Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the resolution just sent to the desk is one that provides for the organization of the U.S. Senate in the 108th Congress. In the last Congress, we saw unprecedented challenges in the Senate. A switch in power September 11, anthrax, and the loss of our friend and colleague, Paul Wellstone. I believe, in working through those challenges--and, in many cases, our own grief--we lived up to James Madison's expectation that the Senate would be the great ``anchor'' of the Government. Now, in the Congress, we face new and growing challenges: We need to do far more to tackle terrorism abroad, and make our country more secure at home. We also need to recognize that national strength depends on economic strength, and work to get the economy growing--with new jobs and better incomes. We need to deal with a growing deficit that poses a growing danger to Social Security and Medicare. On these issues, and so many more, we have much to do. And that requires getting the Senate organized to do it. By passing this resolution, our new colleagues and new chairmen can take their places on committees and committees can take action on legislation. This resolution provides, consistent with Senate precedent, for a one-seat margin on Senate committees. We have agreed that committee funds will be divided by a ratio of 51 percent to 49 percent. As in the 107th Congress, we have also agreed to provide an additional 10 percent to be spent for administrative expenses. We are also assuring a smooth transition period by guaranteeing that our new ranking members' salary budgets are maintained at the same level they received as chairmen in the last Congress. Finally, the understanding entered into by myself, the distinguished majority leader, and the chairs and ranking members of the Rules and Appropriations Committees provides that the division of committee space will commensurate with this funding agreement. The agreement we have reached today reflects the same arrangement we had in 107th Congress when Democrats were a 51-49 majority. It is fair to both parties, it is equitable, and I hope that it is indicative of a spirit of fairness that will mark the way we work in this Congress. This organizing resolution is the result of a series of conversations I had with Senator Frist. We all know that Senator Frist took on a great deal of responsibility in a very short time I hope that our ability to work together on this agreement will pave the way for future agreements. I also thank Senators Lott, Dodd, Stevens and Byrd for their help in helping us reach this agreement. I am confident that this resolution is the right way to keep the Senate working. I ask my colleagues to support it so that we can continue with the work of the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 21 submitted earlier today.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I join Senators Boxer, Chafee, and others to introduce The Toxic Clean Up and Polluter Pays Renewal Act for. For more than 20 years, the polluter pays principle has been a cornerstone of environmental policy. The Superfund toxic waste cleanup program, based on that principle, has made it possible to clean up hundreds of toxic waste dumps across the country, and has led to better management of industrial pollution and waste. The polluter pays principle is now under attack. Last year, the Bush administration announced that it would not seek reauthorization of the taxes levied on oil and chemical companies that go into the Superfund trust fund, which is used to pay for cleanup of toxic waste sites. The Superfund program established three ways to pay for the cost of cleanups: 1) the company or individual responsible for creating the site pays for its cleanup; 2) the Environmental Protection Agency performs the cleanups and recoups the costs from the responsible party or parties; and 3) for those ``orphan'' sites where no responsible party can be found, or the party is insolvent or no longer in business, the cleanup is paid for out of the trust fund. The Superfund trust fund was created primarily with revenue from a corporate environmental income tax and excise taxes on petroleum and certain chemicals. The trust fund received about $1.5 billion per year before the legislative authority to collect the taxes expired at the end of 1995. The trust fund is expected to run out of money in 2004, having dwindled from a high of $3.8 billion in 1996 to $28 million this year. There are 1,234 sites on the EPA national priority list of toxic waste sites that need to be cleaned up. One in four Americans live within 4 miles of a Superfund site. These sites contain hazardous pollutants like arsenic, cyanide, and agent orange. Last year, EPA Administrator Christine Whitman told Congress that 75 sites on the national priority list would be cleaned up in 2001 and 65 sites would be cleaned up in 2002. The Bush administration then revised its plan, requiring that only 47 site cleanups be completed in 2001 and 42 in 2002. For 2003, the Bush administration has proposed to further decrease cleanups. On October 25, 2002, the EPA Inspector General found that the Bush administration has cut funding at 55 Superfund sites in 25 states for which regional officials had requested cleanup. For Fiscal Year 2002, EPA regional officials requested $510 million to clean up waste sites. In response, EPA headquarters obligated only $280 million, resulting in a shortfall of $229 million, or 45 percent. The program is insufficiently funded to allow sites that are already scheduled to be cleaned up to move forward. This results in increased risks to human health and the environment and increased cleanup costs in the long term. Reinstating the Superfund fee would restore a source of funding to the program at a time when the backlog of sites requires more resources if the program is to be successful. The Bush administration is the first administration since Superfund was enacted in 1980 to oppose reinstating this tax on polluters--a policy that either halts cleanup efforts or shifts the cost to rank-and-file taxpayers. Either result is unacceptable. The administration's plan to cut the Superfund program would seriously compromise the health of our communities and amount to an enormous windfall for the oil and chemical industries. Funding is the key to cleaning up these sites and protecting communities from harm. The ``polluter pays'' principle has worked well over the last two decades, and the financial burden should not be shifted from polluters to average taxpayers. The administration should change course and find ways to restore the ``polluter pays'' principle to the program and aggressively fund cleanups at contaminated sites.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senators John McCain and Tim Johnson in reintroducing legislation that will focus attention on the need to address and correct the longstanding problem of mismanagement of the assets and funds held by the United States in trust for federally-recognized Indian tribes and individual American Indians. This is a problem that has festered for far too long outside the spotlight of public recognition. And it is a problem that is undermining urgently needed efforts to improve the quality of life in Indian Country. Indian Country has faced many challenges over the years. Few, however, have been more important, or more vexing, than that of restoring integrity to trust fund management. For over a hundred years, the Department of Interior has managed a trust fund funded with the proceeds of leasing of oil, gas, land and mineral rights for the benefit of Indian people. Today, the trust fund may owe as much as $10 billion to as many as 500,000 Indians. To provide some perspective, the 16 tribes of the Great Plains in South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska comprise 10 million acres of trust lands representing over one-third of the tribal trust assets. Many enrolled members of the nine South Dakota tribes have individual trust accounts. How these trust funds have been and will be managed is being litigated in Cobell v. Norton, and the resolution of this lawsuit will have far-reaching implications throughout Indian Country. It is foolhardly not to evaluate potential solutions in the context of this lawsuit. There is clear consensus in Indian Country that the current administration of the trust fund is a failure. The daunting question has always been how to reform it. In November 2001, the Secretary of the Interior unveiled her controversial plan to reorganize the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, and segregate the oversight and accounting of trust-related assets in a new Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management, BITAM. In testimony before the U.S. District Court, the Secretary acknowledged that, ``We undoubtedly do have some missing data, and we are all going to have to find a way to deal with the fact that some information no longer exists.'' The Secretary's controversial reorganization proposal, a hasty effort to avoid being held in contempt of court, was presented with minimal consultation with the tribes or individual Indian account holders, not to mention Congress. In South Dakota, tribal leaders communicated to Tim Johnson and me their concern that the Secretary's solution appeared to be a fait accompli, conceived without meaningful participation of the stakeholders most directly affected by it. They felt strongly that this proposal should not be implemented without further consultation with the tribes. Meanwhile, the Secretary of the Interior and the Assistant Secretary on Indian Affairs, despite their reorganization plan, were both subsequently found in contempt of court. In the early months of 2002, in the face of Administration assurances that its reorganization plan was not set in stone, the Interior Department requested that $200 million from the BIA and $100 million from the Office of the Special Trustee, be reprogrammed to ``a single organization that will report to the Secretary through an Assistant Secretary, Indian Trust.'' This contradiction set off red flags in Congress, and a clear and direct message was sent to Secretary Norton by Senators Inouye, Campbell, Byrd, Johnson and others that no action should be taken to implement her proposed reorganization plan administratively. Notwithstanding this clear signal, just this last December, while most members of Congress were out of town and with very little fanfare, the Secretary submitted yet another smaller request to reprogram BIA funds for trust fund reform activities. Given these developments, Senators McCain, Johnson and I feel that Congress should be more assertive in forcing discussion of what role Congress might play in ensuring that tribes and individual Indian account holders have a voice on shaping trust reform policy. It is our hope that this bill will promote more constructive dialogue among the Congress, the Interior Department and Indian Country on this problem and lead to a true consensus solution. With that goal in mind, the bill was received by representatives of the Great Plains tribes last Congress at a recent meeting in Rapid City. And earlier today, the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association urged me to re-introduce this legislation in the new Congress. Mike Jandreau, Chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and member of the Secretary's Trust Reform Task Force, has been an effective advocate and champion of trust reform, not only for his tribe, but also for all Indian people. He and Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribal Chairman and Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association President Tom Ranfranz led a very impressive and productive working sessions with tribal leaders from South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska. Mike and Tom have also worked with tribal leaders from Montana and Wyoming to raise awareness of the stakes of this issue and build support for the bill that regrettably died at the end of the 107th Congress due to Administration opposition. I commend the willingness of these participating Great Plains and Rocky Mountain regional tribal leaders to be part of a public process that will hopefully will not stop until Indian Country feels comfortable with a final product they create. The McCain-Johnson- Daschle bill is intended to contribute to this result. At this point, I would like to remind my colleagues some initial observations on this proposal that were raised in the last Congress by participating South Dakota treaty tribes and tribes of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain regions that are still relevant in the 108th Congress. These comments demonstrate how thoughtfully Indian leaders are approaching the trust problem, and I fully expect that their suggestions will be considered and incorporated as the bill moves through the committee process. The following issues are of great importance to the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association: 1. Providing the Deputy Secretary with sufficient authority to ensure that reform of the administration of trust assets is permanent. They do not believe the bill at present gives the Deputy Secretary the full and unified authority needed; 2. Including cultural resources as a trust asset for management purposes; 3. Incorporating the Office of Surface Mining and Bureau of Reclamation and other related agencies within the Department of the Interior and the Federal government under the purview of the Deputy Secretary; 4. Assuring that the legislation not infringe on tribal sovereignty by interfering with tribal involvement in the management of individual trust assets or tribal assets, or both; 5. Maintaining the Bureau of Indian Affairs' role as an advocate for tribe; 6. Maintaining current levels of Bureau of Indian Affairs employment; 7. Applying Indian employment preference to all positions created by the legislation; 8. Providing in law that Bureau of Indian Affairs funds not be used to fund the Deputy Secretary appointed by the legislation; 9. Stressing the importance of appropriating adequate funding to allow reform to succeed; 10. Reflecting in the legislative history that much of the funding needed for real trust reform be allocated at the local agency and regional levels of the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and 11. Placing more tribal representatives, including tribal resource managers, from various Bureau of Indian Affairs regions on the advisory board to the Office of Trust Reform. The issues of trust reform and reorganization within the Bureau of Indian Affairs are nothing new to us here on Capitol Hill, or in Indian Country. Collectively, we have endured many efforts, some will intentioned and some clearly not, to fix, reform, adjust, improve, streamline, downsize, and even terminate the Bureau of Indian Affairs and its trust activities. These efforts have been pursued under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Unfortunately, they have rarely included meaningful involvement from tribal leadership, or recognized the Federal Government's treaty obligation to tribes. I would be remiss if I did not commend this Administration for taking the time to travel to Indian Country to discuss this problem. Their interest in promoting dialogue with tribal leaders was welcome and appreciated. At the same time, however, talk must be supported by action if the trust management problem is to be successfully resolved. The recent unveiling last month of the Department of the Interior's attempt to implement a trust reorganization plan without full tribal or congressional consultation in response to the Cobell v. Norton case was appalling and an egregious act by the federal government to Indian stakeholders. One tribal task force member described Interior's latest deceptive actions as ``a sham.'' That sentiment is widespread in Indian Country and exacerbates an underlying frustration and disappointment that is both understandable and disconcerting. I share this frustration and disappointment. And I am concerned that the progress made jointly last year could be wasted away by a rising tide of disillusionment and mounting sense of betrayal. The message I have heard from tribal leaders is clear. What is needed to achieve true reform are clear trust standards, one clear line of authority for trust management and the resources necessary to achieve meaningful reform, respect for self-determination, and meaningful consultation. Meaningful consultation and acceptance of tribal status is the critical starting point if we hope to find a workable solution to the very real problem of trust management. The bill Senators McCain, Johnson and I are introducing today reflects this conviction. There is no more important challenge facing the tribes and their representatives in Congress than that of restoring accountability and efficiency to trust management. And nowhere do the principles of self- determination and tribal sovereignty come more into play than in the management and distribution of trust funds and assets. I am disappointed that this problem was not solved to the satisfaction of tribal leaders in the last Congress. Yet, that fight is not over, and my commitment to my South Dakota tribal constituents and Indian Country on this important issue has not diminished. Last week, the Senate Democratic leadership introduced its priority bills for the 108th Congress. I am proud that trust reform is included as part of our civil rights legislation. An effective long-term solution to the trust problem must be based on government-to-government dialogue. The McCain/Johnson/Daschle bill will not only provide the catalyst for meaningful tribal involvement in the search for solutions, it can also form the basis for true trust reform. I look forward to participating with tribal leaders, Administration officials and my congressional colleagues in pursuit of this essential objective.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I join Senators Boxer, Chafee, and others to introduce The Toxic Clean Up and Polluter Pays Renewal Act for. For more than 20 years, the polluter pays principle has been a cornerstone of environmental policy. The Superfund toxic waste cleanup program, based on that principle, has made it possible to clean up hundreds of toxic waste dumps across the country, and has led to better management of industrial pollution and waste. The polluter pays principle is now under attack. Last year, the Bush administration announced that it would not seek reauthorization of the taxes levied on oil and chemical companies that go into the Superfund trust fund, which is used to pay for cleanup of toxic waste sites. The Superfund program established three ways to pay for the cost of cleanups: 1) the company or individual responsible for creating the site pays for its cleanup; 2) the Environmental Protection Agency performs the cleanups and recoups the costs from the responsible party or parties; and 3) for those ``orphan'' sites where no responsible party can be found, or the party is insolvent or no longer in business, the cleanup is paid for out of the trust fund. The Superfund trust fund was created primarily with revenue from a corporate environmental income tax and excise taxes on petroleum and certain chemicals. The trust fund received about $1.5 billion per year before the legislative authority to collect the taxes expired at the end of 1995. The trust fund is expected to run out of money in 2004, having dwindled from a high of $3.8 billion in 1996 to $28 million this year. There are 1,234 sites on the EPA national priority list of toxic waste sites that need to be cleaned up. One in four Americans live within 4 miles of a Superfund site. These sites contain hazardous pollutants like arsenic, cyanide, and agent orange. Last year, EPA Administrator Christine Whitman told Congress that 75 sites on the national priority list would be cleaned up in 2001 and 65 sites would be cleaned up in 2002. The Bush administration then revised its plan, requiring that only 47 site cleanups be completed in 2001 and 42 in 2002. For 2003, the Bush administration has proposed to further decrease cleanups. On October 25, 2002, the EPA Inspector General found that the Bush administration has cut funding at 55 Superfund sites in 25 states for which regional officials had requested cleanup. For Fiscal Year 2002, EPA regional officials requested $510 million to clean up waste sites. In response, EPA headquarters obligated only $280 million, resulting in a shortfall of $229 million, or 45 percent. The program is insufficiently funded to allow sites that are already scheduled to be cleaned up to move forward. This results in increased risks to human health and the environment and increased cleanup costs in the long term. Reinstating the Superfund fee would restore a source of funding to the program at a time when the backlog of sites requires more resources if the program is to be successful. The Bush administration is the first administration since Superfund was enacted in 1980 to oppose reinstating this tax on polluters--a policy that either halts cleanup efforts or shifts the cost to rank-and-file taxpayers. Either result is unacceptable. The administration's plan to cut the Superfund program would seriously compromise the health of our communities and amount to an enormous windfall for the oil and chemical industries. Funding is the key to cleaning up these sites and protecting communities from harm. The ``polluter pays'' principle has worked well over the last two decades, and the financial burden should not be shifted from polluters to average taxpayers. The administration should change course and find ways to restore the ``polluter pays'' principle to the program and aggressively fund cleanups at contaminated sites.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senators John McCain and Tim Johnson in reintroducing legislation that will focus attention on the need to address and correct the longstanding problem of mismanagement of the assets and funds held by the United States in trust for federally-recognized Indian tribes and individual American Indians. This is a problem that has festered for far too long outside the spotlight of public recognition. And it is a problem that is undermining urgently needed efforts to improve the quality of life in Indian Country. Indian Country has faced many challenges over the years. Few, however, have been more important, or more vexing, than that of restoring integrity to trust fund management. For over a hundred years, the Department of Interior has managed a trust fund funded with the proceeds of leasing of oil, gas, land and mineral rights for the benefit of Indian people. Today, the trust fund may owe as much as $10 billion to as many as 500,000 Indians. To provide some perspective, the 16 tribes of the Great Plains in South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska comprise 10 million acres of trust lands representing over one-third of the tribal trust assets. Many enrolled members of the nine South Dakota tribes have individual trust accounts. How these trust funds have been and will be managed is being litigated in Cobell v. Norton, and the resolution of this lawsuit will have far-reaching implications throughout Indian Country. It is foolhardly not to evaluate potential solutions in the context of this lawsuit. There is clear consensus in Indian Country that the current administration of the trust fund is a failure. The daunting question has always been how to reform it. In November 2001, the Secretary of the Interior unveiled her controversial plan to reorganize the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, and segregate the oversight and accounting of trust-related assets in a new Bureau of Indian Trust Asset Management, BITAM. In testimony before the U.S. District Court, the Secretary acknowledged that, ``We undoubtedly do have some missing data, and we are all going to have to find a way to deal with the fact that some information no longer exists.'' The Secretary's controversial reorganization proposal, a hasty effort to avoid being held in contempt of court, was presented with minimal consultation with the tribes or individual Indian account holders, not to mention Congress. In South Dakota, tribal leaders communicated to Tim Johnson and me their concern that the Secretary's solution appeared to be a fait accompli, conceived without meaningful participation of the stakeholders most directly affected by it. They felt strongly that this proposal should not be implemented without further consultation with the tribes. Meanwhile, the Secretary of the Interior and the Assistant Secretary on Indian Affairs, despite their reorganization plan, were both subsequently found in contempt of court. In the early months of 2002, in the face of Administration assurances that its reorganization plan was not set in stone, the Interior Department requested that $200 million from the BIA and $100 million from the Office of the Special Trustee, be reprogrammed to ``a single organization that will report to the Secretary through an Assistant Secretary, Indian Trust.'' This contradiction set off red flags in Congress, and a clear and direct message was sent to Secretary Norton by Senators Inouye, Campbell, Byrd, Johnson and others that no action should be taken to implement her proposed reorganization plan administratively. Notwithstanding this clear signal, just this last December, while most members of Congress were out of town and with very little fanfare, the Secretary submitted yet another smaller request to reprogram BIA funds for trust fund reform activities. Given these developments, Senators McCain, Johnson and I feel that Congress should be more assertive in forcing discussion of what role Congress might play in ensuring that tribes and individual Indian account holders have a voice on shaping trust reform policy. It is our hope that this bill will promote more constructive dialogue among the Congress, the Interior Department and Indian Country on this problem and lead to a true consensus solution. With that goal in mind, the bill was received by representatives of the Great Plains tribes last Congress at a recent meeting in Rapid City. And earlier today, the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association urged me to re-introduce this legislation in the new Congress. Mike Jandreau, Chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and member of the Secretary's Trust Reform Task Force, has been an effective advocate and champion of trust reform, not only for his tribe, but also for all Indian people. He and Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribal Chairman and Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association President Tom Ranfranz led a very impressive and productive working sessions with tribal leaders from South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska. Mike and Tom have also worked with tribal leaders from Montana and Wyoming to raise awareness of the stakes of this issue and build support for the bill that regrettably died at the end of the 107th Congress due to Administration opposition. I commend the willingness of these participating Great Plains and Rocky Mountain regional tribal leaders to be part of a public process that will hopefully will not stop until Indian Country feels comfortable with a final product they create. The McCain-Johnson- Daschle bill is intended to contribute to this result. At this point, I would like to remind my colleagues some initial observations on this proposal that were raised in the last Congress by participating South Dakota treaty tribes and tribes of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain regions that are still relevant in the 108th Congress. These comments demonstrate how thoughtfully Indian leaders are approaching the trust problem, and I fully expect that their suggestions will be considered and incorporated as the bill moves through the committee process. The following issues are of great importance to the Great Plains Tribal Chairman's Association: 1. Providing the Deputy Secretary with sufficient authority to ensure that reform of the administration of trust assets is permanent. They do not believe the bill at present gives the Deputy Secretary the full and unified authority needed; 2. Including cultural resources as a trust asset for management purposes; 3. Incorporating the Office of Surface Mining and Bureau of Reclamation and other related agencies within the Department of the Interior and the Federal government under the purview of the Deputy Secretary; 4. Assuring that the legislation not infringe on tribal sovereignty by interfering with tribal involvement in the management of individual trust assets or tribal assets, or both; 5. Maintaining the Bureau of Indian Affairs' role as an advocate for tribe; 6. Maintaining current levels of Bureau of Indian Affairs employment; 7. Applying Indian employment preference to all positions created by the legislation; 8. Providing in law that Bureau of Indian Affairs funds not be used to fund the Deputy Secretary appointed by the legislation; 9. Stressing the importance of appropriating adequate funding to allow reform to succeed; 10. Reflecting in the legislative history that much of the funding needed for real trust reform be allocated at the local agency and regional levels of the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and 11. Placing more tribal representatives, including tribal resource managers, from various Bureau of Indian Affairs regions on the advisory board to the Office of Trust Reform. The issues of trust reform and reorganization within the Bureau of Indian Affairs are nothing new to us here on Capitol Hill, or in Indian Country. Collectively, we have endured many efforts, some will intentioned and some clearly not, to fix, reform, adjust, improve, streamline, downsize, and even terminate the Bureau of Indian Affairs and its trust activities. These efforts have been pursued under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Unfortunately, they have rarely included meaningful involvement from tribal leadership, or recognized the Federal Government's treaty obligation to tribes. I would be remiss if I did not commend this Administration for taking the time to travel to Indian Country to discuss this problem. Their interest in promoting dialogue with tribal leaders was welcome and appreciated. At the same time, however, talk must be supported by action if the trust management problem is to be successfully resolved. The recent unveiling last month of the Department of the Interior's attempt to implement a trust reorganization plan without full tribal or congressional consultation in response to the Cobell v. Norton case was appalling and an egregious act by the federal government to Indian stakeholders. One tribal task force member described Interior's latest deceptive actions as ``a sham.'' That sentiment is widespread in Indian Country and exacerbates an underlying frustration and disappointment that is both understandable and disconcerting. I share this frustration and disappointment. And I am concerned that the progress made jointly last year could be wasted away by a rising tide of disillusionment and mounting sense of betrayal. The message I have heard from tribal leaders is clear. What is needed to achieve true reform are clear trust standards, one clear line of authority for trust management and the resources necessary to achieve meaningful reform, respect for self-determination, and meaningful consultation. Meaningful consultation and acceptance of tribal status is the critical starting point if we hope to find a workable solution to the very real problem of trust management. The bill Senators McCain, Johnson and I are introducing today reflects this conviction. There is no more important challenge facing the tribes and their representatives in Congress than that of restoring accountability and efficiency to trust management. And nowhere do the principles of self- determination and tribal sovereignty come more into play than in the management and distribution of trust funds and assets. I am disappointed that this problem was not solved to the satisfaction of tribal leaders in the last Congress. Yet, that fight is not over, and my commitment to my South Dakota tribal constituents and Indian Country on this important issue has not diminished. Last week, the Senate Democratic leadership introduced its priority bills for the 108th Congress. I am proud that trust reform is included as part of our civil rights legislation. An effective long-term solution to the trust problem must be based on government-to-government dialogue. The McCain/Johnson/Daschle bill will not only provide the catalyst for meaningful tribal involvement in the search for solutions, it can also form the basis for true trust reform. I look forward to participating with tribal leaders, Administration officials and my congressional colleagues in pursuit of this essential objective.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I concur with the distinguished Senator from Nevada, the assistant Democratic leader. We have made a great deal of progress, as is evidenced by the number of women who now serve in the Senate as well as the House. In addition, of course, as we look to the election of the first woman as a leader of either caucus, I think that, too, speaks volumes for the transition that this country and the Congress itself have experienced over the course of the last couple of decades. We have made progress on women's rights, and many of us would like to think we have made progress as well on civil rights. Over the course of the last several weeks, this country has been focused on the issue of civil rights. I think virtually every Member of the body spoke strongly about the need for healing and reconciliation as we consider the issue of civil rights and the rights of minorities in this country. We recognize we have a long way to go. We have a new leader in the Republican caucus who has pledged to pursue these goals, and I applaud him for his willingness to do so. Unfortunately, yesterday the Republican leader may have caused confusion about his intent in that regard. His comments indicated to me that among the Republican leadership there may have been a change of face, but there has not been a change of heart. When the administration chose to renominate Charles Pickering to the second highest court in the land, it now appears that in many respects, they did not even have a change of face. The question is whether or not all of us, Republicans and Democrats, can express in our actions what so many have expressed in words. If indeed it is a change of heart, we need to see actions that bear out such a change. On the question of affirmative action, Senator Frist said he supports it if affirmative action is defined as it was in the 1960 Civil Rights Act. Well, that was not affirmative action; that was civil rights. That was equal rights. The real question of affirmative educational opportunity is now being asked in the United States Supreme Court. The administration has chosen to remain silent. Yesterday the Republican leader in the Senate did not ask them to break that silence or indicate a desire to break his. When it comes to protecting equal rights, we still have a lot of work to do in changing hearts, in changing minds, and in changing laws. Unfortunately, that lesson still seems to be lost on a number of our Republican colleagues, in spite of their expressions of intent over the course of the last several weeks. There will be much more to say and do on the issue of racial reconciliation in the coming weeks. I hope to see more than just words from our Republican colleagues, because yesterday it appeared that what we had hoped was a change of heart was little more than a change of face. Last week the administration announced we would be able to see the details of the economic stimulus package they intend to offer. Last week we also learned that during the month of December we lost 100,000 jobs; 100,000 jobs in December. That brings the total job loss since George Bush took office to 2.3 million jobs. When the President puts forth his stimulus plan, my concern is it will be a stimulus plan for the rich and a sedative for the rest. The reason I say that, in part, is because there is very little job creation in the first year under what we know of the President's plan. The President has acknowledged that in his first year he will be creating approximately 190,000 jobs. When that 190,000 jobs is compared to the 100,000 jobs lost in December alone, or the 2.3 million jobs lost in the first 2 years, 190,000 jobs is hardly a drop in the bucket. It is hardly worth writing home about. It is not the stimulus that all economists and the rest of the country expect the Congress to consider. That is the concern many have: 90 percent of the so-called stimulus plan the President is proposing takes place in the outyears--not when we are losing the jobs by the hundreds of thousands each month. It takes place in years beyond 2003. If anything, the economists have said over and over if you are going to create a stimulus package, make sure it is immediate. Make sure it takes effect now, not at some point in the outyears. We made that mistake before. We are feeling the consequences of it. So, the fact it does not stimulate the economy is the first concern we have. My second concern is the question of fairness. Mr. President, 200,000 millionaires get tax relief that exceeds the salary of 92 million Americans who make $50,000 or less. Again, 200,000 millionaires will get $89,000 annually as a tax cut while those who are making $50,000 a year or less will get somewhere in the vicinity of $70 or $80 a year in tax reduction. This proposal flunks the test of fairness. I am troubled on two other accounts. In the last few weeks young men and women at Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota have been sent off to the Persian Gulf to prepare for war. We hope that war will not come. But if war does come, they will be asked to put their lives on the line. They will be asked to put their lives on the line at the very time these millionaires are going to get an $89,000 tax break. For the life of me, I don't see where the fairness is in that. Over the last 333 days, we have also suggested there has to be some form of drought relief, some form of assistance given to farmers and ranchers and people in rural areas who are suffering as a consequence of the drought. So far we have been unsuccessful. We have been unsuccessful because the administration has said we cannot afford $6 billion in drought assistance. What I don't understand is how in the name of fiscal fairness we can support $764 billion in tax cuts largely directed to those at the very top while we tell our farmers and ranchers they are not eligible for any assistance and while we send our young men and women off to war. On the issue of fairness, this plan also fails. Perhaps my biggest concern, however, goes to how reckless this plan is. People have to be reminded we are borrowing every single dollar of these funds to pay for the tax cut. We are borrowing that out of Social Security. We have no other recourse. Whatever money is going to go to the tax cut this year will be borrowed from the Social Security trust fund. So the fact we are borrowing at a time when we may go to war, where we may actually have to draw down more resources to be able to fight that war, seems senseless to me. To borrow at the magnitude the President is proposing, $764 billion in face value and perhaps $1 trillion when interest costs are factored in, $1 trillion when we have to fight a war, seems like the most reckless course for fiscal responsibility I can think of. The Governors are not sounding a false alarm when they tell us this plan will cost them $4 billion. That is over and above the $50 billion shortfall they are currently experiencing all over this country. In my own State of South Dakota, we are experiencing about a $50 million shortfall, one of the largest on record. But it is $50 billion nationwide. This tax plan will exacerbate that $50 billion by another $4 billion. Mr. President, from the point of view of its stimulative value, from the point of view of fairness, from the point of view of our responsibilities and the potential for recklessness, this plan leaves a great deal to be desired. In fact, it causes very great concern to many. I am also troubled that as we contemplate the need for action on this stimulus package, as we contemplate the need to address the omnibus appropriations bill, as we recognize we still have to work out our organizing resolution, that the Congress may take vacation next week. I hope we would refrain from taking a vacation next week. I hope we come to the floor, resolve these matters, work on them intently, bring this economic stimulus plan, have a good debate, make sure we are acting in good faith to try to deal with these tragic unemployment numbers that roll out month after month. That is my hope, that we stay here next week, that we address these concerns in a realistic, in a bipartisan, and in an immediate way, sending a clear message we are a lot more interested in getting this work done than we are in taking a few days off so soon into the new session. I stand ready to work with our Republican leadership and certainly with those in the committees as we begin to do our work. Senator Frist and I have had some conversations with regard to the organizing resolution. We are not yet able to say with any confidence when we may finish those discussions. It is fair to say, as everyone knows, we had exactly the mirror circumstances in the 107th Congress that we have today. In the 107th Congress, there were 51 Members in the majority and 49 Members in the minority. In the 108th Congress, there are 51 Members in the majority and 49 Members in the minority. It would seem to me given the fact that we have simply seen a reverse, the mirror image of the makeup of the 107th Congress, we ought to have exactly the same organizing resolution; the same funding, the same membership, the same space, the same circumstances. That really is as simply as I can describe what the Democratic position is. If it was good enough for Republicans and Democrats in the 107th Congress, you would think it would be good enough for Democrats and Republicans in the 108th Congress. We are willing to settle for 49 percent of the resources, 49 percent of the space, and a one-vote Republican majority on committees in the 108th Congress. That is our position. It is the same position we held last time. Unfortunately, there are some who have argued that ratio is not satisfactory any longer. Since they are in the majority, they want more--more resources, more space. I hope, in the interests filling the committee positions and moving through the legislative agenda we have before us, that we can move as quickly as possible to a resolution of this matter. Let's do in this Congress what we did in the last one. We all signed off on it. We all said it was the right thing to do. We all agreed, and the time has come for us to agree again. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, that is exactly what I am proposing and what I assume would be the circumstance in the 108th Congress. As I say, I did not have one chairman last year express a concern about the inadequacy of resources while we were in the majority. I can't imagine, with the cost-of-living adjustment, that anyone would have difficulty accepting those resources--as I say, with a cost-of- living adjustment--in this Congress.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely correct. What we are simply saying is what we had agreed to with a 51-49 breakdown in the 107th Congress is what we ought to agree to with a 51-49 breakdown in the 108th Congress.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is certainly true. I read that article this morning. I commend the distinguished Senator from Nevada for raising its content. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, simply to summarize the article, it says not only are we suffering month-to-month joblessness at levels we have not seen in 8 years, but if you look at the joblessness in the context of the economy over the last several decades, this is one of the most severe slumps we have seen in decades. So we have both an immediate context and a long-term context. In both of those contexts, as the Wall Street Journal article points out, this matter is of great consequence. Mr. President, 2.3 million jobs, now, in the last 24 months have been lost. What the article simply states is that, while it is a serious immediate concern, we have to be very concerned about the long-term repercussions of this joblessness. I thought it was one of the better articles I had seen in recent times with regard to the economic dilemma we face as we deal with the stimulus package later this month.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would say to the Senator from Nevada, that is one of my greatest concerns. Obviously, the debt we were able to eliminate over the final years of the 1990s, thinking that somehow--I can recall having conversations that we may be spending down the debt too fast. People expressed the concern we might be eliminating the debt too fast. I just now shake my head in disbelief we even had conversations like that. But, nonetheless, that was one of the concerns expressed by some during that period of time. I can recall so vividly this question about what it is we were going to do with a $5.5 trillion projected surplus. We no longer have that surplus projection. We no longer have those year-to-year balanced budgets we were proud to report to the American people. We now have a deficit of $200 billion to $300 billion, depending on whether or not you consider the Social Security trust fund. We are expected now to see a deficit of $350 billion in the next fiscal year. So we will see debts of a magnitude we have not seen, deficits of a magnitude we have not experienced as a result of what has happened over the course of the last 24 months. In spite of it, we are going to be actually borrowing to exacerbate that debt even more, borrowing to provide a tax cut to those at the very top of the income scale. I have always been concerned about the relationship between the circumstances we face now in the war on terror and the circumstances we faced in World War II. President Roosevelt stood up and said: I want all Americans to sacrifice. In fact, he raised revenue, he did everything possible to ensure there was an adequate degree of sacrifice across the board. Now we are asking young men and women to sacrifice perhaps their lives at the very time we turn around and give a millionaire an $89,000 tax break. It turns logic on its head, but that is the concern I have. I appreciate very much the Senator from Nevada raising the question.

Mr. DASCHLE. I sure do.

Mr. DASCHLE. That's the concern we have about a $200 billion Social Security cushion that is all being drawn down; not only this year, but for every year in the foreseeable future, every year in the coming decade. Every dollar of Social Security revenue coming in will be used to offset the costs involved in running the Government and providing the resources for the tax cuts the President has either advocated or actually enacted. There is no doubt that the fiscal irresponsibility and the recklessness that comes with the extraordinary reliance on Social Security trust funds at the very time the baby boomers are coming into retirement age is very troubling. I think it ought to be the subject of a lot more debate and scrutiny in the days and weeks ahead.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the distinguished Republican leader, the majority leader's explanation to the Senate as to the current circumstances involving the organizing resolution. I have been through a number of these resolutions over the time that I have had the good fortune to be leader. I share his view that oftentimes these matters do not require a great deal of attention. I wish this would not require the time that it has. I am very hopeful we can resolve these matters. He and I have talked. Our staffs have talked. He has consulted with his chairs. I have consulted with 9 Democrat ranking members, currently the chairs, because they are the chairs until a new resolution has been incorporated. I have said on several occasions, to him personally as well as to my colleagues, that I will do all I can to see if we can find a way to resolve the matter. Let me respond to a couple of things on which the distinguished majority leader commented. First of all, while there have been occasions when a two-thirds/one-third funding breakdown has been the order of the organizing resolution, in the last Congress, in the 107th Congress, there were 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans. As he noted, it started at a point where there were 50 and 50. As we negotiated the resolution under a 50-50 Senate, we attempted to address what happens when you have membership in committees that is equal. We came to the conclusion that there is a significant budgetary, a significant practical space consideration to be given when you have membership on committees that close. There are times when, obviously, the disparity between the two parties and membership would reflect a need that also is commensurate budgetarily and in space, but with a 51-49 or a 50-50 Senate, clearly the budgetary, the staffing, the space questions become more relevant. That was really what our discussions were when we moved from 50-50 to 51-49 last spring. In fact, I would say as I negotiated with, I believe, five senior members of the Republican caucus, the issue of funding and the issue of space were not even at question. At that point, it was more a question of a blue slip and a number of other what I call extraneous matters that we attempted to resolve: How do we deal with judgeships? How do we deal with the question of a blue slip; that is, a Senator's prerogative to sign off on a nominee before it comes before the committee. That was the subject of discussion--not the funding, not the space. So it was after several weeks of negotiation--and I emphasize weeks, not days--that we had to move back the time that officially we became the majority on committees by about 6 weeks. During that time, obviously, I would have preferred to have moved much more quickly, but we were unable to do that--again, not because of space and not because of budget but because of the question of blue slips. When we did pass the resolution with a 51-49 breakdown in the Senate, we passed it with a recognition that those budgets and that space and those questions pertaining to membership on committees were as relevant with 51 Senators as they were when we had 50 Senators. So the Senate established a precedent that was practical, that was in keeping with the functional responsibilities of the two parties and each committee. Again, I would emphasize, it passed unanimously, 51 to 49, virtually equal budgets, with an administrative bonus for the chairman to be allocated as that particular chair and ranking member saw fit. We lived under that resolution. It worked. Now we have the reverse, the mirror image of that, 51-49, the same breakdown we had just a month ago. Yet some of our Republican colleagues are saying they want a budget that is dramatically different, a huge disparity, once again, between the Republican funding and the Democratic funding. If it was good for both parties in the last Congress with 51-49, we are simply saying it is good for this Congress. We are prepared to go to work tomorrow. We are prepared to move this legislation, and I want very much to work with my Republican colleagues and the majority leader to take up these priority matters. In fact, I said last week to the President, we do not need a new organizing resolution to do the work of the Senate. Sure, it would accommodate the new Senators, and we would like very much to get that done. But the Senators heard what I heard from the President just last week at our meeting. The President said it is urgent we move these nominations. It is urgent we take up some of these priorities. I indicated at that time we would be more than happy to move these nominations. The Snow papers just arrived today, so it is not the fault of the Congress that we have not been able to hold hearings or confirm the Snow nomination. But with regard to all nominations, the Ridge nomination was supposed to be the subject of hearings tomorrow. I understand that was canceled. I am disappointed, in spite of the urgency expressed by the administration; their unwillingness to move ahead with the hearings sends a conflicting message with regard to just how urgent it is. We are prepared with whatever circumstances to deal with the nomination and to deal with these issues. It is hard for me to understand the logic or the rationale for reversing what was done unanimously not once but twice in the 107th Congress, which was done in a way that reflected the balance in committees, reflected the functional and practical needs of the committees. That is all we are asking now. If it was good enough for a 51-49 Senate a month ago, it ought to be good enough for a 51-49 Senate today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I could just respond quickly, and I don't want to belabor this, but I would say actually that was my belief, too--that we wanted to hold our Republican colleagues harmless, if you will, if that is the right phrase; in other words, to accommodate their staff. But I think that the logic, again, ought to be extended. If that was the case, that we wanted to show some compassion for staff, we wanted to send a clear message about our intent to work in a meaningful and a bipartisan way, it would seem to me under a 51-49 Senate last time we made the decisions that the Senator from Kentucky has noted; we did so with an understanding about the disruption it would cause. That isn't my first concern in this case, but it is a concern. I would think those staff would have every bit as much of an expectation now that they had a year ago--I guess it would be 2 years ago, in May-- that certainly some continuity, some degree of certainty under these circumstances could be expected, given what we did before. So I appreciate very much the Senator commenting. We will have more to say about it as time goes on.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there are a number of our colleagues--and I would say I am certainly one of them--who would vote no if we were to have a rollcall vote on this continuing resolution today. I have attempted to accommodate colleagues who are not able to be here as a result of their illness, and it is only as a result of illness we will forego the need for a rollcall vote. But I think this moment requires at least an explanation. We are now into the 6th month of the effort underway in Congress to address appropriations. We have continued to extend the continuing resolutions at levels far below what is viewed as adequate for education, homeland security, health, research, and for the priorities that many of us hold to be the most important. So I must say I am deeply troubled by this continuing extension of the continuing resolution without addressing the need for adequacy in education and homeland security, in particular. Basically, what this reflects is a dramatic cut, a deep cut in the funding for education, a deep cut in the funding for homeland security, a deep cut in transportation and research--cuts virtually across the board. I hope this will be the last continuing resolution that we will adopt in this manner. I know that the chairs and ranking members of the Appropriations Committee are working now to resolve the other matters relating to these priorities and will bring an appropriations bill to the floor perhaps within the next few days. It is with that understanding that we will not object to this CR, that we will not ask for a rollcall vote, but that we will voice, as strongly as we can, our opposition to these cuts and our determination to find a way to address them successfully as we consider the appropriations bills perhaps as early as next week. I do not object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senators should not be under any illusion: CR will starve vital functions of government. You don't have to take my word for it. According to Representative Bill Young the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, a long-term CR at these levels ``would have disastrous impacts on the war on terror, homeland security, and other important government responsibilities.'' Chairman Young wrote that sentence in a memo he sent to Speaker Hastert. The memo went even further, detailing the impact of a CR on a host of important domestic programs. Here is a sampling of what Chairman Young said will be cut: No. 1, FBI: The funding to hire additional agents to fight terrorism and to continue information technology upgrades would be denied; No. 2, bioterrorism: There would be no funding for the President's $800 million initiative to increase funding for new basic bioterror research, to develop and test a new improved anthrax vaccine, and to assist universities and research institutions; No. 3, first responders: There will be no funding for the President's $3.5 billion initiative to provide assistance to local law enforcement, fire departments, and emergency response teams; No. 4, SEC/corporate responsibility: There will be insufficient funding to support current staffing requirements let alone significant staff increases needed to monitor corporate behavior; No. 5, veterans medical care: A long-term CR would leave the veterans medical health care system at least $2.5 billion short of expected requirements; No. 6, firefighting: The $1.5 billion taken from other Interior Department programs to pay for firefighting costs will not be replaced; No. 7, Pell grants: A freeze in this program will result in a shortfall of over $900 million; No. 8, Medicare claims: There will be no funding for the President's $143 million proposal to ensure that the growing number of claims are processed in a timely manner; No. 9, special supplemental feeding program for WIC: Funding would be reduced by $114 million below current levels, meaning less will be available for families that depend on this program; No. 10, Social Security claims: There will be no funding increase to process and pay benefits to millions of Social Security recipients. In addition to the program cuts listed by Chairman Young, the House CR omits assistance for thousands of farmers all over this country who are confronting the worst drought in more than 50 years. This is the wrong way to do business. We should be completing our work on the bipartisan appropriations bills, not cutting education, veterans affairs, homeland security and other important priorities. Each of these bills properly fund key priorities. And, most importantly, each enjoyed the unanimous support of the Democrats and the Republicans on the Committee. Mr. President, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the House wrote a memo that has been widely read. It is an excellent memo that reviews the impact of these cuts. It was sent to the Speaker last October. I ask unanimous consent that the memo be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a milestone in South Dakota and the United States, the centennial of Wind Cave National Park. For years, American Indians in the Black Hills had told stories about holes that blow wind. In 1881, while exploring in southwestern South Dakota, Jesse and Tom Bingham came upon one of those holes, Wind Cave. A man named Charlie Crary was the first person to enter the cave, and 6 years later it was reported to be 3 miles long. An early landowner was once heard saying he had ``given up finding the end of Wind Cave.'' For nearly 20 years, the cave was held in private ownership through mining and homestead claims. In the late 1890s, the Department of the Interior took jurisdiction over the area after it ruled that no legitimate mining development was occurring and that homesteaders were not acting in good faith to occupy the land. On January 9, 1903, President Teddy Roosevelt, one of our Nation's most revered conservationists, signed legislation creating Wind Cave National Park, the seventh national park in the country and the first ever in the world to protect a cave. Later, Wind Cave officials were put in charge of managing new parks in the Black Hills area, including Devils Tower National Monument and Mount Rushmore National Memorial, until those parks established their own management programs. For 100 years, Wind Cave National Park has been one of the jewels of the National Park System. Today, the cave is one of the world's longest and most complex cave systems, with more than 103 miles of mapped tunnels, with more passageways still being discovered. Indeed, we may never find the cave's end. Cavers and tourists from around the world are attracted by the cave's unique boxwork, a honeycomb-shaped formation that covers the cave's ceilings and walls. And while that park's namesake is its focal point, the land above the cave is equally impressive, with 28,000 acres of rolling meadows, majestic forests, creeks, and streams. As one of the few remaining mixed-grass prairie ecosystems in the country, the park is home to abundant wildlife, such as bison, deer, elk and birds, and is a National Game Preserve. As many of my colleagues may know, last year, I introduced the Wind Cave National Park Boundary Revision Act. This legislation would enhance Wind Cave National Park's value to the public and help visitors enjoy it even more by expanding the park in it's southern ``keyhole'' region. This land currently is owned by a ranching family that wants to see it preserved for future generations. The land is a natural extension of the park, with mixed-grass prairie and ponderosa pine forests set off by a dramatic river canyon. The area also boasts archaeological sites, such as a buffalo jump over which early Native Americans once drove the bison they hunted. The addition of this land would enhance recreation for hikers who come for the solitude of the park's backcountry. Wind Cave National Park is a national treasure, and I can think of no better way to help the park enter its next century than by approving this expansion. The Senate approved the expansion last November, but unfortunately, it was not considered by the House before Congress adjourned for the year. I intend to reintroduce this legislative soon, and hope that my colleagues will again support its passage so we can permanently protect these extraordinary lands for future generations of Americans to enjoy. I congratulate the National Park Service and the staff of Wind Cave National Park on the centennial of the park's founding, and wish them all the best for the next 100 years.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, officially, the Congress that ended in December was the 107th Congress. But history will almost surely record it as the September 11th Congress. From the moment the first plane hit the first tower until the last moments of the lameduck session, helping America recover from that horrific day, bringing its plotters to justice and making changes to protect America from future terrorist attacks dominated the Senate's agenda. We continued that work--even as we confronted unprecedented challenges in the Senate: anthrax, the rise of new threats to our Nation, and the loss of our friend and colleague, Paul Wellstone. Through tragic and historic events, the 107th Senate under Democratic control produced a number of important legislative accomplishments: aviation security and counterterrorism legislation; the toughest corporate accountability law since the SEC was created in 1934; the most far-reaching campaign finance reforms since Watergate; the most significant overhaul of Federal education policies since 1965; and a new farm bill to replace the failed Freedom to Farm Act. However, other important legislation fell victim to special-interest arm-twisting, and the other party's unwillingness to compromise on their proposals, or even consider ours. We saw that on proposals to dedicate greater resources to homeland security, a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and a real, enforceable patients' bill of rights. The proposals we are introducing today recognize that the American people have real concerns about their security, and that Republicans and the Bush administration have not done enough to address those concerns. But they also recognize that security means more than national security, and homeland security. It means economic security, retirement security, and the security of knowing that our children are getting a good education, and that, if you get sick, health care is available and affordable. It means giving people who work fulltime the security of knowing they can earn a decent wage--whether they work on a farm, in a factory, or at a fast-food restaurant. It is the security of knowing that our air is safe to breathe and our water is safe to drink, that America is living up to its commitment to civil rights, and that we are keeping our promises to our veterans. Democrats are committed to tackling terrorism abroad, and making our country more secure. One of our first priorities will be to make Americans safer by enhancing protections for our ports, borders, food and water supplies, and chemical and nuclear plants. We are introducing a bill to commit real resources to doing all of those things, and to hiring more police and first responders and providing them the tools and training to do the difficult jobs we are now asking them to do. We also recognize that national strength also depends on economic strength, and in the last 2 years, America's economy has weakened. In the coming weeks, we will put forward our ideas for how best to stimulate the economy in the short term. But, in the long term, one of the most important things we can do is give people greater confidence that their private pensions will be there for them. That is why another of our leadership bills is one to strengthen pension protections, expand pension coverage, and crack down on rogue corporations. It has been said that almost every problem any society faces can be solved with two things: good health, and a good education--and we have bills in each of those areas. The Right Start for Children Act makes Head Start fully available for 4- and 5-year-olds, and increases availability for infants and toddlers. It will help improve childcare quality, make childcare more affordable for 1 million additional children, and strengthen child nutrition programs to reduce child hunger. The Educational Excellence for All Learners Act builds on that foundation by improving education every step of the way--from kindergarten, to college, to lifelong learning. It makes sure that we match the real reforms we passed last year with the real resources they demand. It will help us recruit, hire, and train qualified teachers, build new schools, and make college and job training more affordable and more available. President Bush pledged to leave no child behind, and then proposed more than a billion dollars of education cuts. We are proposing to put our money where the Republicans' mouths are--and help secure a good start, a good education, and good prospects for all Americans. When it comes to health care, it was an outrage that 40 million Americans were uninsured 2 years ago. In the past year, over 1 million more Americans have lost health insurance. And those who are lucky enough to have health insurance are seeing their premiums skyrocket. With the Health Care Coverage Expansion and Quality Improvement Act, we hope to reduce the number of uninsured by making health care coverage more available to small businesses, parents of children eligible for CHIP and Medicaid, pregnant women, and others. We also want to improve the quality of care people receive by overcoming Republican resistance to a real, enforceable, patients' bill of rights. We will also insist that mental illness be treated like any other illness--something that will not only honor Paul Wellstone's legacy, but also help millions of families. We are also committed to passing a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, and lowering the price of prescription drugs for all Americans. Last year, we passed a bill to lower the price of generic drugs, but the House refused to take it up. And we had 52 Senators support our Medicare prescription drug benefit--but it was blocked on a procedural motion. The high cost of prescription drugs--combined with the increasing need for such drugs--is destroying the life savings--and threatening the dignity--of millions of older Americans. And that is simply unacceptable. A couple of months ago in elections all across the country, and in words spoken here in the Senate, we have seen that when it comes to protecting equal rights, we still have a lot of work to do in changing hearts, minds, and laws. That is why we are introducing The Equal Rights and Equal Dignity for Americans Act. This bill will enforce employment nondiscrimination, fund the election-reform measures we passed last year, outlaw hate crimes, and take other steps to see that as a nation, we live up to the promise of equal rights. I hope those Republicans who have recently expressed their support for civil rights will join us in expressing their support for this legislation. I also hope they will join us in supporting our bill to combat drug and gun violence, to crack down on new crimes like identity theft, and to protect against and prevent crimes against children and seniors. We also need to ensure greater dignity for our minimum wage workers, our farmers, and our veterans. The purchasing power of the minimum wage is now the lowest it has been in more than 30 years. And a full-time minimum wage income won't get you over the poverty line. If we can afford over a trillion dollars in tax cuts for those at the top of the income scale, we can afford a dollar fifty more an hour for those at the bottom. We need to help our rural economy, and help those impacted by a drought and other natural disasters that are being called among the costliest for agricultural producers in our Nation's history. And we need to maintain our commitment to those currently serving, and keep our promises to our veterans. One way we do that is by allowing our wounded veterans to receive both their full disability and retirement benefits. Another way is by addressing the current crisis in veterans' health care. With each of these proposals--we stand with the leading veterans organizations, and for those who served our country. Finally, we are committed to stopping what is adding up to an all-out assault on our environment. By unilaterally abandoning the Kyoto process, the Bush administration took us out of position to lead the world on the issue of climate change. The Global Climate Security Act will help America reassert our position of world leadership on this vital issue of world health. Each of these things is relevant, not revolutionary. If they seem familiar, it is because most of what is in them has been introduced before. But they are not law, despite the support of the American people and, in some cases, a bipartisan majority of Senators. They have been opposed by an extreme few, and their special interest supporters. And while those bills have languished, we have seen the rise of more threats to our country; more people have lost their jobs and their health care; and more of our national challenges have gone unmet. These are our priorities. In the last couple of days, the President has made clear his priorities--more tax cuts for those who need them least. The President's plan won't help middle income families. It won't contribute to economic growth; it won't make our homeland more secure; it won't expand educational opportunity for the young, or strengthen health care for the elderly. Instead--by putting us deeper into deficit and debt--it makes all of these things, and all of our other goals, harder to achieve. Our bills will help us create an America that is stronger, safer, and better for all Americans--and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting them.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois for not objecting to this resolution. He and my colleagues feel very strongly, as is evidenced by the debate this afternoon. We will not give up, we will not relent, we will not allow those million Americans who have no coverage not getting the consideration they deserve in the Senate. We will continue to offer amendments. I put my colleagues on notice: On this legislation and on any other occasion that we have the opportunity to avail ourselves of an amendment, we will do so, because this deserves a vote. It deserves debate. It deserves passage. It is shameful we are leaving out these million people today. There is absolutely no excuse, especially when the President of the United States today is in Chicago talking about more tax cuts for those at the very top. That is wrong. It is an illustration of the extraordinary difference in philosophy about how we stimulate the economy. This is not only good for the economy, it is good for 1 million people left out as a result of the actions today. I yield the floor.