Elk Population Management Act of 2007

Mr. President, last week I was in my State of North Dakota where we have a wonderful national park. It is named after Teddy Roosevelt. He is the conservation- minded President who established the National Park System. What a remarkable man he was. What a remarkable leader for this country.

We have a national park in the Badlands called the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. I picked up a newspaper to read that there are too many elk in the park, an overpopulation of elk, which is going to be a serious problem for the national park. The Park Service has had some discussion about what they might want to do to thin out or cull the elk herd in the national park. It has grown dramatically. They were talking in the newspaper article I read about considering hiring Federal sharpshooters to kill some elk and then use helicopters to remove their carcasses from the national park, for meat, I guess.

It occurred to me there are times when the Government is completely devoid of common sense. I understand the Park Service says there is a prohibition on hunting in the national parks. On the other hand, it seems to me if you are hiring Federal sharpshooters to kill elk, they are going to be hunting those elk. It would make a lot more sense, to me, for a limited opportunity for qualified hunters to be able to hunt the elk in cooperation with Federal and State authorities. You do not need Federal sharpshooters to be paid. You do not need helicopters to haul the carcasses out of the park. All you need are hunters with a pickup truck or two, and you will be fine.

Today I am introducing a piece of legislation that would allow the Park Service to allow local hunters in my State to work on a cooperative basis with the Federal and State authorities to thin that elk herd. Culling or thinning the elk herd, apparently, is a necessity. It is going to happen. The question is how. Do we spend a lot of money hiring sharpshooters and helicopters or do we do this in a commonsense way and allow hunters to go in, in a coordinated way and a careful way, to thin and cull that elk herd? It seems to me the latter is the better approach.

The Park Service, by the way, at the moment also says my State is short of prairie dogs. Of course, that is not the case. We have far more prairie dogs than we know what to do with. The prairie dogs were born--I should say luckily for them--with a button nose and fur on their tail. Otherwise, they would essentially look like a rat. But we have a lot of prairie dogs.

We are told by Federal authorities we need more prairie dogs, not because they think prairie dogs are cute, but apparently because they want to reintroduce something called the black-footed ferret in my State. The last person to spot a black-footed ferret in my State allegedly spotted a black-footed ferret some 20 years ago and was widely thought, according to local folklore, to have been drinking at the time.

So there apparently are no black-footed ferrets that live in my State. They apparently went to warmer climates in the South some long time ago. Now we are told by Federal authorities we need more prairie dogs as food for black-footed ferrets who are going to be reintroduced to North Dakota.

It is no small wonder, then, I look at some of these Federal agencies and wonder if there is any reservoir of common sense left. That is what persuaded me, last week, as I read the newspaper article about hiring Federal sharpshooters to shoot elk and hiring helicopters to take the deer meat out of our national park--a national park proudly named after one of the great hunters ever to occupy the White House, Teddy Roosevelt--I wondered whether there might be any common sense that might be applied that very simply says if we are going to thin or cull the elk herd in the Teddy Roosevelt National Park, let's do it the way Teddy Roosevelt would have anticipated it be done.

No, I do not suggest opening up all national parks to hunting. I suggest in this limited circumstance that thinning and culling the elk herd in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park can best be done without a massive cost to the taxpayers and with an opportunity for qualified hunters who live in my State.

I recognize that these issues pale in comparison to larger issues like the Iraq war and the health care crisis and fiscal policy that is off track, but it seems to me there are times when we ought to call attention even to comparatively small things that do not seem right.

What I read last week about sharpshooters and helicopters not only reminded me of the lack of common sense with respect to this little issue, but it annoyed me once again with respect to the subject of prairie dogs. I spoke about prairie dogs long ago on this Senate floor when the prairie dogs took over a small picnic area, and the response of the Park Service was to decide to spend a quarter of a million dollars to move the picnic area rather than hire a couple of 16-year- old kids to tell the prairie dogs they have to be elsewhere.

But having said all that, I am introducing a piece of legislation dealing with the Theodore Roosevelt National Park--a park I am enormously proud of--and an elk herd that needs thinning and an opportunity for qualified North Dakota hunters who will use a substantial amount of common sense to solve a problem that can be solved quickly and easily.

Mr. President, last week I was in my State of North Dakota where we have a wonderful national park. It is named after Teddy Roosevelt. He is the conservation- minded President who established the National Park System. What a remarkable man he was. What a remarkable leader for this country.

We have a national park in the Badlands called the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. I picked up a newspaper to read that there are too many elk in the park, an overpopulation of elk, which is going to be a serious problem for the national park. The Park Service has had some discussion about what they might want to do to thin out or cull the elk herd in the national park. It has grown dramatically. They were talking in the newspaper article I read about considering hiring Federal sharpshooters to kill some elk and then use helicopters to remove their carcasses from the national park, for meat, I guess.

It occurred to me there are times when the Government is completely devoid of common sense. I understand the Park Service says there is a prohibition on hunting in the national parks. On the other hand, it seems to me if you are hiring Federal sharpshooters to kill elk, they are going to be hunting those elk. It would make a lot more sense, to me, for a limited opportunity for qualified hunters to be able to hunt the elk in cooperation with Federal and State authorities. You do not need Federal sharpshooters to be paid. You do not need helicopters to haul the carcasses out of the park. All you need are hunters with a pickup truck or two, and you will be fine.

Today I am introducing a piece of legislation that would allow the Park Service to allow local hunters in my State to work on a cooperative basis with the Federal and State authorities to thin that elk herd. Culling or thinning the elk herd, apparently, is a necessity. It is going to happen. The question is how. Do we spend a lot of money hiring sharpshooters and helicopters or do we do this in a commonsense way and allow hunters to go in, in a coordinated way and a careful way, to thin and cull that elk herd? It seems to me the latter is the better approach.

The Park Service, by the way, at the moment also says my State is short of prairie dogs. Of course, that is not the case. We have far more prairie dogs than we know what to do with. The prairie dogs were born--I should say luckily for them--with a button nose and fur on their tail. Otherwise, they would essentially look like a rat. But we have a lot of prairie dogs.

We are told by Federal authorities we need more prairie dogs, not because they think prairie dogs are cute, but apparently because they want to reintroduce something called the black-footed ferret in my State. The last person to spot a black-footed ferret in my State allegedly spotted a black-footed ferret some 20 years ago and was widely thought, according to local folklore, to have been drinking at the time.

So there apparently are no black-footed ferrets that live in my State. They apparently went to warmer climates in the South some long time ago. Now we are told by Federal authorities we need more prairie dogs as food for black-footed ferrets who are going to be reintroduced to North Dakota.

It is no small wonder, then, I look at some of these Federal agencies and wonder if there is any reservoir of common sense left. That is what persuaded me, last week, as I read the newspaper article about hiring Federal sharpshooters to shoot elk and hiring helicopters to take the deer meat out of our national park--a national park proudly named after one of the great hunters ever to occupy the White House, Teddy Roosevelt--I wondered whether there might be any common sense that might be applied that very simply says if we are going to thin or cull the elk herd in the Teddy Roosevelt National Park, let's do it the way Teddy Roosevelt would have anticipated it be done.

No, I do not suggest opening up all national parks to hunting. I suggest in this limited circumstance that thinning and culling the elk herd in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park can best be done without a massive cost to the taxpayers and with an opportunity for qualified hunters who live in my State.

I recognize that these issues pale in comparison to larger issues like the Iraq war and the health care crisis and fiscal policy that is off track, but it seems to me there are times when we ought to call attention even to comparatively small things that do not seem right.

What I read last week about sharpshooters and helicopters not only reminded me of the lack of common sense with respect to this little issue, but it annoyed me once again with respect to the subject of prairie dogs. I spoke about prairie dogs long ago on this Senate floor when the prairie dogs took over a small picnic area, and the response of the Park Service was to decide to spend a quarter of a million dollars to move the picnic area rather than hire a couple of 16-year- old kids to tell the prairie dogs they have to be elsewhere.

But having said all that, I am introducing a piece of legislation dealing with the Theodore Roosevelt National Park--a park I am enormously proud of--and an elk herd that needs thinning and an opportunity for qualified North Dakota hunters who will use a substantial amount of common sense to solve a problem that can be solved quickly and easily.

Mr. President, as of this month, it has been 2 full years that the position of Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior has been vacant--2 full years. There has been a Federal position specifically assigned for the responsibilities for Indian affairs since the year 1806.

In the year 1849, that position was transferred from the Defense Department--or then the Department of War--to the Interior Department. The Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs and the Department of the Interior is responsible for managing the BIA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and all of the programs that are important to the trust responsibilities and the fiduciary obligations the U.S. Government has to tribes. We do indeed have obligations to tribes through treaties and through other approaches, trust responsibilities. This Congress, and previous Congresses, and future Congresses, have obligations to tribal governments that we must meet. Those obligations are important.

As I said, it has been 2 full years since we have had a person in the position of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs in the Interior Department. For 2 years it has been vacant, which is unbelievable to me.

We have a man who has been nominated now named Carl Artman, who is a member of the United Tribe of Wisconsin. Mr. Artman is a very capable, distinguished person. I met with him a couple times. President Bush sent his nomination down to the Congress last year. Apparently, a hold was put on his nomination and it did not move. The President re-sent the nomination recently. I chaired the hearing, and we moved his nomination out of the Indian Affairs Committee and now it is before the full Senate.

My understanding is it has not moved because there has been a hold put on it once again. I spoke to the Secretary of the Interior today again about that subject, and my hope is--I indicated to him, and I think his hope is--this week we can find a way to resolve these issues and get Mr. Carl Artman confirmed by the Senate for the position of Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. It is a very important position.

We have a full-blown crisis in health care, housing, and education on Indian reservations. I have been doing listening sessions with Indian tribes. With respect to education, as an example, they tell about a young schoolkid who is living in a house, a 3-bedroom home with 23 people. That describes the housing conditions on some of the reservations.

But what about a young kid who is living in a 3-bedroom home with 23 other people? What kind of homework do you think gets done there? What kind of opportunity is it for that young child to quietly be able to open a book and to learn a lesson?

We have a crisis in housing. I have described it many times on the floor of the Senate. We have a crisis in health care. It is almost unbelievable to me, but we had a hearing recently in which a doctor described a woman who had a very serious knee injury who required surgery. She went to the doctor on the Indian reservation and was told: Wrap it in cabbage leaves for 3 or 4 days. That is right: Wrap it in cabbage leaves for 3 or 4 days. It needed to be operated on. It was a torn ligament. ``Wrap it in cabbage leaves''--that is health care? Not where I come from.

Or a man who had a bad arm, a bad shoulder, a torn ligament, and for 4 years he could not get it fixed on the Indian reservation because it was not ``life or limb''--4 years. This was a rancher. What do you think a one-armed rancher is able to do on a ranch? Haul hay? I do not think so.

I told the story on the floor about the woman who was having a heart attack--an Indian woman--and was transported by ambulance to a hospital. She was hauled into the hospital on a gurney--having a heart attack--and they discovered there was a piece of paper taped to her thigh. What the paper said was: You should understand, hospital administrators, this person is not covered under the Indian Contract Health Services. We are out of money. So, therefore, if you admit this person, you are on your own.

Imagine that: a woman having a heart attack, brought in on a gurney to a hospital with a piece of paper taped to her thigh that says: Beware. We won't pay for this treatment. That is unbelievable.

We have a lot of problems we need to address in these areas dealing with Indian tribes and the first Americans. I understand the Indian Health Service is attached to Health and Human Services. But I also understand the issues of housing, education, and all of the other related issues belong to the Interior Department. That position in the Interior Department responsible for these issues has been vacant for 2 full years, and I believe it is shameful. I hope this Senate, this week, can resolve this issue and get it done. I am going to push to see if we can't get that confirmation done this week.

(The remarks of Mr. Dorgan pertaining to the introduction of S. 684 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, 225 years ago, on October 17, 1781, a few thousand American and French soldiers laid siege to Yorktown, forced the surrender of General Cornwallis and his British regulars, and won American independence.

Although we often remember the victory at Yorktown, too often we lose sight of the heroic efforts that made it possible. Too often we forget that this victory was the culmination of a miraculous campaign--when two nations, two armies, and two great men put aside their differences and worked together for a common purpose.

I, along with my colleagues, Senators Warner, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Menendez, Reed, Specter, and Whitehouse, am privileged to call for the commemoration of the events leading to our victory at Yorktown and the end of the American Revolution with the designation of the Washington- Rochambeau Revolutionary Route as a National Historic Trail.

The Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route is 600 miles of history, winding from Providence, RI, to Yorktown, VA. In the opinion of my colleagues and me, it is worthy of designation as a National Historic Trail. Let us document the events in the cities and towns all along the road to Yorktown and the birth of this great Nation. Let us celebrate the unprecedented Franco-American alliance and the superhuman efforts of Generals George Washington and Jean Baptiste de Rochambeau to preserve that alliance in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. Let us create a National Historic Trail along whose

course we can pause and remember these heroes, their travels, and sacrifices--from the journey's beginning when Rochambeau led the French army out of Newport and Providence, RI, into New York where he joined Washington's troops, and through a cross section of colonial America to its culmination at Yorktown.

Each of the nine States on the trail makes its own unique contribution to the tale of the journey. In my own State of Connecticut--the two generals met and through a translator planned their strategy. In Phillipsburg, NY, the French and American armies first joined together and faced off against the British in New York City. Here, Washington and Rochambeau planned their high risk strategy--abandoning established positions in the north and racing hundreds of miles south to surprise and trap an unsuspecting British army. In Chatham, New Jersey, the French made a show of storing supplies and building bread ovens in order to disguise their march towards Cornwallis in Virginia. They moved on through Princeton and Trenton, New Jersey--sites of previous colonial victories against great odds.

The trail goes through Philadelphia, PA--then capital of the colonies. Here Washington and Rochambeau stopped their men outside town, had them clean off the dirt of the trail and marched them through town with drums beating and flags unfurled before the Continental Congress and the people of Philadelphia. The grandeur of their new European ally helped restore the spirit of America during this very uncertain time.

A few days later in Chester, PA, Washington, the normally reserved commander-in-chief, literally danced on the dock when he learned the French fleet had arrived in the Chesapeake and trapped the British at Yorktown. For the first time, it seemed that victory for the colonies was possible. The armies marched on to Wilmington, DE and Elkton, MD, where American troops were finally paid for some of their efforts, using money borrowed by the bankrupt Continental Army from General Rochambeau.

Our Nation's capital region also played its part in this story. Troops camped in Baltimore near the site of today's Camden Yards. Some crossed the Potomac near Georgetown, while others camped in Alexandria, VA. Along the way, General Washington made a triumphal return to Mount Vernon, and hosted a celebration for his French allies. All along the route, towns were touched and thrilled by the passage of the army and events swirling around them.

The armies marched on through Williamsburg, VA until they reached positions outside Yorktown in late September. Washington and Rochambeau and their troops went on to win this battle and the war. Let us take the time to better remember the heroes of our past, those who sacrificed so much for our freedom today, deserve no less. This bill ensures that this history, in all its rich detail, is not forgotten.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, in introducing legislation that requires Congress to act on what may be the most pressing domestic policy issue of our time, namely health care reform.

I believe we can find a way to make universal coverage work in this country. Universal coverage doesn't have to be defined by what's in place in other countries or by what's been attempted in the past. What universal coverage does mean is ending a system where more than 46 million Americans are uninsured, and where too many of those who are insured are struggling to pay their premiums, struggling to pay for prescription drugs, and struggling to find long term care.

Over the years I have heard many different proposals for how we should change the health care system in this country. Some propose using tax incentives as a way to expand access to health care. Others think the best approach is to expand public programs. Some feel a national single payer health care system is the only way to go.

I favor an American-style health care reform, where we encourage creative solutions to the health care problems facing our country, without using a one-size-fits-all approach. I believe that States have a better idea about what the health care needs of their residents are, and that they understand what types of reform will work best for their State. So I am in favor of a State-based universal health care system, where States, with the Federal Government's help, come up with a plan to make sure that all of their residents have health care coverage, and I am working with Senator Graham to develop a bipartisan bill that will help States do just that. If we are finally going to fix our broken health care system, we need to be open to good, new ideas.

And this brings us to the legislation Senator Graham and I are introducing today, because, the reason we haven't reformed our health care system isn't because of a lack of good ideas. The problem is that Congress and the White House refuse to take this issue up. Despite the outcry from businesses, from health care providers, and from the tens of millions who are uninsured or underinsured or struggling to pay their premiums, the Federal Government refuses to address the problem in a comprehensive way.

That is why we are introducing this bill. Our legislation will force Congress to finally address this issue. It requires the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, as well as the Chairs of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Finance Committee, to each introduce a health care reform bill in the first 30 days of the session of Congress following enactment of the bill. This bill provides an expedited process for considering reform legislation. Similar procedures are established for House consideration.

I want to emphasize that my bill does not prejudge what particular health care reform measure should be debated. There are many worthy proposals that would qualify for consideration, and this bill does not dictate which proposal, or combination of proposals, should be considered.

But what my bill does do is require Congress to act.

It has been over 10 years since the last serious debate over health care reform was killed by special interests. I am disappointed that Congress still has not acted to reform our health care system, and businesses and workers are crying out as never before for Congress to address the country's health care crisis.

It has been over 10 years since we've had any debate on comprehensive health care reform. We cannot afford any further delay. The cost of inaction is too great. I urge my colleagues to support the Reform Health Care Now Act of 2007.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.