A bill to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 15 days.

Mr. President, Senator Alexander has not indicated to me the purpose of his presence on the floor, but we are most anxious to get started on the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. That was scheduled for 9:30 this morning. I wish to begin an opening statement at some point, and I know Senator Murkowski would, and we want to do a managers' package.

Senator Coburn is here, because I asked if he would be here at 9:30, and he has a number of amendments. I appreciate very much his work and his efforts on Indian health care. I am hoping we can work with Senator Coburn this morning to deal with some of his amendments. I know he has filed a number of them, and he and I have had many discussions about it. I appreciate his attendance. He has just walked into the Chamber.

Our interest is in getting a lot of work done this morning and this afternoon in order to try to see if we can finish this bill. This will be the third day that the Indian Health Care Improvement bill has been on the floor, so I wish to begin on that. I know Senator Alexander has appeared, though I don't know for what purpose, and perhaps I would be happy to yield to him if he would tell us if he is wanting to do something else on the floor.

If the statement is 5 minutes, I would not object to that, but I do want, at the end of that 5 minutes, to begin the bill. Again, Senator Coburn has arrived, and we have a lot of work to do. But I know Senator Alexander has worked on budget issues for a long while, so I ask unanimous consent that Senator Alexander be recognized for 5 minutes, and after that I will make some comments, Senator Murkowski then will make some comments, and we will begin a discussion with Senator Coburn.

Mr. President, we are going to turn now to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and I am going to be very brief, and I know my colleague will as well because we will have a chance later to speak at greater length.

The Indian Health Care Improvement Act has been the subject of reauthorization for many years, and the Congress has not been able to do it. The fact is we have very serious problems with respect to Indian health care. The Indian Health Service is a very important Federal agency. We have some people who work in that area who do important work and are good and dedicated people, but the fact is the system isn't working very well. We have American Indians--the first Americans, by the way--who are supposed to get health care as a result of treaties and trust responsibilities who are not getting the health care they deserve.

I will again, later today, describe the horrors of Indian health care that does not work. People are dying, people are routinely being denied the health care that every one of us would expect for ourselves and our family. We are trying to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act after 8 years. Eight years ago, it was supposed to have been reauthorized. Eight years later, we are still on the floor of the Senate, struggling.

So my hope is, perhaps we will now succeed. Senator Murkowski and the Indian Affairs Committee have worked on a piece of legislation that is not giant reform, it is not a huge step forward, but it is a step forward in the right direction.

Some of my colleagues--I believe my colleague, Senator Coburn--will say we need much larger reform. I do not disagree with that. I am going to be supporting much broader reform in Indian health care. But if you cannot get a modest step in the right direction, how on Earth can you get big, bold reform?

This is the first step in a two-step process to fix what is wrong. I think this Indian Health Care Improvement Act will give us substantial opportunity to improve the health care in the lives of American Indians.

Let me make the point that is important. We owe this health care through treaties, through a trust responsibility. We have made commitments. We owe this health care to American Indians through promises the Federal Government has made.

Regrettably, it has not been adequately delivered. So I am going to talk a little bit later. I know my colleague, Senator Coburn, is on the Senate floor, and he has amendments. I am going to give him an opportunity to speak. I am as well, but I will have an opportunity later this morning to describe in much greater detail why there is an urgency and why this system must be improved. We cannot wait any longer.

I yield the floor.

I have no objection to that. The Senator and I have talked about this. He wants to get all of his amendments pending. But he will be

asking for discussion and votes on a number of them.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma cannot possibly win a debate we are not having. I have given his speech 17 times on the floor of the Senate. There is no disagreement between us. I am going to give him a chance to be bold, however, as we go down the road on appropriations because that is what he started talking about: the need for the resources, the need for the money. We have to reform this system. I agree with that. Then we have to fund it. The fact is, we are going to have amendments that add sufficient money. You talk about the fact that we are spending twice as much per person on Federal prisoners for health care as we are to meet our responsibility for American Indians--twice as much for those we have incarcerated because we have a responsibility for their health care.

Now, we need additional money in this system, and we need an overhaul of the system itself. The Senator will find no controversy with me with respect to giving American Indians a card to show up at a health facility and get the health care they need. He knows, and I know, there are many American Indians who live far out on a reservation, 90 miles away from the nearest hospital, and they do not have competition in the health delivery system. They have one place to go when they are sick that morning or their child is sick that afternoon.

So we are going to have a chance to be bold. This is an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill. When appropriations come up, we will have a chance to be bold. I hope the Senator will join me on that.

Let me make a couple comments about this issue.

I am happy to.

Mr. President, I certainly will do that.

It is interesting, we are spending $16 billion a month, $4 billion a week to replenish the accounts for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and other issues. There are plenty of places for us to decide it is time to fix things here at home.

But I wish to talk about a couple of issues. First of all, there are waiting lines. There is rationing. The Senator from Oklahoma is absolutely correct. Dr. Grim, by the way, came to the Committee in support always of the President's request, saying that was enough because he had a responsibility and a requirement to support the President's budget. But get him off the dais at the hearing and ask him the question, and he would admit there is rationing. About 40 percent of the health care that is needed by American Indians is not available. That is health care rationing. That would be scandalous if it were happening in other parts of the country. It ought to be front page headlines, but you will not hear and you will not read many stories about it, regrettably.

But the fact is, we have a circumstance that brings tears to my eyes. I disagree with the Senator from Oklahoma that this is not a worthy bill. This is a step forward in the right direction. It is not the reform we need, but this is a two-step process. If you cannot get this kind of thing done for 10 years, how on Earth are you going to decide to do something much bolder?

Now, we just faced a budget that came up last week that says not only do we not have enough money for Indian health care, let's cut it. The President says, let's cut what we do have, at a time when we have 40 percent rationing. So we are fighting a battle just to keep the money we have. We need much more if we are going to do what we promised we were going to do.

But let me show the Senator a photograph, if I might. Let me show him a photograph of Ta'shon Rain Littlelight because he says the system does not work. I showed the photograph before because her family has given me permission. This beautiful young 5-year-old girl is dead. She is dead, in my judgment, because of a system that does not work.

They took her again and again and again and again to the clinic. It was on the Crow Reservation in Montana, where I held a hearing and her grandmother stood up with this photograph. She told about little Ta'shon Rain Littlelight. You can see she loved to dance.

Ta'shon Rain Littlelight got sick, and they took her to the health clinic. They treated her for depression. Again and again, they treated her for depression. Even her grandparents said: Well, the way her fingers look, with the swelling of the fingertips, and so on, there must be something else wrong.

Well, one day, of course, they had to fly her to Billings, MT, and then immediately fly her to Denver, CO, where they discovered she had terminal cancer and about 3 months to live.

She asked if she could go see Cinderella's Castle, so Make-A-Wish gave her the opportunity, with her mother, to go to Orlando, FL, to see Cinderella's Castle. This little girl with terminal cancer, the night before she was to see Cinderella's Castle, in the motel room in Orlando, FL, told her mother, ``I am so sorry. I am going to try to be better, Mommy. I won't be sick anymore.'' And she died in her mother's arms that night. This little 5-year-old died because the system did not work.

I have shown a picture of Avis Littlewind. She was 14 years of age, lying in a fetal position in a bed for 90 days and then finally took her own life because there was no mental health treatment available on that reservation--no mental health treatment available to try to help that little girl who felt hopeless and helpless.

This is a photograph, by the way, of Avis Littlewind on the Spirit Lake Nation Reservation. Avis was 14, and she took her life. Her sister took her life. Avis took her life.

This is a photograph of Ardel Hale Baker. Ardel Hale Baker was having a heart attack, diagnosed as having a heart attack on an Indian reservation. They wanted to send her to a hospital an hour and a half away. She did not want to go in the ambulance because she knew if it did not get paid somehow, she would have to pay it, and she did not have any money. They put her in an ambulance anyway and took her to the hospital. As Ardel Hale Baker was being taken off the gurney in the emergency room in the hospital, to be put on a hospital gurney, here is what was taped to her thigh--a piece of paper taped to the thigh of this Indian woman; and it was to the hospital from the Department of Health and Human Services--it was saying, by the way, ``If you admit this woman, understand there is no money in contract health care to pay for her,'' warning the hospital: ``Admit this woman and it is very likely you will not be paid.'' This woman is having a heart attack, and shows up with a piece of paper taped to her leg, saying: ``There is no money for you to be paid, if you admit this woman to your hospital,'' or the woman who goes to the Indian Health Service with a knee that is so painful she cannot walk. It is bone on bone; an unbelievable problem with her knee that you or I or our family would get fixed by having a new knee joint put in. She goes to the Indian Health Service, and the Indian Health Service doctor says: ``Wrap it in cabbage leaves for 4 days.'' That is Indian health care. That is unbelievable, just unbelievable to me.

My colleague from Oklahoma says, well, he does not support this bill because it is not bold. I have been on the floor of the Senate. I have offered amendments to add $1 billion to Indian health care, and it gets defeated. I have seen the budget that came last week from this administration that says they want less money for Indian health care.

Let me put up something Chief Joseph said years and years ago. We took all this Indian land, took all those millions and millions of acres--hundreds of millions of acres--from the Indians, but we said to them: Trust us. We will make you a promise. We will sign treaties. We will tell you that we will provide for your health care. We believe we have a trust responsibility. You can trust us.

Well, regrettably, that responsibility has not been met. Those promises have not been kept. Here is Chief Joseph. He said:

Good words don't last long unless they amount to something.

Words don't pay for my dead people. . . .Good words cannot

give me back my children. Good words will not give my people

good health and stop them from dying.

I care a lot about this issue. In my State, we have four Indian reservations. I have spent a lot of time with them. The fact is, we have people living in the shadows. We have people living in abject, desperate poverty.

I sat with a young girl once at a table with her grandfather. This was a young girl who was put in a foster home at age 3. The woman who put her in a foster home was working 150 cases--150 cases. She did not have time to go check out the home, so she put a 3-year-old girl in a foster home. And on a Saturday night, in a drunken party brawl, a young 3-year-old girl got her arm broken, her nose broken, and her hair pulled out by the roots. That young girl will live forever with those scars.

One hundred and fifty cases a social worker is dealing with? There is such unbelievable difficulty because the resources do not exist. We have people living in Third World conditions.

We had a tribal leader, a chairman of a tribe, say: ``My two daughters live in used trailer houses that we moved from Michigan to the reservation in South Dakota. They don't have indoor plumbing. They have an outdoor rest room, outdoor toilet. One of them has a wood stove in the living room of the trailer house vented out through the window.'' I have seen all of these things. I have experienced all of this. My colleague has seen the same in Alaska. We have people living in Third World conditions in this country. There is a full-scale, bona fide crisis in health care, housing, and education. This bill deals with the question of health care. We have a special responsibility, unlike other responsibilities, because this country has

promised. We have signed treaties. The Supreme Court says we have a trust responsibility. We have not kept our promise, and we have not met our responsibility. I am just flat tired of it.

My colleague says: Let's be bold. Nobody wants to be bolder than I want to be, but we haven't been able to get a bill through here in 10 years, for God's sake. If you can't pass a bill in a decade, how on Earth are you going to be bold? Let's at least take a step in the right direction. I am going to follow that with step 2 on the Indian Affairs Committee, and that is bold, dramatic reform, because this system is not nearly as good as it can be.

He talks about: Why would you add new services? Well, services dealing with diabetes, with cancer screening, with mental health--let's add those services because they are needed, and then let's decide, when the appropriations bill comes around, to add the funding. My colleague knows this is an authorization bill, not a funding bill. We will have a chance to be bold. Let's see who is going to be bold. Let's add the funding to keep our promises, for a change.

My colleague talked a lot about Dr. Grim. I like Dr. Grim. He retired--resigned, I should say--from the Indian Health Service. Dr. Grim came every year, supporting the President's budget. He knew it was not adequate. We know we are rationing health care. The fact is, we all know it. We need to stop it. Are we rationing health care with incarcerated prisoners in Federal prisons? No, we are not, because we have a responsibility for them. We arrest them, we convict them, we send them to prison, and then it is our responsibility to provide for their health care in Federal prisons, and we do it. We spend twice as much per person for them as we do for American Indians. Yet we have the same responsibility for American Indians because we made the promise, signed the treaties, and told them we would provide for these needs. What gives us the right to continue to break our promises? We have done it for decades and decades over almost 200 years. What gives us the right to continue to do that in the face of little children who are dying and in the face of elders who can't get health care? What gives us that right?

I say to my colleague, if you want to be bold, we are going to have a chance to be bold together, because this country ought to stare truth in the face and look at what is happening on Indian reservations.

The other night, I was on an Indian reservation, having a listening session with Indians. There were two sisters sitting in the front row. One sister stood up to speak, and the other sister sobbed uncontrollably--cried and sobbed. It was an unbelievable story about the sister who desperately needed health care and couldn't get it and couldn't find it. She finally had her heart surgery, and of course it was charged back to her, because there was no contract health care. It has completely ruined her credit rating because she doesn't have anything to pay for it, and the Indian Health Service did not serve her needs. She was also treated for depression. She had a heart valve problem that needed surgery, and she was treated for depression. When she finally found a way to get the surgery, it could not be paid for by Indian contract health because they were out of funds. ``Don't get sick after June.'' We had one reservation tell us, don't get sick after January, because they didn't have the money. This poor woman sat there in the chair sobbing as her sister recounted the details of her desperate attempt to deal with a health care problem that was very acute.

So, yes, I am a little bit emotional about these issues. When we have people say, well, let's do much more, I say: Absolutely. Let's do much more than we are now doing. Let's do that in appropriations. That is an awfully good start.

This is an authorization bill which does a lot more than the current Indian Health Care Improvement Act. It does a lot more in areas we know are in urgent need.

We have teen suicide clusters on Indian reservations. In the northern Great Plains, there is a 10 times greater rate of suicide among teenagers--not double, triple, or quadruple, but 10 times the rate of suicide. I went and sat and talked with kids on that reservation, the one where we had a cluster recently. It was just me with some high school kids, talking about what is going on, what is their life like. It is unbelievable.

We need to address these things. That is what we try to do in this Indian Health Care Improvement Act. It is not perfect, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.

I have other things to say, and my colleague may wish to weigh in, as well. My hope will be at the end of the day today that we will be able to get the amendments up and get them voted on. Some of the amendments my colleague described, I likely will support, because I think we can improve this piece of legislation. I think at the end of the day, all of us will hope we will have done something we are proud of, to say to those who don't now have adequate health care or whom we promised health care that we have made a step forward in trying to meet those needs.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Arizona. He has been working very hard with us to try to move this bill along. I would say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle as well: If you have amendments, please bring them. The majority leader has indicated we are going to finish this bill this week, and that will be a significant step forward. I thank the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Arizona for their work to help us move this bill. He is correct that we had four or five very controversial issues that provoked some opposition. We worked through those, negotiated, and I think all of them are now resolved.

I think when the Senator from Alaska has completed any statement she is going to make, we do have the managers' amendment that amends the substitute we had offered, and that has been negotiated and agreed to on both sides. So when Senator Murkowski has completed her statement, we will ask that it be completed as well.

Mr. President, I object. I have not had a chance to visit with my colleague. I wish to do so first.

I object. I have not had a chance to visit with the Senator, and I will be glad to do so at some point.

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

Madam President, it is more than a little frustrating. We have been here for 3 hours this morning. We have amendments on this bill dealing with Indian health care. We have nongermane amendments that have been offered: Medicare, LIHEAP, earmarks for Berkeley, abortion.

This is a very serious issue. We have people dying in this country with respect to this health care question about American Indians. I spoke earlier this morning that the U.S. Government has a responsibility for health care for Indians. If you ask the question: Why? Because we signed up for it. We signed the treaties. We said: We promise, and we have a trust responsibility for it.

So we spend twice as much money to provide health care to Federal prisoners as we do for American Indians. We are not meeting the needs. We have people dying. So it takes 10 years to get a bill to the floor of the Senate--10 years to get a bill to the floor--to try to improve health care for Indians, and we get here, and we have unending appetites for amendments that have nothing to do with Indian health.

Look, I support low-income energy assistance. I support that. I support a lot of these issues. Many of them have nothing to do with Indian health. We are just trying to get a bill passed here.

Let me describe something I heard about a month ago to describe the urgency. I was at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota. It straddles the North Dakota-South Dakota border. The husband of Harriet Archambault came to a meeting I had--a listening session on Indian health care--and he described his wife Harriet and her battle to try to deal with this health care dilemma. They lived nearly 20 miles from a clinic in South Dakota. It was an Indian health care clinic. She would get up in the morning and drive 18 miles to the clinic because that clinic can take only 10 people in the morning and 10 people in the afternoon. So five times, she got up in the morning to drive to that clinic. All five times she got there, there were 10 people ahead of her.

Her medicine ran out on October 25, 2007, her husband said. Five times for the next month, she got up and drove to that clinic. She could not stay there, because she was also a day care provider for her grandchildren. So this woman went, tried to sign up, but there were 10 people ahead of her--that is all they would take--and she had to go home.

Five times she did that in a month. A month later, she died. Her medicine ran out October 25. She died November 25. She had called her sister about 3 weeks before, and she said: ``What do I have to do here to get the medicine I need? Die?'' Well, she did die because she could not get service in this Indian health system.

The fact is, people are dying. All we are asking is that we maybe have somebody come over and offer an amendment on Indian health care and start a debate on these amendments. If we have people who have these amendments, come over and offer them. We have some that are filed. Let's have some votes and try to get through this piece of legislation.

This is the third day we are on the floor of the Senate with this bill. I said earlier, it has taken 10 years to get here. Every single year we have worked on this. Senator McCain, who was chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, worked on it with me--Senator Murkowski. We work on it and never get it to the floor. We finally get it to the floor of the Senate, and this is like a root canal, except a root canal hurts less, because at least you are accomplishing something.

Here we come to the floor of the Senate, and we cannot get amendments up. We cannot get amendments voted on. So my hope would be we can find a way to move through this legislation.

Madam President, I am happy to yield for a question.

Madam President, I yield for that purpose. I believe I understand what the Senator from Vermont is doing.

Madam President, let me say to the Senator from Vermont, I understand his passion. He knows I have a lot of passion about this bill, and I have expressed it this morning. I understand his passion about LIHEAP. Somebody from Vermont does not have to tell somebody from North Dakota about cold weather. I know about cold weather and my constituents do. LIHEAP is unbelievably important, and we need to find a way to get the money out for LIHEAP. I understand that. I am very sorry he was unable to get the yeas and nays and so on. But he also understands you have to try to offer amendments where you can to authorization bills. I understand that. He is a supporter of this bill, the underlying Indian health care bill we need to get done. It is also the case, I am sure, that the Senator from Alaska knows a little about cold weather. I have been to Alaska. So my hope is that working together in this Chamber we will fund the LIHEAP program, because it is very important. That also can be life or death for people, so my hope is we can get that done.

But having said all of that, again let me say we have a managers' package that perfects--after having negotiated now for several weeks on about five or six very controversial issues, we have negotiated in a way that we have reached a compromise on all of them, satisfactory to all of the parties. We now have that in a managers' package which we intend to offer next. It has not yet cleared. It has been a couple of hours since we have been able to clear that. My hope is that in the next 30 minutes or so we can clear that so at least we can get the managers' package done.

I believe Senator Coburn will be here. He has some amendments filed. I hope he will be here to call up amendments which I believe he will do reasonably soon, and I think Senator Tester wishes to speak on the bill generally.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Madam President, let me say, I don't think anybody in the Congress, the Senate, or the House wishes our intelligence community to be blind or deaf. Obviously, we have a process in this country with the FISA Court that allows emergency actions. The opportunity to be able to engage in surveillance and the appropriate surveillance to make sure we are listening to terrorists and all of those things are available.

There is a debate about how wide should the drift net be, that the administration might want to gather almost every communication everywhere in the world and data mine to find out who is saying what. That is an important conversation because it deals with the basic rights in our Constitution. I think there is no one in this Chamber or in the other who believes we want our intelligence community to be blind or deaf and to not have the opportunity to do the kind of surveillance necessary to protect our country. That is very important to state.

Madam President, we are not in morning business, although we are doing some morning business. We are on the piece of legislation that we reported out of the Indian Affairs Committee, dealing with Indian health care improvement. I have always been enormously proud to serve in this body. I am privileged and proud to serve. I have occasionally told friends that the Senate is 100 bad habits--that includes myself, of course. We are not doing anything at the moment, I understand, because one Senator is downtown someplace, giving speeches, and the instruction is that nothing is to be done while that Senator is gone. Good for that Senator, but I don't think this place ought to come to a stop because somebody decides they are going to be gone for 2 or 3 hours, so they want others to object to everything on their behalf. That is, in my judgment, discourteous, and my hope is that the Senate could do a little business today on something that is urgent. That is not too much to ask for the Senate to perhaps consider legislation that is before it. We are now on the third day of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, a very urgent and serious matter. This is the third day. We have been here for over 3 hours today, and we have had amendments on all kinds of issues, except issues that deal with this legislation.

Even just attempting to offer the managers' package, which has been negotiated over the last month or so, in which we successfully negotiated on about five or six very controversial issues--we negotiated an agreement between the sides, and even being able to offer that at this point is denied because someone who is not even on the Hill told their staff to tell others that the leadership cannot allow this. It is unbelievable to me.

One might expect, perhaps, that today we can make progress on this legislation. Everybody puts on a blue suit and shined shoes and comes to work, and one might expect we can get something done for a change. We will have additional morning business, and we will see if those who have left the Hill and want the entire world to stop and wait for their whims will show up at some point and maybe we can consider some amendments. I hope that will be the case.

I yield the floor.

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

I know my colleague, Senator Coburn, is here. He is going to offer an amendment. I should tell you how pleased I am. Senator Coburn indicated he would be here around 2 o'clock. He was good enough to come this morning at 9:30 and engage in discussion on this bill.

But we have discussion about virtually everything about the bill on the floor of the Senate, Indian health care. The fact is we have had all kinds of amendments that have nothing to do with the bill. I hope we can finally get this moving.

I had spoken this morning of some people whose experience with the Indian health care system and the lack of health care for American Indians has been devastating. Some people died as a result of not having access to adequate care that we would take for granted in our country.

Let me mention my colleague from Oklahoma is on the floor and is going to discuss one of his amendments. You know, we have a trust responsibility. We have a responsibility to keep a promise we have made in treaty after treaty for Indian health care. I do not think there is a disagreement on the floor of the Senate about that.

There is no disagreement that we have a responsibility, that responsibility is in writing in all kinds of treaties. So we have made the promise; we have not kept the promise.

Let me make one final point. There is no group of Americans who have served this country in greater percentage of their population than American Indians. You take a look at the percentage of veterans who have served this country in wars and during peacetime, no population has had a greater percentage of people who have gone to serve America than American Indians.

I told my colleagues once previously about a Sunday morning in Fargo, ND, at the veterans health care facility, veterans hospital, where a veteran named Edmond Young Eagle was dying of lung cancer. I did not know it that day, but he would die 7 days later of lung cancer.

He was a man who lived on an Indian reservation. When called by his country, he served in Africa during the Second World War, at Normandy, throughout Europe, served with great distinction.

He came back. He never had very much, lived a tough life, didn't have many relatives. At the end of his life his sister asked if I could get his medals he had earned but never received. I did. I took them on a Sunday morning to the veterans hospital in Fargo, to this man who was in his mid- to late-seventies, a World War II veteran, had a tough life, never had very much, was dying of lung cancer. We cranked up his hospital bed to a seated position. He was a very sick man but very well aware of what was going on. I pinned a row of medals on his pajama top at the veterans hospital. The doctors and nurses from the hospital packed into his room. This proud man said to me, as I pinned his medals on his pajama top: This is one of the proudest days of my life.

This is a man who had a difficult time in life. He never had very much but served his country when asked in Africa, in Europe, fought for his country. Many years later, just prior to his death, he was recognized by his country, as I told him: A country that is grateful for your service. There are so many who have provided so much service from Indian reservations, from Indian nations.

We have made a solemn pledge to the Indians--we signed it into treaties; we have it as a trust responsibility--we will provide for your health care.

As my colleague from Oklahoma said this morning, take a look at Medicare, Federal prisons, Indian health, a whole range of things. Just to take Federal prisons as an example, we spend twice as much per person providing health care for prisoners as we do meeting our responsibility to provide health care for American Indians. That is a disgrace. It has to change.

I can't tell you how pleased I am to see my colleague from Oklahoma because we have had so many amendments that have so little to do with the underlying bill. I know my colleagues have offered a number of amendments that deal directly with it.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

This is an authorization bill. The Senator is amending it. Does his amendment anticipate an increase by $2 billion for the authorized level because we are authorizing expenditures? The Senator will perhaps offer a $2 billion appropriations measure. I will as well. I hope we will be able to work together on that. But we will also have to increase the authorization. Does the amendment increase the authorization?

Mr. President, why don't we do that, provide the authorized room? The Senator this morning indicated--and I agreed--that we are about $2 billion short of fully funding Indian health care. We have full-scale rationing going on. The amendment has a restriction in it. He limits the amount of funding in his amendment to the amount of funding that currently exists in Indian health. The President has just proposed a reduction in funding, even though we are only meeting 60 percent of current need. My question is, should we not then remove that restriction and actually increase the authorization because he and I have the same goal. Let's get the amount of money in the system that provides health care for Indians that we have promised.

If the Senator will yield further, one of the dilemmas in providing Indian health care, not so much in the State of Oklahoma but in other areas where there are reservations, is in many cases the only health care that is available is the Indian Health Service clinic, and you are 80 miles away from the nearest hospital. In many cases there will never be competition in an area where someone is desperately sick and needs to see a doctor quickly. I happen to agree the underlying notion of this amendment of providing a card to someone to say, take this card to a health care facility and get that need fixed, if you must--I happen to think that has merit. I will be working with the Senator on that with respect to the bolder approaches to Indian health care. But on page 4, line 4, is where you have budget neutrality: In conducting the program under this section, the Secretary shall ensure the aggregate payments made to carry out the program do not exceed the amount of Federal expenditures which have been made available. That is saying that we want to do all of this, which would expand contract care and so on but within the same amount of money that currently exists in Indian health care. It is kind of a chicken and egg.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for coming and debating the amendment. I understand he has to leave.

The Senator from Oklahoma certainly is right, it is not more money necessarily that is only going to solve the problem. But I guarantee you that less money will not solve the problem. If we are 40 percent short of money needed now, I guarantee you that the same amount of money will not solve the problem. The amendment he has offered has a provision that says we are going to do something different, we are going to do something that is unique, and, by the way, you cannot spend any more money than you are now spending in a system that is already 40 percent short of money.

How can we have an amendment that restricts the amount of funding? When he says that--he started this morning by saying we are $2 billion short. It is interesting, I do not necessarily disagree with the proposition of trying to find choices, providing an insurance card, or some other mechanism by which we create some competition with the Indian Health Service. But this may be much better for Oklahoma than it might be for other States.

If you have an Indian Health Service area where you are in an Indian reservation 80 miles from the nearest hospital, and the only health care capability you have is to go to the Indian Health Service, well, you know what, we better have adequate funding for that, at least current funding for that. If you add another program on top of this for other Indians who can go somewhere else in a metropolitan area and be able to present a card, because they have now taken money out of the system and purchased their own insurance--you allow that to happen, then the American Indian who is living on the reservation with the current Indian Health Service clinic there has less money.

How does that work to help the folks who are stranded with no competition? It seems to me the way this is written, with a restriction that says there cannot be any additional resources beyond that which currently exist--and, by the way, the President wants to cut that. We have wide-scale health care rationing going on in this country, with people dying because of it, and the President's budget cuts it.

My colleague says: I will support--quoting him--increased funding, increased authorization. But the amendment he authors actually restricts the amount of money available. In order to do something new, if you are going to restrict the amount of money available to what is available now--if you are going to do something new--it is going to come from some place. I will tell you where it is going to come from. It is going to come from clinics out in those reservations where there is no choice.

There is only one opportunity for somebody who has broken an arm or developed an illness or disease and needs to go someplace quickly to find health care. They are going to go to the local Indian health clinic. This money is going to come out of their hide because this amendment offered provides a restriction that no additional resources can exist.

I do not denigrate the idea offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. But this clearly is not something that would be helpful to a lot of American Indians. In fact, I believe it would be hurtful to a lot of American Indians who are the ones who have no choice--who have no choice at all--but must try to get their emergency care and must try to get their basic health care met at those clinics.

I mentioned this morning a woman named Harriet Archambault whose health care was in McLaughlin, SD, in a satellite clinic of the Indian health care facility for the Standing Rock Tribe in Fort Yates, ND. That was her health care: the McLaughlin, SD, satellite clinic. They can handle 10 people in the morning and 10 people in the afternoon. That is it. If you are not on the list of 10, that is it, and you cannot make a reservation. You come and you sign in.

Well, she came five times, drove 18 miles one way each time. Five times she came, and 5 times she was too late to be in the top 10. She could not stay because she was taking care of her grandchildren. She was the daycare provider for her grandchildren. Her medicine had run out for hypertension and high blood pressure in mid-October. Five times she got up early in the morning to drive nearly 20 miles, and she did not get there in time. There were 10 people on the list ahead of her. One month later she died. She tried five times and never got there, in a remote satellite location.

The fact is, people are dying. Children are dying. Elders are dying. There is not nearly enough money to keep the promise this country made to American Indians. The amendment offered today is one I am very interested in working with the Senator from Oklahoma on in a significant reform package in which we dramatically increase the resources to keep our promise, and then try to provide some competition and some choice. I am interesting in doing that, frankly.

I am not interested in passing an amendment that says, let's do this in a

way that restricts funding for others, which is what this amendment does. There is a specific restriction on funding, and that means there is going to be less funding for those clinics, including the satellite clinics. That is not something I am willing to entertain.

But, again, I appreciate finally getting an amendment offered. My colleague indicated he will be back. I indicated earlier we are at parade rest because one of our colleagues apparently has an objection, through his staff, through leadership, and he is off, apparently, at a meeting downtown, and has a speech, and he will be back sometime around 3:30 maybe. But in the meantime, through his staff, we are told we are not able to move on anything.

I have a managers' package that is agreed to, I believe, and I want to send it to the desk in a moment. My understanding is, we cannot move to embrace it despite the fact it would be a unanimous consent, because one of our colleagues is downtown and will not be back for an hour and a half. That will make him gone for 3 hours. In the meantime, we sit here with our hands in our pockets trying to figure out how on Earth we explain this is a body that is supposed to get something done.

I said this morning I have often called this place 100 bad habits, despite the fact I feel enormously privileged to be here. I love the Senate. But I am not very happy about the way this place works today because we deal with an important issue that is life or death to some people, and we are having a difficult time.

Senator Murkowski has worked on this bill with me for a long period of time. Before her, Senator McCain worked on this legislation. We are finally on the floor of the Senate, and because of things that have nothing at all to do with this bill, we are standing here frozen because somebody is gone, apparently.

Mr. President, I am happy to.

Mr. President, this is this third day we have been on the floor of the Senate. Our hope was this would be the day in which we complete action by late this afternoon. Obviously, it does not appear that way.

Mr. President, I am told one of our colleagues, who is upset about something, has gone off to give a speech downtown at a meeting and will not return for a while. His staff indicates we are not to move without his consent, and he won't provide consent until he comes back, if then.

Well, it sounds that way. But we will see. Again, it is very frustrating. We have worked very hard to bring this legislation to the floor of the Senate. I know a lot of people are counting on the Congress to do the right thing. My hope is we can move forward. I think we have about four amendments we have cleared. We have a managers' package that is cleared. We will get votes on the Coburn amendment, which is germane, right on target, on the bill. So there is no reason we cannot move forward and get this piece of legislation done.

Yes. Let me do this. Let me say the managers' package is something we have negotiated. I believe it has been agreed to unanimously. I do not know of any objection to the package itself. I do know of some objections to the process because one Senator who is not here has staff objecting.

Let me suggest in about 5 minutes I am going to send the managers' package to the desk and ask for its consideration. If there is someone who feels a managers' package that has been unanimously agreed to and worked on very hard--by the way, let me say--and my colleague Senator Murkowski can add to it--we have about five or six areas in the managers' package that are very controversial and had caused us a lot of problems. We worked and worked and negotiated with all of those for whom this controversy exists, and we negotiated something that is agreeable to everybody. It was a good thing to have done. Finally, this managers' package, I think, is now agreeable to everybody, and it is a good piece of work. So in about 5 minutes I wish to send it to the desk and ask for its consideration.

I would be happy to yield.

Mr. President, how much time is Senator Byrd requesting?

Mr. President, Senator Murkowski may wish to add some comments, at which point I believe I will send the managers' package to the desk and ask for its consideration.

I intend to answer the Senator.

Following that, I will be happy to yield the floor. As I understand it, the Senator from California wishes to follow the Senator from West Virginia.

The Senator from West Virginia wants 15 minutes. And the Senator from California wants how much time?

Mr. President, let me defer on the managers' amendment for a moment, and let us begin with Senator Byrd's request for 15 minutes, followed by Senator Boxer. Then my hope would be that we can come back to this bill. We have amendments pending and it is very important that we finish the bill itself this afternoon.

Does Senator Murkowski wish to comment at this point before Senator Byrd takes the floor?

Mr. President, the announcement by the Senator from West Virginia, chairman of the Appropriations Committee is, I think, good news. It is the case that the Appropriations Committee appropriates a great deal of money, and the question about oversight is very important. The Senator from West Virginia talks about understanding and needing to know how the money is spent, where the money is spent.

With nearly three quarters of a trillion dollars having been spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the war on terror, there has been so much waste, fraud, and abuse, and there has been too little oversight. The Senator from West Virginia is showing great foresight and courage in saying we are going to provide that oversight. I think the Senate and the American people owe him a debt of gratitude for launching this effort. I say thank you.

I know the Senator from California is going to speak. When we finish the request, to be able to share with our colleagues, I may ask her to yield so I might propound a unanimous consent request during her presentation.

Mr. President, has the Senator from California completed?

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from California to complete her statement, after which I will be recognized.

Mr. President, we have been patiently waiting for some hours now. It is pretty unbelievable to watch this process work. The old saying about watching sausages being made or laws being made, it is not a very attractive picture. That certainly is true today on the floor of the Senate.

We have legislation we reported out from the Indian Affairs Committee dealing with an obligation that this country has to provide Indian health care. It is an obligation we promised in treaties. It is a trust obligation reaffirmed by our courts, and it has been nearly 10 long years getting to the floor to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. It is not as if anybody is speeding around here.

We finally get to the floor of the Senate, we are on the third day, and we have all kinds of amendments that have little to do with Indian health care.

We have been standing at parade rest for 3 hours while one of our colleagues has been giving speeches downtown and their staff has indicated they must object to this request. I do not understand the 25 stages of approval required in this Chamber to say hello or goodbye. Perhaps we can find a way to move on the issue that confronts the Senate at this moment, and that is Indian health care. Even as we talk, people die out there because there is full-scale rationing of health care.

One part of this legislation that we have worked on is called the managers' package. It is not a typical managers' package we see with other legislation where there are a lot of additions. This managers' package is a requirement we had to try to negotiate about five very difficult and very controversial issues. We had great objections to certain areas of the bill, so Senator Murkowski and I and our staffs worked over the last month to negotiate, and we reached agreement on five or six areas.

That agreement was pretty difficult to reach, but we did it with a lot of people on both sides of the aisle. That is what is comprised of this managers' package.

Amendment No. 4082 to Amendment No. 3899

Our managers' package is at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that the managers' amendment, which is at the desk, be considered.

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

Mr. President, about 5 hours ago, we were hoping to send that amendment to the desk and have it considered. We hoped to have a vote on it. What we are waiting for at the moment is the remainder of the unanimous consent request. The remainder of the unanimous consent request I will propound, when we determine who offers levels of approval in the Chamber, will be that we have a vote--the way it is constructed is at 3 o'clock, but that was 25 minutes ago--that we have a vote on two amendments.

One will be the managers' amendment I sent to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Murkowski, bipartisan, I believe, an amendment that does not have objections anywhere in the Chamber because we have resolved those objections, but we will have a recorded vote on that, and then we will have a recorded vote on the amendment that has been offered by Senator Coburn, amendment No. 4034.

My hope is that we will be able to propound a unanimous consent request that will be approved in a few minutes, with a couple-minute debate prior to each vote, and then we will have two votes. Our hope is to begin that at 3 o'clock. My hope remains that will be the case. I will not propound the unanimous consent request at the moment because I understand it has not yet been cleared.

I understand it has now just been cleared, which is great news.

I ask unanimous consent for the following: that the pending amendment, which is the managers' amendment that I just filed on behalf of myself and Senator Murkowski, be set aside and that at 3 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment, the managers' amendment; that the amendment not be divisible; and that upon disposition of that amendment, the Senate resume the Coburn amendment No. 4034; that there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relationship to that amendment; and that no amendments be in order to either amendment prior to the vote, with the second vote in sequence 10 minutes in duration.

Mr. President, for the information of Senators, the vote will begin in about 3 minutes, and we will have two votes in sequence.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Have the yeas and nays been ordered on the Coburn amendment?

Madam President, I oppose the amendment, as does my colleague Senator Murkowski.

Senator Coburn offers some interesting ideas here, but he offers them in the context of saying: We will do some different and additional things with Indian health care, but we will explicitly restrict any additional money that is in the bill itself. That means if you have Indian reservations out in the country someplace, there is an Indian health clinic, and that is the only health care available, I guarantee you they will end up with less money to provide health care to those Indians on those reservations given that restriction in the bill.

For that reason I do not support it, but I look forward to working with my colleague from Oklahoma on ideas of this type.

Madam President, if I might, the Senator from Oklahoma is intending to debate and discuss amendment Nos. 4032 and 4036, and requests recorded votes on both. First of all, I appreciate his cooperation. I understand he is prepared to initiate that debate. What I would like to suggest is whatever time he needs for that debate, we could probably, by consent, with the consent of Senator Murkowski, agree to a time for both those votes.

I might ask the Senator, how long would he like to debate both amendments?

Madam President, would it be satisfactory to the Senator from Oklahoma and Senator Murkowski if we set the two votes on amendment No. 4032 and amendment No. 4036 no later than 4:20?

Let's make it 4:30, Madam President.

Madam President, with the permission of the Senator from Oklahoma, let me ask if he might also discuss his second amendment.

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, first of all, let me thank the chairman and ranking member, Senator Murkowski, for their work on this effort.

Amendments Nos. 4024 through 4037 to Amendment No. 3899

Oklahoma is the No. 1 State in the country as far as tribal members. Indian health care is an issue on which we are struggling, and there are all sorts of components for it. I am going to ask unanimous consent now to bring up my amendments numbered 4024 through 4037 as if brought up individually and ask that each be set aside so they will be considered pending. I ask unanimous consent that be carried out at this time.

Far less than what I bring up.

Let me start by saying, improving the health care of Indians in this country is a widely supported goal. Senator Dorgan's heart is in the right place on this issue. He knows the problems we have, and he spent countless hours trying to get to this point with this bill. I do not want to be seen--I have told him, and I committed to him my goal is not to block his progress on this bill.

However, I believe this legislation as drafted does not fix the underlying problems. He and I have had several conversations about that. It does not fix rationing that is going on today. It does not fix waiting lines that are going on today. It does not fix the inferior quality that is being applied to a lot of Native Americans and Alaskans in this country. It does not fix any of those problems. In fact, it authorizes more services without making sure the money is there to follow it. The average Native American in this country has $2,100 per year spent on them.

Now, let's put that in perspective. The average veteran we take care of has $4,300. The average individual per person, per capita, expenditure in our country is $7,000. Yet we are going to pass a bill that does not fix anything. It does not fix the real problems about addressing the No. 1 problem which is, we are not sending enough dollars to meet the treaty obligations that we have with Native Americans. So really what this bill is, it is called the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, but it improves our position with tribes because we have done something, but it does not improve health care. It is not going to improve health care. It is going to increase the availability of services without the money, without the control, without the quality, without eliminating the waiting lines.

As a matter of fact, it is going to add to the waiting lines as I read this bill, as somebody who is somewhat experienced in medicine. Those who say a failure to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act is a violation of our trust obligations are correct. However, I believe simply reauthorizing this system with minor modifications is an even greater violation of that commitment. It is a greater violation. Dozens of tribal leaders are not expressing enthusiasm for the current structure.

Chuck Grim, an Oklahoman, head of this service, knows what is broken. I have had lots of conversations with him. We know what is broken, we know how to fix it, but we have to be bold in how we go about fixing it. We are not bold in this. We are not changing it. We are not doing the structural changes that have to happen for us to live up to the commitment that we have made to Native Americans.

The myriad of problems facing Indian health care in Indian country are many of the same issues that are facing health care delivery throughout rural America. They are compounded, however, in this system by a system that refuses to recognize its own role in holding back health care delivery for Native Americans.

In designing health care reforms, markets work when they are allowed to. They lower the price of all goods and services, and they attract much needed outside investment. Many tribes in Oklahoma are at the forefront of new and innovative health care delivery systems. They are poised to become a model for delivery throughout the system.

Congress must ensure, however, that their efforts are not discouraged or stopped altogether by the current system. Furthermore, there is no good reason that forward-thinking tribal governments should not be prevented from developing market-driven health care centers of excellence that will attract researchers, physicians, and patients for cutting edge lifesaving treatments. We do not do that in this bill.

Furthermore, this legislation fails to focus on empowering individual tribal members. Individual patients tend to receive better care and more effective care when they are empowered to make their own health care decisions. Congress should explore ways to accomplish this objective and give tribal citizens a reason to invest in their own health. Long lines, bureaucratic headaches, and rationed substandard care completely disallow this sort of investment. That is what we have.

Our Chairman has been on the Senate floor multiple times showing how we are rationing care, how we have lines, how we do not give quality care, how we take contract health care--it runs out in 4 or 5 months. And so what happens? People who need care do not get it, and we have not fixed that in this bill. Yet we are calling this health care improvement.

The health care status of tribal members ranks below the general population. The Federal Government has been providing health care to tribal members for 175 years. The first time was to give them a smallpox vaccine in 1807. That is when we started Indian health care. And what we are doing today in comparison to what our treaty obligations are--in comparison, it is the same thing we are doing to the veterans when we tell the veterans: We are going to give you health care and do not give it. It is the same thing we tell schools: We are going to have an IDEA program and then not fund it. It is morally bankrupt legislation that does not meet the commitments that we say we have.

The Snyder Act of 1921 provided a broad and permanent authorization for Federal Indian programs, including--and this is an important thing--the conservation of health; in other words, the prevention of disease, which Chuck Grim was just starting to get into, but we do not have the funding to do it the way we need to do it. We know the manifestation of diabetes and addiction and hypertension and heart disease among our tribal members is higher than any other group in our country. Yet the conservation of health has not been exploited, the paradigm shift that has to happen in Native American care to where we go to prevention instead of treatment of disease. It is not in here. We are not doing it.

Last year, we spent $3.18 billion doing this. If we just funded it at the level we fund per capita veterans care, we should be funding $6.5 billion in Native American health care. That is just on a per capita basis, let alone any structural changes on how we might make preventative care, quality care, timely care, and compassionate care a part of Native American care. But we are not doing that. Indians in comparison with the general population are 6.5 times more likely to die from alcoholism. That is a disease we need to be preventing. That is a health care problem. They are six times more likely to die from tuberculosis, a preventable disease; three times more likely to die from diabetes, a controllable and now preventable disease, it is a preventable disease; 2.5 times more likely to die from an accident.

Now, how can we look those statistics in the face and say we have met our treaty obligations? We have failed. We have absolutely failed. Only 71 percent of Native Americans receive prenatal care. That means one out of four Native American moms who get pregnant do not have any prenatal care. We ought to be ashamed. We have failed. We have failed.

Eighteen percent of Native Americans who are pregnant smoke. That is twice the rate of others. Where is our prevention? Where is our education? Where is the priority on what we can do something about?

American Indians suffer from a great death rate from chronic liver disease and cirrhosis. It is 22.7 per 100,000. That is twice what it is for Whites and three times what it is for African Americans in this country. We know what causes it. We do not put the dollars there. We have not put in a streamlined prevention program.

My words are harsh. They are not intended for either the chairman or the ranking member. I passionately care that we meet our commitments, and so I do not want you to take the words I say as directed toward you because I know you care as well.

Where we have a difference is in the ``now.'' What do we do now rather than what do we do later? I think we should be doing it all now. I think we should radically change how we approach our obligations in Native American health care in this country.

Rationing plagues Indian Health Services. It is rationed care. That is

why it is not good care. That is why it is not consistent care. That is why it is not preventative care, because we don't have the resources. We haven't applied the resources to the need. Senator Dorgan has had numerous hearings. He has spoken on the floor about this rationing crisis. But if we don't radically change the system, if we don't change incentives in the system, improving the old will just bring more failure.

The job vacancy rate for dentists is 32 percent. They don't have 80 percent of the nurses they need. They don't have 85 percent of the optometrists, and they only have 86 percent of the doctors, based on the present system. I am proposing a better system with better care based on prevention, a paradigm that says it is a whole lot cheaper to prevent your illness than it is to treat it once you get it. It is common to hear in Indian Country--and I have heard the chairman say it--``don't get sick after June. Contract money is gone. If you get sick after June, nothing will happen. You will not get the referral to the center to take care of you because we don't have the money.

A quote from Dr. Charles Grim, who has been a stellar leader for the

Mr. President, will the chairman yield for a couple moments?

Mr. President, I wish to make a couple comments, and then I have to go to a markup.

You will find me an ally on appropriations if we have the courage to make priority choices on where we fund money. You know that. That has been my history. But we do not have extra money, so that means we have to take it from something else. My goal will be that we take from the waste we

all know is there and we put it to the commitments.

So I look forward to that debate. I think you are right. I think we need to up the ante, and we need to add the money. But there is plenty of money for us to go get, and I hope the chairman will help me go get it so we can put it there.

Thank you.

Mr. President, every amendment I have has something to do with this bill. They are all germane, not meant to delay. I am happy to vote for cloture right now to prove that I don't want to delay this bill. What I am going to ask is unanimous consent for the regular order and discuss my amendment No. 4034, after which I will ask for a vote. Then if the leadership wants to stack votes, I am fine with that.

This is a simple amendment. I know the chairman is critical of it because he thinks it is false in terms of its intent. During our budget debate, I plan on adding $2 billion to Indian health care. I also plan on making us make the tough decisions on where we take it from. We don't have extra money, so it is about priorities, about keeping commitments. I will be offering that when we get to the budget to make sure there is an extra $2 billion for Native American care, and then we will decide whether we think that is a priority as we vote on the budget and on the appropriations bills.

This is a straightforward amendment. This allows tribal members to get insurance. If they want to use the IHS service, great. But if they have to wait in line to wait in line to get care, maybe they can go somewhere else. Then we are keeping our commitment. If they know that the care for a certain type of disease is terrible at IHS, they can go where it is better. We are going to put the security of our promise in real terms, and we are going to put choice, the same thing every Member of this body has, and security in health care, into the hands of the Native Americans. That is what the amendment does. The reason it doesn't cost anything is because we are going to charge IHS for what it costs. We have designed the amendment. We are waiting to see what the budget chairman does with the budget and where we are going to find this $2 billion. But I promise you, we are going to get a chance to vote on my amendment to put in $2 billion. So it is not an empty promise.

One of the things we know that improves everything is competition. One of the ways to get rid of some of the waste that is in IHS and to put a priority back in is to start competing.

I am happy to.

It does not at this time. I will give a commitment to the chairman. Under our rules, when I want to take money away from something else, I have to deauthorize it. We don't have enough money in Indian health so we have to deauthorize something else. If we get it under the budget, I have every intention of making us make a choice. I will vote for an increased authorization at this point in

time right now for $2 billion. But I will also come back and say we have to find the money to pay for it.

I will happily vote for that. But what we have to do is deauthorize something else. I know you disagree with my thoughts on increased authorizations versus offsets. I believe we have a commitment. I believe we have a treaty obligation. I believe we have a moral obligation. But I also believe it has to be balanced with the obligation that Members of Congress refuse to do, which is to make judgments about priorities. An empty promise to authorize that is not offsetting some authorization somewhere else without coming around and doing it; tons of bills go through this place authorizing things so we can send a signal out there that we did something, knowing that we never intend to fund it.

Right now we have over $8 trillion a year in authorizations. It can't be hard to find $2 billion to deauthorize to increase the authorization for Indian health. We have to have a vote, and we have to decide what that is.

I will commit to the chairman, I will vote for that, as long as we are decreasing somewhere else. I am willing to go find where that is for the chairman. I will commit that I will offer an amendment to increase the spending for this in our budget. I also will commit that when the appropriations come through, although I may not vote for the whole appropriations bill because it is not going to just be for Indian health care, I will vote for amendments that will increase the amount of money that goes to Indian health care as long as it is within the budget. That is why I said my goal is to do that within the budget where we could have a debate about priorities.

I would like to reclaim my time if I might. The fact is, we appropriate $280 billion a year in stuff that is not authorized right now. So we will not have any problem appropriating this money if we don't authorize it. A quarter of the discretionary budget is not authorized right now. We will not have any problem with that. My amendment says, on the areas the Senator just described, to do it only if it is geographically feasible. I recognize there are some places where we have isolated reservations and we have IHS. I am willing to put the money behind it, but I also realize more of the same doesn't get it done. So if we double Indian health care money, we are still going to have an inefficient system that will deliver care at a lower level than what you can get in the private sector.

What I am saying with my amendment is, let's have both. We ought to do both. I am making a statement on the Senate floor--and the Senator will recognize, I believe, that I usually keep my word about coming back and doing what I say I will do--I will work to get the extra $2 billion, but an extra $2 billion in a broken system is not just money that is broken with IHS. I believe the chairman will agree. What I wanted to do is fix the system and increase the money, increase the choice and security that Native Americans are entitled to that all the rest of us have.

The fact is, if the only place a Native American can get care is IHS, that is not freedom. That is not the promise kept in its fullest bloom. It is saying, here is the only place you can get care. If the care happens to be great, super. But if the care happens to be average and they need better, they don't have that opportunity. If the care happens to be--and sometimes we know it is, like some of the cases the chairman has presented--when it is substandard and that is the only choice they have, that is not acceptable.

Let me finish my deal, and I will let you go and you can hammer me. I hope I can get you to come around. Maybe I would not get your vote. I know I will get your commitment to work toward it in the future. But I think just adding more money to IHS doesn't fix the problem. I described that earlier when I talked about 30 or 45 minutes. What this does is, it treats Native Americans like every other American. That is what this amendment does. It gives them choice. It gets them out of the prison we have placed them in that says: You only have one place you can go. And, by the way, if we run out of contract funds, even if you need to go somewhere else, you can't go.

Contract funds actually have run out on average in June. So for 5 months of the year, when we need to send Native Americans somewhere else, we don't have the money to do it. So who suffers?

Under this system, you would not run out of contract money because you bought an insurance policy. You have given them the average cost of an individual insurance cost with what we are spending now on care.

By the way, I have another amendment where we describe what an Indian is because, in my State, we have people who are \1/512\th stepping in front of a full blood. And most people don't think somebody that is \5/ 11\th out of \5/12\th ought to be getting full pay for their health care. And in fact, there are .12 of 1 percent Native blood. We call that light blood in Oklahoma. We have whole blood, mixed blood, and light blood in our State. It actually is very complicated because what is happening now, we have tribes that have quantums and say: If you are not a quarter or an eighth, you are not eligible. But under the IHS system, from some of the other tribes who have members who are \1/ 512\th, they come down to their area and they get into IHS. So here is somebody with \1/512\th taking Indian dollars away from somebody who is a quarter or somebody who is a full blood.

What we have said is: Tribes, you have to decide who is an Indian. We actually have some people who are a thousand and 24th that we are giving full blown care to in Oklahoma. They have access to care somewhere else, but they don't want to pay the deductible or the copay. So they step in line in front of a full blood. We have to change that. We have to fix that. We have to fix that because our obligation has to be to the person with the most and then come down. So if we really have restricted dollars, what we have to say is, if you are below a certain level, you have to contribute something. That is the other way that we solve this problem. That doesn't demean the heritage of our Native Americans.

What that says is, the reality is, in 2016 in this country, we are going to be cutting spending all over the place because that is the year interest rises through the roof. That is the year we run out of Social Security with which

to pay for Medicare. That is the year in which for the projected spending, based on revenues, based on growth even at 4 percent, we start running trillion-dollar deficits--trillion-dollar deficits.

Have we ever asked ourselves why gold is worth four times more against the American dollar than it was 10 years ago? Do you think it has anything to do with people thinking we cannot pay back our debt?

So this idea that we are going to have more money in the future to do more things is not going to be there. We need to come to the reality of the situation. We need to start making some of the hard choices. To me, keeping our commitment to Native Americans has to be set up now; otherwise, it is not going to happen, and the funding is not going to get increased between now and 2016. Other than what we do this year, it is going to be hard. The money is going to be hard to get, even if we get out of Iraq.

We are going to get notice today on what I have been working on for 2 years, talking to the Census Bureau about that they are going to be out of control and spend a whole lot more money. I am getting ready to get notice by the Secretary of Commerce--I have a meeting with him this afternoon--that there is going to be a close to $3 billion more pickup to do something we have to do because it has been totally mismanaged-- totally mismanaged. We have been having hearings for 2\1/2\ years on it, where they have been denying it, and now they are coming to say it has been mismanaged. They are coming to agree.

It is why oversight matters. Had we gotten some of the amendments through this body that we offered on the census, we would not be here. But, instead, we are going to spend $2 billion to $3 billion more because we did not pass the amendments offered based on oversight that we did in my committee.

The whole goal--I am not perfect. I am not right, necessarily, on how I want to do that. I will admit that to the chairman and ranking member. But I know more money does not solve the problem on this, and unless we create real freedom, real choice, and real health care security for Native Americans, we will never have an efficient IHS system, and we will never meet the commitments that we say we have.

So I will ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment. I will listen to the chairman. I do have a meeting at 2 o'clock I have to be at. Whenever the chairman would like to stack the votes, if we run others, I will be happy to work with whatever is his pleasure.

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

I ask that amendment be brought up, No. 4034 be made pending, and ask for the yeas and nays.

I inquire of the Chair, earlier this morning I made all my amendments pending.

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order on amendment No. 4034.

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

Madam President, this is a pretty simple amendment. What it says is we are going to give the Native Americans what we promised them in our treaties. We are going to give it to them in the same way we deliver security, choice, prosperity, and health care for Members of Congress. We are going to give them an insurance policy. In basics, I think my chairman agrees with it; he does not agree with the way we are doing it at this time. I understand that. What you all should know is three-quarters of the Native American population of this country lives in urban areas; it does not live on the reservation. That is three- quarters.

What this does is fulfill our commitment through giving them access to quality choice and care--not substandard care, not rationed care, but real care.

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

Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that we have the regular order on Coburn amendment No. 4036.

Probably, Madam President, I will not use more than 30 minutes and probably less.

That is 30 minutes for me and none for you.

I do not have any problem with that.

Madam President, amendment No. 4036 is a real simple amendment. What it says is we are going to prioritize the funds that go into the Indian Health Service. We have had debate all day on whether we are improving Indian health care when we add services but do not add money, and we have not done the structural reforms that need to happen in the Indian Health Service.

We know the Indian Health Service is plagued by rationing on a life- and-limb basis. As to the quality of care we are offering in IHS, for some places it is great, but on average it is less than what we offer other people. Instead of fixing the problem with basic medical services, this bill includes new services. We are not funding the services we do now, and the services we are funding are not at the level they need to be in terms of their quality.

This bill expands the burden of IHS to fund things that in terms of priority are not as important, No. 1, but, more importantly, most have an eligibility avenue with which to get these services through some other Government program. So by supporting this amendment, you are not denying the four new services because they are already available, just not through the IHS.

This amendment would require funding go to what has already been promised to tribal members before we expand to new promises. In other words, before we add new services, let's make sure we are funding the services we are offering now and that we are funding them at a level of quality that is acceptable.

So this would say IHS would have to prioritize basic medical services before paying for new programs. We have talked a lot about the history on this. We know where our problems are. The chairman is trying to move in a direction to help solve some of the problems.

I disagree that we are making the major steps. I think we have to totally reform IHS. I have said that to the chairman. He knows the structural problems that are there. I think when we promise health care, we ought to give it.

We talked earlier today that one in every four Native American women have a baby without any prenatal care. The average number of visits for those who have prenatal care is half what the national average is. So just in prenatal care, in pediatrics, and diabetes we know we are behind the curve. Yet we are going to add new services in the bill that are already available in other ways.

We also know, as the chairman has said, that we spend half per capita on Native Americans than we do on prisoners. We spend less than half than we

do on veterans. We spend a third based on what we spend on Medicare. So we are obviously not there, and a lot of it is money. There is no question about it. But it is not all money. It is structural.

Obviously, that is the reason for my opposition to this bill because I think we have an opportunity to go much further to totally change the structure and quality and delivery and to get a lot of the bureaucracy out. I think we also need to add money. We need to do all three.

This amendment is designed to make IHS prioritize the money. So even though we authorize these programs--this does not eliminate the authorization--it just says you cannot effectively do it until you have funded adequately what you are already promising Native Americans.

What this bill will do, in my estimation, is drain resources available to basic core medical services. It is also going to do something else. Our tribes are getting to be pretty good businessmen. What it is going to do is, it is going to put into individual tribes businesses for these services.

So what is going to happen is, these services are going to be part of the tribal organization business complex but not part of the service, and so we are going to transfer funds outside IHS, transfer IHS moneys into tribal organizations with no guarantees that the money that was spent is going to come back into health care. So if we were to do this, what I would rather is these be IHS services only, rather than out for bid to be utilized that may be not at a competitive bid price so we enhance private profitability rather than tribal health care. So there is that other little problem. Again, if we make new promises, at a time when we are not funding the promises we have, we are not helping the Native American population.

This amendment is about priorities. It is not saying IHS cannot fund these new programs. It is just saying we need to focus on basic medical services first, such as prenatal care. When one in four Native Americans do not have prenatal care, and we are going to add long-term home health care, hospice, DME, and some of these other areas, when we are not taking care of the women who walk in and deliver without prenatal care, it does not make sense.

So I will put this amendment up. I am going to ask for the yeas and nays on amendment 4036. I appreciate the consideration of the chairman and his heart toward Native Americans. But a half promise fulfilled is a promise not kept, and that is where we are on health care. Making us prioritize--in some places we will be able to do this; where we have effective, efficient care, they will have the money to offer these services. In areas where we are not doing well, they should not be expanding into new services when they are not taking care of the services we have today.

So the flexibility is completely up to the IHS. Nothing limits it other than you have to meet the core basic medical needs first before you go into other areas.

With that, I yield the floor and await the response from my chairman. Then I will talk about the other amendment in a moment.

Madam President, I will be happy to.

Madam President, amendment No. 4032, which the chairman has graciously allowed me to discuss at this time, which I also would like to call up and have as the pending order of business under the regular order, is real simple. We do this in a lot of other places, but we do not do it in IHS.

I ask unanimous consent for that.

I thank the Chair.

This is a real straightforward amendment. It says if you are a tribal member and you have been the victim of rape or sexual assault, the right to have your assailant tested for HIV and AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases cannot be denied you. We have done this a lot of times. Most of us agree with that. We think it is the right thing to do when somebody is an assailant and we have people at risk, and not putting those Native Americans into a period of a year waiting or taking medicines they should not have to take because they do not know the status of the person who committed an assault on them.

So it is very straightforward. I will not spend a lot of time on it. I am not trying to inflame the issue. I think it is something Native Americans ought to have that every other American today has.

I yield back and intend to ask for the yeas and nays at the appropriate time.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield, through the Chair, for a question?

Thank you. In order to try to get my schedule and Senator Byrd's schedule--I know Senator Byrd wishes to speak for about 20 minutes. I wish to ask unanimous consent if I could follow him because there was an amendment that involved California. I was not able to be here, and I wish to answer that. If I could follow Senator Byrd.

Mr. President, can I have an answer to my question?

If I might, yes.

I think if I have 15 minutes that would be fine.

Mr. President, I am speaking to an amendment that was offered by Senator DeMint, which he said he wants to reoffer. I want to address this amendment which unfairly targets and penalizes taxpaying Americans by denying them some very important appropriations that were approved by Congress in 2008.

Senator DeMint came to the floor to describe actions that the city of Berkeley took last week in relation to the U.S. Marine Corps recruiting office. Let me be completely clear about those actions. Three of the members, in particular, wanted to send a letter expressing their disapproval of the Marines having a recruiting center in Berkeley. The language was offensive to many. I did not agree with anything they said.

Now, on Tuesday, they explicitly stated that the ill-advised letter they were planning to send to the Marines would no longer be sent. Therefore, you would think Senator DeMint would then say, fine, I am glad they changed their mind. In addition, the city said this in writing.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the statement they made about the Marines, if I might.

Mr. President, they said they ``deeply respect and support the men and women of our Armed Forces.'' I think the council did the right thing. They realized they should not mix up the Iraq war, which was brought to us by this President, and the warriors who fight it. There is a difference. They recognized that. I am very glad about that. You would think Senator DeMint would be very glad about that. He is not. He is still angry and he is still wanting to fight the battle of a couple weeks ago and not recognize the fact that this letter he was railing about, which offended him and many others, was never sent.

That aside, the DeMint amendment is an attack on the rights of citizens to participate in free speech. There are a lot of things that go on in this country that I think are terrible; I think they are wrong, mean spirited, and hurtful. I think a lot of things, because we all have our own opinions on what is said. If every time I heard about some city councilman in some city in another State saying something I thought was offensive, that hurt our military, our seniors, disabled people, minorities or children, I came out here and said: Oh, my goodness, let's withhold funds from that city because of that city councilman, we would have quite a situation on our hands.

State and local governments all across this Nation pass resolutions and measures that many of us don't agree with on a host of issues. Disagreements are part of the political discourse. Why on Earth would we punish good, decent citizens because some members of their local government or the sewer district or mosquito abatement district or water district or others say something that is offensive? Yes, we have a right to come to the floor, as Senator DeMint did, and say it is terrible and wrong and take it back. That is fine. I welcome that. But I don't sit around waiting to hear what they are saying in South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and Oklahoma--those are the States of the Senators who want to take away these funds from the good people of northern California. I don't sit around waiting to see what they might say, and then say I am going to punish everybody because I don't agree with that speech.

The other thing I found interesting is that in a press release the Senator from South Carolina, Senator DeMint, challenged the process by which the funding requests were granted by the Appropriations Committee. Today, he called them ``secret'' earmarks. Yet every one of these projects was funded in the most open and transparent manner.

I will show you what those earmarks are. As a matter of fact, this is an opportunity for me to celebrate those particular projects because they are so important to the police, to the fire department, to the children, to the disabled, to students, to the memory of a wonderful Congressman Bob Matsui, and also to the environment. You will see what I mean. Every document pertaining to those projects was made available to the public. Every request was approved in the openness of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and the openness of the House and Senate Chambers.

If the Senator from South Carolina, Senator DeMint, was so concerned with these funding requests for our police, for our fire department, for our children, the disabled community, for our environment, and for our college students, he had the opportunity to challenge the funding of those requests. He had that opportunity when the bill was on the Senate floor. He didn't do that. Oh, no, he is going to challenge them because someone in the city council--several members--said something offensive that he didn't like and, therefore, as a result of that, instead of standing up and talking to those people who made those offensive comments and trying to change their mind, he tries to punish all the people in the surrounding area. The reason, I would posit, that the Senator didn't challenge these earmarks at the time they were made is because they are excellent programs.

Congressional and executive funding requests, whether they are earmarks from the President or Congress, should be awarded based on merit, not based on what someone in a community said. It is just beyond belief. They should be able to stand on their own merits and serve the people we represent.

I am going to show you some photographs that talk about some of these earmarks. The first is of these beautiful children standing in this garden that is run for the benefit of public schools in the Berkeley School District. These students learn how to plant and grow vegetables and harvest the vegetables. They work the garden. They learn about nutrition. They learn how to cook the food, serve the food, and clean up. This is such a popular program that it is being replicated in places as far away as Louisiana. We all know we have serious problems with our kids with diabetes. We know our kids don't eat the way we want them to because they are attracted to high-sugar foods and sodas and all the things that are not good for them. Here is a program that teaches them to love the whole notion of eating in a healthy way. That is a program Senator DeMint went after, along with his friends who are cosponsors. I wish to show you some other programs that are impacted. This is unbelievable.

In this photo, we see a few of the most seriously disabled people you can find in America today. They want to live independently. Here is Ed Roberts, who needs oxygen every second, with a tube in his mouth. We want these wonderful people--some of them who are veterans--to be able to live independently. Here you see pictures of them doing that, with paralyzed bodies--children, moms. He wants to take away the funding because he disagreed with what some people said at the Berkeley City Council, which they now have taken back. Outrageous. Outrageous.

Let's show you the other earmarks they are going after. Here are students at UC Berkeley. There is a program named after Bob Matsui, the beloved Congressman. They are going after that program as well.

Here is a picture of congestion in the San Francisco Bay area, where you can see the Bay Bridge here; and you can barely tell it from where you are sitting, Mr. President, but all these dots are cars. We have the most congested areas in the country. We want to get funding for a ferry boat to carry people and get them out of their cars and use the waterways. This was Congresswoman Lee's earmark. He wants to cut this because he didn't agree with members of the council who have now taken back what they said.

Here are our heroes, the firefighters. They are part of the recipients of an award that we said they deserve so there could be some communication in our region between the fire and the police in the jurisdiction, so that when we have a terror attack--and we hope we never do--or when we have a fire--and we often do--or an earthquake, which we often do, they have communications equipment. This is what Senator DeMint wants to take away from law-abiding firefighters because he didn't agree with something the city council said, which they took back.

Here is the real point I have to make about all this. Senator Chambliss is an original cosponsor of the DeMint amendment challenging these earmarks. Let's look at an earmark he got in his State. It was for the Daugherty County School System Healthy Lifestyle Program. Ours is the Berkeley Unified School District School Lunch Initiative. I don't see Senator Chambliss trying to give up his program. I would never try to take that away from him because of something somebody said in his State that I didn't agree with.

Here is Senator Cornyn, another proud sponsor of the DeMint amendment to slash these earmarks: Ed Roberts Disability Services Campus in

Berkeley. I showed the people coming back from the war, paralyzed veterans in wheelchairs. Senator Cornyn wants to cut that earmark because the city council said something offensive which they have now since taken back. I would never go after Senator Cornyn's paratransit vehicle replacement in Abilene, TX.

Here we go: The Strom Thurmond Fitness and Wellness Center at the University of South Carolina. We don't know who got that earmark because it was secret. It was secret. But I would never try to take away the Strom Thurmond Fitness and Wellness Center. Then let them leave alone the Bob Matsui Center for Public Service at UC Berkeley.

Senator Inhofe, my friend, is a proud sponsor of this amendment, too. He has the Oklahoma City River Ferry Boat Transportation Program. He was proud to get that earmark. I would never go after that if someone in Oklahoma said something that I did not like, a city councilman, a mayor. Maybe I wouldn't like it and I might write them a letter and say what they said was wrong, unpatriotic, I don't agree with it. But I would never go after an earmark that helps move people from place to place. So let him leave alone the San Francisco water ferry.

Here is Senator Vitter, another proud cosponsor of the DeMint amendment. I cannot tell my colleagues how many times I have helped Senator Vitter in my committee get help for the people of Louisiana. Do I agree with what every city council member says in Louisiana? Probably not. And if I did disagree with them, if they said something I found unpatriotic or not caring about our troops, I would send them a letter, but I wouldn't go after Senator Vitter's earmark for the Baton Rouge Communication Technology Pilot Program because I think it is important that police, fire, and emergency workers, who are our heroes, have the funding they need.

The final item I want to show my colleagues is this: This move by Senator DeMint to take away the funding was addressed by the chair of the Military Affairs Department, Commanding Officer, ROTC, at the University of California. I want to read what he said about the University of California at Berkeley. I will just read certain statements:

Given the recent spate of controversy surrounding the U.S.

Marine recruiting office . . . I feel it is my obligation to

inform members of Congress of the relationship we have with

the university and the outstanding support it provides not

just to the ROTC Program but to all military personnel, their

dependents and veterans as well.

UC Berkeley has been and continues to be a very big

supporter of all our ROTC programs here on campus. They

should in no way be associated with or linked to the actions

of the Berkeley City Council which has taken on a very

outspoken stance against the United States Marine Corps

Recruiting Station in the city. . . .

I would like to ensure that those in favor of the Semper Fi

Act understand that UC Berkeley is a tremendous supporter of

all the military programs on campus as well as all the

military personnel, their dependents and veterans who attend

this university. It would be a travesty of justice to . . .

punish UC Berkeley for the actions of the Berkeley City

Council.

When this was written, I don't know whether Captain Laird knew that the Berkeley City Council did not send that letter and instead finally realized their mistake and said how much they support our men and women in uniform.

The fact is, this kind of a punishment for a community such as this, a community of families who care about their country, who are taxpaying citizens, because of actions of a few, is an outrage. It would be a terrible precedent if we now started punishing children, policemen, firemen, disabled veterans, and students. If that is what we are going to become in this Senate, then we do not deserve to be here. That is absolutely wrong.

The Marine Corps has given 232 years of exemplary service to our Nation and, tragically, 974 of the marines who served in Iraq paid the ultimate price. More than 440 of those were based at Twenty-nine Palms and Camp Pendleton in my home State of California. The Marines deserve our respect and our gratitude and our support.

Again, I am glad that the council realized there is a difference between a war and a warrior.

Again, Senator DeMint seems to be making political points on an issue that essentially was resolved. But if he wants to come here and debate with me why it is right to take away money from students, if he wants to debate with me why it is OK to take away money from disabled veterans, why it is OK to take away money from firefighters, many of whom are veterans, many of whom put their lives on the line every day, if he wants to have that debate, I will be on my feet, and I will have that debate.

I know Senator Dorgan wishes to have the floor. Mr. President, is Senator Dorgan ready to make his UC request?

I will yield to Senator Dorgan or I can complete in 2 minutes.

The point I am making is, we all have our opinion on what constitutes free speech. I support Senator DeMint's right to express his opinion about what he thought of the proposed actions of the Berkeley City Council. He has every right to do that. He has every right to offer his amendment. But I have every right to come down here and say I think not only is it mean-spirited, it is hurtful to the wrong people. And I have every right to come down here and say: Senator DeMint, they never sent that letter to the Marines, happily. They rethought it.

If he wants to continue with this amendment, if he wants to offer it to every bill we have, then I will be right down here with these photographs and others that I have. I will be right down here with more testimony from the military who will testify to how incredibly welcoming UC Berkeley is to our men and women in uniform.

There will be wars in the future--we all hope there will not be, but there may be--with which we do not agree, but we must never confuse our anger at the people who would send our young people to a war of choice or a wrongheaded war and the young people who are sent there. We must come here every day to support those young men and women. Let's not use this as a way to take cheap political shots because they do not deserve it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I filed a number of technical improvements to this bill, which I wish to work on with the chairman to see if we can resolve these without a vote. These are very small wording amendments, in some cases, that I would like the chairman and his staff to look at before I call them up, because I think it is very unlikely we will need votes on these particular amendments.

Amendment No. 4067 to Amendment No. 3894

Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to the Bingaman amendment No. 3894 and I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment and the Bingaman amendment.

Mr. President, we will talk about it and get the vote later on. I want to say a few words about this amendment.

My amendment is identical to the Semper Fi Act, which I introduced along with Senators Allard, Bond, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn, Cornyn, Inhofe, Martinez, McConnell, Vitter, and probably a number of other Members. Since the bill that is pending now will probably be the last vote before the recess, I think it is important that we vote on this Semper Fi amendment. Last week, when I introduced the bill, the majority leader did not recess so that we could not get this on the calendar. This is an important bill, which I will explain in a minute. We also tried to move it by unanimous consent through the hotline process, and all of the Republicans approved the bill, but apparently someone on the majority side is holding it. That is why it is important that this amendment be part of the bill we are considering today.

The Semper Fi Act would rescind all earmarks, or specially designated spending projects, contained in the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Omnibus Appropriations Act for the city of Berkeley and entities located therein, and redirects those funds to the U.S. Marine Corps.

For those who have not been paying attention, the Berkeley City Council recently voted to ask the U.S. Marine Corps to vacate their recruiting office in town, and that if they chose to stay they did so as ``uninvited and unwelcome intruders.''

During debate of the resolution, one council member called the Marines ``the President's own gangsters'' and ``trained killers.'' Another said the Marines had given the country ``horrible karma'' and said they had a history of ``death and destruction.'' In a document drafted to support the resolution against the Marines, the council stated: ``Military recruiters are sales people known to lie to and seduce minors and young adults into contracting themselves into military service with false promises regarding jobs, job training, education and other benefits.''

After voting to insult the men and women who fight and bleed for their freedom, the city council cast another ridiculous vote in favor of giving the radical protest group Code Pink a parking space directly in front of the Marine Corps recruiting station. They also voted to give Code Pink a sound permit for protests in front of the Marine Corps building. The city council stated in the resolution that they ``encourage all people to avoid cooperation with the Marine Corps recruiting station'' and to ``applaud'' Code Pink for working to ``impede, passively or actively'' the work of the Marines Corps in Berkeley.

Frankly, I just returned from a visit to Iraq, saw our marines on the ground and what they were doing. It is inconceivable to me that any governing body in this country would say such things to our marines.

Code Pink is a fringe organization that distinguishes itself by attacking American policy, while defending dictator Hugo Chavez. The group is so disrespectful that they have no problems demonstrating in front of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Medical Center with signs reading ``Maimed for a lie.''

The council's resolution sparked an escalation of anti-Marine protests. Code Pink organizer Zanne Joy points to the city council as justification for the escalation. She said that ``anything legal is justified if it succeeds in persuading the Marine Corps to move its recruiting station out of Berkeley.'' According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Code Pink protesters have been heard shouting at young men who are trying to enter the recruiting station, ``You guys are just cannon fodder!'' and ``They want to train you to kill babies!''

It is sad to see a city like Berkeley moving so far left. The city in which the legendary World War II Pacific Theater Commander, Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, established the Naval ROTC in the fall of 1926 is now sadly a shell of its former self, thanks to its elected leadership.

This is disappointing, but in a republican form of government, it must be up to local voters to change their leadership.

However, this particular case became the business of all Americans when they insulted our troops and their constitutional mission to defend our country; while coming to the Federal Government asking for special taxpayer-funded handouts. Over $2 million was secretly tucked away for Berkeley earmarks in the 2008 Omnibus appropriations bill, projects that were never voted on or debated.

I do not believe a city that has turned its back on our country's finest deserves $2 million worth of pork barrel projects. So my amendment revokes these earmarks.

Included in the $2 million worth of pork are some particularly wasteful projects.

One earmark provides gourmet organic lunches to schools in the Berkeley School District. While our Marines are making due with MREs of Sloppy Joe and chili with beans, Berkeley students will get Federal tax dollars to design meals that promote ``environmental harmony.'' Chez Panisse's menu features ``Comte cheese souffle with mache salad'', ``Meyer lemon eclairs with huckleberry coulis''; and ``Chicory salad with creamy anchovy vinaigrette and olive toast''. That is unacceptable.

Are we to understand that the city that has been home to many of the country's most rich and famous cannot afford to pay for its own designer school lunches?

Another $975,000 earmark is for the Matsui Center for Politics and Public Service at U.C. Berkeley, which may include cataloging the papers of the late Congressman Robert Matsui. Is it really necessary to tax the paychecks of Marines so we can earmark nearly $1 million for a school that is already sitting on a $3.5 billion endowment?

Let me be clear, my amendment does not cut off all Federal funds to the city of Berkeley, though I am sure most Americans would feel that is justified. It merely rescinds wasteful earmarks. Berkeley is free to compete with other towns and cities across America for merit-based Federal grants.

Actions have consequences. When the Berkeley City Council decided to insult the Marines in a time of war, it was a $2 million decision. Especially in a time of war, we cannot just allow cities to play insulting games at our troops' expense while continuing to shower them with congressional favors.

On Tuesday, the city council met to revisit its ridiculous actions. Hundreds of military supporters and antiwar protesters gathered at Berkeley City Hall. Berkeley police reported four arrests before the meeting began, all misdemeanors. Police said there were minor scuffles between the antiwar and promilitary camps. An American flag was set aflame outside the city council chambers, damaging a pair of bicycles. When the council meeting finally started, more than 100 speakers took turns at the podium.

In a sense, what happened in Berkeley was a quintessential American experience, a spirited exchange and protest followed by debate and democratic action. And while I find some of the views and behavior of many of the protestors repugnant, the exchange itself is a solemn reminder of those who have sacrificed so much to preserve our freedom, especially our freedom of speech.

Let me be clear. I do not question the sincerity of anyone on either side of the issue. I think there is genuine concern among many in this country about the war. But while we can respect the legitimate worries about the war and can respect the sincerity of even the most radical protestors, we must recognize that words have meaning and actions have consequences. Some of the hateful words that have come out of Berkeley, CA, have had real consequences on our troops, their families, and our recruiting.

One of those who spoke at the city council meeting was Debbie Lee of Arizona, whose son Marc was the first Navy SEAL to die in the Iraq war. She demanded an apology from the council, and she said: My son gave up his life for you. Lee told the council, as she clutched his framed picture, ``I'm appalled at what you did,'' referring to the council's vote on Marine recruiters.

Debbie Parrish, another military mom whose son Victor is currently serving in Iraq, said to the Berkeley City Council:

It is despicable what you said about our military. It is

very, very sad. Shame on you.

After all the testimony from the military supporters and families, the Berkeley City Council could only muster the votes to not send a letter insulting the U.S. Marines by calling

them ``uninvited and unwelcomed intruders.'' Let's be clear. They did not apologize for the letter. They just didn't mail it. Of course, the sending of a letter at this point is inconsequential given that the text of the letter has been running on national television for a week. The city council also modified one of its past resolutions to ``recognize the recruiters' right to locate in our city and the right of others to protest or support their presence.''

But the resolution also stated that the city council opposes ``the recruitment of our young people into this war.''

The resolution proposing a formal apology to the Marines failed. The city council also voted to let four additional items passed at last week's meeting stand. One resolution encouraged all people to avoid cooperation with the Marine Corps recruiting station. A second one requested that the city attorney investigate if the Marines are in violation of Berkeley's policy against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

In addition, two resolutions giving the radical antiwar group Code Pink a weekly parking space and a weekly sound permit to protest the Marine recruiting station were upheld by the council's decision.

It was my hope that the city would apologize and revoke its previous resolutions and move on. The council chose not to do that. We have no choice but to acknowledge the reality of what they have done and to defend our military recruiters who are doing the job we asked them to do. If we don't take action, we will be sending a message to other towns or cities that they can use their power to try to influence U.S. foreign policy, thwarting our recruitment efforts.

This issue is not about free speech. It is about a city that has shown total disdain for our Armed Forces and used its official government powers to harass our military as they try to keep our country safe. And this amendment is not about forcing the city to change its mind. It is about whether we are going to shower the city with favors, with special goodies that do not meet national needs. I think the American people have spoken loudly and clearly that they do not believe that should be the case.

There is a video with clips of the city council meeting on YouTube. It has been viewed by over 200,000 people. It is the 70th most viewed video this week and the 11th most viewed video in news and politics, with 767 people posting comments overwhelmingly in support of the legislation. People are paying attention.

I am amazed at the response received regarding my public outrage over the city of Berkeley's behavior. My office has received thousands of calls and letters from military supporters all over the country. On Wednesday afternoon, I received a call from Sgt James Strowe of the U.S. Marine Corps. Sergeant Strowe is currently fighting to protect our freedom in Kuwait. Sergeant Strowe understands what the Marine recruiters in Berkeley are going through quite well because he served as a recruiter himself for 7 years. And he just told me his folks serving with him wanted to thank those of us who were standing up for them while they were fighting for our country.

After talking with the sergeant, I decided it would be a good idea to call the marines at the Berkeley recruiting station to ask how they were holding up amidst all the controversy. I talked to GSgt Rick O'Frente, who seemed to be taking the events in stride. He even said a number of citizens from Berkeley had come into the recruitment office, brought them food, and some had apologized for the actions of the council.

I guess I have said enough about all of what we are hearing. I have pages and pages of comments from people who are asking us to stand up for our marines while they are fighting for us, and we will be asking again for votes as part of the deliberations on this package.

Mr. President, now that I think the chairman has had a chance to understand in more detail what this bill is about, I will once again ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment and the Bingaman amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Indian health care package being put together by Senator Dorgan. As Senator Reid indicated, these are a group of people who have been the most neglected in our country, and it is imperative we move rapidly to address longstanding concerns.

I have an amendment pending to provide $800 million in emergency funding for the LIHEAP program. The reason I am offering this amendment is simple and obvious. At a time when home heating fuel is skyrocketing, millions of senior citizens on fixed incomes, millions of low-income families with kids, and persons with disabilities are desperately trying to keep their homes

warm this winter. Without this additional source of immediate funding, there is a major risk that old people and lower income people all over America will go cold. In the richest country on the face of the Earth, we have a moral responsibility not to allow that.

Over the past week, as everybody knows, in many parts of America, temperatures have been going well below zero. In my State of Vermont, in Lincoln, VT, was 21 below zero. In Nome, AK, the high temperature was 15 below; Grand Forks, ND, 12 below zero; Eureka, SD, 3 below zero. On and on all across the country, temperatures are getting cold. The cost of home heating oil is outrageously high. LIHEAP funding is being depleted. People are unable to afford to keep their homes warm. That, in a nutshell, is what we are discussing.

The amendment I am offering has been endorsed by many organizations and many Members of the Senate. Some of the endorsees include the National Governors Association, the AARP, the National Conference of State Legislatures, many others. Let me briefly excerpt from a letter I received from the National Governors Association in support of the amendment:

Additional funding distributed equitably under this

amendment will support critically needed heating and cooling

assistance to millions of our most vulnerable, including the

elderly, disabled, and families that often have to choose

between paying their heating or cooling bills and food,

medicine and other essential needs.

That is from the National Governors Association. The AARP also has come out in support of the amendment, indicating that some of the most significant victims of what happens when it becomes cold are senior citizens who suffer from hypothermia. They are very much in support of this amendment, and we thank them for their support.

This bipartisan amendment is also cosponsored by many of my colleagues, including: Senators Clinton, Obama, Snowe, Collins, Leahy, Sununu, Kennedy, Gordon Smith, Coleman, Kerry, Stabenow, Schumer, Lautenberg, Lincoln, Klobuchar, Murray, Cantwell, Menendez, Durbin, and Whitehouse. I thank them.

Yesterday, Senator Gregg offered a second-degree amendment to my amendment. In my view, his amendment is a poison pill which, if passed, would either kill or slow down all our efforts to increase emergency funding for LIHEAP. The Gregg amendment would pay for the $800 million increase in LIHEAP by cutting overall discretionary nondefense spending by about .2 of 1 percent. I am opposed to the Gregg amendment for a number of reasons. First, it is an extremely irresponsible way to do budgeting. There are some agencies that need to be cut a lot more than .2 of 1 percent. And there are, in fact, programs and agencies that need significantly more funding. An across-the-board cut, regardless of the needs of a program or agency, is irresponsible.

Secondly, Senator Gregg excludes from his cuts the department that receives over half the discretionary funding, and that is the Department of Defense. If Senator Gregg thinks all of the $500 billion- plus that goes to the Department of Defense is well spent and well accounted for, he is mistaken. You cannot exclude the largest recipient of discretionary funding from examination.

In the real world, what would be the impact of the Gregg amendment if it were to pass? I know that .2 of 1 percent may not seem like a lot of money at first blush, but let's take a look at what this cut would mean. It would mean a $54 million cut for veterans medical care, and overall veterans funding would be reduced by $86 million. I don't think any Member of the Senate supports that. While we are trying to fight and come up with an understanding of various cancers, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, the National Institutes of Health would be cut by over $58 million by the Gregg amendment. The Gregg amendment would cut special education by $22 million. People are paying higher and higher property taxes because this Congress, for many years, has not kept the promise it made by adequately funding special education. The Gregg amendment would cut funding for special ed by some $22 million. Head Start would be cut by $14 million. We are grossly underfunding Head Start right now. We have a major early education crisis from one end of America to the other. This would only make that problem worse. The Gregg amendment would cut community health centers by over $4 million at a time when 47 million Americans have no health insurance, creating a process by which even fewer Americans can access primary health care. Homeland security would receive a cut of $70 million. Education would be cut by over $100 million.

I certainly share Senator Gregg's concerns about the national debt. I look forward to working with him and other members of the Budget Committee to discuss how we should reduce our $9.2 trillion national debt, which increased by $3 trillion under President Bush. It is a real issue, one we have to get a handle on. But maybe we will discuss in the Budget Committee the absurdity of trying to eliminate the estate tax which would add $1 trillion to our national debt over 20 years by giving tax breaks exclusively to the wealthiest .3 of 1 percent.

We are debating whether we should help senior citizens who are going cold this winter. But there are many, including the President, who say: No problem, a trillion dollars in tax relief for the wealthiest .3 of 1 percent.

We should be discussing why we are providing other tax breaks to some of the wealthiest people in this country. Perhaps we can discuss the appropriateness of spending $12 billion a month on the war in Iraq, with most of that sum being budgeted as emergency spending. It is not an emergency. We know what is going on. Yet we are not prepared to pay for the war. We are leaving that cost to our kids and grandchildren. That is emergency spending. We can pass that $12 billion a month. Yet there are those who balk at spending $800 million on a real emergency, and that is keeping senior citizens and families all over America warm this winter.

Providing a mere $800 million for LIHEAP would primarily benefit senior citizens, families with children, and people with disabilities earning between $10 and $15,000 a year. At a time when gasoline and home heating oil prices in the State of Vermont and throughout the country are well above $3 a gallon, we should not be forcing seniors and others to make a choice about whether they are going to buy the medicine or food they need--hunger is increasing--or keep warm this winter.

There is no great secret that the American people are increasingly disenchanted with what is going on in Washington, whether in the White House or in Congress. They wonder what planet we are living on. They are struggling, millions, every single day to keep their heads above water to pay for the food they need, to fill up their gas tanks in order to go to work, to keep warm in the winter. They wonder why we are not responding to their needs. We have people here talking about more tax breaks for billionaires, when workers are losing their jobs.

Passing the Sanders amendment certainly is not going to solve all those problems.

But maybe at a time when people are going cold and others know that people are going cold, maybe--maybe--it will make the American people understand some of us are aware of the reality of American life as it exists in cities and towns all across this country, that maybe we know what is going on, and we are prepared to respond in a proper way.

Madam President, having said that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume the Gregg amendment No. 4022 and that it be modified to be a first-degree amendments and that the Senate then debate concurrently amendments No. 3900 and No. 4022, as modified, with 40 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to each amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senator Sanders and Senator Gregg or their designees; that each amendment be subject to a 60-affirmative vote threshold, and that if the amendment does not achieve that threshold, it be withdrawn; that if either amendment achieves 60 affirmative votes, then the amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the vote in relation to the Gregg amendment No. 4022, as modified, occur first in the sequence and

that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each vote; provided further that no intervening amendment be in order to either amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Gregg amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Sanders amendment.

Madam President, I am kind of new to the Senate, but I would ask my friend from Alaska or my friend from New Hampshire: Why? Why the objection? If we are sympathetic to LIHEAP----

Madam President, I wonder why it would be that when we face a dire crisis all across this country, we cannot move forward vigorously in providing relief to seniors and low-income people who need this help. I would love to have a response to that, Madam President.

Madam President, I yield to my friend from New Hampshire.

Madam President, reclaiming my time, to the best of my knowledge, I heard the objection coming from the Republican side, not the Democratic side.

Madam President, reclaiming my time, it is absolutely not my intention, as I indicated to Senator Dorgan, to slow this down. This is important legislation we want to pass. I would limit my time to 20 minutes, to 10 minutes. I think most people here know what the issue is. I would like an up-or-down vote, and let's move on to Indian health.

Yes, I yield.

Reclaiming my time, Madam President, I would ask my friend from Arizona--and I understand that. We want to move to the Indian health bill. There is a real solution to that in the real world if we are serious; that is, limiting the amount of time and reaching a unanimous consent agreement about a few amendments that might be offered so we can vote on them and move on to Indian health.

Would the Senator from Arizona be prepared to do that?

Reclaiming my time, Madam President, I think, again, we want to move and pass, I hope, the Indian health bill. But I think if we are honest--obviously, if people want to bring up 30 amendments, that would kill the Indian health bill, but if that is not the desire, if there are very few amendments and leadership can agree on a time limit on them, we can move forward on some serious amendments, have votes, and pass--at least vote on--the Indian health bill.

Again, I ask my friend from Arizona if that is something he would entertain. It does mean that not everybody can offer every amendment they want. There would have to be a limitation and a time limitation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Madam President, I thank my friend from North Dakota.

Amendment No. 3900 Withdrawn

Madam President, I ask for the regular order with respect to the Sanders amendment No. 3900.

Madam President, given the objection, I withdraw my amendment.