Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I'm pleased to be joined by Senators Snowe, Kerry, Smith, and Schumer in re-introducing legislation we call the Public Good IRA Rollover Act to allow taxpayers to make tax-free distributions from their individual retirement accounts (IRAs) for gifts to charity. I think that the charitable IRA rollover approach in this legislation, which has received strong support from the charitable community, will encourage significant new giving.

As a Nation, we often look to a strong network of charities, large and small, to offer financial and other support to families and individuals who need help when government assistance is unavailable. That is why I think it's critically important for Congress to do everything we can to help encourage the work of worthy charities.

Unfortunately, Congress has tried but failed in the past several years to pass major legislation that would be helpful to the Nation's charities. This legislation has stalled, in part, because of the efforts of some in Congress to add controversial measures that undermine the bipartisan support needed to enact this kind of legislation into law.

One of the non-controversial tax incentives included in the Senate's version of that legislation is our measure that would permit individuals to make gifts to charities from their IRAs without adverse tax consequences. I have previously described on the Senate floor that charities are frequently asked by people about using their IRAs to make charitable donations. However, I'm told that many donors decide not to make a gift from their IRAs after they are told about the potential tax consequences under current law.

The Public Good IRA Rollover Act would eliminate this obstacle. Specifically, the bill we are introducing today would allow individuals to make tax-free distributions to charities from their IRAs at the age of 70\1/2\ for direct gifts and age 59\1/2\ for life-income gifts. These changes to the Tax Code could put billions of additional dollars from a new source to work for the public good.

Tax-favored charitable IRA rollovers have previously garnered broad bipartisan support in both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. In fact, the Senate-passed CARE Act in the last Congress included the provisions of our bill.

The Bush administration also supports charitable IRA rollovers. In his FY 2006 budget submission, President Bush has proposed, once again, to allow individuals to make certain tax-free charitable IRA distributions after age 65. While the President's charitable IRA proposal has merit, the Public Good IRA Rollover Act is superior in one important respect: By allowing tax-free life-income gifts from an IRA. Life-income gifts involve the donation of assets to a charity, where the giver retains an income stream from those assets for a defined period. Life-income gifts are an important tool for charities to raise funds, and would receive a substantial boost if they could be made from IRAs. But life-income gifts are not part of the administration's proposal. Again, the Public Good IRA Rollover Act permits individuals to make tax-free life-income gifts at the age of 59\1/2\.

When the Senate Finance Committee crafts charitable giving tax incentive legislation in the 109th Congress, I hope they will adopt, once again, the IRA charitable rollover approach used in the Public Good IRA Rollover Act. The benefits of this approach are two-fold. First, the life-income gift provision in our bill would stimulate additional charitable giving. The evidence also suggests that people who make life-income gifts often become more involved with charities. They serve as volunteers, urge their friends and colleagues to make charitable gifts and frequently set up additional provisions for charity in their life-time giving plans and at death. Second, this approach comes at little or no extra cost to the government when compared to other major charitable IRA rollover proposals.

In closing, I urge my Senate colleagues to review and consider cosponsoring this bill. With your help, we can help enact into law tax- free IRA rollover provisions that a senior official from a major charity once said would be ``the single most important piece of legislation in the history of public charitable support in this country.''

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order to consider amendment numbered 1025.

Mr. President, let me describe the amendment. This amendment is very simple. It does not require an elaborate explanation. It provides additional resources, desperately needed resources to particularly the Indian Health Service.

We have had a lot of discussion in the Senate in the last several years about the Indian Health Service. We have a responsibility for the health of Indians under trust responsibilities to the Federal Government. The Federal Government also has a responsibility for health care for Federal prisoners. It is interesting to note that the Federal Government spends almost twice as much per person for health care for Federal prisoners as it does to meet its trust responsibility per person for American Indians.

If you travel to Indian reservations in this country, there is a bona fide crisis in health care on reservations and in other areas as well. Go to a reservation, and you will find a dentist practicing out of a trailer house, a small trailer, for 5,000 people. That is the dentistry. Go to a reservation and find half a dozen kids have committed suicide recently. You will discover there is virtually no mental health treatment available for those kids who end up taking their lives.

There is such a desperate need to satisfy the obligation here for health care for American Indians. We are so short of funding, it is unbelievable. This amendment adds $1 billion to funding particularly for Indian Health Service but also to the BIA to provide the other services that are necessary on the reservations.

I have indicated we have a bona fide crisis in health care, housing, and education on Indian reservations. Let me tell a story I have told previously about a young girl named Tamara Demaris. Tamara was a 3- year-old. I read about Tamra in a newspaper. I met with her and her granddad. She was 3 years old and placed in foster care by a person who was handling welfare cases and so on. The woman who was handling the case was handling 150 cases. So this was a case of a 3-year-old child who was put in a foster care situation. But the person did not check out the home to which she was assigning the 3-year-old child. She was working on 150 cases. So Tamara Demaris goes to this home. There is in this home a drunken brawl and party. The aftermath of that drunken brawl and party was this 3-year-old girl named Tamara had a broken nose, a broken arm, and her hair pulled out at the roots.

This is a 3-year-old child. That was our responsibility. We did not provide sufficient funds for available resources to check the foster home in which they would put this little kid. The result is this little kid is scarred for life.

I helped fix it on that particular reservation so that will not happen now. But why did it happen? They do not have the resources. One person handles 150 cases? That is unbelievable. A child gets injured, badly. It is going on all across this country on Indian reservations.

Again, I have told my colleagues about a hearing I held in which a young woman who had just assumed the job on an Indian reservation--this was for child welfare--said on the floor of her office was a stack of folders with allegations of child abuse, including sexual abuse of children. She said they have not even been investigated. Those folders sit there without an investigation because they do not have the resources.

She broke down at the hearing and began to sob, began to cry. She said: I have to beg and borrow to try to get a car to take a kid to a clinic or take a kid to see a psychologist or get mental health treatment. I don't have a vehicle, let alone the money to investigate the cases in the files on the floor.

I could go on at great length about diabetes, about all of the issues faced on these reservations.

My late colleague, Mickey Leland, with whom I traveled to many areas of the world, was a great humanitarian. He died when his plane crashed into a mountain in Ethiopia. He was a Congressman who worked with me and others on hunger issues. Mickey Leland came to the three affiliated tribes in North Dakota to hold a hearing.

This is what we discovered that day in the testimony about diabetes. They do not have double, triple or quadruple the rate of diabetes of the rest of the population; theirs was 10, 12 times the rate of the rest of the population. It is a devastating situation on Indian reservations. It means people are losing their legs, losing their good health, losing their lives, sitting through dialysis in a crowded room.

We have so many challenges to meet, and we are so far from meeting them with the necessary resources. These are the first Americans. I am talking about American Indians. They are the ones who greeted Christopher Columbus. These books that say Columbus discovered America--I am sorry, he was greeted by the American Indians, the first Americans. Yet we are not meeting our trust responsibility.

I suggest now is the time simply to take the step and say, if we care about health care, if we care about funding for these needs on Indian reservations

in this country, let's do it. We have Third World conditions in some of these areas. Sarah Swift talked about a grandmother who goes to bed, lies down on a cot, and freezes to death. She freezes to death in this country. This was a Native-American grandmother, an American-Indian grandmother who at 35 below zero in the middle of the winter was living in a house that had only plastic sheeting on the window. She froze to death. One would think, if you read in the paper, it was a Third World country. No, that wasn't. That was South Dakota. We have to do better. That is the purpose of my amendment.

This amendment is paid for with $1 billion we take from the Federal Reserve surplus funding. Most of my colleagues--perhaps none of my colleagues know--in the Federal Reserve Board, there is an $11 billion--yes, I said it right--an $11 billion surplus fund. I call it the rainy-day fund. They should not have it, first of all. The Federal Reserve Board was created in the nineteen teens. We have a rainy-day fund so that if they run out of money, they have some money--$11 billion. How do you run out of money when you actually create money, for God's sake? The Federal Reserve Board does not need $11 billion.

Senator Reid and I had the GAO do an investigation of this back in the 1990s. That was at a time when they had $4 billion to $5 billion. Now they have $11 billion squirreled away. I say take less than one- tenth of that and invest it in the health of America's first citizens, citizens who now all too often are living in Third World conditions.

I will not describe at greater length the health challenges. I have done it before in speeches in the Senate. I want one person to tell me it does not matter that a young kid is lying in bed today on an Indian reservation thinking of committing suicide, and tomorrow or the next day they may find that young child hanging from the closet as they found Avis Littlewind hanging from her closet after missing 90 days of school. Her sister, by the way, committed suicide 2 years before. The mental health services on that reservation did not exist to help these kids.

The question is, Do we want to help these kids? Do we want to meet our responsibility? Do we want to keep our promise and tell people this matters? It does to me.

My hope is, with this amendment, my colleagues will finally decide to do what is right and do what is necessary to invest in the things in which we need to invest to say to the Native Americans: Your health matters, too. Your education matters, too. Housing matters for you as well. That is our obligation.

I recognize I have to make a motion to waive the applicable sections of the Budget Act. The reason is because people with very small glasses and very narrow breadth of thought have decided that $11 billion sitting in a squirreled-away bank account as a rainy-day fund for the Federal Reserve Board, a board full of people wearing gray suits, living in a concrete building, squirreling away $11 billion--there are some people with these tiny glasses who decided this $1 billion cannot be used for this because it would violate the Budget Act.

I might observe, however, that on previous occasions in the Senate other Members of the Senate have found a way to use a portion of this in the normal process. So I suggest perhaps there is not a greater need than doing what we should do for the children I have just described and for those who are suffering, those who are living in poverty, those who through no fault of their own are having a tough time. This would be a great way to reach out our hand and say to them: You are not alone. Let us help you up and out of this situation. Let us help improve your lives.

When my colleague rises, I am sure in aggressive support of my amendment, I will ask for a proper waiver of the Congressional Budget Act.

I ask unanimous consent Senators Bingaman and Johnson be added as cosponsors of my amendment.

Will the Senator yield?

The Senator uses the acronym CBO; some call it the Confused Budget Office. Is that the Congressional Budget Office or, on this amendment, the Confused Budget Office?

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of the act for the purpose of the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, my understanding is the next order of business would be my amendment numbered 1059, and there is 10 minutes per side?

Mr. President, I ask to claim as much time as I may consume from the 10 minutes. Perhaps we can move through this rather quickly.

This relates to an issue I have already spoken to the Senate about on two occasions. It relates to a soldier named Carlos Lazo. Carlos Lazo escaped Cuba on a raft. He tried to escape once and was caught and put in prison in Cuba. The second time he escaped on a raft, he got to this country. His wife and children were not able to get out of Cuba. After he got to this country, he subsequently joined the National Guard, and went to Iraq on behalf of this country to fight in Iraq. Sergeant Lazo received the Bronze Star for from his country for courage and bravery in fighting in Iraq. He is now back in the U.S. from his service in Iraq.

He has a son who has been quite ill in Cuba, so he wanted to go see his sick son in Cuba. His Government, the U.S. Government, the Government that he served by going to fight for freedom in Iraq, said: No, you are not free to travel to Cuba to see your son. Why is that the case? Because the President of the United States has created a new regulation, and the regulation says you can only travel to Cuba once every 3 years.

So this soldier, the soldier that wins the Bronze Star fighting for this country in Iraq, is told he can't go to see his sick son because he does not have the freedom to do that. He visited me and asked me about it. I called Condoleezza Rice. She didn't call back, Bob Zoellick her deputy did. I called the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Snow. He did not call back. One of his underlings did. I called Karl Rove at the White House. He called back, and later the Chief of Staff's office called me and said that relative to Karl Rove's call, Bob Zoellick in the State Department would handle it. And I have not heard back from him. We talked once. He said he would call back, and I have not had the call.

The question is this, Is there a humanitarian relief exception to the travel ban for someone with a sick kid in Cuba, for a soldier to go see his sick kid? The answer, according to the head of the Office of Foreign Assets Control at Treasury, which runs this is, no, there is no humanitarian relief. He said: We get calls from people who say my mother is going to die in a few days, and we can't give them the opportunity to go to Cuba to see them if they have traveled once before in the 3-year period.

He said: I understand what you are saying, Mr. Senator, but we turn them all down because we must.

I said: But you created the regulation. What on Earth are you thinking about?

This soldier's story--and I have told the story about the woman that distributed free Bibles in Cuba, who gets fined by her Government, the U.S. Government, for doing it--this soldier's story begs out and screams for attention by this Congress. So I have offered an amendment that will provide for humanitarian circumstances under which Americans can travel to Cuba to visit or care for a member of the person's family who is seriously ill, injured, or dying; make funeral or burial arrangements for a member of the individual's family.

I am just wondering who in this Chamber is going to stand up for this soldier and this soldier's right. It is not just him, it is the others who are applying who say their mother or father or child is dying and now they are now being turned down by the Federal Government because there is no humanitarian exception.

This is unforgivable. There ought to be a humanitarian exception. I hope my colleagues will stand up for this soldier's rights. He fought for freedom in Iraq and now doesn't have the freedom to see his sick son? What can we be thinking about? Why do I need to go further?

I have spoken about this issue previously, but Sergeant Lazo obviously comes to us because he has a selfish interest. It is in seeing his sick son. That is a pretty good selfish interest as far as I am concerned. Others have come to me. Joan Slote, who is in her midseventies, took a bicycle trip in Cuba and got fined by her Government. It is unbelievable what is going on.

I come to the Senate today only because I am persuaded from last week's visit with Sergeant Lazo that this ought to stop. This Congress ought to have the courage to stand up and do what is right. If we don't have the courage to do this, we don't have the courage to object to anything the White House does. This came from the White House. This is all about politics. This rule that says Americans visit their family in Cuba only once in three years is all about Florida politics. Everybody in this Chamber knows it.

This amendment does not overturn the travel rule with Cuba. I happen to think people ought to be able to travel to Cuba. I know Fidel Castro pokes his finger in America's eye. The quicker we get rid of that Government, the better. But the fact is, we will do that, it seems to me, by allowing trade and allowing travel, just as we do with Communist China and Communist Vietnam. But that is not the way this country deals with Cuba because of Florida politics. We have decided that Sergeant Lazo shall not be allowed to go see his sick child.

The question is, Will the Senate, will the men and women in the Senate, have the courage and the good sense to cast the right vote and say to Sergeant Lazo and others, If you have a member of your family who is seriously ill, injured, or dying, you have a right to go see them? We will give you the license to do that.

We have had vote after vote on these issues. The question today is will we have enough Senators to decide to use a little common sense? If you care about families--a lot of people are talking about profamily these days--if you care about family, if you are profamily, cast the right vote. Cast the right vote on this amendment.

My understanding is the Senator from Montana will have some time, as well.

I reserve my remaining 3 minutes 50 seconds.

Well, Mr. President, if we are going to use the other time for someone who opposes the amendment, I would like to use my several minutes to close the debate on this amendment. So I ask unanimous consent to reserve my time.

Mr. President, it will be unbelievable to me if the Senate buys this line that somehow waiving the rules creates chaos in the Senate. That must be confusing appealing the ruling of the Chair with waiving the rules. Waiving the rules does not create any chaos. It simply says in this circumstance, with this set of facts, this Senate says that soldier, who fought in Iraq and won a Bronze Star, ought to have the right to see his sick kid. If this Senate cannot find that common sense, then there is something wrong, something dreadfully wrong.

So we are told: Well, why don't you have the kids come to the United States. Did you forget the word ``sick''? We have a sick kid here, among other things. But this is not about common sense; it is about politics. It is about Florida politics. That is why a new regulation went into effect that replaced the old one. And, by the way, the old regulation did have a humanitarian exception. It did have a circumstance where this soldier would have been able to go to Cuba to see his sick son.

But when the President made it a new rule, a new regulation--only one visit every 3 years--they eliminated all exemptions. It does not matter. Your mother is dying on Saturday? Tough luck. A real ``profamily'' stand, as far as I am concerned. It seems to me there ought to be a humanitarian exception.

Look, if I were doing what I wanted here, I would lift the travel limitations completely. I am not doing that. I am providing a humanitarian exemption to say that if a member of your immediate family is seriously ill, injured, or dying, you ought to be able to get a license to go see them 90 miles off the coast of Florida.

So if you want to come to the floor and decide we should not do this, then, please, if you don't mind, call Sergeant Lazo tonight--I will give you his telephone number--and tell him why you don't think he has the freedom to see his sick kid. A guy who put on the uniform and traveled halfway around the world to fight for this country does not have the freedom to go see his sick child. There is something fundamentally bankrupt with that thought process.

If this Senate does not have the backbone to stand up to the White House on this--and, yes, it is the White House; that is who formed the rule, a rule with no exemption at all, no humanitarian exemption--if we do not have the backbone to stand up on this, I probably will not come with another story like this, because if you cannot do it for this soldier, you cannot do it for anybody. But it ought not just be this soldier, it ought to be anybody who has a sick or a dying relative who ought to have the right to go see them 90 miles off the coast of Florida.

This is not rocket science. For all the times that people stand up and talk about being compassionate, caring about the individual, talking about freedom, for all of those occasions they talk about being profamily, let's see it. Let's see it manifested on this vote, at this time. Do not vote against this and say: Oh, it had something to do with suspension, it had something to do with this, that, or the other thing.

This is simple. You cannot misunderstand this vote: Do you believe this guy ought to have the right to see his sick kid or not? Do you believe the American people ought to have the right to travel in circumstances where one of their relatives is sick, injured, or dying? If you do not, then vote against my amendment. But if you believe in some common sense here, then, please, support this amendment. Send the right message.

This does not eliminate the travel ban. It does provide the humanitarian exemption that used to always exist and should exist again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will support that request, but I want to mention to my colleague from Montana that prior to going to the final vote, I believe Senator Reid wishes time to speak. So I want to make sure that is preserved prior to final passage.

Mr. President, I am not going to belabor the discussion. I think all Members understand what this is. This vote will be on whether we decide to provide a humanitarian relief piece in the legislation that otherwise does not allow a soldier--who went to Iraq to fight for America's freedom in Iraq, won the Bronze Star, and comes back here to have the freedom--to go see a sick child in Cuba. Why? Because there is no humanitarian relief in the regulation that was passed by the President.

I am not going to go on at great length. I have spoken about this three times. It is not just about this soldier but about others. When I called down to the Treasury Department, they said: No, there is no opportunity for this soldier to go see a sick child. In fact, we have people calling here saying, My mother is going to die on Sunday according to the doctor, and we say, Sorry you can't go. That is the regulation. The new regulation says you get one visit in 3 years. If you had that visit, no matter what is happening to your family in Cuba, you can't go. Period. So this young man goes to Iraq, fights for his country, wins the Bronze Star, and doesn't have the freedom to go see his sick child in Cuba. That is wrong, and everybody in this Chamber ought to know it.

I concur with my colleague that we will indeed try to fix this conference.

I concur and suggest we address this error through the conference report.

I agree with the distinguished Senator from Montana that this is the intent of the committee bill, and the Senate expects the administration to fund the BIA Water Technician Training program at the current level of $400,000.

Mr. President, I thank the Senators from the State of New Jersey. This program sounds very important but how does the Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority plan to tackle this large task?

I thank my colleagues from New Jersey and I thank them for bringing this project to my attention. This does sound like a good project and as this bill moves to conference we will try and do what we can for it.

I would be happy to assist with such a request for a GAO audit of the Forest Service's competitive sourcing initiative.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York. I know the Senator has advocated for including New York in the account that funds the Northeast States Forestry Research Cooperative. This is a great program that provides significant research, economic development, and technology transfers related to our Nation's forests. I applaud the Senator for her continued advocacy and I want to assure her that I will work with the Chairman to consider additional funding as the Interior bill moves to conference with the House.

I am indeed. The Senator should be proud to have such a jewel in his State. Lake Mead is not only a great recreation site within Nevada's borders, but is known worldwide for its clean waters and the unforgettable Hoover Dam that was a vital public works project during the Great Depression. I understand that the project that the distinguished minority leader is concerned with was included in the President's budget as one of the Park Service's main priorities. Is that correct?

I thank the Senator. My State has several Indian tribes as well, and I am aware of the challenges that they face. I assure the minority leader that the committee is aware of the Indian health needs in Nevada and expects that IHS will, No. 1, continue to meet and discuss with the 22 tribes in Nevada, as well as the Intertribal Health Board of Nevada and the Intertribal Health Board of Nevada, in an effort to find ways to improve the delivery and quality of health services to Native Americans in Nevada, and, No. 2, will report back to the committee in writing, with recommendations, on how to improve secondary and tertiary care in Nevada.

I agree with the chair and the Senator from New Mexico.

I, too, will do my best to help solve this problem.

highlands conservation act

I agree with the Senators from New Jersey that the Highlands Region is a vital national resource. If there are funds available in the conference report, I will work with the Senators to see if we can secure the funding needed to protect this region.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Burns, who I think has done a wonderful job. I appreciate working with him and his staff. I think this is a good bill, produced under difficult circumstances. This bill is actually substantially below the current fiscal year's spending.

The professional staff on the majority side--Virginia James, Leif Fonnesbeck, Ryan Thomas, Rebecca Benn, and Michele Gordon--have done a great job. Also, I thank Rachael Taylor on the minority side. And Bruce Evans and Peter Kiefhaber, the two clerks, both have done a lot of work to get us to this point. I want them to know how much we appreciate their work.

Mr. President, I object.

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

I object.

Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for a question on the schedule?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we be allowed to have the majority leader respond to a question.

The majority leader suggested that perhaps CAFTA might be brought up later this week. As the majority leader knows, CAFTA is brought to us under something called fast-track procedures, No. 1, and No. 2, an expedited procedure by which, when it is brought to the floor, it is given 20 hours of debate. Some of us feel very strongly that fast track is wrong, but, nonetheless, that is the process.

I ask the majority leader if he is intending to bring up CAFTA under fast track as the last order of business because the suggestion then would be you bump fast track up against the Fourth of July recess. I think that would mistreat a very serious issue.

My hope is that the majority leader will not decide to make the CAFTA trade agreement the last order of the day in this week because, if so, that will suggest that there is a desire to truncate the debate, to shrink the 20 hours, and not have a thoughtful and full debate on a very important trade issue at a time when we have the largest trade deficit in the history of this country.

My question would be, is there consideration to bringing up the Central American Free-Trade Agreement when we return from the Fourth of July recess?

Mr. President, those amendments have all been cleared by both sides. I have no objection.

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

Mr. President, we are on the Interior appropriations bill, waiting for additional debate. All amendments have been offered, but we are waiting for additional debate on some amendments. I am going to seek to speak in morning business.

Yes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, to follow up on an issue I raised yesterday, I have not yet received a return call from the State Department. As I indicated, Karl Rove and the chief of staff at the White House had sent word to me following my discussion with Karl Rove last Friday that Mr. Zoellick at the State Department would be handling this issue. The issue is Mr. Carlos Lazo, a marine who fought in Iraq and won the Bronze Star for bravery and courage, came back to this country. He is a fellow who fled Cuba on a raft in 1992. His wife and children remain in Cuba unable to leave. He went to fight in the National Guard, went to Iraq to fight for this country, earned a Bronze Star last November in Iraq. He came back to this country to find out that his son was quite ill in Cuba. He wanted to go visit his son and was told he can't travel to Cuba because the President's current regulations and rules say you can only visit once every 3 years.

This young man who fled Cuba, came to this country, put on America's uniform, fought for this country in Iraq, won a Bronze Star fighting for freedom, comes back to this country. He doesn't have the freedom to go to see his sick child in Cuba. That is unbelievable to me. Why? Because there is no humanitarian exemption in the travel to Cuba regulation the President proposed several years ago.

I have asked all the folks involved: Do you mean there is no flexibility at all in this regulation proposed by the President?

None at all, they said. We have people calling. Their mothers are dying in Cuba, and we won't let them go. You can only go once every 3 years.

So Mr. Zoellick did tell me he is looking into it. I haven't heard back from him. Sergeant Lazo, who is walking around with a Bronze Star awarded by this country for his heroism on the battlefield, does not apparently have the freedom to go see his sick son. I will continue to ask these questions of the administration.

Incidentally, I have offered an amendment on this legislation. I agree it is going to take a two-thirds vote, but I want to see the people in the Senate who want to vote against giving this marine the opportunity to go see his sick child. It is not just him. It is all the other people caught in the web of this bizarre travel restriction. In an attempt to slap around Fidel Castro, we have decided to restrict the freedom of the American people to travel to Cuba. What a strange thing that is. We can travel to Communist China, Vietnam, but you can't go see your sick child in Cuba. You can't take your father's ashes to distribute on the church grounds of the church he ministered at in Cuba, after your dad died and his last wishes were to have his ashes distributed on the church property in Cuba. When you do that, you get hit with a big fine. It is unbelievable.

I won't go on except to say that I continue to wait by the phone for a call back from Mr. Zoellick who apparently is handling this. My hope is they will find a way to do the right thing. My hope is the Senate will be able to vote on this in the next day, and maybe the Senate will decide what the right thing is. The right thing is for humanitarian reasons to allow this courageous soldier who fought for freedom to have the freedom to go see his sick child.

Halliburton

Mr. President, let me describe a hearing I chaired yesterday morning. It was a hearing on the subject of Halliburton. Typically, Halliburton has put out a statement saying that it was political. They have been saying this is political for a long while. I held a hearing because the authorizing committee won't. This is the fifth hearing I have held.

The highest civilian official in the Department of Defense, working with the Corps of Engineers, testified at that hearing. She was describing the meetings during which Halliburton was awarded no-bid contracts worth billions of dollars.

She said:

I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to

contracts awarded to KBR [the subsidiary of Halliburton]

represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I

have witnessed during the course of my professional career.

She insisted these things be done right. They weren't done right. These were sweetheart deals, worth billions of dollars, given to a company without competition for the bid, companies that had an inside track to get the money, get the bid, and they did.

Let me describe one more piece of testimony from an employee of this company. We have had testimony from many others who worked for this company in the country of Iraq under the contract given to Halliburton. This is from an employee of Halliburton who testified yesterday. He was involved in food service, providing food to our troops:

Food items were being brought into the base that were

outdated or expired as much as a year. We were told by the

[Halliburton] food service managers to use these items

anyway.

They are feeding the American troops, and they are receiving food that has an expired date on it; some as much as a year ago have expired. They said give it to the troops anyway. This food was fed to the troops. Continuing to quote:

A lot of these were frozen foods: Chicken, beef, fish, and

ice cream. For trucks that were hit by convoy fire and

bombings [during delivery], we were told to go into the

trucks and remove the food items and use them after removing

the bullets and any shrapnel from the bad food that was hit.

I will say that again:

We were told to go into the trucks and remove the food

items and use them after removing the bullets and any

shrapnel from the bad food that was hit. We were told to turn

the removed bullets over to the managers for souvenirs. When

I had the military check some of the food shipments, they

would turn the food items away. But there wasn't any making

of the record, so KBR [Halliburton] just sent the food to

another base for use.

It is unbelievable. We are talking about feeding soldiers here, and this is an employee of the company that was receiving billions of dollars to feed soldiers. In fact, what caught my attention about this issue is that Halliburton was charging us to feed 42,000 soldiers a day, and it turns out they were only feeding 14,000 soldiers. They were billing the Government for 42,000 soldiers and feeding 14,000. I didn't know they were feeding soldiers food that had expired on its label, food that had come in trucks that had been attacked with bullets and shrapnel embedded in the food to be removed first and then provided to the superiors for souvenirs. This is unbelievable.

Everybody here talks about honoring America's soldiers. What kind of honor exists in providing a sole-source, no-bid contract worth billions of dollars to a company that is feeding food to our soldiers that is outdated or expired on

its label? They say do it any way, it doesn't matter, it is just soldiers. This is just one more example. Every time we hear this sort of thing, we get Halliburton putting out a statement that says this is just politics because the Vice President used to run Halliburton. We didn't talk about the Vice President yesterday. This is a company that got a sweetheart deal at the Pentagon and there are stories after stories of abuse. There was one about the guy who came to our hearing some while ago, and he held up a hand towel. He was in charge of buying supplies such as hand towels. Well, the hand towels he would have bought for the soldiers weren't what his boss wanted. He bought the ones his bosses wanted to buy; they were almost double the price. Why? They wanted the company logo on the hand towel. The taxpayers get bilked, and it increased the price of the hand towels used by soldiers.

Unbelievable. The stories we have heard are hard to believe. They ordered 50,000 pounds of nails, but they came in the wrong size. They are now dumped in the desert in Iraq. It is just a mistake. How about driving $85,000 trucks and when you get a flat tire, you leave the truck. An $85,000 new truck gets a flat tire or has a plugged fuel pump--just trash the truck, leave it beside the road and somebody torches it.

The stories are astounding every time we hear them. Mr. President, every time we hold a hearing, we have the same response. I am not interested in holding any more hearings. I have held five. The only reason we will hold hearings is the authorizing committee won't. You would think somebody would be halfway interested in this kind of fraud. Some of it is abuse or recklessness.

I will tell you one other thing. This is Mr. Rory Mayberry, former food production manager at KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton. He happens to be in Baghdad at this minute, but he is not working for Halliburton. He is working for another contractor. Here is what Mr. Mayberry said. He said: When the Government auditors came to try to determine what they were doing, I was told all of the employees were told don't you dare talk to a Government auditor. Don't you speak to them. If you do, one of two things will happen. No. 1, you are either going to be transferred to an area where there is hostile activity, in a fire zone, or you are going to be fired. He talked to an auditor at one point, and he was sent to Fallujah during the fighting. That is the way they handled him. Then he quit.

It is unbelievable. They are telling employees you may not speak to auditors under the threat of being fired. You cannot talk or cooperate with Government auditors. Why? I suppose the reason is because this sort of nonsense is going on. They have a sole-source contract, a noncompetitive contract, with billions of dollars going out the door. There is massive waste, abuse and, yes, I believe, fraud. Now, we know there is, at this point, slightly more than $1 billion in billing to the Federal Government by Halliburton, which has a sole-source contract worth billions. We know there is $1 billion that has been formally objected to by the Pentagon. There is about $440 million above that for which there is not sufficient documentation. Yet, this Congress seems to be willing to snore through all of this.

In 1941, right on the edge of the Second World War, Harry Truman was a Democrat and here on the floor of the Senate. There was a Democrat in the White House. Maybe it was uncomfortable to have a Democratic Senator going after waste, fraud, and abuse in the military in contracting, but he did. They went after it for 6 years. I am sure Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn't like it, but the Truman committee, as it was known, held hundreds of hearings and, in 1940 dollars, saved $16 billion. Would that, could that, should that happen now? The answer is yes. Would it or could it? Probably not because no one is interested in having these hearings--no one. Is the White House interested in having hearings like this? Absolutely not. Is anybody going to respond to the question of whether expired food is being fed to soldiers? Will one person stand up downtown at the White House or at the Pentagon and demand answers now? Will there be one hearing by the authorizing committee? Will one person be angry enough to decide this should not happen any longer? I doubt it.

Month after month after month, through five hearings, nobody seems to give a damn about this. We have soldiers eating bad food, taxpayers being bilked, and nobody seems to care. Somebody should. This Congress has little reason to hold its head high when it decides to ignore these kinds of things. It is not of great interest to me to continue to hold hearings through our policy committee, but I will do it if the authorizing committees will not. I don't have the foggiest idea why somebody would want to have an authorizing committee if they weren't interested in following the trail of wrongdoing. Look, this doesn't take an ``Inspector Clouseau.'' You don't need a funny looking hat to track this down. It is all out in front of you. The whole case is laid out. Yet, nobody seems to care.

We don't honor these soldiers, such as Sergeant Lazo, by saying you can fight for freedom and earn a Bronze Star, but you don't have the liberty or the freedom to go see your sick child. We don't honor our soldiers by deciding it is OK for someone to feed them bad food or expired food. I hope perhaps all those who talk about honoring soldiers will decide that honor means a responsibility to follow up. We have had these discussions on the floor of the Senate before about uparmoring humvees and other things. Every time it is raised, it is political, we are told. Perhaps sometimes we should understand there are areas of serious policy, serious concern that ought to embrace the time of this Congress. We spend so much time on things that have so little importance.

I said yesterday that this is a Congress that has tended to treat the light too seriously and the serious too lightly and important things that really matter and really make a difference in people's lives are largely not the center of debate here in the Congress. I regret that. We can, and should, do much better.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, following my presentation, the entire testimony of Rory Mayberry, former food production manager at Halliburton's KBR.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, following my remarks, the formal statements presented yesterday by the highest ranking civilian official in the Corps of Engineers at the Pentagon, Bunnatine Greenhouse.

She is a woman who had a wonderful career for a long time, was given high marks always, clearly someone with a sterling reputation and a great career, who ran afoul of the ``old boy's network,'' it appears to me, in the Pentagon when they decided they wanted to steer certain contracts in certain ways. She said: You are not following regulations. That is the wrong thing to do, and we are going to see waste, fraud, and abuse as a result of it. She would not go along with it all. Guess what. They decided to tell her that, despite all those glowing performance evaluations, they are changing their mind on her if she would not go along, so she was either going to be demoted or fired. She testified yesterday, when she was told by the acting general counsel of the Corps of Engineers that it would not be in her best interest to speak publicly about these things. Oh, really? I thank her for the courage and the others for their courage. I also thank Rory for the courage to speak out. I suppose it would be easier not to speak out.

I will read the last sentence of the second paragraph of the statement of Bunnatine Greenhouse:

I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to

contracts awarded to KBR [Halliburton] represents the most

blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during

the course of my professional career.

I continue to ask the question: Is there somebody here who cares? Is there somebody who has the reins of an authorizing committee that cares enough to begin a real investigation or shall we continue to hold hearings in the Policy Committee only because nobody else will?

I yield the floor.

Exhibit I

transcript of the testimony of rory mayberry, former food production

manager, kbr, senate democratic policy committee, june 27, 2005

My name is Rory Mayberry. I'm sorry that I'm not able to be

there in person to testify to the Committee, but I returned

to Iraq on June 14. I am working as a Medical Examiner and

Medic Supervisor for a company called Emergent Services.

I wanted to testify today about my experience working with

Halliburton in Iraq. I was hired by Halliburton subsidiary

KBR in January 2004 as the Food Production Manager for a

dining hall at Camp Anaconda, Iraq. I worked under the

Halliburton's LOGCAP contract from February 2004 until Apri1

2004.

When I was assigned to the dining facility, KBR managers

informed me that there were KBR practices that were to be

followed everyday. These practices led to major overcharges.

First, KBR was supposed to feed 600 Turkish and Filipino

workers meals according to their custom. Although KBR charged

the government for this service, it didn't prepare the meals.

Instead, these workers were given leftover food in boxes and

garbage bags after the troops ate. Sometimes there were no

leftovers to give them.

Second, KBR charged the government for meals it never

served to the troops. Until late 2003, anaconda was a

transition site for army personnel. Because there could be

large numbers of extra personnel passing through everyday,

KBR would charge for a surge capacity of 5,000 troops per

meal. However, KBR continued to charge for the extra

headcount even after Anaconda was no longer a transition

site.

When I questioned these practices, the managers told me

that this needed to be done because KBR lost money in prior

months, when the government suspended some of the dining hall

payments to the company. The managers said that they were

adjusting the numbers to make up for the suspended payments.

I would prepare food orders each week in order to get the

food we needed at the camp in the coming week. The KBR

managers would triple the order every week to bring in much

more food than we needed. They did this because they were

charging an extra 5,000 troops they weren't actually feeding.

Most of this food went to waste though.

Third, KBR paid too much for the food itself. Initially, a

company called Tamimi Catering was KBR's sub-contractor for

the food. Tamimi paid local prices for the food products in

the towns and cities around the base in addition to orders

sent to their main office. Tamimi's pricing was fair for the

condition of the country. Then, KBR switched to a new

supplier, PWC. PWC's prices were almost triple what Tamimi's

were.

For example, tomatoes cost about $5 a box locally, but the

PWC price was $13 to $15 per box. The local price for a 15-

pound box of bacon was $12, compared to PWC's price of $80

per box. PWC charged a lot for transportation because they

brought the food from Philadelphia. KBR switched from Tamimi

to PWC because Tamimi complained about KBR's poor treatment

of its staff; they were living in tents with sand floors and

no beds.

There were other problems that were not related to KBR's

costs:

Food items were being brought into the base that were

outdated or expired as much as a year. We were told by the

KBR food service managers to use these items anyway. This

food was fed to the troops. A lot of these were frozen foods:

chicken, beef, fish, and ice cream. For trucks that were hit

by convoy fire and bombings, we were told to go into the

trucks and remove the food items and use them after removing

the bullets and any shrapnel from the bad food that was hit.

We were told to turn the removed bullets over to the managers

for souvenirs. When I had the military check some of the food

shipments, they would turn the food items away. But there

wasn't any marking of the record, so KBR just sent the food

to another base for use. The problem with expired food was

actually worsened with the switch to PWC because it took

longer for the food items to get to the base as they were

shipped from the U.S. to a warehouse in Kuwait.

KBR also paid for spoiled food. When Tamimi dropped off

food, there was often no place to put it in to the freezers

or refrigeration. Food would stay in the refrigeration and

freezer trucks until they ran out of fuel. KBR wouldn't

refuel the trucks so the food would spoil. This happened

quite a bit.

In addition, KBR would cater events for KBR employees, like

management parties and barbecues. This happened about 3 times

a week. As a result, there were shortages of certain food

items, such as beef, chicken, pork, salads, dressings, and

sodas for the troops.

The food service personnel were given sanitation rules from

the Military Preventive Medicine information programs and

rules to follow by the Armed Forces, but KBR managers

informed us that the information was not to be followed, that

they knew best, and to keep following their instructions. So

our employees weren't following sanitation rules as set

forth.

Also, the Iraqi subcontract drivers of food convoys that

arrived on the base were not fed. They were given MREs, or

meals ready to eat, with pork, which they couldn't because of

religious reasons. As a result, the drivers would raid the

trucks for food.

Government auditors would have caught and fixed many of the

problems. But KBR managers told us not to speak with

auditors. The managers themselves would leave the base or

hide from the auditors when they were on the base and not

answer the radios when we called for them. We were told to

follow instructions or get off the base. The threat of being

sent to a camp under fire was their way of keeping us quiet.

The employees that talked to the auditors were moved to the

other bases that were under more fire then Anaconda. If they

refused to move, they were fired and sent home.

I personally was sent to Fallujah for 3 weeks. The manager

told me I was being sent away until the auditors were gone

because I had opened my mouth to the auditors. When I

returned from Fallujah, the convoy was attacked. I was put in

danger because the KBR managers didn't want me to talk with

U.S. government auditors.

When KBR wanted me to go to Tikrit, I headed home on

rotation. I wasn't officially fired and I didn't formally

quit.

I am happy to answer any questions the Committee may have

for me.

Mr. Mayberry, representatives of the Senate Democratic

Policy Committee have provided me with several questions that

they would like me to ask you now. Can I begin asking you

those questions?

Q: Are you saying that Halliburton deliberately falsified

the number of meals they prepared, and then submitted false

claims for reimbursement, and that they did this to make up

for past amounts auditors had disallowed?

A: Yes.

Q: So, when they couldn't get reimbursed legitimately, they

committed fraud by submitting these false bills?

A: Yes.

Q: How many meals were served at the dining hall each day?

A: 2,500 meals, per meal, times four. There were four

meals, breakfast, lunch, dinner and a midnight meal.

Q: So, every day, Halliburton was charging for 20,000 meals

it never served?

A: Correct. They were charging for 20,000 meals, and they

were only serving 10,000 meals.

Q: Was it rare for expired food to be served to the troops?

A: No. It was an everyday occurrence, sometimes every meal.

Q: You've described routine overcharging and unsanitary

practices by Halliburton, as well as shortages of food items

for troops because of private Halliburton parties.

Halliburton managers were not only aware of these practices,

they ordered them, is that correct?

A: Correct.

Q: How senior were these managers?

A: The managers, the main manager was a manager of all of

Iraq, assigned by KBR.

Q: So these practices may have been ordered at other dining

halls in Iraq?

A: Most likely, yes.

Q: When government auditors arrived, these senior managers

deliberately avoided them?

A: Yes.

Q: And these senior managers ordered you and other

employees not to discuss your concerns with the auditors?

A: Yes. We were informed if we talked, we would be rotated

out to other camps that were under fire.

Q: Is it fair to say that the managers used the threat of

transfer to a more dangerous base to intimidate employees

into keeping quiet?

A: Yes.

Q: When employees did talk to auditors, what happened?

A: All the employees that did talk to the auditors were

switched out to other camps or fired because they refused to

go to the other camps.

Q: Is there anything else you'd like us to know?

A: Not at this time.

Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Mayberry.

Mr. President, if I might make a point, because of the way the order is established, it could be 5 minutes after 3, but the Senator from Ohio will be in line following the Senators who have just been described by Senator Burns as having time. It should turn out 10 minutes, 15, 10, and 10, and it should turn out to be just about the time the Presiding Officer leaves the chair.

Mr. President, let me see if we can clear this up without taking more substantial time. Senator Isakson wants to speak for 10 minutes in morning business. We decided following that Senator Murray would be recognized. She sought 15 minutes to speak on her amendment. Following that, Senator Akaka was to have been recognized for 10 minutes. At that point, before Senator Kerry came in, we had indicated the Senator from Ohio would be recognized, and then Senator Kerry from Massachusetts has asked to be recognized without a time limit.

The one thing that is unclear to me is how much time the Senator from Ohio wishes. I know he wants to speak on his amendment.

I think we can lock all of that in understanding the Senator from Ohio could take the 10 minutes and then Senator Kerry from Massachusetts would be recognized. I think that actually works out to about 3 o'clock, in any event.

Mr. President, while we are waiting, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Jeffords and Senator Salazar as cosponsors to the Murray amendment.

Mr. President, I have cosponsored the amendment offered by my colleague from Washington. I want to make a couple comments.

It seems to me, on the question of what the priorities are around here, what are the right choices, veterans health care has to rank right up at the top.

We had a hearing at one point. We had Secretary Rumsfeld come, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. We asked a lot of questions about this issue because I think everyone wants the same thing. We want to say to young men and women who wear the uniform of this country: Please support this country's efforts. Go fight for freedom. Answer your country's call.

And when they do, and put themselves in harm's way--and most of us understand what ``harm's way'' means because we have been over to Walter Reed, we have been out to Bethesda Naval Hospital. We have seen these young men and women with lost limbs, limbs that have been blown off, and all kinds of other wounds. We understand the sacrifice that is made.

We asked the Secretary about the difference between someone who is a soldier on active duty and someone who has come home to a hospital to be treated for a lost leg or a lost limb or other devastating injuries and then is moved out of the service with a discharge--what is the difference between the level of health care for an active-duty soldier at Walter Reed or Bethesda and a veteran in a veterans hospital setting? Should there be a difference? No, there should not be. These are soldiers: active duty or retired, but soldiers.

I do not think there is a debate in this Senate about whether we adequately fund veterans health care. We all know the answer to that. The answer is no, we are not adequately funding it.

So the question is, will this be a priority? Will the Congress, will the Senate think this is as important as some other issues?

Someone once asked the question hypothetically: If you were asked to write an obituary for someone you had never met and the only information with which you could write that obituary was their check register, what would it tell you about the person? You could take a look and determine, what did that person spend money on? What did that person determine to be valuable?

You could make the same case with respect to the Federal Government. Take a look at the checkbook and evaluate, what did we determine was important? What were our priorities? Where was veterans health care, because we know the esteem in which this country holds its veterans? We know that starting with the poster that says ``Uncle Sam Wants You'' pointed to the face of Americans for decades to say: Join the service, represent this country, support and fight for it, fight for freedom. We know that call. But we also know a promise was made. The promise was, you do this for your country and, when you come back, we will have a veterans health care system available for you.

Some say--not publicly--why have a veterans health care system? Why not just have those folks go to a regular hospital? Especially after major wars, you don't ask that question because if you go to the veterans hospitals or Active-Duty hospitals that are treating these veterans, you will discover there is a kind of medical challenge that you don't find often in other hospitals.

I visited a young man at Walter Reed a couple times. I had appointed him to West Point. He is a proud member of the armed services. He went to Iraq. Because of an improvised explosive device, he lost his leg. He came back, was in Walter Reed, and went through a long period when they didn't know whether he was going to make it. He had a lot of infections and serious problems. He lost his leg right up to his hipbone.

Go visit those folks at the military hospitals or the veterans hospitals and understand these are different medical challenges than you find every day at the hospitals in the inner cities or the hospitals in the suburbs. I am not saying other hospitals don't face challenges. I am saying the wounds of war are deep, challenging. Go to the orthopedic section out here and understand the difference. It is a big difference.

I have told my colleagues about a Sunday morning at Fargo, ND. I will tell the story again because it is so important. It illustrates such an important point in support of my colleague.

A man served his country, left the Indian reservation when called during the Second World War and served. His name was Edmund Young Eagle--Native American, Standing Rock Reservation. He served in Africa, Normandy, Europe, served as his country asked him to, never complained about it. At the end of the war, he came back to the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, lived, had a tough life, didn't have a family of his own, loved to play baseball but had a tough life all of his life. Toward the end of his life, he went to the Old Soldiers' Home in North Dakota, and following that, he developed lung cancer.

His sister contacted my office and said: My brother has never had very much, but he was always very proud of serving his country and never received the medals he had earned for serving in Africa and Europe and Normandy during the Second World War. Could you help get his medals?

So I did. I got the medals that this Native American had never received from his country for going all around the world and fighting for America. By that time, Edmund Young Eagle was transferred to the VA Hospital in Fargo with advanced lung cancer. In his late seventies, on a Sunday morning, I went to his room at the VA Hospital with his medals. His sister came. The doctors and nurses from the ward came and crowded into Edmund's room. We cranked up his hospital bed to a seating position, and I pinned on his pajama top the medals that Edmund Young Eagle had earned fighting for his country in Africa, Normandy, and Europe.

This man, who would die 7 days later, said to me: This is one of the proudest days of my life.

He was a very sick man but enormously proud that his country had recognized what he had done for America in the Second World War some 50 years later.

The fact is, he and so many like him, particularly now, those Tom Brokaw called the ``greatest generation'' who went off to win the Second World War, beat back the forces of nazism and Hitler, the fact is they are now at an age where they claim an increasing amount of health care in their late seventies, eighties, and nineties. There is a strain on the VA medical health care system. Added to that, the Vietnam War and the age of those veterans, the gulf war, now the war in Iraq, this is a system that is straining at the seams.

My colleague offers an amendment. She has offered it before. I have supported it previously on many occasions. It says: Let us, on an emergency basis, decide as a country that veterans health care is our priority. Let someone years from now look back at what we spent money on and have some pride in knowing that we spent money on a priority that was critically important, a priority that said to us: We will keep our word to veterans. We promised health care, if you served your country. Now we are going to deliver it.

It is not satisfactory to me and to many others in this Chamber to decide that among a whole series of priorities, providing another tax cut is more important than providing health care or keeping a promise to veterans. That is not acceptable to me.

That is why I am happy to join. I mentioned a tax cut as one example. We tried to offer an amendment to the emergency supplementals that previously went through this Congress. We just had an $81 billion supplemental, none of it paid for. We have now a $45 billion emergency supplemental passed by the House that is coming this direction. My colleague from Oklahoma made the point that we have increased spending. We sure have increased spending. No question about that. Take a look at what has increased with respect to defense spending and homeland security spending post-9/11. I have not opposed that spending. I happen to think we need to replenish Army accounts when you send troops to Iraq. I happen to think we need more security at our ports and other places. But it seems to me logical that progressives, conservatives, moderates, everything in between at some point ought to decide to get together and say: If we are

going to spend this money, we ought to pay for it. Instead of doing that, we have done emergency supplementals.

My colleague from Washington is saying, if you are going to do emergency supplementals for everything, how about doing it for the first and most important thing, and that is keeping our promise to America's veterans.

I am happy to yield.

Was there a question?

Let me say, that is why I support the amendment. It is a question of priorities. I know everyone has their own view of what priorities might be. One of the top priorities ought to be keeping your promise to America's veterans. I appreciate the amendment being offered.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin be added to the Byrd- Cochran amendment No. 1053 as a cosponsor.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1002

Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask the Senator from Montana, my understanding is that we have a request from Senator Byrd, and I believe Senator Cochran, that on their behalf, the Byrd amendment, amendment No. 1053, be adopted by voice vote. My understanding is that both sides have had that request of Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran. I wonder if we might be able to accomplish that, I would ask the Senator from Montana.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, is there an amendment pending that requires a vote?

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

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

Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Barbara Boxer, for herself, Senator Nelson of Florida, Senators Clinton and Schumer of New York, and Senator Obama of Illinois, and send it to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside so I can offer an amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Feinstein.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Kerry and ask for its consideration.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

I send two amendments to the desk and ask unanimous consent that they be considered sequentially, offered by Senator Bingaman.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, on Friday I brought to the floor a picture of a wonderful young soldier. This soldier is a man who fled from Cuba on a raft in 1992. His name is Carlos Lazo.

Sergeant Lazo has not been able to bring his family to this country from Cuba. He kept in contact with them, visiting them a number of times under the rules that allow Cuban Americans to visit close relatives in Cuba once a year.

In 1998, Carlos joined the National Guard. They were mobilized in 2003, deployed to Iraq in March of 2004. In June of 2004, Sergeant Lazo came back to the United States from Iraq on a 2-week R&R. He hoped to use that time to make his annual visit to Cuba to see his sons. But just before Sergeant Lazo came home on leave, the President announced new regulations that would limit Cuban-American family visits to once every 3 years. Even though Sergeant Lazo got to the Miami airport a day before the new regulation went into effect, our State Department prohibited him from boarding a charter flight to Cuba to visit his children.

Mr. Lazo, in the country of Iraq wearing America's uniform, won the Bronze Star award. Let me show you the award, the Bronze Star medal given SPC Carlos Lazo, Charlie Company, 181st Support Battalion, for exceptionally meritorious service while serving as a combat medic with Charlie Company. It goes on to talk about his heroism and courage. Here is an American soldier who went to fight in Iraq because his country asked him to fight in Iraq. He was fighting for freedom. This American soldier wins the Bronze Star fighting in Iraq. He comes home to this country and his young child in Cuba has a very high temperature and is in the hospital, quite ill. He wants to go to Cuba to visit his child. After fighting in Iraq, he is told he doesn't have the freedom to travel to Cuba to see his sick child. He came to see me the other day and asked if I could help him because I have been involved in legislation in the Senate dealing with travel to Cuba. I happen to believe that we ought to treat Cuba just as we do China and Vietnam, both Communist countries. Our official policy is that we will advance the interests of each through engagement. Travel and trade will be beneficial to moving China and Vietnam towards greater human rights. But we believe that is not the case with Cuba because we have clamped down on trips to Cuba.

Now a fellow like Carlos, an American soldier who is willing to fight in Iraq and wins a Bronze Star, is told, You can't visit your children in Cuba except for once every 3 years. Even when your child is ill in a hospital, we won't allow you to visit him.

He asked the question last week: What about freedom? I was fighting for freedom. I don't have the freedom to go travel 90 miles off the shores of Florida to the country of Cuba to see a sick child who is in the hospital?

I called the Department of the Treasury, which runs the agency that would provide the licenses, and asked to speak to the Treasury Secretary. He didn't return the call.

I called the State Department, asked for Condoleezza Rice. She didn't return my call. As an aside, I would observe that she was happy to return my call when she was up for confirmation on the floor of the Senate to be the Secretary of State. But she didn't return my call this time. At any rate, her Deputy, Mr. Zoellick, returned the call. I have great admiration for him so I was pleased to talk to him.

I also called the White House and talked to Karl Rove on Friday afternoon. I just got a call back from the White House saying that Mr. Rove will not be contacting me today. In fact, Mr. Zoellick will be handling this. I have not yet heard from Mr. Zoellick, but he indicated he would be getting back to me.

When I talked to the Treasury Department, they said: The regulations that came into effect that President Bush has announced provide no humanitarian relief at all.

It means that you can't travel to Cuba except once every 3 years to see your family.

I said: Surely there must be some humanitarian exceptions to that. This guy wins the Bronze Star fighting for this country, and he doesn't have the freedom to go visit a sick kid?

They said: There are no exceptions. We have people calling us saying: My mother is dying in Cuba. I need to go see her. We tell them no because there are no exceptions.

I said what on Earth are you thinking about? You created the regulation. Don't tell me the regulations prevent you from doing the right thing. You created them; change them. So here it is, on Monday afternoon, this Sergeant Lazo--Carlos Lazo--still asks the question: Why, when I fought in Iraq, demonstrated courage under battlefield conditions, won a Bronze Star, do I come home and find I don't have the freedom to visit my sick child 90 miles away from the shores of America?

That is unbelievable. Not surprising to me, but unbelievable.

I will show you a picture of another young woman who visited my office. This is Joan Scott. Joan went to Cuba, but she didn't get permission. She didn't know she had to get permission. She went to Cuba because she wanted to distribute free Bibles. She took a supply of Bibles and went to Cuba to distribute them. Guess what this Government did. They tracked her down and slapped a $10,000 fine on her. Why? She didn't have a license to go to Cuba.

Fidel Castro has been sticking his finger in our eye for many years. But if we think we are slapping him around by restricting the rights of the American people to travel there, we are seriously mistaken.

The quickest way to get Castro out of office in Cuba--and he has lived through 10 Presidencies--is through trade and travel, just as we do with China and South Vietnam, both of which are also Communist countries. Trade and travel will rapidly advance the day in which Cuba will have a new government. To penalize and punish American citizens-- someone who wants to distribute free Bibles in Cuba, or someone who wants to take his father's ashes with his last request to distribute his ashes on the grounds of a church he once ministered in in Cuba, to punish these people--and this Government is doing that--is unbelievable.

In this case, it is Sergeant Lazo who is penalized. So this Monday afternoon he waits and I wait. Will I get a call from the State Department saying, No, our rules in America are that you can fight for America and for freedom, but you don't have the freedom to go see a sick kid? If that is the result, that is unbelievable.

Mr. President, we will see if I get a telephone call this afternoon. If they don't find a humanitarian way to provide exceptions, not just for Sergeant Lazo but for someone whose father or mother is dying and they need to go to Cuba, then we are going to vote on that on this appropriations bill. Yes, it will take a suspension and it will take a two-thirds vote. But we will see who wants to stand up for the interests of a young soldier who was willing to fight and die for this country but doesn't have the freedom to go see his sick son. We will see who is willing to stand up for his interests and the interests of the basic proposition that you ought to be free to travel. We will see at the end of today.

I say, again, I fully intend to offer an amendment to this bill, and it will require suspension of the rules, but I will offer that and ask my colleagues to vote on it.

Mr. President, there is more to say, but I will reserve that until I get a call from the State Department today telling us what they have decided to do.

Amendment No. 1032

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the underlying amendment be set aside, and I send to the desk an amendment by Senator Durbin.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I have spent the last nearly 2 hours prior to coming to the floor chairing a hearing of the Democratic Policy Committee on waste, fraud, and abuse, dealing with the Halliburton Corporation with respect to contracting in Iraq. I don't--along with my colleagues who joined me--take pleasure at holding hearings to expose waste and abuse and, I think, fraud. We do it because the authorizing committees in this Congress have decided they are not interested in having these kinds of hearings.

Let me just give you some idea of what we have learned at the five hearings that I have held on this subject. Today, at the hearing, an employee of Halliburton who was providing food service in a portion of Iraq to our troops, said something to me that was almost unbelievable. He said they were routinely serving food to American troops that had outdated stamps on it. When you go to the grocery store, you see that food is going to be good through a certain date. They were getting that kind of food that was out of date and serving it to American soldiers.

I understand greed because we see enough of it in some of these circumstances at these hearings. I don't understand the shameful behavior of somebody who is charging this Government for feeding our troops, and then would feed our troops food that is date stamped out of date. The Halliburton Corporation, by the way, said that it was feeding 42,000 troops a day in one contract, and it turns out that only 14,000 were eating. They were charging for 28,000 meals they were not serving. Now we discover, more than that--more than charging for 42,000 meals when only serving 14,000 meals--they were serving food that was out of date to American soldiers. That is unbelievable to me.

We send these soldiers to a war zone and we contracted that company to feed them, and they feed them food that is date stamped out of date. Nobody wants to investigate these things. No hearings. It is eerily quiet here. Normally, when you see fraud, waste, and abuse, we have people who are interested in investigating that and putting a stop to it right now. We have heard so many tales of waste, fraud, and abuse.

Halliburton orders 50,000 pounds of nails that are the wrong size, so they are laying on the sand in Iraq. Just another bit of waste. It is $40 for a case of pop or soda and $7,000 a month to lease SUVs. There are $85,000 trucks that are abandoned on the roads and are torched because they had a flat tire or a plugged fuel pump. These are all stories we have heard at our hearings, which the authorizing committees won't have. They have been asked to have them, but they will not. I have chaired five hearings--because they won't--on these issues. It doesn't serve American troops. It disserves American troops to allow this sort of thing to happen.

When we get involved in circumstances where our country has an obligation to the troops we ask to go into harm's way, we have a responsibility to make sure there is not corruption and looting and thieving going on.

We had a woman testify today, Bunnatine Greenhouse. She was the highest civilian official in the Pentagon dealing with Corps of Engineer projects. She was called in at one point and told: Either you can retire or you are going to be demoted. We are not putting up with your objections anymore.

She was objecting to sole-source contracts being given to Halliburton--no bids. What is the result of that? Headline after headline about waste and fraud. Here is what she said today:

I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to

contracts awarded to KBR [a subsidiary of Halliburton]

represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I

have witnessed during the course of my professional career.

By the way, she had a meeting last week with the acting general counsel, I believe, of the Corps of Engineers, and she was told that it would not be in her best interest to speak publicly about these things. Surprise, surprise. Don't worry so much about the waste or the fraud or the abuse; worry about the people who are going to speak up, who have the courage to step out and say here is what is going on, and I am willing to risk my career to talk about it.

Good for this woman. It took courage for her to come forward today. She was one of the top senior officials in that whole pyramid. The old boys just worked around her and worked their will so they could give contracts worth billions and billions of dollars to one company-- Halliburton--and then later to some others, but basically Halliburton.

Then we hear from a witness named Rory, who worked in the food facilities in Iraq, that Halliburton was routinely serving out-of-date food to American troops. I thought there wasn't much more that could shock me after having my fifth hearing on this, but there is.

I just say this to the authorizing committees: The minute you decide to do the kinds of accountability and oversight hearings Congress is supposed to do, I will not hold any more hearings. It was in 1941 when a Senator on the floor of the Senate, named Harry Truman, with a Democratic President in the White House, initiated a series of hearings that ended up being hundreds of hearings. They documented massive amounts of fraud in defense contracting during a war. It probably wasn't pleasant for a Democratic President to have a Democratic Senator challenging them on what was going on with respect to waste, fraud, and abuse, but Harry Truman did it.

Now we have a Republican President, a Republican-controlled Congress, substantial waste, fraud, and abuse, and nobody wants to hold hearings because they are worried it will embarrass somebody. This isn't about embarrassing anybody; it is about standing up for the interests of the American taxpayer, for the interests of the American troops, and deciding that during war it is unconscionable for people to profiteer, and for companies to cheat and defraud the Federal Government.

Unfortunately, these days, when you read the headlines and the audit reports, you discover that what this is all about is a slap on the wrist, a pat on the back, and then a continuation of the buddy system.

A fellow who testified today with respect to the food service in Iraq said that when Government auditors came, they were told: You are not to be available to speak to Government auditors. And they were told this: If you are caught speaking to a Government auditor, one of two things will happen. Either, A, you will be fired or, B, you will be sent to a base where there is active fighting. It's your choice.

I could not believe that. He said it again. He said it a second time. When Government auditors came to audit the Halliburton food contracts, they were ordered not to speak to the auditors, ordered not to respond to auditors' questions, ordered not to be available. And if they were caught answering questions of auditors, they would either be sent to a base where there was active fighting, or they would be fired. So that is some of what is going on.

The question is, Does anybody care? Will they, after 2 years of our holding five straight hearings now--when I say ``they,'' I mean the authorizing committees--perhaps begin to hold hearings themselves? Would it be embarrassing to ask that committees to do what they are supposed to do--provide oversight? When you have $10 billion or $12 billion lining the pockets of big contractors whose documented abuse of that money is legend--don't take it from me, take it from the facts that are on the record--will the committees of the Congress do what they have a responsibility to do? We will see.

I wanted to point out that this afternoon was spent by me--at least from 1:30 and for the first 2 hours--listening to things that I find shameful with respect to practices by some companies--notably Halliburton--in the country of Iraq, profiteering during a war.

Mr. President, the last time we held a hearing dealing with Iraq, we had one of the people there hold up a towel, and he said: My job was to buy towels, among other things. I was a procurement agent. I was to buy towels--the hand towels you would use in the bathroom in the morning.

He showed us the hand towel he was going to buy, and then he showed us the one he did buy. The one he did buy had a logo of the company on it--the contracting company. The contracting company wanted him to buy a higher priced towel, a more expensive towel, so they could put their logo on it. Waste of the money? I think so. It is unbelievable when you see all that is going on and nobody is minding the store.

I hope perhaps one day this Congress, in a deep slumber about accountability and oversight responsibilities, will wake up and do what it is required to do. At that point, we will no longer have to do hearings in our policy committee. Until that point, however, we intend to continue such hearings.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, there has been quite a controversy developing in recent weeks about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I have spoken on the Senate floor a couple of times about the subject, and I wish to address it now, particularly because of actions that were taken last week.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has a Board of Directors that is headed by a Mr. Kenneth Tomlinson. Mr. Tomlinson decided to take it upon himself to describe public broadcasting as having a liberal bias. Because it has a liberal bias, according to the Chairman of the Board of Directors, appointed by President Bush, he hired a consultant, a fellow who had worked for 20 years at a journalism center founded by the American Conservative Union. He hired a consultant for just over $14,000 without the knowledge of the Board of Directors to evaluate particularly programming by the Bill Moyers show called ``Now.'' The Inspector General at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is now investigating that expenditure of money.

It is curious to me that the American people, by a wide margin, believe that public television and public radio, National Public Radio, for example, and PBS, is not biased, is good information, provides good programming, balanced programming, and yet the Chairman of the Board, who is partisan, has made it his cause to tell the American people there is a liberal bias in public broadcasting over television and radio on NPR and so on.

Most of us, of course, know public television by Big Bird, Ernie, the Cookie Monster, the Count, Grover. I was thinking, when I have heard the discussions about public broadcasting by the Chairman of the Board, Mr. Tomlinson, I was thinking of Oscar the Grouch, who complains about everything. I would not take the analogy so far because Oscar the Grouch lives in a trash can, but every time he peeks his head out something is wrong. He complains about everything, Oscar the Grouch.

Well, maybe we have an Oscar the Grouch running the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. After all, he is a partisan who has decided to allege that there is a partisan and liberal bias at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Then he hires a conservative to do an evaluation of that.

When he did that with public funding, I asked Mr. Tomlinson, by letter, to provide me the information gleaned from this consultant. He then sent me the raw data, which was many pages of raw information. I have described that on the Senate floor. I will not do that again. He told me that it was not a summary but he was completing a summary. I have now been given the summary in the last couple of days--I believe last Friday.

In the intervening period, Chairman Tomlinson also decided that his candidate to become President of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a position that was open, should be assumed by a former Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee. Over the objections of some members of the Board of Directors, he made that happen last week. So the former Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee is now going to become the President of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, an organization that the Chairman of the Board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting alleges has a liberal bias. He believes that it is political or partisan; therefore, he brings in a partisan.

If a former co-chair of the Democratic National Committee had been hired, I assume there would be a howl that one could hear all the way to West Virginia coming from this Chamber and the Chamber across the hall because they would say: You are politicizing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Regrettably, that is exactly what Mr. Tomlinson is doing by hiring a former Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee.

Public broadcasting does a real service in this country. There are some stories no other broadcasters will do. Do my colleagues think that ABC, CBS, NBC, or FOX will ever do a no holds barred, in-depth story about concentration in the media and about the rules that the Federal Communications Commission tried to foist on this country that would allow further concentration until they were stopped by the Federal courts? Do my colleagues think that would ever be dealt with by the major television networks? Not on your life because they are all making money consolidating.

The Federal Communications Commission came up with a goofy rule--one that, in my judgment, subverts the interests of the American people-- and said it will be all right if in one major American city one company owns eight radio stations, three television stations, the dominant newspaper, and the cable company. That is just fine, according to the Federal Communications Commission. Well, it is not fine with me. That was the quickest and biggest cave-in to the special interests I have ever seen in my life, and the Federal court has at this point stopped it.

Guess who did the in-depth reporting, the hard-hitting reporting on the concentration of corporate interests in broadcasting. Was it CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX News? No, not on your life. They would not touch it because they make money continuing the concentration. It was public broadcasting. It was Bill Moyers. For that, he pays a price. The price he pays: Mr. Tomlinson and others accuse him of going astray, a liberal bias.

When I looked at the papers I was given that represent the raw data from the consultant, some of the listings evaluated programming on public broadcasting as either anti-Bush or pro-Bush. Is that what we are going to do in this country--run our evaluation of whether something is fair through a prism of whether it supports our President, whoever our President is? Is that the way one would have wanted to evaluate public broadcasting when President Clinton was in office-- anti-Clinton, pro-Clinton? I do not think so. That is not the way we have a responsibility to evaluate these things.

This country is still a democracy, a free country. It is not unpatriotic to be critical of our Government. In the case of the FCC rules, that would allow massive concentration of broadcasting properties so that only four or five people will determine what the American people by and large will see, hear, and read. When that happens, when the FCC tries to do that, it is not unpatriotic to raise questions and do in-depth reporting and do tough reporting on it. There is nothing unpatriotic about that.

So the selection of the former Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee to be President of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a step that will injure public broadcasting. The board members who objected have told me that they felt the process for the selection of the chairman was not fair, and I intend to ask the Inspector General to include that question in the

investigation that is now ongoing about the use of funds for the consultant.

I believe most of us, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, should care about retaining a strengthened and important public broadcasting system in this country. Big Bird is not a Republican or a Democrat, nor is the Cookie Monster. This is just good programming. It does a disservice to the interests of public broadcasting in this country to begin to undermine it by demanding that there is a liberal bias, by hiring consultants who themselves come from a conservative background with which to make a judgment of whether things are anti- or pro-Bush in public programming, and then to engineer the hiring of the former Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee as President of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. All of that moves us in the direction that injures something very important to this country. My hope is at some point we will be able to see progress in putting this back together. But there is no question that substantial damage has been done to public broadcasting in recent weeks and that damage is because of leadership insisting that public broadcasting itself is flawed and is at fault.

I disagree with that. I think the problem is not public broadcasting; I think the problem has been the leadership of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the engineering of not only a known partisan to become president but also a partisan to do an evaluation that was destined to show what the Chairman of CPB was alleging.

Again I take no pleasure in coming to the floor to be critical of Mr. Tomlinson, but after what I have read from the consulting report that is now being investigated, frankly, I think there is a need to speak up and a need to decide that public broadcasting is important to this country and worth saving and won't be saved by those who want to drag it into the partisan waters.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

On behalf of my colleague Senator Wyden, I propose an amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

I send two amendments to the desk on behalf of my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Jack Reed, and ask for their consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

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

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

Mr. President, I send to the desk, on behalf of Senator Feingold, an amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I have an amendment on behalf of Senator Byrd that I send to the desk.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment by Senator Conrad and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Sarbanes and ask for its consideration.

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

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

Mr. President, while the Senator from Arkansas is on the floor, I want to mention to him how pleased I was to play a very small role in getting funding for this and give him a little background of why I have had a special interest in this.

One of the more inspirational things I ever attended was in the East Room at the White House, perhaps some 5 years ago, an event at which President Clinton had invited the Little Rock Nine. There they sat, these nine people, on a riser in the East Room of the White House as part of a celebration of the 45th anniversary of when those then-nine young children marched into the Little Rock school and integrated the Little Rock school.

That integration was ordered by Judge Ronald Davies of North Dakota. He was a Federal judge who was from the Fargo Federal district in North Dakota who traveled to Little Rock, AR, and issued the landmark ruling that resulted in the integration of that school.

I was privileged to name a courthouse, in legislation, after Judge Ronald Davies about 5 years ago because I wanted North Dakotans to long remember this man. He was a short fellow, 5 foot 2, perhaps. He strutted around with great flair, but was a remarkable Federal judge by all accounts and issued a courageous decision. He was, in fact, required to have security because of threats on his life when he issued the landmark civil rights decision that required the integration of that school.

With respect to the story, I want to read a couple paragraphs from Prairie Public Television in North Dakota. They did an interview with the judge's family. It talked about when Judge Davis and Governor Faubus were deadlocked and the nine students were still not in school. There was an injunction that had been ordered.

On September 20th, Davies ruled that Faubus used the

National Guard to prevent integration, not to prevent

violence, and the governor was forced to withdraw the troops.

The situation was now in the hands of the Little Rock Police

Department.

There was a mob of a thousand people outside Central High

School when those young students were ushered in. Everyone

will recall the Norman Rockwell portrait of a young Black

schoolgirl in pigtails and knee socks holding the hand of a

U.S. Marshal walking into the Little Rock public school.

The crowd learned the students were inside, and out of fear for their safety, the police then evacuated them. President Eisenhower issued a special proclamation that evening, calling for opponents of integration to ``cease and desist.''

. . . The next morning, Little Rock's mayor sent the

president a telegram asking him to send troops to maintain

order.

President Eisenhower sent 10,000 Arkansas National Guard and 1,000 members of the 101st Airborne. Those young students the next day, under heavy guard with substantial military around the city, entered Little Rock Central High School.

I tell my colleague that only to say that Judge Ronald Davies, this Federal judge from North Dakota, played a very pivotal role in making that day happen with his ruling and paid quite a price for it at the time, with threats on his life and anger about what he had done.

But 45 years after that Little Rock day, sitting in that room with now middle-aged African Americans, to understand the courage it must have taken not just for them, especially them, but their parents, that they forced this issue, not just on behalf of these students but on behalf of all in this country who were similarly situated and similarly mistreated. I could not feel more strongly and feel more inspired about what this center will mean to those nine, to both Senators from Arkansas, but also to the relatives of Judge Davies and so many others who had a role in making this event happen that has literally changed the lives of a good many Americans.

I heard the Senator speak and wanted to acknowledge his appreciation and say that we are the ones really who appreciate the opportunity to do this.

Mr. President, let me send the amendments to the desk. I have five amendments that I submit on behalf of Senator Bingaman. Let me ask first that the pending amendment be set aside by consent.

Let me by consent submit five amendments and ask that they be numbered separately and separately considered on behalf of Senator Bingaman.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 4 of rule XVI for the purpose of proposing to the bill H.R. 2361 amendment No. 1059.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and ask for its consideration.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Landrieu and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.

I send to the desk two amendments I offer on behalf of Senator Obama and ask for their consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

The amendments have been cleared on both sides. I support their approval.

Mr. President, if my colleague from Montana is going to be leaving the floor for a period, as I understand, to go to a listening session in the Commerce Committee--if he is going to be gone for some while, I may get a lot of legislating done on the floor of the Senate. But we will see. Actually, I will consult closely with Senator Burns's staff. We have worked well together and we put together a piece of legislation that was hard to do.

I want to just tell those who think there are no spending cuts, this bill that is brought to the floor of the Senate spends $544 million less than is spent in the current fiscal year. That means we are a half billion dollars less in spending for the next fiscal year than is now being spent. Putting together an appropriations bill that cuts a half billion dollars is not a small task. It is hard. There are some areas in this legislation that I think we have not done what we should have done. We did the best we could, having to cut a half billion dollars.

My colleague from Montana and his staff have been good to work with. It is the case that in the Appropriations Committee, on the subcommittees, there truly is bipartisanship. We work together to try to resolve issues in a way that provides a product that all of us can support. That is the case here today.

I will in the course of time offer an amendment that will restore some funds to Indian health. We have desperate conditions on Indian reservations with respect to Indian health, and I am going to talk a little about that today. For example, we restored some funds to the tribal colleges. The President was intending to cut that substantially in his budget, which really makes no sense to me. We have not only restored those cuts but actually increased it a couple of million dollars.

So there are many things we have done that my colleague from Montana has described in his opening statement. I think it would not be useful for me to once again review his comments with respect to funding for the Forest Service and the EPA and all of the various accounts in this bill. There are many of them. It is a fairly substantial bill. I think my colleague aptly described what we tried to do, things that we have succeeded in doing.

He described we have fully funded the EPA clean water State revolving fund $1.1 billion. The President proposed a dramatic cut there. We restored that. That is a $370 million increase over the President's substantial cut.

There are a number of things. I will not go through all the details only to repeat what my colleague has said. I want to focus for a moment on something that I think needs more focus in the Senate, and that is Indian health.

The reason I do that is I come from a State, as do a number of my colleagues, where we have Indian reservations. We have four Indian reservations. We have a genuine bona fide crisis in health care, housing, and education on our reservations. It is easy for people to put it out of sight and out of mind and not think too much about it.

I have been working with my colleague, Senator Burns, for the last 3 years to increase funding for tribal colleges. I want to read a letter that I read previously to my colleagues because it is such a wonderful description of the value of tribal colleges. This letter is from a young woman who wrote to me. This is a woman I happen to know, who has quite a remarkable career at this point. But here is the letter she wrote to me:

I grew up poor and considered backward by non-Indians. My

home was a two-room log house in a place called the ``bush''

on North Dakota's Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation. I

stuttered. I was painfully shy. My clothes were hand-me-

downs. I was like thousands of other Indian kids growing up

on reservations across America.

When I went to elementary school I felt so alone and

different. I couldn't speak up for myself. My teachers had no

appreciation for Indian culture. I'll never forget that it

was the lighter-skinned children who were treated better.

They wore usually from families that were better off than

mine. My teachers called me savage. Even as a young child I

wondered . . . What does it take to be noticed and looked

upon the way these other children are?

By the time I reached 7th grade I realized that if my life

was going to change for the

better, I was going to have to do it. Nobody else could do it

for me. That's when the dream began. I thought of ways to

change things for the better--not only for myself but for my

people. I dreamed of growing up to be a teacher in a school

where every child was treated as sacred and viewed

positively, even if they were poor and dirty. I didn't want

any child to be made to feel like I did. But I didn't know

how hard it would be to reach the realization of my dream. I

almost didn't make it.

By the time I was 17 I had dropped out of school, moved to

California, and had a child. I thought my life was over. But

when I moved back to the reservation I made a discovery that

literally put my life back together. My sisters were

attending Turtle Mountain College, which had just been

started on my reservation. I thought that was something I

would do too, so I enrolled. In those days, we didn't even

have a campus. There was no building. Some classes met at a

local alcohol rehabilitation center in an old hospital

building that had been condemned. But to me, it didn't

matter. I was just amazed I could go to college. It was life-

changing.

My college friends and professors were like family. For the

first time in my life I learned about the language, history

and culture of my people in a formal education setting. I

felt honor and pride begin to well up inside me. This was so

unlike my prior school experience where I was told my

language and culture were shameful and that Indians weren't

equal to others. Attending a tribal college caused me to

reach into my inner self to become what I was meant to be--to

fight for my rights and not remain a victim of circumstance

or of anybody. In fact, I loved college so much that I

couldn't stop! I had a dream to fulfill . . .

This young woman is now a doctor, a Ph.D. She continued in her letter telling me what she was doing. She said:

I have worked in education ever since, from Head Start to

teacher's aide to college professor. Now I'm realizing my

dream of helping Indian children succeed. I am a . . .

Program Superintendent working with nine schools, three

reservations, and I oversee two educational contracts with

two tribal colleges.

Think of this. This young girl grew up feeling hopeless and helpless, stuttering, being called a ``savage'' in a school. She, now, is a Ph.D., helping other children succeed, helping create and nurture an education system that gives others a feeling of hope.

The reason I wanted to read that story is this is all about a tribal college. It is all about giving a young woman an opportunity through a tribal college. I can't tell you how many tribal colleges I have visited, but I know that they enrich the lives of those who attend them because it is an opportunity to step up and out of poverty and hopelessness.

I recall one day I was asked to speak at a commencement at a tribal college. I asked the graduates there: Who is the oldest graduate? They pointed to a woman. They said: She is the oldest graduate.

I went over. She was in her mid-forties and she was, on this day, graduating from college. I asked her about herself and I found out a bit about her. She was a single mother. I believe her husband had left her. I believe she had four children and she was the janitor at the college, cleaning the hallways and the toilets. She decided that she really wanted to do more than clean the hallways and the toilets in that college, she wanted to attend that college, and she did.

She found a way as a single mother to attend that college. The day I showed up she wasn't cleaning anything, she was wearing a cap and a gown and a smile. And that smile was a recognition of what she had invested in herself. But she couldn't have done that had there not been a tribal college, not been Pell grants, not been an opportunity for this country to say to her, through the funding of tribal colleges, through Pell grants, and through other approaches, that: We want to help you. We want to offer a helping hand.

So there is so much to be done. I am speaking now about education and tribal colleges. That is just one piece of it. I am proud to say that Senator Burns and I have very substantially changed the recommendations of the President. He proposes cutting funding for tribal colleges. We propose increasing funding. Why? Because it is the right thing to do. It is investing in people's lives in the right way.

The other thing I want to talk about for a moment is Indian health care. I mentioned there is a bona fide crisis in health care, housing, and education for American Indians. I have spoken previously on the floor about this.

I have talked about a woman who died, froze to death in her bed, a grandmother. She froze to death in her bed on a reservation in South Dakota when it was 35 below zero, in a home with plastic over the hole where windows should have been. There were six people living in a very small space without sufficient beds and a grandmother goes to bed and freezes to death. Most would think from reading that, it is from a Third World country. It wasn't. It was from our country. We have serious problems on Indian reservations in health care, housing, and education.

I mentioned education with respect to tribal colleges. Let me mention health care for a moment because I will offer an amendment dealing with health care.

There simply is not enough money to provide the kind of health care Americans would expect to provide to every child in this country. I have been to reservations to see a dentist working out of a small trailer home, serving 5,000 people. That dentistry is not so much about doing bridgework or fixing a tooth. It is about someone coming in with an ache and deciding the tooth has to be pulled because you cannot do fancy work in a trailer house when you serve 5,000 people. That is just life on the reservation with respect to the underfunding of Indian health care.

I have held two hearings recently on the subject of teen suicide on Indian reservations. I know it is sensitive. These are hearings you would prefer not to be having, to talk about a subject you would prefer not to talk about. But the fact is, we have young people--particularly in the Northern Great Plains--across this country, young teenagers on Indian reservations who are taking their own lives at the rate of two and a half to three times the national average and in the Northern Great Plains 10 times the national average. This is not about statistics. It is about a young person who decides to commit suicide.

I have spoken in the Senate previously, with the concurrence of the relatives of this young woman, about Avis Littlewind, the 14-year-old. About 9 months or a year ago, Avis Littlewind committed suicide. She had missed 90 days of school. She was lying in her bed, missing school, in a fetal position, with serious problems. Her sister committed suicide 2 years before. Her dad had taken his life 6 years before. Then Avis Littlewind got out of bed one day and went to the closet and they found her there. She had committed suicide. Most are doing it by hanging.

We have had a cluster of suicides on the Standing Rock Reservation in the last 5 months. I have spoken to the relatives of these young kids who have decided to take their lives. One of the things we discover when we talk to the psychologists. I went to the reservation where Avis Littlewind committed suicide. I talked to the school administrators, those involved in mental health, tribal officials, relatives, to try to understand how this happens, how does it happen that no one sends up a big warning flag to say, here is a kid in trouble, let's intervene somehow. What I learned there I have known previously, because I had a hearing one day on these issues some years ago and the young woman who was in charge of these children's issues testified. She had only worked there about 2 months at this reservation. She said, I have a stack of papers on my office floor of allegations of child abuse that have not even been investigated. A stack of papers, alleging child abuse in each of the folders, with no investigation. Then she said, I cannot even get a kid to a clinic someplace because I don't have a vehicle so I have to beg for somebody to give a ride to a kid to take them to a clinic, perhaps to see a mental health professional. As she began to describe the need to beg for a ride for a kid who is in trouble, she began to sob and she broke down and cried. She could not continue at this hearing. She quit a month later because she said it was hopeless.

My point is we know this is happening right now. Yes, in teen suicide; that is, mental health issues. It is the whole range of health care issues, including substance abuse, devastating substance abuse issues with very few in residential treatment beds to deal with it.

I will offer an amendment that says it is time for this country to address

these issues. We have trust responsibility for the health care for Indians. We have a responsibility for health care for people in Federal prisons. We spend twice as much per person on health care for Federal prisoners as we do to provide health care to American Indians--twice. Ask yourself, for a kid who felt hopeless and helpless, who decided to take her own life, shouldn't we face that and decide we have a commitment as a country to meet our trust obligations to provide adequate health care? I will offer an amendment regarding that. I probably will do it on Monday. My past experience is the Senate will turn it down because tax cuts for wealthy individuals are much more important than adequate health care funding for Indian children, for example.

You say, that is unfair. No, it is not unfair to say that. There is plenty of money around here to say those who get money from investments, ratchet their tax rates down, down, down, so we can remove the burden from people who make millions every year, and say, by the way, we don't have enough money left to address the issues of these kids.

I started this discussion by reading a letter from Loretta De Long, who is now a Ph.D., but who started in school being called a savage, who stuttered, who got into trouble, had a child at 17, moved to California and thought her life was hopeless, as well. Now she is a Ph.D. She is involved in Indian education. But her letter that I read describes hope. It describes hope and opportunity and what gave her hope and opportunity. Yes, that was tribal colleges and the family encouragement to be able to go to a tribal college.

My point is simple: We have a big bill here. We have done a lot of good work. In some cases we have come short of what I would like to do. In one area, especially, I am talking about the area in which we have a responsibility to deal with Indian health care, we are desperately short, have always been short. The administration never asks for enough--not just this administration, previous administrations, as well--and the Congress is never willing to give enough to provide adequate health care to Indians.

I hope, perhaps, we can have a broader debate as soon as we are into this bill and perhaps Monday morning I will be able to offer that amendment.

There is much to say about this legislation. My colleague described the EPA, the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, so many areas that are important. We have attempted to do the very best we can to provide adequate funding.

We are going to be asking for amendments to be offered today and on Monday with the understanding that all amendments will be offered by the end of the day Monday, after which we will dispose of those amendments and then hopefully complete this bill. When we do that, we can go to conference. This is part of that process, this march we should be making to complete our appropriations bills on time, have a conference with the House, reach an agreement, and get this funding for the next fiscal year done this way rather than present some big omnibus bill that in most cases is exactly the wrong way to legislate, where a few people go into a room and close the door and come out and announce to us, we have 800 pages and, by the way, we will vote in 15 minutes, and you do not have time to read it nor should you care what is in it.

That is the wrong way to legislate. Senator Cochran says he wants to do it the right way, one step at a time. This is one step. It is an important step because the agencies are important. I hope we can do it with the cooperation of all of our colleagues.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I have here a photograph of a soldier. He joined the Army National Guard as a combat medic and went to Iraq. His name is Carlos Lazo.

Carlos came to my office the other day. That is a picture of him in my office. Carlos is a wonderful soldier. In fact, let me put up another chart that shows you that Carlos won the Bronze Star in Iraq. In the description of the Bronze Star won by this remarkable soldier, it says:

SPC Lazo's courage, initiative, along with his calm, cool

composure was instrumental in saving numerous lives on the

battlefield and at the BAS all thru this operation.

They were talking about some very heavy fighting and mortar rounds and bombs exploding very close to where Sergeant Lazo was busy saving lives. They described the work Mr. Lazo did, this courageous soldier. It was quite extraordinary.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the Bronze Star citation printed in the Record.

I show you the Bronze Star citation, which was from last November, just in order to tell you that this is an extraordinary person.

So Carlos Lazo came to see me on Wednesday of this week. Do you know why he came to my office? Because he wants to see his kids, and our Government will not let him see his kids. No, this is not about a child custody fight. His kids are in Cuba. And one of them has been in the hospital with a high fever.

We have decided in this country to punish Fidel Castro by slapping around the American people and injuring their rights to travel. This President has said that people like Carlos Lazo cannot go to Cuba to see his kids. He cannot visit his kids. It is unbelievable to me.

I have been on this floor before talking about the restriction of travel to Cuba. We have people in the Treasury Department who are investigating Americans because they are under suspicion of taking a vacation to Cuba. It is unbelievable.

I have brought a picture to the floor of the Senate of Joni Scott. Do you know what Joni Scott did? She went to Cuba to pass out free Bibles. Well, guess what her Government did. Guess what the U.S. Government did. They tracked her down and slapped her with a big fine because she was passing out free Bibles in Cuba. A wonderful young woman, filled with spirit and faith, wanting to provide free Bibles on the streets of Cuba, and this Government tracks her down to fine her.

I have shown a picture of Joan Slote, a 75-year-old grandmother who is a cyclist who joined a Canadian cycling group to ride bicycles in Cuba. And guess what they did. While her son was dying of brain cancer, they tracked Joan Slote down, and they threatened to attach her Social Security payments because they were trying to slap a big fine on her because she rode a bicycle in Cuba. She did not know you had to have a license to go to Cuba. She just joined a Canadian group. But, boy, did they track her down. They tracked down Joni Scott and tried to slap a fine on her for distributing free Bibles.

They tracked down a guy in Seattle whose dad died. His dad's last wish was that his ashes should be distributed on the grounds of the church he served as a pastor in Cuba. So he takes his dad's ashes in a can to Cuba, and they track him down and slap a fine on him. It is unbelievable.

Now, this young solder, Carlos Lazo, who earned a Bronze Star in November for bravery on the battlefield. He came from Cuba, by the way. He escaped Cuba. He fled in 1992. He was part of a group that fled Cuba. Regrettably, the rest of his family was not able to get out. So he has two sons left behind. He has been in contact with his children. He has been able to go back from time to time and visit them a number of times under the rules that allowed that kind of family visit.

Then, last year, the President decided we are going to tighten all that up. We are shutting all that down. So now Mr. Lazo, someone who has performed heroic service for this country in America's uniform, is now told: Yes, your son has been in a hospital. Yes, he has a high fever. But he is in Cuba, so you cannot travel to see him.

This Government will not allow this soldier to see his children. Why? Is it about him? No, it is not about him.

Fidel Castro has poked his finger in this country's eye for a long time, so our country, this Government, this President, wants to injure the rights of the American people to travel in a way to punish Fidel Castro.

It does not punish Fidel Castro. He has been in office through 10 Presidencies. All that does is punish the American people: Joni Scott; Joan Slote; and, yes, now Carlos Lazo. Carlos has asked me, ``Is there any way you could help me?'' because he has heard me on the floor of the Senate talking time and time again about the absurdity of this policy.

Let me just say, I don't have any desire to see Fidel Castro remain in power. The quicker he is gone, the better. But that will happen, in my judgment, through engagement through trade and travel, just as we preach that it will in China and Vietnam--both Communist countries. We have, instead, given Castro his best excuse. He says to the Cuban people, with a sense of nationalism: Of course our economy is in deep trouble because that 500-pound gorilla up north has its fist around our neck.

It seems to me, after 40 years, when a policy does not work, you change the policy. Yet in this case, after 40 years, when a policy does not work, we have decided to further injure the rights of the American people. I hear all this talk about freedom and liberty. Where is the freedom for this young soldier, who has earned a Bronze Star just months ago? Where is the freedom of this young soldier to see his son, to get on a plane and travel to Cuba?

I am asking the State Department and the President to make the right decision here. What on Earth can they be thinking of, deciding Sergeant Lazo should not see his sick child? When America called, he went to the battlefield. He risked his life. He did his work among bombs and grenades and mortars that were falling all around him--sufficient so he received the Bronze Star--and now he is told he cannot see his kids?

He asks me, What on Earth is happening? Where is the freedom here?

Now, I know speaking on the floor about this upsets the people in the State Department, who have to follow the dictions of the White House. It upsets the people in Treasury, OFAC, the Office of Foreign Assets Control. Incidentally, my colleagues should know there are far more people in the Office of Foreign Assets Control--which is an organization designed to track the money to shut down the funding for Osama bin Laden and terrorists--there are far more people in OFAC right now working on tracking down Americans suspected of taking a vacation in Cuba than there are tracking the money for Osama bin Laden. That is shameful, but it is the truth. It has been put in the Congressional Record.

My colleague, Senator Baucus, got that information, and so did I. I have asked the Treasury Secretary--I asked the former Treasury Secretary, Secretary O'Neill. I said at a hearing: Look, wouldn't you sooner use that money to track terrorists as opposed to trying to track people who are vacationing in Cuba? He did not want to answer. I asked him several times. Finally, he said: Mr. Senator, of course I would sooner do that. The White House had a press release out instantly vilifying the Treasury Secretary for doing that.

This is an obsession with this administration. This has nothing to do with good policy. I am not talking this morning about selling wheat to Cuba. An odd couple--myself and then-Senator John Ashcroft--which is really an odd couple because we are philosophically very different--we are the ones who offered the amendment on the floor of the Senate that finally--finally--after 40 years, opened, just a crack, the ability to sell food into Cuba.

We should never have used food as a weapon. Food and medicine was used as a weapon, which I think is fundamentally immoral. Telling our farmers, ``You can't sell food to Cuba'' meant nothing to Fidel Castro. He never missed a meal. Do you think he missed breakfast, dinner, or lunch in 40 years?

Of course he didn't. It just hurt American farmers and hurt sick, poor, and hungry Cubans.

So for the first time in 42 years, one day not long ago 22 train carloads full of dried peas left an elevator in North Dakota and ended up in Cuba, paid for by cash. The administration opposed that as well.

Now they have taken further action. Nearly $1 billion has been sold in agricultural commodities by our farmers to the Cubans, and now this administration has decided to tighten that down to try to shut it down.

I have more to say about that, and I will speak more about it at another time. It is about farming and it is about agriculture and using food as a weapon, which is fundamentally immoral. This country is above that.

But today, this is about this man. It is not about a big policy. It is about this man. Can this man see his kids? Can Carlos Lazo--who fought for this country in Iraq, who risked his life in Iraq, who earned a Bronze Star and was celebrated and honored by his country-- will he be allowed by his country to go see his kids?

It is unbelievable. Every time I hear another chapter of this book of absurdity coming from this administration with respect to their obsession about Cuba, I wonder, Where does it stop? The reason I have taken the floor this morning is because this young soldier came to see me the other day and said: Can you help? If logic does not help maybe-- maybe--embarrassment will.

Perhaps the administration will be sufficiently embarrassed. They were not embarrassed enough to stop trying to find a young woman who was distributing free Bibles in Cuba. Perhaps they will be embarrassed by trying to prevent this young man from seeing his children--a young man this administration certainly would honor as someone who has done heroic things for his country.

I am going to call the State Department today. I am going to call the White House today. I am going to call the Treasury Department today. They will all have the letter I sent. My hope is, they will finally find a way to say yes, it is the right decision, it is the right thing for this country to do.

I am here talking about Carlos Lazo, but ultimately this issue is not just about Carlos. I hope I can solve this for Carlos. But it is about the broader issue of the administration deciding we are going to injure Fidel Castro by restricting the right of the American people to travel.

It makes no sense at all. My hope is there may be a few other Members of the Senate who would be willing to speak out about this absurdity. I hope there are a few who are as offended as I am and will decide to again do the right thing.

I will report to my colleagues later today about the response of the State Department, the White House, and the Treasury Department to see whether they will honor this young soldier, not just by his Bronze medal for heroism on the battlefield but by allowing him to exercise the freedom any American ought to have to see his child.

I yield the floor.

I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question.

First of all, the chart the Senator uses about deficits and accumulated debt, he describes something that is very real, that is a threat to this country's long-term economic future. There is no question about that. I have spoken about it with respect to both the fiscal policy of this country and our trade policy. Our trade policy has created the largest debt in the history of the country by far. I wanted to mention that the House of Representatives approved legislation for another $45 billion in an emergency supplemental. That comes on the heels of the $81 billion we approved. The Senate is going to approve the requested emergency supplemental because we are going to restore the funds that the Pentagon says they need to prosecute the war in Iraq.

But it is interesting, for the $81 billion that we just passed, $45 billion which now comes on the heels of that, not a penny of it is paid for. The administration keeps saying--and these are big numbers--we have to pay for that which we are doing, and we need to restore these accounts to the U.S. Army. All of us say, yes, we not going to send soldiers to do a job and not provide the funds necessary. But I ask the Senator: Does he agree with me that it is bizarre, to say the least, to send the soldiers to Iraq and then say: By the way, when we pay for all this, let's not ask anybody to pay taxes to do it. Let's just have these soldiers pay the debt when they come back.

It is unbelievable. There are spending cuts the Senator likely will propose that are meritorious. I think he has pointed out at the start of his presentation correctly, this appropriations bill cuts one-half of a billion dollars below the previous year's expenditure. But the big issue around here is the massive amount of money being requested on an emergency basis so that it doesn't have to be paid for and it adds to the Federal debt. And then the soldiers can come home and help pay that. I believe that is unfair. I ask the Senator from Oklahoma to respond, from his perspective, about that.

Will the Senator yield?

First, I appreciate his generosity in yielding. It would be interesting for us to have a discussion at some point about the economy and fiscal policy. I think we are wildly off track. Maybe the Senator from Oklahoma and I agree on that point. I will make a couple of observations, if I might. No. 1, the Senator suggested that we have never paid down the debt. In the late 1990s, we had a fiscal policy that generated revenue by which we began to reduce the debt.

If the Senator will yield further.

Of course, the issue of whether our fiscal policy is different now than then is not at odds or not in question. At that point, I know the Federal Reserve Board and others, including the President, all talked about debt held by the public versus total debt. In fact, our fiscal policy at that point was dramatically different than it is now. We were headed in the right direction.

Let me make this point. It is, in my judgment, a service to the Congress for someone to look at every appropriations bill and say, where can we trim? Where can we get into a position of not spending money we should not be spending? That is a service to the Congress. I think it is important to understand that we cannot look at the mouse in the corner when a lion is at the door. We cut a half billion dollars out of this subcommittee from last year's spending. So those are real cuts. We could do that for 90 years, every single year, and at that point we will just meet the $45 billion that is coming our way in an emergency supplemental, none of which is paid for.

Do you understand what I am saying? This would be over $200 billion now sent to us by the administration, saying we have to increase these expenditures and we ask you to do it, Congress, but we are not going to pay for it. We will add it to the debt.

In addition to that, the highest priority, of course, is to eliminate a tax that doesn't exist--the death tax, the tax on inherited wealth, making the tax cuts permanent, which would benefit upper-income folks. Let's trim everything, but let's especially--and I will work with the Senator from Oklahoma on this--worry about the big ones. The big one that is coming--and I voted with the Senator on the embassy amendment-- is the $45 billion. It is headed our way; it is a big deal. Should we be paying for that? Should the President suggest--as most have whenever we have been at war--that perhaps all of America, not just the soldiers, has some responsibility to contribute? But not under this circumstance. This President says no, no, give me an emergency designation so we can spend it and it doesn't count. It counts on the chart of the Senator from Oklahoma. It counts in terms of lost opportunity for our children and grandchildren.

This burden doesn't belong just to one political party. I agree. I am saying that, in my judgment, we are off track. This fiscal policy doesn't add up. And what is being requested of us by the President is to have all our soldiers sacrifice but none of us sacrifice.

Mr. President, I was thinking of asking unanimous consent so that each time I take the floor it would be assumed that I frame my comments preceded by ``don't you agree'' to satisfy the quaint rules of the Senate with respect to asking a question. I will refrain from that and when asking my colleague to yield the next time, I will say ``don't you agree'' before I give my speech.

My colleague does a service. I don't disagree with him. I think we ought to be tightfisted; we spend money on things we should not spend money on. We are getting huge blocks of funding requests coming in our direction by the administration calling it ``emergency funding.'' We have had almost $200 billion worth, and another $45 billion is coming now. They say, don't pay for it, don't worry about it. We will declare it an emergency and we won't count it.

Yes.

Absolutely. No question about that. And the control of Congress is of the same political party as the White House, and there is no interest in having a discussion about whether we should pay for that which we are spending in Iraq. The administration decided we are going to simply declare it an emergency, add it to the national debt, and let somebody else pay for it.

That doesn't happen in most wars. Usually, the leadership says here is why we have to spend this, and it is a national purpose. But we are going to ask the soldiers to represent the country and let's find a way to do it.

I will make this point. The Senator says we have some mutual responses. No question. On one of the early tranches of appropriations to replenish these accounts, there was a vote on the floor of the Senate to pay for some of it. But the Congress, as he knows, is not of a mind to do that, when the President says he doesn't want to. You can dramatically cut spending or increase some revenue. It would be interesting to see if the administration would be interested in sitting down with the Congress to talk about whether we even should pay for it because the administration thinks we should. It would be interesting if we had a sit-down discussion about how to pay for it.

I happen to think that would be useful for the country. I would like us to do that. I think this country has a fiscal policy that is dramatically off track. I don't diminish the tax side as much as my friend does. About two-thirds of the current deficit comes from reduced revenue. We are at a lower revenue of GDP than we have been for a long time. Most of that came from the tax cut, and most of it didn't benefit people that I represent, by the way. Making the rich richer doesn't benefit everybody. The President says extend all of the tax cuts, which is a substantial amount of money and lost resources, and let's repeal the death tax, which doesn't exist.

We should have a long discussion. I think our country deserves a fiscal policy grounded in fact and good thought about the future. My colleague from Oklahoma does a service by coming to the floor to talk about those red lines on that chart. I feel strongly about them, not just in fiscal policy but also trade policy. I hope at some point all of us could decide this is a crisis. There is an urgency here and we should work together on that basis.

If my colleague wishes me to yield further, I am happy to do that.

The Grace Commission has long since been discredited. I will not go into the recommendations, some of which were adopted but many of which were absurd. That is a 20-year-old debate. Let's assume for the moment there was no increase in spending of any type. That would represent a huge problem for the poorest of the poor who get medical care from Medicaid.

As you know, health care costs are rising dramatically, not having to do with much that is happening in this Chamber. Nonetheless, there is substantial increase in health care costs every year. If you said to the poorest of the poor, everybody else is going to get health care, but we are going to freeze health care funding for you, I am sorry, they would be in big trouble.

We also have more people every month becoming eligible for Medicare. The fact is, we have a rising Medicare population. Every single month more and more people hit the Medicare rolls. With increased medical costs and more people being eligible, does Medicare cost more? Of course, it does. People are living longer, better lives.

I have spoken at great length on the floor of the Senate about my Uncle Harold. My Uncle Harold is 84 years old now, and he is a runner. He has 43 Gold Medals. He is a 400-meter specialist in the Senior Olympics. My aunt thinks he is half goofy. He is always off running road races. He runs the 400-meter and runs faster than anybody his age.

It used to be when you reached 80, you found a Lazy Boy and you just sat in the house until you died. You were old and you had a right to act old. Now people are living longer, active lives.

That puts a strain on Medicare. More people are living longer, so they hit the Medicare rolls. Health care costs are up very substantially, double digits in many cases. So we bear the burden of that on the spending side.

If we were to decide tomorrow we are not going to spend a penny above last year, all you say to poor people on Medicaid is: Sorry, you are out of luck. You are going to have less health care.

My colleague from Colorado is a very interesting Senator. We do not know each other very well. He just arrived in the Senate in January. I am looking forward to getting to know him. I am sure I will.

I hope we can have further discussions about the economy. I do not dismiss quite as quickly, as I think my colleague was trying to do, the fact that when you decide to have large tax cuts mostly to benefit the wealthiest of the wealthy in this country that you have an enormous consequence on the revenue side that therefore causes a substantial amount of that red bar on that chart, and one-half to two-thirds, at the moment, of the current deficit is because of less revenue because of the tax cuts. I know the minute I started talking about maybe we should pay for the cost of the war, my colleague segued immediately into we want to raise taxes.

I am looking to see a fiscal policy that meets the needs of this country.

That is a combination of things that are thoughtful and interesting that puts us right on track so we can have a future that expands opportunity for our children rather than contracts opportunity for our children.

I will be happy to yield one more time. I see my colleague would like for me to yield.

Mr. President, let me make a final comment. I know we have a couple colleagues who want to speak. Frankly, we Senators are not much of an audience. We much prefer listening to ourselves than others, and we are probably boring them to tears.

Discretionary spending is very interesting. As the Senator knows, what comes from the Appropriations Committee to the floor of the Senate is the discretionary spending side. Much of the spending is mandatory. The Senator from Oklahoma is correct that health care is mandatory spending. We could virtually eliminate the entire discretionary spending side and probably still not put this back on track.

The Senator made a point that I want to emphasize. It is a point on which we agree. All these people walk around saying this is what the deficit is. That is not what the deficit is. My colleague, Fritz Hollings, who used to sit right behind me, talked about this forever. For him it was a religion. The number they publish as to the Federal budget deficit is total nonsense. That is not what the deficit is. It is much higher than that because they are raiding all the trust funds to get to that point.

We will have a longer discussion. I enjoyed this one. This is an important issue. There are some issues that are small and unimportant, some big, and often the Senate treats the serious issues too lightly and the light issues too seriously. In this case, this is a big issue and will affect this country for decades to come. We ought to have more discussions, both on and off the floor, about how we put America back on track.

Mr. President, I wish to make one final point. This morning's New York Times said IBM is cutting their hiring here to hire over there. Get rid of American workers, hire workers in India. The first step--not the second, third, or fourth step--the first step toward sanity would be for everyone in this Chamber to vote the next time I have an amendment on the floor--I have done it twice and lost twice--that says the first step we ought to do is to decide to stop having tax breaks for those who move their American jobs overseas. Stop the American public from having to pay for this nonsense.

We are providing tax cuts to companies that fire their American workers and move them to Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, China, or, in this case, India. That is absurd.

I am going to offer that amendment again for a third time, and perhaps I will have enough support so we can take the first baby step toward sanity in dealing with job loss in this country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I don't know of any amendment also intended to be offered today. I do know we have had some colleagues talking to us about amendments they wish to offer on Monday, but at least on this side, I know of no amendments to be offered for the remainder of the day. My understanding about the amendment the Senator has just laid down on behalf of Senator Voinovich is we are not going to dispose of that amendment at this point. We have some issues we need to discuss. We will begin to think about action on that on Monday; is that right?

I ask unanimous consent to speak for as long as I continue.

I will not speak for a lengthy time, but I wanted to thank my colleague from Montana as he leaves. He will be back on Monday as we take up this bill again, and I look forward continuing to work with him. We put together a pretty decent bill.

As I indicated previously, this bill actually cuts by $\1/2\ billion, slightly more, spending over the previous year. So it has been a chore to get this done because of the substantial cuts. But the Senator from Montana has been good to work with.

Mr. President, I do wish to mention two issues before we complete today. I talked a few moments ago about a soldier who is trying to see his sick children in Cuba. I put in a call to Secretary Snow to see if we can't make that happen. I will not go through all of that again. But, again, it is unbelievable to me that we are penalizing this soldier, who has earned a Bronze Star and is an American citizen who wants to see his sick child in

Cuba, and penalizing him because we are upset with Fidel Castro.

Mr. President, I want to make a comment today about actions taken yesterday by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I have spoken about this on the floor of the Senate previously. Let me describe just a bit of the history here.

I read some while ago that Mr. Kenneth Tomlinson, who is the Chairman of the Board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting--again, Chairman of the Board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, was making the case publicly that public broadcasting has a liberal bias. He was relentlessly making the case that public broadcasting has a liberal bias--public television, public radio, and so on. Maybe he thinks Big Bird is a Republican--or a Democrat. Maybe he thinks the Cookie Monster goes to precinct meetings someplace for some political party or other. I have no idea what he thinks. Frankly, he was concerned about Bill Moyers, who was doing a program called ``NOW.'' He was sufficiently concerned about that, having made allegations that there is a liberal bias in the public television, that he hired a consultant to do an evaluation of the program that Bill Moyers does.

This consultant was paid for with public funds. So I wrote Mr. Tomlinson and I said: You believe there is a liberal bias here with public broadcasting. You have paid taxpayers' monies to have a consultant--who himself, by the way, is a partisan--a consultant to evaluate a specific set of programming. I would like the results of that.

So he sent me the raw data, which is about I think maybe 70 pages. It is a rather large stack of raw data--no summary. So I called him back and said: I really want the summary. There wasn't a summary, he said. He said he is making a summary, preparing a summary. He said he would have it to me, I think, a week ago now. And I have not yet received the summary, but the raw data was interesting. At least in portions, this program was evaluated, by a particular consultant who himself was a partisan, as is Mr. Tomlinson, the raw data was evaluating segments in public television, particularly in the NOW program, on whether they were anti-Bush or pro-Bush. Anti-Bush, anti-Bush, anti-Bush. Apparently the lens or prism through which they are evaluating public broadcasting was: Do they support the President or not?

One was interesting. For example, in one case, it was labeled ``antidefense'' because it was a program about waste in the Pentagon. My colleague from Oklahoma talked about waste a little earlier. He said there is a lot of waste in the Pentagon. If you talk about waste in the Pentagon, you, apparently, are ``antidefense.'' Unbelievable.

I mentioned previously, my colleague, Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska, a red-blooded American patriot who served this country, a Republican conservative, by all accounts, who serves in the Senate, someone with whom I am proud to serve, was on one of the programs. He apparently said something that was at odds with the President's policy, so he was labeled a ``liberal.'' Yes, my friend, Chuck Hagel, conservative Republican Senator from Nebraska, is labeled liberal because he was on public broadcasting and said something at odds with the policy of the Bush administration. Unbelievable.

Anti-Bush, anti-Bush, liberal, antidefense. What an unbelievable thing to have done to hire a partisan consultant to evaluate for a liberal bias in public broadcasting.

Is Big Bird a Democrat? What a weighted question.

So Mr. Tomlinson, Chairman of the Board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, was not only embarking on this effort to prove an allegation he had been making--that is, there is a liberal bias in public broadcasting--but also working to put in a new president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

So who does Mr. Tomlinson want as the head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? The former Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee. Yes, that is right.

You say, well, that cannot be.

Of course, that is exactly right. In fact, that person was just hired in a split vote by the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It is unbelievable.

The Chairman spends his time alleging the organization he heads has a liberal bias, hires a partisan to try to prove it, to put together work papers that come from evaluating programming, and then embarks on an effort to decide there should be a former Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee to run the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

I don't know, maybe it is hard to take a level look when you are a partisan. But public television has a program that deals with the Wall Street Journal editorial board. No one would suggest the Wall Street Journal editorial pages are anything other than solid, hard-rock Republican. No question about that. They don't pretend. There is no veil over their secrecy about their politics. That is what they are.

They have a program on public broadcasting with Tucker Carlson. I don't know Tucker Carlson. I don't know Tucker Carlson from a block of wood. He wears a bow tie. He is a conservative Republican, and so they hire him to do a program. I think he has just left. It is not as if public broadcasting has not had conservative voices. They are just upset with the ``NOW'' program by Bill Moyers. Why are they upset with Bill Moyers? Let me give one example.

Public broadcasting tackles subjects others will not tackle. One subject is the concentration of media ownership in this country. What has happened with the radio and television industry is it has been gobbled up into huge packages. One company owns 1,200 radio stations. The Federal Communications Commission, under pressure from the broadcast industry, was going to change the rules on ownership, and they did. Pressure from the publishers, pressure from the television, pressure from the radio industry. The Federal Communications Commission did the most complete cave-in to corporate interests I have ever seen in my life. They have new ownership rules that say, totus porcus, you can own everything. Here is what they said in the rules: In the largest city in this country, or in the largest cities, it is okay for one company to own eight radio stations, three television stations, the dominant newspaper, and the cable company. That is all fine. That is nirvana.

That is absolutely nuts. Yet that was the rule the FCC came up with. Majority party, representing the interests of the President, says this is what we are doing. We will allow more concentration in broadcasting so that four, five, or six people will largely control what the American people see, hear, and read.

Guess what. A Federal appeals court decided they were going to stay those rules. Three-quarters of a million people wrote to the FCC saying, do not do this. It was the largest outpouring of letters I can recall. The FCC did it anyway, caved in to the corporate interests, and the Federal court stayed the rules, it went up to the Supreme Court, the stay was not lifted and it is back to the FCC to do over. We will see whether they cave in, once again, or whether the public interest might prevail.

My point of telling that story is this: Bill Moyers did stories on this issue about the concentration in the broadcasting industry. Do you think anybody else was interested in doing big stories about this? Do you think CBS would do a story about that? Or FOX? Or ABC? Or NBC? Not on your life, because they are the beneficiaries of those policies. They want to be bigger. They want more. They think it is fine if you live in one city, that one company will call the tune on information. One company will own eight radio stations, three television stations, the newspaper, and the cable company. They think that is fine.

You are not going to see stories as you peruse the television dial about this subject from the major companies. They will not do it. Guess who did it. Bill Moyers, on a program called ``NOW.'' Did that upset some people? I suppose, sure. They do not like that. But the fact is, public broadcasting has been independent. It was created as the independent source of news, oblivious and impervious to the pressures and partisan wins.

So the ``NOW'' program does a couple of programs on concentration of broadcasting and they collect a firestorm of

protests by the big economic interests and by those who support the President's policies on this.

Let them all merge. They say, well, all these mergers do not matter. You have all these television channels these days, you have more opportunities. What you have are more voices coming from one ventriloquist. Add up where all the channels are owned and where they come from. It is exactly the same concentration.

There are investigations going on at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Mr. Tomlinson was named Chairman by the President, September 2003. He spends his time telling us there is a liberal bias in public broadcasting so he hired a consultant to track the political leanings of certain programming. He hired a conservative partisan to do that. Paid for it with taxpayers' money. That is now being evaluated by the Inspector General. He did not tell the Board of Directors about this expenditure. He, in a letter to me, said, maybe I didn't tell the Board of Directors but that is because the President of CPB signed the contract.

That is not accurate. He signed the contract several months before the President that he alleged signed it had actually become President at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Now they have appointed a new President at the urging of Mr. Tomlinson, a partisan former Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee. Some of the members of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting have alleged to me personally that the process by which that was done was a stilted process, not a fair and open process. I am going to ask the Inspector General to include that in his investigation as well.

I did not join all those in the Senate last week who signed a letter to suggest Mr. Tomlinson should resign. I was not one of those who signed it. But I now think he should. I think orchestrating the hiring of a partisan former Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee to run the Corporation for Public Broadcasting after he has made a mini- career here out of alleging there is a liberal bias, to suggest he should be the point of the spear to move it in a direction that clearly is partisan is unfortunate, in my judgment, and will do dramatic injury to public broadcasting.

My hope is public broadcasting will recover from these missteps. Public broadcasting has done a wonderful service in our country. I kidded about Big Bird. Big Bird is not a partisan. When American children watch ``Sesame Street'' and see wonderful programming--which, by the way, they took care of that program and it does not exist on commercial television--most Americans in the polls I have seen believe public broadcasting does a real service.

I don't think there is a better newscast than PBS, Jim Lehrer. I think he is incredibly good. You get it straight. You do not get it in 8-second sound bites as is the case with the network news. You get a discussion by both sides, in depth, about issues that matter to this country. Those who are deciding to take it upon themselves to try to do injury to public broadcasting did no service to this country.

I know there is a network of radio and broadcast opportunities out there for largely one voice, the conservative voice, that is relentless, every day, all over the dial. The fairness doctrine is gone so they can do that. There does not have to be balance on commercial stations. There used to be. It does not have to be anymore because under President Reagan the fairness doctrine was obliterated.

I know they do not like this message about the push-back on public broadcasting. In my judgment, when I see someone doing injury to public broadcasting, I think it is important to speak out. I think Mr. Tomlinson is doing injury to something that is very important to our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for part of this week and want to indicate how I would have voted if I had been present.

If present, I would have voted in the following ways: ``no'' on the Nelson (FL) amendment, rollcall vote No. 143; ``yes'' on the Hagel amendment, roll call vote No. 144; ``yes'' on the Voinovich amendment, rollcall vote No. 145; ``no'' on the McCain-Lieberman amendment, rollcall vote No. 148; ``yes'' on the motion to table the Bingaman amendment, rollcall No. 149; ``no'' on the Alexander amendment, rollcall vote No. 150; ``yes'' on the Kerry amendment, rollcall vote No. 151; ``yes'' to invoke cloture on the energy bill; rollcall vote No. 152; and ``yes'' to waive the budget point of order on the Domenici-Landrieu amendment, rollcall No. 153.

Mr. President, I will be necessarily absent from the business of the Senate for a portion of today in order to attend the high school graduation ceremonies for my son. I will also necessarily be absent from the Senate beginning tomorrow afternoon and continuing into late afternoon Thursday, in order to join my colleagues from North Dakota and Minnesota to attend the hearings of the base- closing commission that are being held in Grand Forks, ND. I have notified the leadership of these expected absences.