Floor Statements

Mr. President, my distinguished colleague from Arizona is speaking about a very important issue and one that we certainly will have a discussion about and a debate about in this Congress in the coming days, and that is as it should be. We are a democracy with divided branches of Government, separation of powers. We have a President, a legislative branch, a judicial branch, and there is a role here for the legislative branch.

My colleague suggested this was a circumstance where some were simply willing to criticize the President but offer no plan of their own. Then he subsequently said the resolution that some of my colleagues will offer in the Senate will advocate a different course of action. That is a plan, I guess, isn't it? If one advocates a different course of action than the President is advocating, it seems to me that is a plan.

I don't disagree with much of what those who have a different view would say about these issues. Most of us want peace in Iraq. We want the Iraqis to control their own destiny. We want the Iraqi troops to be sufficiently trained so they can provide their own security. We all share that goal. We all want our country to succeed in the missions.

Let me make one very important point. My colleague alluded to it in a way different than I would respond to it. During the debate on the floor of the Senate I don't think there will be a single Senator who stands up and in any way says he wants us to withdraw support for American troops. Speaking for myself--and I think for most other Senators, perhaps every other Senator--I think Members who serve in this Congress believe it is critically important to support our troops. When we send men and women in our uniform to go to war, we are obligated, it seems to me, to do everything to support them in their mission.

So this debate is not about whether we will support those troops whom we have asked to go to war in behalf of our country; we certainly will do that. The debate will be about the President's

plan for a surge in troops or a deepening involvement in Iraq. It is a worthy debate for us to have because I think this is obviously a conflict that has gone on a long while, longer now than the Second World War. We have had a lot of discussion with the military leaders in the field about training Iraqi troops to provide for their own security.

Let's review what has happened in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein ran Iraq. We now know he was a butcher. We knew it then; we know it now. There are hundreds of thousands of skeletons in mass graves, of the victims murdered by Saddam Hussein. But Saddam Hussein doesn't exist anymore. He was executed. He has been buried.

There is a new constitution in Iraq, voted for by the Iraqi people. There is a new government in Iraq selected by the Iraqi people. This country belongs to Iraq, not to us. It is their country, not ours. The security for their country is their responsibility, not ours. The question for all of us is: When will the Iraqi people decide they are able to provide for their own security?

My colleague says it is a matter of being patient with training the Iraqi troops. Perhaps today there is going to be a young man or woman who is going to enlist in the Marines and the Army and they will go to training. It won't be very many months before they are fully trained and maybe committed to the battlefield--6 months, 7 months, 8 months. The question is: How long does it take to train an Iraqi army and Iraqi security forces to provide security for their own country? Years? Can they be trained, as American troops are trained, in months rather than years? The answer, at least in the last several years, seems to have been no.

It is very important for us to debate this question of our deepening involvement in Iraq. We all know what is going on there. It is sectarian violence, Shia on Sunni, Sunni on Shia. Seventy-five more people were killed today in Shia neighborhoods, multiple bombings, we are told by the news today, 160 wounded. The day before, dozens of Iraqis were killed, and 25 American troops were killed in numerous attacks. Our hearts break for all of them, particularly the American troops, but also for everyone who is losing their life in this conflict.

Suicide car bombers, simultaneous car bombings, beheaded bodies floating in the Tigris River, bodies with holes drilled in the heads and knees with electric drills, tortured, tortured bodies swinging from lampposts in Iraq, we read. It is a cycle of grim violence, unlike any most of us have ever seen. It is unbelievable.

Let me tell you what General Abizaid, who is in charge of CENTCOM, said about 6 weeks ago. He came to the Congress--and this relates to what my colleague had said and the debate we will have. General Abizaid said this:

I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the

Corps commander, General Dempsey . . . and I said, in your

professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American

troops now, does it add considerably to the ability to

achieve success in Iraq? And they said no.

This isn't an approximation of what the top general said; it is exactly what he told the Congress: I met with all of my top generals, and I asked them the question, if we were to bring in more troops now, does it add to our ability to achieve success? They said no. That's what General Abizaid said.

Let me describe to you what General Abizaid said following that comment. Again, this is 2 months ago in testimony before the Senate:

The reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's

easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I

believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from

doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own

future.

Less than 2 months ago, the top general said his top commanders in Iraq all said no to bringing in more troops. Why? Because it will say to the Iraqis: We will do the job. We will do what we would expect you to do.

As we talk about deepening the American involvement in Iraq and the issue of how many troops we are going to have in that battlefield, let me turn to another issue. If we have 20,000-plus troops to send to Iraq, what about Afghanistan?

Our military is, as all of us know, fairly overstretched. We are calling up guardsmen and reservists and some of them second deployments, some of them third deployments all across this country. But in Afghanistan, which was the home of al-Qaida, where the Taliban ruled and where we went first to route the Taliban and create a democracy in Afghanistan, the Taliban, by all accounts, are now taking hold once again and creating an even greater threat.

They are fighting hard to destabilize the Government of Afghanistan. That was our first battle, to go into Afghanistan and kick the Taliban out. We need more troops in Afghanistan now, not less, and yet my understanding is the President's plan would divert troops we have in Afghanistan to go to Iraq.

Let me read something that Mr. John Negroponte, the Director of National Intelligence said last week. He testified before the Select Committee on Intelligence, and here is what he said:

Al Qaeda is the terrorist organization that poses the

greatest threat to U.S. interests, including to the homeland.

Al-Qaida is what poses the greatest threat to our interests, including our homeland. Then he went on to say this. This is again John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence.

Al Qaeda continues to plot attacks against our homeland and

other targets with the objective of inflicting mass

casualties. And they continue to maintain active connections

and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders'

secure hideout in Pakistan.

Let me reemphasize:

And they continue to maintain active connections and

relationships that radiate outward from their leaders' secure

hideout in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East,

northern Africa, and Europe.

What does that mean? Osama bin Laden, do we know him? Yes. He is the person who ordered--claimed and boasted--he ordered the attacks against this country, killing thousands of innocent Americans. He still lives, apparently, in a secure hideout, according to the top intelligence chief in this country, in Pakistan. It seems to me the elimination of the leadership of al-Qaida, the organization that attacked this country, that murdered thousands of innocent Americans, ought to be the primary interest of this country. That is why moving away from Afghanistan and the related activities that ought to exist in Pakistan to deal with what are called ``secure hideouts,'' the secure hideout from which al-Qaida operates, that ought to be job No. 1 for this country.

I don't understand. My colleague Senator Conrad and I offered an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill last year on this subject. Does anybody hear anybody talking about Osama bin Laden anymore? Or perhaps better described ``Osama been forgotten'' these days? Nobody wants to talk about it.

Finally, last week the Director of our intelligence in this country said al-Qaida is the most significant threat to this country. The most significant terrorist threat to this country is al-Qaida, and it operates from a secure hideout in Pakistan. If that is true, what are we doing, deciding to find 20,000 troops by pulling some of them out of Afghanistan and moving them to Iraq? If those troops are available, they ought to be dedicated to dealing with al-Qaida and bringing to justice those who committed the attacks against this country. I will have more to say about that at some point, but I did want to make note of what the Director of Intelligence said last week that seems to be almost ignored in this debate about Iraq.

I am going to be talking as well this week about the minimum wage. We will have an aggressive discussion about that. That is going to be the pending issue of the day.

Mr. President, I want for a moment this afternoon to talk about another issue that is of great importance to me and I think to a number of our colleagues here in the Senate as well. I am going to chair the Indian Affairs Committee in this session of Congress. I will be working with my colleague Senator Craig Thomas from the State of Wyoming. I am pleased to do that.

I want to mention that this week my colleagues here in the Senate are likely to see members of Indian tribes who are coming to town from all over the country. They will likely see them here

on Capitol Hill, perhaps in the halls of the Senate and the House. They are here to attend the ``State of Indian Nations'' address by the President of the National Congress of American Indians. They will come from across the country to hear this ``State of the Indian Nations'' address and they will probably also drop in some offices and meet with some Senators and Congressmen.

Let me talk about one of the things I am sure they will talk about in virtually every office, and that is the issue of Indian health care. I have seen hearings where, talking about Indian health care, very powerful tribal leaders have been brought to tears when they talk about family members who have taken their own lives because of depression or drug abuse, or family members who needed medical attention desperately and did not get it.

Let me talk a minute about the first Americans, those who were here first. American Indians and Alaska Natives die at a higher rate than other Americans from tuberculosis. There is a 600-percent higher incidence of tuberculosis than the American population as a whole; alcoholism, 510 percent higher than the population at a whole; diabetes, 189 percent higher than the American population as a whole. Let me say, in many areas it is quadruple, 8 times or 10 times higher than the population as a whole, in terms of the incidence of diabetes. Indian youth and teenage suicide on reservations in the northern Great Plains is 10 times higher than the national average. There are fewer than 90 doctors for every 100,000 Indians compared to 230 doctors for every 100,000 people nationwide. It is almost unbelievable to see what the Indian community faces with respect to the health care issues.

The Indian Health Service expenditure for each American Indian in 2005 was $2,130, compared to $3,900 that we spend for health care for Federal prisoners. We have a responsibility for the health care of Federal prisoners because we incarcerate them. If they get sick, it is our responsibility to provide for their health care. We have a trust responsibility for American Indians, and if they get sick--or in order to keep them well--it is our responsibility. Yet we spend almost twice as much money for health care for Federal prisoners as we do to meet our trust responsibility for American Indians.

I hope my colleagues will have a chance to talk to some of the Indian leaders who come to the Capitol this particular week and visit about these issues.

I want to show a picture of Ardel Hale Baker, to talk a little about what some people face. It is easy to talk about the statistics. Let me talk about the humanity of this issue. This is Ardel Hale Baker. She is a member of the Three Affiliated Tribes in my State. Ms. Baker had sudden and severe chest pains. Her blood pressure was off the charts and she felt she was having a heart attack. So she went to the Indian Health Service clinic of the Three Affiliated Tribes in New Town, ND, and she was diagnosed as having a heart attack. At the insistence of the Indian Health Service staff on that reservation, she was sent by ambulance to the nearest hospital, 80 miles away in Minot, ND. When she got to the hospital, Ardel was being lifted off of a gurney from the ambulance to be taken into the hospital, and the nurse noticed a piece of paper taped to her leg. Curious about this woman, with chest pains, likely having a heart attack--curious about what kind of piece of paper was taped to this woman's leg, the nurse looked and it was a letter. It was a letter from the Indian Health Service, warning that both Ms. Baker and the hospital should understand the Indian Health Service had no funds with which to pay for the health care she needed, because this was not considered a ``life or limb'' medical condition. Ms. Ardel Hale Baker later, after she survived, received a bill for $10,000.

Let me recreate that again. This is a Native American, living on a reservation. She was having severe chest pains, clearly a heart attack, put in an ambulance and driven 80 miles, and when they pulled her out of the gurney to run her in to the hospital, they noticed a letter taped to her leg in which the Indian Health Service says: ``Understand, we don't have the money. Both Ms. Baker and the hospital should understand they may have to assume the cost because we don't have the money to pay for this. It is not life or limb.'' So this woman gets a bill for $10,000.

Her life was saved, but it was saved notwithstanding a letter taped to her leg saying: ``Admit this woman at your own cost.''

This is called rationing. It is called health care rationing. If health care rationing existed in this country, there would be an outrage, and it does exist and nobody says much. There is a quiet yawn; somewhere between daydreaming and thumbsucking. People sit around and hardly even think of the fact that when they are sick, it is OK because they can get health care. But when this woman is sick, she might get a letter taped to her leg saying: ``Yes, she is having a heart attack, but understand if you admit her, it is at your own expense.''

An Indian tribal chief told us once that on his reservation everyone understood the admonition: ``Don't get sick after June.'' Do not get sick after June, because June is the time of the fiscal year when they run out of money for contract health care on the reservations. The Indian Health Service runs out of money after June. If you get sick after June, I am sorry, they might tape a letter to your leg. It is ``life or limb.'' If your illness is not threatening your life or your limb, you are out of luck. That is rationing. That is health care rationing, and it is an outrage in this country. It is happening in a quiet way, inflicting misery all across this country on the first Americans, those who expect we would meet our trust responsibility to provide health care for Native Americans.

We are going to try very hard to see if we can rectify that. I understand the Indian Health Service is staffed with some committed and wonderful doctors, nurses, and administrators. They are understaffed in a dramatic way, underfunded and understaffed. They tell us their budget allows them to treat about 60 percent of the health care needs of the Indian community. That means 40 percent is not dealt with.

One of the things I would have us consider is a new model for delivery of health care, particularly on Indian reservations, that tracks what is happening in some other parts of the country where there are the kinds of low-cost, walk-in clinics open at all hours, where you can get the routine health care, routine diagnosis. I hope the Indian Health Service could do that at no charge. But what is happening now is not working at all. Often health care is not available.

On one reservation of which I am aware, the clinic there is open 5 days a week. After 4:30 or 5 o'clock on Friday: So long, tough luck. You are 80 miles from the nearest major city hospital, and if you get sick, that is where you are going to have to look for some health care. We need to do better than that. I hope we can succeed in talking to the Indian Health Service about a new model, a new approach.

This is only one issue of many. We have a full-scale crisis, I believe, in Indian health care, Indian education, and Indian housing.

I have spoken previously about a woman who died lying in bed in her house, who froze to death in this country. A woman named Swift Hawk froze to death when she lay down and went to bed, living in a climate with 35 degrees below zero weather with, instead of windows in their dwelling, plain plastic sheeting. This grandmother went to bed and didn't wake up because she froze to death. If you saw that in the paper, you would think it was a Third World country, but no, it is not. It is this country and it relates to a health care crisis we need to address. It is not about statistics. It is about the humanity of understanding what is happening and a responsibility to do something about it.

I look forward to working with my colleague on the Indian Affairs Committee, Republicans and Democrats, who I think are of a like mind, that we have a responsibility here and we need to meet it, and we will.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Murray and 15 of our Senate colleagues in reintroducing legislation to stop the Internal Revenue Service from outsourcing part of

its tax collection responsibilities to private collection companies.

Last fall, the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, ignored objections raised by many Federal policymakers and tax experts, including the IRS's own National Taxpayer Advocate, and moved ahead with its controversial plan to hire private companies to collect Federal tax debts. When the IRS attempted a similar plan in 1996, it failed miserably. The 1996 initiative lost money. Taxpayers were harassed by private debt collectors. In many instances, private debt collectors violated Federal debt collection laws and confidential taxpayer information was not properly secured.

Today, the IRS is planning to share more than 2.5 million taxpayer accounts with up to 12 private collection companies when its new private debt collection plan is fully implemented--even though there is compelling evidence that this new initiative will suffer from many of the same maladies experienced by the IRS and taxpayers in the ill-fated 1996 plan.

IRS Commissioner Everson readily admits that if the IRS hired and used trained IRS employees for this purpose, not private collectors, far more revenues would be deposited in the U.S. Treasury fund. Yet the IRS is ready to hand out very large commissions ranging from 21 to 24 percent to private firms for every dollar they collect, when internal IRS reports suggest that it would cost the Federal Government just 3 pennies on a dollar to have trained IRS employees collect tax debts that are owed.

Stated another way, the IRS anticipates spending well over $300 million in commission payments to private firms to collect an estimated $1.4 billion in tax debt over 10 years, when internal IRS reports suggest that spending $296 million to hire new IRS collectors could raise some $9.5 billion annually. At a time of exploding deficits and Federal debt, the IRS's use of private debt collectors is an inexcusable waste of taxpayer money.

In fact, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, released a report last September revealing that the cost of implementing the IRS's initial phases of its tax debt collection initiative alone, excluding any commission payments, may actually exceed all of the tax revenues collected by these private collectors by millions of dollars. The IRS plan is riddled with hidden costs. For example, the three companies hired by the IRS in the initial phase of its private collection plan have some 75 employees working on what the IRS has described as relatively easy collection cases. However, at least 65 IRS employees have been tasked to monitor the work of these collectors. So from a revenue collection and efficiency standpoint, it doesn't take a calculator to figure out that IRS private collection plan is not worth the paper it's printed on.

Using private debt collectors is also very troubling because it puts confidential taxpayer information at risk of public disclosure and misuse. Just over two years ago, a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, TIGTA, investigation found that a contractor's employees committed security violations, placing IRS equipment and taxpayer data at risk. In some cases, TIGTA officials found that contractors ``blatantly circumvented IRS policies and procedures even when security personnel had identified inappropriate practices.''

As I've mentioned, the IRS has agreed to pay three private collection firms at the outset of its initiative nearly a quarter for every dollar their employees collect on what the IRS has described as relatively easy cases. The IRS's use of very large commissions to pay private firms for their work on such cases is not only fiscally unsound and a shameful example of government waste, it also increases the potential for overzealous collection practices and the misuse of sensitive taxpayer return information. Private debt collection agencies are driven by profit motives, not public service.

Let me emphasize, once again, one very important point. Everybody needs to pay the taxes they owe. If they do not, however, professional IRS employees, not private collectors in search of profits, should be the ones to ensure that outstanding tax debts are paid. If the IRS now says it needs more resources for tax enforcement and collection activities, then Congress should consider providing them.

I fully agree with the recommendations by the independent Taxpayer Advocacy Panel last summer--and recently echoed by National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson in the Taxpayer Advocate's 2006 Annual Report to Congress--that the IRS should terminate its outsourcing of taxpayer debt collection and restrict collection activities to properly trained and proficient IRS employees. Indeed, the IRS should immediately reverse course and indefinitely suspend the implementation of its private debt collection activities.

The House of Representatives voted last year to eliminate funding for this IRS initiative in its version of the Treasury Department spending bill, which was never approved by the full Congress. I will be working with Senator Murray and many of our colleagues early in this new Congress to get similar language passed by the full Senate at the first available opportunity.

The IRS should act on its own to stop its use of private debt collectors and save any further expenditures of taxpayer money for this purpose. If it will not, however, I will do everything in my power to put the brakes on this initiative in the U.S. Senate. That's why I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and help us, as the Taxpayer Advocate has suggested, terminate the IRS's privatization collection initiative ``once and for all.''

Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Murray and 15 of our Senate colleagues in reintroducing legislation to stop the Internal Revenue Service from outsourcing part of

its tax collection responsibilities to private collection companies.

Last fall, the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, ignored objections raised by many Federal policymakers and tax experts, including the IRS's own National Taxpayer Advocate, and moved ahead with its controversial plan to hire private companies to collect Federal tax debts. When the IRS attempted a similar plan in 1996, it failed miserably. The 1996 initiative lost money. Taxpayers were harassed by private debt collectors. In many instances, private debt collectors violated Federal debt collection laws and confidential taxpayer information was not properly secured.

Today, the IRS is planning to share more than 2.5 million taxpayer accounts with up to 12 private collection companies when its new private debt collection plan is fully implemented--even though there is compelling evidence that this new initiative will suffer from many of the same maladies experienced by the IRS and taxpayers in the ill-fated 1996 plan.

IRS Commissioner Everson readily admits that if the IRS hired and used trained IRS employees for this purpose, not private collectors, far more revenues would be deposited in the U.S. Treasury fund. Yet the IRS is ready to hand out very large commissions ranging from 21 to 24 percent to private firms for every dollar they collect, when internal IRS reports suggest that it would cost the Federal Government just 3 pennies on a dollar to have trained IRS employees collect tax debts that are owed.

Stated another way, the IRS anticipates spending well over $300 million in commission payments to private firms to collect an estimated $1.4 billion in tax debt over 10 years, when internal IRS reports suggest that spending $296 million to hire new IRS collectors could raise some $9.5 billion annually. At a time of exploding deficits and Federal debt, the IRS's use of private debt collectors is an inexcusable waste of taxpayer money.

In fact, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, released a report last September revealing that the cost of implementing the IRS's initial phases of its tax debt collection initiative alone, excluding any commission payments, may actually exceed all of the tax revenues collected by these private collectors by millions of dollars. The IRS plan is riddled with hidden costs. For example, the three companies hired by the IRS in the initial phase of its private collection plan have some 75 employees working on what the IRS has described as relatively easy collection cases. However, at least 65 IRS employees have been tasked to monitor the work of these collectors. So from a revenue collection and efficiency standpoint, it doesn't take a calculator to figure out that IRS private collection plan is not worth the paper it's printed on.

Using private debt collectors is also very troubling because it puts confidential taxpayer information at risk of public disclosure and misuse. Just over two years ago, a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, TIGTA, investigation found that a contractor's employees committed security violations, placing IRS equipment and taxpayer data at risk. In some cases, TIGTA officials found that contractors ``blatantly circumvented IRS policies and procedures even when security personnel had identified inappropriate practices.''

As I've mentioned, the IRS has agreed to pay three private collection firms at the outset of its initiative nearly a quarter for every dollar their employees collect on what the IRS has described as relatively easy cases. The IRS's use of very large commissions to pay private firms for their work on such cases is not only fiscally unsound and a shameful example of government waste, it also increases the potential for overzealous collection practices and the misuse of sensitive taxpayer return information. Private debt collection agencies are driven by profit motives, not public service.

Let me emphasize, once again, one very important point. Everybody needs to pay the taxes they owe. If they do not, however, professional IRS employees, not private collectors in search of profits, should be the ones to ensure that outstanding tax debts are paid. If the IRS now says it needs more resources for tax enforcement and collection activities, then Congress should consider providing them.

I fully agree with the recommendations by the independent Taxpayer Advocacy Panel last summer--and recently echoed by National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson in the Taxpayer Advocate's 2006 Annual Report to Congress--that the IRS should terminate its outsourcing of taxpayer debt collection and restrict collection activities to properly trained and proficient IRS employees. Indeed, the IRS should immediately reverse course and indefinitely suspend the implementation of its private debt collection activities.

The House of Representatives voted last year to eliminate funding for this IRS initiative in its version of the Treasury Department spending bill, which was never approved by the full Congress. I will be working with Senator Murray and many of our colleagues early in this new Congress to get similar language passed by the full Senate at the first available opportunity.

The IRS should act on its own to stop its use of private debt collectors and save any further expenditures of taxpayer money for this purpose. If it will not, however, I will do everything in my power to put the brakes on this initiative in the U.S. Senate. That's why I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and help us, as the Taxpayer Advocate has suggested, terminate the IRS's privatization collection initiative ``once and for all.''

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation which would provide a first important step in dealing with the crisis of youth suicide in Indian Country.

The legislation I am introducing today is almost identical to legislation that the Senate passed in May, 2006, to establish an Indian youth telemental health demonstration project. The Indian Youth Telemental Health Demonstration Project Act of 2007 would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry out a 4-year demonstration project under which five tribes and tribal organizations with telehealth capabilities could use telemental health services in youth suicide prevention, intervention, and treatment. Demonstration project grantees would provide services through telemental health for such purposes as counseling of Indian youth; providing medical advice and other assistance to frontline tribal health providers; training for community members, tribal

elected officials, tribal educators, and health workers and others who work with Indian youth; developing culturally sensitive materials on suicide prevention and intervention; and collecting and reporting of data.

The Committee on Indian Affairs held three hearings during the 109th Congress on the issue of Indian youth suicide, including one hearing that I convened in Bismarck, ND. Although on the Indian reservations of the northern Great Plains, the rate of Indian youth suicide is 10 times higher than it is anywhere else in the country, this tragic issue is not limited to these locations. The committee has heard testimony from people from tribal communities in Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, New Mexico, and Wyoming, as well.

According to 2004 statistics from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, suicide is the second leading cause of death, behind unintentional injury, for American Indian and Alaska Native young adults 15 to 24 years old, of both sexes--a statistic that has sadly been true for the past 20 years. For North Dakota Indian girls 15 to 24 years old in 2004, suicide was the number one leading cause of death.

I am grateful for the efforts of the Indian Health Service and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, in particular, both of which have, in a host of ways, sought to address the reservation youth suicide crisis. SAMHSA is providing a 4-year grant to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North and South Dakota--a tribe that had 12 Indian youth die by suicide over a 6-month period--to provide mental health outreach workers. In addition, across the country, tribal leaders, tribal health professionals, and service providers and family members are working together to implement early intervention plans, improve access to prevention programs, promote community training and awareness, and reinstate traditional tribal practices and culture-based interventions to address Native youth suicides.

Many Indian reservations and Native villages in Alaska are remote and isolated, and everyone who lives in those communities experiences much more limited access to mental health services than in our Nation's metropolitan areas. The testimony received by the Indian Affairs Committee indicates that it is particularly in these remote Native communities that there is a crisis among the youth. I believe that the use of telemedicine--or, for purposes of this legislation, telemental health--will prove a useful resource for the several tribes or tribal organizations that will participate in this demonstration project in assisting their youth.

In addition to introducing this legislation, I will include authorization of this Indian Youth Telemental Health Demonstration Project in legislation to reauthorize and amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which I intend to introduce soon.

I thank my colleagues who have joined me in sponsoring this legislation and in being willing to talk and think hard about an issue that many believe should be kept hidden. We must find ways to prevent the needless loss of young Native American boys and girls whose whole lives lie ahead of them, and from whom their tribal communities and all of this country stand to benefit as these youth blossom in to their potential as adults. I look forward to continuing our efforts to address this sensitive and very important issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation which would provide a first important step in dealing with the crisis of youth suicide in Indian Country.

The legislation I am introducing today is almost identical to legislation that the Senate passed in May, 2006, to establish an Indian youth telemental health demonstration project. The Indian Youth Telemental Health Demonstration Project Act of 2007 would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry out a 4-year demonstration project under which five tribes and tribal organizations with telehealth capabilities could use telemental health services in youth suicide prevention, intervention, and treatment. Demonstration project grantees would provide services through telemental health for such purposes as counseling of Indian youth; providing medical advice and other assistance to frontline tribal health providers; training for community members, tribal

elected officials, tribal educators, and health workers and others who work with Indian youth; developing culturally sensitive materials on suicide prevention and intervention; and collecting and reporting of data.

The Committee on Indian Affairs held three hearings during the 109th Congress on the issue of Indian youth suicide, including one hearing that I convened in Bismarck, ND. Although on the Indian reservations of the northern Great Plains, the rate of Indian youth suicide is 10 times higher than it is anywhere else in the country, this tragic issue is not limited to these locations. The committee has heard testimony from people from tribal communities in Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, New Mexico, and Wyoming, as well.

According to 2004 statistics from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, suicide is the second leading cause of death, behind unintentional injury, for American Indian and Alaska Native young adults 15 to 24 years old, of both sexes--a statistic that has sadly been true for the past 20 years. For North Dakota Indian girls 15 to 24 years old in 2004, suicide was the number one leading cause of death.

I am grateful for the efforts of the Indian Health Service and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, in particular, both of which have, in a host of ways, sought to address the reservation youth suicide crisis. SAMHSA is providing a 4-year grant to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North and South Dakota--a tribe that had 12 Indian youth die by suicide over a 6-month period--to provide mental health outreach workers. In addition, across the country, tribal leaders, tribal health professionals, and service providers and family members are working together to implement early intervention plans, improve access to prevention programs, promote community training and awareness, and reinstate traditional tribal practices and culture-based interventions to address Native youth suicides.

Many Indian reservations and Native villages in Alaska are remote and isolated, and everyone who lives in those communities experiences much more limited access to mental health services than in our Nation's metropolitan areas. The testimony received by the Indian Affairs Committee indicates that it is particularly in these remote Native communities that there is a crisis among the youth. I believe that the use of telemedicine--or, for purposes of this legislation, telemental health--will prove a useful resource for the several tribes or tribal organizations that will participate in this demonstration project in assisting their youth.

In addition to introducing this legislation, I will include authorization of this Indian Youth Telemental Health Demonstration Project in legislation to reauthorize and amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which I intend to introduce soon.

I thank my colleagues who have joined me in sponsoring this legislation and in being willing to talk and think hard about an issue that many believe should be kept hidden. We must find ways to prevent the needless loss of young Native American boys and girls whose whole lives lie ahead of them, and from whom their tribal communities and all of this country stand to benefit as these youth blossom in to their potential as adults. I look forward to continuing our efforts to address this sensitive and very important issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, January 18, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting to organize for the 110th Congress by electing the chairman and vice chairman of the committee and to adopt the rules of the committee and any other organizational business the committee needs to consider.

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

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

I voted to table the Vitter amendment, No. 6, to S. 1, the ethics bill, because it should properly be offered to the campaign finance bill when it comes to the floor of the Senate. The majority leader has said he will bring a campaign finance bill through the committee and to the floor later this year.

Because there have been some abuses in this area, I support a change in the rules related to political committees employing family members, and I expect to be supportive of these types of reforms when campaign finance reform is voted on this year. At that time, the relevant committee on this matter will have had the opportunity to consider this issue and recommend the best way to correct these abuses.

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

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

Mr. President, I understand we are waiting to lock in votes. I was asking the chairman of the committee if I might speak for 6 or 8 minutes in morning business while we are waiting to hear back.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 8 minutes in morning business.

The ACTING PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The remarks of Mr. Dorgan pertaining to the introduction of S. 242 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to speak in response to the amendment offered by Mr. Vitter yesterday that relates to the application of the Federal campaign finance laws to Indian tribes. As Mr. Vitter suggested, this issue is outside the scope of the bill presently before us, and we should consider it at a later date when overall campaign fiance matters are being reviewed. I expect there to be a motion to table his amendment until a more appropriate time, and I will support such a motion.

More importantly though, I feel compelled to respond to some of the statements made in support of the amendment that are simply factually inaccurate. Mr. Vitter offered his amendment to correct what he describes as a very significant loophole in the campaign finance laws for Indian tribes. He stated that unlike other entities Indian tribes can give money directly from their tribal revenues and are not subject to the giving limits that apply to everyone else. Mr. Vitter stated that we should treat Indian tribes exactly as we treat other entities.

Contrary to these statements, we do treat Indian tribes exactly as we treat other unincorporated entities.

Last year, the Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing on the applicability of the Federal campaign finance laws to Indian tribes. The committee held this hearing to counter the significant factual errors that were being reported in the news. In fact, the Federal Election Commission felt the need to issue an Advisory on Indian Tribes last year to clarify the misconceptions about the law that regulates the political activity of Indian tribes. The chairman and vice chairman of the Federal Election Commission testified before the committee on how the campaign finance laws apply to Indian tribes.

So let me convey some important facts about how Indian tribes are indeed treated under the campaign finance laws:

Indian tribes are treated as ``a group of persons'' under the Federal campaign finance laws. This decision was first made by the Federal Election Commission in 1978.

Thus, Indian tribes are subject to the contribution limitations and prohibitions applicable to all ``persons'' under the law. We treat them the same as all other persons. For the last election cycle, this was $2,100 to each candidate, $26,700 per year to a political party's national committee, and $5,000 per year to a political action committee.

Similar to other unincorporated entities, Indian tribes do not have to report their political contributions. However, political committees, including candidate and party committees, that receive contributions from Indian tribes must report those contributions in their disclosure reports.

Also, similar to other unincorporated entities, Indian tribes are not subject to the cumulative giving limits applicable to ``individuals.'' This is because Indian tribes are not ``individuals.'' This is the same way that other types of organizations are treated, such as partnerships or certain limited liability companies.

Indian tribes are not treated in any unique manner under the Federal campaign finance laws. They are treated just like other unincorporated entities. The concerns raised by Mr. Vitter are not unique to Indian tribes. Many entities can give money directly from their revenues, and only ``individuals'' are subject to a cumulative giving limit.

Now that is not to say that there shouldn't be any changes to the campaign finance laws, or that there should not be more transparency with regards to political contributions. However, Indian tribes should not be singled out because of misunderstandings about how the Federal laws apply to them. Nor should the sovereignty of Indian tribes or their ability to represent their tribal members be infringed upon.

Mr. President, January 16, 2007, is a special day for North Dakota.

It is the 60th birthday of the North Dakota Air National Guard. It will also mark a major milestone in the history of the North Dakota Air National Guard. On that day the 119th Fighter Wing will conduct a ceremony honoring the final flight of their F-16s, closing out an illustrious history of flying fighter aircraft in defense of our country.

On that day, the 119th Fighter Wing will also introduce the public to its two new missions, operating Predator unmanned aerial systems and flying light transport aircraft.

The North Dakota Air National Guard began on January 16, 1947. The first Air Guard squadron organized in North Dakota was the 178th Fighter Squadron in Fargo. The first meetings were held in the Army National Guard Armory in downtown Fargo but the squadron moved to Hector Airport by the end of the year.

Duane Larson was the squadron commander during the 1950s. He was nicknamed ``Pappy'' because he was the senior fighter pilot. The squadron started calling themselves Pappy Larson and his Happy Hooligans after an old comic strip. The squadron has been called the Happy Hooligans ever since.

The Happy Hooligans began operations with the P-51D Mustang. They flew the Mustang until 1954. After that they flew F-94s, F-89s, F-102s, F-101B Voodoos and F-4D Phantoms. Since 1990, they have flown F-16s.

On April 1, 1951, the Hooligans were mobilized for Federal service and ordered to active duty during the Korean conflict. When they were demobilized in 1954, they were put on alert to defend against an attack by the Soviet Union. At first, the alert consisted of aircraft on the main ramp of Hector Field with aircrew sleeping in a nearby building on base.

The alert mission was supposed to be a temporary mission for the Happy Hooligans. It was only supposed to last

6 months to a year. It turned into a 52 year stint. From 1954 to 2006, the North Dakota Air National Guard flew alert in more than a dozen states and nearly a dozen nations.

In 1998 the Happy Hooligans established a permanent alert detachment of F-16s, pilots and ground crews at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. Their mission was to provide air defense for Washington, DC, and other locations along the eastern seaboard. That mission came to an end on October 12, 2006.

I cannot talk about the Happy Hooligans alert mission without mentioning the events of 9/11.

The attack on the World Trade Center in New York precipitated an order for the fighters of 119th Fighter Wing's alert detachment to scramble from Langley. Three North Dakota Air National Guard F-16s took to the air, but regrettably they were not yet over Washington's airspace when American Airlines flight 77 hit the Pentagon. They were still some minutes away. But they then flew, as I understand it, 7 or 8 hours that day performing combat air patrol over the skies of Washington, DC.

In the shock of that morning, I have to tell you that I will never forget what it meant to look up to the bright blue September morning sky and see F-16 fighter planes flying air cover over the Nation's Capitol. We found out later those were the Happy Hooligans from Fargo,

Mr. President, I have come to the floor for just a couple of minutes to describe a piece of legislation that I and Senator Olympia Snowe have introduced today with 30 of our colleagues in the Senate dealing with the issue of drug reimportation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to show on the floor of the Senate a couple of bottles.

I would like to show two bottles that contained Lipitor, a drug that most of us know is a cholesterol-lowering drug. Lipitor is made by a company in a plant--in this case in Ireland--and in Ireland they put Lipitor in these two bottles, and they send the Lipitor in this bottle to Canada, and they send the Lipitor in this bottle to the United States.

The difference? Well, there is no difference. It is the same pill, put in the same bottle, made by the same company, an FDA-approved drug. The difference is the United States consumer pays 65 percent more for this drug than the consumer in Canada.

But it is not just Lipitor. And it is not just a plant in Ireland by this company that produces it and sends it to here and then to Canada, and charges the American consumer the highest prices. It is virtually all of the brand drugs. And in virtually every case, the American consumer is paying the highest prices for prescription drugs--the highest prices in the world.

My colleague, Senator Snowe and I and many others in this Chamber-- Senator Stabenow, Senator Kennedy, Senator McCain, and so many others-- 30 Senators have introduced this legislation that allows the reimportation of FDA-approved drugs--produced in FDA-inspected plants-- allows the reimportation of those lower priced prescription drugs into this country. It allows American consumers to take advantage of the global economy by buying that FDA-approved drug where it is sold for a fraction of the price.

One day, some while ago, on a beautiful summer day, outside of Oakes, ND, I was meeting with a group of farmers. At this farmyard, we were sitting on bales of straw and having a long discussion, and there was one older fellow there in his eighties, early eighties. He said to me: My wife has been suffering from breast cancer for 3 years. She is an elderly woman battling breast cancer now for 3 years. For 3 years, we have driven from the southern part of North Dakota into Canada to buy Tamoxifen for my wife to treat this breast cancer. She needs this medicine to fight the breast cancer, and the only way we can afford it is for us to get in the car and drive to Canada and buy Tamoxifen at 20 percent of the price we would have to pay in this country.

American consumers should not have to do that. They ought to be allowed to reimport prescription drugs that are made in FDA-approved plants and are FDA-approved drugs.

The legislation we have introduced today is necessary. I do not want American consumers to have to purchase prescription drugs elsewhere. I want them to be able to purchase them in this country at a fair price. The problem is, we are now paying the highest prices in the world. If we allow the reimportation, it will put downward pressure on prices in this country. That is our real goal.

Now the Congressional Budget Office has done a study. They tell us that brandname drugs cost 35 to 55 percent less in most other countries than they do in the United States. The AARP, American Association of Retired Persons, has done a study showing the drugs most frequently used by senior citizens in our country have increased by a 6.3-percent price increase from June 2005 to June 2006--double the rate of inflation.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if we pas the legislation we have now introduced today, there will be a savings of about $50 billion in direct savings over the next decade for American consumers, with $6.1 billion of that savings to the Federal budget.

So we believe this is important. We have been blocked from getting this legislation through the Congress for some long while. The leadership of this institution supports it. The legislation is bipartisan--broadly bipartisan.

Now let me say one other thing. Some people say, and particularly the pharmaceutical industry says, this cannot be done safely, it will jeopardize safety for American consumers. Well, let me say that the consumers in the European countries have been doing this for 20, 25 years. There is something called parallel trading. They have been doing it for 20, 25 years without any issues of safety. If you want to buy a drug in Spain, and you live in France, no problem. If you want to buy a drug in Italy, and you live in Germany, no problem. They have been doing that--called parallel trading--for 25 years. Surely, we can accomplish that in this country as well.

Let me show a couple of charts, briefly.

First, Americans are charged the highest prices in the world. This one chart compares it to Canada: Lipitor, Prevacid, Zocor, Zoloft, Celebrex. I will not go through the entire list.

Dr. Peter Rost, vice president of marketing for Pfizer, came to Washington, and here is what he said:

The biggest argument against reimportation is safety. What

everyone has conveniently forgotten to tell you is that in

Europe reimportation of drugs has been in place for 20 years.

He went on to say there is not any issue of safety.

And, finally, the American Association of Retired Persons endorses the legislation we have introduced today. I will not read all of that.

But the final chart shows what is happening with respect to spending on prescription drugs, and where it is heading, and why we ought to do something to give consumers the opportunity to see fair prices on prescription drugs.

Miracle drugs offer no miracles to those who cannot afford to buy them. I have no brief against the pharmaceutical industry. I want them to keep producing lifesaving, miracle drugs for this country. In fact, we produce a great deal of public spending in the NIH and elsewhere that gives them the research base for which a good number of those drugs is produced.

But let me also say that the pharmaceutical industry owes the American consumer a fair deal. We should not be paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. It is not fair. And if the pharmaceutical industry is going to use a global economy in order to move its commodities and its various ingredients for prescription drugs around the world to produce in Ireland or to produce here or in Puerto Rico, then the American people ought to be able to use the global economy to get a better price on FDA-approved drugs.

We have waited a long while. I have worked on this I guess 6 or 8 years. We have been blocked repeatedly from getting a vote in the Congress, both in the House and the Senate. Now we have introduced, with broad, bipartisan support, an identical piece of legislation in the House and in the Senate.

I believe we will get a vote in both bodies and pass legislation and send it to the President of the United States. It will save $50 billion over the next decade on prescription drug bills for the American people, save the Federal Government $5 billion or $6 billion in spending, and give a fair deal to the American people that they will be able to buy prescription drugs at a fair price.

Mr. President, I look forward to consideration of this measure in the Senate. I am pleased on behalf of my colleague Senator Snowe and myself and a broad group of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to push this legislation.

I see Senator Sanders is here, and I know she has worked on this issue for a long while as well. We have a broad, bipartisan group. We are going to push this and get this done in this session of Congress.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor for just a couple of minutes to describe a piece of legislation that I and Senator Olympia Snowe have introduced today with 30 of our colleagues in the Senate dealing with the issue of drug reimportation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to show on the floor of the Senate a couple of bottles.

I would like to show two bottles that contained Lipitor, a drug that most of us know is a cholesterol-lowering drug. Lipitor is made by a company in a plant--in this case in Ireland--and in Ireland they put Lipitor in these two bottles, and they send the Lipitor in this bottle to Canada, and they send the Lipitor in this bottle to the United States.

The difference? Well, there is no difference. It is the same pill, put in the same bottle, made by the same company, an FDA-approved drug. The difference is the United States consumer pays 65 percent more for this drug than the consumer in Canada.

But it is not just Lipitor. And it is not just a plant in Ireland by this company that produces it and sends it to here and then to Canada, and charges the American consumer the highest prices. It is virtually all of the brand drugs. And in virtually every case, the American consumer is paying the highest prices for prescription drugs--the highest prices in the world.

My colleague, Senator Snowe and I and many others in this Chamber-- Senator Stabenow, Senator Kennedy, Senator McCain, and so many others-- 30 Senators have introduced this legislation that allows the reimportation of FDA-approved drugs--produced in FDA-inspected plants-- allows the reimportation of those lower priced prescription drugs into this country. It allows American consumers to take advantage of the global economy by buying that FDA-approved drug where it is sold for a fraction of the price.

One day, some while ago, on a beautiful summer day, outside of Oakes, ND, I was meeting with a group of farmers. At this farmyard, we were sitting on bales of straw and having a long discussion, and there was one older fellow there in his eighties, early eighties. He said to me: My wife has been suffering from breast cancer for 3 years. She is an elderly woman battling breast cancer now for 3 years. For 3 years, we have driven from the southern part of North Dakota into Canada to buy Tamoxifen for my wife to treat this breast cancer. She needs this medicine to fight the breast cancer, and the only way we can afford it is for us to get in the car and drive to Canada and buy Tamoxifen at 20 percent of the price we would have to pay in this country.

American consumers should not have to do that. They ought to be allowed to reimport prescription drugs that are made in FDA-approved plants and are FDA-approved drugs.

The legislation we have introduced today is necessary. I do not want American consumers to have to purchase prescription drugs elsewhere. I want them to be able to purchase them in this country at a fair price. The problem is, we are now paying the highest prices in the world. If we allow the reimportation, it will put downward pressure on prices in this country. That is our real goal.

Now the Congressional Budget Office has done a study. They tell us that brandname drugs cost 35 to 55 percent less in most other countries than they do in the United States. The AARP, American Association of Retired Persons, has done a study showing the drugs most frequently used by senior citizens in our country have increased by a 6.3-percent price increase from June 2005 to June 2006--double the rate of inflation.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if we pas the legislation we have now introduced today, there will be a savings of about $50 billion in direct savings over the next decade for American consumers, with $6.1 billion of that savings to the Federal budget.

So we believe this is important. We have been blocked from getting this legislation through the Congress for some long while. The leadership of this institution supports it. The legislation is bipartisan--broadly bipartisan.

Now let me say one other thing. Some people say, and particularly the pharmaceutical industry says, this cannot be done safely, it will jeopardize safety for American consumers. Well, let me say that the consumers in the European countries have been doing this for 20, 25 years. There is something called parallel trading. They have been doing it for 20, 25 years without any issues of safety. If you want to buy a drug in Spain, and you live in France, no problem. If you want to buy a drug in Italy, and you live in Germany, no problem. They have been doing that--called parallel trading--for 25 years. Surely, we can accomplish that in this country as well.

Let me show a couple of charts, briefly.

First, Americans are charged the highest prices in the world. This one chart compares it to Canada: Lipitor, Prevacid, Zocor, Zoloft, Celebrex. I will not go through the entire list.

Dr. Peter Rost, vice president of marketing for Pfizer, came to Washington, and here is what he said:

The biggest argument against reimportation is safety. What

everyone has conveniently forgotten to tell you is that in

Europe reimportation of drugs has been in place for 20 years.

He went on to say there is not any issue of safety.

And, finally, the American Association of Retired Persons endorses the legislation we have introduced today. I will not read all of that.

But the final chart shows what is happening with respect to spending on prescription drugs, and where it is heading, and why we ought to do something to give consumers the opportunity to see fair prices on prescription drugs.

Miracle drugs offer no miracles to those who cannot afford to buy them. I have no brief against the pharmaceutical industry. I want them to keep producing lifesaving, miracle drugs for this country. In fact, we produce a great deal of public spending in the NIH and elsewhere that gives them the research base for which a good number of those drugs is produced.

But let me also say that the pharmaceutical industry owes the American consumer a fair deal. We should not be paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. It is not fair. And if the pharmaceutical industry is going to use a global economy in order to move its commodities and its various ingredients for prescription drugs around the world to produce in Ireland or to produce here or in Puerto Rico, then the American people ought to be able to use the global economy to get a better price on FDA-approved drugs.

We have waited a long while. I have worked on this I guess 6 or 8 years. We have been blocked repeatedly from getting a vote in the Congress, both in the House and the Senate. Now we have introduced, with broad, bipartisan support, an identical piece of legislation in the House and in the Senate.

I believe we will get a vote in both bodies and pass legislation and send it to the President of the United States. It will save $50 billion over the next decade on prescription drug bills for the American people, save the Federal Government $5 billion or $6 billion in spending, and give a fair deal to the American people that they will be able to buy prescription drugs at a fair price.

Mr. President, I look forward to consideration of this measure in the Senate. I am pleased on behalf of my colleague Senator Snowe and myself and a broad group of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate to push this legislation.

I see Senator Sanders is here, and I know she has worked on this issue for a long while as well. We have a broad, bipartisan group. We are going to push this and get this done in this session of Congress.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, this morning and in the days leading up to today, we have seen and heard a great deal of discussion, particularly by the media, describing the issue of the President's speech tomorrow evening and all of the discussion in the political system as a political tug of war about Iraq. It is not that. This is not a political tug of war. It is a serious moment for this country to try to evaluate what to do about something that overlays almost everything else we are considering these days; that is, the current war in Iraq. What do we do about what is happening there? It is about the lives of our soldiers. It is about our country's future. It is about how to make change in Iraq, how to create the kind of change that will give us the opportunity to do the right thing.

I intend to listen carefully to what the President says in his speech to the nation tomorrow night. I am not going to prejudge what he says, but let me suggest what I think the President has to answer for us, for me, for the American people.

There is considerable discussion about the fact that the President will likely call for a surge or an increase in American troops going to Iraq. There is also discussion that perhaps he will call for additional funds that would be sent to Iraq for reconstruction or other things Americans would contribute.

One point the President will have to explain is the testimony that was given less than 2 months ago before the Senate by General Abizaid, the top military commander in Iraq. I am talking about the top military commander of American troops in Iraq. Here is what General Abizaid said in November, less than 2 months ago. He said:

I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the

corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And

I said, ``In your professional opinion, if we were to bring

in more American troops now, does that add considerably to

our ability to achieve success in Iraq?'' And they all said

no. The reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It

is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I

believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from

doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own

future.

This is testimony before a congressional committee of the top U.S. military commander in Iraq saying he has asked all of his top commanders, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our

ability to achieve success in Iraq. He said:

They all said no.

That is something I believe has to be reconciled. Has that changed? Has something changed in 2 months?

With respect to the amount of money that is sent to the country of Iraq, I observe this: This country has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the Iraq war. Between Iraq and Afghanistan, we are now approaching $400 billion. We appropriated separately roughly a $20 billion pot of money for reconstruction in Iraq. That is in addition to the reconstruction which has been done by American soldiers. That $20- plus billion was pushed out the door--a massive amount of money--in a short time.

I held a good number of hearings as chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee on that issue: contracting in Iraq. I think it is the most significant amount of waste, fraud, and abuse this country has ever seen. Let me show one poster that describes a part of it, which was shown at our hearing and we discussed this:

A $243 million program led by the United States Army Corps

of Engineers to build 150 health care clinics in Iraq has, in

some cases, produced little more than empty shells of

crumbling concrete and shattered bricks cemented together

into uneven walls.

A company called the Parsons Corporation got this money. They were to rehabilitate, I believe, 142 health clinics in the country of Iraq. Twenty were done, and the rest didn't happen at all. The money was spent. All the money is gone. The American taxpayers found that all their money was gone, but the fact is that the health clinics were not rehabilitated.

There was a doctor, a physician from Iraq, who testified. He said: I went to the Health Minister of the new Government of Iraq. I said: I want to see these health clinics that were supposed to have been rehabilitated for which some $200 million was appropriated by the U.S. taxpayers, by the U.S. Government. I want to see these health clinics.

He said the Health Minister of the new Government of Iraq said: You don't understand, they don't exist. They are imaginary clinics.

Well, our money is gone. This is an example of the waste, fraud, and abuse in contracting.

The Halliburton corporation, Custer Battles corporation--it is unbelievable--the stories. This photo shows some American officials with $100 bills wrapped in Saran Wrap the size of a big brick. This fellow testified at a hearing I held, this man in the white shirt. He said: Look, we told contractors in Iraq: Bring a bag, we pay cash. He said it was like the Wild West: Bring a sack, we pay cash.

This $2 million in $100 dollar bills wrapped in Saran Wrap actually went to Custer Battles corporation. Custer Battles corporation got over $100 million in contracts. Among other things, it is alleged they took forklift trucks from the Baghdad Airport, took them over to a warehouse, repainted them, and then sold them to the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was us. It is a criminal action at this point.

My point is this: Whatever we do in Iraq, I want to be effective. We owe it to the troops, we owe it to the men and women who wear America's uniform.

At this point, we have America's troops in the middle of a civil war. Yes, most of this is sectarian violence. We see the reports. January 7: 30 dead in Baghdad, bodies hang from lampposts. The Government said Saturday that 72 bodies were recovered around the city, most showing signs of torture. We see these day after day after day. Our heart breaks for the innocent victims of this war. The question for us now is, Should American troops be in the middle of that civil war? Should we send additional troops to that circumstance? If so, for what purpose? And if so, why do we do it less than 2 months after General Abizaid said the commanders do not believe additional troops will be effective?

We have done what is called a surge in Baghdad starting last July. I believe it was somewhere around 15,000 additional troops were sent to Baghdad. The fact is, the violence increased, more soldiers died.

I am going to listen to President Bush's speech. This ought not and I hope will not and should not be political. It is about all of us, Republicans and Democrats, the President and the Congress working together to find a way for the right solution for this country to support our soldiers, make the right judgments for them, make the right judgments for our country's long-term interests.

Yes, we have a fight against terrorism that we must wage, and we must do it aggressively, but most of what is going on in Iraq at this point is sectarian violence, and it is, in fact, a civil war. The question is, What do we do now?

It seems to me that if we are going to keep American troops in Iraq for any length of time, we ought to consider partitioning so at least we separate the combatants and the sectarian violence. It only seems to me, in a civil war, that works. But I will listen intently tomorrow with my colleagues to hear what the President's new plan is. I hope we can work together in a way that begins to do what is in the best interest of this country. I am very skeptical about this issue of deciding that we are going to surge additional troops into Iraq, even as the top military commanders in Iraq say that should not be done.

I mentioned Iraq first because it overwhelms most of the other agenda here, but there are so many other issues with which we must deal. Let's deal with Iraq and get that right, support our troops, do what is necessary, do what is best for our country. Let's work together, Republicans and Democrats, let's work together, the President and the Congress, and find the right solution and do what is right for our future. Then let's turn to other issues.

How about energy? It is interesting, we are held hostage by foreign oil. Over 60 percent of the oil that runs the American economy comes from off our shores. When we talk about energy independence, we need energy independence, and I support fossil fuels. We are going to use oil, coal, and natural gas. We always have and we always will, and I support that. But let me say this: In 1916, this Congress put in place tax incentives for the production of oil, long-term, robust, permanent tax incentives to incentivize the additional production of oil.

Think how different it is with what we have done with renewable energy. We decided about 20 years ago to give some tax incentives to incentivize renewable energy development, but they were temporary, short term. The production tax credit for the production of wind and other renewable energy has been extended five times because it has been short term. It has been allowed to expire three times. That is not a commitment to this country. This is not a commitment to renewable energy. This is not a commitment to energy independence. The fact is, we are just babystepping our away along in all these areas. We didn't do that with oil. We made a robust, long-term commitment in 1916, and it remains today, that said: Let's produce. How about doing the same thing for renewable energy? Yes, the biofuels, but also wind energy and hydrogen fuel cells and all the other ways that can make us more secure from an energy standpoint. Let's stop babystepping. Let's have a 10- year plan. We cannot do this with a 1-year plan or a 2-year plan. We need to deal with that issue.

We need to deal with the issue of health care costs. I wanted to, but I don't have the time this morning, to respond to my colleague from Iowa who twice has come to the floor to talk about why our Government shouldn't be allowed to negotiate drug prices in the Medicare Program. It is preposterous that we have a provision in law that prevents the Federal Government from negotiating lower drug prices, especially because our consumers in this country pay the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world, and that is unfair. I relish that debate, and I wait for that debate.

Jobs and trade--the fact is, we have lots of issues we need to sink our teeth into. I am going to come back and speak about many of these issues at great length. First, we have to deal with this situation in Iraq. That is very important. That is about the lives of men and women who wear America's uniform. But it is more than that as well. It is about what we are doing around the world. It is about, yes, our lives and our treasure, and we need to get that right.

I mentioned when I started that I think the press, if one listens to all the

programs, tend to portray this as a political tug of war. It is deadly serious, much more serious than a political tug of war. It is about trying to get this right for our country's future.

I hope that in the coming several weeks, we can come to a conclusion about this very important issue--yes, the war in Iraq, the larger war on terrorism, deal with some of these issues, such as homeland security--and then move on to begin to address the issues I just talked about as well; that is, the issue of energy security, health care costs, jobs, trade, and a series of issues that are important for this country's future.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the issue of Internet freedom, which is also known as net neutrality, is one that is very important to me. I have long fought in Congress against media concentration, to prevent the consolidation of control over what Americans see, read and hear in the media. Americans have recognized how important this issue is and millions spoke out when the FCC sought to loosen the ownership rules to allow for more consolidation.

But now, Americans face an equally great threat to the democratic vehicle of the Internet. The Internet, which we have always taken for granted as an open and free engine for economic and creative growth, is now also at risk, and this must also become a front burner issue for consumers and businesses.

The Internet became a robust engine of economic development by enabling anyone with a good idea to connect to consumers and compete on a level playing field for consumers' business. The marketplace picked winners and losers, and not some central gatekeeper. Our economy, small businesses and consumers benefited tremendously from that dynamic marketplace.

But now we face a situation where the FCC has removed nondiscrimination rules that applied to Internet providers for years, and that enabled the Internet to flourish, and consumers and innovation to thrive.

The FCC removed these rules, and broadband operators soon thereafter announced their interest in acting in discriminatory ways, planning to create tiers on the Internet that could restrict content providers' access to the

Internet unless they pay extra for faster speeds or better service. Under their plan, the Internet would become a new world where those content providers who can afford to pay special fees would have better access to consumers.

On November 7, 2005 then-SBC, now AT&T, CEO Ed Whitacre was quoted in Business Week as saying: ``They don't have any fiber out there. They don't have any wires. They don't have anything . . . They use my lines for free--and that's bull. For a Google or a Yahoo! or a Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes for free is nuts!''

In another article a senior executive from Verizon was quoted as saying: ``(Google) is enjoying a free lunch that should, by any rational account, be the lunch of the facilities providers.''

Now perhaps if we had a competitive broadband market we would not need to be concerned about the discriminatory intentions of some providers. In a market with many competitors, there is a reasonable chance that market forces would discipline bad behavior.

But this is not the case today: FCC statistics on broadband show that the local cable and telephone companies have a 98 percent share of the national broadband residential access market.

For those that say, the market will take care of competition, and ensure that those that own the broadband networks won't discriminate, that cannot be so when at best consumers have a choice of two providers.

Furthermore, these broadband operators have their own content and services, video, VOIP, media content. They have an incentive to favor their own services and to act in an anti-competitive fashion. Last year Cablevision's Tom Rutledge talking about Vonage made the following statement: ``So, anyone who buys Vonage on our network using our data service doesn't really know what they are doing . . . Our service is better, its quality of service. We actually prioritize the bits so that the voice product is a better product.''

With these developments, consumers' ability to use content, services and applications could now be subject to decisions made by their broadband providers. The broadband operator will become a gatekeeper, capable of deciding who can get through to a consumer, who can get special deals, faster speeds, better access to the consumer.

This fundamentally changes the way the Internet has operated and threaten to derail the democratic nature of the Internet. American consumers and businesses will be worse off for it.

It is for this reason that Senator Snowe and I are reintroducing the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, with the support of Internet businesses large and small, consumer groups, labor and education groups, religious organizations, and many others.

Last year we faced an uphill battle: broadband providers were spending millions of dollars on print and television advertisements and efforts to convince lawmakers to let them act as gatekeepers on the Internet, removing the power from the consumers that drive Internet choice today.

We still face the vast resources of broadband operators that seek to authorize their ability to control content on the Internet. But more importantly on the side of our legislation we have the grass roots support for and the substantive merits of Internet freedom.

In addition, we have proof that it can be done- nondiscrimination rules and Internet freedom can co-exist with profitable business plans. Recently AT&T accepted as a condition of its merger with BellSouth a net neutrality provision written by the FCC. Wall Street immediately reported that it expected no impact on AT&T's bottom line by the acceptance of these conditions, and AT&T is forging ahead, while at the same time having committed to protecting Internet freedom.

It is clear that an open and neutral Internet can co-exist and thrive along with competitive and profitable business models.

But legislation is still critical. The merger conditions are an important step but are not enough. We must restore Internet freedom mandates to the entire broadband industry and make them permanent, ensuring that consumers can continue to receive the benefits of an open and vibrant Internet not only in the short term from AT&T, but from any broadband provider in the longer term.

Today we introduce the Internet Freedom Preservation Act to ensure that the Internet remains a platform that spawns innovation and economic development for generations to come. We look forward to working with our colleagues in Congress to enact these important measures into law.

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