Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have an amendment I wish to offer. I will not do it at this point because in order to offer the amendment, I have to ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be set aside. I will describe at least what I am intending to offer. I am going to speak for a couple of minutes because there will be time later to consider this amendment.

This amendment does not deal directly with the underlying legislation. It certainly deals with consumers and this bill deals with consumers. I first applaud my colleague from Arkansas for the work he has done on the bill. I have a couple of amendments to the bill that I will offer as we move along. But this amendment that I wish to offer deals with something else that is urgent and important, and either I get it done on this bill or the next authorization bill that comes along.

The price of oil is somewhere around $103 a barrel at this point. It is bouncing around up in that stratosphere, and the price of gasoline, depending on where one lives, is $3, $3.25, $3.50, some analysts say going to $4 a gallon. Even as the price of oil has ratcheted way up, this Government of ours and the Department of Energy is taking oil from the Gulf of Mexico by awarding royalty-in-kind contracts to companies

with to the Federal Government. Instead of putting this oil into the supply pipeline by allowing companies to simply sell it, our Government is actually putting oil underground in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

I support the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but I do not support filling it when oil is $103 per barrel. Putting 60,000 to 70,000 barrels per day, every single day, underground makes no sense at all. That puts upward pressure on gas prices. The EIA Administrator estimated this morning at an Energy and Natural Resources hearing that the Government's action is raising prices about a nickel a gallon. The fact is, I believe it is more than that.

In any event, I do not think we ought to be taking oil out of the supply pipeline as a deliberate policy of the Federal Government and sticking it underground in these caverns. That makes no sense to me.

This issue came up in the hearing this morning. We have had hearings previously on this topic. I have indicated I intend to offer legislation. My legislation would do two things. It would say, at least for the next year: Let's take a pause on sticking oil underground and taking it out of the supply. Let's take a pause as long as oil is above $75 a barrel. When oil is above $75 a barrel, let's at least, for the next year, not be taking it out of the supply and sticking it underground.

Here is what is happening. On this chart, these are places that our Federal Government is now putting oil underground--Bayou Choctaw, West Hackberry, Big Hill, and Bryan Mound. We are getting oil from the Gulf of Mexico and putting it underground in these salt domes.

The price of oil is subject to a lot of things including excess speculation these days which I have described on the floor of the Senate previously. We had a hearing on this topic. Here are comments from Fadel Gheit, a top analyst from the Oppenheimer & company. He says: There is absolutely no shortage of oil. I'm absolutely convinced that oil prices shouldn't be a dime above $55 a barrel. Oil speculators include the largest financial institutions in the world are speculating on the future's market for oil. I call it the world's largest gambling hall.

He is talking about the futures market on which these prices are made.

I call it the world's largest gambling hall. . . . It's

open 24/7. Unfortunately, it's totally unregulated. . . .This

is like a highway with no cops and no speed limit and

everybody is going 120 miles an hour.

We have hedge funds that are speculating every day in a significant way in the oil futures market. We have investment banks that are speculating in the oil futures market. In fact, we now read that investment banks are actually buying storage facilities so they can take oil off the market, put it in storage, and wait until the price goes up. We have not had that before. This is not about a supply-and- demand relationship of oil. It is about speculators who are driving up the price of oil and a futures oil market that is rampant with speculation.

Even as that is occurring and we see oil bouncing at $103 a barrel, we have a policy in the Federal Government to take oil from the Gulf of Mexico and stick it underground. That makes no sense to me at all. What we ought to be doing is, the royalty-in-kind oil we get from those wells that belongs to the people of the United States that comes to our Government ought to go into the marketplace to be sold, to be part of the supply system. The Federal Government gets the money for it because it was the Federal Government's payment for that oil as part of the royalty. The oil goes into the supply pipeline and, as a result of that, we put downward pressure on gas prices.

Instead, as a matter of deliberate policy, our Government has decided to stick it underground in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is now about 60,000 to 70,000 barrels a day, and it is going to increase to 125,000 barrels a day in the second half of this year. It is oblivious to all common sense to be putting upward pressure on gas prices as a deliberate policy of the Federal Government. It makes no sense.

As I indicated, my amendment would very simply say: Let's take a pause; let's use a deep reservoir of common sense, take a pause during this year, during a 1-year period, that if the price of oil remains above $75 a barrel, we ought not put that oil underground.

The average price, by the way, in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve of oil that has been stored is about $27 a barrel. Why on Earth would you buy oil at $103 a barrel, put upward pressure on gas prices, and stick that expensive oil underground? It makes no sense.

I indicated that I do not intend to speak at length about this amendment. I have spoken about this before and will later. I see Senator Barrasso from Wyoming is on the floor. He was part of the hearing in the Energy Committee this morning. He and I talked about this subject. He and I have some of the same concerns. I visited with him, perhaps, about cosponsoring this amendment at some point.

With that, I don't know whether we have been able to clear offering this amendment. I understand not at this point. In order for me to offer an amendment--in order for anybody to offer any amendment I have to ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside. So if I were to offer that, I understand that has not yet been cleared. My hope is we will be able to clear it so I will be able to offer this amendment later this afternoon.

Mr. President, I have spoken with the manager of the bill and I will withhold asking unanimous consent to offer this amendment that I apparently cannot yet get. However, I would like to come back later this afternoon and hopefully we can clear my offering this amendment.

I understand my colleague from Wyoming is seeking recognition. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, March 6, at 10 a.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct an oversight hearing on the state of facilities in Indian Country-- jails, schools, and health facilities.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I wish to follow on the comments offered by Senator Reed of Rhode Island. This issue of the subprime mortgage scandal is a big one. It is affecting not just people who are losing their homes this week or next month; it is affecting all home values everywhere. We had this unbelievable bubble exist with respect to home values, but the collapse has been precipitous and has hurt a lot of people. It is a circumstance where people have discovered the mortgage interest rate they had not understood fully has been reset, they now have mortgage payments they can't possibly make, and they are discovering their home is gone. There is foreclosure on the mortgage.

I wished to talk a little about what has caused all of this. This has been a trail of greed. When you look at the wreckage of this scandal, you see two trails--a trail of greed and a trail of tears. A trail of greed by some mortgage brokers, not all, some mortgage banks, not all, a good many hedge funds, not all, and speculators. They were all making a lot of money. This was great while the party continued. Then all of a sudden it was discovered that none of this made much sense.

Let me describe what was happening and why it didn't make sense. Zoom Credit. You get up in the morning, brush your teeth and shave and you have a television set there and watch television in the morning and see the advertisements. Here is one, a company called Zoom Credit:

Credit approval is just seconds away. Get on the fast track

at Zoom Credit.

At the speed of light, they will approve you for a car loan, a home loan, and a credit card. Even if your credit is in the tank, Zoom Credit is like money in the bank. It doesn't matter if you are not creditworthy. Come to us, we want to give you a loan.

Millenia Mortgage Corporation:

Twelve months, no mortgage payment. That's right. We will

give you the money to make your first 12 months. And if you

call in the next 7 days, we pay it for you. Our loan program

may reduce your current monthly payment by as much as 50

percent and allow you no payments for the first 12 months.

What they are not saying is that is all reset at the back end of the loan, which means the homeowner will pay a lot more for that mortgage.

Countrywide is the biggest mortgage company. By the way, Mr. Mozilo, man of the year, was honored by everybody, made a lot of money, made a big old mortgage company bigger. Here is what they say:

Do you have less than perfect credit? Do you have late

mortgage payments? Have you been denied by other lenders?

Then call us.

That is the kind of business they are soliciting.

Mr. Mozilo did real well, $142 million or so for himself. They all did well. Here is what they did. They put these mortgages out and in some cases they cold called people on the phone. People were in an existing home with an existing mortgage. They said: What are you paying for your mortgage payment? We have a new instrument we wanted to put you in at a 2-percent interest rate. Don't tell them there is an escrow payment, just tell them what the 2 percent payment will be. And don't tell them that 2 percent is going to reset, or quintuple in a couple years and they will not be able to pay it. We want to put you in a new mortgage.

So a whole lot of unsuspecting folks went into these new mortgages. It all seemed too good to be true, and it was. But in the meantime, everybody was making money. There is the old story about in the old days when they were making sausage, they would take meat and sawdust and pack them together in the sausage, packing sawdust into sausage. That is what they did. They put out these subprime loans and the subprime loans were kind of attractive because, even as they were putting people into these new instruments, the brokers were making a fortune. I read that if they could make a $1 million jumbo subprime, they could get as much as a $25,000 payment up front for the broker. That is the broker's fee. So then the mortgage company now has a mortgage that is going to reset at a very high interest rate, and so then they package this up. They slice it and dice it with other mortgages. They package it up similar to sausage. And when they cut it up, they call it securitizing it and they start selling it. They can portray a much higher yield for this piece of sausage because they have these subprime mortgages in there, but nobody knows exactly how much is subprime and how much is real.

Then they sell it to the hedge funds. The hedge fund thinks this is great. They are not making hundreds of millions of dollars. The top guys are making more than $1 billion in a year. They say: What we want to do is buy some of these securitized instruments. So they do.

So the broker makes a lot of money. The mortgage company makes a lot of money. The hedge fund makes a lot of money. There are some people who are buying homes as flippers. They and the brokers were in cahoots. They also were greedy. The notion was, buy this home, get a 2-percent mortgage, you can flip it in 2 years because that housing bubble is going up. You will do nothing but make money. Then you had speculators, hedge funds, mortgage banks, and brokers.

All of a sudden the whole thing wrecked, collapsed. Why? Because it never made any sense. It was a house of cards. You can't be putting a lot of mortgages out there to people who can't afford them, people who can't abide by the terms.

I have described three companies, including the largest company, that said: You have bad credit? Come to us.

I have also, in the Commerce Committee at a hearing, heard testimony about how the brokers' pitch went to borrowers out there who were in a home with a good mortgage, and they persuaded them, I think through terms that were never fully disclosed to the homeowner, to get a new mortgage, a new subprime mortgage. Then when it resets all of a sudden, this family is done. They can't possibly afford to stay in that home.

Here is what the carnage is. This is FedEx Stadium. This is the largest football stadium in the NFL. It holds about 90,000 people, slightly more. Last month in January, we had foreclosures in this country in 1 month that meant about 20,000 more than are seated in this stadium are out of a home, in 1 month. In the next 2 years, it is estimated there will be 60 of these stadiums full of people who will have lost their home. Think of that.

Now, there is a new credo here in this Chamber, apparently, this week. It is not even new, I guess. It is well practiced. It is by the minority: Don't just do something, sit there.

This is an urgent problem, and all week long we have seen the minority decide, in two clotures motions, they would insist on 30 hours postcloture.

What did that mean? That meant that starting Tuesday, midday, when I was on the floor with the Indian Health Care Improvement Act--the last thing we did this week was to pass the Indian Health Care Improvement Act on Tuesday--and then the minority insisted on two 30-hour periods, taking us to Friday, so that nothing could get done to try to address this housing issue, to try to address a very serious issue.

By the way, this is not just affecting the people I have described. It is not just affecting the people who would sit in that stadium-- 120,000 people who are out of a home as of January. It affects every other home and every other homeowner. The folks around that home--in the neighborhood, in the community--their home values are impacted by homes that are now vacant whose upkeep is not guaranteed. There are a whole lot of folks who are affected by this, and this country's economy is affected by it in a very dramatic way.

I know the President yesterday said he was surprised when a reporter talked about projections of $4-a-gallon gasoline. A reporter said: Mr. President, there are projections of $3.50 or $4-a-gallon gasoline. What do you think about that? The President said: Well, I have not heard of those.

We have a lot of problems in this country. Gasoline and oil prices are one; the subprime mortgage scandal another; unbelievable speculation, for example, in the energy markets. Let me describe, for a moment, that issue.

We are doing two things right now that are unbelievably inept and hurt every American. One, the Department of Energy--at a time when oil is $102 a barrel, and the price of gasoline is bouncing up, and there are some people thinking about getting a loan to fill their car with gas--the Department of Energy is sticking oil underground. We have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is 97 percent full.

The Department of Energy is taking oil coming off the Gulf of Mexico--royalty-in-kind payments to the Federal Government--and instead of putting that oil in the supply to put downward pressure on oil and gas, 50,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil a day right now are going underground into our domes to be saved. That is unbelievably inept, in my judgment. Why on Earth, when oil is $100 a barrel, would you take oil that belongs to the American people and put it underground? And they are going to go from 50,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil a day to 125,000 barrels of oil per day in the second half of this year.

I have a piece of legislation to try to shut this down. I am going to do everything I can to stop it. Oil that is coming into the Federal Government ought to be in the supply pipeline to put downward pressure on oil and gas. It is that simple. I do not understand why the American consumer is being burned at the stake here with gas prices and the Department of Energy is carrying the wood. What are they thinking about?

Now, there is another thing that is happening that, in my judgment, needs a full investigation by this Government. Oil is $100 a barrel, gas is $3, $3.50 a gallon, going, perhaps, to $4 a gallon. Who knows? We have had testimony before the Senate Energy Committee by experts who say there is not one bit of justification for oil being more than $55 or $60 a barrel. The supply/demand fundamentals in no way justify current prices of oil.

Here is what is happening. Hedge funds are neck deep in the futures market for oil, speculating on oil futures. Investment banks are neck deep in the oil futures market. In fact, for the first time, some investment banks are actually buying oil storage.

Now, why would an investment bank want oil storage? Buy oil, take it off the market and store it because when prices increase you sell it and you make money. There is a carnival of greed, in my judgement, in the oil futures. This is an unbelievable amount of speculation. Nobody is paying much attention to it. It is not very sexy. I know of very little reporting on it, even.

But you have two things happening to the American consumers in this area of gas prices and the cost of energy that are just unbelievable. One is, we are sticking oil underground when we should not be, to take oil out of the supply. That is the Federal Government doing that. No. 2, we have unregulated hedge funds--and most hedge fund activity, as you know, is not subject to regulation--and an unbelievable amount of speculation by hedge funds, investment banks, and others in oil futures has driven this price well beyond the justification of the price of oil, given the supply-and-demand relationship. That is something we have to deal with. That comes on top of and at the same time we see the wreckage that comes from this housing scandal--the subprime loan scandal.

As I said before, some are content to sit around here and thumb their suspenders and act important and look important and wear their blue suits but do nothing. Is that why one gets elected? Is that why one aspires to public service: to do nothing in a time of urgency?

I think this economy faces great peril for a lot of reasons. We have a trade deficit that is the highest in history. Two billion dollars a day we import more than we export. We have a budget deficit that is way out of control, way off track.

The President says: Well, my budget deficit that I propose is $425 billion for this coming year. No, it is not. He has asked to borrow $700 billion for this coming year--$700 billion. Now, you put that $700 billion with a $700 billion trade deficit and you are talking about borrowing, in 1 year, almost $1.4 trillion--10 percent of the value of our economy.

It is unbelievable to me. This country is off track and we have to fix it. One portion of it is energy. One portion is trade policy. One portion is fiscal policy. Today I was talking about a subprime loan scandal that is affecting housing, and housing is an engine in this country. Housing is a very important economic engine.

That is why we want to pass a stimulus package dealing with housing to try to at least catch and at least deal with--in a responsible, appropriate way; not rewarding speculators, but trying to help homeowners--we want to do that in a way that will begin to shore up and provide some foundation to an economy that is in trouble.

Mr. President, I have said what I have come to say. I think there is a lot to do. It is very important for the Senate to take action. I hope next week will be a better week than this week. We do not need delays. We do not need stalling. What we need is action. We need bipartisan action working on pieces of legislation that will improve this country's economy and reach out to those folks in the trail of tears, in the wreckage of the subprime loan scandal, to say to them: We want to see if we can find a way to help you keep your home. Home ownership is a very important part of American life. The housing industry itself is a very important engine of opportunity for this county's economy. My hope is we can do something important in the next week that will address both of these issues.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would not try to make a deal on behalf of the majority leader, but my guess is that if the other side is agreeable to amendments that deal with housing, we would probably have an agreement. Every time we put something on the floor, we get an abortion amendment or an amendment to provide tax breaks for wealthy people. I would guess that if there are housing amendments, Senator Reid will want to visit with Senator McConnell about this.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Mr. President, I want to speak for a moment about what happened today. cnnmoney.com says:

Pain in the pocketbook within a few weeks. Gas could cost

$3.50 a gallon. By spring, the price could hit $4 a gallon.

While there are predictions of $3.50 and $4 a gallon for gasoline, we still have the U.S. Department of Energy putting oil underground in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They have been putting 50,000 and 60,000 barrels a day. By the way, in the second half of the year, I have been told that they plan to put as much as 125,000 barrels a day.

When the price of oil is around $100 a barrel, as it was trading at $102 barrels earlier today, it is putting upward pressure on gas prices. Our Government is taking oil from the Gulf of Mexico in the form of oil-in-kind transfers and putting it into a reserve. Instead of putting that oil into the supply pipeline to reduce prices, they are sticking it underground. The Energy Information Administration indicates that, on average, the price of regular gasoline last February was $2.22; in August, $2.78; in February, $3.02; and it is headed north.

Yet, the U.S. Government takes royalty-in-kind oil, and our Department of Energy is sticking it underground in big salt caverns to save it for a rainy day. They are putting it in the SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

I support the SPR, but it is about 97 percent full. Why on Earth would we put upward pressure on oil and gas prices to take $100-a- barrel oil and stick it underground? Here is where it is going: Bayou Choctaw, West Hackberry, Big Hill, and Bryan Mound. These are the locations where the Department of Energy is sticking it underground. It makes no sense at this time when prices are so high.

I have introduced bipartisan legislation and intend to try to move it on an appropriations bill, if I must, to stop this. There is no reason to take 50,000 or 60,000 barrels a day out of supply. This especially includes sweet light crude. This is a subset of all oil, sweet light crude, which is even more valuable. We have heard testimony at a hearing before the Energy Committee that indicates that this diversion of light sweet crude could add as much as $10 to a barrel of light sweet crude trading on the market. It is putting upward pressure on prices.

In addition to this, there is unbelievable speculation going on in the futures market. Fidel Gheit, with Oppenheimer & Company, testified:

There is absolutely no shortage of oil. . . . I am

convinced that oil prices should not be a dime over $55 a

barrel. Oil speculators include the largest financial

institutions in the world. I call it the world's largest

gambling hall. It is open 24/7. Unfortunately, it is totally

unregulated. This is like a highway with no cops and no speed

limit and everybody going 120 miles per hour.

Investment banks are buying their own storage capability to keep the oil off the market. As he says, this is a 24/7 gambling hall. Who pays the price for this unbelievable speculation? It is the American consumer that pays with ever higher prices for oil and gasoline. There are experts who say the price of a barrel of oil is trading at least $30 above where it is justified in being, given all other issues between supply and demand.

In addition to this lack of regulation of hedge funds and other activities in this carnival of greed, there is excess speculation in the futures market. On top of that as I have indicated, our own Government is making it worse by taking oil and sticking it underground. It is not rocket science when oil is where it is and gasoline prices are where they are and headed north.

The President, when asked about that today in the news conference, said, ``I have not heard this $4 issue.'' Well, read the newspapers from time to time. Gas prices are going through the roof. This Government is sticking oil underground and putting upward pressure on prices. There is no justification for doing this. We ought to have a pause, and we ought to say to the Administration that the 50,000, 60,000, or 70,000 barrels a day being put in storage today is impacting prices. It may be 125,000 barrels in the second half of the year if the Administration gets its way. This oil needs to go into the supply stream, and that would put downward pressure on gas and oil prices.

Some say, well, it is a populist issue. You ought to produce more domestically. Here is where we should produce. Some of us were cosponsors of a bill that became law in 2006 to begin that production in what is known as the Lease Sale 181 area of the Gulf of Mexico. I agree with that. The Gulf of Mexico is our greatest resource asset. I think putting this oil in the ground at this point is nuts, and we need to stand up for consumers and for a decent price for oil and gas. We ought not have a government policy that makes things worse.

My understanding is that my 5 minutes is up. I will speak about this subject later.

Madam President, I know we are on a 30-hour postcloture period dealing with a piece of legislation related to Iraq. I want to speak about something else today, but let me at least begin by describing a somewhat different view.

The fact is, Saddam Hussein was hung until he was dead, hung by his neck, and this brutal tyrant is dead. I suppose most of us wish that Osama bin Laden had been brought to justice, but it is Saddam Hussein who has been brought to justice in the country of Iraq. He is dead. The Iraqis have their own Constitution because they voted for it. The Iraqis have their own Government because they voted for it. The American taxpayer has spent $16 billion training 350,000 police and soldiers in Iraq for security purposes. Now the question is: Do the Iraqis who have been trained for police protection and security--both in the police force and as soldiers--do they have the will to provide for their own security? If they do not, this country cannot do it for any great length of time.

We have been in Iraq for almost 5 years. Some day we are going to leave Iraq. The question is not whether; the question is when and how. The American people are not going to have us in Iraq for 10 and 15 and 20 years. That is not the case. We are spending massive amounts of money, about $16 billion a month. Last year the President asked for more than $190 billion in emergency funding for the war. That is $16 billion a month, $4 billion a week.

It is time we begin to understand we have needs here at home, to begin taking care of things here at home. We are spending money on hundreds of water projects in Iraq. We are spending money on road- building in Iraq. We are spending money on health clinics in Iraq. Yet we get a President's budget sent to us saying we don't have enough money for those things in our country. We will dramatically cut water projects in the United States. We will cut back on all of these investments in the United States, even as we are making those substantial investments in the country of Iraq.

My point is that at some point we are going to have to bring American troops home. We can't keep doing as the President suggests, and that is spending emergency money by sending soldiers to Iraq and putting this on top of the debt so that when those soldiers come back from Iraq, they can help pay the debt. That is not the right way to approach what is happening in the country of Iraq.

All of us want the same thing for our country. We want our country to succeed. We want our country to confront and defeat terrorists. Yes, we want Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden is the person who heads al-Qaida. We are told by the Director of National Intelligence that he is safe and secure in northern Pakistan. There ought not be one square inch on the face of this Earth that is safe or secure for those who murdered Americans on 9/11. Yet more than 6 years later, this administration has not brought the leader and the leadership of the terrorist organization that attacked our country to justice. That is a failure, in my judgment, and it is a failure that results from taking our eye off the ball and having too few troops in Afghanistan and allowing Osama bin Laden to escape through Tora Bora, and then invading Iraq and committing ourselves to that over a lengthy period of time. The result is the greatest terrorist threat--according to the National Intelligence Estimate, the greatest terrorist threat against our country at this point is the leadership of al-Qaida. They are in a safe and secure haven in northern Pakistan. It seems to me that 7 years after 9/11, that has to be considered a failure. My hope would be all of us would engage in ways that begin to devote our attention to the greatest terrorist threat facing our country, and that is, as the National Intelligence Estimate says, the leadership of al-Qaida. They are recruiting and building new training camps and strengthening themselves even as we are tied down in the country of Iraq spending $16 billion a month.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 15 minutes on another subject.

Madam President, this is a picture of a man named Woodrow Wilson Keeble, a Sioux Indian. Woodrow Wilson Keeble died 26 years ago. If you take a look at this soldier's medals, you will see two Bronze Stars, a Silver Star, the Distinguished Service Cross, the second highest medal given in our country, and Purple Hearts.

I want to tell my colleagues about Woody Keeble, a big man, well over 6 foot, and well over 200 pounds. On Monday of next week at 2:30 in the afternoon, at the White House, President Bush will present the Medal of Honor to Woody Keeble. As I said, he has been dead for 26 years. His wife Blossom Keeble died last summer. We had hoped this would be done before his wife died, but that was not to be the case.

I want to tell my colleagues about him because it is so unusual that a Medal of Honor will be presented posthumously to a soldier who demonstrated great acts of courage and heroism in both the Second World War and the Korean war.

He was a Lakota Sioux born in Waubay, SD, and grew up in Wahpeton, ND, and lived most of his life there. He was wounded at least twice in World War II and three times in the Korean War. Let me describe what he did so that my colleagues will know why he is being given the Medal of Honor all of these years later.

In World War II Woody Keeble served with the famed 164th Infantry Regiment of the North Dakota National Guard. Shortly after joining in 1942, he found himself on Guadalcanal, in some

of the most aggressive and dangerous hand-to-hand combat in the Second World War. He was in combat in the South Pacific until the war ended. He saw a great deal of combat. One of his fellow soldiers said the safest place to be was next to Woody. Woody earned a Bronze Star and Purple Heart in the Second World War. Woody was an unbelievable soldier.

Then the Korean War came along and at age 34 this Lakota Sioux Indian signed up again. He said: Somebody has to teach the kids how to fight. So he went to Korea. He was attached to George Company, 2nd Battalion, 19th Infantry Regiment of the 24th Division. They were near the Kumsong River in North Korea in October of 1951. He was the acting platoon leader of the 1st platoon of ``G'' Company. Casualties were very heavy. Because the company's officers were killed, he ended up in charge of the 1st Platoon, the 2nd Platoon, and the 3rd Platoon. It was brutally cold in North Korea at the time, and the enemy, the Chinese, were entrenched on a hill with a rugged cliff, and the side of that mountain was a very difficult thing that the U.S. troops had to take.

So Woody Keeble, in charge of these three platoons, made three attempts to take that hill from the Chinese. The Chinese had three machine gun nests on top of the hill and soldiers in trenches defending that hill. Three times these platoons, with Woody leading them, went up the hill, and three times they were repulsed and rejected, with heavy casualties.

After three attempts to take that hill, Woody Keeble decided he would try it by himself. With grenades and a Browning Automatic Rifle he crawled back up the hill to the Chinese positions. Witnesses said he crawled through very heavy machine gun fire and through a blizzard of grenades. Woody Keeble scaled the hill, went around the pillboxes and knocked out all three machine guns by himself and then cleared out the trenches between them. When he returned they extracted 83 pieces of shrapnel from his body--83 pieces of shrapnel. But he wouldn't leave the battlefield until all of his men were on top of the hill and in a defensive position and only then would he allow himself to be evacuated.

Right after the engagement all of the surviving members of G Company signed a letter putting him in for the Medal of Honor. It got lost and never got from the battlefield to the Pentagon. They did it a second time a month later and it too never got from the battlefield to the Pentagon.

But in this photo, my colleagues can see the medals he did get: multiple Purple Hearts, wounded five times; two Bronze Stars, a Silver Star; the Distinguished Service Cross, the second highest medal. He was a well-decorated soldier. He went to Korea to help teach those kids how to fight and it turns out he is the one who climbed the hill and saved his soldiers, knocked out three machine gun nests by himself.

Many years later the question was asked: Why was he not given the Medal of Honor? Those with whom he served began piecing together the action that day, all of those who were eyewitnesses and a part of the action on that hill in North Korea.

A woman named Merry Helm especially took it upon herself over the years to try to reconstruct Woody's story. It took a lot of time to do so. Then it was sent to the U.S. Secretary of the Army with a request that he review the original request that had never been received at the Pentagon that Woody Keeble be awarded the Medal of Honor.

The Secretary of the Army looked into the case and decided that Woody Keeble had indeed earned the Medal of Honor. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs agreed.

But then all the people involved were informed that there is a 3-year statute of limitations on the request for a Medal of Honor. The Secretary of defense could only consider Woody's case if that statute of limitations was waived.

At the request of those who had worked on it, I and my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, and our colleagues from South Dakota, Senator Johnson and Senator Thune, introduced legislation on an appropriations bill that waived the 3-year statute so the Secretary of the Defense could look at this case and decide.

The Secretary of the Defense began evaluating what happened on that hill in North Korea on a cold day when Woody Keeble was a real hero. He eventually decided, having looked at all the information, that, indeed, this Lakota Sioux Indian who served this country in two wars, was wounded five times, deserved the Medal of Honor. He sent it to the White House with the recommendation that the President approve the Medal of Honor.

This coming Monday, at 2:30 in the afternoon, I will be at the White House witnessing a ceremony at the invitation of the President in which the President Bush will present a Medal of Honor posthumously to a really remarkable, courageous American soldier named Woodrow Wilson Keeble, the only Sioux Indian ever to have received the Medal of Honor, someone who served this country with unbelievable courage and distinction and valor.

After the Korean war, he came back to Wahpeton, ND, and worked at the Wahpeton Indian School much of his life. He suffered multiple strokes, suffered significant health problems, and died 26 years later.

The moment won't pass without some notice because the President is making a presentation on Monday. However, I wanted to say something here on the floor of the Senate so those who read the Record of the Senate will understand this was an extraordinary American.

We are hearing a lot of discussion these days about the bill on the floor of the Senate dealing with Iraq and about who stands up for soldiers, who cares about American soldiers. The fact is, every single person in this Chamber cares about American soldiers and wants to support them, understands that they get up in the morning in some parts of this world--in Iraq especially--and they strap on body armor before they go out because they know there is a chance they can be killed or harmed. All of us understand what soldiers are doing for this country. I believe the one thing that unites this Chamber is we want to do right by American soldiers. The story of Woody Keeble is a story that ought to inspire all of us about what soldiers do for our country.

I have told my colleagues previously about another soldier, another American Indian. His name was Edmund Young Eagle. He was from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North Dakota. He went to war. He was in northern Africa, he was in Normandy, he was in Europe. He came back and lived with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. He never had very much. He had kind of a tough life.

At the end of his life, he was lying in a hospital bed at the VA hospital in Fargo, ND. His sister asked if I would get the medals he earned in the Second World War and never received. I did, and I took them to the VA hospital on a Sunday morning in Fargo, ND. The doctors and nurses crowded into his room, and Edmund Young Eagle--who at the time I didn't know was going to die 7 days later of lung cancer. Edmund Young Eagle was a sick man but very proud that morning. We cranked his bed up to a seated position, and then I pinned on his pajama top a row of medals this American Indian had earned serving his country in the Second World War. As sick as he was, he said quietly to me: This is one of the proudest days of my life--seated on his hospital bed wearing his pajama tops with his military medals.

There are so many whose names we will not talk about on the floor of the Senate today, but I do say Woody Keeble and Edmund Young Eagle are just two of thousands--millions of American soldiers over the years who have refreshed this democracy by being willing to risk their lives.

I wanted to call to the attention of the Senate Woodrow Wilson Keeble. I am enormously proud of him and his family and his memory, and I am anxious to be at the White House on Monday when he receives posthumously the Medal of Honor.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Madam President, I wish to make a couple of additional comments on another subject.

The price of oil is bouncing around at $100 a barrel, the price of gas is up to $3.00, $3.50, or more per gallon. There are people who kid about having to take out a loan at the bank to fill their gas tank. The question is, What is happening with oil?

Let me tell you something. In the Energy & Natural Resources Committee this year, we have had witnesses testify that there is not a bit of justification for the price of a barrel of oil to be over $50 or $65 a barrel right now. So why is it $100 a barrel? Two reasons. One is that we have unbelievable speculation, a carnival of greed, with hedge funds and speculators neck deep in the futures markets speculating on oil. We have investment banks for the first time that are actually buying oil storage tanks so they can buy the oil and keep it off the market in order to sell it later when the price is higher. There is unbelievable speculation in the futures market pushing up oil which has nothing to do with the fundamentals of supply and demand, and there ought to be a full and complete investigation. I am asking the GAO to do that.

The other issue is one that I find preposterous, and I am going to do everything I can in the coming days and weeks to stop it. Do you know that even as the price of oil is bouncing up at $100 a barrel of oil, this Government, this Department of Energy is putting oil underground for storage? We are awarding royalty-in-kind contracts to companies to take oil out of the Gulf of Mexico and instead of them selling the oil and putting it into the supply to put downward pressure on price, we are putting 60,000 barrels every single day underground in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Having the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is fine. Save it for a rainy day, save for our security, put some away--I understand that. But why would you do that when oil prices are $100 per barrel? The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is 97 percent full, and we are taking 60,000 barrels per day and sticking it underground? That is preposterous. Toward the second half of this year, the Department of Energy will be putting approximately 125,000 barrels per day underground. There ought not be one additional barrel go underground at that point. It ought to go into the supply.

I used to teach a little economics. I understand supply and demand. If you decrease supply, you increase price. It is just a fact. So this administration, by taking this royalty-in-kind oil from the Gulf of Mexico and sticking it underground into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, is pushing up the price of oil and gas.

In fact, we had a witness in the Energy & Natural Resources Committee who testified that the Department of Energy is taking light, sweet crude off the market to put into the SPR. That is a subset of oil, a much more valuable kind of oil. One witness said just that amount-- sticking it underground by this administration could have increased the price of oil by as much as $10 per barrel. What is our Government doing increasing the price of oil by 10 per barrel? What do they think? Does somebody have their wires crossed someplace, and could they please see if they can figure out maybe with some common sense what they ought to do when oil is $100 a barrel, and that is stop putting oil underground and put it into the marketplace so we put some downward pressure on gas prices?

I introduced legislation that puts an end to this practice. I am chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds the Energy Department's programs, including the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I say to the Secretary and to those who made this decision: One way or another, I am going to win on this issue. We are not going to allow you to continue to stick oil underground when the price of oil is $100 a barrel and the price of gas is ranging up between $3.50 and $4 a gallon. We are just not going to allow you to continue to do that. This Congress is going to use some common sense and say stop it.

Mr. President, that was therapeutic to say. My hope would be that at some point soon I will have a chance to offer that amendment, and we are all going to have a chance to vote on it. I will insist we vote on it. I believe this Congress is going to tell this administration to stop it, use a reservoir of common sense; don't stick oil underground when it's $100 per barrel. Put it into the supply, and put downward pressure on the price of oil. How about standing up for the American people and American drivers? Let's do that.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3897

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4015 Withdrawn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor to Senator Murkowski.

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized following the remarks of the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. President, I have been listening to the discussion this afternoon, which is a repeat of a discussion we have heard often in this Chamber: Who supports our troops; who waves the white flag of surrender. You know, in the discussion in this Chamber and out on the Presidential trail, we hear all of those terms, and who is willing to stick with it and defeat the terrorists with respect to the war on terror.

Well, let me, if I might, suggest there is a smart way and a tough way to deal with terrorists, and we are not doing it very effectively, in my judgment. I want to review for a moment, because we have people coming to the floor who forget to review where we are, and where we have been, especially.

In 2001, on September 11, terrorists attacked our country. Following the attack that killed thousands of innocent Americans--the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a farm field in Pennsylvania--following that attack, Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaida boasted that they engineered the attack against the American people. They boasted they engineered the attack against the American people. So the President says: We are going to have an effort to bring to justice the terrorists.

Well, it is now 2008. That was 2001. In 2008, our National Intelligence Estimate, released about 4 months ago, said the greatest terrorist threat to our country, to our homeland, is the al-Qaida organization and its leadership, who are now plotting additional attacks against our country. Our National Intelligence Estimate says the greatest terrorist threat to our country, 7 years after 9/11, is the al-Qaida leadership, because they are planning new attacks. They have reconstituted in a safe and secure hideaway in northern Pakistan. Those are the words of our National Intelligence Estimate, not my words--safe, secure. Iraq leadership, Osama bin Laden, still alive 7 years later and creating new training camps, training new terrorists.

So how effective has the war on terror been when the greatest terrorist threat to our country 7 years after the 9/11 attack, the greatest terrorist threat is now building and reconstituting in northern Pakistan? It is reasonable to ask the question: Who took their eye off the ball? Why has this country, why has our policy not been a policy to bring to justice Osama bin

Laden and his al-Qaida leadership? Instead, 7 years later, we are mired down in a war in Iraq, we have spent nearly two-thirds of $1 trillion dollars, thousands of American soldiers have died, and we have people asking us about who waves the white flag of surrender and who supports our soldiers. That is unbelievable to me.

Let me review a bit. Following 9/11, we had top secret briefings for Senators and Congressmen--top secret briefings conducted by the head of the CIA. The Vice President was involved, the head of the National Security Agency, Condoleezza Rice, was involved. We went to those top secret briefings. All of us did. We were told things in top secret, shown classified materials, about what was happening in Iraq. It turns out that was a foundation for the invasion of Iraq. In fact, it was presented at the United Nations by Secretary of State Colin Powell. It turns out most of it was false; wrong on its face.

Let me review it for a moment--the issue of mobile chemical weapons laboratories in Iraq that threatens our country. Mobile chemical weapons laboratories in Iraq. You know where that came from? We now know it came from a single source, through our intelligence organizations to the American people, to Congress, in top secret briefings, to the world at the United Nations, a single source: A fellow who used to drive a taxicab in Baghdad nicknamed ``Curveball'' and widely considered by German authorities as a drunk and a fabricator.

A single source named Curveball gave this administration the ability to, in top secret briefings, tell us that Iraq had mobile chemical weapons laboratories and gave then-Secretary of State Colin Powell the opportunity to tell the world that Iraq had mobile chemical weapons laboratories. Turns out it wasn't true.

Will Rogers once said:

It is not what he says he knows that bothers me, it's what

he says he knows for sure that just ain't so.

Curveball. One single source this administration used to tell us that mobile chemical weapons laboratories in Iraq threatened this country, and it turns out to have been false, and they should have known it. And some may have known it, as it was described to us.

The aluminum tubes. The aluminum tubes for the reconstitution of a nuclear capability in Iraq. Now, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, then National Security Adviser, even used the term the specter or the threat of a nuclear--or I guess she said mushroom cloud on television. The mushroom cloud. Well, it turns out her office had the information that a substantial portion of the Government didn't believe the nuclear tubes that were ordered by the Iraqis were for the purpose of reconstituting a nuclear capability. Most of that was discredited. The information in the National Security Adviser's office existed to say that there were very qualified people in this Government who didn't believe that.

It turns out none of that was true. The aluminum tube issue was not true. Those who were telling the world, and in top secret briefings telling Members of Congress about the threat of the nuclear tubes for the reconstitution of nuclear capability, had information in their possession and knew better.

Yellowcake from Niger is another big deal that made it into the President's address to the Congress in the State of the Union. It turns out that was based on falsified documents. It is unbelievable.

Maybe we should review the facts a bit. All of this information turns out to have been false--the information that represented the foundation on which the administration made the case about the need to invade Iraq. Well, this country invaded Iraq and had no plans, once the invasion was complete and the military takeover was complete, on how to deal with Iraq at that point, and it turned into a civil war.

Saddam Hussein, following that invasion, was captured and executed. He was hung by his neck until dead. He doesn't exist anymore. The Iraqi people then voted for a new constitution, and then the Iraqi people voted to constitute a new government.

So Saddam Hussein was killed, executed, a brutal dictator was executed by the Iraqi people. They got a new Constitution, they got a new Government, and then this country, in the context of spending almost two-thirds of a trillion dollars, this country spent $16 billion training 350,000 able-bodied Iraqis to be policemen and firefighters and safety personnel and soldiers. We trained an array of people in Iraq for security; $16 billion training 350,000 Iraqis, principally for security, police, and soldier duty.

Now, if the able-bodied people in Iraq who have been trained by this country are not willing and cannot and will not provide security in their country, our soldiers cannot stay there forever and do it. We cannot.

It is interesting to me, and very disappointing to me, that the President decided: we are going to invade Iraq, but we are not going to pay for it. Every single penny we are going to borrow.

So we are going to send soldiers to Iraq and send the bill to the debt. When the soldiers come back, they can pay the debt.

As I said earlier, it is two-thirds of a trillion dollars now in Iraq and Afghanistan, all of it emergency, none of it paid for. In my judgment, that is exactly the wrong thing to have done. We should have been saying: Yes, we will ask soldiers to sacrifice. If that is what we ask our soldiers to do, we will ask the American people to reach a similar sacrifice. But this President would not do that.

So we come now to a position where we have been in Iraq longer than we were engaged in the Second World War and we have folks who come to the Senate Chamber and we have folks out on the campaign trail saying: Who is going to wave the white flag of surrender?

Some say we are going to stay in Iraq forever, 100 years. Others look at a Taj Mahal that has been built in Iraq, nearly $800 million for an embassy in Iraq, the largest embassy in the world by far, and they think they know, as a result of that, how long some intend for us to stay in Iraq.

But we cannot do that. Let me mention one other addition. On top of all the things I have described--basically the false foundation of information on which this country made a decision to go to war--on top of all that, with this money we have spent, there has been the greatest amount of waste, fraud, and abuse in the history of this country and nobody seems to care very much.

Let me tell a couple stories: $85,000 trucks on the side of the road in Iraq, because they had a flat tire and no wrench to fix it, so they torched it, burned it. It does not matter, the American taxpayer is paying for it because big companies got sweetheart, no-bid, cost-plus contracts. Got a flat tire, torch the truck. Got a plugged fuel pump, it does not matter, torch the truck.

I mean, the stories are unbelievable. You got two builders to provide ice. The Haliburton Company is going to select between two bidders to provide ice. One is seven times more than the other bid. Well, pick the contract that costs seven times more than the other because the taxpayer is picking up the tab.

They buy little hand towels for the troops, because Haliburton has to do that. Well, they do not want to buy ordinary hand towels for the troops, they want their logo embroidered on the hand towels, KBR, the subsidiary, Kellogg Brown and Root. Well, that is going to increase the cost of the hand towels triple, quadruple. It does not matter; the taxpayer is going to pay the bill.

Do you want to know where there are 50,000 pounds of nails, 25 tons of nails? They are on the sands in Iraq. They ordered them. They were too short. What do you do with 50,000 pounds of nails that are too short? You throw them away because the taxpayer is going to pick it up. You just order the right size.

This is the most unbelievable story that is yet to be told about the greatest waste, fraud, and abuse in the history of this country. There is a lot to talk about.

We are going to have a hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee. I have held 12 hearings in the policy committee on these issues. We are going to hold more. I have to run to a meeting. But I did want to come and talk a bit. I did not have the opportunity to describe who is it that is supporting America's soldiers and what is

it that does support our fighting men and women? We send them off to war.

There is going to be a Medal of Honor, by the way, awarded next Monday at 2:30 in the White House to a man who died 26 years ago, a Sioux Indian named Woody Keeble. I hope perhaps to come over tomorrow and tell the story of Woody Keeble. There are soldiers who have given so much for this country.

Woody Keeble had 85 pieces of lead in his body when he finished what he did. He was still alive.

But these folks then go to war and do what they do and come back home. And then the question is: Who stands up for our soldiers? Who stands up for our veterans? Who is willing to stand here and say we will keep our promise for veterans health care? Who does that?

There is a lot to say. I regret I have a commitment that I have to be at in the majority leader's office, but I would like tomorrow to come back and speak at greater length about a remarkable American who on Monday will be recognized by President Bush, a North Dakotan from Wahpeton, ND, Standing Rock, the Wahpeton-Sisseton Sioux Tribe. He will be recognized as the first Sioux Indian in this country's history to receive the Medal of Honor.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my understanding is that we have a cloture vote that will begin at 5:30 this evening. I know Senator DeMint has two amendments he intends to offer this evening. We expect to have votes on those amendments. I have an opening statement I wish to give for a short period, and I will defer on that. Senator Kyl wishes 10 minutes to speak, with 5 minutes on the bill and 5 minutes, I believe, in morning business. I don't want to disadvantage either of my colleagues. I want to comment about the legislation.

We are finally, at long last, going to pass an Indian Health Care Improvement Act. It has been 8 long years. It is long past due. By tomorrow midday, we will have disposed of all of the amendments, and having succeeded in invoking cloture, we will have finally done something that will give cause for millions of Americans to celebrate in this country for the first time in a long time--an improvement in Indian health and Indian health care.

Mr. President, Senator Kyl has asked that he be allowed to speak for 5 minutes at this point. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl be recognized, following which I would like to speak--and I will make it short--and then Senator DeMint will be recognized. I notice that the ranking member, Senator Murkowski, is on the floor as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will make a few comments, and then Senator DeMint, by unanimous consent, will be recognized. He will have the time that he desires to speak about his two amendments that we will vote on this evening.

I begin quickly by saying that we have had a lot of help to get this bill this far: Senator Reid, first of all, for allowing us and being persistent in getting this bill to the floor and to keep it here. Senator Kyl has worked closely with us. Senator Murkowski, the ranking member, has worked very hard to help me get this bill from our committee to the floor. Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi and so many others have worked with us to try to make a difference on this legislation.

Let me describe why there is an urgency. We have a trust responsibility for Indian health care. That is different from other responsibilities. A trust responsibility means we took the land from the indigenous Americans, from the first Americans. We took their land but signed treaties and said: Tell you what, we will give you a deal. Here is our responsibility: We will provide health care for you. That was interpreted much later as a trust responsibility.

Let me show what we do on Indian health care compared to other responsibilities we have. This describes how much we spend per person on Medicare, veterans, Medicaid, and so on. We actually spend twice as much money to provide health care for Federal prisoners, those incarcerated in Federal prisons, as we do to meet our responsibility for health care for American Indians. We have a responsibility for both, but we spend twice as much for Federal prisoners' health care as we do for American Indians.

It is not as if there is not a need. American Indians have a 600 percent higher rate of tuberculosis, a 510 percent rate of alcoholism, and diabetes is off the charts. There are about one-third of doctors for Indians versus other populations, and one-fourth of

nurses for Indians as other populations. There is a much higher rate of sudden infant death syndrome. Cervical cancer is four times higher. The suicide rate among Indian teens is 10 times higher in the northern Great Plains, and it is triple in the rest of the country. The statistics are endless. We have a full-scale health care crisis.

This bill in itself will not fix all that is wrong, but it is the first time in 8 years we are finally getting this bill reauthorized. It should have been done 8 years ago. It is now being done, and it is important.

I have described this bill through the eyes of two girls--one age 5, the other age 14, both dead. Let me describe them. Their relatives and parents have allowed me to use their names so that we understand what this is about and what this urgency is.

First, I will explain Ta'Shon Rain Littlelight, a beautiful 5-year- old Indian girl from the Crow Reservation in Montana. Ta'Shon Rain Littlelight died, and the last 3 months of her life was in unmedicated pain. This little girl went to an Indian health clinic again and again to be diagnosed as having a condition of depression, and she was treated for depression. It turns out she had terminal cancer. She was finally rushed to Billings, MT, then rushed to Denver, CO, and diagnosed as having terminal cancer when it was undiagnosed many months before, and it may well have been able to be treated.

When they finally diagnosed this 5-year-old girl, who loved to dance the Indian dances, as having terminal cancer, she asked her mom if she could go to Disney World and see Cinderella's castle and the Make-a- Wish Foundation allowed her to go to Orlando, FL, to see Cinderella's castle.

They got there and checked into a motel, and that evening, in her mother's arms, Ta'Shon Rain Littlelight said: Mommy, I'm sorry I'm sick. I will try to be better. She died that night in her mother's arms. She never got to see Cinderella's castle.

This little girl deserved health treatment, deserved a health system that we would expect for our children, a good diagnosis, first-class health treatment. She did not get it, and she is dead.

So is Avis Littlewind. Avis was 14. Avis Littlewind committed suicide. She lay in her bed for 90 days in a fetal position, missing school, missing everything. Her sister had committed suicide. Her dad took his own life. This young girl age 14 was lying in a fetal position for 3 months and somehow nobody missed her. No mental health treatment was available. Nobody seemed to identify this little girl was in trouble. And then she hung herself. She felt hopeless and helpless and took her life.

A 14-year-old girl is gone. A 5-year-old girl is gone. But it is thousands, thousands of people suffering with a health care system that is not working. It is not working the way we would expect it to work for us and for our families, and it does not work for Native Americans, the first Americans, for whom we have a trust responsibility and to whom we made a promise. That is why we must get this bill done. We will have a cloture vote at 5:30 p.m.

We will have two amendments this evening by Senator DeMint, a couple of amendments tomorrow morning, and final passage, and there will be a celebration by people who have waited a long time for this legislation to move through the Senate.

Mr. President, I know my colleague, Senator DeMint, has been waiting patiently. I yield the floor, and my guess is that Senator Murkowski, the ranking member, will wish to be recognized following Senator DeMint.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the vote sequence beginning at 5:30 today be as follows:

Cloture on the Dorgan-Murkowski substitute amendment; DeMint amendment No. 4070; and DeMint amendment No. 4073.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes following the first vote be 10-minute votes, with 2 minutes equally divided for debate.

Let me explain that the legislation, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, does a number of things. We have talked about the urgency for it, but it expands cancer screenings, for example; it expands monitoring and prevention programs for communicable and infectious diseases; it expands recruitment and scholarship programs for those nurses and doctors who serve American Indians; it seeks to address the epidemic of teenage suicides on some Indian reservations; it enhances and expands the current diabetes screening efforts; it tries to address the shortage of health care professionals; provides for home- and community-based services and hospice care; also authorizes convenient care services; and authorizes programs to address domestic violence and sexual abuse.

In short, it is a piece of legislation that attempts to modernize the Indian health care system that has been waiting to be reauthorized now for 8 years. So this is a piece of legislation that I think is going to make a difference in the lives of Americans who have expected and have been promised good health care and have, for a long time, not received it.

While we are waiting for colleagues who may wish to speak prior to 5:30, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes in morning business.

Tomorrow, we have a hearing in the Senate Energy Committee that deals with the issue of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, called SPR, and the Administration's oil fill policies. In the 1970s, we have created a Strategic Petroleum Reserve to put oil underground to save it in case of a national security concern. It would be for an emergency so we would have some that is saved and would be available to take out of the underground caverns and use it in these circumstances. This is the basis of our strategic petroleum reserve. It is now almost 97 percent filled. Over its 30-year lifetime, the barrels that have been put into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve have averaged about a $27 a barrel. Yet, right now, when oil is trading at $100 a barrel and gasoline prices are going through the roof, we are putting 50,000 to 60,000 barrels a day underground into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that is already almost 97 percent full.

How are we doing that? Our Government carries that out through royalty-in-kind transfers. This oil is primarily coming from the Gulf of Mexico through the drilling and the production

that occurs there. We are receiving this oil in kind in lieu of royalties paid to the government for its production. So rather than put that oil into the supply system, get the money for it, and reduce the Federal deficit, we are effectively sticking that money underground in a hole. At a time when oil is $100 a barrel and gas is $3 to $3.50 a gallon, we are taking 50,000 to 60,000 barrels a day and sticking it underground. Is somebody missing a few tubes here? I don't understand it. The wiring must be wrong for people who think that is the right thing to do. This is exactly the wrong time to be sticking oil underground when oil is $100 a barrel. Yet I have tried very hard to get this changed, and I have been unable to do so.

We have a hearing tomorrow where we have representatives coming from the Department of Energy as well as other witnesses. I will have an opportunity, if I am not here on the floor--and I hope I am not--to question them. I have recently introduced legislation--S. 2598, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act of 2008. I will try very hard to move this bill on anything that moves, especially a supplemental appropriations bill, to make sure we stop this as soon as possible.

I chair the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the Department of Energy. When I write my bill this spring, I will be able to put a provision that stops filling the SPR in my bill. But that bill likely won't be effective until towards the end of the year. By that time, they will have continued to put all of this oil underground to its full capacity and also boost the gas prices for the American driver. I don't understand what they could be thinking.

As a part of this fill policy, they are putting underground a disproportionate amount of sweet light crude. That is a subset of the oil produced in the U.S. We had testimony before a joint Energy and Government Affairs/Homeland Committee hearing last year by an expert, Dr. Phillip Verleger, who said that even the small amount of sweet light crude they are putting underground is having a disproportionate impact on the markets and may be increasing the price of gasoline by 10 percent.

If there are some wires crossed someplace, I urge the Department of Energy to track those wires down and get them squared away. Let's start thinking straight. Do not be sticking oil underground when oil is $100 a barrel. That takes oil out of our supply. It means supply is diminished, even if it is a seemingly small amount as DOE contends. It means the price goes up.

This is a classic supply-demand question. All of us have studied economics. I taught economics in college ever so briefly. I was able to overcome that experience, nonetheless. But we all understand the supply-demand relationship. If you take oil out of what otherwise would be 50,000 or 60,000 additional barrels in the supply, you put upward pressure on gasoline prices. That is especially true if you take the subset of sweet light crude coming from the Gulf of Mexico and stick it underground at exactly the time it ought be to be in the supply pipeline.

Tomorrow, we will have the opportunity to have a public discussion with the Department of Energy and representatives with other opinions. If they don't do what is, in my judgment, obvious, I intend to move my legislation forward. I have introduced this bill with about six cosponsors. I certainly hope many others will join me to put the brakes on what the Department of Energy is now doing.

It is completely counterintuitive to anything one would expect that should be done at a time when oil is bouncing around at $100 a barrel and you have to get a loan to gas up your car these days. My hope is we can get the Department of Energy to think straight about this issue of putting oil underground in the SPR.

It felt good to say that because I have been thinking about it all weekend. There is so much we need to do that just represents a deep reservoir of common sense. This is one of those steps. My hope is we will make some progress on it.

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

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4080

Mr. President, I make a point of order that the DeMint amendment No. 4080 is not germane postcloture.

Mr. President, I have no objection to the amendment. I know of no cases in which Indian health funds have been used for firearms programs. So I have no objection to the amendment and intend to vote for it.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4073 Withdrawn

Mr. President, on behalf of the sponsor, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4073 be withdrawn.

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, with the withdrawal of the last amendment, there will be no further votes tonight. My understanding is the next vote starts at 10 tomorrow morning. The withdrawal of the second amendment on which we were going to have a recorded vote means there will be no further recorded votes necessary this evening.

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

Mr. President, let me very briefly say that I understand the point Senator Smith is making. There is not enough money for the facilities in these programs. There is a $3 billion backlog for facilities. I am not able to support his amendment, however, and the difficulty is to create an area-wide distribution fund right this moment, at a time when we have a priority list and some tribes have been waiting on that priority list for a long period of time for the construction that was to begin in their area. I think that would be the wrong approach.

But I do think we ought to, in a more comprehensive way, on the Indian Affairs Committee, with the help of Senator Smith and Senator Murkowski and my colleagues, we ought to try to work through this to figure out how we do a better job of getting the funding for the construction that is necessary. I have been to so many facilities that are terrible facilities in terrible disrepair, and they are desperately in need of reform and change and new

construction, and we have to get about the business of doing it. But I regret I can't support this amendment. He is raising the right question, just providing the wrong solution, in my judgment.

Mr. President, we were expecting to clear two unanimous consent requests, but I am told that, at the moment, the minority side has yet to clear them. If we are not able to clear them at the moment, perhaps we will be able to clear them first thing in the morning before we go to the votes that will be scheduled tomorrow.

I think we are at a point where we have about two or three votes remaining and then final passage tomorrow. And that should occur probably close to midday, which will be a pretty happy occasion for a lot of folks who have waited a long time for this legislation to pass the Senate.

I know a couple of my colleagues are waiting to do a colloquy, so if we are not yet cleared, I think we will try to clear both these unanimous consent requests tomorrow morning. Our colleagues, I believe, are not on this subject, so at this point I will defer and we will come back to this tomorrow morning.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the vote sequence with respect to S. 1200 tomorrow be as follows: Vitter amendment No. 3896, Smith amendment No. 3897, DeMint amendment No. 4015, DeMint amendment 4066, and final passage of S. 1200; further, that the cloture motion with respect to S. 1200 be withdrawn, with no debate time in order except for 2 minutes prior to each vote; that after the first vote, vote time be limited to 10 minutes each; all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, February 26, upon disposition of S. 1200, there be a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with Senator Feingold controlling 20 minutes of the majority time, if available; that at 2:30 p.m., there be 20 minutes of debate prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 2633, with the time divided and controlled between the leaders, with the majority leader controlling the final 10 minutes prior to the vote; that upon the use of that time, the Senate then vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 2633, with other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

My understanding is that this has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, let me do one small piece of business with the bill before the Senator from Kansas proceeds.

Amendments Nos. 4019, as Modified, and 4021 to Amendment No. 3899

Senator Murkowski and I wish to have considered two unanimous consent requests that were originally to have been included in the previous unanimous consent by which we conducted business today. One is amendment No. 4021, and one is amendment No. 4019, as modified.

I send both amendments to the desk and ask that they be considered en bloc and agreed to.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, February 27, at 9:30 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing on S. 2232, the Foreign Aid Lessons for Domestic Economic Assistance Act of 2007.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 14, 2008, at 11:10 a.m. in open session, in order to receive testimony on the strategy in Afghanistan and recent reports by the Afghanistan study group and the Atlantic Council of the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 14, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. in open session, in order to receive testimony on the strategy in Afghanistan and recent reports by the Afghanistan study group and the Atlantic Council of the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee an Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing on Thursday, February, 14, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. At this hearing, the Committee will hear testimony regarding the President's fiscal year 2009 budget request for the USDA Forest Service.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 14, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Legislative Hearing on the Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of 2007, S. 1499.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 14, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, in order to hear testimony on ``International Aspects of a Climate Change Cap and Trade Program''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 14, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Homeland Security Department's Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2009.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Thursday, February 14, at 9:30 a.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct an Oversight Hearing on the President's fiscal year 2009 Budget Request for Tribal Programs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, February 14, 2008 at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Agenda:

I. Bills: S. 2304, Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007 (Domenici, Kennedy, Specter, Leahy); S. 2449, Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2007 (Kohl, Leahy, Graham); S. 352, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2007 (Grassley, Schumer, Leahy, Specter, Graham, Feingold, Cornyn, Durbin); S. 2136, Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2007 (Durbin; Schumer, Whitehouse, Biden); S. 2133, Home Owners ``Mortgage and Equity Savings Act'' (Specter, Coleman).

II. Nominations: Kevin J. O'Connor to be Associate Attorney General, Department of Justice, Gregory G. Katsas to be Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Department of Justice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 14, 2008, at 9:45 a.m., in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Building and Strengthening the Federal Acquisition Workforce.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 14, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., to hold an open hearing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

asking for discussion and votes on a number of them.

I have no objection.

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

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

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

Let me make a couple comments about this issue.

I am happy to.

Mr. President, I certainly will do that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

good health and stop them from dying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

I object.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I am happy to.

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

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

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

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

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

I would be happy to yield.

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

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

I intend to answer the Senator.

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

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

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

Mr. President, has the Senator from California completed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 4082 to Amendment No. 3899

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

Madam President, let me talk for a moment about amendment No. 4032, the HIV mandatory testing issue. I support that, I think, at the request of the victim. I think that is a thoughtful amendment and would have accepted it. I understand the Senator wishes a recorded vote. I understand why that is the case. But I do think it is an amendment that has a lot of merit.

Amendment No. 4036

With respect to the other amendment, No. 4036, I understand what the Senator is trying to do. I am going to oppose the amendment and vote against the amendment. He is talking about using the funds for essential medical services. Yes, I am all in favor of that. But let me also say that the issue of hospice care and some long-term care issues we have added to this bill--if you visited a hospice care setting, it is pretty hard to take a look at what hospice care is offering dying patients and suggest that is not essential as well.

That is a wonderful health care option that is available to many in this country. What we have tried to do in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act is to expand some services. That is correct. The Senator and I talked a little bit about that this morning. But they are in most cases services that many other Americans have available to them that we would hope and expect would be made available to American Indians as well. My colleague and I both described this morning our interest in adequately funding Indian health care. He said--and I agree, and I said earlier--that about 60 percent of Indian health care is delivered to American Indians, and 40 percent is withheld. That means you have full-scale health care rationing going on. It should be front-page, scandalous headlines in this country. It ought to be trumpeting the news in this country. But it is not. There is a giant sleep going on about what is happening to people out there who are living in the shadows, desperately poor, in many cases an hour, an hour and a half, 2 hours away from the nearest large-scale health care clinic, so their opportunity to get health care is through the Indian Health Service, and we are trying very hard to improve that.

But I understand the purpose of the amendment offered by the Senator. I would hope, however, when we finish doing what he said he is going to do, and what I said I am going to do, and when we talk about what we are really going to fund this year, that we will have sufficient funds; A, that we will have a system we are proud of, that delivers health care to people who are sick and who were promised health care; and B, to fully fund the services that most people expect would be available to them and their loved ones, and that would include hospice care.

I am happy to yield.

A large portion? I don't know that I would agree with that. I don't believe I would at all.

Madam President, we look at this and, in many ways, see the same side. I think the Senator from Oklahoma and I see a situation in which gripping poverty exists in many areas, joblessness, inadequate health care. The Senator from Oklahoma is correct there are circumstances--I have been there, I have seen them--where the health care is wonderful. I toured a clinic recently and the doctor--a wonderful doctor at that clinic working for the Indian Health Service, who is very dedicated and by all accounts a terrific doctor--said to me: You know, we are waiting for this new x-ray equipment that is supposed to come. The waiting room is full, by the way. The building is in disrepair, it is an old building, but the doctor is giving me a tour, and he says: We are waiting for this x-ray machine which is really going to help us out.

I said: How long have you been waiting?

He said: Two years.

I said: What is the trouble?

He said: Well, I wish I knew. It is paperwork. Can't get it through the regional office. The money is there. The money is there for it, but we can't get the regional office to get the paperwork done to get the x-ray machine.

So the Senator from Oklahoma and I both know there are circumstances where there is unbelievable bureaucracy that is almost shameful, and nothing gets done. There are other areas where there is sterling medical care by men and women who, in that service, get up every morning and say: I want to make a difference in the lives of people. So all of that exists.

The point I have been trying to make most of today is when you have 40 percent of the health care needs unmet, we are in a desperate situation. We need to fix that.

The Senator from Oklahoma has talked a lot about reform, and I am very anxious, when we get this bill done--we will get it out of the Senate, we will get it to conference, and hopefully get it signed into law by the President. We will, for the first time in nearly a decade, have advanced an improvement in Indian health care. I am very anxious to turn immediately--and the Senator serves on our committee--to work with him and Senator Murkowski from Alaska to say: All right, now, let's put this on a different course with a much bolder, a much bigger bite, to try to figure out how we dramatically improve health care. That would not be done unless we have substantial additional income as well. But income is not going to solve the problem by itself. You need reform.

It is interesting. When the Senator talked earlier today about giving American Indians the opportunity to go someplace with a card and say: Here is my health care coverage--I am in favor of that. But that card would not do much good for somebody who is sick and is living, for example, in Fort Yates, ND, because the only option they have is to go to that Indian Health Service or they can get in the car and drive a fairly long way to find a hospital someplace. So we need to address these issues.

I want the Indian Health Service to be better, to be more effective, to provide better health care for American Indians, and I want to reform the entire system to see if we can establish competition where competition will work. I know Senator Coburn will readily agree there are places in the country where you can't even talk about real competition because you are living way out, way away from any other facilities, and all that exists is the Indian health care facility.

If I might make one additional point I understand why--I quoted Chief Joseph this morning. I understand why American Indians are a little skeptical. They have been lied to, cheated. They have had their agreements in writing, and they haven't been worth the paper on which they are written. It is pretty unbelievable when you think about it. We have all seen this, the promises that were made but never, ever kept. The purpose of today and the purpose of our work is to say: You know what. These were the first Americans and we have certain obligations to them and we must do a better job of meeting those obligations.

So I don't know that I was particularly responsive to the Senator from Oklahoma, but both of us want the same thing, we end up wanting exactly the same goals out of this debate. And my hope is, working together during the next couple of years we will take two steps, both in the right direction and both in a constructive way to help American Indians.

Madam President, if the Senator would yield on that point just briefly.

Do you know why in many cases the urban Indians are a population that is exclusive? Because we went through a period of time when we did these zigzags. At one point in this country we said to the Indian community: You know what. Yes, you are on a reservation. Here is a one-way bus ticket. We want you to leave. So we sent them to the cities. Now we promised them health care back on the reservation. Now we say: You have a bus ticket one way. Go to the city. In fact, the budget request this year once again says: By the way, we don't intend to fund any--we don't intend to fund any health care for urban Indians. Well, we should, and I think we will say to the President that we don't agree with that recommendation. But we have done a lot of egregious things in this country, even with respect to preventing Indians the right to vote for the majority of the history of this country. They didn't

get the right to vote until about 90 years ago or so.

Yes, of course.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when we do vote at 4:30, we vote on amendment No. 4036 first and amendment No. 4032 second, and that there be 2 minutes between the votes, a minute on each side, and that there be no intervening second-degree amendments.

Madam President, I support the amendment.

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

Mr. President, my understanding is that we were going to voice vote this amendment. Senator Mikulski is in the room, and she will want to call up her amendment No. 4023. My hope is that we could agree to these two amendments en bloc by voice vote.

Mr. President, both amendments have been cleared. I ask for a favorable consideration of the two amendments.

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 the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka, be recognized for 7 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request that has been cleared on both sides, to clear some amendments that are agreed to.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may call up the following amendments en bloc: Coburn, No. 4078, as modified; Vitter, No. 4038; Bingaman, No. 4083.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be agreed to en bloc: Martinez, No. 3906, as modified; Bingaman, No. 4083; Barrasso, No. 3898; Coburn, No. 4078, as modified; Coburn, No. 4029; and Vitter, No. 4038.

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, Senator Coburn has indicated to me that the pending Coburn amendments will not be dealt with further. Therefore, on his behalf, I ask that the Coburn amendments be withdrawn. I believe Senator Murkowski is with the same understanding. He came to both of us. He offered some of his amendments. He got us to accept other amendments without a vote. We appreciate very much his cooperation. But the other pending amendments that were accepted originally to be en bloc, we ask they be withdrawn.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his support.

Yes. The intent of the provision in the managers' amendment to the bill is to maintain current law. Generally, when Indian health facilities are constructed or renovated, Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates apply. However, pursuant to current Federal law and longstanding policy of the Department of Labor, Indian Health Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, when Indian tribes and tribal organizations construct or renovate federally funded Indian health facilities using their own employees, Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates do not apply. Our intention in the managers' amendment is to maintain the status quo of current law and policy in these regards.

Correct, it does not change current law. It is our intent that the prevailing wage provisions in both the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act will continue to apply when Federal funds are used for the construction

and renovation of Indian health facilities, except where such work is carried out by tribal or tribal organization employees.

That is correct, that is why the managers' amendment restates current section 303 verbatim.

Yes, that is correct.

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

Mr. President, we are considering the intelligence authorization bill. My understanding is later this afternoon we will have, perhaps, a final vote on the bill. There are many important provisions in the bill. Many of us who have been here for some while-- from the destruction of the World Trade Center and the murder of thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11, where terrorists used airplanes loaded with fuel as guided missiles to bring down the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon and through the subsequent period leading up to the Iraq war--know we have had all kinds of difficulties with the intelligence community.

We have a lot of men and women risking their lives all around the world every day collecting intelligence, and yet most of us have been through top secret briefings that we later find out to have been absolutely false, wrong, just standing facts on their head.

So it is critically important for this country to have a good system of intelligence gathering and good analysis of intelligence if we are going to prevent the next terrorist attack against our country.

It is a difficult world out there. We have terrorists who would like nothing more than to kill Americans and attack our country. So passing an intelligence authorization bill that provides the resources, provides a structure for a good system of intelligence is very important to the safety and the security of this great country. That is what the debate is about. That is what the upcoming vote is about.

But there is one provision that has caused a special concern for some in this Intelligence reauthorization bill, and I want to talk about it a bit. That is the provision that deals with the subject of torture.

One of the most important provisions in this legislation is one that makes the Army Field Manual provisions on interrogations applicable to all U.S. Government personnel. Right now, those provisions which forbid torture apply only to the military. Those provisions do not apply to some others that are conducting interrogations on behalf of our Government. That means that some others who work for the U.S. Government--the CIA, for example; contractors, for example--may use interrogation techniques which may constitute torture and which are forbidden in the Army Field Manual. This legislation incorporates the Army Field Manual provisions on interrogations and says it applies to all personnel from the United States.

Now, why is that important? Because it makes a vote for this bill a vote

against torture. It is a vote that says American values and torture are not in any way compatible. Voting for this bill is a vote for a country that has been looked up to throughout the world because of our system of values. It is that simple, and it is that important.

Let me say that I acknowledge today there are tyrants and despots and dictators and a lot of evil people in this world and throughout history who have used and have always justified the use of torture--but not this country. We have not done that, with the exception of some recent disclosures I will talk about.

Some people argue that this issue of torture is especially about waterboarding. Waterboarding is a more antiseptic term. It should be described as water torture. Some people say that: Well, we have waterboarded. In fact, it has been disclosed by administration officials that we have waterboarded--which is water tortured--three of the most dangerous, despicable terrorists who attacked this United States, and we only did it at a time when we thought they would provide information or had information that would allow us to avoid other catastrophic attacks, and we need to be able to do that again in the future, if necessary, if some despicable terrorist is planning an attack on this country.

Let me talk a little bit about what we are describing here. waterboarding is a practice that has been around for centuries, and it has been known--widely known--as torture for a long time. In fact, waterboarding has been prosecuted as torture and as a war crime on many occasions in history. Trying now to claim it is legal, that it is not torture, or that it is something other than torture doesn't square with the facts. Second, history teaches us that torture is not effective. Aside from the question of morality, it is not effective. Those who know tell us that those being tortured will often tell you anything they think you want to hear in order to have the torture stopped.

The provisions in the Army Field Manual set forth the many approved methods to get reliable information, but those methods do not include what is defined as torture.

The question about torture is: If you decide that torture is appropriate and available as a tool for our country to use, why stop at waterboarding? There are many other forms of torture that are even more heinous, more abusive: putting people in boiling water, pulling out their fingernails, amputations, electric shock. Justifying torture is a very slippery slope that doesn't have a pleasant end for a country that cares about its system of values. We don't do that and haven't done that. We haven't been engaged in torture as a country for a couple of centuries because we don't belong to that group of people in the world who want to do damage and want to commit mayhem and want to kill others. We hold ourselves to a higher standard in this country--always have--a higher standard, a standard that all of us can be proud of.

It is interesting when you think back to the Cold War. We won the Cold War, but we didn't win it with bombs and bullets; we won it with American values and American standards, and American rights. The other evening I saw a very large portion of the Berlin Wall that had been transported to the United States of America. It was a wall that kept the free world out and it was a wall that kept those in East Germany behind it, living in oppression, living in a circumstance where they were denied freedom. I was thinking again about the Cold War and the fact that we didn't win the war with bombs.

I have in my desk something I have had there for a long period of time, if I might show it by unanimous consent. This is a piece of a wing from a Soviet Backfire bomber. This bomber very likely carried a nuclear weapon that would have been used against the United States. Actually, we sawed part of the wing off this Soviet bomber because when the Cold War was over, we reached an agreement to destroy delivery systems. I have also in my desk a hinge. This hinge used to be on a missile silo that held a missile with a nuclear warhead on its tip aimed at a U.S. city. It was in Ukraine. Where that missile used to sit, there are now sunflowers growing. It is now a sunflower field. The missile is gone, the warhead is gone. This bomber is now in pieces.

We won the Cold War. And we have agreements with Russia, Ukraine and other former Soviet republics under which we help destroy their Cold War weapons and delivery systems. But we didn't win the Cold War with bombs; we didn't blow up that Backfire bomber. We didn't blow up the Soviet missile silo with one of our missiles. We won the Cold War because of our values. American values won the Cold War.

What are those values? Well, people are free. They believed what they said. They believed what they wanted. The Government had to respect the rights of everyone in this country. We were a country that had a government based on a Constitution that had a Bill of Rights that applies to all Americans. Our country stood for liberty, human rights, human dignity, the rule of law. That is what won the Cold War. Those values were so strong that in the middle of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, those values shone a light of hope into the darkest cells and the deepest part of the Soviet Union. In the gulag prisons, in the outermost reaches of Siberia, those values reached those cells. Millions of prisoners had been held, often in solitary confinement, simply for thinking and speaking freely. Many were there for years; some swept off the streets, never to reappear again; many tortured into false confessions, and many murdered. Some survived, however, and talked about their experience, and about how important the idea of America was to them, how important the idea of freedom was to those who had been detained and had not been able to experience freedom, and to those who had been tortured by a country that didn't want them to be free. It was a clear and vast difference between America and the Soviet Union. As imperfect as we are, the basic foundation and bedrock of values in this country is what shined so brightly in the middle of the Cold War. It wasn't the amount of bombs and bullets each country had; it was what we stood for.

When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the Iron Curtain was lifted, all of those police states crumbled, and every single one of them became free countries that provided freedom to their citizens. Every single one chose freedom and democracy. That is how powerful the idea and the values of this country have been.

What I say today is we have to regain the moral high ground and describe our values in circumstances that make it clear that we do not subscribe to some things others might. We do not support torture. We will not support torture. It is not what our country is about. From the very beginning in this country, America has held itself to a higher standard. George Washington, leading the Continental Army--think about it: 5,000 soldiers in the Continental Army going up against a British Army of 50,000 soldiers, and our 5,000 were shopkeepers and farmers; 5,000 against 50,000, and we prevailed over time. George Washington, after a large number of his troops were captured and slaughtered--he saw the Hessian mercenaries kill unarmed prisoners. After that, George Washington and his troops captured a large number of British soldiers, and many of the troops justifiably wanted revenge. They sought to execute them just as they had seen done to unarmed American prisoners. George Washington refused. He refused to treat the prisoners as his soldiers had been treated. He insisted America was different. He said: We are different, and we are going to treat people the way they should be treated, not the way they treated us, and that has been our birthright.

That is why this discussion right now is so very important. It goes to the core of what we are and who we are as a nation. Quite simply, we have to say unequivocally: We are against torture. We, the Congress of the United States, must say that torture is un-American, simply because it is. No hair splitting, no fancy words, no legal distinction about what might or might not be torture. That will begin to restore, I think, our rightful place if we say we are against torture.

Let me briefly continue to say that being against torture is being for an America that is better than its enemies. It is that simple. I said we fought and won the Cold War after many decades. We faced nuclear annihilation during that period. We faced a

ruthless enemy all around the world, and yet we won that war. We did that with our reputation, our values, and our moral authority intact. It was and still is, I think, a beacon of hope around the world.

Those values and that moral authority, I believe, are what is going to allow us to prevail in the battle against the terrorists who wish to do harm--not just here but in other parts of the world as well. We need--and I believe the world needs--an America that people respect and admire, an America that is different, that begins in a manner that is loud and clear saying: We do not torture. This will empower our country and make us stronger.

I was very disappointed last week to hear the head of our intelligence service, and then to hear a spokesperson for the White House, say: Yes, we have waterboarded. They used the term--the right term--water torture; yes, we have done that. We did it because we must, and we reserve the right to do it again. It is exactly the wrong thing for this country. It is not just me saying that. I am not just quoting George Washington who has established the higher standard, and God bless him for doing so. Let me read what General Petraeus said, who leads the American troops in Iraq right now. Our most senior commander in Iraq, GEN David Petraeus, sent a letter to every Soldier, every Sailor, every Airman, Marine, and Coast Guardsman serving in Iraq. He said this:

Our values and the laws governing warfare teach us to

respect human dignity, maintain our integrity, and do what is

right. Adherence to our values distinguishes us from our

enemy.

This fight depends on securing the population, which must

understand that we--not our enemies--occupy the high ground.

Continuing to quote:

Some may argue that we would be more effective if we

sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain

information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the

basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows us

that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary.

That is General Petraeus, who leads our troops in Iraq, and says those who believe that torture is appropriate would be wrong.

I am happy to.

Mr. President, that is a significant contradiction for our country. I was as surprised and disappointed as the Senator from Illinois was to have one of the leading officials in this administration testify under oath that, yes, in fact, waterboarding had been used. It was in fact legal, they said, and it would be used again, if necessary, and could be sanctioned by the President of the United States.

The Senator is correct that this Congress passed a piece of legislation that defined waterboarding as torture and prohibits it, and the President at the White House, in a signing statement accompanying the legislation, essentially said: It doesn't matter so much what the legislation says; what matters is what I will decide to do.

Now, we have a disclosure--a public disclosure--to the world that this country has employed a technique that has, for hundreds of years, been described as torture.

I know and understand the passions that exist. I understand what I would like to see done to Osama bin Laden when he is captured. I understand the passions. But I also understand that what has given this country a different standing in the world is our value system.

Again, let me, if I might, for the Senator from Illinois, refer back to George Washington, which I described earlier before the Senator came on the Senate floor. When I think of the odds facing the Revolutionary Army, it is pretty unbelievable. The Senator from Illinois and I were at Mount Vernon recently, and we saw a display describing that at one point there were 5,000 soldiers in the Continental Army and 50,000 British soldiers. That was the fight. Our soldiers were shopkeepers and farmers, ordinary folks off the street. Theirs were trained British soldiers. So it was 5,000 to 50,000. George Washington and his soldiers saw members of the Continental Army captured and then, unarmed, murdered, executed by the British soldiers and the Hessians.

Washington's soldiers, when capturing some British soldiers, wanted to do the same thing. But he said, nothing doing, we are not going to do that. George Washington said that we are different and we are going to treat people the way they should be treated, not the way they treated us.

When you think of that set of standards and values and then wind your way through the discussion in recent days, and to have a top U.S. official say, yes, we have used waterboarding--and it is widely acknowledged as torture--we used it and it was legal and we intend to use it again if it is necessary.

Mr. President, it is far more than disappointing to me, and I think to a lot of people in this Chamber and across the country, that the President received advice from people who work for him in the White House and have said this under oath and on television and in every other venue that under the Commander in Chief powers, the President has the power to do almost anything. He can put out a drift- net and collect every communication under every condition--e-mails and telephone calls. Go to the documentary recently done, entitled ``No Way Out'' and view the interviews by this administration's officials, who take the position that this President has the authority as Commander in Chief to do almost anything. That includes this issue of torture.

The point I make is that we have a piece of legislation that we will vote on later this afternoon. Included in that legislation is a provision that says the Army Field Manual will describe the conditions of interrogation of enemy combatants. I just read what General Petraeus said to all of his soldiers--that torture is inappropriate and will not be allowed. The Army Field Manual prevents torture. What we are saying in the conference report that we will vote on in an hour or two is that the Army Field Manual's restrictions on torture apply to all U.S. Government officials and contractors doing interrogation.

My concern about this administration--and I think it is echoed by the Senator from Illinois--is that they have decided they are not bound by the law, they are not bound by what the Congress enacts. They are doing other sorts of dances with signing statements and interpretations of the Constitution to say that under the Commander in Chief powers they can do almost anything if they believe there is some kind of a threat. That is a very dangerous mind set, in my judgment, for any administration at any time.

The Senator answers the question by phrasing the question. Let me conclude by saying this: We have 43 top retired military leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces who have written a letter. As one, they say:

We believe it is vital to the safety of our men and women

in the uniform of the United States not to sanction the use

of interrogation methods it would find unacceptable if

inflicted on our captured Americans.

Today there are men and women fighting for this country. If captured, how would we react if the leader of a group that captured them says: We are torturing them because we feel we can get information, and we can only get it by torturing them, and we believe torture is legal. We are going to waterboard them, we believe it is legal. We have already done it, and we intend to do it again if we need to.

How would we feel if that were somebody else talking about how they are going to treat American soldiers? That is unacceptable. We have a country with a higher moral purpose and standards that have served us for two centuries, and we should not obliterate that just because we have some people in this administration who believe it is appropriate. It is not.

John McCain knows that. He led the fight to put a provision in law that prohibits torture. This President did a signing statement next to the legislation he signed, saying: I don't have to abide by it if I don't feel like it.

That is a scary thought in a democracy. I hope this afternoon we will register a very strong vote in support of this conference report and against the concept of our country engaging in torture.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for the information of colleagues, with the agreement of the minority, I ask unanimous consent that we have the vote scheduled at 5:25 and that we have consent that there not be other amendments in order prior to the vote on this amendment.

Mr. President, the issue of methamphetamine on Indian reservations is a dilemma. It is devastating scourge to Indian reservations. The Senator from Montana asks for cooperation of law enforcement jurisdictions to form opportunities to work together. It makes a lot of sense. It is not a mandate. He is not requiring it. But he is shining a spotlight on one of the significant health problems on Indian reservations. If I spent the time to talk to you about the testimony we received in committee hearings about what methamphetamine addiction has done, it is almost unbelievable. I won't describe that in detail here.

I support the sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It makes a great deal of sense.

My colleague from Alaska will no doubt want to give her thoughts. I believe the Senator from Montana will ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, February 14, at 9:30 a.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on the President's fiscal year 2009 budget request for tribal programs.

Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

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

Mr. President, I think most Senators will feel good about the significant progress on FISA, and hopefully we will get that completed.

Senator Thune and I were speaking a moment ago about the other piece of legislation we hope we might finish, when FISA is completed next Tuesday or Wednesday, and that is the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which we started on the floor of the Senate.

I would ask the Senator: Might we expect to be able to bring that up for a day? We believe we can finish that in a day next week.

Mr. President, I believe we have worked through most all areas of controversy, where we are waiting on some amendments that I believe Senator Coburn wishes some votes on. But I think we have made a lot of progress on both sides of the aisle to resolve items of controversy. I think if we could get it on the floor for 1 day, we can finish it. And, frankly, there is some urgency to Indian health care issues. As I said, Senators Murkowski, Thune, and others join me in hoping we can include that next week to be completed on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. President, I have been working with Senator Kyl and others to try to see if we can reach an agreement on any amendments. I believe there will be very few votes required. I think Senator Coburn has some that may require a couple of votes, but by and large I think we have worked through most of the issues. Senator Kyl and Senator Thune, on that side of the aisle, have been working with me.

But I would very much like to get whatever list or whatever time agreements we need so that we can bring that up. We really do need to finish that next week, following the disposition of FISA, if it is possible.