Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I understand S. 225, introduced earlier today, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. DASCHLE. I now ask for its second reading, and I object to my request.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we will have more to say about these matters tomorrow. As my colleagues know, this is an ongoing interest on the part of our caucus to move forward in providing benefits to those who are uninsured, especially those who are no longer eligible for current benefits. There are about a million of those people who are looking to us for help, and we will have more to say about that tomorrow.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I understand that S. 224, introduced earlier today, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. DASCHLE. I now ask for its second reading, and I object to my own request.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have consulted with the California Senators, and they do not object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I hadn't intended to speak, but I will be brief, and I will use some of my leader time to do so. Let me say three things. First, I don't know that there is a greater crisis in our country today than in what we are witnessing with providers in rural and urban areas alike. Whether it is doctors or nurses, facilities, nursing homes--the crisis is as severe as any that I have seen in our lifetime. Secondly, there are those who say this process ought to go through an appropriate legislative process, the way we would normally do things. I couldn't agree more that the legislative process is a good one and we ought to respect it. But we have talked about providing relief, now, for years. There is a great deal in this bill that we are now supporting that had nothing to do with the legislative process or committee consideration. This is an emergency that has to be addressed. I don't know how much longer we can wait. Of course, it is always better to go through the committee process, and where that is possible we ought to do so. But this doesn't preclude going through the committee process as we look at this issue over and over again in the coming months and years. So it is critical we send the right message. At least the Senate ought to go on record today that, at this point, with as difficult a time as our health care industry is having, with the crisis we are facing at the provider level, at the facility level, at the institutional level--throughout our country--we need to say without equivocation that we are going to be partners in fixing it. There is no better time to do that than right now. There is no better message to send than the one we can send with this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 138

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to honor a great American and a valued public servant. Captain Kevin Bakke of the South Dakota Highway Patrol has served the people of South Dakota for more than 27 years. In his most recent capacity as the District One Commander in my hometown of Aberdeen, he oversaw all the law enforcement functions of the highway patrol for the northeastern region of South Dakota. His affable style of leadership is respected and well- liked by all those who know him. During his 27 years as a law enforcement officer, Captain Bakke has served in various posts throughout the State of South Dakota. His talents were widely recognized by his peers and colleagues alike. Kevin Bakke began his law enforcement career in 1975 as a trooper in Rapid City, was promoted to squad sergeant in Huron, and then to lieutenant in Aberdeen. Most recently, he has served capably as one of four captains in the South Dakota Highway Patrol. Captain Bakke's absence will leave a void in the highway patrol, as many will miss his quick smile and skillful leadership. The citizens of South Dakota have been in good hands under Captain Bakke's protection. As he retires from the South Dakota Highway Patrol, I want to commend him for his extraordinary service to the people of our State, and to wish him the best in his new endeavors with the Transportation Security Administration.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I joined Senators Edwards and Lieberman as a cosponsor of their amendment to delay implementation of the Bush administration's proposed weakening of the Clean Air Act. This amendment would delay implementation of the regulations for 6 months while the National Academy of Sciences conducts an analysis on the effects of the rules on public health and the environment. On December 31, 2002, the Bush administration finalized the most significant weakening of the clean air protections since the Clean Air Act was adopted 30 years ago. These changes would allow increased levels of pollution at 17,000 industrial facilities across the Nation. More than 170 million Americans live in areas with unhealthy air quality. Air pollution is a serious public health problem, particularly among children and senior citizens. Mounting medical evidence shows that air pollution causes asthma attacks, heart and lung disease, and premature death. More than 1,000 physicians from across the Nation urged the administration to halt its proposed weakening of the Clean Air Act. In a September 27, 2002 letter to the administration, the physicians said, ``It is irresponsible for the Environmental Protection Agency to move forward and finalize new regulations that could have a negative impact on human health.'' For 2 years, the Environment and Public Works Committee, Judiciary Committee and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee have issued more than a dozen requests for documents and an analysis from the administration on the public health impacts of the clean air changes. The administration ignored these requests. Many states have objected to the clean air changes. The State and Territorial Air Pollution Program administrators have asked for a 1- year delay to assess the new regulations. Twelve States, including my State of South Dakota, face a March 3 deadline to comply with the new regulations. We hear so much from the administration about working with states but in this case the administration turned its back on South Dakota and 11 other States, that are simply asking for more time to understand these regulations. In a January 16, 2003 letter to EPA Administrator Christine Whitman, the State and local air administrators said, ``State and local air pollution control agencies have been working vigorously to study the new rule. However, gaining full command of the many intricacies of the regulation, as well as complete understanding of the impacts and implications, will take time and, we firmly believe, cannot be accomplished in the next 45 days.'' This amendment makes a very simple requirement: before these sweeping regulations are put into place, the National Academy of Sciences should conduct an objective study of the effects these rules would have on public health and the environment. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I associate myself with the comments made by the distinguished assistant Democratic leader. We asked our colleagues to file amendments by the end of the day on Tuesday. They have. There is a significant number of both Republican and Democratic amendments. I am hopeful we can finish our work on this bill by tomorrow night. There is no reason, given the excellent debate we have had on a number of issues, that we should not try to finish. I hope we can get the cooperation of all Senators in seeking time agreements and in limiting the number of amendments yet to be offered. We have had a very good debate. There will be many other occasions throughout the year when we will have opportunities to express ourselves on a number of issues. I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle--as I say, there were a good number of amendments offered by both Republican and Democratic Senators--in order to accommodate that schedule. I come to the floor to express my support for Tom Ridge as the first Secretary of Homeland Security. Governor Ridge has created an impressive record in public service. As a Member of Congress, as Governor from the State of Pennsylvania, he has done a good job in meeting the challenges we all have faced as a country and we in particular face at the Federal level of Government in addressing the needs and concerns of our homeland--or as we sometimes say, hometown defense--over the course of the last year. There is one very consequential concern I have as we consider the creation of this Department and its leadership. That concern goes to resources. On several occasions over the course of the last several years, and even the last several months, we as a body, we as a Senate, have come to the conclusion we cannot fight the war on terror, we cannot do what we must do in creating a presence in the Persian Gulf, we cannot address the extraordinary challenges we face in Afghanistan, if we do not have the resources the Department of Defense needs to accommodate those missions. What did we do? We responded, as required, by providing the resources to the Department of Defense to ensure those missions could be fulfilled. I have every expectation we will be dealing with supplementals in the not too distant future, and I would be surprised if it was not the case that the Defense Department, once again, comes to the Congress to seek approval for additional appropriations for this fiscal year. We will look at those requests, but in most cases my guess would be we will support them. We will support them because we realize they cannot carry out a mission without resources. It is with that understanding that I am troubled this Department of Homeland Security has not had the same degree of support, does not have the same degree of commitment, has not had the resources that it must have to deal with the challenges and the mission that it faces and has faced from its very creation. Last year, the Congress passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 92-7 a supplemental appropriations bill to provide those resources. The President, for reasons that are not entirely clear to many of us, chose not to permit the $2.5 billion in that supplemental appropriations bill for homeland defense. Yet as I talk to Governors, as I talk to mayors, as I talk to local officials at every level of Government, they tell me the single biggest concern they have is their lack of confidence, their inability to deal with what they perceive to be a real vulnerability in protecting water supplies, energy facilities, roads, bridges, and ports. They are concerned about that vulnerability. One mayor called it homeland ``insecurity.'' He said there was a homeland insecurity today in part because in spite of what we all profess to be our goal, there is a lack of willingness, a lack of commitment time and again on the part of the administration to provide the resources to meet that goal in dealing with the needs of the Defense Department and others as we consider our mission internationally. The President's budget we are now debating, this omnibus appropriations bill, unfortunately, reflects the same lack of attention and priority and concern for resources. In fact, cuts have been made that devastate our ability to deal with homeland defense, devastate our ability to deal with those areas for which there is absolute unanimity about priority. The budget that is currently pending would cut 1,175 FBI agents, 1,600 Customs inspectors, and 450 food safety inspectors. The list goes on and on. You cannot have security without resources. You cannot deal with our extraordinary challenges in law enforcement without FBI agents. We cannot deal with the problems we have with immigration without Custom inspectors. We certainly cannot deal with the insecurity our country faces today without dealing with food safety in a more consequential way. We have a responsibility to ensure as this Department of Homeland Security becomes a reality, as we create the leadership, as we now confirm the first Secretary, we owe it to him, but far more importantly we owe it to the country to ensure that homeland insecurity is addressed, insecurity with regard to resources, insecurity with regard to our budget, insecurity in dealing with the extraordinary challenges we face in restoring confidence and building the kind of true homeland security we all want and need. We will have more opportunities to talk about this matter as Secretary Ridge comes before the Congress. We are off to an important beginning as he is confirmed today. I hope he will come back with a comprehensive plan that will enable him to convince not only us but the American people that he will have the resources and this will be the priority we all say it is. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 79.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, just for the information of all Senators, the order that has been agreed to will accommodate debate on both the Cochran amendment and the Democratic amendment simultaneously. There will be 70 minutes equally divided to accommodate Senators who wish to speak to the amendments. I am sure we will accommodate Senators on both sides of the aisle in an attempt to alternate back and forth as people wish to speak. So both amendments are pending and both amendments are subject to comment by our colleagues. I appreciate, as always, the great willingness on the part of the chairman of the Agriculture Committee to enter into this agreement and to accommodate this debate as we anticipate it. It has been 342 days since the effort was first initiated to bring about meaningful disaster relief to many parts of the country. During those 342 days, I don't know how many hours we spent on the Senate floor attempting to inform our colleagues and urging the Senate to act as expeditiously as it could to address the concerns of so many farmers and ranchers. We did it first in the farm bill itself. We attempted to provide meaningful disaster assistance within the farm legislation. It passed in the Senate. In conference, I had a number of conversations with the chair of the Agriculture Committee in the House and with the Speaker, and it was the view, almost unanimously expressed in the House, that they would not be willing to support disaster assistance on the farm bill. They said: We will come back at a later date and address it in a sufficient way. So we completed our work on the farm bill and anticipated we would have an opportunity to pass meaningful assistance later in the year. When the Interior appropriations bill came before the Senate, we offered an amendment, and it generated 79 votes. That amendment provided about $6 billion in direct assistance to farmers and ranchers. Forty different farm organizations publicly expressed their support for the effort. Over and over again, people said: This must be urgent. You have to understand the extraordinary urgency of what is happening and the need for this relief as quickly as you can get it to us. Madam President, just for the record, I note that I will use my leader time to make my remarks with regard to the amendment so that I can accommodate other Senators who wish to speak.

Mr. DASCHLE. So we adopted that amendment with 79 votes, with every expectation that we could get help to the farmers and ranchers who need it as quickly and as meaningfully as possible. Almost from the beginning, the administration's position was that we just could not afford it; that the $6 billion was out of line; that it was too expensive; that there really was not a way to provide the resources to help farmers and ranchers with the magnitude of help we proposed in the amendment. I must say, I find it deeply troubling that at the very time the administration says we cannot afford the $6 billion in disaster assistance, they come forth with a $670 billion tax cut, a tax cut that helps those at the very top, with very little support for anyone else-- borrowing the money, I might add. So, on one hand, the administration is saying to the American people, somehow we can afford a tax cut, $20 billion of which will go to 226 millionaires, at the very time we do not have the resources, we do not have the will, we do not have the support for $6 billion for farmers and ranchers. I have to say, over the course of the last 342 days, time and time and time again, people have come to us saying: We don't understand either, but we hope that however you ultimately decide to help us, you help us soon. There are places in South Dakota that have not had rain for months. There are places in South Dakota where we had no crop at all last year. We have locations in our State where virtually all of the livestock population has been sold off. In letters, in e-mails, in phone calls, farmers and ranchers--by the thousands--have contacted the Senate pleading for help, asking that we do so as quickly as possible. So this is our last chance. This is our last opportunity, at least for the foreseeable future. I cannot imagine when we can come back to the Senate floor and try this again. So we are offering the same amendment that generated 79 votes last fall. The amendment provides help in the two categories where help is most needed--the crop disaster assistance program and the livestock assistance program--with one minor exception. Last fall, the administration shifted several hundred million dollars to ill- considered, unresponsive, and underfunded disaster efforts for those key or niche areas of livestock producers, a very small number of livestock producers, which amounted to about 2 weeks of assistance before it expired. This amendment replenishes what the administration took from that important account, funding for school lunch and funding for hunger relief. I must say, I hope everyone will recognize the importance of taking this action. As I said, the Senate is already on record; 79 Senators in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, 40 organizations, including the Farmers Union, the Farm Bureau, the National Wheat Growers, the National Cattle and Beef Association, the National American Soybean Association, 40 farm organizations have said: Help us now. Do what you were not able to do last year. Join as you did last year. Pass this meaningful assistance. We have waited too long. I hope people recognize there is a difference between the two amendments. I have the utmost respect for the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. He will do an outstanding job as chair of the committee itself. We don't stipulate a dollar figure in this amendment. We leave that to the administration to define. We simply say: Let's meet the need that is there, meet the need in crop assistance, meet the need in livestock assistance, but meet the need that is there. The alternative says: We know the need is there, but we are only going to provide $3 billion to meet that need. We recognize it may only be half but, I suppose they would argue, at least it is something. We need more than just something. We need to provide the kind of assistance that is so desperately needed in the dead of winter to ensure that at long last, those who have waited so long get the help they truly deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, there are a number of our colleagues who have asked to be recognized. I don't want to take a lot of time because we have a lot of Senators who wish to be heard. There is one difference between the two amendments of which I think all of our colleagues ought to be aware. Under the Cochran amendment, in disaster counties, counties declared disaster, every producer is eligible regardless of loss. In my State, there are counties that were declared disaster that had pockets where they had all the rain they needed, where there are livestock producers who really don't need any assistance. What we are doing is taking away from those who need assistance to provide resources to those who don't need it by not differentiating, by not having some qualification, by not saying they have to meet this threshold. What our amendment says is, they have to have incurred at least a 35- percent loss to be eligible for benefits, even in those counties declared disaster. There is no discretion in that regard in the Cochran amendment. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Montana.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota.