Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Commiitee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, August 3, 2007, at 8 a.m. in executive session to receive information relating to the treatment of detainees.

Mr. President, early in the consideration of the children's health insurance bill we are now considering, I offered an amendment, No. 2534. The amendment was to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, a piece of legislation we have moved through the Indian Affairs Committee, an authorization for Indian health care matters that has been proposed 11 times before in the last 8 years but has not passed the Congress.

We have a full-scale emergency and crisis with respect to Indian health care. I will not go on at great length except to say this: This Government has a responsibility for health care for Federal prisoners, and we also have a trust responsibility for health care for American Indians. We spend twice as much per person on health care for Federal prisoners as we do to meet our trust responsibility to provide health care for American Indians. I believe I can say without hesitation that there will be people who will die today and tomorrow in this country because we do not have adequate health care and have not kept our promise to the American Indians with respect to the trust responsibility for health care on Indian reservations.

I have determined we are going to pass this legislation this year. With the cooperation of my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, who indicated yesterday the Finance Committee will mark up this bill on September 12--it is a very important commitment from someone who shares my passion on this and who is a very strong supporter of American Indians and Indian health care--and with a commitment from Senator Reid, who similarly is a very strong supporter of these issues, that he will bring that bill to the floor of the Senate in this session of the Congress--with those commitments, I believe we will now, finally, in the Senate, pass the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, at long last.

With those commitments, I am confident we are on the road to getting done what we need to get done to meet our responsibility. Because of that, I will withdraw my amendment to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act on this Children's Health Insurance Program bill, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 2534.

I wonder if the Senator from Montana will yield for a question?

As I understand it, this legislation is paid for. The Finance Committee reported out a piece of legislation to provide health care coverage for about 3 million more children, and it is fully paid for; is that correct?

I don't know what is in second place with respect to what is important in people's lives, but if your children are not in the first place, something is wrong. Everybody who is a parent ought to understand the priority is your child--the children of this country.

I ask the Senator from Montana, the circumstances are that we have a lot of people in this country who do not have health insurance coverage. We have substantial problems with respect to dramatically increasing costs of health care. The fact is, we have sick kids in this country who do not get health care. They ought to get health care, but they do not because their parents do not have enough money in their pocketbook or their checkbook, and they are worried what it is going to cost if they take their kid to the doctor.

One of my colleagues and I held a hearing a couple of years ago, and a mother held up a poster with a colored picture of her son. He was dead. He died because he didn't get the health care he needed when he needed it. The fact is, that is happening in our country and, I say to my colleague from Montana, this is not a giant leap forward, but it is a significant step, to say we can do this. We can help children. We can provide health insurance for children who do not have it. We can fully pay for that bill, as the Senator from Montana has done, and his colleagues in the Finance Committee.

I ask my colleague, this is not a health insurance bill that is going to cover all Americans, that is going to dramatically expand, is it? Isn't this just a piece of legislation that takes a step forward in saying to 3 million kids that the days they are sick, no longer will their parents have to make a decision about whether they can afford to take them to a doctor? Isn't that what this is about?

If I might further inquire, that answer means these are kids who come from families who do not have the resources?

Further inquiring, in circumstances where they might believe they have no choice, they don't have any money, and they have a desperately sick child, they are going to show up in an emergency room. If that emergency room doesn't turn them away--and some will--that child will get the most expensive or the costliest health care because that is where it costs the most to provide health care--in the hospital emergency room. That is why this approach is so important.

I hear people say, what a radical thing to do, what an awful thing to do. This ought to be considered a baby step forward, but an important baby step, nonetheless, in doing what we are required to do in this country. Again, that is putting our children first, especially putting sick children first, sick children who come from families that do not have the money to find a way to get them to the doctor. That is what this is about. This ought to be a no brainer.

One final question, if I might. We have been on this for a while, and it has been a wide open discussion, and there have been a lot of amendments. I believe we have four or five additional votes scheduled at 4:30 today. I would like to inquire, what next? What do we anticipate? How many additional amendments might exist?

I hope we can work through this. It is a bipartisan bill. It makes so much sense. What does the Senator from Montana anticipate after the next batch of votes?

It is important to finish the bill tonight. It is a bipartisan bill with strong support. It is a matter of giving everybody an opportunity to offer their amendments, which we have done. At that point I think it will be a significant achievement for all Americans, what we have done for poor, sick children in this country. I thank my colleague from Montana for the leadership he and Senator Grassley and so many others have shown on this bill. This is a very important step for this Congress.

Mr. President, if one is going to boast on the Senate floor, I assume I can be forgiven for boasting about close relatives.

My story is about my Uncle Harold--Harold Bach to be exact.

I called Harold last week and asked him what he had been doing. He said he had just gotten back from Minnesota. I asked, ``What were you doing there?'' He said, ``Well I was running in the Senior Olympics events.''

I guess it is not too unusual to have someone tell you that they are engaged in some track and field events. But my uncle is 87 years old. I said, ``Harold, what events did you enter?'' He said, ``I ran in the 50 meter, the 100 meter and the 200 meter.'' I asked, ``How did you do?'' Harold said, ``I won three medals--a gold, a silver and a bronze.''

It wasn't news to me to hear that my uncle was running.

At age 72 Harold went to the Prairie Rose Games in North Dakota and just as a lark he entered races for age 70 and above. He easily won all three races that he entered. Then he decided, you know--I must have a talent here. It appears I can run faster than people my age. So he started running in other States. He ran in the Minnesota Senior Olympics, he ran in the South Dakota Senior Olympics, and then he was in Arizona and California.

He never stopped running. He has now won 100 medals in Senior Olympics events across the country. At age 87, I think he is still angling for more victories.

So I am announcing today that I am going to award my Uncle Harold a certificate, designating him as the oldest, fastest runner in our State's history. No, I have not done any research to demonstrate that, but I am sure it must be true. And besides, he's my uncle.

The message in having an 87-year-old uncle that runs the 100 meter dash in under 20 seconds is inspiring to me, and I hope, to everyone else. It is a message that if you don't know what you can't do, maybe you won't be surprised if you find out you can do it, even if others think it is improbable.

None of us should be limited by our notions of what is impossible. My Uncle Harold has described what is possible for him by trying--and succeeding. It is a lesson that many of us should learn over and over again. Defeat is not about trying and failing. Defeat is failing to try. And when my uncle determined that he was faster than anybody his age, he got himself a pair of running shoes and filled his car with gas. Fifteen years later he has won 100 track and field medals.

So, hats off to my Uncle Harold! His accomplishments in Senior Olympics events are impressive and inspiring.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I know others are waiting to begin morning business. Let me first add my hope with the majority leader that we will be able to move through these bills with some expeditious action this week. There has been so much delay in the Chamber. I know the majority leader wishes to move through and get these things done. I hope we can do that.

I want to mention to the Senator from Nevada that I have offered to the children's health insurance bill the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. I did that yesterday as an amendment. There are 3 million children benefitted by the children's health insurance bill, but there are 2 million American Indians who are subject to full-scale health care rationing. It is unbelievable what is happening.

We have had 11 separate bills introduced in the Congress since the authorization for the Indian Health Care Improvement Act expired some years ago, and none of them have moved. So I offered the amendment because I felt I had to do it to the Children's Health Insurance Program that is on the floor.

I indicated yesterday, however, in response to Senator Baucus, who said that he would mark up on September 12 in the Finance Committee the portions of the bill relevant to them, I indicated I would withdraw my amendment from the children's health bill if I could get a commitment to get the Indian health care bill to the floor of the Senate. I have already marked up the Indian health bill in the Indian Affairs Committee, my committee.

This is urgent. We have a problem with respect to rationing of health care with American Indians. I ask my colleague--and I know we have visited about it, and I know how strongly he supports American Indians and health care for them--can we have a commitment to get the Indian health bill to the floor of the Senate? If we can do that, I will withdraw my amendment here in anticipation of having that debate on Indian health in the next couple of months in the Senate.

Mr. President, that commitment of the majority leader is welcome. I observe this: There are few places in this country where someone having a heart attack would be wheeled into an emergency room with a piece of paper attached to their thigh by masking tape that says:

To the hospital: By the way, if you admit this woman,

understand you are on your own because contract health care

from the Indian Health Service has run out.

Very few places in this country will you see that. It describes how unbelievably urgent it is to pass this bill. The commitment from the majority leader is very welcome. It reflects his long-term commitment to deal with Indian issues.

The commitment from Senator Baucus to mark up his portion of the bill on September 12 is welcome. Therefore, when we are back on the children's health bill, I will withdraw my amendment as a result of the commitment to move it separately.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, most of us look back on our high school years as a wonderful time of learning, growing and maturing.

And also, most of us remember fondly one special teacher that gave us a nudge or an encouraging pat on the back or maybe even some discipline at the right moment.

For me, that teacher was Delores Tollefson. She was a big presence in a small school. She was the English teacher who virtually did it all in my small school of 40 students in all four high school grades. She put on all the class plays; she helped run the school newspaper and spearheaded the school annual; and she taught speech and English, and much more.

But most important to me was that she had the patience to see potential in her students. At just the right time she would offer either encouragement or disapproval and say, ``You can do that, you've got a lot of talent,'' or ``You're better than that. Come on--get busy and work up to your potential,'' or ``Great job!''

Most of us who were fortunate enough to have a teacher that saw potential and pushed us to reach it seldom took the time to say thank you.

This year marks the 90th birthday of Delores Tollefson and I want to pay tribute to a wonderful teacher who affected my life in a very positive way. It is time to say a very special ``Thank you.''

Happy Birthday, Delores Tollefson! And thank you for dedicating your life to teaching young people. It made a big difference in the life of this former student.

Mr. President, first of all, let me thank my colleagues, Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, for bringing to the floor the piece of legislation called the Children's Health Insurance Program. It is a very important bill. It will add several million more children to the health insurance rolls and provide important health insurance for kids who otherwise would not have it. I believe all of us in this Chamber would believe that children's health care should not be a function of how much money their parents may have in their pocketbook or their checkbook. A sick child needs health care. This legislation moves in that direction. I am pleased to support it. I thank my colleagues for the work they have done on it.

I do wish to offer an amendment at this point, and I wish to talk a bit about a very important issue that also relates to health care.

My amendment deals with the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. It is true that we will now improve the lives of 3 million children with the underlying bill. I fully support that and compliment my colleagues for doing that. It is also true that there are at least 2 million American Indians in this country living on Indian reservations who are seeing health rationing virtually every day of their lives. It is unbelievable that that condition continues to exist.

We have a trust responsibility for those people. The American Indians are a group of people in our midst with whom we made treaties, we made agreements, and we have the trust responsibility for Indian health care. We have not nearly met those responsibilities.

I would observe that we have a responsibility for the health care of those who are incarcerated in Federal prisons. Guess what. We spend twice as much per person on health care for Federal prisoners as we do in meeting our health care responsibility for American Indians on a per capita basis.

Amendment No. 2534

(Purpose: To revise and extend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act)

Let me say that I have filed amendment No. 2534. Let me call up that amendment, which is at the desk. I offer this on behalf of myself, Senator Johnson, Senator Murkowski, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Stevens.

I intend to speak about 25 minutes.

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

Mr. President, let me describe now, if I might, the issue of health care for American Indians, which I believe is an urgent national need. We have a trust responsibility for their health care. We have a piece of legislation that exists in law called the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, but it needs to be reauthorized. It has not been reauthorized for 15 years. It expired 7 years ago. We need to do this. Year after year after year, this Congress postpones it. We have passed legislation out of the committee; it does not get to the floor; it does not get done.

Let me show my colleagues a picture of a young 14-year-old girl. This precious child--her name is Avis Littlewind. Her relatives gave me permission to use her picture. Avis is dead. Avis committed suicide. I want to tell you the story about Avis because I went to talk to the school officials, the tribal officials, the mental health officials, and those who were in the extended family.

This 14-year-old girl took her own life. It probably should not have been a surprise to anyone because for 90 days this little girl lay in bed in a fetal position, missed school. Something was very wrong. This little girl had a sister who, 2 years previous, had committed suicide. This little girl had a father who took his own life. This little girl had another parent who was a very serious drug abuser. She laid in bed 90 days before she took her life.

Now, one might ask the question: Why does this 14-year-old girl just fall through the cracks? She thinks she is in a situation that is hopeless. She feels helpless and she takes her own life. But this little girl had a full life in front of her.

You know something? On that Indian reservation where Avis Littlewind lived, there were no mental health treatment facilities for someone to take this young lady, this young girl. One might ask and certainly should ask: Why is it in this country that mental health treatment is not available to a young child like this? Why is it that the person responsible for trying to give this young lady some help did not even have a car or any transportation? Even if you could find a mental health professional to treat this person, there is no transportation to get the person to treatment. Why is it that for 90 days this young lady lay in bed, and nobody from the school, nobody from the area, said: All right, there must be a big problem here; let's find out what is going on.

The fact is, this is one precious child who took her life. We have had clusters of teen suicides on Indian reservations. This is but one aspect of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, but it is not just mental health. The bill covers virtually every aspect of Indian health.

We are told that about 60 percent of Indian health care needs are met. That means 40 percent of the health care needs are unmet. There is full-scale health care rationing on Indian reservations. If we were to debate that on

the floor of the Senate, people would be appalled. You can't ration health care. Yet, that is what is happening.

We have a trust responsibility, and yet health care is being rationed with respect to Native Americans. American Indians die at higher rates with respect to tuberculosis, 6 times the national average; alcoholism, 5 times the national average; diabetes, 180 percent higher than the national average. In Alaska, Native communities in Alaska have fewer than 90 doctors for every 100,000 Alaska Natives. That compares to 229 doctors for every 100,000 Americans. Heart disease, diabetes, blood pressure, stroke--you name it. The incidence of most diseases affecting our Native Americans are at much higher rates than for non-Indians. Cervical cancer for American Indians and Alaska Natives is nearly four times higher than cervical cancer for other women in this country.

I mentioned before that Federal prisoners, for whom we have a responsibility for health care, receive twice as much funding per person on their health care needs than do American Indians for whom we have a trust responsibility. Stated another way, we spend twice as much per person on Federal prisoners than we do with respect to American Indians, and we have a trust responsibility in law to deal with American Indian health issues.

I want to show a photograph to describe health care rationing. This is a photograph of Ardel Hill Baker. She has also allowed me to use her photograph. Ardel Hill Baker was having a heart attack. As she was having a heart attack, she was taken from the Indian reservation by ambulance to a hospital. When they offloaded her from the ambulance onto a gurney to take her in the hospital, this woman, at the emergency room entrance, having a heart attack, had a piece of paper taped to her thigh. The hospital dutifully looked at that piece of paper. The piece of paper that was taped to her thigh said that the Indian Health Service contract health care is not an entitlement program, meaning there are no funds to pay for this service because it is not a life-or- limb medical condition.

Let me say that again. Someone is having a heart attack. When they are brought to the hospital, they have a big piece of paper taped to their leg. It says to the hospital: By the way, if you admit this person, you are on your own because our contract health care money is gone. In fact, this is the piece of paper which was taped to the leg of an Indian patient coming into a hospital, having a heart attack. What would anybody in this Chamber think if this were taped to the leg of their spouse or their son or their daughter? They are having a heart attack, but the hospital is told: You know what, we do not have any money for this person; if you admit this person, you are on your own. Contract health care. It is called health care rationing.

Tribal chairmen tell me that the refrain on their reservation is: Don't get sick after June because if you get sick after June, there is no money in contract health care. By the way, you can get a little help still, but it has to be life or limb. You must be threatened with the loss of a limb or the loss of your life; if not, tough luck.

We would be outraged, outraged, every single one of us, if this were our relative. But it was not. It was Ardel Hill Baker. She survived, but there are plenty who do not.

This is Lida Bearstail. Lida Bearstail had a serious problem with her leg. The bones in her knee were rubbing against each other; cartilage was worn away. She was in great pain, in great discomfort.

The normal treatment for perhaps someone in this Chamber or perhaps for a relative of someone in this Chamber would be to get a knee replacement, but in Lida Bearstail's case, Lida Bearstail was not given the option of getting a knee replacement.

Despite the great pain, it was not determined to be priority one, life or limb. She wasn't going to lose her limb or her life. She could just live with the pain. So because it wasn't priority one, life or limb, this woman whose bones were rubbing together in the knee in unbelievable pain was told: There is no health care available for you.

We have hearings to talk about all these issues. A doctor comes to our hearing and says: I had a patient come to me with a very serious problem with a knee. It was a ligament problem, very serious, very painful. That patient went to the Indian Health Service and they said: Wrap that knee in cabbage leaves for 4 days and you will be OK.

It is pretty unbelievable. Yet we can't get a bill on the floor of the Senate to deal with Indian health care. That is unbelievable. We have a responsibility to pass this legislation. I passed it out of the Indian Affairs Committee. Now we need to move it through the Senate and then the House so we can say to these people who need health care--the first Americans, Native Americans that this country understands its obligation, understands its trust responsibility, and we are going to do what we need to do to pass the legislation.

It is almost unbelievable that with all the priorities we discuss, we can't somehow make this a priority. In my State, we have some wonderful Indian tribes. The Three Affiliated Tribes is a wonderful tribe. It includes the Mandan, the Hidatsa, and the Arikara Nations. If you get sick on that reservation in Twin Buttes, ND, your nearest health facility is a little old building with a couple of tiny examination rooms. If you are lucky enough to get sick on one of the right days when a nurse is there and one of the few days when a doctor might be there, you might do OK. But this is a 1-million acre reservation. It is a big place. We had testimony from law enforcement the other day on that reservation. The first you would expect to be able to get someone to come to deal with a law enforcement call, no matter how serious, would be about an hour and a quarter to an hour and a half. So call while a crime is being committed and, perhaps an hour and a quarter later, if you are lucky, someone from law enforcement will show up. You might understand then that if you need a prescription or if you have a health care emergency, the dilemma Indians face on reservations.

A mother who has a feverish child who needs an antibiotic, or a diabetic who needs insulin--who don't have ready access to health care facilities, in circumstances such as that, we must find ways to meet these health care needs.

There are some who say--and I agree--we need substantial change. My colleague from Oklahoma is here. He talked about the prospect of saying: All right, let's have dramatic change. I am perfectly willing to work on dramatic change, to say that if we have a trust responsibility for someone for health care, let's let them show up at a hospital someplace and let's pay the bill so they can go to the providers who have the capability. We have the responsibility to do that. The problem is, we can't get a bill such as that through this Senate. I have offered time and again on the floor to add funding. The last time I tried to add $1 billion. It went down on a partisan vote. You can't get money added in this Senate to meet the responsibility we ought to meet with respect to Indian health care.

We have worked in a bipartisan way on this legislation in the Indian Affairs Committee. The vice chairman of the committee, Senator Murkowski of Alaska, is a cosponsor as well. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act is legislation that begins to answer and advance the interests of providing health care to American Indians and meeting our trust responsibility to do so. We would authorize additional tools to deal with the issue of teen suicide on Indian reservations.

I began by talking about Avis Littlewind, but I could have talked about many others. I have had several hearings on this subject. The bill also includes new provisions to address lack of health care services. We have begun trying to find a different construct of convenient care for American Indians on reservations. It includes several Medicaid provisions that are in the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee is going to be holding a markup. We will talk with the chairman and ranking member about including this bill in that markup.

My point today is very simple. I understand the need to provide additional health care opportunities for 3 million American children is very important. It is no more important than providing the health care we promised we would provide to 2 million American Indians who live on reservations for whom we

have trust responsibilities. We have broken far too many promises to American Indians. We have done it for far too many decades. It is time for this Congress and the country to keep its word and meet its promise. We don't have a choice, and it is not going to break the bank to do that.

I encourage all my colleagues, go to the Indian reservations. See for yourself. See a dentist practicing in an old trailer house for 5,000 patients, operating out of an old trailer. Go see that. Then ask yourself: Is this the kind of health care we promised? Are we delivering what we promised? The answer is a resounding no.

I understand in this Chamber there are priorities. With respect to the priorities all of us have, we all have different things we are passionate about. We have now on the floor a health care bill. This legislation is important. The reason I offer this amendment is, when we talk about health care, I think we have a responsibility to address Indian health as well. If we can, we need to, either tonight or tomorrow, get a commitment on dates to mark up and bring to the floor of the Senate the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which is 7 years overdue and 15 years since it was last reauthorized. If we can get that commitment, I will know we are going to get this through the Senate. That is the goal.

I am going to visit with Senator Baucus. Let me also make the point, Senator Baucus has been a very strong supporter of Indian issues. I have been happy to work with him. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act was sent to the Indian Affairs Committee. We have moved this out of committee. I think we have written it in a way that substantially improves Indian health care. Now it waits, as it waited last year, the year before and the year before that and the year before that. Every single year it is the same thing. I am flat out tired of it. I will not let it happen this time. One way or another, this needs to get done by this Senate because this Senate has a responsibility to do it. We have not met this responsibility for too many years. This year I insist we do so. The fact is, kids are dying. Elders are dying because the health care doesn't exist that we had previously promised. We have a responsibility to do something about it.

I say to the chairman of the committee, I will visit with Senator Reid, and I know Senator Baucus is a strong supporter of Indian issues. I hope if I can get a commitment that we can get from the Finance Committee a markup--and I know the Senator wants to do that--if I can then get a commitment from Senator Reid to bring this to the floor, I don't intend to interrupt the children's health insurance bill, but if I can't get that commitment, I fully intend to interrupt this bill as long as I can interrupt it because it is that important.

To my colleague from Montana, let me say thank you for allowing me to at least at this moment offer this amendment, and let me ask my colleague if I can get some hope that the two of us, working with others, can move together to get this through the Senate in a reasonable time. I am going to ask the same of the majority leader, who I know also is very supportive of Indian issues and very much wants to get this done.

Mr. President, let me say thank you. If we can get a markup in the Senate Finance Committee on September 12, that allows the bill to move to the floor of the Senate. I am going to talk to Senator Reid, who I know is a strong supporter of Indian issues and feels very strongly about this. If I can get a commitment, I know he wants to provide that commitment to get to the floor of the Senate, then I will seek to withdraw the amendment from this bill. But I do want to visit, and perhaps in the morning on the floor, with Senator Reid on that subject.

I wished to make two more points, and then I know my colleague from North Carolina seeks recognition.

This chart shows the expenditures per capita relative to other Federal health expenditure benchmarks. This deals with Indians versus all others--Indians get far less. Here is the expenditure per capita for Medicare, the Veterans' Administration, Medicaid, Federal prisoners, the Federal Employees Health benefits. Here is Indian Health Service. It is unbelievable to me how much less it is. In many ways, all of this is intertwined--social services, health care, law enforcement, housing, education, it is all intertwined. What got me interested and involved in Indian issues--and I am privileged to serve as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee and feel a deep responsibility to force us to do the right thing--what got me involved one day was a young girl named Tamara.

Tamara was a young 3-year-old American Indian girl who was put in a foster home. But the person who was handling the social services cases was handling 150 cases, so they did not bother to check the home this little girl was going to be put into. It was not long before, at a drunken party, that little girl had her nose broken, her arm broken, and her hair pulled out at the roots. It will scar that little girl for life. I met her. I met her granddad. I talked to the social worker. I fixed that social worker problem by getting additional workers in, so that it does not happen again.

The fact is that should never happen. These incidences should not happen. We do not have the resources to do what is necessary, to do what needs to be done. Nowhere is that more true than in health care. Health care is not a luxury. When there is a sick kid someplace, or a sick elder, when somebody has a health problem, we have a responsibility to find a way to help.

For those who might listen to this and say that Indian health care is not our responsibility, oh, yes, it is. We signed treaties. We made promises, and we broke them every chance we got. Maybe in the year 2007 we can begin keeping a promise or two. These are promises we have a responsibility to keep. It is our trust responsibility.

There is a lot to do in health care, but there is nothing more important than meeting our obligation to provide health care for Native Americans because we made that agreement with them, and we need to keep that agreement.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the regular order. I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I have sent a second-degree amendment to the desk to the Landrieu amendment. My second degree will not strike her amendment. As a matter of fact, it will add at the end of her amendment the provisions of an amendment I had offered on Defense authorization. I am to chair the Democratic Policy Committee luncheon in a few minutes so I am not able to speak at length about this amendment. I intend to do that at some later point.

I wish to mention what Senator Landrieu has described in her first- degree amendment, the interest in having as our major policy goal here with respect to the fight against terrorism, the destruction of and elimination of the leadership of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden. My amendment is one I had offered, as I said, to the Defense authorization bill, previously. It is an amendment that requires a quarterly classified report to be offered to the Congress that would tell us what is being done to bring to justice the leadership of al-Qaida.

The reason for offering that is quite simple. A week ago, we had a new National Intelligence Estimate, an NIE, given to the Congress in classified and unclassified form; an NIE that was reported to the American people. The reports were not particularly surprising but in some ways stunning. The report says the greatest terrorist threat to our homeland, in this country--the greatest terrorist threat to our homeland is al-Qaida and its leadership. It also says al-Qaida and its leadership is in a secure hideaway or safe harbor.

I ask the question for which there is no answer: Why, nearly 6 years after 9/11/2001, in which Osama bin Laden boasted about engineering the murder of thousands of innocent Americans--why, after 6 years, is there a safe harbor or secure hideaway anywhere on this planet for the leadership of al-Qaida and for Osama bin Laden? That, in my judgment, is a failure.

We have a lot of briefings in this Congress; some of them classified, top secret briefings. There are no briefings

that I am aware of on what is being done or what has not been done to bring to justice, to apprehend, and eliminate the leadership of al- Qaida. Those briefings do not exist. One of the reasons that perhaps we have not seen progress in bringing to justice and eliminating the leadership of al-Qaida is the President himself said: I don't think much about that. I don't think much, don't care much about Osama bin Laden.

If you believe the intelligence estimates, they are today planning additional attacks against this country. Yesterday, we woke up to the news that there are apparently dry runs, they think--our intelligence people think there are dry runs being made in our airports with various things packed in luggage by terrorists who want to do potential attacks later. We hear all these reports and the question remains: Why is it the leadership of the organization that poses the greatest terrorist threat to this country has a secure hideaway somewhere or a safe haven somewhere? There ought not be a square inch of ground on this planet that is safe for those who murdered Americans on 9/11, for those who pose the greatest threat to this country. That is intolerable.

The Defense authorization bill will come back to the floor of the Senate, I guess. This amendment I have offered is in that piece of legislation. But to make certain this amendment becomes law and gets to the desk of the President for signature, I have offered it to this appropriations bill. I understand it fits better on Defense authorization. My hope is that is where it will wind up on the President's desk.

It seems to me we went through agonizing debates and passionate debates on the floor of the Senate about the war in Iraq. I respect everybody's opinion on those issues. But while we have soldiers who got up this morning and strapped on body armor and got in humvees and then went and knocked door to door in Baghdad in the middle of a civil war, where Shias are killing Sunnis and Sunnis are killing Shias and Shias and Sunnis are both killing Americans--while that happened this morning in the middle of a civil war, we have the greatest terrorist threat to this country apparently in a safe harbor or secure hideaway. That ought not exist. First things first. Let's fight the terrorists first and defeat the terrorists first. That ought to be the first and most important priority and responsibility. If they are the greatest threat to this country, let's eliminate that threat. That ought to be the goal of this country. That is why I offer this amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment has two parts to it. No. 1, it increases the reward for the elimination of the al-Qaida leadership and Osama bin Laden, and, No. 2, it required a quarterly classified report to be made to the Congress, every quarter, from this administration and from any administration, to say what they are doing, to tell us what they have been doing to try to apprehend and bring to justice and eliminate the leadership of the greatest terrorist threat to this country.

Is it too much to ask that we ought to be informed?

We ought to understand what is being done or what is not being done. I think the American people have a reason to ask the question: Why, nearly 6 years later, do we now read--and I have read it on a number of occasions in unclassified versions of classified reports that say--there is a secure hideaway for Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaida?

There is a secure hideaway. There is safe haven. Now, why should any place on this Earth be secure or safe for those who would attack this country?

Well, the intelligence reports indicate that somewhere between Pakistan and Afghanistan, in the tribal-controlled mountainous regions, there is some sort of safe hideaway or secure hideaway or safe haven, as they call it. I have flown over this region. I have looked down, and I know there is no border. You cannot tell what country you are in. I have flown over the region that they call tribal-controlled between Afghanistan and Pakistan. There is no evidence of a country boundary. It is a tough country, tough region, I understand that.

But if we now have al-Qaida reconstituting and rebuilding training camps, which they are doing--they are recruiting new recruits, they are building training camps, they are planning attacks against the West, planning attacks against the United States of America, and doing so in a secure hideaway or safe haven--then I say that is wrong. It ought to be job No. 1 for this country to eliminate the leadership of al-Qaida that represents the greatest threat to our country.

That is the purpose of this amendment, to say we want that to be the overriding and overarching goal, and we want reports, classified reports every single quarter of what has been done or what has not been done because I do not believe, frankly, this has been a significant priority.

It certainly should have been. If it has not been in the past, at least let's make it so in the future.

I want to say that Senator Conrad joins me in this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be added as a cosponsor as well.

As I said, I have to chair the Democratic policy committee luncheon in just a moment. I wanted to make a comment on the amendments that have been offered, and perhaps after the policy committee luncheon, if these issues are still pending, I will be able to comment.

Senator Vitter has offered an amendment dealing with prescription drugs. Senator Cochran has second-degreed that amendment, as I understand it. I believe we ought to have access to lower priced prescription drugs, FDA-approved prescription drugs.

Lower priced prescription drugs exist in virtually every other country of the world. Why should the American consumer not have the capability to acquire them under our current rules? I would say that we already have a circumstance where we are allowed about a 90-day supply of drugs, if someone walks across the border or drives across and comes back with a personal use, 90-day supply. Very few Americans live close enough to the border to be able to do that. But we have an amendment that is a broad bipartisan amendment; 30-some Members of the Senate have worked on it, cosponsored it. This will not be the legislation in which we consider that amendment, I do not expect.

The amendment that Senator Vitter has offered, as second-degreed by Senator Cochran, would simply restate current rules; that is, currently what is allowed. It would simply restate current rules, which I assume offends no one but accomplishes nothing as well.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

Let me say that on the amendment I just offered, I would be glad to a 10-minute time agreement when we get ready. I expect we will not need a recorded vote on that. But I know, as the Senator from Nevada is pointing out, we had an objection to even the motion to proceed on this bill, which was strange to me. Why would anybody have objected to proceeding?

Now we get a bill on the floor, and Senator Byrd, Senator Cochran, the chairman and ranking member, I know they want to get this done. I believe we ought to get these appropriations bills through and out of here. This is a good bill.

I hope this afternoon Senators can come and offer the amendments. I hope we can get this bill done today. It is not just this bill, we have got a lot of appropriations bills we have to do. So the Senator from Nevada, the majority leader, has an important message: We need to get this appropriations bill done. It deals with homeland security after all.

Mr. President, my understanding is that by unanimous consent, we have a vote scheduled at 2 o'clock.

I know of no opposition to the amendment I have offered. Are there those on the minority side seeking to use time against the amendment?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Conrad be recognized for 4 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent to use the remaining time.

Mr. President, my understanding is that we have a 2 o'clock vote on this amendment. This amendment is one Senator Conrad and I had offered on the Defense authorization bill. That bill, as you know, is no longer on the floor of the Senate. So we offer it now to this legislation. Just as my colleague from Louisiana has previously offered an amendment with respect to the objective and the priority of eliminating the leadership of al-Qaida, this amendment we offered about 2 weeks ago would do two things: increase the reward for Osama bin Laden and the leaders of al-Qaida; No. 2, and most important, it would require quarterly top-secret classified briefings to this Congress every quarter about what is or is not being done to bring to justice, to capture, or kill the leadership of al-Qaida.

Why do we want to do this? It has been nearly 6 years since thousands of Americans were murdered--innocent Americans murdered by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. They boasted about engineering the murder of innocent Americans.

Here is what last week's National Intelligence Estimate says:

Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist

threat to the homeland.

That doesn't need much interpretation. The most serious threat to our homeland is al-Qaida.

We assess the group has protected or regenerated key

elements of its homeland attack capability, including a safe

haven in the Pakistan federally administered tribal areas,

operational lieutenants, and its top leadership.

Does anybody in this country believe there ought to be a safe haven on this

planet for those who boasted about murdering thousands of innocent Americans? Does anybody believe there ought to be secure hideaways or a safe haven for the leadership of al-Qaida that, today, in the mountains somewhere, are planning attacks against this country?

Why, after 6 years, are we not successful in bringing to justice and limiting the leadership of al-Qaida? It is not as if we don't know all of this.

This is in June:

Al-Qaida regroups in new sanctuary on the Pakistan border.

While the U.S. presses on in its war against insurgents

linked to al-Qaida in Iraq, bin Laden's group is recruiting,

regrouping, and rebuilding in a new sanctuary. . . .

This is from the New York Times in February:

Terror officials see al-Qaida chiefs regaining power.

Senior leaders from al-Qaida are operating from Pakistan

near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence

and counterterrorism officials.

How much more do we need to understand? We have soldiers in Iraq going door to door in Baghdad in the middle of a civil war, where Sunni and Shia are killing each other and Sunni and Shia are both killing American soldiers. In the middle of a civil war, we have soldiers going door to door in Baghdad and, in the meantime, we have al-Qaida building training camps in a secure hideaway between Pakistan and Afghanistan. And today, this afternoon, they are planning additional attacks against our country. That is unbelievable to me.

Mr. President, in August 2001, the Presidential daily briefing given to this President said the following:

Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.

That was the title. Nearly 6 years later, we now have intelligence assessments with this title:

Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West.

That is what I call failure.

We must succeed. That is why we ask with this amendment for quarterly classified top-secret briefings to this Congress to tell us what they are doing or what they are not doing to bring to justice and to eliminate the leadership of al-Qaida. It is unbelievable to me that Osama bin Laden, who boasted of attacking this country, now apparently is in a secure hideaway or a safe haven. Nowhere on this small planet should there be somewhere safe for the leader of the organization or the leadership of the organization that launched the attack on this country in 2001. It is unbelievable to me that we are in this situation.

Now, the President said this when asked about it:

I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really

don't care. It is not that important and it is not our

priority.

Those are the words of President Bush.

Let me read the words of the National Intelligence Estimate of last week that came out from this administration:

Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist

threat to the homeland.

Maybe we ought to modify that statement of the President because it ought to be our priority. That is what this amendment is about. It should have been our priority 4 years ago, 5 years ago. It ought to be our priority today. I know of no more important priority for this country than dealing with the leadership of al-Qaida and eliminating the greatest political threat and the most serious terrorist threat to our homeland. That is what our amendment does.

I hope the Senate will once again agree to this amendment and establish this as a preeminent priority for this country.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, it is my understanding no time remains and we will go to a vote immediately; is that correct?

What is the Senator's request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we consider the amendment I have offered, notwithstanding rule XVI.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada and others were in the well a moment ago when Senator DeMint indicated what he wanted was a vote on my amendment. I said that is fine, withdraw your objection and we will have a vote on my amendment. Apparently, that is not what he wanted because the Senator offered an objection relative to rule XVI. The Chair sustained the Senator's objection, and because the Senator won, he was not satisfied and wanted to do something further.

I don't have the foggiest idea what might be the motivations here. If the Senator from South Carolina wants a vote on my amendment, all he has to do is withdraw his objection, and we can have a vote in 30 seconds. If there is some other nefarious purpose here, then maybe the Senator might explain it to us.

Madam President, on rollcall 279, I voted ``nay.'' It was my intention to vote ``yea.'' I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote. It will not affect the outcome of the vote.

Madam President, I came in at the end of the vote intending to vote against Senator Alexander's amendment and did not look close enough. It was actually a tabling motion. So I would not want to vote to table Senator Alexander's amendment.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

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

Madam President, let me make one additional point I did not make earlier in the discussion in the Senate, and I think it is an important point to make.

There was a suggestion on the floor of the Senate by a Senator earlier that rule XVI has been applied in this Senate in a manner that was unfair. That is simply not the case. Every Senator has the right to raise the issue of rule XVI if someone is trying to legislate on an appropriations bill. It was done, as another Senator suggested, with respect to Senator Graham; it was done with respect to something they offered on the floor. Everyone has that right.

But let me make this point: It is not unusual to legislate on an appropriations bill in circumstances where what is being done is something that is done almost by unanimous consent, a provision that everyone agrees with, a provision that is noncontroversial. That is

not unusual at all. That happens all the time.

Now, I am frankly surprised there is anyone in this Chamber who would disagree with the proposition that we ought to get quarterly classified, top-secret reports on what is happening to try to eliminate the al-Qaida leadership that apparently is now in a safe haven in the tribal area of Pakistan. I didn't expect that to be controversial. I didn't expect there would be one person in this Senate who would disagree with that. But, apparently, there is. He has that right. But it is an unfortunate circumstance that we had a situation that allows, or a situation that persuades someone to stand up on the floor and say there is a double standard on rule XVI. There is no double standard. There is not one person in the Senate who believes that, outside of the person who said that. There is no double standard. The standard is applied in exactly the same way to every Senator.

What is unusual to me is objecting to the standard of allowing what normally would be uncontroversial, or noncontroversial provisions-- including this one, saying it ought to be our top priority to eliminate the leaders of al-Qaida, and that the Administration should give Congress quarterly reports on what is being done to address the greatest terrorist threat to our country. I am flabbergasted. I am enormously surprised that would be controversial with anyone in the Senate. I would expect 100 Senators would agree with that proposition, but one, apparently, does not.

So we will have that debate again. We will have the debate at another time. As I said earlier, we have already added the same amendment to the Defense authorization bill. That was an amendable bill. That bill has been taken from the floor at this point, but I assume it will come back.

I did wish to make the point on behalf of every Senator, except the person who said this, that there is no double standard on rule XVI. Those who suggest that, profoundly misunderstand, apparently, the rules of the Senate. But there should not be a misunderstanding in this Senate about the urgency of at least 99 Members of the Senate wanting to go after and eliminate the leadership of al-Qaida. I would hope that would represent everyone's determination.

Al-Qaida is the terrorist organization that represents the greatest terrorist threat to this country, right now, according to the National Intelligence Estimate; and al-Qaida and its leaders are the ones who boasted about murdering 3,000 or more innocent Americans on 9/11/2001.

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

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I visited earlier with my colleague from Louisiana. I think this is an awfully good amendment. It establishes a priority which should have been established long ago.

As you know, the President, when asked about Osama bin Laden, at one point said, I don't care about Osama bin Laden. I don't care about Osama bin Laden. Now we have the National Intelligence Estimate that says the greatest terrorist threat to this country is the leadership of al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. If that is the case, it ought to be job one to eliminate the leadership of al-Qaida. Eliminating the greatest terrorist threat to our country ought to be the most important goal. That is what the Senator states in her amendment.

I spoke yesterday about this issue at some length, describing the kind of Byzantine position we are in with everyone telling us that here is the great threat to our country. Yet, on the other hand, we are going door to door in Baghdad in the middle of a civil war with our soldiers while there is what is called a safe harbor or secure haven apparently in Pakistan or Afghanistan or somewhere on the border.

My point is there ought not be a square inch of safety anywhere, no safe harbor, no secure hideaway anywhere on this planet for the leadership of al-Qaida.

I think this is a good amendment. I intend to offer the amendment that I offered on the Defense authorization bill as well tomorrow. It was passed unanimously and my hope is it will be accepted unanimously. Senator Conrad offered it, but the Defense authorization bill was pulled. I intend to offer that amendment tomorrow, but my hope is the Senate will approve the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana because I think it advances this country's interest in defeating terrorism, and that is a very important goal.

Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the reauthorization of the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978, which is reauthorized in conjunction with the Higher Education Act. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I have been working closely with the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to ensure that amendments enhancing tribal colleges and universities are included in S. 1642, the Higher Education Reauthorization Act.

Title IX of S. 1642 reauthorizes the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978 and includes a new title to authorize Department of the Interior funding for institutional operations of the two tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions: United Tribes Technical College and Navajo Technical College. Funding authorized under the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act is essential as it provides the resources necessary for these institutions to continue to provide high quality, culturally relevant higher education opportunities for Indian students in Indian country.

I have been a longtime supporter of the Nation's tribal colleges and universities because I see how they benefit both their communities and individual students. There are 34 tribal colleges and universities throughout the United States. My home State of North Dakota is fortunate to have five of these remarkable institutions.

Tribal colleges and universities offer a wide range of accredited academic programs including many from areas of high need such as teacher education, business administration, and nursing. In addition to college level programming, tribal colleges and universities also offer much needed high school completion programs, job training, and college preparatory courses.

These vital institutions are essential to their tribal communities, many of them serving as community centers, public libraries, tribal archives, career and business centers, economic development centers, public meeting places and child and elder care centers.

Approximately 28,000 American Indian and Alaska Native students attend tribally controlled colleges and universities across the country. Tribal colleges are located in isolated, remote areas, with high unemployment rates where average family income is approximately $14,000.00--27 percent below the Federal poverty level. As a result, the cost of attending a mainstream institution, which for many reservation communities is several hours away, is prohibitively high, especially when tuition, travel, housing, textbooks, and other expenses are considered.

Most students attending tribal colleges are the first generation in their family to go to college. American Indians who earn a bachelor's degree or higher can expect to earn two times as much as those with a high school diploma and four times as much as those with no high school diploma. Tribal colleges are proven agents of change and provide real hope for the future of their graduates and their tribal economies.

I have been fortunate enough to hear from many American Indian students who have benefited from tribal colleges and universities, including one young woman who faced many challenges growing up on the Turtle Mountain Reservation in North Dakota.

As a young child, this young woman often felt isolated at school, but realized at a very young age that education was the key to making a better life for herself and enriching her community. This belief stayed with her throughout a particularly challenging period of her life in which she dropped out of high school and became a mother. This series of events provided her with even more incentive to seek education, so she enrolled in the Turtle Mountain Tribal College. She loved college, excelled and has earned her Ph.D. Her story illustrates the important role tribal colleges play in lifting Indian children and young adults, who have faced so many obstacles and adversity in their lives, out of poverty and despair.

In addition to the Tribal College Act reauthorization, S. 1642 reauthorizes a program for developing institutions under title III of the Higher Education Act specifically for the Nation's tribal colleges and universities. I fully support the adoption of the proposed changes that I believe will greatly enhance the tribal college's ability to provide higher education opportunities to their reservation communities.

Lastly, I applaud all institutions that serve American Indian students but we need to make sure that the proposed new title III program for ``Native American-serving, nontribal institutions'' included in S. 1642 does not negatively impact the already limited funding available for tribal colleges and universities.

I remain committed to finding ways to increase access to quality postsecondary opportunities for American Indian students and to further strengthen the capacity of tribal colleges. S. 1642 provides solid steps towards doing just that.

Madam President, the two legislators who bring this bill to the floor of the Senate are serious and thoughtful legislators. Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran have been around this place for some while. They have been on the Appropriations Committee. Both have chaired that committee. I am pleased to be here to support their work. I think this is a very important subcommittee and one that funds critically important programs for this country. But I want to say that unlike other subcommittees on Appropriations--one of which I chair and will hopefully bring that bill to the floor of the Senate--this subcommittee's actions and this subcommittee's product represent an urgency for this country. We probably don't say that about every subcommittee because we need to fund the things we need to do, but this is urgent. I want to describe why it is urgent.

I come from a small town of 300 people in the southwestern corner of my State. I was thinking as I was sitting here waiting to speak, this is called homeland security. If, in fact, this were a decision and deliberation by my hometown and the subject was hometown security and we knew what the most serious threat to our town was, we would go find that threat and try to eliminate it.

I want to tell you why I believe it is an urgent circumstance to pass this legislation. My colleague from Washington described the National Intelligence Estimate of last week. I am going to talk about that just a bit before I talk about the funding of the accounts in this legislation that is so important to fighting terrorism--that is providing security for our ports and security in aviation, law enforcement, border protection, and so on.

Last week the National Intelligence Estimate was provided to us, both in a classified and an unclassified version. Here is what it said, in part:

Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist

threat to the homeland . . . we assess the group has

protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack

capability, including: A safe haven in the Pakistan federally

administered tribal areas, operational lieutenants, and its

top leadership.

Let me say that again. The National Intelligence Estimate says to us the greatest threat, the most serious terrorist threat to the homeland--that means the most serious threat to the United States of America and to our homeland--is an organization called al-Qaida. They have protected or regenerated key elements of their homeland attack capability, including a safe haven in the Pakistan federally administered tribal areas.

That is a different subject on which I spoke about recently. There ought not be 1 square inch of ground on this planet that would be safe for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Six years after 9/11, there ought not be 1 square inch on this entire planet Earth that is a safe haven or protected secure hideaway for the greatest or most serious threat to our country.

This should not be a surprise to us, the National Intelligence Estimate. We have been reading the accounts. This is from June 26, Jonathan Landay from the McClatchy Bureau:

While the U.S. presses its war against insurgents linked to

al-Qaida in Iraq, Osama bin Laden's group is recruiting,

regrouping and rebuilding in a new sanctuary along the border

between Afghanistan and Pakistan, senior U.S. military and

intelligence and law enforcement officials said. The threat

from the radical Islamic enclave in Waziristan is more

dangerous than that from Iraq, which President Bush and his

aides call the central front in the war on terrorism, said

some current and former U.S. officials and experts.

A month or two prior to that, senior leaders of al-Qaida operating from Pakistan over the past year have set up a band of training camps in tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials. American officials said there was mounting evidence

that Osama bin Laden and his deputy al Zawahiri had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of north Waziristan.

I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, it means if the most serious threat to our country exists from a terrorist organization that has rebuilt and regenerated its capability to attack us in our homeland--and that is what our National Intelligence Estimate tells us--it means homeland security is ever more important and the investments in that homeland security, in the accounts such as port security, aviation security, border security, are so unbelievably important. That is why I called this bill ``urgent.'' There is an urgency about passing this bill because of this serious threat.

This bill is the Homeland Security Appropriations bill which provides the kinds of protections that we need for the threats and attacks against our homeland. When I describe what the National Intelligence Estimate last week said was the most serious threat to our country, I described that that threat comes from those who will attempt to cross our borders. Therefore, this bill has border security.

That threat may come from those who might try to board airplanes.

That is addressed by the issue of aviation security. That threat may come from someone nailing themselves into a container with food and telephones and a heater----

As we heard happened before, and was shipped into a port in this country in the middle of a container ship with a weapon of mass destruction or some other device by which they can attack this country. That is why this legislation of this Appropriations subcommittee contains port security. That is why there is an urgency about all of these issues.

I am happy to yield further.

The President of the United States, in August 2001, received this Presidential daily briefing with this title: ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.''

My point is, in July 2007, nearly 6 years later, July 2007, the intelligence assessment from the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center says this: ``Al-Qaida better positioned to strike in the West.''

Nearly 6 years later, those who attacked our country and murdered thousands of innocent Americans, we are told by those who provide the intelligence for this country that they are in a better position now to attack this country in its homeland.

Let me say it in a different way, concluding in the same manner. I am not, with this, describing one person, one organization, one philosophy at fault. I am saying there is something wrong with respect to what I think is a failure here, that is a significant failure, part of which I hope and believe can be remedied by the bill that has been put together by Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran, dealing with homeland security.

It has been almost 6 years since the terrorists attacked this country on 9/11/2001. After almost 6 years and two wars in two countries and well over half a trillion dollars spent at home and abroad, the deaths of thousands in our military and the wounding of tens of thousands in our military, after all that period of time, we are told there is a sanctuary, a safe haven, a safe harbor for the leaders of the greatest threat to this country, the leaders of al-Qaida.

My point is, there ought not be anywhere safe on the face of this planet. If the greatest threat to our country exists in the leadership of this organization that is rebuilding training camps and terrorist training camps, then we have done something wrong. We must, as the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Mississippi suggested in this bill, we must rebuild our capabilities to defend ourselves against an attack on our homeland.

But even as we do that, we must rededicate ourselves as a country to save the first and most important job, the first and most important effort, to go after and eliminate the terrorist threat. I mean, it gets back to the debate we have had with--I respect other people's views on this, but we are going door to door in Baghdad with our soldiers in the middle of sectarian violence or a civil war when, in fact, the greatest threat to our country is in the hills somewhere between Afghanistan and Pakistan, building training camps and having the greatest capacity to attack our homeland because they have regenerated their strength.

In my judgment, that is a failure. So we have to rededicate ourselves on two points. No. 1, I believe we have to find a way to extract ourselves from the civil war in Iraq. Yes, we need to continue to do several things in force protection for our forces, training the Iraqi security and Iraqi police and Iraqi soldiers for Iraq's security, and also taking on the areas in Iraq where al-Qaida does exist.

But what is principally happening in Iraq is not about al-Qaida and terrorism, what is principally happening in Iraq is about sectarian violence and a civil war. My point is, we ought to see if we cannot make sure that we will change the policies in this country and begin to start fighting terrorists first.

That ought to be the priority. If the terrorists, al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden and their leadership, represent the greatest threat to this country, then why is that not the process by which we fight terrorists first? Instead, we are bogged down going door to door in Baghdad. Well, here is what we have. We have a piece of legislation on the floor of the Senate now that deals with homeland security.

We want homeland security, we want it to succeed. We want to be safe and secure with the ways to do that. One is to do what we have done and try to strengthen our ports, strengthen aviation, strengthen our borders. The legislation that has been brought to us today does all of that and more. This has money for mass transit security. Well, that is critically important. We know the danger and the potential danger to our subway systems, as we have seen in London with terrorist attacks.

Port security. We have had discussions on the floor of this Senate that go on and on and on, but we have these ships that come into our ports with giant containers. We are going to spend, I think in the appropriations bill on defense, we are going to spend $10 to $11 billion to try to provide an electronic catcher's mitt for intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads.

So if we can create a catcher's mitt of some type, or hit a bullet with a bullet when an ICBM is coming in with a nuclear warhead, we are going to spend $10 to $11 billion to try to solve that problem. The more likely attack with a nuclear weapon is a ship, a container ship, pulling up to a port at 3 to 4 miles an hour, pulling up at the dock of one of America's major cities with a container right smack in the middle of the ship containing a weapon of mass destruction. That is the most likely threat against this country. We are not spending $10 or $11 billion to deal with that.

I went to a seaport once. In fact, I went to a seaport in Seattle, WA, because I do not know much about seaports. I come from a State that is not boundaried by water. So I wished to see what security was like at the seaport.

One of the things I remember from that visit was they had opened a container. Now, they do not open very many. I believe we have something akin to 11 million containers come into this country on container ships, 11 million containers. I believe it is somewhere around 3 to 5 percent are inspected, and 97 or 95 percent are not inspected.

They opened the container. It was a refrigerated container. I was kind of curious. So I looked at the back of it. There it was, 100-pound bags of broccoli from Poland. I said: Well, I see now this is a giant container full of frozen broccoli from Poland. I can see now that because you opened the door in the back and you have cut open a couple of bags.

I said, what is the middle of this container? I see what is in the back. What is deep in the middle of this container?

Well, we do not know that. We assume it is frozen broccoli. We pulled some bags out to make sure there was broccoli in this container. But the fact is, they did not check that, they could not check it. So millions of containers come in and they are not checked.

Now we have what amounts to kind of a CAT-scan device for big trucks and containers, very expensive, but it is kind of like a CAT scan for your body; you run it past the container and you can see right through the container and see what is in it. It is very expensive, very difficult to get done on 11 million containers. The same is true for air cargo. We have a Herculean task to protect this country against those who are perfectly willing to kill themselves, as long as they can kill many innocent people. This is a very difficult proposition.

So again, I say to the chairman and ranking member on the subcommittee, I think they have done a terrific job. I deeply appreciate their work. I share the comments of my colleague, Senator Murray from Washington, about it, with respect to border protection and the Coast Guard and all those issues they have had to deal with, without unlimited money. The fact is, we have some limited funding.

Well, the chairman of the subcommittee is the Honorable Senator Byrd from West Virginia, and the ranking member, of course, is Senator Cochran from Mississippi.

Let me say to both of them, if they do not mind my saying it, at a time when there is all this discussion in the newspapers about nobody gets along, things have deteriorated in the Senate, the fact is, I think the evidence exists all across this Senate Chamber, it exists certainly with the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, and Senator Cochran, that they not only get along, they work together. They have put together a terrific piece of legislation.

That is called cooperation. There is a lot of it in this Chamber, particularly on the Appropriations Committee, which makes me proud because I think that is the way the Senate ought to work.

Now, if you will permit me, however, if the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Mississippi will accommodate me for one additional moment while I say wonderful things about their work, I do wish to make a cautionary comment about FEMA because we are funding FEMA to the tune of $6.89 billion in this legislation. I am a big fan of FEMA--used to be a big fan of FEMA, I should say. I am not anymore. I hope and pray that maybe it gets its act together. It does not appear to me it is quite there yet.

But in my State, we evacuated, 10 years ago, an entire city, the largest mass evacuation since the Civil War, when Grand Forks was flooded and then had a fire in the middle of the flood, and a city of nearly 50,000 people was evacuated because of the floods in the Red River Valley.

We had FEMA show up. Unbelievable, James Lee Witt and FEMA, they knew what they were doing. They were outstanding. Everybody believed they helped that community come back together and fight that flood and deal with the consequences and come roaring back. Ten years later, that is a great success story.

FEMA, regrettably, has, in my judgment, been part of the problem rather than part of the solution. We have natural disasters that occur in this country. Hurricane Katrina comes to mind. FEMA obviously was a disgrace with respect to--at least many in FEMA were disgraceful in the way they responded to that. I wish to tell the chairman and the ranking member of one example I discovered out of many examples.

I wish to tell you about it because as we fund FEMA--and we must; we do not have a choice. When natural disasters strike, we have to have the funding to go to those folks, whether it is a hurricane or a flood or drought, we have to go to those people and say: You are not alone. This country is with you. This country wants to help you.

But I wish to tell you a story about what happened to FEMA, as I conclude. I was on the phone one day to a guy named Paul Mullinax. Paul Mullinax had a refrigerated truck in Florida. He was one of those truckers who responded when FEMA wanted to send ice down to the victims in the gulf. When Katrina hit and you had the evacuations and the dislocations and all that trouble, they needed ice. Paul Mullinax was a trucker with a refrigerated truck. So he contacted FEMA, as did thousands of others. He went to New York. He was told go to New York to pick up ice. So he went to New York to pick up some ice. He was told: Take it to Missouri. When he got to Missouri, he was told: Take it to Mississippi. When he got to Mississippi, he sat there on the tarmac of an old military installation, along with over 100 other truckers. Here is a picture of Paul. This is actually Paul's route right here. New York to Missouri to Alabama, and then, here is a photo of Paul. He sat at a military installation in front of his truck for about 12 days.

Then he was told: I want you to take the ice back to Massachusetts. So ice, destined for the victims of Katrina, was picked up in New York, taken to Missouri, and then in this case Arkansas--excuse me, Alabama-- and then it was offloaded in Massachusetts.

The reason I tell you that story right now is because that story ended last week. That ice--and by the way, it cost $15,000 for the taxpayers to pay Paul Mullinax to pick up New York ice to take to the victims of Katrina, to go to Missouri, to Alabama and finally be told, after sitting there for 12 days, to go drive it to Massachusetts to offload it--that ice has now been stored for 2 years and this week was discarded by FEMA because they felt maybe after 2 years the ice was contaminated.

So the taxpayers took a bath. The storage of that ice was around $20 million. The taxpayers took a bath. The victims never got the ice they needed. People such as Paul Mullinax, this guy here, said, after driving his truck all that distance: I got paid, but this was wrong for the American taxpayers. Somebody ought to answer for it.

I have spent 2 years trying to figure out who gave the orders on ice transport in FEMA. And you, by God, cannot find the answer. You cannot find the answer. I know many of the top people in FEMA were cronies, had nothing to do or no experience at all with dealing with disasters and emergency preparedness, who did not know anything about it. So the result was a complete breakdown. This is just one example.

In some ways I regret taking time during this debate, but when else? We are going to give FEMA $6.9 billion. I want FEMA to work. I want us to be proud of FEMA. I don't want political cronies running it. I don't want someone like Paul Mullinax who hauls ice for victims to scratch his head and say: What on Earth has happened? Where has common sense gone? How is it I am told to pick up ice in New York and deliver to it Massachusetts, when it is supposed to be helping victims in Mississippi and Louisiana?

As we fund FEMA, I hope we will also do a lot of oversight in the authorizing committees because there is something fundamentally wrong. We all know that, and we need to fix it.

Having said all that and given the requisite compliments to everyone on the floor--compliments I sincerely mean in this case-- about a bill I believe is urgent, I hope we can move ahead. If there are amendments to the bill, I hope people will come and

offer them, that they will allow us to vote on them, that we won't have delay, and in the next couple of days we will demonstrate with this first appropriations bill that we can pass appropriations bills. We can do that because we will cooperate to get them done.

If we come to the floor in the next couple days and see delay on Homeland Security, I am going to be one disappointed person.

Of all the bills, we ought to be saying: Let's lock arms and do this in a reasonable time; let's do this with the leadership of Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, July 26, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Charles W. Grim to be Director of the Indian Health Service.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I join my colleague from New Mexico in commending Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for bringing this bill to the floor of the Senate. It is important legislation and one that I hope we will move to pass very quickly.

This is about education. I don't know there is a subject much more important than education. H.G. Wells once said that human history becomes a race between education and catastrophe. Education is so unbelievably important. As I was sitting here, I was thinking about this amendment and about education and what it means to our country. I was thinking about something I have told my colleagues previously.

The first week I served in the Congress, I served in the U.S. House of Representatives. I went to visit, then, the oldest man serving in the Congress. I read a lot about him and was interested in him. So I went to say hello, to greet him. His name was Claude Pepper from Florida. Claude Pepper was an old man by then but a vibrant man nonetheless. He had an office that was very much like a museum, full of history over the many decades.

As I indicated before, one of the things I remember about that morning walking into Claude Pepper's office was seeing all of his memorabilia about his service. But I saw two things that struck me. They were behind his chair looking over his desk. There were two photographs. One was a photograph of December 17, 1903, Wilbur and Orville Wright making the first powered human flight to leave the surface of the Earth. It was autographed to Congressman Claude Pepper. Before Orville Wright died, he autographed this wonderful photograph of that little airplane in the wind in Kitty Hawk, NC, leaving the ground. It says: ``To Congressman Claude Pepper, with admiration. Orville Wright.'' I thought, this is interesting. I am speaking to a living man who has an autographed photograph of the first person to leave the ground.

Beneath that was something just as interesting. It was Neil Armstrong setting foot on the Moon autographed ``To Claude Pepper, with admiration. Neil Armstrong.'' I thought, these pictures are only about 4 inches apart in frames, but what is the distance between these photographs? From 1903 to 1969, leaving the Earth for the first time in human-powered flight and then stepping on the surface of the Moon. What is that distance measured in? It is measured in education. It comes from this country's education system--knowledge, engineering, science, mathematics, the knowledge to build flying machines, to build rockets, to build Moon capsules. The basic knowledge comes from our school system, from your education system.

I know we spend a lot of time in this country describing what is wrong with education. But the fact is, we are the ones who have split the atom and spliced genes. We are the ones who invented the telephone and the television and the computer. We are the ones who built airplanes and then learned to fly them, built rockets and walked on the surface of the Moon, all as a result of the foundation of learning and education.

So the bill comes to the floor of the Senate today saying education is a priority, and it is, and we have some issues with education that we want to fix because we want to strengthen our educational system. It is not that our system is perfect, we know it is not. It needs to be strengthened and improved.

With respect to higher education, we want to encourage every person in this country who has an urge to get a college degree, to go to a technical school, to go to a vocational school, to be able to advance their interests. In doing so, we offer a series of financial incentives. For those who have no money, we offer Pell grants. For those who have very little money, we offer Stafford loans and direct loans. And for those who perhaps do not qualify for the low-income components, they have other loan opportunities from private lenders to get the money to go to college.

That is what we want in this country. We want every young child to grow up, and as they grow up, to become whatever their God-given talents can allow them to be. We don't want the brakes to exist for anybody. We want this to be an opportunity for everybody.

I recall one day when my father came home for supper--and my father was a very successful man, very bright man, did very well in his life, but he only went through sixth grade in school because his mother died during childbirth and my father spent most of his time trying to raise some money and work and try to help his brothers and sisters, who had been farmed out to uncles and aunts and so on. So my dad had only a sixth grade education.

I recall him coming home one day, never having told our family, and announcing at the supper table that he had just passed the GED. He had gotten his high school degree. He was somewhere in his fifties. He had gotten his high school degree. I will never forget the look on his face when he told us: I am a high school graduate. Got my GED.

We didn't even know he was doing it, but he did. It meant the world to him because he had never gotten the opportunity to go beyond the sixth grade. And it means the world to a lot of people, in my judgment, to find out: What are my talents? What capabilities do I have? What are my interests to better myself? What kinds of things am I interested in, and where can I go to college? How can I finish school and then go to college and advance my opportunities?

Well, that is what the legislation that is brought before us today offers us the opportunity to do, to advance those interests. We have done it in steps over many decades, and it is the difference, as the Senator from Wyoming said, it is the difference between this country and many others.

There are many other countries where they separate these kids at an early age, and they say: Well, based on your track record, based on the way things look for you, you are going in this direction. You are not going to college. And based on the way things look, you are going here. They separate them and they channel kids. Not in this country. We want every single kid to have an opportunity to become whatever their God- given talents allow them to become.

So the issue is funding for many kids because many young people don't have the money to go to college unless they get some help--Pell grants, Stafford loans, direct loans, and other loans. So we have programs that we have put together that provide that kind of assistance through the student loan process,

and this bill, the underlying bill, strengthens programs to prepare students for college, and it takes important steps to help kids get to college and then make both kids and colleges accountable.

Now, we have rising costs, as everyone knows. Every single parent knows that the costs for a college education are increasing dramatically. With respect to lending money for students going to college, we have discovered recently that there are some abusive lending practices, and this bill takes some steps to address those abusive practices.

Some student lenders have undertaken to secure spots on what are called ``preferred lender lists.'' Some colleges, many colleges, have preferred lender lists. They put out a list that says: Here are the lenders from which you can get a guaranteed loan. There is a lot of money in this process for the lenders, and that is why the lenders are so anxious to be on these lists.

My preference would be that we eliminate the lists altogether-- eliminate the preferred lender lists--but I don't think that is possible to get through this Chamber at this point, so I am going to do it in another way. I am going to address this in another way with the amendment I have just offered.

The HELP Committee has done an admirable job in digging into this, as well as have, for example, some officials, the attorney general of New York, and others. The HELP Committee has put together some information about colleges and some colleges' financial aid officers soliciting favors, gifts, and financial assistance from lenders in exchange for putting that lender on a preferred list. Here is something that came from the HELP Committee that I noticed when I was looking at this issue.

A Bank of America employee noted in an e-mail that Larry Burt, former Director of the University of Texas Office of Student Financial Aid, had requirements to get on the UT-preferred lender list. Again, it is very important to get on these lists for these companies that want to have lending opportunities to students. So here is someone who ran the University of Texas Student Financial Aid Office. This is a quote.

Happy hour with UT loan department staff, staff luncheons,

lunch and/or dinner with Larry Burt, parties for Larry's

family--birthdays, et cetera--invitations to golf

tournaments--expenses paid by lender--and free tickets to

sports events. Larry loves tequila and wine--since becoming

director at UT Austin, he has not had to buy any tequila or

wine--lenders provide this to him on a regular basis.

This was an e-mail from a Bank of America employee from a HELP report on marketing practices in the lending program. Not all lenders went along with these inappropriate demands. The HELP Committee investigation said Citibank did not go along with them because they deemed those requests to be inappropriate. And the very next year, apparently, with respect to this campus and Mr. Burt, Citibank was dropped from the UT-preferred lender list.

Student Loan Xpress, another major lender, paid $21,000-plus for the chief financial officer at Johns Hopkins University to attend an executive doctorate program at the University of Pennsylvania after the financial aid officer sent the following lender an e-mail. This is the e-mail that went around from the financial aid officer at Johns Hopkins.

I have been accepted to a doctoral program at Penn that

begins in August. I am searching for \1/2\ tuition support--

know of any good scholarship programs?? I already know where

to get loans--or, why don't you put me on retainer to

EdLending.

This is an e-mail from Dr. Ellen Frishberg, former Johns Hopkins University financial aid director. Once again, I think this is important information discovered by the HELP Committee. They began to investigate these issues.

An investigation by New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo uncovered a revenue-sharing agreement between Citibank and Syracuse University. Citibank was paying Syracuse \1/2\ percent of the interest earned on student loans steered to the bank--a deal worth about $100,000 a year to the school. According to Attorney General Cuomo's investigation, during the last academic year, 98 percent of Syracuse students who took out loans went through Citibank.

Just an unusual occurrence? Doesn't sound like it to me. Many lenders have invited college financial aid officers to serve on advisory boards, flying them around the country and various parts of the world and on harbor cruises.

Now, why do lenders go through all this trouble? Well, the stakes are high. The student loan business is an $85 billion industry. It has grown 27 percent since 2001, and the lenders listed on the college's preferred lender list typically receive up to 90 percent of the loans taken out by students attending that institution. Again, these are guaranteed loans--guaranteed by the Federal Government. Lenders fight to get to the top of a list--of a preferred lender list--at a college.

According to one survey, the first lender on the preferred list gets as much as 75 percent of the loan value. So this is big money to private interests that want to get government-guaranteed loans, move them out to students, and make a lot of money off those loans.

Now, I know that the managers of the bill share my concerns. Senators Enzi, along with Alexander, Allard, Burr, Hatch, Isakson, Murkowski, and Roberts introduced legislation to ban preferred lender lists altogether. And Senator Kennedy has worked tirelessly to uncover and document abusive practices. I, frankly, would like to ban preferred lender lists altogether. We don't need preferred lender lists by colleges in which they describe who gets on the list and who gets to the top of the list. I don't think we ought to be doing that. But it is quite clear we can't ban those lists at the present time, so I am offering a different amendment.

The bill before us addresses some of these practices by prohibiting payments, gifts, and other inducements that lenders give to colleges and student aid officers. The bill also forces schools to explain the rationale for selecting preferred lenders, and I think these are important steps.

I don't diminish these steps at all. I am concerned that lenders will still do whatever they can do to get on those lists and get to the top of those lists. There are substantial incentives for abuse, and there is no evidence--there is no evidence at all--that the lenders on the preferred list actually offer the best deal to the students.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

As I was saying, there is no evidence that being on the list or put on the list by the college offers the students the best financial arrangement, and with the cost of college increasing at twice the rate of inflation, I think we need to make sure that students have access to affordable loans.

So I offer an amendment that does the following: It will create a clearinghouse of student loans, both Federal and private loans. That clearinghouse will put students in the driver's seat, allowing them to search for a loan that offers the best deal, the best financial arrangements for them, whether that be the loan that has the lowest rate or the loan with the best borrower's benefits. This gives the students the opportunity to shop in an informed way for the best situation for themselves.

This type of clearinghouse will create more competition in the student loan industry. I can't imagine that many students would go to this clearinghouse and pick the loan with the highest interest rate. This will empower students. It is not a new concept. In fact, some schools, including the University of North Dakota in my home State, are already directing students to Web sites that allow the students to search through dozens of loan options by themselves to pick the best terms.

But creating a clearinghouse is not enough. We need to make certain that students know that it exists. My amendment would require schools to include a disclosure statement on their preferred lending list that lets students know that they might find a better deal by visiting the clearinghouse themselves.

My amendment won't cost taxpayers a dime. The clearinghouse would be

fully paid for by nominal fees that lenders would be charged in order to be listed in the clearinghouse.

Finally, my amendment would direct the Government Accountability Office to issue a report to Congress about whether students have been able to use the clearinghouse and are using the clearinghouse, and it will examine whether students who chose to use one of the school's preferred lenders could have gotten a better rate--better financial arrangements--by visiting the clearinghouse had they done so. It is my hope this report will inform our future efforts in this area. If it becomes clear that students can do much better by visiting the clearinghouse than by going to preferred lenders, I think we ought to take a hard look at whether the preferred lenders ought to exist at all and whether we ought not in the future to prohibit a preferred lender list and develop, instead, a comprehensive clearinghouse that allows students to find the best arrangements for themselves.

I believe this amendment will make the student loan industry more transparent and more accountable to students and their families who already struggle often to pay for these college expenses. So I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it is a reasonable and measured approach to clean up some of the abusive practices and to empower students.

Finally, again, I would have preferred to just end the preferred lending list, but that is not possible. So this is the step I think accomplishes some of the same goals by empowering students, and I hope the Senate will consider this favorably today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, a voice vote will be fine. I don't know if we are able to clear it now. I think it is cleared on our side. If it were cleared on your side, I think perhaps we could proceed to have it considered.

Let me make a point. The Senator mentioned the microcredit issue. I have been in various parts of the world where they are using microcredit. In many ways, it is the same thing as microcredit in a different way--people with no collateral to be able to have some funding to advance themselves. The microcredit approach has been unbelievably successful, giving poor people the opportunity to buy needles for crocheting and bicycles for delivery services in various parts of the world. It was interesting the Senator referred to that.

This approach allows a student who has no collateral of any type--all they have is promise, they have the promise of their capability to do better in life if they go to college--it allows them to get a loan to advance their interests. I think it is exactly the right thing.

If we are able to consider that amendment now, I think it would be appropriate.

Mr. President, on Wednesday morning of this week, following a discussion and debate--and we had a fairly robust debate-- about the issue of Iraq and the war in Iraq, on Wednesday morning of this week, the President's Homeland Security Adviser, Frances Townsend, was on the ABC ``Good Morning America'' program, and she said some things about al-Qaida, about terrorists, that reminded me of a period several years ago, prior to the start of the Iraq war. It reminded me of being in a room where top secret, classified briefings are given to Members of Congress--briefings by the now Secretary of State, briefings by the Vice President, briefings by the head of the CIA. Condoleezza Rice, Mr. Tenet, Vice President Cheney, and others participated in these top secret briefings.

They told us things in those top secret briefings leading up to the decision about the authorization to use force against Iraq. They told us things we now know not to have been true.

Did they know that when they told us? I don't know. We now know, of course, that their claim that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire yellow cake from Niger for nuclear weapons was bogus. Their claim that he was acquiring aluminum tubes to reconstitute a nuclear threat was not accurate. Their claim that he had mobile chemical weapons labs was not accurate.

By the way, on that one, it only had a single source, a man we later learned who had the code name of ``Curve Ball.'' We also later learned that he was a fabricator and an alcoholic. Their claim was based on a single source we now discover to have been a fabricator. He was a former taxicab driver, for God's sake, in Baghdad. A single source gave rise to the description to the world and to this Congress in top secret, classified briefings that there were mobile chemical weapons laboratories in Iraq.

The list of baseless or unsupported claims goes on. The reconstitution of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, connections with al-Qaida, we now know, of course, the facts were at odds with what we were being told about these and the other claims they used to support going to war.

The reason I mention this is that at Wednesday's appearance by the President's Homeland Security Adviser, Frances Townsend, on the morning show on ABC, reminded me a bit of what we experienced several years ago from this administration. A description by Frances Townsend about terrorism and the terrorist threat and al-Qaida is completely, and was completely, at odds with what we know to be the truth.

Let me go through a bit of what the President's Homeland Security Adviser said when she was being interviewed about the National Intelligence Report issued this week.

First, the report said al-Qaida is rebuilding, retraining, and getting ready to strike in the United States again. In light of that report, Ms. Townsend was asked if she still believed the United States is winning the war against al-Qaida and terrorism. ``Absolutely,'' she said. ``Absolutely, we are winning.''

She was asked about Pakistan and, specifically, about allowing al- Qaida to have a safe haven in the country of Pakistan. She said: Well, it is a sovereign country, and the President of Pakistan has been a good partner in our war against terrorism.

When asked, she said: The United States is ``safer'' today against al-Qaida because, she said: ``We have challenged them and we are on the offensive and the game is overseas.''

It is almost as if the President and his top homeland security adviser failed to read the National Intelligence Estimate. It made clear that al-Qaida is rebuilding its operational capacity and terrorism is the number one threat to our homeland. Those are the facts. That's reality.

But even if she failed to read the NIE, perhaps she could have been expected to read the newspapers, because they too have made it clear for a long time that al-Qaida is rebuilding and that the terrorists are getting ready to strike us again.

Let me go through a couple of examples.

On July 16, if one was reading in recent days, one would read an article by Joshua Partlow in the Washington Post. It said sectarian violence, a civil war, was the war in Iraq, not al-Qaida. It spelled this out with facts:

The western Baghdad district of west Rashid confounds the

prevailing narrative from the top U.S. military officials

that the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaida in Iraq is the city's

most formidable and disruptive force. Over the past several

months, the [Shiite] Mahdi Army has transformed the

composition of the district's neighborhoods by ruthlessly

killing and driving out Sunnis and denying basic services to

residents who remain.

Pretty clear. Shiite and Sunni violence, not al-Qaida.

One might have read the newspaper reports on June 26, in the McClatchy papers:

While the U.S. presses its war against insurgents linked to

al-Qaida in Iraq, Osama bin Laden's group is recruiting,

regrouping, and rebuilding in a new sanctuary along the

border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, senior military

intelligence and law enforcement officials said. The threat

from radical Islamic enclaves in Waziristan is more dangerous

than that from Iraq, which President Bush and his aides

called the ``central front'' of the war on terrorism, said

some current and former U.S. officials and experts. Bin Laden

himself is believed to be hiding in the region, guiding a new

generation of lieutenants and inspiring allied extremist

groups in Iraq and other parts of the world.

That is unbelievable. Al-Qaida is alive and well in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Let me say that again: It is ``recruiting, regrouping and rebuilding'' in this area. And bin Laden himself is believed to be hiding there, in that sanctuary. This is not Iraq, Mr. President. Did the President or his homeland security advisor read this article?

Or perhaps one could go back to a New York Times article in February entitled ``Senior leaders of al-Qaida operating from Pakistan.''

Over the past year terrorists have set up a band of

training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border,

according to American intelligence and counterterrorism

officials. American officials said there is mounting evidence

that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, al-Zawahiri, have been

steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous

Pakistani tribal area of north Waziristan.

Bin Laden and al-Qaida are ``steadily building an operations hub'' in Pakistan is the report.

Now, to the adviser to the President in the White House on terrorism issues, let me say this to her: August 2001, the Presidential Daily Briefing Report put in the hands of President George W. Bush one month before the attacks of September 11, the title was: ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.''

That was in August of 2001, the PDB, put in the President's hands.

What was the report in July 2007? The intelligence assessment from the

U.S. National Counterterrorism Center in July 2007 says this: ``al- Qaida better positioned to strike the West.''

Think of that. Six years have intervened--6 years. And the President's Homeland Security Adviser, one who deals with this issue of terrorism and counterterrorism, says that we are ``winning'' the war on terrorism; things are going just fine; things are better. Yet, in 6 years, we go from this Presidential daily briefing entitled ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in United States'' in August of 2001 to this assessment 6 years later: ``Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West.''

I ask the question: Are we really winning? I think we would expect the Homeland Security Adviser to be dealing with facts.

Let me describe the facts as stated by the National Intelligence Estimate. The National Intelligence Estimate was released in both a classified and unclassified version. The unclassified version says:

Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist

threat to the homeland. . . .

It went on to say:

We assess the group has protected or regenerated key

elements of its homeland attack capability, including: a safe

haven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas,

operational lieutenants, and its top leadership.

Now we have a report that says Osama bin Laden and his top deputies are in a safe haven. Six years after they murdered thousands of Americans, they are in a safe haven.

There ought not be 1 square inch of ground on this planet that ought to be a safe haven for the leaders of al-Qaida. Ms. Townsend says, when asked about it, ``Well, Pakistan is a sovereign country.''

What does that mean? Therefore, a safe haven for al-Qaida and bin Laden must be all right? No. Absolutely not. There is no sovereignty anywhere in this world for Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and the al- Qaida leadership. There ought not be safe harbor or safe haven or sovereignty anywhere in this world for them.

What have we done? Instead of deciding to destroy Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and the al-Qaida leadership, our country decided, based on information provided by the administration that I referred to earlier, to invade Iraq. It was information we now know not to have been true-- deliberate or not, I don't know, but information about yellow cake, aluminum tubes, chemical weapons labs, and about weapons of mass destruction which was not true. Based on that, we decided to take action against Iraq.

The facts are these: Al-Qaida was not in Iraq before we invaded. It is there now. But, it is not the central feature in Iraq. Our intelligence estimates tell us that. The central part of Iraq is sectarian violence, with Shia killing Sunni, Sunni killing Shia, and Shia and Sunni killing American soldiers. It is a civil war, a religious war of sorts, with problems between the Shia and Sunni that date back many centuries.

Now people ask this question, and reasonably so: Should we, 6 years after 2001, the devastating attack against our country that killed thousands of innocent Americans, should we expect or have expected that we would have brought to justice, dead or alive, the leadership of al- Qaida and destroyed them? In my judgment, the answer to that is yes.

The Homeland Security Adviser at the White House, Francis Townsend, says: Well, we are winning. I wish that were true, but it is an assessment that comes only by ignoring all of the facts. Just read the National Intelligence Estimate.

This administration made a calculation that turns out to have been wrong on many fronts. Instead of fighting terrorism first, which I think most Americans would have understood and accepted and believed-- the most critical element in the fight to provide security for our future--instead of fighting terrorism first, this administration decided to take action in other areas. We now have more than 160,000 American troops in Iraq. Many are going door to door in Baghdad today as I speak. It is the case that there is an al-Qaida presence in Iraq because Iraq has attracted terrorists. As I said, the intelligence community itself has said that is not the central feature of what is happening in Iraq. The central feature of what is going on in Iraq is the sectarian violence and a civil war.

That is why the majority of this Congress decided it is time to change course. It has not been the case that the descriptions by those who want to change course in this Chamber have said let's decide immediately, precipitously, to withdraw all troops. That is not the case. Troops would remain to fight the terrorist elements that do exist in Iraq where they can be fought successfully, for force protection, and to train Iraqi troops. After all, the Iraqi troops will be necessary and the Iraqi soldiers and the police force will be necessary to provide security in the country.

It is long past time for this country to say to the Iraqis: You now have a new government. Saddam Hussein is dead. He was executed after a trial for his crimes and atrocities. He is gone. He was a brutal dictator. But, Saddam Hussein is dead. You have a new constitution, you have a new government, and now the question remains: Do you have the will to take back your own country and provide for your own security? Are there sufficient able-bodied Iraqis to take back the security responsibilities for their country? If not, there is no amount of time in which American soldiers and this country can provide security for a country in the middle of a civil war.

So we must change course. That change in course, in my judgment, is what will allow us to fight terrorism first. If we do not do that, we will, 6 years from now, continue to read about Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida leadership in a safe harbor or safe haven, living free, escaping justice, and planning additional attacks against this country.

My point is, what has happened, in my judgment, is wrong. The first and central fight is the fight against terrorism. We are not waging that fight because those who attacked this country previously are now in a safe haven planning additional attacks against our country. That comes from the National Intelligence Estimate, not me. That NIE represents the best assessment by our country's best intelligence professionals from 16 different intelligence agencies.

One cannot solve a problem if one is going to ignore the facts or distort the facts. I said that Ms. Townsend on Wednesday morning basically misrepresented what is happening. It seems as if she has failed to see, or refuses to see, all of the evidence that exists, the evidence we have received in the National Intelligence Estimate and other evidence as well, that al-Qaida and bin Laden are stronger today than they have been for many years.

They are getting stronger, not weaker; they are planning more attacks, not hiding; they are recruiting and rebuilding, not running; and they want to strike us again as much as they every have.

But, they are in Pakistan, in a safe haven. They are in the border area near Afghanistan, not Iraq.

It doesn't surprise me that this administration is on a course that is not the course that represents this country's best interests. President Bush has said on previous occasions that we will deal not only with the terrorists who dare attack this country, we will deal with those who harbor and feed them and house them. That was the President's statement. The President said that, as a part of our offensive against terror, we will also confront the regimes that harbor and support terrorists.

When President Bush was asked about Osama bin Laden, he said:

I don't think much about Osama bin Laden. I don't care much

about bin Laden.

But, Bin Laden and al-Qaida represent the principal threat to this country. That is why Senator Conrad and I offered the amendment we did on the Defense authorization bill last week.

The very day Ms. Townsend appeared on television, Wednesday, here is the New York Times' headline: ``Same People, Same Threat.'' That's right, ``Same People, Same Threat.''

Nearly six years after the September 11 attacks, and

hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives

expended in the name of the war on terror, we are faced with

the ``Same People, Same Threat'' as attacked American on

September 11. I pose a single, insistent question: Are we

safer? This is what the New York Times reported:

. . . After years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq and

targeted kills in Yemen, Pakistan,

and elsewhere, the major threat to the United States has the

same name and the same basic look at 2001: al-Qaida, led by

Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, plotting attacks from

mountain hide-outs near the Afghan-Pakistani border.

The intelligence report, the most formal assessment since

the September 11 attacks about the terrorist threat facing

the United States, concludes that the United States is losing

ground on a number of fronts in the fight against al-Qaida

and describes the terrorist organization as having

``significantly strengthened over the past two years.''

If ever we needed good leadership, thoughtful leadership, leadership that will act on the facts and understand the facts and not misrepresent the facts, it is now, at a time when a terrorist organization is planning additional attacks against this country. For this administration to say that things are fine, we are winning, don't worry, and there is a sovereign, apparently, safe haven for the leadership for those who plan to attack us, that is unbelievable, and it must change. If the administration won't change it, the Congress and the American people must change it.

Mr. President, a number of us have been concerned about the issue of competence for some long while. I take no pleasure in coming to the floor to point out someone's flaws or weaknesses or areas where we are not succeeding, but it seems to me that this country has to be brutally honest with itself, and that includes this administration, in terms of what it is doing, how well, what kinds of changes are necessary to fix what is wrong to safeguard and provide security for this country.

One of the examples of serious trouble with respect to solving problems and addressing issues was the response to Hurricane Katrina. This devastating hurricane hit our country, and it laid bare a whole area of the gulf coast. It was unbelievable what it did to families, homes, and structures. The consequences of it and the cost of it and its toll on human lives and treasure are not even yet calculated.

I think everybody in this country saw what happened as a result of the response of FEMA. I come from a State in which flooding 10 years ago caused the evacuation of a city of 50,000 people--the largest evacuation of an American city since the Civil War. We understand FEMA. They rushed in in the middle of that unbelievable flood in the Red River, where almost the entire city of Grand Forks, ND, was evacuated. FEMA rushed in. Under James Lee Witt, it had become a world-class organization. It did an unbelievable job. I cannot say enough about that organization. FEMA was first rate. I think everybody in that city who was helped by that organization understood the quality of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Fast forward and discover that the major appointments to FEMA under this administration were political cronies who had no experience in emergency response or preparedness. So it wasn't surprising that FEMA deteriorated dramatically as an agency, and its response to Hurricane Katrina was abysmal.

I want to describe it with one photograph, if I might. This describes what happened with respect to Katrina. I am describing this because this week something happened that finally ended the chapter on this sorry story. This man is Paul Mullinax, sitting in front of an 18-wheel truck in Florida. His truck is a refrigerated truck, and it is used to haul ice. Katrina hit, and one of the needs in the deep South, when people and property and everything was devastated and they were trying to figure out how to deal with it, they needed ice in the middle of that scorching heat. So FEMA contracted with truckers to haul ice in 18-wheel trucks, refrigerated trucks, to help the victims of Katrina.

Here is Paul Mullinax in the photo. Paul was in Florida at the time. He got a call and was invited to contract to haul ice. He drove his 18- wheeler to New York City and picked up a load of ice. Let me tell you where he went. I have a map. Paul went from Florida up to New York City to pick up some ice--in Newburg, NY. Then they told him to go to Carthage, MO, with the ice. He went there, to Missouri, to deliver ice. FEMA said, when he got there: No, we want you to go to Montgomery, AL, with your truckload of ice for the victims of Katrina.

Then he got to Montgomery, AL, and here is what happened to him. He, with over 100 other truckers, refrigerated trucks holding ice for the victims of Katrina, sat for 12 days. This is a picture of Paul Mullinax sitting in his lawn chair, with a little grill. For 12 days, he sat there. Finally, they said to him: We want you to take your ice to Massachusetts.

Think of this. Taxpayers paid over $15,000 for this load of ice. He was told the ice was for the victims of Katrina, and hundreds of other truckers had the same circumstance. He was sent from Missouri to Alabama, sat for a dozen days on the tarmac of a military installation, and then told he should take that ice up to Massachusetts and put it in storage.

This week, 2 years later, after spending over $20 million, that ice was taken out of storage in Massachusetts and discarded because they felt it was probably contaminated after 2 years. So finally it ends, the saga about hauling ice to the victims of Katrina.

How do I know Paul Mullinax? I asked Paul Mullinax to come to Washington to testify about what happened. He didn't want to do it. I sat in a parking lot of a grocery store one Sunday on the phone with Paul Mullinax and said: Paul, I want you to come to a hearing we are holding to tell this story. People need to understand what is wrong. Only by understanding what is wrong can we get this fixed.

Paul came up to Washington, DC, and testified before a hearing and told us what had happened. Some people wouldn't believe it. You are going to haul ice from New York to Missouri to Mississippi and then are told to offload it at a warehouse in Massachusetts, ice for the victims of Katrina? If there is one story that demonstrates the complete absurd incompetence of the response to Hurricane Katrina, it is the story of Paul Mullinax, a good American who wanted to do the right thing, and in contracting with the Federal agency that was incompetent came up with this absurd experience.

I have tried since to find out who was the decision maker in Government, who decides we are going to haul ice from New York to Massachusetts through Missouri and Mississippi that is supposed to go to victims of Hurricane Katrina, and we are going to spend all of that money and do it incompetently, who was responsible, who made those decisions, and you cannot find out who that unnamed person is who makes that kind of Byzantine decision that in my judgment fleeces the American taxpayer, that injures those who were victims of Hurricane Katrina by not getting the ice to the victims who needed it.

I wanted my colleagues to know, because I have spoken about this before, that this week at last--at long, long last--the ice that was put in storage as a result of this gross incompetence has now been discarded because they felt perhaps after 2 years the ice was contaminated.

It is a sad story, in my judgment, of the fleecing of America. My hope is we have sufficiently embarrassed and sufficiently made accountable those in FEMA and in this administration so that this will never, ever happen again. It is not what the taxpayers deserve, and it certainly isn't what the victims of Hurricane Katrina deserve.

That same incompetence, regrettably, is steeped in other areas of an administration that, as I indicated as of Wednesday morning's interview with Ms. Townsend, seems content to ignore facts.

I have come to the floor on occasion and spoken well of those who I think do a good job in this administration and elsewhere. I wish I could do that this morning. It is very important for this Congress and this country, when we see incompetence and when we see we are developing a strategy that doesn't work and is not going to work, that we must change course, we must expect better.

My hope is a group of us in Congress, through the hearings I have held on these issues and through the discussions of Senator Reid and others who have worked on it in our caucus in the last couple of weeks, my hope is that we will change course with respect to the issue of Iraq, for example, which is the overriding important issue.

I hope one of the changes in course will be we decide our priorities are to

fight terrorism first, and that is not what we are now doing. Let us decide to fight terrorism first. That ought to be the goal. If the terrorist camps are reconstituted, if the threat to our country from al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, and al-Zawahiri represents a greater threat now, then we must, it seems to me, change course to address that threat, and that threat requires us to fight terrorism first.

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

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

Let me thank the chairman and ranking member for their work. I would like to understand, as we apparently go into some votes, what the requirements and circumstances are. There is no limitation on amendments at this point as I understand it; is that correct?

Let me ask, under reconciliation, I have watched the proceedings this afternoon, and I have heard discussions on the amendments that have nothing to do with this subject and are far afield. Is there a germaneness test with respect to amendments on the reconciliation portion of this bill?

If I might, let me thank again the chairman and the ranking member. My hope is we will deal with those amendments that deal with the education of the children in this country and move on and finish this bill. There will be plenty of other opportunities to address subjects well beyond that. I appreciate their work, and I hope we can finish this in due course.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.