Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. Under this order, the Murkowski amendment relating to Iraqi oil is now the pending order of business. I encourage Senators, if they want to be heard on the amendment, to come to the Chamber. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of the Murkowski amendment relating to Iraqi oil, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 3525, the border security bill, and that it be considered under the following limitations: that there be 30 minutes of debate on the bill, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Kennedy, Brownback, Feinstein, and Kyl, or their designees; that the amendments listed in this agreement be the only amendments in order; that any debate time be equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon disposition of all amendments, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on final passage of the bill, without further intervening action or debate: Kennedy-Brownback-Feinstein-Kyl managers' amendment, 20 minutes for debate; that debate on the following Byrd relevant amendments be limited to 20 minutes each: Byrd amendment regarding review of educational institutions' compliance provisions, Byrd amendment regarding penalty increase for manifest noncompliance, Byrd amendment with regard to change of deadlines for implementation of biometrics, and Byrd amendment regarding tightening requirements for participation in the visa waiver program.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, last September--5 days before the terrorist attacks on our Nation--President Vicente Fox delivered an historic address to this Congress on the importance of U.S.-Mexican relations. On both sides of the political aisle, and on both sides of the U.S.- Mexican border, there was wide agreement that reforming our Nation's outdated immigration laws was an essential step in strengthening the relationship between our two countries. Then came September 11. One of the important lessons we learned on that horrific day is that border security is not simply a matter of immigration policy. It's a matter of urgent national security. In the months since September 11, we have seen that the INS and the FBI lack the tools and resources to effectively track foreign nationals in our country. This includes even individuals with known links to terrorist networks. Not only are we unable to expel people who have violated their visas, very often we can't even find them. Then last month, we were stunned to learn that the INS had just mailed confirmations of visa extensions to two of the terrorist hijackers responsible for the September 11 attacks. I am proud to be one of the 61 sponsors of the bipartisan Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it. This act will strengthen America's border security and improve our ability to track visa holders--including foreign students. It gives law enforcement agencies new tools and technology to share critical information, and to identify and intercept visitors who threaten our national security. It also increases staffing and training for border security officers. I want to thank Senator Kennedy, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, and Senator Feinstein for their leadership. Without their hard work and determined persistence, we would not be here today. I also thank Senator Byrd for his efforts to improve this bill--and for his invaluable leadership on the larger challenge of strengthening America's homeland security in general. We all know that authorizing legislation is important. But it takes resources to turn policies into workable laws. No one in Washington has fought harder to protect America from future terrorist attacks than Robert C. Byrd. I look forward to working with him to ensure that this and other homeland security measures are given the resources they need to work. We cannot strengthen America's homeland security on the cheap, and we should not try. We need to do this right. Just before President Fox's visit last September, Congressman Gephardt and I outlined principles for comprehensive immigration reform. Enhanced border security is one of those principles. Unfortunately, another of our principles--extension of section 245(i) of the immigration code--is not included in this bill. Section 245(i) would allow immigrants who are in this country, who have applied to become permanent residents and who are contributing to our society, to remain in this country while they wait for their ``green card.'' Many of these immigrants are married to Americans, and have children who were born in this country. Without Section 245(i), many of them face the impossible choice of leaving their families for up to 10 years, taking their families back with them to a country they may have fled to escape poverty or terror, or breaking the law, thus forgoing the chance to ever become a lawful permanent resident. The Senate voted to extend section 245(i) last year, the same week President Fox spoke to Congress. We had hoped and expected that the House would quickly do the same. Instead, it delayed for six months. By the time it finally acted, key deadlines contained in the bill had become unworkable. I remain strongly committed to a meaningful 245(i) extension--one that gives long-time, tax-paying residents a genuine opportunity to remain in this country--with their families--while they wait to become permanent legal residents. My colleagues and I look forward to working with Senators Lott, Hagel and Brownback and others, on a bipartisan basis, to send President Bush a 245(i) extension bill with realistic deadlines. America needs an immigration system that is pro-family, pro-business and fair. Together, we can create such a system--one that sacrifices neither our security nor our ideals. The new border security bill on which we are about to vote, and a meaningful extension of 245(i), are essential parts of such a system. We also look forward to working with our Republican colleagues, and with the administration, to restructure and strengthen the INS, end the backlogs, provide meaningful access to earned legalization, and reunite families. We look forward to creating a new and better temporary worker program that treats workers with the respect they deserve and provides businesses with the employees they need. Within hours after the twin towers collapsed, we heard some people say that America should close its doors to immigrants. Some people even said we should force out immigrants who are already here, working and contributing to our society. People who say such things need to understand that our enemy is not immigrants, it is intolerance and hatred. America is strong not in spite of our diversity, but because of our diversity. By passing this bill today, we are strengthening not only our border security, but our basic American values. It is the right thing to do, and I thank all of our colleagues who helped get us to this point.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, if I could announce to colleagues, this is the last vote tonight. There will not be any votes tomorrow. The Senate will not be in session tomorrow, and there will be no rollcall votes on Monday. The next rollcall vote will occur sometime Tuesday morning. I thank my colleagues. Have a good evening and a good weekend. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, last year I introduced S. 1378, the Access to Medical Treatment Act of 2001. This bill would allow patients to use certain alternative and complementary therapies not approved by the FDA. Alternative therapies constitute an increasingly accepted part of medicine. At the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine, scientists are working to expand our knowledge of alternative therapies and their safe and effective use. Additionally, more Americans are turning to alternative therapies in those frustrating instances in which conventional treatments seem to be ineffective in combating illness and disease. The Access to Medical Treatment Act support patient choice while maintaining important patient safeguards. It allows individuals, especially those who face life-threatening afflictions for which conventional treatments have proven ineffective, to try an alternative treatment. This is a choice rightly made by patients. Treatments covered under the Access to Medical Treatment Act must be prescribed by an authorized health care practitioner. The practitioner must fully disclose all available information about the safety and effectiveness of any medical treatment, including questions that remain unanswered because the necessary research has not been conducted. The bill includes detailed informed consent requirements. The bill carefully restricts the ability of practitioners to advertise or market unapproved drugs or devices or to profit financially from prescribing alternative treatments. This provision was included to ensure that practitioners keep the best interests of patients in mind and to retain incentives for seeking FDA approval. The bill also protects patients by requiring practitioners to report any adverse reaction that could potentially have been caused by an unapproved drug or medical device. If an adverse reaction is reported, manufacture and distribution of the drug must cease pending an investigation. If it is determined that the adverse reaction was caused by the drug or medical device, as part of a total recall, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the manufacturer have the duty to inform all health care practitioners to whom the drug or medical device has been provided. While I believe that S. 1378 would give patients important new choices in health care while maintaining strong consumer protections, there has been little discussion or attention given to the issue. Meanwhile, some advocates of greater access to alternative therapies have urged me to reintroduce a version of the Access to Medical Treatment Act similar to the one I and 13 other senators introduced during the 105th Congress in an effort to stimulate further discussion of this important policy issue. This measure includes less detail than S. 1378 but embodies the same goal of making alternative treatments more available to patients who want them. I continue to believe that S. 1378, with its detailed informed consent and practitioner reporting requirements, is the version of the Access to Medical Treatment Act that provides the appropriate vehicle for legislative debate, and I am hopeful that the bill Senators Harkin, Grassley, and I are introducing today will generate momentum to get that debate started.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have now been debating how best to reshape our Nation's energy policy for 24 days. Time and again, we have heard our Republican colleagues say that opening Alaska's arctic wilderness is the cornerstone of their energy policy. Time and again, we have said, if that is the case, then offer an amendment to that effect. Time and again, they declined. I am mystified as to why it has taken us so long to get to this point, but now that we are here, I want to talk about the substance of this amendment, because I support policies that will encourage domestic production of oil and gas. I also believe that we need a comprehensive and balanced energy policy that will help to meet our Nation's critical energy needs. But, given the fact that drilling in the Arctic Refuge won't increase our energy independence, but will have an adverse impact on the wildlife refuge--I believe that it does not belong as part of our Nation's energy policy. America's appetite for energy continues to grow each year. Over the next 10 years, the United States is expected to consume roughly 1.5 trillion gallons of gasoline. At the same time, the United States holds only 3 percent of the known world oil reserves. Even if we drilled in everybody's back yard, we could never meet our own demand with our own supply. That is not to say that we shouldn't drill for oil and gas in the United States--to the contrary, we can and we should. But we cannot simply drill our way out of this problem, and we should not be drilling in environmentally sensitive areas. Supporters of drilling in the Arctic Refuge have used every possible opportunity to justify their position. When we were experiencing rising oil prices, supporters said it would make oil available quickly and drive prices down in the process. But even if Congress were to authorize drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge today, we would not see significant quantities of oil produced from the refuge for 8 years at the earliest. When our economy began to slow, supporters began billing it as an economic stimulus measure, saying it will create 750,000 jobs. Yet that number comes from an outdated and biased study commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute. Recent, more credible estimates by the Congressional Research Service, the Joint Economic Committee and others suggest that less than one-tenth that number would actually be created. And now, as we see volatility in a number of oil-producing nations, those same supporters are saying that drilling in ANWR is vital to increasing our energy independence. But estimates of the amount of oil that might potentially be available if we drilled in the Arctic Refuge average around 3.2 billion barrels. Let me give you an important point of comparison: if we all put replacement tires on our cars that were as good as the ones that came with the cars when they were new, the resulting increase in efficiency would save 5.4 billion gallons of oil--70 percent more than the total amount of oil in the Arctic Refuge. Perhaps the most cynical attempt to justify drilling in the arctic refuge was the most recent. It was an attempt to link drilling in ANWR to an issue that many of my colleagues care about--the issue of health and retirement benefits for laid-off steelworkers. All I can say is that I hope those who proposed this addition to the ANWR amendment remember their newfound commitment to steelworkers when it comes time for us to debate trade adjustment assistance. The bottom line is this: anytime you see a policy so desperately in search of a justification, you can count on one of two things--either it's not that good a policy, or it doesn't have much support. Drilling in ANWR falls into both categories. And here's why: right now, more than 95 percent of the Alaskan North Slope is already open to oil and gas drilling. I find it ironic that by focusing this debate on ANWR, we are missing the other opportunities to produce oil and gas in Alaska that we should be encouraging. The first amendment that we passed to this bill authorizes the construction of a pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska to the lower 48 States. There are 35 trillion cubic feet of known natural gas reserves on the North Slope of Alaska. There is more we can do to encourage sensible production. We should explore ways to pump the heavy crude oil that remains in the ground in northern Alaska. And we should explore for oil and gas in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska--the area where the 3 largest onshore oil reserves in the last 10 years were found. Faced with so little evidence that drilling in the Arctic Refuge would do anything significant to help our economic situation or increase our energy independence, some are now arguing that at the very least it can be done without harming the environment, or without exploiting too much land. But those arguments are flawed as well. For 12 years--over the course of a Democratic and a Republican administration--the U.S. Geological Survey studied the impact that drilling in the Arctic Refuge would have on the local wildlife. In March they came out with their final report--and it couldn't have been more straightforward: the wildlife in the region will be seriously hurt by oil development. Now, some Republicans are saying that they will limit the operation to a 2,000 acre ``footprint,'' and the environmental damage will be minimal. Well, ``footprint'' is a misleading term. In reality, oil production on the coastal plain area would require central production facilities, drilling pads, roads, airstrips, pipelines, water and gravel sources, base camps, construction camps, storage pads, powerlines, powerplants, and possibly a coastal marine facility. When you add those logistical necessities to the fact that those 2,000 acres doesn't include an additional 93,000 acres of Native American land--you begin to see how that 2,000 acre footprint could easily trample a substantial amount of the coastal plain. Finally, we need to recognize that this debate is about more than just drilling in the Arctic Refuge. It is about whether we are willing to recognize that decreasing our dependence on foreign oil means decreasing our dependence on oil, period. It is about whether we choose to pursue an energy future based upon the old philosophy of dig, drill, and burn--or whether we embrace innovative approaches to our energy future. We need to expand production of renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, develop cars and trucks that do not run on gasoline, but on fuel cells or other energy technologies that we can produce here in the United States, and, in the meantime, build more innovative and efficient automobiles. Let me give you just one example of what the innovative new approach could achieve: If we had fully implemented the vehicle fuel-efficiency provisions that were originally in this bill--something that could have been done without affecting safety or performance--we would have saved American drivers billions of dollars--and saved our Nation the same amount of oil we are currently importing from the Persian Gulf. Bold steps like that are the path to energy independence--not backward steps like this. Most Americans will never have the opportunity to visit the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and see the beauty and wonder of land that has been largely untouched by humans since the dawn of time. It is a tribute to the best of America that Americans still want to protect that ecologically rich expanse. It is a tribute to the best of America that so many people today want to give future generations the opportunity to see that land as it once was, and always should be. So I urge my colleagues to use these votes to show that we have the creativity to meet our energy needs, and the character to resist violating the few natural sanctuaries that we have set aside to protect in the process. Let's defeat these amendments. I urge all my colleagues to vote against cloture.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, obviously, I have the availability of leader time, but in the interest of moving these votes along, it is important we try to stay as close to schedule as we can.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for the interest of Senators, I have been in consultation with the distinguished Republican leader throughout the day. We are momentarily going to propound a unanimous consent request which would do several things. First of all, it would accommodate Senator Murkowski and his desire to bring up an amendment on the energy bill relating to Iraq. We would then move to complete our work on the border security bill. There would be a number of amendments offered by Senator Byrd. Once those amendments have been disposed of, it would be our intention to then go to final passage. Then, prior to the end of the day, we would also take up a judicial nomination that has been on the calendar. We would, throughout this period, have further discussions about our schedule for the remainder of the week--tomorrow--and early next week, as we attempt to bring some final closure to the energy bill. So that is the current schedule. It is my expectation we will get this request which would allow us to complete our work on border security today. Senators should be forewarned there will be additional votes, probably several additional votes, yet today on the border security bill, I assume on the Murkowski amendment, as well as on the judicial nomination. So that is the current plan. Just as soon as we have cleared it a final time with our Republican colleagues, I will propound this unanimous consent request. Until that time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I wanted to come to the floor before the end of the day to alert our colleagues on a matter about which I know they would all be concerned. Mary Jane Ogilvie, wife of our Chaplain, a very treasured member of our Senate family, is battling bacterial pneumonia this week. She is in an area hospital and in serious but stable condition. Dr. Ogilvie and his children are, of course, with her as they have been throughout this ordeal. Dr. Ogilvie has been our Chaplain now for 7 years, since 1995, and over the years he has been the source of real strength for many of us in times of sorrow, in times of difficulty. Especially these last difficult months, we have relied on his wise and compassionate counsel over and over again. Now it is our turn to be the source of strength for him, for Mrs. Ogilvie, and for their family. The Chaplain's Office asked that we not send flowers because they are not permitted in intensive care, but if you believe in prayer, they say, please pray for Mrs. Ogilvie. We will certainly do so. We want to extend--I know on behalf of all Senators, Republican and Democratic--our sincere best wishes for a complete and full recovery. We wish her strength, and we want her to know that our thoughts and prayers are with her tonight and will continue to be with her until she returns to good health. I just talked to Dr. Ogilvie this afternoon. He has informed me that the prognosis is improving. We hope that that will be the case throughout the weekend. We wanted to make note of this at this time. I know my colleague, the distinguished Republican leader, has also had a conversation with Dr. Ogilvie, and to accommodate his words at this time, I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, since President Bush signed into law a provision to overturn the ergonomics rule, over 1.8 million workers have suffered ergonomic injuries. At that time Secretary Chao promised ``to pursue a comprehensive approach to ergo-nomics.'' However, now more than a year later, the Department of Labor has unveiled a plan that ultimately falls short of the substantive protections needed to protect America's workers. In response, Senator John Breaux and others have introduced a bill that would require that the Department of Labor promulgate a new rule on ergonomics within 2 years. I am deeply concerned that the administration continues to build on its record of putting special interests above working Americans. I believe that Senator Breaux's bill is an important measure that clarifies that workers deserve real protections, not more studies and voluntary guidelines. Unfortunately, the administration's late announcement fails to provide workers adequate protections. The administration's plan states an ``intent'' to develop voluntary guidelines for selected industries. Senator Breaux's bill will ensure that the administration provides real protections and not hollow promises.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, last year I introduced S. 1378, the Access to Medical Treatment Act of 2001. This bill would allow patients to use certain alternative and complementary therapies not approved by the FDA. Alternative therapies constitute an increasingly accepted part of medicine. At the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine, scientists are working to expand our knowledge of alternative therapies and their safe and effective use. Additionally, more Americans are turning to alternative therapies in those frustrating instances in which conventional treatments seem to be ineffective in combating illness and disease. The Access to Medical Treatment Act support patient choice while maintaining important patient safeguards. It allows individuals, especially those who face life-threatening afflictions for which conventional treatments have proven ineffective, to try an alternative treatment. This is a choice rightly made by patients. Treatments covered under the Access to Medical Treatment Act must be prescribed by an authorized health care practitioner. The practitioner must fully disclose all available information about the safety and effectiveness of any medical treatment, including questions that remain unanswered because the necessary research has not been conducted. The bill includes detailed informed consent requirements. The bill carefully restricts the ability of practitioners to advertise or market unapproved drugs or devices or to profit financially from prescribing alternative treatments. This provision was included to ensure that practitioners keep the best interests of patients in mind and to retain incentives for seeking FDA approval. The bill also protects patients by requiring practitioners to report any adverse reaction that could potentially have been caused by an unapproved drug or medical device. If an adverse reaction is reported, manufacture and distribution of the drug must cease pending an investigation. If it is determined that the adverse reaction was caused by the drug or medical device, as part of a total recall, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the manufacturer have the duty to inform all health care practitioners to whom the drug or medical device has been provided. While I believe that S. 1378 would give patients important new choices in health care while maintaining strong consumer protections, there has been little discussion or attention given to the issue. Meanwhile, some advocates of greater access to alternative therapies have urged me to reintroduce a version of the Access to Medical Treatment Act similar to the one I and 13 other senators introduced during the 105th Congress in an effort to stimulate further discussion of this important policy issue. This measure includes less detail than S. 1378 but embodies the same goal of making alternative treatments more available to patients who want them. I continue to believe that S. 1378, with its detailed informed consent and practitioner reporting requirements, is the version of the Access to Medical Treatment Act that provides the appropriate vehicle for legislative debate, and I am hopeful that the bill Senators Harkin, Grassley, and I are introducing today will generate momentum to get that debate started.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, today I am joining with Senators John McCain and Tim Johnson to introduce a legislation that is intended to focus attention on the need to address and correct the longstanding problem of inefficient management of the assets and funds held by the United States in trust for federally recognized Indian tribes and individual American Indians. Indian Country has faced many challenges over the years. Few, however, have been more important, or more difficult, than ending the mismanagement of the Indian trust fund and restoring integrity to this administrative process. For over 100 years, the Department of Interior has managed a trust 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 give 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 trust accounts. Many enrolled members of the nine South Dakota tribes have trust accounts. How these trust funds have been and will be managed is being litigated in Cobell versus Norton, and the resolution of this lawsuit will have far-reaching implications throughout Indian country. It is impossible 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. Last fall, the Secretary of the Interior unveiled plans 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, she 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 was presented to the court in a hasty effort to avoid being held in contempt of court 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. Earlier this year, 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. Given these developments, Senators McCain, Johnson, and I felt that Congress should be more assertive in forcing discussing about 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 stimulate better dialogue among the Congress, the Interior Department, and Indian Country on this problem. With that goal in mind, the bill has been reviewed by representatives of the Great Plains tribes at a meeting in Rapid City. Mike Jandreau, chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, has been an effective advocate and champion of trust reform, not only for his tribe, but also for all Indian people. Mike and Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribal chairman and Great Plains Tribal chairman's association president, Tom Ranfranz led a very impressive and productive working session with tribal leaders from South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, and Wyoming that both raised awareness of the stakes of this issue and built support for the bill that is being introduced today. I commend the willingness of these participating tribal leaders to be a part of a public process that will hopefully not stop until Indian country feels comfortable with a final product they create. The McCain- Johnson-Daschle bill is intended to be a starting point for promoting greater understanding of what needs to occur to achieve meaningful trust reform. At this point, I would like to share with my colleagues some initial observations on this proposal that were raised yesterday by participating South Dakota treaty tribes and tribes of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain regions. 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. 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. Including cultural resources as a trust asset for management purposes. Incorporating the Office of Surface Mining and Bureau of Reclamation and other related agencies within the Department of Interior and the Federal government under the purview of the Deputy Secretary. Assuring that the legislation not infringe on tribal sovereingnty by interfeering with tribal involvement in the management of individual trust assets or tribal assets, or both. Maintaining the Bureau of Indian Affair's role as an advocate for tribe. Maintaining current levels of Bureau of Indian Affairs employment. Applying Indian employment preference to all positions created by the legislation. Providing in law that Bureau of Indian Affairs funds not be used to fund the Deputy Secretary appointed by the legislation. Stressing the importance of appropriating adequate funding allow reform to succeed. 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. Placing more tribal representatives, including tribal resources managers, from the 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 well 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 in both Republican and Democratic administrations. Unfortunately, they have rarely sought meaningful involvement from tribal leadership, or recognized the Federal Government's treaty obligation to tribes. Both meaningful consultation and acceptance of tribal status are critical if we expect 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 bedrock principles of self-determination and tribal sovereignty come more into play than in the management and distribution of trust funds and assets. This measure recognizes that the only effective long-term solution to the trust problem must be based on government-to-government dialog. I believe the discussion the bill generates will not only provide the catalyst for meaningful tribal involvement in the search for solutions but also form the basis for true trust reform. I look forward to participating with tribal leaders in pursuit of this important objective.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, today I am joining with Senators John McCain and Tim Johnson to introduce a legislation that is intended to focus attention on the need to address and correct the longstanding problem of inefficient management of the assets and funds held by the United States in trust for federally recognized Indian tribes and individual American Indians. Indian Country has faced many challenges over the years. Few, however, have been more important, or more difficult, than ending the mismanagement of the Indian trust fund and restoring integrity to this administrative process. For over 100 years, the Department of Interior has managed a trust 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 give 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 trust accounts. Many enrolled members of the nine South Dakota tribes have trust accounts. How these trust funds have been and will be managed is being litigated in Cobell versus Norton, and the resolution of this lawsuit will have far-reaching implications throughout Indian country. It is impossible 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. Last fall, the Secretary of the Interior unveiled plans 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, she 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 was presented to the court in a hasty effort to avoid being held in contempt of court 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. Earlier this year, 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. Given these developments, Senators McCain, Johnson, and I felt that Congress should be more assertive in forcing discussing about 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 stimulate better dialogue among the Congress, the Interior Department, and Indian Country on this problem. With that goal in mind, the bill has been reviewed by representatives of the Great Plains tribes at a meeting in Rapid City. Mike Jandreau, chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, has been an effective advocate and champion of trust reform, not only for his tribe, but also for all Indian people. Mike and Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribal chairman and Great Plains Tribal chairman's association president, Tom Ranfranz led a very impressive and productive working session with tribal leaders from South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, and Wyoming that both raised awareness of the stakes of this issue and built support for the bill that is being introduced today. I commend the willingness of these participating tribal leaders to be a part of a public process that will hopefully not stop until Indian country feels comfortable with a final product they create. The McCain- Johnson-Daschle bill is intended to be a starting point for promoting greater understanding of what needs to occur to achieve meaningful trust reform. At this point, I would like to share with my colleagues some initial observations on this proposal that were raised yesterday by participating South Dakota treaty tribes and tribes of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain regions. 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. 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. Including cultural resources as a trust asset for management purposes. Incorporating the Office of Surface Mining and Bureau of Reclamation and other related agencies within the Department of Interior and the Federal government under the purview of the Deputy Secretary. Assuring that the legislation not infringe on tribal sovereingnty by interfeering with tribal involvement in the management of individual trust assets or tribal assets, or both. Maintaining the Bureau of Indian Affair's role as an advocate for tribe. Maintaining current levels of Bureau of Indian Affairs employment. Applying Indian employment preference to all positions created by the legislation. Providing in law that Bureau of Indian Affairs funds not be used to fund the Deputy Secretary appointed by the legislation. Stressing the importance of appropriating adequate funding allow reform to succeed. 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. Placing more tribal representatives, including tribal resources managers, from the 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 well 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 in both Republican and Democratic administrations. Unfortunately, they have rarely sought meaningful involvement from tribal leadership, or recognized the Federal Government's treaty obligation to tribes. Both meaningful consultation and acceptance of tribal status are critical if we expect 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 bedrock principles of self-determination and tribal sovereignty come more into play than in the management and distribution of trust funds and assets. This measure recognizes that the only effective long-term solution to the trust problem must be based on government-to-government dialog. I believe the discussion the bill generates will not only provide the catalyst for meaningful tribal involvement in the search for solutions but also form the basis for true trust reform. I look forward to participating with tribal leaders in pursuit of this important objective.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Rules Committee, Senators Dodd and McConnell, for their incredible leadership, perseverence and hard work in getting us a strong bipartisan election reform bill. I also thank Senators Schumer, Bond, Torricelli, McCain and Durbin for their tireless efforts in crafting this bipartisan substitute amendment. Without their collaboration and compromise, we would not even be considering, let alone passing, this very important piece of legislation. It has been several months since we first began floor consideration of this bill, and I appreciate the tireless efforts, and diligence that Senator Dodd has maintained. Without his leadership we would not be here today. By working together, our colleagues have produced legislation that will protect the most basic of all American rights: the right to vote, and to have that vote counted. This bill represents a fair, balanced, and responsible approach. It will ensure that nondiscriminatory voting procedures exist in every polling place, while strengthening the integrity of the Federal election process. We all know why this bill is necessary. We remember the stories from the 2000 elections about: inadequate voter education; confusing ballots; outdated and unreliable voting machines; poll workers who were unable to assist voters who needed assistance because they were overwhelmed or undertrained, or both; and registered voters who were wrongly denied the right to vote, because their English was less than perfect, their name was mistakenly purged from a registration list, or some other equally unacceptable reason. We heard reports of police roadblocks and other barriers that prevented some voters from even reaching the polls, not in the 1920s or 30s, or even the 1960s, but in 2000. Today, we are celebrating the 34th anniversary of the 1968 Civil Rights Act, which prohibited discrimination in the sale, rental, or financing of housing. In every generation, we have tried to tear down barriers to full participation in the life of this Nation. But there is one means of participation that forms the foundation of every other: the right to vote. And that is why we cannot allow those barriers to voting, physical or otherwise, which so tainted our democracy in the last century, to stretch into this one. In all, it is estimated that between 4 million and 6 million Americans were unable to cast a vote, or did not have their vote counted, in the 2000 elections. Between 4 and 6 million Americans, disenfranchised. In this day and age, that is simply unacceptable. It is not enough for Congress to document or decry the problems we saw in the last election. We need to fix the problems before the next election. It should not matter where you live, what color your skin is, or who you vote for. In America, the right to vote must never be compromised. Too many people have given too much to defend that right. Our system leaves it to States to decide the mechanics of election procedures. But the right to vote is not a State right. It is a constitutional guarantee. And it is up to us to see that it is protected. Not all States experienced problems with voting in the last election. And some States that did have problems have taken steps to rectify them, and they are to be commended for that. But there are still States, nearly 17 months after the 2000 elections, where equal access to the voting booth is not guaranteed. It is time for this Congress to step in and enact basic standards, to ensure that every American who is eligible to vote can vote. That is what this bill does. It requires States to ensure that their voting equipment meets minimum Federal standards for accuracy. It says that voters who cast ``over-votes'' must be notified, and given a chance to correct their ballot. It ensures that voting machines are accessible to individuals with disabilities, as well as those with limited English proficiency. It establishes statewide computerized voter registration lists. And it allows individuals whose names don't appear on voting lists to cast ``provisional'' ballots. If it is determined that the person's name was left off the registration list mistakenly, the vote will then be counted. This will prevent voters from having to wait hours at the polls, or not vote at all, simply because of someone else's clerical mistake. These are not onerous requirements, and they are not unfunded mandates. This bill includes $3.5 billion for States, to help them upgrade their voting systems. And it establishes a new, bipartisan commission to oversee the grant program and administer voting system standards. I commend my colleagues, particularly the sponsors of this bill, for bringing us such a fair and balanced proposal. And for committing their time and energy to seeing this through. I am hopeful that this bill will move through conference quickly so we can implement these reforms as soon as possible. If people are denied their right to vote on issues that affect them directly, or if they fear their votes are not counted, democracy itself is threatened. If that happens, both parties, and all Americans, lose. This bill will go a long way in restoring the integrity of our system and ensuring that all Americans will be truly able to exercise their right to vote. Voting is the most basic right in our democracy, the one that guarantees the preservation of all other rights against governmental tyranny. Let us now pass this bill and protect that most basic right.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am waiting to propound a unanimous consent request having to do with border security. I will not do that, of course, until the Republican leader returns. My preference, as I said before on several occasions, and Senator Lott has said, is that we take up the ANWR amendment. We have even said we are prepared to offer it ourselves in order to move this process along. I am told the sponsors of the amendment still are not prepared to offer this amendment. So I have no choice, under these circumstances, as much as I would like very much to be on it right now, but to postpone consideration of the ANWR amendment and to make the most of what time we have available to us. I have consulted with the distinguished Republican leader. I know the administration believes, as we do, to move the border security legislation along is something in everyone's interest. The House has passed a bill. It is my hope that we can pass the border security bill as well. The House has passed two different versions of border security, one involving the so-called 245(i) provisions, and one without those provisions included. What we are doing this afternoon would be to take up a bill that does not include 245(i), but I have indicated publicly, and indicated to Senator Lott and to my colleagues, that it is my desire to bring up the 245(i) provisions. I know there is opposition--I am told on both sides of the aisle. But we must address the issue. It is an important issue. It is one that should be resolved. It is one on which the Senate has acted on several other occasions. So there will come a time when we will do that. But in order to at least pass those pieces of border security that we all agree on, I will ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3525, the border security bill, and that the Senate proceed to its consideration on Friday, April 12, at 11:30, and that no call for the regular order serve to replace the bill; and that, upon resumption of the energy bill, S. 557, Senator Murkowski be recognized to offer his ANWR amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their cooperation in the effort to move this legislation along. As I say, my choice would have been to have completed our work on ANWR already. We have now been on the bill about a month. We have been on it 20 legislative days, but over a month of calendar days. There is no reason why we should continue to wait for an amendment that I thought might have been the first out of the box. Having said that, I urge my colleagues to come down to the floor. We are about to have a vote on the Durbin amendment. There are other amendments pending on which we can have votes. And there are other amendments to be offered that we should have votes on as quickly as possible. I ask my colleagues to offer amendments this afternoon. The floor is open for additional business. This does not preclude additional amendment consideration this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, it is 5:45 in the afternoon. We had one vote today. Obviously, there will be no more rollcall votes today. I say ``obviously''; I should probably say ``unfortunately.'' This is the fourth week now we have been on this bill. This is the 15th day we have been on this bill. We have scores, if not hundreds, of amendments that ought to be offered and ought to be debated. We listened to countless speeches all last year from many of our Republican colleagues about how critical it was we bring up this bill. I think Senator Murkowski on several occasions said: Let's let the chips fall where they may; let's offer amendments; let's take up ANWR; let's get this legislation done. The Senator from Alaska talked today about this being another crisis, given the Iraqi situation. Here it is, 5:45 this afternoon, and we are facing a Republican filibuster on the Feinstein amendment, the so- called derivatives amendment. We are hopeful we can at long last reach a cloture vote tomorrow. They have been filibustering the derivative amendment now for some time. I don't understand why we have yet to take up the ANWR amendment. As I said, after 15 long days of debate, we have yet to debate one of the central issues involving energy policy from the Republicans' perspective, and that is the debate on ANWR. It is critical we have that debate sooner rather than later. And if need be, I know some of my colleagues have actually suggested maybe they will raise the issue, that they take it up, that they offer the amendment. We would probably offer the House language. We want to accomplish as much as possible during this work period. I have laid out, on several occasions now, our hope and expectation with regard to the legislative agenda for this work period. It is ambitious. But our Republican friends in the administration, and Republican friends in the Senate, talk about how they are unable to take up other very important pieces of legislation, including trade promotion authority and terrorist insurance. But we find ourselves here with a Republican filibuster on the energy bill, a Republican reluctance to take up the ANWR amendment, and, at 5:45 in the afternoon, no one to offer amendments in spite of the fact that we have been on this bill now for 15 days and over 200 amendments are still pending. So, I must say, it is a situation that has to be rectified sooner or later. There is no way we can take up all of the other important bills during this very critical work period if we do not have more cooperation and ability to address the remaining issues in this bill than what has been demonstrated so far. It is unfortunate. It is frustrating to be at a point, after this long on the energy bill, that in my view is so far from closure on a bill that both sides have acknowledged must be completed. I want to complete it. I know Senator Reid has been working very hard to try to work on both sides to see if we can come up with a list of amendments. But, as I say, a Republican filibuster on the derivative amendment has to end. The ANWR amendment has to be debated. We have to find some way to resolve whatever other outstanding questions there are and bring this bill to a close so we can move on to other important pieces of legislation, including border security, which, as I understand it, is supported by the administration; Republicans and Democrats support it. We also have the election reform bill. We have nominations we would like to take up--judicial nominations. We have heard a lot about that in recent days. So there is no lack of work required of this body. Yet there are such limits on our ability to deal with all of those and other priorities, simply because we have been unable to move this bill any further along than we are this afternoon.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. DASCHLE. It is mystifying to me. We have been told for months, if not years, how critical ANWR is to some of our colleagues on the other side. Yet after 15 days we are told we still have to wait for an ANWR amendment on this energy bill. So something doesn't connect here. Either ANWR is not important or there is a slow-walking of the bill--inexplicably. There is an emergency, as some of our colleagues have indicated today, but there is an inability here to connect the dots. It seems to me we have to rectify that situation. The Senator is right. You cannot give speeches and say it is important for us to finish the bill and take up ANWR and we need a vote but then fail to offer the amendment to get the vote. I ask my colleagues to recognize how precious our time is. This is Tuesday. I have already had two or three requests for early evenings and early departure this weekend. I suspect we will get more of those throughout the week. We have to make the most of the days we are here. Let's make the most of Wednesday, the most of Thursday. Let's resolve these outstanding issues, let's end the filibuster, and let's get this job done. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the 90th Anniversary of the Girl Scouts of the United States of America. In March, this vital organization celebrated an important milestone in its efforts to encourage girls and young women from communities across our nation to enjoy scouting activities that nurture their mental, physical, and spiritual well-being. Congratulations to the 3.8 million members throughout the United States. I am pleased to tell you that more than 9,000 girls across the State of South Dakota actively participate in Girl Scouts. In particular, I want to commend the Girl Scouts of Nyoda Council for their outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service and personal development in our state. For over 35 years, this chapter has offered a spiritually motivated, values-based program that encourages every girl to reach her highest potential. The Girl Scouts of Nyoda Council adhere to the vision statement of the Girl Scout movement: ``to inspire girls with the highest ideals of character, conduct, patriotism, and service, that they may become happy and resourceful citizens.'' On April 13, the Nyoda Council will hold their Girl Scout Gold Award ceremony in honor of those who have achieved the highest honor a Senior Girl Scout can attain. They deserve recognition for their outstanding work, perseverence, leadership, and community involvement. I applaud their ``can-do'' spirit, determination, and dedication to the betterment of their community. Congratulations to the Girl Scouts of Nyoda Council on this very special occasion. May they enjoy this celebration of their efforts, and keep up the great work.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 46 years ago the South Dakota Democratic Party was hardly more than George McGovern, George Cunningham, and a beat up old station wagon. I was eight. Little did I know I would one day owe a career to those two men and that car. One of those men is now world-famous, his name a synonym for political courage and common decency. The other, George Cunningham, is unknown to most. But George Cunningham is known to me. I know him as the man who flew quietly to South Dakota to rescue a political newborn from a life-threatening recount in 1978. I know him for his wise counsel during a testing challenge from Congressman Clint Roberts, and through the other muddles of my political adolescence. I know George as the man from whom my own George Cunningham, Pete Stavrianos, says he learned both his trade and his passion for that trade. And I know George Cunningham as the diabolical practical joker whose powers to disarm and confuse with his wit remain to this day the most powerful antidote to self-importance I have ever witnessed. ``GVC,'' as he was known to those familiar with his smoking IBM Selectric, is a man who has never taken himself too seriously, but has always fiercely insisted his lifetime profession be taken seriously. I will never forget hearing about George Cunningham telling a reporter who asked about his polls during his campaign against Larry Pressler that his numbers were, ``in the toilet.'' The stunned newsman had expected a deer in the headlights lie from a scared politician facing defeat. What he got was an honest admission from a strong man who was still teaching, even through his hurt, how to laugh honestly in the face of adversity, and in so doing, respect what one was about. What George Vinton Cunningham was about, and what he is still about, is service to the public. From his first campaign with George McGovern while still a law student at USD, through his service to Governor Herseth in 1959, his 20 years beside George McGovern in Washington, his return to his hometown of Watertown, SD, as a candidate for U.S. Senate, and his tenure as lawyer and party activist, George Cunningham has taught us all what it means to serve. Cunningham is a short, non-descript man who, while chief of staff to a candidate for President of the United States, used to send friends unflattering pictures of himself in safari garb holding a rifle in one hand and his trademark pipe in the other. I always thought it was to remind folks you didn't have to be Redford handsome or Kennedy strong to go after big game. What you do have to be, though, is committed to the idea that we are put here for something more than just serving ourselves. I like to think I am committed to that idea. I hope when I am through I will be judged to have been half as committed to it as one of the biggest little men I have been privileged to know, George Cunningham.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I will say, this will be the final vote for tonight. There will not be any votes tomorrow. But I do hope we can come back in 2 weeks, and we are all going to help finish this bill on time; right? The week we get back. With that understanding, there will be no votes tomorrow, and the first vote will be on Tuesday, the second day of the week we come back. I yield the floor.