. Now is the time to show our understanding, our recognition, of the personal cost associated with wartime service. I urge all senators to join this effort to prepare the VA to meet the needs of these men and women after they return home.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. We can offer it on his behalf.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``James F. Richardson Post Office Act of 2003.'' This measure would name the University Park Post Office in Charlotte, NC, after a man who has come to mean so much to the City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County and the State of North Carolina. His record of public service goes back 60 years. A Charlotte native, Jim Richardson graduated from Second War High School, the only high school in the area African Americans were allowed to attend. In a separate and unequal society he learned early on the importance of character and serving the public good. Our World War II veterans are said to be the greatest generation. As part of that generation Jim Richardson entered the United States Navy and served our country honorably in the South Pacific theater during World War II. It is with character and a deep and abiding hope for a better future that a man such as Jim Richardson fought for his country only to return to a society that did not afford all that was allowed them under the Constitution of the United States. After the war, Jim returned to Charlotte and entered Johnson C. Smith University. He graduated with a degree in Physical Education and minored in General Sciences. His Post Office career began in 1949 as a postal clerk in Charlotte. With the railroads still being the dominant form of transporting the mail, Jim transferred to the Railway Postal Service. When he returned to the Charlotte Post Office years later he had risen through the ranks to having held several supervisory positions. With 33 years of service in the Federal Government, he retirement as the US Postmaster in Mt. Holly, NC. Now, that would be a full career for most individuals. What I have not mentioned is that Jim Richardson was an elected official having served distinguishably in both the North Carolina State House and State Senate. It was here that this man whose family taught him the mantra ``do good for others and goodness will return to you'' continued his advocacy for those who needed it most. These were often the poor, minorities and the elderly. Jim's legislative record reflected his life's experiences. When he retired from the State Senate, he was a role model for elected officials of both parties. I include myself as being one who looks to Jim Richardson not on the issues of the day, but on the manner in which we conduct ourselves in the daily business of serving the people who elected us. Again, you would think this would be enough public service for most people. Not for Jim. He returned from the State Legislature to Charlotte and was elected as a Mecklenburg County Commissioner. I came to know him during this his third career. When I called on him for advice and counsel, he opened the wealth of his life's experiences to me. He also opened his home where I stayed during my campaign for the Senate seat. I learned from the man and about him. He and his wife Mary are revered for so many of their contributions to the community. Chief among them is their work on HIV/AIDS awareness among young people. Their hope is to save lives and spare families the experience of losing a loved one to this dreaded disease. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``James F. Richardson Post Office Act of 2003.'' This measure would name the University Park Post Office in Charlotte, NC, after a man who has come to mean so much to the City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County and the State of North Carolina. His record of public service goes back 60 years. A Charlotte native, Jim Richardson graduated from Second War High School, the only high school in the area African Americans were allowed to attend. In a separate and unequal society he learned early on the importance of character and serving the public good. Our World War II veterans are said to be the greatest generation. As part of that generation Jim Richardson entered the United States Navy and served our country honorably in the South Pacific theater during World War II. It is with character and a deep and abiding hope for a better future that a man such as Jim Richardson fought for his country only to return to a society that did not afford all that was allowed them under the Constitution of the United States. After the war, Jim returned to Charlotte and entered Johnson C. Smith University. He graduated with a degree in Physical Education and minored in General Sciences. His Post Office career began in 1949 as a postal clerk in Charlotte. With the railroads still being the dominant form of transporting the mail, Jim transferred to the Railway Postal Service. When he returned to the Charlotte Post Office years later he had risen through the ranks to having held several supervisory positions. With 33 years of service in the Federal Government, he retirement as the US Postmaster in Mt. Holly, NC. Now, that would be a full career for most individuals. What I have not mentioned is that Jim Richardson was an elected official having served distinguishably in both the North Carolina State House and State Senate. It was here that this man whose family taught him the mantra ``do good for others and goodness will return to you'' continued his advocacy for those who needed it most. These were often the poor, minorities and the elderly. Jim's legislative record reflected his life's experiences. When he retired from the State Senate, he was a role model for elected officials of both parties. I include myself as being one who looks to Jim Richardson not on the issues of the day, but on the manner in which we conduct ourselves in the daily business of serving the people who elected us. Again, you would think this would be enough public service for most people. Not for Jim. He returned from the State Legislature to Charlotte and was elected as a Mecklenburg County Commissioner. I came to know him during this his third career. When I called on him for advice and counsel, he opened the wealth of his life's experiences to me. He also opened his home where I stayed during my campaign for the Senate seat. I learned from the man and about him. He and his wife Mary are revered for so many of their contributions to the community. Chief among them is their work on HIV/AIDS awareness among young people. Their hope is to save lives and spare families the experience of losing a loved one to this dreaded disease. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today the Senate is expressing its gratitude to the nations of the world that support the U.S. determination to remove Saddam Hussein from power and eliminate his regime's weapons of mass destruction. I wholeheartedly endorse this resolution and the message it sends to the world about so many nations' view of Saddam Hussein's regime and about the resolve and bravery of the men and women who have stepped in harm's way to remove the threat he poses to international peace and basic human decency. According to press reports, thousands of additional United States troops have entered Iraq over the last day or so. At the same time, tens of thousands of their comrades continue their relentless and courageous march to Baghdad, making all Americans proud as they battle extreme conditions and irregular--even illegal--tactics by the enemy. Each day, our admiration of these troops and their performance grows. Unfortunately, as well as our troops have performed, much more fighting apparently lies ahead. Earlier this week, Secretary Rumsfeld declared that we are closer to the beginning than the end of this conflict. And press accounts indicate many in the military believe the conditions in which they will be fighting could get even more difficult. Administration reports suggest that the closer our troops get to Baghdad, the greater the risk that Iraq will resort to chemical or biological weapons. Apparently, concern is growing within the administration that desperation could cause Saddam's sympathizers to resort to the use of poison gas to defend their despicable leader and his repressive regime. I recently received a demonstration of what our troops must do to survive and continue to carry out their mission in an environment contaminated with toxic agents. While these briefers expressed confidence our soldiers in Iraq have both the necessary equipment and training to deal with a chemical attack, I pray the 250,000 American troops in the gulf--and the British, Australian, and Polish ground troops fighting alongside them--will not have to make use of that training. But the very fact that our troops are equipped and trained to deal with this possibility demonstrates that the risk of a chemical attack is very real. All the soldiers in the coalition as well as their governments deserve our heartfelt appreciation for their willingness for to join us in this important cause. We owe them each an enormous debt of gratitude. Senators Lugar and Biden were right to want to thank those countries who through their words or deeds have expressed support for our effort in Iraq. As I have said on a number of occasions, international support of our effort in Iraq is critical to share the costs and risks of both the fighting as well as the postwar reconstruction. According to information provided by the administration, three other countries--Great Britain, Australia and Poland--have contributed ground forces to fight alongside the U.S. troops in the region. While we are grateful for the willingness of any country to stand with us, we are particularly grateful to these three countries that have deployed their young people to stand and fight with our troops. While it may be too late for other countries to provide ground forces to assist us in the fighting, it is not too late for many others to back their words up with tangible help for what comes after the fighting ends. Administration officials indicate they are pressing to develop additional support as this conflict unfolds. That is the right thing to do, and I strongly encourage and support those efforts. We will want the concrete assistance of our friends and allies as the military effort continues and as we prepare for rebuilding a post- Saddam Iraq. To that end, this resolution calls on these and other countries as well as key international organizations to support the reconstruction and administration of a post-Saddam Iraq. In closing, Mr. President, allow me to express my debt of gratitude to the families of the troops carrying out this effort in the Persian Gulf. Yesterday afternoon, on this floor, Senator Tim Johnson, whose son Brooks is currently serving in Iraq with the Third Brigade of the 101st Airborne, talked about the intense emotions the families of our troops and our allies are going through. They never know whether the next bit of breaking news will include something about their sons or daughters, mothers or fathers. We owe profound gratitude to them as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I spoke briefly last night of the sorrow we all felt on hearing that our former colleague, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, passed away. This afternoon, I join with Senators Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Dodd, and others to return to the floor to say a bit more for the record about this truly remarkable man and about how much the Senate and the Nation will miss him. Opening this morning's newspapers at a time when news of the war in Iraq seems to eclipse all else, I found it fitting that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was--as he was so often during his long public career--once again front page news. Newspapers across the nation--and indeed, around the world--are filled today with accounts of Senator Moynihan's life and work. What has been written in just the short time since his death yesterday afternoon reminds us how extraordinary pat Moynihan really was. The New York times--the newspaper Senator Moynihan read religiously every day, from cover to cover, we are told--reported that he ``brought a scholar's eye for data to politics and a politician's sense of the real world to academia.'' The Washington Post noted that he ``pursued with distinction enough careers for half a dozen men of lesser talents and imagination: politician, presidential adviser, diplomat, author, professor, public intellectual.'' In talking about Senator Moynihan with colleagues and friends last night and today, it strikes me that everyone seems to come back to one idea: People like Pat Moynihan simply do not come along every day. I said yesterday that he seemed larger than life. He was also, truly, one of a kind. Senator Moynihan's myriad public accomplishments are being--and will no doubt continue to be--well documented. Today, I want to add to what has been said in the press and on this floor some of the less-frequently mentioned things that made Pat special to those of us who had the privilege to know him and work with him. Pat Moynihan enlivened the Senate. He did so in many ways, but there are three in particular that come to mind for me today. First was the way he applied his encyclopedic mind to the deliberations of the Senate. In our Democratic caucus meetings, in committee hearings, and here on the floor, he elevated our discourse. He would make a point, and drive it home, by drawing on his sweeping knowledge of history, literature, poetry, and the arts. He could quote from hundreds of sources--from memory. Listening to Pat speak extemporaneously, you might be treated to verbatim quotes from Disraeli or Churchill, Yeats or Robert Frost, Dylan Thomas, Evelyn Waugh, Arthur Conan Doyle, or Shakespeare. He always had just the right quote to support his argument, and he always quoted accurately. In once read that the staff of the Shakespeare Theater here--where Pat was a frequent patron--often noticed him silently mouthing the words of the play--as the actors spoke them. A second gift of Pat's that we all treasured was his ready sense of humor. It was a puckish, mischievous wit, and it never failed to surprise and amuse us. I remember when the Hart Senate Office Building was completed. Pat was never an admirer of the architecture of the Hart Senate Office Building. In fact, he thought it was downright ugly. When the building was finished and the construction tarp was taken down, Pat introduced a resolution saying the tarp should be put back up. Pat also knew how to use his wit to disarm. He was famously blunt and direct with the press. But he also knew how to use humor to avoid questions he preferred not to answer. Nearly every week, he invited the New York press corps into his office in the Russell Building for coffee and to answer questions. If he chose to, he could crack a hilarious joke and have the press in stitches. By the time they got through laughing, they had forgotten the question altogether. Finally, Pat Moynihan was a fierce Senate institutionalist--a quality that endeared him to me, to Senator Byrd, and to so many of us. Pat Moynihan loved and revered this institution--much as he loved and revered public service. His respect for the Senate showed itself in many ways, from his stout defense of Senate powers and prerogatives to his keen interest in the architectural preservation of the Capitol Building and its environs. Pat had a sentimental side, as many of us do, when it came to this building. On special occasions, he loved to present friends with a gift of sandstone bookends made from the old East Front of the Capitol. With each presentation of those treasured stones, Pat loved to tell an elaborate story about the political intrigue surrounding the extension of the East Front in the 1950s. These are just a few of the special things that come to mind as we reflect on the unique life and legacy of our friend and former colleague. I said last night that in losing Pat Moynihan, New York and the Nation have lost a giant. And, as Winston Churchill once said of another great patriot, we shall not see his like again. On behalf of the entire United States Senate, I again extend sincerest condolences to Pat's beloved wife and partner, Liz, to their children, Tim, John, and Maura, and to their grandchildren, Zora and Michael Patrick. We thank them for sharing so much of their husband, father and grandfather with us. Our thoughts and prayers are with them at this hour. I yield the floor.