Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2007

Mr. President, I, too, want to thank so many who have done so much to advance this legislation. Very rarely do we see an opportunity for Indian bills of any nature to receive floor time, so I want to thank all our colleagues to be able to debate this very important issue with them.

I thank especially Chairman Dorgan for his leadership on this legislation. He has mentioned so many who have participated throughout the years, including the staffs, but we also need to recognize the leadership of the former chairman, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and, of course, Senator McCain, Senator Dorgan, Senator Inouye--so many who have done so much.

I also want to acknowledge the National Tribal Steering Committee for their efforts--great tribal leaders coming together to advance this very important legislation.

I have a long list of thank-yous, but truly it has been a great effort, and we appreciate the leadership on both sides in advancing this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize the passage of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. I again thank the majority leader and minority leader for committing floor time for this bill. Rarely have Indian bills received time on the Senate floor, but this is one that is very important to the well-being of our country's Native people that the attention it has been given by the Senate is more than justified.

I thank my colleagues for their commitment in considering this legislation, addressing the issues, and supporting our efforts to improve health care services for American Indians and Alaska Natives.

As with many bills, the provisions fall under more than one committee's jurisdiction. The Committee on Indian Affairs, on which I serve as the vice chairman, has shared this bill with the Finance and HELP Committees, and both of these committees have worked in earnest to assist us in crafting a bill to carry the Indian health care system into the 21st century.

I am fortunate to have a chairman on the Indian Affairs Committee-- Senator Dorgan--with whom I share a close working relationship. We both have significant populations of Native people in our States with similar issues and challenges in many areas such as health care, education, housing, economic development and transportation.

We have had numerous opportunities to work together in our committee, particularly on youth suicide prevention and treatment and telemedicine. I truly appreciate his persistence and dedication in advancing this bill.

Senators Grassley and Baucus have also worked with us closely to advance this measure through the Finance Committee last year which reported the bill out favorably in both the 109th and 110th Congresses. I also wish to recognize their staff Rodney Whitlock, Becky Shipp, and David Schwartz, who worked so closely with the Indian Affairs staff on this bill.

Likewise, Senator Enzi, in his capacity as chairman and now as ranking member of the HELP committee--worked very diligently on this legislation to refine key pieces of the legislation during the 109th Congress and again this year. Greg Dean, Shana Christrup, Randi Reid and Amy Shank devoted countless hours of work with the Indian Affairs Committee to work out issues, which I appreciate. I especially appreciate the leadership and commitment of Senator Kyl. He has one of the largest Indian populations in his State. His commitment to Indian issues was reflected by his continued involvement and that of his staff, Jennifer Romans, in working out issues to advance this bill.

We must not forget that this bill reflects the work of our dear colleague and my predecessor, the late Senator Craig Thomas, who held the reins as vice chairman last year. He eagerly pursued efforts to improve health care services for all American Indian communities, including those in his home State of Wyoming on the Wind River Indian Reservation, and it is most fitting that we will honor his work with the passage of this bill. I pointed out on the floor yesterday, in the 109th Congress, Senator McCain made a great effort to reauthorize the act in his role as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. Before that, Senator Campbell, who also served as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, carried this legislation since the 106th Congress as the original sponsor, along with Senator Inouye, until Senator Campbell's retirement in 2004.

Between Chairmen Campbell and McCain in the 108th and 109th Congresses, there were 8 hearings on the reauthorization, including joint hearings with the HELP Committee and with the House Resources Committee.

Our efforts had also great help from my good friends Senators Stevens, Domenici, Smith, Cochran, Hatch, and Thune. These Senators have been long-time friends of our country's Native people, and I want to acknowledge their dedication in promoting American Indian and Alaska Native health.

The Republican staff of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs has waited a long time for this day to come. David Mullon, the Republican staff director and chief counsel, and Rhonda Harjo, the deputy chief counsel, came to the committee during Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell's tenure.

Rhonda Harjo has been the lead Republican staff member of the committee for Indian Health Care Improvement Act reauthorization since 2003. Indian country takes pride in her devotion to the betterment of her Native people and I share that pride today.

I also wish to acknowledge the efforts of Jim Hall and Jon Murphy and two Alaskans who recently joined the committee--Gerald Moses and Megan Alvanna-Stimpfle--in preparing this bill for floor consideration.

I also acknowledge the tireless efforts over the past 8 years of the Indian tribal and health care leaders and advocates across the U.S. in helping develop the legislative proposal which served as the basis for this bill. In particular, the National Tribal Steering Committee, consisting of tribal leaders and Indian health representatives, brought together the diverse interests of over 560 tribes across the country to a consensus on this very important measure.

That is no small task and it was handled dutifully by the cochairs of the National Tribal Steering Committee, Chairman Buford Rolin of the Poarch Band of Creek Indians in Atmore, Alabama, Rachel Joseph, former Chairwoman of the Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, in Lone Pine, California, and staff, Kitty Marx from the National Indian Health Board.

Three key Alaska Native leaders played significant roles on the National Tribal Steering Committee: Sally Smith, the chairman of the National Indian Health Board and the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation; Don Kashevaroff, the president of the Seldovia Village Tribe and chair of the Tribal Self-Governance Advisory Committee; and Valerie Davidson from the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. I appreciate their leadership and thoughtful consideration in the development of this legislation.

A lot of good work went into this bill and our efforts should not go in vain. I look forward to working with my House colleagues and getting this bill on to the President's desk for signature.

Mr. President, we had a brief opportunity to express our thanks to those who have worked so hard on the reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Again, my sincere thanks and gratitude to Chairman Dorgan for all that he has done.

This is a good day for Indian country, for Alaska Natives who are just waking up back home right now. They are going to wake up to news that they have been waiting to hear for a good decade: that finally we have advanced the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. We have taken that step. We recognize this is not the end-all and be-all in terms of providing for the health care needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives. We know we need to do more, and we are challenged to do that.

We talked about the funding issue and how we must make that next step to make sure it is not just what we put in the authorization, but we back that up with the dollars for the programs.

We have a long way to go, but I think we have made a very significant step today. I am proud of the work of my colleagues today and those who came before us on this very important issue.

``Exxon Valdez'' Oilspill

Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes this morning to talk about tomorrow because tomorrow the United States Supreme Court will hear the appeal of the ongoing litigation between ExxonMobil and commercial fishermen and other plaintiffs whose livelihoods were negatively impacted, devastated, in fact, by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oilspill. The Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef at 12:04 a.m. on March 24, 1989. It spilled 11 million gallons of oil--this is about the same size as 125 Olympic-sized swimming pools--directly into Prince William Sound in Alaska. The oil from the spill migrated several hundred miles from Bligh Reef and polluted roughly 1,300 miles of Alaskan shoreline. There were 11,000 square miles of ocean that were ultimately affected by this spill, which is believed to be the worst oilspill worldwide with respect to environmental damage.

Regrettably, the spill area is still affected some 19 years later. In 2001, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration studied the shoreline of Prince William Sound for any remaining effects of the spill. Scientists reviewed 91 sites within Prince William Sound and found that 58 percent of these locations were still polluted by oil. Again, this is 19 years after the fact. Some estimates note that beaches and streams in this area are still polluted with over 25,000 gallons of oil.

Of course, the fisheries in Prince William Sound were affected. The herring fishery in this area experienced a dramatic decrease in the years immediately after the 1989 spill. As of 2007, the herring fishery had not improved to the pre-1989 levels. Another example is what has happened with the value of the fisheries permits in this part of the State. In 1988, a fishing permit in Prince William Sound was worth $400,000. As of 2004, the value of each such permit was less than $70,000, a drop of more than 82 percent.

There was a class action jury trial held in Federal court in Anchorage, AK, in 1994. The plaintiffs at that time included over 30,000 commercial fishermen, among those whose livelihoods were gravely affected by the disaster. The jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages to the plaintiffs. This punitive damage award has been on repeated appeal by ExxonMobil since that time. On December 22, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reduced the punitive damage award to $2.5 billion. In early 2007, ExxonMobil petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing en banc. Within a few months, the Ninth Circuit denied

this petition and ExxonMobil appealed to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, in this intervening time period, with years and years of litigation bringing delay in resolution, we have had several thousand plaintiffs pass away since this litigation began.

Due to the limitations in admiralty law with respect to the recovery of compensatory damages, many Exxon Valdez plaintiffs were not able to recover the financial losses they sustained in the aftermath of this spill. So the punitive damages that are under consideration by the Supreme Court will provide them that level of compensation.

Once the Supreme Court decided to hear this case, I joined with Senator Stevens and Representative Young in submitting an Alaska congressional delegation amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. In that brief, we argue that the award of punitive damages in this case of reckless and wanton conduct by Exxon not only is permissible under the Clean Water Act, but it is supported by Federal maritime law. Only punitive damages will provide those who were harmed--and who continue to be harmed--with the justice and the fair compensation they deserve.

This litigation needs to end. Nineteen years is far too long for these plaintiffs to wait to be compensated for their loss of income. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the plaintiffs in this case, and I, along with so many Alaskans, look for a final resolution to this great tragedy that occurred to us as a State some 19 years ago.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As we all know, Mr. Speaker, after the defeat of the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, the brutal Taliban took over the country. The Taliban ruled that country through terror, through systematic assassination, torture, intimidation. They denied Afghans all personal freedoms and made women fifth-class citizens. They also provided safe harbor to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. It is from that safe harbor that al Qaeda was able to plan and train for the horrendous attack of September 11, 2001, against the United States of America.

Following the fall of the Taliban, due in large part to the heroic assistance of the United States Armed Forces and coalition forces from many, many countries throughout the world, the international community worked together under the auspices of the Bonn Compact to make possible what was really a wonderful, historic accomplishment, a democratically elected government in Afghanistan.

In 2004, Afghanistan adopted a new constitution and held successful presidential elections. Parliamentary elections followed in 2005. Factions that once fought on the battlefield now, after decades of violence, debate and resolve their differences in parliament with ballots instead of bullets.

However, Mr. Speaker, there are remnants of the former Taliban regime, along with al Qaeda, that are intent on overthrowing the democratically elected government of Afghanistan. The Taliban is using suicide bombings against U.S. and NATO troops, against Afghan officials, against civilians, both international and Afghan humanitarian workers, assistance workers.

Opium poppy cultivation and drug trafficking have become significant negative factors in Afghanistan's fragile political and economic order. Afghanistan currently accounts, unfortunately, for a majority of the world's illicit opium production.

As the democratically elected government faces grave challenges, we must not turn our backs on that young democracy. We must continue our support as that country moves from a brutal dictatorship to a consolidated democracy.

In 2002, this Congress passed the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act. That law provided both economic and military aid to the young Afghan democracy.

This legislation will reauthorize the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act through the year 2010. The programs reauthorized in this bill focus on countering narcotics production and boost security efforts to protect United States and NATO forces as well as Afghan officials and international assistance workers. This legislation calls for the President to set out a detailed strategy for Afghanistan and provide reports on progress there.

The Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act of 2007, this legislation that we bring to the floor today, builds on congressional initiatives enacted in 2002 and 2004; and I again congratulate the leaders, who in those Congresses back in 2002 and 2004, worked so hard to ensure that these initiatives that are being reauthorized today were passed. And these initiatives now are, as I say, reauthorized in this legislation, H.R. 2466, that will be before the House today.

Among those initiatives passed in 2002, 2004 are the creation of multiple programs, but this legislation calls for the creation of a coordinator role for the development of a coherent, consistent counter- narcotics strategy, and to strengthen the fight against the drug trade's links to totalitarian Islamic terrorism.

We also insured in this legislation that initiatives passed in 2002 and 2004 continued, such as prohibition on assistance to Afghan officials who are

found to be supporting criminal activities such as narcotics trafficking.

This bill, good legislation, Mr. Speaker. This bill reaffirms the commitment of the United States to support Afghanistan in its transition to a stable, representative democracy.

This bill, good legislation, Mr. Speaker, that we bring to the floor today, authorizes the appropriation of $1.7 billion annually for humanitarian and economic assistance and $320 million annually for military assistance during fiscal 2008 to 2010.

This is important legislation. It's important legislation for the fight against the international drug trade and totalitarian Islamists, dangerous remnants of the defeated Taliban, the Taliban who were overthrown, thank God.

Remnants of the Taliban are festering, and they use deadly tactics against United States and NATO forces, as well as Afghans and humanitarian workers. Those people have no scruples, and we only have to remember, Mr. Speaker what they did to the Afghan people when they were in power. So they use horrendous tactics, brutal tactics without limits against our troops and other international forces that are in Afghanistan pursuant to the request of the democratically elected government to secure the peace.

And, furthermore, Mr. Speaker, poppy cultivation and opium production continue to directly support insurgents, militias and terrorist groups. In the face of these very difficult challenges, we cannot allow that fledgling democracy, that budding democracy striving to be a stable society, to fail.

With regard to process, our friends on the other side of the aisle, again, the majority had another opportunity yesterday in the Rules Committee to open the process and comfort with an open rule. They voted down an amendment by our ranking member of the Committee on Rules to bring this legislation forth under an open rule. Yes, they made in order all of the amendments that were presented before the committee, and that's commendable. But why not come forth with an open rule? I think that was disappointing.

Let's not fail to see, however, Mr. Speaker, that this is, this underlying legislation that's being brought forward is extremely important. It's a very important piece of legislation.

And by the way, with regard, again, to process, precisely since it's such an important project that as a Nation we're working on and there's great national consensus on the need to do everything we can to consolidate, to help consolidate the representative democracy and the peace in Afghanistan, precisely I think there would have been no harm in allowing, as this debate proceeds, to allow any Member who's hearing the debate who has an idea for an amendment to bring it forth. That's why an open rule is appropriate.

I'd like to thank, Mr. Speaker, the chairman, the distinguished chairman of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Lantos, for his hard work on this important facet of our foreign policy and the legislation that's being brought forth today, as also the distinguished ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, who's also worked very hard on this legislation, and other members of the International Relations Committee. I want to thank them for their hard work on this important issue, which constitutes, as I said, a project where the American people, in consensus fashion, are moving forward and doing everything possible so that our friends and allies in Afghanistan can survive and defeat the brutal Taliban and al Qaeda.

This legislation brought forward today is an important bill. It is of the utmost importance to our national security and obviously to the region where Afghanistan is and, of course, to the people, to the noble people of Afghanistan, as they continue their efforts to consolidate their representative democracy and achieve peace and prosperity in their great country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' kind words. What I had been referring to before with regard to the process is that I don't believe that any harm would have been done if the majority would have kept its promise of open rules. It is the majority that promised during the campaign that they were going to bring a significant amount, as many as possible, of bills to the floor under open rules. And this is a noncontroversial bill, and, yes, they made the amendments in order by the Members who went to the Rules Committee, and that is appreciated.

So what harm would it have caused if this legislation would have been brought forth under an open rule, as was proposed, in amendment form, by the ranking member of Rules? That is what my point was. No harm would have been done.

And, simply, I would like to remind the majority of the promises that the majority made during the campaign of bringing forth legislation under open rules. So I don't believe that any harm would have accrued if they would have kept their promise. That's all.

But with regard to the apology, I certainly appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' kind words, Mr. Speaker.

And, again, with regard to this underlying legislation, which is of extreme importance, there is a national consensus in the United States that we not only have an obligation, but we must do everything in our power so that the democratically elected government in Afghanistan survives, and that is what this legislation is about. We will have other continuing debates on nearby countries and what our obligations are or what is, rather, in our national interest with regard to the stability in neighboring countries of Afghanistan as well and in trying to prevent neighboring countries from becoming basically safe harbors for international terrorism.

Those are legitimate debates.

Today, the legislation being brought forth, Mr. Speaker, is one where there is a national consensus in the United States, thank God, fortunately, and that is that with regard to that country that was for so long oppressed by the brutal Taliban and that had given sanctuary to the terrorists that carried out the mass murders of September 11, 2001, against the United States of America, that we certainly have an obligation to do everything we can to make certain that the people of Afghanistan have as much ability, that they have the wherewithal to proceed along a path towards a consolidated, representative democracy in peace and with prosperity.

That is why we agree that this legislation is very important; and it reauthorizes critical programs, programs of critical importance with regard to our assistance to Afghanistan that were authorized initially and appropriated by the Congress of the United States in 2002 and 2004.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I believe by previous unanimous consent the Senate will now consider the Vitter amendment.

Mr. President, this is not a debate about whether Federal dollars should be used for abortion services. Current law already prohibits that. I oppose Federal funding for abortions, and I have supported the Hyde provision. But the Vitter amendment is completely unnecessary.

First of all, we have a provision in the underlying bill that relates to the Hyde provision that applies to all other appropriations bills. But I do want to say this: This is not a mainstream amendment that everybody is clear about. In fact, there is a provision in this amendment on page 2, section B. I don't know what it means, and I don't think Senator Vitter knows what it means. There have been no hearings, no discussion, yet onward through the fog on amendments like this.

The fact is, we ought to have a hearing, but there has been no hearing. I don't understand what section B means, nor does the author, I believe.

Having said all that, again, this is not a debate about whether Federal dollars should be used for abortion services. Current law already prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortion services, and the underlying bill contains a provision that relates to current law and continues the same policy.

I will agree, provided I am allowed 30 additional seconds following Senator Vitter.

Well, Mr. President, the appropriate place for that kind of discussion would have been a congressional hearing. That is where you discuss what provisions mean and how they are written.

The provision reads: As to provide or pay any administrative cost of any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of an abortion.

I don't understand what that means with respect to facilities or other issues. There are a series of issues that relate to that. And that is not, incidentally, just codifying the Hyde amendment, as the Senator alleges. This provision doesn't exist with the Hyde amendment. This is something the Senator conceived of and added.

My point is, it ought to be the subject of a hearing. We don't disagree on the issue of Federal funding for abortion. We agree on that. But the Senator has mischaracterized his amendment.

And, Mr. President, he indicated when he pointed it out to me that this is why it was different than the Hyde amendment, which doesn't point to what he claims today.

I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3897

Mr. President, I share the frustration of the Senator from Oregon, but I must oppose the amendment. We have a backlog of $3 billion in facilities. If the Secretary chooses to establish what is an area distribution fund, moneys would be taken from the priority list. Many of the tribes on that list have waited a long time for funding for facilities. If the Secretary begins to take money from that priority list and does an area-wide distribution, it would be a serious problem. I want to work with the Senator from Oregon. We desperately need new and improved facilities. We need more money addressed to that. He is raising the right question. I happen to believe it is the wrong answer. I regretfully will vote against it.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4015 Withdrawn

Mr. President, we have reached agreement, and I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4015 be withdrawn.

Mr. President, we have also been in discussions with Senator DeMint, and we are prepared--and I believe it has been agreed to on both sides--to accept amendment No. 4066 without debate. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to talk about the vote we had earlier today on an amendment offered by Senator Vitter to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Senator Vitter described his amendment, which was adopted by the Senate, as codifying a longstanding policy that prohibits Federal funds from being used to pay for abortions.

I agree that Federal funding should not be used to pay for abortions. I have always supported the existing funding prohibition known as the Hyde amendment that has been added in the appropriations process every year since 1976.

That being said, I opposed Senator Vitter's amendment because the amendment would only codify the Hyde amendment with respect to the Indian Health Service. I think we should apply the same standard to all Federal health programs and not set up a separate standard that only applies in Indian Country.

Mr. President, the next vote will be a vote on final passage. I will take just 30 seconds.

I do want to say that Senator Murkowski has helped get us to this point in a very significant way. As to Senators Baucus, Grassley, Kennedy, Enzi, Kyl--and especially Senator Reid, who allowed us to spend time on the floor on this bill--and the 31 cosponsors of the legislation, I thank all of them.

I thank Allison Binney, the majority staff director, and David Mullon, the minority staff director, and the really talented group of staff members who worked very hard on this legislation. I say a hearty thank-you to them.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of all their names be printed in the Record.

It has been 8 years now that we should have advanced this legislation to improve Indian health care, and after 8 long years we finally have it done--at least through the Senate after this final passage vote. I say thanks to all of my colleagues for their patience and also their help.

I yield the floor to Senator Murkowski.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about this vote, and then I am going to ask unanimous consent that Senator Murkowski be recognized, then Senator Enzi, Senator Feingold, and Senator Boxer. I believe Senator Enzi is going to ask for 10 minutes, Senator Feingold 20 minutes, and Senator Boxer 15 minutes. I ask by unanimous consent that be the order.

Mr. President, I will take a couple of additional minutes to say how pleased and proud I am that we have passed by a very wide margin the first improvement in Indian health care since 1992. These, after all, are the first Americans. They were here first. We signed treaties with them, we took their land, we put them on reservations, made promises, and we have a trust responsibility. We said ``we promise.'' The fact is, we have not kept those promises for a long time, especially with respect to Indian health care.

Finally, at long last, this Congress--and thanks to Senator Reid and all the folks who allowed this to be on the floor of the Senate for the time that it was--we finally have made some progress, the first time since 1992 that we have reauthorized the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. This is a big deal. This will save lives. We have more steps to take. The House has a bill with which it has to deal. It will, and we will be in conference, and finally we will be able to have a bill before the President of the United States for his signature in this year.

I have spoken at length. I know people are tired of hearing me. The Presiding Officer is from Montana. He and I held a hearing on the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana. We heard an earful about Indian health. I have held listening sessions around the country in different States with Indian tribes. I cannot tell you the number of stories I have heard that had me going away from these meetings shaking my head wondering: What on Earth can we do to fix this situation? How much will it take for us to fix this situation?

I recall a grandmother on the Crow Reservation, MT, standing up with a beautiful picture of her 5-year-old granddaughter who had died. After essentially a rather lengthy story, she asked: How do you justify this, a young girl spending the last 3 months of her life in unmedicated pain because the health care system does not work for that young girl? The stories go on and on.

I am convinced we must do better, and I am determined and it was my priority when I became chairman of this committee to finish this job. I know Ben Nighthorse Campbell worked hard on it, and Senator McCain, when he was chairman of the committee, worked hard on it. Finally, Senator Murkowski and I made it a priority for this committee to say: We have to fix this situation. This is not some option. The promise of health care means if we do not keep this promise, people will die. I have named some of those people, some of them children.

We have to do better. And this vote today, a very significant vote in the Senate, an overwhelming vote, 90 percent of the Senate saying we agree, let's fix it, that is something I think is going to be unbelievably welcome news to American Indians all across this country today. It has been a long time coming, 16 years, but finally--finally-- we made progress, and I believe this progress will save lives.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Murkowski who has been an enormous partner in trying to get this bill completed. As I close, I will mention our staff director, Allison Binney, also Ted Charlton, Cindy Darcy, Heidi Frechette, John Harte, Tracy Hartzler-Toon, David Holland, Jerci Powell, Eamon Walsh, and Rollie Wilson on our side; and David Mullon, staff director on the minority side, Megan Alvanna-Stimpfle, Jim Hall, Rhonda Harjo, Gerald Moses, Jonathan Murphy, and so many others.

Those people I have named have worked a lot. They worked behind the scenes, long hours, late at night, and on weekends to help make this possible. I say a heartfelt thanks to them for their wonderful work.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support final passage of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007. This bill is long overdue, and I hope that House works expediently to move this bill forward so that we can get this bill to the President and signed into law.

Throughout the Senate's work on this bill, I have been impressed with the bipartisan work that Senator Dorgan and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee have put into moving this bill forward. It was not any easy process, but I commend the committee for its ongoing dedication to significant consultation with Indian Country in drafting this bill and seeing it through to completion.

There are significant unmet needs in Indian Country throughout this Nation, and addressing the unmet health care needs ranks as one of the most significant problems that we must address. The Federal Government has a longstanding and well-established trust responsibility with regard to American Indian affairs, and this trust responsibility extends to providing good health care to communities throughout Indian Country.

For too long, the Federal Government has not lived up to its Federal trust responsibility commitments, but I hope that passage of this legislation will set the Federal Government on a course toward better supporting the needs of our American Indian communities, whether they be health care, education, or housing needs. While this bill is a vital step in the right direction, we need to follow through with fiscally responsible increased funding for the important programs authorized in this legislation.

This bill has the support of tribal governments throughout the United States, including the 11 tribes in my State of Wisconsin. I have heard from a number of constituents in Wisconsin about the need to pass this bill this year. The improvements that the legislation will make to various Indian Health Service programs including clinical programs on the various reservations throughout the State and urban Indian programs in Milwaukee and Green Bay are significant, and it is my hope that this bill will help improve the quality of health care provided to American Indians living throughout Wisconsin.

Health care is consistently the No. 1 issue that I hear about all over my home State of Wisconsin. When I hold my annual townhall meetings across the State, many people come to tell me about problems with our overall health care system, and data shows us that these problems are often most acutely felt in Indian Country. Lack of access to good health care is a problem that disproportionately affects American Indians throughout the United States. According to recent studies, American Indians and Alaska Natives are 200 percent more likely to die from diabetes, more than 500 percent more likely to die from alcoholism, and approximately 500 percent more likely to die from tuberculosis.

Some may doubt whether this legislation is needed or whether it will really help improve the lives of Americans. The staggering statistics that highlight the health care disparities faced by American Indians show just how imperative it is that we pass this legislation, which is long overdue. These statistics also help illustrate the vast

amount of work that remains to be done to improve the quality of health care in American Indian communities beyond passage of this legislation. Nevertheless, this bill takes an important first step toward addressing these health care disparities through the many reforms it makes to Indian health care programs. For example, modernizing Indian Health Services programs through this legislation will help to address the diabetes and suicide crises that exist on reservations--just two examples of the many health care issues that impact the daily lives of American Indians across the country.

Reauthorization of this bill will help encourage health care providers to practice at facilities in Indian Country and encourage American Indians to enter the health care profession and serve their communities. Recruiting talented and dedicated professionals to serve in IHS facilities, whether urban or rural, is a key challenge facing many tribal communities in Wisconsin and around the country. I hope these provisions will help bring additional dedicated doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals to our tribal populations.

This bill also reauthorizes programs that assist urban Indian organizations with providing health care to American Indians living in urban centers around the country. The Urban Indian Health Program represents a tiny fraction of the Indian Health Services budget, but the small amount of resources given to the urban programs provides critical health services to those Indians living in urban areas. Contrary to what some people may think, the majority of American Indians now live in urban areas around the country, including two urban areas in my State--Milwaukee and Green Bay. Throughout our Nation's history, some American Indians came to urban centers voluntarily, but many were forcibly sent to urban areas as a result of wrongheaded Federal Indian policy in the 1950s and 1960s and have since stayed in urban areas and planted roots in these communities.

As a result of this movement to urban centers, Congress created the urban Indian program in the late 1970s to address the growing urban Indian population around the country. The Federal Government's responsibility to American Indians does not end simply because some American Indians left their ancestral lands and moved to urban locations--particularly when some of them had little choice in the matter.

While this legislation takes important steps toward improving urban Indian health care programs, we need to do much more to support these urban programs, including fighting for increased appropriations. I have been disappointed that the President has proposed zeroing out the urban Indian program in past budgets, and unfortunately, the President's budget request for fiscal year 2009 is no different. As in years past, I have joined with my colleagues to urge the Senate to restore funding for urban Indian programs to the Federal budget for fiscal year 2009, and I hope this year the Senate can also provide a much-needed boost in funding for the urban Indian programs.

I voted for an amendment offered by Senators Smith and Cantwell that would permit, but not require, the Secretary of HHS to create an area distribution fund to allocate funding resources for IHS facilities construction to all 12 of the IHS service areas. I have heard a lot of concern from tribes in my State of Wisconsin about the way that construction facility funds are allocated and the fact that certain IHS service areas, including the Bemidji region covering Wisconsin, do not fare well under the current system. I recognize that there needs to be an overall boost in the appropriations for IHS facilities construction to help tribes currently on the construction priority list as well as those tribes that cannot even get on the current list, and I look forward to supporting fiscally responsible efforts to boost funding for various IHS programs, including this one. But in the meantime, we should explore opportunities to address innovative solutions to this problem, and this amendment takes a reasonable approach to addressing this problem. Any efforts to create an area distribution fund should involve significant consultation with tribes throughout Indian Country, and I am pleased this amendment makes clear that such consultation would be required.

I also voted for amendment 4032, offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, because it is critically important that sexual assault victims be able to find out whether they have been exposed to HIV. However, I am concerned about the way that the amendment was drafted. If there is a conference on this bill, I would urge conferees to consider making this provision consistent with the existing provision governing the testing of defendants in Federal cases, 42 U.S.C. section 14011, or at a minimum to clarify how it would relate to that law. I also would urge them to ensure that the new provision complies fully with the requirements of the fourth amendment.

Mr. President, Indian Country has made many compromises in order to move this bill forward, and passage of this bill is long overdue. The Senate's actions today mark an enormous victory for Indian Country, and I hope that the House will quickly take this bill up so that we can get this bill signed into law by the President this year.

This bill takes concrete and positive steps toward addressing some of the health care needs facing American Indian communities around the country, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to build on this legislation in the coming months and years. Challenges facing American Indians throughout the United States extend beyond health care issues into issues of improving economic development, educational opportunities, and affordable and safe housing opportunities, and I hope we can continue to work together in a bipartisan way to pass other important measures this year. Together, tribal nations throughout all our States can work closely with the Federal Government to address the vast array of these unmet needs. Passage of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007 today provides an important foundation going forward, and it is up to all of us to see that this foundation is strengthened in the coming months and years.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 453 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman

from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 453.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 453 provides for consideration of H.R. 2446, the Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act of 2007 under a structured rule that makes in order all of the amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee, except for those withdrawn by their sponsors.

I want to acknowledge and express my respect for the work of Chairman Lantos and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for bringing such a fine example of bipartisan cooperation and collaboration before the House for consideration.

Following the ouster of the Taliban regime in late 2001, the United States, the United Nations and the international community embarked on what they hoped would be a comprehensive assistance program to help the new Afghan president, of President Hamid Karzai, establish a new democracy, rebuild the Afghan economy and provide for the general well- being of the Afghan people.

Regrettably, after a most promising start, progress has slowed in most parts of the country. Remnants of the Taliban continue to resist the new government and are reorganizing and strengthening their networks from neighboring countries. Instability has increased, including the introduction of suicide bombings against U.S. soldiers, NATO troops, Afghan officials, and civilians and international and Afghan humanitarian aid workers.

Narcotics production threatens to overwhelm the country. According to UN studies, a large percentage of Afghans, including farmers, laborers, traffickers, war lords, insurgents, and officials participate in and benefit from illegal poppy trade.

Congress first addressed the issue aiding Afghanistan by passing the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002, which established a reconstruction program, mandated a relief coordinator, provided support to the NATO-led international security forces, and gave new security assistance authority to our President.

In addition to food aid, refugee relief and other forms of emergency disaster assistance, the United States implemented a wide-ranging assistance program for Afghanistan, including aid for schools, hospitals and farms, and support to reestablish the participation of women and girls in society, education and the workplace.

The legislation the House will take up today, H.R. 2446, reauthorizes programs created by the original Afghanistan Freedom Support Act, creates a new focus on counternarcotics efforts, and provides for stronger and more enhanced oversight of U.S. strategic goals and performance in Afghanistan.

Overall, H.R. 2446 provides modest increases in authorized levels for humanitarian, development, democracy building and security assistance. I cannot stress enough how important it is that Afghanistan succeed in establishing and consolidating a representative government and rebuilding the country's economy and civil society.

When we overthrew the Taliban regime, we made promises to the Afghan people with the full backing of the international community. We cannot renege on those promises. We cannot fail the people of Afghanistan who came together in support of a common vision for the future.

I am very, very concerned that many of the difficulties confronting Afghanistan today, especially in the areas of security, are due in large part to taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and exhausting our economic and military resources in Iraq. We had the chance to make Afghanistan secure. We failed to do so because we chose not to invest the necessary resources in Afghanistan, but, rather, to transfer our attention and our resources to Iraq. We are now playing catch up in Afghanistan as the situation there is deteriorating.

I applaud the chairman and members of the Foreign Affairs Committee for this timely reauthorization.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just say that, again, the underlying legislation is incredibly important. We do have an obligation, a moral obligation, to the people of Afghanistan. And, quite frankly, from a national security perspective, that is where our attention should be and where our attention should have been. It is regrettable, it is regrettable that the President of the United States and his administration and many in this Chamber have chosen to take their eye off what our responsibility is in Afghanistan over these last several years, and instead, we find ourselves bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq.

Those who are responsible for September 11, those who are responsible for the murder of so many of our citizens, they were in Afghanistan. That is where al Qaeda was. And instead of holding al Qaeda accountable in Afghanistan, instead of making sure that our resources go to promoting democracy and stability in Afghanistan, instead of focusing on this ever-growing drug problem in Afghanistan, we have spent over half a trillion dollars in Iraq. And that is regrettable. And, quite frankly, when history looks back on how these last few years were conducted, they are going to take note of the fact that we missed important opportunities to better protect our country by taking our eye off of what our responsibility was in Afghanistan.

And let me just say about the rule, I will apologize to my colleague from Florida for a rule that we bring to the floor today that makes every single amendment that was offered in the Rules Committee and not withdrawn by its author in order. Every Republican amendment, every Democratic amendment. And I know that that is different from the way things used to be when the Republicans were in charge of the Rules Committee. They had a tendency to just shut us all out routinely. But things are different now, and under the Democratic administration here in the Congress, we are trying to make sure that all points of view have an opportunity to be heard on the floor.

So I am happy that we have this rule, and, again, I apologize to the gentleman that it is not like what they used to do.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont, a member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, again, I regret that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not pleased with the rule that makes all of the amendments that were offered in order, but I think that that is the way we should do business around here. It is in sharp contrast to the way they used to do business when the Republicans were in the majority, where there was a tendency to shut everything down, to close everything up, to not allow Members of the minority to be able to have amendments. But we're different, and I'm glad we are different.

On the underlying legislation, there should be unanimity in this House about the importance of passing this legislation. It is important that we keep our commitment to the people of Afghanistan. It is important that we keep our commitment to the people of the United States, who after September 11 we said, in the Congress and in the White House, that we are going to do everything we can do bring to justice, to hold to account those who are responsible for September 11.

Unfortunately, today, we are not anywhere near where we should be in Afghanistan; and the reason for that is because we have diverted our resources, we have diverted our soldiers and our political capital to a never-ending war in Iraq. We have put our soldiers in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. We have spent over half a trillion dollars in Iraq; and, as a result, those resources have not been sent to Afghanistan; and I think that is regrettable.

But we need to pass this bill today. I hope it passes with a unanimous vote. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.