Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, headlines in daily papers all across the country underscore our economy's vulnerability to foreign oil. Today, a new generation is learning what many Americans have known since the 1970s--our economic security and our national security depend on our energy security. Today I, along with a number of my colleagues, am introducing the Fuels Security Act of 2003. This bill responds directly to our Nation's unhealthy reliance on imported oil by establishing greater flexibility in our gasoline regulations, and by tripling the use of domestic, renewable fuels over the next 10 years. This legislation is identical to the fuels agreement included in last year's Senate-passed energy bill. Based on the experience we have gained over the last seven years with the reformulated gasoline program, the Fuel Security Act bill makes a number of important changes in Federal law. It bans MTBE in 4 years, authorizes funding to cleanup MTBE contamination and fix leaking underground tanks, allows the most polluted states to opt into the reformulated gasoline program, and provides all States with additional authority under the Clean Air Act to address air quality concerns. It eliminates the oxygen requirement from the RFG program, a change that is very important to states that are planning to remove MTBE from their gasoline supplies in the near future. To preserve the hard-fought air quality gains that have resulted from the implementation of that requirement, the bill creates a renewable fuels standard that will nearly triple the use of renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel over the next 10 years. Finally, the bill also provides special encouragement to biomass- based ethanol, which holds great promise for converting a variety of organic materials into useful fuel, while substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Ethanol comes from American farmers and producers, passes through American refiners, and fuels American energy needs. No soldier has to fight overseas to protect it. And no international cartel could turn off the spigot. For years, we talked about those benefits with a sense of resignation. After all, these aren't new arguments, and yet there were a lot of people who still saw ethanol as a boutique fuel, not a real answer to our energy problems. With this legislation, we intend to change that preception--and get America moving toward energy independence. The renewable fuels standard will be a win-win-win. It will help the environment, it will help the rural economies which are hurting right now, and it will help reduce America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil. I believe we can make it law. During consideration of the Energy Bill last summer, the Senate endorsed the Renewable Fuels Standard package by a vote of 69 to 30. Overall, this legislation is a careful balance of often disparate and competing interests--and a compromise in the finest tradition of the U.S. Senate. Just look at some of the organizations whose active support is helping to make this legislation possible: The Northeast States Coordinated Air Use Management Agency, the American Petroleum Institute, the Clean Fuels Development Coalition, the American Lung Association, the American Coalition for Ethanol, the Renewable Fuels Association, the Governor's Ethanol Coalition, the National Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau, the National Corn Growers Association, and the American Corn Growers Association. That support across the political and ideological spectrum is reflected within the Senate as well. I particularly want to thank Senator Lugar. The seeds for this comprehensive legislation were planted a few years ago when he and I first introduced legislation to establish a renewable fuels standard and provide flexibility in producing reformulated gasoline. Senator Lugar's enthusiastic support gave this idea needed momentum and helped lay the groundwork for agreement on this legislation last year. In addition, Senators Tim Johnson and Chuck Hagel deserve enormous credit for legislation they introduced last year to establish a very ambitious renewable fuels standard, and for their work in promoting this concept. And there are many others--Senators Ben Nelson, Tom Harkin, Chuck Grassley, Byron Dorgan, Mark Dayton, Dick Durbin, Max Baucus, Kit Bond, George Voinovich, and others--who all deserve recognition for the progress we have made on this issue. Look at America's energy situation today: gasoline prices are high, farm income is low and America is importing close to 60 percent of the oil we use. At the same time, our substantial appetite for energy continues to grow every year. Over the next ten years, the United States is expected to consume roughly 1.5 trillion gallons of gasoline. At the same time, we hold only three percent of the known world oil reserves. It has been said that ``we are all continually faced with a series of great opportunities, brilliantly disguised as insolvable problems.'' Meeting our energy challenges is a difficult problem, but it is also a great opportunity to demonstrate American strength, and American ingenuity. By increasing the use of renewable fuels, preserving clean air gains and moving us toward energy independence, that is what I believe this bill does.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, headlines in daily papers all across the country underscore our economy's vulnerability to foreign oil. Today, a new generation is learning what many Americans have known since the 1970s--our economic security and our national security depend on our energy security. Today I, along with a number of my colleagues, am introducing the Fuels Security Act of 2003. This bill responds directly to our Nation's unhealthy reliance on imported oil by establishing greater flexibility in our gasoline regulations, and by tripling the use of domestic, renewable fuels over the next 10 years. This legislation is identical to the fuels agreement included in last year's Senate-passed energy bill. Based on the experience we have gained over the last seven years with the reformulated gasoline program, the Fuel Security Act bill makes a number of important changes in Federal law. It bans MTBE in 4 years, authorizes funding to cleanup MTBE contamination and fix leaking underground tanks, allows the most polluted states to opt into the reformulated gasoline program, and provides all States with additional authority under the Clean Air Act to address air quality concerns. It eliminates the oxygen requirement from the RFG program, a change that is very important to states that are planning to remove MTBE from their gasoline supplies in the near future. To preserve the hard-fought air quality gains that have resulted from the implementation of that requirement, the bill creates a renewable fuels standard that will nearly triple the use of renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel over the next 10 years. Finally, the bill also provides special encouragement to biomass- based ethanol, which holds great promise for converting a variety of organic materials into useful fuel, while substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Ethanol comes from American farmers and producers, passes through American refiners, and fuels American energy needs. No soldier has to fight overseas to protect it. And no international cartel could turn off the spigot. For years, we talked about those benefits with a sense of resignation. After all, these aren't new arguments, and yet there were a lot of people who still saw ethanol as a boutique fuel, not a real answer to our energy problems. With this legislation, we intend to change that preception--and get America moving toward energy independence. The renewable fuels standard will be a win-win-win. It will help the environment, it will help the rural economies which are hurting right now, and it will help reduce America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil. I believe we can make it law. During consideration of the Energy Bill last summer, the Senate endorsed the Renewable Fuels Standard package by a vote of 69 to 30. Overall, this legislation is a careful balance of often disparate and competing interests--and a compromise in the finest tradition of the U.S. Senate. Just look at some of the organizations whose active support is helping to make this legislation possible: The Northeast States Coordinated Air Use Management Agency, the American Petroleum Institute, the Clean Fuels Development Coalition, the American Lung Association, the American Coalition for Ethanol, the Renewable Fuels Association, the Governor's Ethanol Coalition, the National Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau, the National Corn Growers Association, and the American Corn Growers Association. That support across the political and ideological spectrum is reflected within the Senate as well. I particularly want to thank Senator Lugar. The seeds for this comprehensive legislation were planted a few years ago when he and I first introduced legislation to establish a renewable fuels standard and provide flexibility in producing reformulated gasoline. Senator Lugar's enthusiastic support gave this idea needed momentum and helped lay the groundwork for agreement on this legislation last year. In addition, Senators Tim Johnson and Chuck Hagel deserve enormous credit for legislation they introduced last year to establish a very ambitious renewable fuels standard, and for their work in promoting this concept. And there are many others--Senators Ben Nelson, Tom Harkin, Chuck Grassley, Byron Dorgan, Mark Dayton, Dick Durbin, Max Baucus, Kit Bond, George Voinovich, and others--who all deserve recognition for the progress we have made on this issue. Look at America's energy situation today: gasoline prices are high, farm income is low and America is importing close to 60 percent of the oil we use. At the same time, our substantial appetite for energy continues to grow every year. Over the next ten years, the United States is expected to consume roughly 1.5 trillion gallons of gasoline. At the same time, we hold only three percent of the known world oil reserves. It has been said that ``we are all continually faced with a series of great opportunities, brilliantly disguised as insolvable problems.'' Meeting our energy challenges is a difficult problem, but it is also a great opportunity to demonstrate American strength, and American ingenuity. By increasing the use of renewable fuels, preserving clean air gains and moving us toward energy independence, that is what I believe this bill does.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, our tribal colleges and universities have come to play a critically important role in educating Native Americans across the country. For more than 30 years, these institutions have proven instrumental in providing a quality education for those who had previously been failed by our mainstream educational system. Before the tribal college movement began, only six or seven out of 100 Native American students attended college. Of those few, only one or two would graduate with a degree. Since these institutions have curricula that is culturally relevant and is often focused on a tribe's particular philosophy, culture, language and economic needs, they have a high success rate in educating Native American people. I had the honor today of meeting with students, faculty and presidents from South Dakota's tribal colleges to talk about the educational needs of Native Americans and the role tribal colleges play in strengthening tribal communities. It, like so many of the meetings I have had with representatives of tribal colleges, was a fascinating conversation. I am consistently impressed by the enduring spirit, sense of community and hope for a better quality of life that these institutions support. After meeting these students and educators, I have no doubt that the future of Indian Country is in good hands. The results of a tribal college education are impressive. Recent studies show that 91 percent of 1998 tribal college and university graduates are working or pursuing additional education one year after graduating. In addition, the unemployment rate of recently polled tribal college graduates was 15 percent, compared to 55 percent on many reservations overall. While tribal colleges and universities have been highly successful in helping Native Americans obtain a higher education, many challenges remain to ensure the future success of these institutions. These schools rely heavily on Federal resources to provide educational opportunities for all students. As a result, I strongly support efforts to provide additional funding to these colleges through the Interior, Agriculture and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bills. In addition to resource constraints, administrators have expressed a particular frustration over the difficulty they experience in attracting qualified individuals to teach at tribal colleges. Geographic isolation and low faculty salaries have made recruitment and retention particularly difficult for many of these schools. This problem is increasing as enrollment rises. That is why I am introducing the Tribal College and University Teacher Loan Forgiveness Act. This legislation will provide loan forgiveness to individuals who commit to teach for up to five years in one of the 34 tribal colleges nationwide. Individuals who have Perkins, Direct, or Guaranteed loans may qualify to receive up to $15,000 in loan forgiveness. This program will provide these schools extra help in attracting qualified teachers, and thus help ensure that deserving students receive a high quality education. This measure will benefit individual students and their communities. By providing greater opportunities for Native American students to develop skills and expertise, this bill will spur economic growth and help bring prosperity and self-sufficiency to communities that desperately need it. Native Americans and the tribal college system deserve nothing less. I believe our responsibility was probably best summed up by one of my state's greatest leaders, Sitting Bull. He once said, ``Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children.'' I am pleased that Senator's Baucus, Bingaman, Conrad, Johnson, and Kohl are original cosponsors of this bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Tribal College and University Teacher Loan Forgiveness Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, our tribal colleges and universities have come to play a critically important role in educating Native Americans across the country. For more than 30 years, these institutions have proven instrumental in providing a quality education for those who had previously been failed by our mainstream educational system. Before the tribal college movement began, only six or seven out of 100 Native American students attended college. Of those few, only one or two would graduate with a degree. Since these institutions have curricula that is culturally relevant and is often focused on a tribe's particular philosophy, culture, language and economic needs, they have a high success rate in educating Native American people. I had the honor today of meeting with students, faculty and presidents from South Dakota's tribal colleges to talk about the educational needs of Native Americans and the role tribal colleges play in strengthening tribal communities. It, like so many of the meetings I have had with representatives of tribal colleges, was a fascinating conversation. I am consistently impressed by the enduring spirit, sense of community and hope for a better quality of life that these institutions support. After meeting these students and educators, I have no doubt that the future of Indian Country is in good hands. The results of a tribal college education are impressive. Recent studies show that 91 percent of 1998 tribal college and university graduates are working or pursuing additional education one year after graduating. In addition, the unemployment rate of recently polled tribal college graduates was 15 percent, compared to 55 percent on many reservations overall. While tribal colleges and universities have been highly successful in helping Native Americans obtain a higher education, many challenges remain to ensure the future success of these institutions. These schools rely heavily on Federal resources to provide educational opportunities for all students. As a result, I strongly support efforts to provide additional funding to these colleges through the Interior, Agriculture and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bills. In addition to resource constraints, administrators have expressed a particular frustration over the difficulty they experience in attracting qualified individuals to teach at tribal colleges. Geographic isolation and low faculty salaries have made recruitment and retention particularly difficult for many of these schools. This problem is increasing as enrollment rises. That is why I am introducing the Tribal College and University Teacher Loan Forgiveness Act. This legislation will provide loan forgiveness to individuals who commit to teach for up to five years in one of the 34 tribal colleges nationwide. Individuals who have Perkins, Direct, or Guaranteed loans may qualify to receive up to $15,000 in loan forgiveness. This program will provide these schools extra help in attracting qualified teachers, and thus help ensure that deserving students receive a high quality education. This measure will benefit individual students and their communities. By providing greater opportunities for Native American students to develop skills and expertise, this bill will spur economic growth and help bring prosperity and self-sufficiency to communities that desperately need it. Native Americans and the tribal college system deserve nothing less. I believe our responsibility was probably best summed up by one of my state's greatest leaders, Sitting Bull. He once said, ``Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children.'' I am pleased that Senator's Baucus, Bingaman, Conrad, Johnson, and Kohl are original cosponsors of this bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Tribal College and University Teacher Loan Forgiveness Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last night the Senate voted on three judicial nominations. And we voted unanimously--Republicans and Democrats. We voted unanimously, recognizing that those nominations were very likely ones with which we had perhaps even broad philosophical differences. But we voted. We didn't delay. We had debate. We all had an opportunity to make our evaluation. We came to some conclusion. That is how it should work. That is what our Founding Fathers had envisioned. That is what the distinguished Senator from Minnesota was just alluding to--advise and consent. When it works, there are very few glitches. When it works, Republicans and Democrats can come together and make their best judgment. It worked in this case. Why did it work? It worked in part because these nominees came before the Judiciary Committee and they did their best to answer the questions presented to them. They did their best to offer as much information as they could about their past, about their record, about others' judgments, and about their record. Having presented their information, having made their case, the Judiciary Committee voted, they were passed out of committee, they came to the floor, and the Senate voted. Not one Republican Senator has mentioned that process today. They say that somehow we are abrogating our responsibilities in requesting exactly the same information from Miguel Estrada--not any more but not any less. So this is not a question about disallowing conservative judges. We do that. We actually do it fairly regularly. It is my view that there are times when judges we view to be outside the mainstream--extreme, in other words--ought to be considered on the basis of their philosophical points of view. But if they fall within what we view to be, as best as we can tell, the philosophical mainstream in spite of their conservatism, I think a President has a basic right to nominate those in whom he has confidence. There are those who have argued in the last couple of days that this is really about our opposition to diversity, that somehow we are opposed to Hispanic judges. That is not only unfortunate and not only in error, but I think it does a disservice to this debate. Frankly, they ought to know better than to resort to that kind of rhetoric which demeans the debate. If this were about diversity, if this were about some concern for Hispanic judges as some have asserted, we would be hard pressed to find one, much less virtually the entire Congressional Hispanic Caucus, in opposition. Yet that is what we find. Virtually every member of the Hispanic Caucus in the House of Representatives has opposed this nomination. Why? In large measure for the same reasons we oppose this nomination, unless we have more information. They don't know either where Mr. Estrada stands. They have no record either. In spite of their best efforts, there is a shroud of secrecy around this nominee that is very disconcerting. Why is it that nominee after nominee comes before the Judiciary Committee and provides the information required? Why is it we have access to the information, the records of virtually every other nominee? Why is it, with that record of performance, that when it comes to this nominee--whether it is before the Judiciary Committee or before the Hispanic Caucus or before anybody else seeking information--we come up with nothing? Mr. President, either this nominee knows nothing or he feels he must hide something. It is one or the other: He knows nothing or feels the need to hide something. Now, I suppose if this were a temporary nomination, if this were something within the administration, with a beginning and an end to the term--a commission, even a Secretary--perhaps we could let this go by, perhaps we should not feel quite as troubled by this lack of willingness to be more forthcoming. But this is for the second highest court in the land. And not only the second highest court in the land, this is actually for, arguably, the most important court in all of the circuits in this country. It is within this circuit that we find perhaps the single most complex, the most serious, the most hotly debated, the most contentious issues to come before the courts. Those who will serve on this court will decide the future of title IX, the future of workers rights, the future of campaign finance, the status of toxic waste cleanup. Those and many more issues will be decided in the D.C. Circuit. So we are left with a very serious dilemma: Do we vote on what is essentially a blank slate or do we say: ``Look, we will vote, we will be prepared to move forward on this and any other nomination so long as that information can be provided''? Today, Senator Leahy and I have sent a letter to the President asking that the documentation that has been provided on numerous other occasions--the Solicitor General records--be provided as they were with Mr. Bork, Mr. Rehnquist, Benjamin Civiletti, and many others. That precedent has long since been established. We have asked for the same information provided to the Senate that was provided on those nominees. Why? Because there is no record. Why? Because there is no basis upon which to make a public judgment unless we have that information. That is all we are asking: Give us some record upon which to make our judgment, No. 1. And, No. 2, let us just ask Mr. Estrada to present to us the answers to the same questions that have been asked by Republican colleagues to nominees in past Congresses and by Democratic and Republican Senators to nominees in this Congress. Why is it we should give some exclusion to this particular nominee? What is it about this nominee that gives him that right to say: ``No, I'm above that. I don't have to provide that information. I don't have to provide the same information that Mr. Bork provided or that Mr. Rehnquist provided. I don't have to do that. I'm unique''? There is nothing unique about defying the Senate. Others have attempted to do so. But when one defies the Senate, defies the Constitution, when someone undermines the constitutional obligation we have to advise and consent, we take that seriously. So we have no choice. We have an obligation to live up to the same standard with this nomination that we have with all the others. All we are suggesting is that our colleagues live up to it as well. Provide us with the information. Answer the questions. Once that happens, we will make our judgment on this nomination. Some already have. But there are many others who deserve the right to make a proper evaluation. I must say, based on the limited information available to us, there already are serious questions about Mr. Estrada's qualifications. His immediate supervisor at the Justice Department said: I cannot, in good conscience, recommend this man to serve on the Circuit Court of the United States of America. I cannot do that. In fact, he went on to say: I can't even trust this person. That is from the supervisor, the person who probably knows this man the best. Mr. President, if a supervisor at the Justice Department cannot find within himself to support this nominee, how in the world is it we say we know better? If Mr. Estrada has more information he can share that would shed some light on what it is that has caused his supervisor to be as concerned as he was to oppose this nomination, then I would say it would be in his interest to bring it forward, to let us look at it. And that is why the Solicitor General papers are so critical. So, Mr. President, I do not know how long this debate will go on, but I will say this: We have thought about this very carefully now for many days. And it is not without a great deal of concern and disappointment that I come to the floor with the report I have just shared. Our colleagues feel as strongly about this as anything that has been presented to us. There is no doubt we have the votes to sustain whatever procedural efforts are made to bring this debate to a close. I would hope that would not be necessary. This matter can be resolved if we simply have access to the documents and have answers to the questions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter Senator Leahy and I sent to the President be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Answer the questions. Provide the information. Let's move this debate forward. Let's do the right thing. Let's live up to our constitutional obligation. Let's respect the advice and consent clause of the United States Constitution. Let's do what our forefathers expected of us. Let's not carve out an exemption for Mr. Estrada or anybody else. Let us make a wise decision about this nomination, as we have in so many other cases. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last weekend in Munich, our colleague, Senator Lieberman, gave a remarkable speech to the annual Wehrkunde Security Conference. Alliances have contributed to America's strength since the end of World War II, and Senator Lieberman, like many of us, has watched with concern as those alliances have weakened over the last 2 years. He makes a compelling case on why those alliances remain vital to our security and why it is important that the administration redouble its efforts to strengthen those alliances. I ask unanimous consent that the text of his speech be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of Senator Tim Johnson and myself to name the Rapid City United States Courthouse and Federal Building in honor of Judge Andrew W. Bogue, Senior Judge of the U.S. District Court of the District of South Dakota. The administration of justice in western South Dakota is nearly synonymous with the name of Judge Bogue. He is almost single-handedly responsible for establishing the Federal district court in Rapid City, and worked tirelessly to see the Courthouse and Federal Building constructed there to provide a new home for the administration of justice in the area. Judge Bogue was the first resident judge in the western division of the U.S. District Court District of South Dakota. Before he came along, judges had to travel into the division from other parts of the State, and court was held in the ancient Deadwood Territorial Courthouse or in makeshift courtrooms throughout the 11-county region. Faced with the logistical hassles of court operations, attorneys were less likely to use the court system. After Judge Bogue took the bench, he helped transform the justice system in western South Dakota. First, he oversaw the establishment of a new district seat in Rapid City, the population center. Then he worked alongside South Dakota's congressional delegation to secure funding for the construction of the Rapid City Federal Building and United States Courthouse. During the course of his career as a Federal judge, Bogue has presided over many high-profile cases, including cases stemming from American Indian Movement, AIM, uprisings in the 1970s. He has maintained a reputation for being fair, objective, and compassionate. Before rising to the U.S. District Court bench, Andrew Bogue was educated at South Dakota State University. After serving our Nation with the U.S. Army Signal Corps during World War II, he returned home to complete a law degree at the University of South Dakota and to marry his lovely wife Liz. He was admitted to the South Dakota Bar in 1947. Andrew Bogue again answered the call to defend our country during the Korean War, serving in the U.S. Army's Judge Advocate General's corps. Upon his return, he practiced as a private attorney and a State's Attorney before becoming a South Dakota circuit court judge. He joined the Federal bench on May 1, 1970, and was elevated to Chief Judge in 1980. He took senior status in 1985. It is right and fitting that the Rapid City Federal Building and Courthouse be named for the individual whose legacy pervades its halls. The legislation Senator Johnson and I introduce today began with an outpouring of support from Judge Bogue's colleagues. The Pennington County Bar Association and the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court Judges and Magistrate Judges have passed resolutions supporting this initiative. I am proud to offer this legislation in honor of a great South Dakotan. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of Senator Tim Johnson and myself to name the Rapid City United States Courthouse and Federal Building in honor of Judge Andrew W. Bogue, Senior Judge of the U.S. District Court of the District of South Dakota. The administration of justice in western South Dakota is nearly synonymous with the name of Judge Bogue. He is almost single-handedly responsible for establishing the Federal district court in Rapid City, and worked tirelessly to see the Courthouse and Federal Building constructed there to provide a new home for the administration of justice in the area. Judge Bogue was the first resident judge in the western division of the U.S. District Court District of South Dakota. Before he came along, judges had to travel into the division from other parts of the State, and court was held in the ancient Deadwood Territorial Courthouse or in makeshift courtrooms throughout the 11-county region. Faced with the logistical hassles of court operations, attorneys were less likely to use the court system. After Judge Bogue took the bench, he helped transform the justice system in western South Dakota. First, he oversaw the establishment of a new district seat in Rapid City, the population center. Then he worked alongside South Dakota's congressional delegation to secure funding for the construction of the Rapid City Federal Building and United States Courthouse. During the course of his career as a Federal judge, Bogue has presided over many high-profile cases, including cases stemming from American Indian Movement, AIM, uprisings in the 1970s. He has maintained a reputation for being fair, objective, and compassionate. Before rising to the U.S. District Court bench, Andrew Bogue was educated at South Dakota State University. After serving our Nation with the U.S. Army Signal Corps during World War II, he returned home to complete a law degree at the University of South Dakota and to marry his lovely wife Liz. He was admitted to the South Dakota Bar in 1947. Andrew Bogue again answered the call to defend our country during the Korean War, serving in the U.S. Army's Judge Advocate General's corps. Upon his return, he practiced as a private attorney and a State's Attorney before becoming a South Dakota circuit court judge. He joined the Federal bench on May 1, 1970, and was elevated to Chief Judge in 1980. He took senior status in 1985. It is right and fitting that the Rapid City Federal Building and Courthouse be named for the individual whose legacy pervades its halls. The legislation Senator Johnson and I introduce today began with an outpouring of support from Judge Bogue's colleagues. The Pennington County Bar Association and the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court Judges and Magistrate Judges have passed resolutions supporting this initiative. I am proud to offer this legislation in honor of a great South Dakotan. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would be happy to respond to the distinguished Republican leader, the majority leader. As he knows, we began this debate yesterday afternoon. We had a good debate yesterday, I think, for 3 or 4 hours. I thought it was a constructive debate. There are strong feelings on both sides of the aisle with regard to this nomination. I think our colleagues, of course, would have been prepared to continue the debate this week, and, for good reason, we are unable to do that because of the Republican conference. Our conference is later on this spring. Theirs is now. That precludes our opportunity to continue the debate. But clearly, very few Senators have had a chance to be heard. Few Senators have had the occasion to look more carefully at these facts. We cannot prescribe a particular time, at least at this point. We will continue to discuss this matter with our colleagues, and I will be in touch with the distinguished Republican leader at a later date. But clearly this nomination deserves careful consideration, with ample time for debate. I would hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle could be afforded their chance to speak to this nomination. It is a controversial nomination and, therefore, requires perhaps more time than others. So for that reason, I object. I, of course, would not be able to say how much additional time we would require, but certainly some time next week will be required.

Mr. DASCHLE. I say to the Senator from Nevada, that is correct. As I said, I think I recall there were only three or four Senators who were able to speak yesterday. There are many others who wish to have the opportunity to speak. And certainly to cut off debate prior to the time they have had that occasion, especially with a nomination of this import, would be unwise. But there is no filibuster as we speak.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished assistant Democratic leader. I know that our Republican colleagues are hoping to adjourn shortly so they can accommodate their schedule. I want to respect that, but I know Senator Biden also wanted to come to the floor for some brief remarks with regard to North Korea, which is why I originally came to the floor. I wish to comment for a moment and thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada for his comments on the Estrada nomination. I think it may arguably be the most serious of all nominations which has been presented to the Senate by this administration--the seriousness of knowing so little with so little information having been provided, and with so significant a level of intransigency with regard to a willingness to provide the information we seek. We have a constitutional obligation to advise and consent. For the life of me, I don't understand how anybody could be called upon to vote on the qualifications of this or any other individual with so little information provided, and with the arrogance demonstrated by this nominee and in this case by the administration with regard to our right to that information. I am very troubled. I know when you look at the array of Hispanic organizations that have now publicly declared their opposition to a Hispanic nominee, you get some appreciation of the depth of feeling about this issue, about this candidate, about his qualifications, and about the stakes as we consider filling a position in the second highest court in the land. I will have a lot more to say about this next week.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the Secretary of State for the strong presentation to the United Nations Security Council that he made yesterday. He confirmed what many of us already knew--that Saddam Hussein is a threat who has, once again, failed to live up to his commitments to the international community. And he did it at a place many of us had been pressing him and the administration to do it--at the United Nations. I hope that President Bush will use Secretary Powell's presentation to build a broad international coalition to confront Iraq. Our national security is better served if he does. But, as the world's attention was focused on Secretary Powell and his presentation, an even more ominous development regarding weapons of mass destruction was taking place in North Korea. Yesterday, North Korea announced that it had flipped the switch and restarted a power plant that can be used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. This is but the latest in a series of aggressive steps North Korea has taken to kick into gear its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them--steps that our intelligence community believes indicate that Iraq is months, if not years, away from being able to take. At the U.N., Colin Powell talked about the potential that Iraq may build a missile that could travel 1,200 kilometers. In 1998, North Korea fired a multi-stage rocket over Japan, proving they are capable of hitting one of America's closest allies--and soon, America itself. In November 2001, intelligence analysts presented a report to senior administration officials that concluded North Korea had begun construction of a plant to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons. In October 2002, North Korea informed visiting U.S. officials that it had a covert nuclear weapons program. In December 2002, North Korea turned off cameras that were being used to ensure that 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods were not being converted into weapons-grade material. Days later, North Korea kicked out an international team of weapons inspectors. And, within the past week, the administration confirmed that North Korea has begun moving these fuel rods to an undisclosed location. On Tuesday, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Korea expert Ashton Carter called these events ``a huge foreign policy defeat for the United States and a setback for decades of U.S. non-proliferation policy.'' He is right. But it is potentially even worse. North Korea could have six to eight additional nuclear weapons before autumn. And we know, when it comes to nuclear weapons--it only takes one. Remember, everything North Korea makes, North Korea sells. Those scuds we intercepted on a ship to Yemen--and then inexplicably returned--weren't a gift. They were an example of business as usual from what even this administration has acknowledged is the world's worst proliferator. As alarming as this information is, the administration's reaction is even more troubling. The President said in the State of the Union: the gravest danger in the war on terror . . . is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. As the chronology of events I detailed above indicates, the administration knew about North Korea's plans on enriching uranium as early as November 2001, and yet it has said little, and done less, to stop these plans. We have heard the administration--through leaks in the press from unnamed sources--suggest that we cannot focus on North Korea because it will distract attention from Iraq. And we have even heard--and this is on the record--that some in the administration believe that North Korea's expansion of its nuclear arsenal is not even necessarily a problem. Proliferators with nuclear weapons are a problem--a serious one. And our attention should be focused on all the threats we face. It is well past time that the administration develop a clear policy on North Korea. Earlier this week, an administration official testified before the Senate that we will have to talk directly to the North Koreans. But he went on to say that the administration had not reached out to the North Koreans to schedule talks and did not know when that might happen. In the State of the Union, the President stated that the United States is ``working with the countries of the region . . . to find a peaceful solution.'' All indications, however, suggest that the countries in the region appear to be taking a course directly at odds with the administration's latest pronouncements. North Korea is a grave threat that seems to grow with each day that passes without high-level U.S. engagement. It is one the President must redouble his efforts to confront. The President should stop downplaying this threat, start paying more attention to it, and immediately engage the North Koreans in direct talks. Secretary Powell was very effective in outlining the threats Iraq poses. But we need a comprehensive strategy to effectively deal with ``all'' the threats we face. Given the stakes of this situation and the ongoing confusion about the President's and the administration's policy, we should expect no less.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I know Senator Biden had hoped to be heard.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Graham, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Senator Graham to Senator Frist and myself be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to correct an inequity in the laws affecting many Native American children. I am joined by Senators McCain, Inouye, Baucus, Johnson, Domenici, Bingaman, Cochran and Stabenow, in sponsoring this important piece of legislation. This effort is also supported by the National Indian Child Welfare Association, the American Public Human Services Association, and the National Congress of American Indians. Every year, for a variety of often tragic reasons, thousands of children across the country are placed in foster care. To assist with the cost of food, shelter, clothing, daily supervision and school supplies, foster parents of children who have come to their homes through state court placement receive financial assistance through Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Additionally, States receive funding for administrative training and data collection to support this program. Unfortunately, because of a legislative oversight, many Native American children who are placed in foster care by tribal courts do not receive foster care and adoptive services and assistance to which all other income-eligible children are entitled. Not only are otherwise eligible Native children denied foster care maintenance payments, but this inequity also extends to children who are adopted through tribal placements. Currently, the IV-E program offers limited assistance for expenses associated with adoption and the training of professional staff and parents involved in the adoption. These circumstances, sadly, have made it even harder for Indian children to attain the permanency they need and deserve. In many instances, these children face insurmountable odds. Many come from abusive homes. Foster parents who open their doors to care for these special children deserve our help. These generous people should not have to worry about whether they have the resources to provide nourishing food or a warm coat, or even adequate shelter for these children. This legislation will go a long way to ease their concerns. Currntly, some tribes and states have entered into IV-E agreements, but these arrangements are the exception. They also, by and large, do not include funds to train tribal social workers and foster and adoptive parents. This bill would make it clear that tribes would be treated like a state when they choose to run their own programs under the IV-E program. The bill we are introducing today would: extend the Title IV-E entitlement programs to children placed by tribal agencies in foster and adoptive homes; authorize tribal governments to receive direct funding from the Department of Health and Human Services for administration of IV-E programs (tribes must have HHS-approved programs); allow the Secretary flexibility to modify the requirements of the IV-E law for tribes if those requirements are not in the best interest of Native children; and allow continuation of tribal-State IV- E agreements. In a 1994 report, HHS found that the best way to serve this underfunded group is to provide direct assistance to tribal governments qualified tribal families. This bill would not result in reduced funding for the States, as they would continue to be reimbursed for their expenses under the law. I strongly believe Congress should address this oversight and provide equitable benefits to native American children who are under the jurisdiction of their tribal governments, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to correct an inequity in the laws affecting many Native American children. I am joined by Senators McCain, Inouye, Baucus, Johnson, Domenici, Bingaman, Cochran and Stabenow, in sponsoring this important piece of legislation. This effort is also supported by the National Indian Child Welfare Association, the American Public Human Services Association, and the National Congress of American Indians. Every year, for a variety of often tragic reasons, thousands of children across the country are placed in foster care. To assist with the cost of food, shelter, clothing, daily supervision and school supplies, foster parents of children who have come to their homes through state court placement receive financial assistance through Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Additionally, States receive funding for administrative training and data collection to support this program. Unfortunately, because of a legislative oversight, many Native American children who are placed in foster care by tribal courts do not receive foster care and adoptive services and assistance to which all other income-eligible children are entitled. Not only are otherwise eligible Native children denied foster care maintenance payments, but this inequity also extends to children who are adopted through tribal placements. Currently, the IV-E program offers limited assistance for expenses associated with adoption and the training of professional staff and parents involved in the adoption. These circumstances, sadly, have made it even harder for Indian children to attain the permanency they need and deserve. In many instances, these children face insurmountable odds. Many come from abusive homes. Foster parents who open their doors to care for these special children deserve our help. These generous people should not have to worry about whether they have the resources to provide nourishing food or a warm coat, or even adequate shelter for these children. This legislation will go a long way to ease their concerns. Currntly, some tribes and states have entered into IV-E agreements, but these arrangements are the exception. They also, by and large, do not include funds to train tribal social workers and foster and adoptive parents. This bill would make it clear that tribes would be treated like a state when they choose to run their own programs under the IV-E program. The bill we are introducing today would: extend the Title IV-E entitlement programs to children placed by tribal agencies in foster and adoptive homes; authorize tribal governments to receive direct funding from the Department of Health and Human Services for administration of IV-E programs (tribes must have HHS-approved programs); allow the Secretary flexibility to modify the requirements of the IV-E law for tribes if those requirements are not in the best interest of Native children; and allow continuation of tribal-State IV- E agreements. In a 1994 report, HHS found that the best way to serve this underfunded group is to provide direct assistance to tribal governments qualified tribal families. This bill would not result in reduced funding for the States, as they would continue to be reimbursed for their expenses under the law. I strongly believe Congress should address this oversight and provide equitable benefits to native American children who are under the jurisdiction of their tribal governments, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in 1920, H.G. Wells wrote: Life, forever dying to be born afresh, forever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars. We have long since realized that vision, voyaging from our planet, putting men and women and machines beyond the reach of the Earth, traveling the ``airless Saharas'' of space, exploring new worlds. What we have been able to do requires the best minds of science, an audacity of imagination, and people explorers of uncommon bravery. Today, we mourn seven of those brave explorers. These men and women stood upon our Earth as a footstool, stretched out our realm amidst the stars, set out on a voyage of discovery--and did not return. I can only hope that our words, our prayers, and a world's shared sorrow will help bring peace to their families and loved ones. This space shuttle Columbia--like all space shuttles--was named for a sailing ship. The Columbia was the first American vessel to circumnavigate the globe. The crew of this Columbia were pioneers of the first order as well. There was Rick Husband, the Air Force Colonel and commander of the Columbia. He was dedicated to God, his family, and his crew. While in space, he sent an e-mail saying: ``I'm so proud of my crew, I could pop.'' There was William McCool, the man at the controls of Columbia. He was an Eagle Scout, second in his class at the Naval Academy. Friends describe him as someone who always did everything perfectly but never developed the arrogance that comes with such success. There was Michael Anderson, who, as a child, dreamed of piloting his bunk bed to the moon. Michael Anderson never got to the moon, but he got a lot closer than most of us. There was David Brown, a physician, gymnast, and one-time circus performer. For all of his many skills, as his mother said: ``flying was his life.'' There was Laurel Clark, the medical doctor and mission specialist who offered this advice for aspiring astronauts: ``Do what it is you love to do. You'll do a really good job at it because you love it.'' There was Ilan Ramon--the child and grandchild of Holocaust survivors--who rode into space carrying with him the hope of a war- weary country. Sadly, most of us are getting to know most of them only now. Back in Rapid City, SD, there are dozens of schoolchildren who got to know--and be inspired by--Kalpana Chawla. Three years ago, I asked then-NASA Administrator Dan Goldin if he would be willing to keynote a technology exhibition in Rapid City. At the last minute, NASA called to say that they would have to send a substitute. They said: ``But the good news is she's even better. She's an astronaut, and she's brilliant.'' Dr. Chawla enchanted everyone who listened to her that day. She stayed for a long time after her talk to sign autographs and pose for pictures with children. A lot of those children in South Dakota are probably looking at those pictures today--and looking at how she signed them, for above her name she wrote: ``reach for the stars.'' I can only hope that the excitement Dr. Chawla inspired in those children will never be diminished by her loss. Inspiring the awe of discovery in others, that is what all of the members of the crew of Columbia lived for, and it is what they gave their lives for. Yesterday, many of us were in Houston to honor their memories. In the days ahead, I hope we can create a living memorial by continuing to strive for the stars. In 1961, a satellite called Traac was launched from Cape Kennedy. Inscribed in an instrument panel of that satellite was a poem written by Professor Thomas Bergin, from Yale University. It was the first poem to be launched into orbit around the Earth. I want to read a few lines of it now: And now 'tis man who dares assault the sky And as we come to claim our promised place, Aim only to repay the good you gave, And warm with human love the chill of space. The seven astronauts of Columbia represented different races, different religions, different backgrounds, and, in one case, a different country. But they were united by their desire to solve the mysteries of the universe and to make life better for all people. In living that hope--and dying with it--their lives will forever inspire us. And their memories will warm the chill of space.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on Monday, I had the chance to visit with Danny Pelham. He came to my office, and we reflected on his nearly 35 years of service to the Senate. As he walked out, I heard a member of my staff say: ``There goes the wisest man I know.'' I couldn't agree more. Danny arrived in the Senate on March 25, 1968. In his time here, he has seen the making of Senate history, and American history, and he has seen 237 Senators come and go. Through it all, Daniel Pehlam conducted himself with utter fairness, thoroughness, and discretion. It makes sense that--in his off hours--he is a basketball official. For 35 years, he has walked the halls of power, but he never let it distort his perspective, or his sense of what is truly important. If you have ever seen him with his grandson Corey, or heard him talk about his wife Phyllis, you begin to understand that. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote: ``we put our love where we have put our labor.'' For 35 years, Danny labored for--and loved--the Senate. It is fitting that we adopt this resolution expressing our appreciation--and love--for Danny Pelham.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I often speak about the many inspirational or impressive feats accomplished by South Dakotans. I am particularly pleased by the thousands of men and women from South Dakota who serve our Nation in one of the Armed Forces. But today, I want to call attention to someone who has risen above and beyond most others. I'm speaking of CDR Charles J. ``Jerry'' Logan of the U.S. Navy. Commander Logan was born in De Smet, SD. He also lived in Leola and Belle Fourche, SD. The commander is a graduate of Belle Fourche High School and the South Dakota School of Mines in Rapid City. He is the only son of Charles and Margaret Logan's eight children. Most of the Logan family continues to reside in South Dakota. The commander is married to Teresa Logan, the daughter of Norman, who also served in the Navy, and Gay Jacobs. Last November Commander Logan was bestowed the special honor of taking command of the USS Bremerton. This is his first command post. The Bremerton is one of several nuclear attack submarines assigned to the Pacific Fleet. Command of a nuclear submarine is obviously and enormous responsibility. Only a select few are ever charged with such a task. Commander Logan took command of the Bremerton at a Change of Command ceremony in San Diego. Over 100 friends and relatives attended, and I am pleased to say many came from South Dakota--including Commander Logan's parents, all seven of his sisters, and many other relatives. I understand the presiding officer at the ceremony, Captain McAneny, was quite moved by the large contingent from South Dakota who traveled to show their support for Commander Logan. I can certainly understand why the entire Logan and Jacobs families are proud of Commander Logan. I, too am proud of Jerry Logan, as I am proud of all those from South Dakota and throughout the Nation who are serving their country in the Armed Forces.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join the majority leader in expressing, as he has, our heartfelt sympathy to the families of the astronauts, to NASA, to the people of Israel, and to all of those responsible as we contemplate the tragic loss. There is no way one can adequately express in words the sense of sorrow, of regret that we would like to be able to convey to the families themselves. But as they contemplate these losses, we wish them great strength, strength in knowing that their loved ones committed themselves to a great cause, and, in so doing, created the path to a future that we will continue to celebrate. Neil Armstrong, when he landed on the moon, made note of that fact that it was: One small step for man, one giant step for mankind. I believe these astronauts made one giant step for mankind--in better relations, in finding ways with which to pursue science so successfully; and, in so doing, it has created their footprints not only in the path once begun by the pioneers, such as Neil Armstrong, but that of future astronauts as well who will carry on this great experiment in space recognizing its importance to all of mankind. So as we contemplate this loss, we celebrate their lives, we celebrate their accomplishments, we celebrate the fact that they gave all they could for their country. At times such as this, the word ``hero'' is appropriate. Indeed, they were just that; they were and are heroes, role models, committed Americans, patriots, and pioneers. We thank them. We applaud their accomplishment. And we wish their families Godspeed during this difficult time. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to join many of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to thank Dave Hoppe for his service to the Senate and to wish him well as he continues to pursue new opportunities. One of the reasons we will miss Dave is because he exemplifies the best of the Senate--a place where we can find compromise, a place where we can disagree passionately, but one where we can do so honestly, and amicably. From personal experience, I can tell you that Dave is a gifted negotiator, and, when necessary, a tough adversary. But I can also tell you that much of what I admire about him--much of what we all admire about him--transcends his political skill, and his legislative prowess. It is his decency. In 1997, Dave drew on his personal experience, and became integral in bringing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act into being. In talking about the issue of disability in our society, Bob Dole once said, ``some issues transcend politics, foster a bipartisan spirit, and result in legislation that makes a real and lasting difference.'' Because of Dave, disability education is one of those issues. And, as Dave leaves, I think we could modify Bob Dole's words. There are some people who transcend politics, foster a bipartisan spirit, and make a real and lasting difference. Dave is one of those people. So, Dave, I want to thank you, congratulate you, and wish you and Karen--and Katie and Geoffrey and Gregory--all the best in the years ahead.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor this morning to talk a little bit more about the State of the Union Message we heard last night from the President of the United States. We all had occasion to respond to members of the media last night, but I do think it is important, as we contemplate his message and as we react to it, that, at least to a certain extent, we do so in an official capacity here on the Senate floor. The President came to Congress to deliver his annual State of the Union Message in fulfilling his constitutional obligation to report to Congress and the American people on where our Nation is and the direction in which we are headed. The reason our Founders included that obligation is they recognized that democracy requires discussion. So I want to take a moment today to add my thoughts to that discussion. In many instances, the President's words were powerful, and there are many areas where I see room for enthusiastic agreement. For example, his call, last night, for a renewed commitment to address the international pandemic on AIDS was welcome. I can say, without equivocation, that our caucus, and I believe Democrats in the Congress in its entirety, will be supportive of the efforts made by the President and this administration to address the international AIDS crisis more effectively. Let me also say I was pleased that the President made the announcement he did with regard to the Federal commitment to alternative fuels. I wish he had gone further, frankly, but a recognition of the importance of continuing the development through research of hydrogen fuels is a welcome bit of news. As we have progressed over the course of the last couple of years, the alternative fuels market, the need for the continued development of alternative fuels, is important to the Presiding Officer, to myself, and to many others who recognize that we will never rid ourselves of dependency upon foreign sources until we make a more complete commitment to the development of alternative fuels. So the President's willingness to do that, his prioritization of that question, is one that was received in a very enthusiastic way, I am sure, on both sides of the aisle. There are other areas, however, where the President's words seemed out of step with his actions and, frankly, out of touch with his proposals. Today, and in the days ahead, the real test of the President's words is not whether they sound good but whether they lead to action and whether that action leads to progress. Today, the triple threat of war, terrorism, and recession is combining to make Americans unsure about their future and unclear about the course our Nation is taking. On the economy, it is almost impossible to believe, but just 2 years after the longest economic expansion in history, today we have more than 2 million jobs lost in 2 years; the worst job creation record of any administration in 60 years; the first back-to-back years of job loss in 50 years; middle-class income is down for the first time in 10 years; the highest unemployment rate in 8 years; the highest poverty rate in 8 years; and a Federal budget more than half a trillion dollars in debt. In fact, as the budget is about to be produced for the coming fiscal year, we are told we will see the biggest indebtedness that we have seen now in more than 10 years. We started out 2 years ago with the projection of $5.5 trillion in surplus. We are now told because of the President's tax cuts and, in part, because of the recession and the potential for war, our projected deficit over the course of the next 10 years will be $1.7 trillion, $1.7 trillion deficit from a $5.5 trillion surplus just 2 years ago. That represents nearly a $7 trillion swing in a mere 24 months--$7 trillion from surplus to deficit in 24 months. The economic plan the administration passed in 2001 has, unfortunately, been an abject failure. Yet, last night, the President seemed to be asking for more of the same. Before this ditch gets dug any deeper, the President must explain why he thinks this time the results will be any different than the last time. Mr. President, I have expressed on the floor in past speeches my concern for his plan and how serious a concern we have for the ramifications of that plan. The President started by calling his plan ``stimulus.'' I have noticed in recent months or weeks that he has chosen not to use that word, and I think for good reason. There is very little stimulus in the President's proposal. In fact, by their own recognition and acknowledgement, only 5 percent of the budget in the proposal made by the President in his $674 billion tax reduction plan is stimulative this year. Ninety-five percent of what the President is proposing takes place next year and the year after--5 percent. That 5 percent is expected to raise 190,000 jobs. Ironically, 190,000 jobs is exactly the number of jobs lost in November and December of last year. So while we have lost 2.3 million jobs, the President is proposing that we enact an economic plan that produces 190,000 jobs this year. So we ought to be clear about that. There is very little stimulative value in what the President has proposed. Let me say I could understand that if there were some merit to the proposals themselves. But the problem we have with the proposals themselves is they are not broad based. Last night, the President noted there would be some who would benefit by up to $1,200 and, certainly, in some cases, because of his advocacy of the child tax credit, that would be the case. But there are thousands and thousands of people who are not able, because they don't have children, to benefit from the tax plan as the President proposed. In fact, in his plan, $20 billion in the first year goes to 226,000 people whose income exceeds $1 million; $15 billion goes to the 92 million Americans whose incomes are no greater than $50,000. So there is an extraordinary disparity between those who would benefit at the very top and those who benefit in a much more marginal way with incomes of $50,000 or less. What troubles me the most about the fairness question is not the income disparity, but the notion that we could be sending people to war, that we could actually be asking people to give their lives in pursuit of a war with Iraq at the very time we turn around and tell those with incomes of more than $1 million they are going to get an $89,000 tax break. It would be hard--in fact, impossible--for me to accept 10 or 15 or 20 years from now, as the question is asked: So what did you do? What was your sacrifice in the war on Iraq?--the only answer being, in the case of those making more than a million dollars: I got an $89,000 tax break. So the fairness question has economic, as well as very real and personal implications that are troubling to many of us. Perhaps the third and final of all of the many concerns we have with regard to this particular plan is the recklessness. As I said, we are going from a $5.5 trillion surplus to a $2 trillion deficit in 2 years. But that doesn't tell the whole story. States are now experiencing deficits that, in total, exceed $100 billion. Economists have now proposed analyses that would suggest, in addition to the $100 billion, the tax plan proposed by the President would exacerbate that debt by at least $4 billion to $6 billion more. So, ironically, at the very time we are cutting taxes at the Federal level, the President is turning around and requiring Governors to increase taxes at the local and State levels. It just doesn't make sense. It is reckless as well in the recognition that we are going to be borrowing every dollar in resources that we turn around and give out in the form of tax cuts. Every dollar in those tax cuts comes directly from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. We have no other resources to send out. Finally, I simply say, as we consider this recklessness, as we consider our priorities, there is no possible way that we can fight a war in Iraq, that we can dedicate ourselves to the priorities the President articulated in his address last night--which I will turn to in a moment--there is no way we can help the States with the tremendous fiscal crisis they are now facing--a crisis, we are told, that is the worst in 50 years--and turn around and provide a $1.7 trillion additional tax cut this year. There is growing concern, as we consider the ramifications of what the President is proposing, that we can cause even more serious damage to the economy were we to take the proposals of the President and enact them as they have been sent to us. It is essential that we go back to the drawing board, essential that we live up to the economic principles that mainstream economists tell us are essential if we are going to do this right. They tell us whatever stimulus we pass ought to be immediate, ought to be time limited, and, indeed, that is what Democrats have proposed--a limited, immediate stimulus that will take effect this year, not in the outyears; that it be fiscally responsible; that we not exacerbate overall indebtedness by $1.7 trillion; that if anything we limit what exposure there is budgetarily to no more than $100 billion to $150 billion--1.5 percent GDP. Our Democratic plan will do that. A third point they tell us is we ought to be broad based in our approach, provide assistance to where it can do the most good, spur consumption. We do that with the $300 rebate, $1,200 for families with children; the business tax cuts we advocate for accelerated appreciation, for expensing of equipment, and for reducing the cost of health care for employees, in addition to providing the unemployment compensation to the millions of Americans who have not been provided those benefits in recent weeks. We have done some analysis of families who were in the gallery last night with the First Lady, people who were invited to come because, according to the President, they benefited from the plans the President articulated. As we calculate those specific benefits, we find, ironically, that they actually do better under the Democratic plan than under the President's plan. The Becks, for example, the senior citizens he cited, get a 43 percent larger benefit under the Democratic plan than they do under the President's plan. I start with that. I wish the President would have devoted more time to the economy, more time to the concerns that many of us have raised about his proposal, more time to how we are going to address the deficit and how we are going to deal with spurring the economy to bring down that deficit than he did last night. But I stand ready to work with him. I think it is critical we work together. I am hopeful we can find meaningful bipartisan consensus, and I hope we do it sooner rather than later. There are reports that some of our colleagues would prefer to wait until April or May before we take up economic stimulus. I think that would be a lost opportunity and a real mistake if, indeed, we want to get this economy back on track at the earliest possible date. Last night, the President also indicated in his comments that education remained important, but what surprised me about his assertion that it is important is that last night, in a 1-hour speech, education got just one line. The President said we had passed ``historic education reform, which now must be carried out in every school and every classroom so that every child in America can read and learn and succeed in life.'' Speaking of education reform and other measures passed over the last 2 years, he said: Some might call this a good record. I call it a good start. The President is right, it is a good start but only a start. Right now, unfortunately, it appears to be a false start because the President has refused to adequately fund his own education reforms. The Bush administration has proposed the smallest education budget in 7 years despite continued record enrollments in America's public schools, despite new testing requirements and other mandates in new law, despite the worst State budget crises in 50 years--crises that are forcing many States to cut education budgets--despite a looming teacher shortage crisis, despite growing problems with overcrowded and obsolete school buildings, despite the fact that higher education is slipping farther and farther out of reach for more families, despite the critical importance of education to the social and economic health of America's future--despite all the rhetoric, the Bush administration is proposing an education budget that underfunds his own education reforms by more than $7 billion. This, again, begs the question: How in the world, if the President can propose $1.7 trillion, can he explain underfunding his own education reforms by $7 billion? Last night, the President spoke eloquently about the environment. He asked us to pass an initiative he calls ``Healthy Forests.'' Healthy forests is a euphemism for logging without limits to many. It opens more than 20 million acres of national forests to logging and thinning. It allows those projects to avoid environmental laws, public comment, or judicial review. Democrats want a balanced approach to forest management. The President also talked about a proposal he calls ``Clear Skies,'' another euphemism. Clear Skies is actually weaker than the current Clean Air Act. It delays reductions in air pollution and makes it harder for States to limit pollution. Again, the President is using all the right rhetoric but clinging to all the wrong policies. When he calls something ``Healthy Forests'' and it is not, when he calls something ``Clear Skies'' and it will not, the credibility gap widens. The President last night also promised a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. What he proposed last night is a prescription drug plan that comes at the expense of Medicare. It is not, as the President said last night, the same as the health care choices that Members of Congress get. Members of Congress get a prescription drug program and benefit regardless of the plan they choose. Under the President's Medicare privatization plan, seniors can only get drug coverage if they drop out of traditional Medicare and join an HMO. The President omitted this crucial detail last night. Of all the decisions facing this President, none has more profound consequences than the launching of a war against any country. We all know, in the case of Iraq, that Saddam Hussein is not a man to be trusted. We all know that North Korea has nuclear weapons and is the world's biggest proliferator, and we face three very serious threats. We face the threat that Iraq could acquire and deploy weapons of mass destruction. We face the threat of North Korea, a country that already has nuclear weapons and is threatening to develop more. And we face the threat of additional terrorist attacks, including the horrific prospect of an attack with weapons of mass destruction. We have to prioritize how we confront these threats, and the President needs to explain why he is approaching each one in the way he is. My concern is the President has not adequately laid out to the American people or to the international community why our top priority, in light of the other ones, ought to be war with Iraq, and how we can ensure that if we go to a war with Iraq, we will not jeopardize our other priorities, including defending ourselves against terrorist attacks at home. The President needs to lay out as clearly and as compellingly as he is able what imminent threat Iraq poses for the United States and what we will do as a nation to ensure international cooperation and international support if war becomes an inevitability. I look forward to hearing more from Secretary Powell next Wednesday, February 5, but if the President has information about what he will share with the United Nations and others on February 5, I ask that he share it with us now. If there is information that has been withheld from Congress, if he has not provided the same information to us that he intends to share with them, I ask that he do so immediately. Certainly, we have every right to know. For us to know now would help us clarify the confusion and the lack of certainty about the threat posed by Iraq which the President addressed last night. There were also a number of things the President did not mention, which I think needed to be mentioned: Racial reconciliation, hate crimes, diversity in education, equal opportunity. Amazing. There was not one word about these issues, in spite of the fact that a hate crime occurs every 3\1/2\ minutes in this country; in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court may be dealing with the issue of diversity in education and equal opportunity in the very near future and the administration has chosen to oppose it; in spite of the fact that we are troubled by our inability to deal with these issues in a meaningful way legislatively in the weeks and months ahead without the direct involvement and leadership on the part of the administration. The President did not address veterans and health care, and veterans' health in particular. There are 164,000 veterans who may be forced off the rolls because of new criteria involving their eligibility. That, too, could have been addressed and should have been addressed if indeed it was the priority the President maintains. One million workers were left out of unemployment insurance and the President did not mention that as well. The President did not mention agriculture, did not mention the rural crisis we face, and the tremendous attrition we find in small communities across this country. He did not talk about the issues involving agriculture and the extraordinary challenges farmers and ranchers are facing as we recognize the extraordinary effect that the drought and other natural disasters have had in recent years. The President was right when he said this country has many challenges. He was right to say we cannot ignore them and that we should not pass them on to future generations. To prevent that from happening, we need to work together. We need to make sure what is promised is done. Only then will we be able to reduce America's anxiety and truly strengthen our Union. I yield the floor.