Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to support the Reid amendment, the Real Security Act, offered as an amendment, and I rise to say a word about the amendment offered by Senator Nelson today which Senator Conrad and I and many others have worked on and support, dealing with farm disaster aid.

First, let me talk about this issue, the Real Security Act. I know there are some who say this is an omnibus piece of legislation offered as an amendment; it is moving too quickly. I don't think the U.S. Congress has ever been accused of speeding. I don't think we ever ought to be worried about moving too quickly. My concern with respect to security in this country is that we move too slowly.

The issue of one, two, or three areas in which we deal with the security of this country--we do it here, there, elsewhere--over a month or two, a year or two, or 5 years, there is a lot to be done, and it needs to be done in an omnibus way, in a way that is organized.

That is what my colleague, Senator Reid, has offered, the Real Security Act, which we have worked on in its various pieces for a long time.

Let me describe why we need something like this and why this is a good place to begin discussing it. The fact is, it is 5 years after September 11. We just had the commemorative anniversary of that terrorist attack against our country in which thousands of Americans were murdered. We still have a circumstance where in many areas first responders cannot speak to each other. Firefighters, police officers, and so on are not able to communicate with each other. In the event of a future terrorist attack my hope is we have compatible communications.

My colleague offers an amendment that deals with a whole range of issues, including emergency preparedness, response, communications, border security, increasing the number of special forces, safeguarding nuclear materials, and increasing the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. He describes in this amendment a new approach with respect to rail security and mass transit security, as well as aviation security.

As an aside, I point out that we have a situation with respect to aviation security that I know is very difficult for this country, for the traveling public, and for the airlines. There is no question we understand what the terrorists did. The terrorists used some box cutters and an airplane loaded with fuel to run into buildings. Both the World Trade Center attacks and the Pentagon were low-tech attacks. My understanding was that attack on September 11 cost around $500,000, with 19 people, some box cutters and some hijacked airplanes.

We have a lot to do with respect to trying to understand where the next attack might come from and how to foil that attack. I commend all of those who have been working in these areas who have been successful in uncovering conspiracies and uncovering potential attack plans against our country and

foiling those plans. They deserve our undying thanks. We need to say to them: Stay on the job. Continue to do that excellent work.

We also need to give them the tools. The Reid amendment offers those tools in a wide range of areas--the tools that will equip our first responders, the tools that will equip our intelligence community, the tools that will equip our soldiers. For example, there is a provision in the Reid amendment that talks about the funding necessary for new language capabilities in the Middle East and Asian languages in our intelligence communities. Yes, we are doing some of that, but we are not doing as much as we could.

This amendment is an omnibus amendment that, in my judgment, moves in the right direction. As I said before, I know those who say it does too much, the danger is not that we are doing too much in Congress, the danger is we will do too little. With respect to this issue of real security, this Congress, this Senate, would be well advised to accept this amendment.

I read in the paper this morning a congressional colleague on the other side of the aisle in the other body said:

I wonder if Democrats are more interested in protecting

terrorists than in protecting the American people?

That is a pathetic political statement not worthy of much response, except to say this: All Members in this Chamber care about this country. All in this Chamber are Americans who want to protect this great country of ours. There is a barrel full of politics around this; I understand that. When you read what I read in the paper this morning by someone from the other body, it is pretty pathetic.

What we ought to do, it seems to me, is not worry about trying to move too fast. Let's worry we are not moving fast enough. Let's embrace this Reid amendment and have a debate on it and add this to the port security bill and we will have done this country a significant amount of good work in protecting America's future.

Amendment No. 4945

I take a couple of minutes to say I strongly support the agricultural disaster piece offered as an amendment by Senator Nelson. I have twice offered an agricultural disaster piece that has gone through the full Senate. We have gone to conference two times. In both circumstances, once last December and once this spring, we lost it because the President threatened to veto it and the House conferees would not accept it as a result of that Presidential veto threat.

I will just show three charts very briefly. This is a soybean field that is supposed to be about a foot high at this point. There is almost nothing growing. This is a man from my State. He is walking in a creek bed. The creek is dry. We have suffered a devastating drought. When farmers lose everything, when they have no crop, when their pasture is gone and it looks like a moonscape, when they have to send their cows to market because there is nothing for a cow to eat, that is a disaster.

This country goes all over the world: You have trouble, let us help; we want to help you. Good for us. That is a good value system. How about doing that at home? When farmers and ranchers lose everything, how about us saying: We want to help you. We want to extend a helping hand.

We have not done that yet because the President has threatened a veto. I hope the President will work with us rather than against us and decide it worthy to help Americans who are in trouble.

So my colleague, Senator Nelson, has offered an amendment on this bill. My colleague, Senator Conrad, and I, and many others have worked in a bipartisan way. This is not a partisan issue in the Senate. We passed it twice on a bipartisan basis. I hope we will add this amendment to this underlying bill as well. I hope in between now and when it gets to the White House the President will understand the urgency of this situation.

Times change. Things change. The fact is, these folks need help. We have a responsibility to do it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment. I will ask that the pending amendment be set aside in a moment. I am not able to debate my amendment at this point because there is a large group of farmers who are in town to talk about disaster relief, and I am expected to be with them at 11:30. I am going to offer the amendment, go over and be a part of what they are doing, and then come back.

But before I offer this amendment, I want to say, just for a moment, this morning the new trade deficit figures were released. The highest trade deficit in America's history was announced

this morning: $68 billion. That is the highest trade deficit in our history: $68 billion for 1 month.

This is the most incompetent, unbelievably dangerous trade strategy, and yet all we get from anybody is this talk about free trade, free trade, how wonderful it is. Well, this last month alone, we are up to our necks in $68 billion of debt, the majority of which is held by the Chinese and the Japanese. If this month's trade deficit does not persuade some people to finally decide the current trade strategy is not working, then I guess nothing ever will.

But let me just, from this 1 month, extrapolate what our yearly trade deficit is with these various countries. We are running a trade deficit at a $240 billion-a-year level with China. Our trade deficit with the European Union is at a $140 billion-a-year level; OPEC, $120 billion a year; Japan, $90 billion a year; Canada, $70 billion a year; Mexico, $60 billion a year. It is unbelievable what is happening--$68 billion a month in trade deficits.

Now, I understand there are a lot of people who vote for all these trade agreements and think this is wonderful. This is not wonderful. It is undermining this country's economy, it will injure our economic future, and I think it will consign our children to an economic future and opportunities that are much less than we have experienced. I would expect and hope that one of these days this Congress and this President will wake up and decide that this trade strategy isn't working. We are choking on trade debt, moving millions of jobs overseas, and tens of millions more are poised to go.

If this doesn't persuade people to decide to stand up for this country's economic interests, I guess nothing ever will. At this point, we need, on an emergency basis, the understanding that we should create a fair trade commission in this country that leads us toward trade balance, getting rid of deficits, and standing up for American jobs and American interests. That hasn't been the case for a long time.

This morning's announcement simply underscores once again the dramatic failure of this trade strategy, the failure of this Government to stand up for this country's economic interests. I will talk about that more later.

Amendment No. 4937

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is simple. It relates to the issue of port security, which is the bill we are on. As you know, earlier this year we had a substantial amount of controversy about port security, at a time when the Bush administration gave the green light for Dubai Ports World, which was a government-owned company in the United Arab Emirates, to have the opportunity to take over management of seaports in our country--in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans, and Miami, among others.

In February of this year, the Bush administration said that was fine for a company called Dubai Ports World to take over the management of these ports. It had been given official sanction to do so, and the President indicated that if the Congress didn't like it, and if the Congress passed legislation to do something about it, he would veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement that would allow the United Arab Emirates-owned company to manage American seaports.

Well, the UAE then indicated it was going to back away, and Dubai Ports World has now moved to try to find a way to sell its interest to others. My understanding is that it has not yet done so. But the circumstances are that the Oman Free Trade Agreement, which will come to the floor of the Senate this week we are told by the majority leader, includes a provision--I will describe it in greater depth later--that would prevent the Congress from interfering in any way with a foreign company from Oman from managing our ports.

My amendment is very simple. It would say that trade officials would be prohibited from agreeing to any trade agreement that would preclude the Congress from blocking a takeover of U.S. port operations by foreign companies. In recent trade agreements they have actually included--which we have negotiated with other countries--the opportunity for those countries and their companies to come in and run America's ports.

When we are talking about port security, don't tell me about security if we decide we are going to allow other countries, and companies owned in many cases by countries, to take over the management of America's ports. That is not port security and not, in my judgment, improving the security interests of this country.

We went through this debate about Dubai Ports World and United Arab Emirates. That issue is not resolved. It is being raised again in every trade agreement that is being negotiated and is included in the one with Oman that will be debated later this week. The majority leader wishes to take up that trade agreement. I believe there is a 20-hour requirement or debate provision with respect to that agreement.

I intend to talk at some length about what that agreement provides with respect to this provision. The provision in this trade agreement once again is that it is going to be just fine for foreign interests to come in and provide management and many other functions at America's seaports. Tell me how that will make this country more secure.

I don't think anybody can talk about security when at the same time, in trade agreements, we are saying we want other countries, and companies that are owned by these countries, in fact, to come in and manage America's seaports. That is a recipe for disaster, in my judgment.

I will speak more about it later. I wanted to at least lay the amendment down and have the opportunity to be in line after lunch and talk about this amendment at greater length.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I previously offered an amendment to the pending bill. My understanding is it will likely be accepted. I did not have a chance to speak at any length on the amendment. I want to do so now. I recognize we have a vote in about 10 minutes. I will be mindful of that.

The amendment which I offered says that our U.S. trade officials will be prohibited from agreeing to any future trade agreement that would preclude the Congress from blocking the takeover of a U.S. port operation by a foreign company. I offered this amendment in the shadow of this morning's announcement that our monthly trade deficit--get this--was the highest in U.S. history. It was announced this morning-- $68 billion in 1 month.

If anyone needs additional information about the failure of our trade strategy and the failure of this so-called ``free trade'' nonsense we have been hearing around here, take a look at this morning's announcement--$68 billion trade deficit in 1 month.

This is not money we owe to ourselves. That is money we owe largely to Japan, and China, and other countries and will be repaid someday with a lower standard of living in this country.

I offer this amendment dealing with trade as a backdrop to this morning's announcement of the highest trade deficit in history, a trade strategy fraught with error--and this is injuring this country.

Let me describe the need for this amendment.

You might recall that earlier this year it was announced that Dubai Ports World was going to begin to manage a number of ports in this country. Dubai Ports World, in February of this year, indicated that they were going to manage ports in America in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Miami, and some others. Dubai Ports World is a company that is operated by the United Arab Emirates.

In February of this year, the Bush administration gave the green light to Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, to manage these American ports. The President said that he felt it was fine for our ports to be managed by a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

In fact, when a firestorm erupted over this issue, here is what the President said, brushing aside objections from Republicans and Democrats alike. President Bush endorsed the takeover of shipping operations in six major U.S. seaports by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. The President pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement.

Even more than that, the head of Homeland Security, Mr. Michael Chertoff, strangely enough said this: Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff reported yesterday that the proposed takeover of terminal operations at five U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World would give U.S. law enforcement a better handle on security at U.S. terminal operations.

Here is a member of the Cabinet in this country saying that if we turn our port management over to a foreign company, it will actually improve security.

I don't know what he might have had for breakfast that morning, but I am telling you it didn't agree with his thinking process. It is going to improve security to turn the management of American ports over to a company that is owned by the United Arab Emirates? I don't think so.

There was a firestorm of protest. The President said he would veto any legislation that we would provide that

stopped this takeover of management of these American seaports. Despite that, at some point, it was quite clear the Congress was going to say to the President--Republicans and Democrats--we are sorry. It doesn't matter what you threaten with respect to a veto, we will pass legislation that prohibits this.

We believe the security of our seaports is best maintained by not turning the management of our seaports over to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Dubai Ports World, at some point, announced that they were going to find another way to do this and sell their interests. My understanding is that has not yet been done. But in any event, the administration backed away.

However, the trade agreements that we are negotiating now include it. Past agreements have included it. I don't intend to interrupt that with this amendment. If I could, I would. But I don't have the votes to do that.

But the trade agreements say this, including the Oman agreement, which I am told will be brought to the floor of the Senate on Thursday of this week. I intend to speak at some length on that agreement. I am opposed to it. But it includes this provision, and other trade agreements have included the same provision. U.S. port operations that we couldn't block Oman from acquiring under the FTA, under our Free Trade Agreement with Oman, we would be prohibited from blocking an agreement that included landside aspects of foreign activities, including operations and maintenance of docks, loading and unloading of vessels, directly to or from land, marine cargo handling, ship cleaning, et cetera. In point of fact, we are negotiating trade agreements that include provisions which say we are not able to block a foreign company owned by a foreign country from coming in and managing our seaports.

That is what we are doing in trade agreements. Most of our trade negotiators have been fundamentally incompetent from the start.

It was Will Rogers who said many decades ago that the United States of America has never lost a war and never won a conference. He surely must have been talking about our trade negotiators. They don't wear uniforms so they do not remember whom they represent. I have often threatened to buy them jerseys so they can look down and see whom they represent--the good old U.S.A.--just like Olympic athletes represent the U.S.A.

We negotiate trade agreements that we are told will strengthen this country, and month after month and year after year we sink deeper into this abyss of red ink, with now a $68 billion trade deficit in the last month alone.

Is it surprising then that the same incompetence that has led to the largest trade deficit in history--the same incompetence that lead to that--led them to do this, to undermine the very debate we had in February of this year about the management of American ports by a United Arab Emirates-controlled company, Dubai Ports World?

Just as an aside, let me describe the incompetence. Let me describe one example. I could give a hundred. Next year, according to a report, we will be getting imports of Chinese cars into this country because the country of China is now beginning a substantial automobile export industry. They have announced they will begin exporting cars from China to the United States next year. So we will be able to see Chinese cars driving up and down the streets of America. Guess what. Our trade negotiators agreed that when Chinese cars come into our country, we will impose a 2.5-percent tariff on Chinese cars that come into the United States.

We also agreed that any U.S. cars we could sell in China, they could impose a 25-percent tariff.

A country with which we had a $200 billion trade deficit, we agreed they could impose a tariff on automobiles 10 times higher than the tariff we would impose.

Is that brain dead? It is where I come from. Is that incompetence? It is incompetence in my hometown.

That doesn't represent our country's interests.

We come back to the point. I could give you a hundred examples similar to that, where soft-headed foreign policy is masquerading as trade policy.

We come back to the newest trade agreements, including Oman, which we will have on the floor of the Senate next Thursday which includes this provision. It is identical to provisions that are included in previous agreements as well.

I say we ought to block this from ever occurring in any future free trade agreement. This provision undermines the entire position that we have taken with respect to deciding that it is not in our country's security interests to have the United Arab Emirates engaged in the management of our seaports.

For that reason, I believe we ought to pass the amendment I am proposing, prohibiting this from happening in the future. I would like to go back, frankly, and undo that which was done in previous trade agreements.

There is a little thing that people outside of this congressional system don't recognize very easily. It is called fast track. Fast track sounds so innocuous--just fast track.

Fast track means Congress has decided to give up its opportunity, which exists in the Constitution, to be engaged in trade activities so that when a trade agreement comes to the Congress, this Congress has no opportunity to review it with the understanding of wanting to amend it.

Fast track means we have put ourselves in the straight jacket and no amendments.

That is why, when a trade agreement comes to the floor of the Senate such as Oman--and there will be others. We are now negotiating nine additional trade agreements with nine additional countries right now. The House of Representatives announced they will take up two additional trade agreements in November. When those agreements come to the floor of the Senate, because the Congress, in its lack of wisdom, decided to put itself in a straight jacket, no one can offer an amendment to strip out this kind of provision of a trade agreement. It surely escapes my line of reasoning why the Congress would want to decide to limit its capability to improve a trade agreement, but it has.

Some will say, notwithstanding what trade agreements say, notwithstanding all the other issues, the President can, for national security reasons, decide to back an agreement such as this. Yes, that is true.

It was this President who said: I agree that we ought to allow the United Arab Emirates and Dubai Ports World to come in and manage seaports. I agree that we should do that. We have already evaluated it. It makes sense.

He is wrong about that, of course. His Secretary of Homeland Security says not only does it make sense, but it will make America safer if we have the management of America's seaports being done by a foreign company through a foreign country.

That is the most absurd thing I ever heard. Yet in this country, in this town, it passed with thoughtful debate. Again, it doesn't meet the test of thoughtful debate in my hometown cafe.

I am offering this amendment. My understanding is it will likely be accepted, for which I am very appreciative. I will speak more about the general subject when we have the opportunity to talk about the free trade agreement with the country of Oman. My understanding is it may be this Thursday.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Murray and seven of our Senate colleagues in introducing legislation to stop the Internal Revenue Service's plan to outsource part of its tax collection responsibilities to private collection companies.

It would be a serious mistake for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to move ahead with its controversial tax debt collection privatization plan. When the IRS attempted a similar plan in 1996, it failed miserably. Mistakes were made at every turn. 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.

Serious concerns have been raised by tax experts, including the National Taxpayer Advocate, that the new IRS initiative will suffer from the same kinds of maladies. It is my understanding that the IRS intends to share more than 2.5 million taxpayer accounts with ten private collection companies when its new plan is fully implemented. There is troubling evidence which suggests that the IRS plan may not have adequate safeguards in place to protect confidential taxpayer information.

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.''

It is also troubling that the IRS has agreed to pay very large commissions of 21 to 24 percent of the amount of the tax debt collected by three private collection firms at the outset of its initiative. Some tax experts understand what others are choosing to ignore: paying a commission based on the firms' success increases the potential for overzealous collection practices and the misuse of sensitive taxpayer information. Private debt collection agencies are driven by profit motives, not public service.

In addition, the IRS admits that if it hired more employees for this purpose, not private collectors, far more revenues would be deposited in the U.S. Treasury fund. It is astounding that the IRS appears ready to pay nearly a quarter for every dollar collected by private collection firms, 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. At a time of exploding deficits and Federal debt, the IRS plan to use of private debt collectors would be an inexcusable waste of taxpayer money.

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 independent Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's recent recommendation that the IRS ``should abandon all plans to outsource any taxpayer debts and restrict collection activities to properly trained and proficient IRS personnel.'' Indeed, the IRS should immediately reverse course and indefinitely suspend the implementation of its private debt collection plan.

It was recently reported in the press that IRS Commissioner Everson has said the IRS will ``immediately stand down'' if the House and Senate act to revoke its authority to outsource tax debt collections to private companies. The House of Representatives has already voted to kill new funding for this IRS initiative. I will be pushing for a vote on this proposal by the full Senate at the first available opportunity.

The IRS should act on its own to stop its planned use of private debt collectors and save any further expenditures of taxpayer money for this purpose. If not, however, I will do everything in my power to put the brakes on this plan in the U.S. Senate.

There is an old adage: ``Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'' Someone needs to remind the Internal Revenue Service and even some in the Congress of that. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and help us get it enacted into law.

Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Murray and seven of our Senate colleagues in introducing legislation to stop the Internal Revenue Service's plan to outsource part of its tax collection responsibilities to private collection companies.

It would be a serious mistake for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to move ahead with its controversial tax debt collection privatization plan. When the IRS attempted a similar plan in 1996, it failed miserably. Mistakes were made at every turn. 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.

Serious concerns have been raised by tax experts, including the National Taxpayer Advocate, that the new IRS initiative will suffer from the same kinds of maladies. It is my understanding that the IRS intends to share more than 2.5 million taxpayer accounts with ten private collection companies when its new plan is fully implemented. There is troubling evidence which suggests that the IRS plan may not have adequate safeguards in place to protect confidential taxpayer information.

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.''

It is also troubling that the IRS has agreed to pay very large commissions of 21 to 24 percent of the amount of the tax debt collected by three private collection firms at the outset of its initiative. Some tax experts understand what others are choosing to ignore: paying a commission based on the firms' success increases the potential for overzealous collection practices and the misuse of sensitive taxpayer information. Private debt collection agencies are driven by profit motives, not public service.

In addition, the IRS admits that if it hired more employees for this purpose, not private collectors, far more revenues would be deposited in the U.S. Treasury fund. It is astounding that the IRS appears ready to pay nearly a quarter for every dollar collected by private collection firms, 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. At a time of exploding deficits and Federal debt, the IRS plan to use of private debt collectors would be an inexcusable waste of taxpayer money.

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 independent Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's recent recommendation that the IRS ``should abandon all plans to outsource any taxpayer debts and restrict collection activities to properly trained and proficient IRS personnel.'' Indeed, the IRS should immediately reverse course and indefinitely suspend the implementation of its private debt collection plan.

It was recently reported in the press that IRS Commissioner Everson has said the IRS will ``immediately stand down'' if the House and Senate act to revoke its authority to outsource tax debt collections to private companies. The House of Representatives has already voted to kill new funding for this IRS initiative. I will be pushing for a vote on this proposal by the full Senate at the first available opportunity.

The IRS should act on its own to stop its planned use of private debt collectors and save any further expenditures of taxpayer money for this purpose. If not, however, I will do everything in my power to put the brakes on this plan in the U.S. Senate.

There is an old adage: ``Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'' Someone needs to remind the Internal Revenue Service and even some in the Congress of that. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and help us get it enacted into law.

Madam President, Senator Conrad and I have, over the last 2 days, talked about the need for an amendment of this type to be offered to the Defense appropriations bill. We have talked about several different ways of offering this amendment and the circumstances that require us to come here and draft an amendment and offer it to our colleagues. This amendment represents some discussions, as well, with colleagues. I want to say that almost all of that which persuaded us to do this has now been described by my colleague, Senator Conrad.

He talked about 9/11 2001. I recall going to Ground Zero in New York as the fire was still burning, smoke coming out of the wreckage of the World Trade Center from the bombing of the trade center by the terrorists and the murder of 3,000 innocent Americans. And as we toured just several days after those terrorists had hit the World Trade Center in New York, and the smoke was still billowing out of that twisted steel wreckage, one of the grizzled firefighters who had not shaved for several days, obviously had not slept, had bloodshot eyes, came up to me as we were touring--a group of Senators--and he said to me: ``Get 'em. Ya'll have to get 'em. If you don't get 'em, they are going to do it to us again.''

Having worked in this wreckage of the World Trade Center and having seen the carnage and the bodies, what he meant was that if we don't get those who did this, they will repeat it. That firefighter was speaking with a real passion, a passion that I think is shared by the American people. That passion was shared on that day and it is now, today.

That attack on 9/11--my colleague showed a picture of it--was with commercial airplanes loaded with fuel used as weapons. The New York Times ran a piece on August 11, 2004, by Nicholas Christoff, about a book by Harvard professor Graham Allison called ``Nuclear Terrorism.'' Allison told a story in this book that exactly 1 month after 9/11, on October 11 in 2001, aides told President Bush that a CIA source named Dragon Fire had reported that al-Qaida had obtained a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon, apparently stolen from Russian stockpiles, and had smuggled it into New York City, and al-Qaida terrorists were now prepared to detonate it. This is described in some detail in the book.

The CIA apparently found this report plausible. They knew that apparently Russia had small 10-kiloton nuclear weapons. Russia was reported to have lost some nuclear materials. Al-Qaida had made a determined effort to acquire them. The CIA had apparently picked up al- Qaida chatter about an ``American Hiroshima.'' This issue was taken very seriously in October of 2001. Later it was determined the lead by the agent named Dragon Fire was a false lead. But in retrospect of this issue, all of those who evaluated it determined it could well have been true.

It is not implausible that a nuclear weapon could be stolen. After all, there are some 30,000 nuclear weapons on this Earth. It is not implausible that having a nuclear weapon stolen by a terrorist group, it could be detonated. And it is certainly likely they would attempt to detonate a nuclear weapon in the center of a major city, especially a city in the United States.

I describe that only to say these issues are critically important. Yes, 9/11 breaks our heart--all of the innocent Americans killed by acts of terrorism. But that will be an event that will be small by comparison if, in fact, a nuclear weapon is acquired by a terrorist group like al- Qaida and detonated in an American city in the future.

There are responsible people who have said they believe there is a very substantial likelihood such an event could or will happen in the next 10 years, unless this country provides the leadership to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, stops the proliferation of nuclear weapons and does everything necessary to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.

The evil of terrorism requires and demands a unified American resolve. As my colleague has previously said, when it comes to fighting terrorism, there are no D's or R's, there are no Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals, there are only Americans resolved to confront this evil.

We are determined to confront and defeat those who are intent on murdering innocent people in the name of terrorism. We fight terrorism to preserve freedom, but we betray rather than serve our freedom if we turn a blind eye to the actions which will diminish the very freedoms we cherish, even as we confront the actions of terrorists. As we wage this fight against terrorism, we do not serve the interests of our country by labeling others who may disagree with strategies as appeasers, of the type who appeased Nazism. That does not serve America's interests either.

I have heard colleagues today come to the floor to lament that there have been some criticisms of Administration strategies. Let's all understand no one is perfect. Big mistakes have been made. Mistakes, and big mistakes, have been made, both with respect to Iraq and also with respect to the war against terrorism.

In Iraq, we discovered later there were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no yellow cake from Niger. The aluminum tubes were not for the purpose of building a nuclear capability. There were no mobile chemical weapons labs. Would we be treated as liberators as was suggested? No. It turns out that was not the case.

Were mistakes made? Two days ago, a young fellow who left law school after 9/11 to enlist in the Army to go to Iraq told me that when he got to Iraq his mother, an elementary schoolteacher, had to go on the Internet to buy body armor to send it to him. Were mistakes made? You darned right mistakes were made. Mistakes were made. Let's understand that. Recognizing and understanding that and admitting it allows us to decide not to make those mistakes again.

All of us are here to support our soldiers in their fight against terrorism, in their mission in Iraq. Let me say, as an aside as well, that the violence and terrorism in Iraq does have an al-Qaida component; it does. But by far the bulk and the majority of the violence and terrorism in Iraq is Iraqi upon Iraqi, Sunni upon Shia, Shia upon Sunni. There was not an Iraq connection with al-Qaida prior to the war in Iraq.

Having said all of that, with respect to the broader war on terror, when we open the newspaper this morning and we see the front page of the Washington Post--and I suspect every other daily paper in this country--and we see the pictures of terrorists who will now be transferred to Guantanamo and be brought to justice, all of us say to the President it is the right thing to do. We support that. Yes, this is progress. We understand that progress and we salute it.

My colleague and I believe there is more to do, however. When we talk about the war against terrorism and we talk about al-Qaida and those who have orchestrated the vicious terrorist attacks that have murdered so many innocent people in this country and around the world, the point is there is one person who is the head of that organization, who has admitted ordering the attacks against this country. That is Osama bin Laden. It is 5 long years since 9/11, 2001, and Osama bin Laden is still here.

The President, day before yesterday, mentioned Osama bin Laden 17 times in his speech of 45 minutes. That is appropriate to do, although I might observe Osama bin Laden has not been mentioned at all with respect to the war on terror by anyone in the Administration for some long while until a couple of days ago. But I want to describe why I think there is an urgency here and why my colleague, Senator Conrad, and I put together an amendment and are offering it to this bill.

I have a record here going back to December 13, 2001--it is about eight pages of Osama bin Laden talking to us, in America, talking to people in the rest of the world, and talking to al-Qaida, his organization. It is December 13, 2001; November 2, 2002; February 11, 2003; February 13, 2003; April 7, 2003; September 10, 2003. I shall not go through the rest of it. But I want to talk about this year. Just this year we have heard from Osama bin Laden on 5 occasions. This chart shows January 19 this year. This is from the news report

that evening, Osama bin Laden speaking to the people of the United States and the people of the world. That is the first message this year.

Here is the second message, Osama bin Laden speaks again, the head of al-Qaida, 5 years after 9/11. On April 23, he issues his second tape of the year.

May 23, this year, once again the news reports:

Bin Laden boasts of masterminding the 9/11 attacks.

I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers. Those 19

who attacked this country.

June 29 of this year, another news report, the fourth tape of the year by Osama bin Laden.

July 1, this year, the fifth tape of the year by Osama bin Laden.

We are talking a lot about the war on terrorism. We are talking a lot about al-Qaida. This is the head of al-Qaida. This is the leader of that terrorist group. This is the person who says he masterminded the attack against this country, and 5 years after that attack he is still sending us messages--five of them in this year alone. My colleague and I do not question anyone's commitment to doing the right thing. That is not the purpose of our amendment. My colleague, Senator Conrad, and I believe, however, that it is important as we put together a piece of legislation providing funding for the Department of Defense, for the war against terrorism, that we decide on focus and priority with respect to one issue and that is bringing to justice the head of an organization that attacked this country and is determined to attack this country again.

The amendment we have offered is not a particularly complex amendment. It simply does two things. It asks that the unit in the CIA, our intelligence community, that used to exist but was closed be reconstituted. Let me describe that unit. I will describe it by a New York Times, July 4, story. The lead of the story is:

The Central Intelligence Agency has closed the unit that

for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and

his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed on

Monday. Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and

his deputies remained a high priority and that the decision

to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had

slackened. Instead, the official said, it reflected a belief

the agency could better deal with high level threats by

focusing on regional trends rather than on specific

organizations or individuals.

Let me quote the former senior CIA official who is quoted by name, Mr. Michael Scheuer, a former senior CIA official, who was the first head of this unit at the CIA. He said the move ``reflected a view within the agency that Mr. Bin Laden was no longer the threat he once was.'' Mr. Scheuer says, ``That view is mistaken.''

Madam President, our amendment would provide the funds to reconstitute that unit, to provide focus, clarity and a specific set of goals. And, second, to require a quarterly classified report to the Congress that would describe, from the standpoint of those in the intelligence community and the defense community who are involved, what they have done with respect to apprehending and bringing to justice those who head the organization called al-Qaida.

My hope and expectation would be that upon passage of this amendment my colleague and I will have provided some more clarity and some more focus and even perhaps some more determination that a significant goal of ours is the apprehension of the head of the organization that attacked our country. I do not think that apprehension will occur by accident. I think it will occur if it is in fact a significant goal and one that we pursue with the resources and the vigor that is necessary.

I understand that there will be some who say that we have other priorities; this remains a priority but there are many other things to do. Let me go back to the position that I started with and that is this. We live in a very dangerous world, a very uncertain world. The President is dead right when he talks about the war on terrorism being a war in which we must prevail. He is absolutely right that we have to work together and have to be as one as we confront this evil that exists around the world.

But I also want to point out that we live in a world, now, where, as I indicated before, there are almost 30,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons that exist in this world. Going back to October 11 of 2001, the threatened loss of one of those nuclear weapons, because of a rumor that it had been stolen from the Russian stockpile, caused an apoplectic seizure in parts of the government because everyone, at that point, in the intelligence community, who had heard of this rumor, knew it was plausible and that the detonation of a nuclear weapon in a major American city by al-Qaida would be devastating. The consequences of that are impossible to describe. The next terrorist act may render the attack of 9/11/2001, a much less significant attack in terms of casualties. Let's hope that is not the case.

That is why it is so urgent for us to determine that we are going to apprehend and bring to justice those who head the al-Qaida organization and who masterminded the attack against this country on 9/11/2001. That is what our amendment seeks to do, to provide the resources and the assistance to make that possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there are areas of classified information that are not discussed in the Senate. Senator Conrad has just described that we both have had access to that information. It is the information to which my colleagues allude. There is nothing--I repeat, nothing-- that we are doing here that does anything to injure anything else that was being done anywhere, at any time. There is nothing here that does injury to anything I know about.

Frankly, it is far too easy to jump up from a chair in the Senate and allege that the amendment you do not like is somehow borne of politics. Yes, there is a barrel full of politics around these days, a barrel full of politics in this Chamber and downtown. We know it when we see it. But I think it ill serves this discussion to talk about irresponsibility, to talk about politics on the issue of what the role of this country is, the determination and the resolve of this country, to decide to provide more focus, more clarity, and more energy to apprehending the head of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, the person who masterminded the attack against this country. Again, there is never a circumstance where anyone would find myself or my colleague, Senator Conrad, coming to the Senate to do injury to anything else we are doing in this country together.

I indicated when I started that I don't think the fight against terrorism is about Democrats or Republicans. It is certainly not about politics, or shouldn't be. However, it is almost unbelievable to me that this amendment is described as ``political season'' campaign period-motivated and, even more, a slam at our national security. Nothing could be further from the truth than that. This is not slamming anyone. This is trying to provide additional resources, additional focus, additional energy toward a goal that I hope every single American shares. In fact, I bet we would be hard pressed to find an American citizen who says this is not a worthy goal for our country.

My colleague has said that there has been a continuing, unwavering effort to apprehend the top of the terrorist groups, including the leaders of al-Qaida. Let me read, from 2002, the President's response when asked about Osama bin Laden:

I don't know where he is. I know I just don't spend much

time on him, to be honest. I am not truly that concerned

about him. I know he's on the run.

The fact is, there have been times when we have been diverted to other areas. Does anyone here believe Iraq has not detracted substantially from what is happening in Afghanistan? Does anyone here believe that? Most of us have been over those mountains. I have flown over those mountains and looked down at the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is where most believe Osama bin Laden is hiding, among supporters. I understand how difficult it is to apprehend someone hiding in that region. I don't diminish the difficulty and the complexity of accomplishing that mission.

My colleague and I offered an amendment which is relatively simple which tries to provide more focus and more clarity on the goal, which tries to provide resources. These resources are not dramatic or substantial resources relative to the amount of money we have been spending, for example, in Iraq.

A Member brings an amendment to the floor and someone says: This is political, this is campaign season. That is too easy. I don't think that treats serious issues seriously enough. This is an

issue which is serious. It is an issue that deserves attention by this Congress, deserves a statement by this Congress, which I expect we will make unanimously, I hope we will make unanimously. It is a statement that almost every American, I believe, would say they agree with, a statement that says to the American people: Here is a priority, a very substantial priority for which we will dedicate the resources and rededicate ourselves to address these issues.

My understanding is the Senator from Alaska will seek a quorum call, which is just fine.

I am happy to yield.

The Senator is correct.

I think the Senator puts in perspective the amount of money that is being described.

Let me finally say that I noticed yesterday--I was not in the Senate, but I had the television on--noticed the same issue developing yesterday on an amendment my colleague offered. There was a suggestion that this is all political, all politics, every time someone offers an amendment that someone disagrees with. That is total nonsense. This issue deserves much more serious treatment and much more serious debate than that.

I am pleased that apparently there will be a unanimous vote.

I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of time.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.

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, let me read one additional piece I did not describe in my earlier presentation. Let me read from the State Department's latest report on terrorism because I think it is important for all of us to understand.

This is, again, from the U.S. State Department's latest report on terrorism:

Al-Qaida's top leaders continue to plot and direct terror

attacks worldwide. . . . Over the past four years, al-Qaida,

its affiliates and those inspired by the group were also

involved in many anti-U.S. or anti-coalition attacks in

Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and

Iraq, including suicide bombings and vehicle-borne improvised

explosive devices.

Again, the first sentence:

Al-Qaida's top leaders continue to plot and direct terror

attacks worldwide. . . .

``Direct terror attacks worldwide''--it is why I think there is no more important goal for this country than to add additional resources, provide additional focus to this question of bringing to justice the head of the organization that has attacked this country and that now organizes and expands and continues to attack around the rest of the world.

I previously described that just in this year alone we have been the recipients of five messages from Osama bin Laden--five just this year. It has been dozens since 2001. I think all of us share a goal and the view that we need to apprehend and bring to justice those who head the organization that attacked this country.

Fighting terrorism is difficult and dangerous and complex. We understand all that. All of us salute our troops. All of us want to work together. As I have indicated, this is not about Republicans and Democrats. It is about Americans sharing and aspiring to achieve a goal. And that goal is to defeat terrorism.

I think the most effective and important way to defeat terrorism, however, is to try to dismantle the organization, and especially dismantle the organization by apprehending the head of that organization and bringing the head and top officials of that organization to justice.

That has not been done, and we are not blaming anybody. I join my colleague, Senator Conrad, in saluting those in our intelligence service and our military who risk their lives every day. But I believe it is very important for us, as we put together a piece of legislation with substantial resources, to provide greater clarity and focus on this goal. That is why Senator Conrad and I have written this amendment and offer it today.

I understand there are some who do not want it offered, do not want to have this discussion. I respectfully believe they are wrong. I do not allege that they have political motives. I just believe they are wrong. My hope is,

when the Senate speaks to this, it will have accomplished something that is productive and substantial in its comments on this issue.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I know that the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and particularly this subcommittee are anxious to move this piece of legislation. I thank them for their work. This is perhaps one of the more difficult pieces of legislation to put together from the appropriations side. It spends an enormous amount of money at a time when we are engaged in wartime activities. There are many accounts that are in urgent necessity of being replenished and restored.

Let me say to the chairman and to the ranking member, I think they have done an excellent job with a very difficult piece of legislation. I appreciate their work, and I am privileged to serve on that subcommittee with them and understand the importance this bill will have for the U.S. military at a time when men and women are risking their lives because their country has asked them to do that.

I do want to make a point, however, today, as we pass an appropriations bill, and I will make the point understanding that the chairman and ranking member will recognize that this is not about how much money we appropriate but, rather, about how the money is used. I accept that in most cases that is a function of authorizing committees--oversight requirements of authorizing committees--rather than the Appropriations Committee.

But I do want to make the point now because we have spent a great deal of money, and will again spend a lot of money--most of it emergency funding outside of this particular bill--dealing with issues in Iraq and Afghanistan, when all around us we are seeing that a fair portion of that money is attached to allegations of misuse and waste and, in some cases, fraud.

I think all of us, especially those of us on the Appropriations Committee, wish very much to make certain that what we appropriate is used to support our troops, to improve the security of this country, is used wisely and prudently in support of the things that Congress has authorized.

I want to go through some things because I think it is important for all of us in Congress to understand the allegations of waste that have attended some of this spending. And it is important for all of us on the appropriations and authorizing committees to try to figure out: How on Earth do we deal with this? What do we do to put a stop to--not allegations--the waste of taxpayers' funding?

There are so many examples it is hard to know where to start. But because there have been so few oversight hearings on the bulk of these issues, I think it is important to describe what we are hearing. Taxpayers in this country have been asked to provide taxpayer funding through appropriations, and here are some of the examples: contracts that are signed, sole-source, no-bid contracts that extend for some long while.

And because they are sole-source, no-bid contracts, and they are cost-plus, the taxpayer has been fleeced.

These are stories not from someone who alleges to have seen something, these stories are from people who worked for the contractors, whistleblowers: $85,000 trucks, brandnew $85,000 trucks abandoned beside the road to be torched because they had a flat tire; $85,000 trucks abandoned to be torched because they had a plugged fuel pump; a case of Coca-Cola, $45--that is the charge to the American taxpayer--two plates of breakfast, $28 a plate; feed 42,000 soldiers a day--and it turns out they were feeding only 14,000 soldiers a day; they missed it by 28,000 in the charges they made to the U.S. Government--leasing SUVs, $7,500 a month.

Hand towels, providing hand towels for our troops, the buyer who was asked to buy the additional hand towels for our troops in the war theater said: Here are the hand towels I was going to purchase. And here are the hand towels I was asked to purchase. And the hand towels I was asked to purchase by my supervisor included the embroidered name of my company, which doubled the price of the hand towels. So when I complained about that, the answer was: It doesn't matter.

This is cost-plus. We are the only contractor. The taxpayer will pay the bill. Cost doesn't matter.

The list is endless and goes on and on and on. Food service to the troops: A man named Rory, who actually worked in the food service kitchens, in Iraq, of the contractor--an employee of the contractor-- said: We routinely got food that was stamped ``expired,'' date-stamped ``expired.''

He said: Our supervisors said it doesn't matter. Feed it to the troops. It doesn't matter. Just feed it to the troops.

He said: We were repeatedly told by our supervisors, don't you dare speak to a Government investigator or a Government auditor. If they show up and you talk to them, you are going to be fired. If they show up and you talk to them, and you are not fired, you are going to be sent to the most hostile area we can find to send you.

The fellow named Rory, who showed up and spoke about this, who was an employee and described all of this, in fact, did speak to Government investigators about what he saw happening to the American taxpayer, and he was sent to Fallujah during the hostilities. That is what happened to him.

More recently, we have a whistleblower, or several of them, who have come forward to say: We are spending money for a contractor to provide water to our troops at all of the bases in Iraq. That is the money we are spending to provide water to our troops.

I want to show you some memoranda and some discussions back and forth about what has happened to that spending. This is an internal report written by Will Granger, who works for the company that has the contract to provide water to all the U.S. bases in Iraq. Will Granger is the top employee for Halliburton on the ground in Iraq. Here is what Will Granger said in his report:

No disinfection to non-potable water was occurring at Camp

Ar-Ramadi for water designated for showering purposes.

Incidentally, this is water that the troops use to brush their teeth and wash their face and shower.

This caused an unknown population to be exposed to

potentially harmful water for an undetermined amount of time.

The whistleblowers came forward who were also involved in the delivery of this water. And they said: By the way, the nonpotable water--that is water you do not drink, but water you brush your teeth with and take showers with, and so on--the nonpotable water was more degraded, more contaminated than if they would have taken raw water from the Euphrates. This is from the whistleblowers.

Now, when this became known, the internal report that we had from Mr. Will Granger--again, from the same company--said:

The deficiencies of the camp where the event occurred is

not exclusive to that camp; meaning that country wide, all

camps suffered to some extent from all or some of the

deficiencies noted.

Now, while all this going on, the company, Halliburton, said: None of this happened. You are wrong. None of this happened.

My point is, the discussion of this came from employees of the company itself and from an internal memorandum that was leaked, an internal memorandum written by the top official on the ground in Iraq in charge of water.

Will Granger, the man I am speaking of, the man in charge, while his company in Houston was saying publicly, and said it repeatedly, that none of this happened, none of this happened, Mr. Ganger's report said this:

This event should be considered a ``near miss'' as the

consequences of these actions could have been VERY SEVERE

resulting in mass sickness or death.

We are spending money on these contracts. Then we have whistleblowers come forward to say there is a waste of money--tragic waste of money. Then we have whistleblowers come forward to say that the companies that are getting these contracts--in this case for water--are not treating the nonpotable water properly, which is a danger to the troops. And the company says: Not true. Just not true.

Then we discover the internal memorandum that the company received from that company's person on the ground in Iraq, and the guy says:

The consequence . . . could have been VERY SEVERE resulting

in mass sickness or death.

Shortly after this, by the way, a young woman who is serving in Iraq, an Army physician, wrote me an e-mail, and she said: I have read about this sort of thing. I want you to know it has happened in my camp. And I had my assistant go track the water line to see what kind of water they were bringing into the base that is called nonpotable water, and it, too, was contaminated, and it, too, is of degraded quality and more contaminated than raw water, the raw water you would get from the Euphrates River.

So the question is: What are we getting? What are we getting for the money we are spending? Where is the accountability?

Now, some of these have been Halliburton. And I know the minute you talk about Halliburton, somebody says: Ah, that is a political attack on the Vice President. The Vice President is not at Halliburton. This is not about the Vice President at all. He used to work for that company, but this is not about him. It is about a company that received large no-bid contracts, sole-source contracts, and the allegations are almost unbelievable about what has happened.

Now, there are others. Some of them are with a RIO contract, Restore Iraq Oil contract, others with a LOGCAP contract. But let me give you some other examples: Custer-Battles--two guys show up in Iraq, one named Custer, one named Battles, and they decide: We want to get in on some of this. We want to get in on some of this activity.

Before that ended, Custer and Battles had received over $100 million in contracts from our Government. Among the contracts was one to provide security at the Baghdad Airport. There were no flights going in and out of the Baghdad Airport, so presumably they did a pretty good job of that, except they took the forklift trucks that existed at that airport, put them in a shed someplace and repainted them blue, and then sold them back to the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was us. That is an interesting way to do business.

And, by the way, here is a picture of $2 million wrapped in Saran Wrap. I know this fellow. This fellow showed up here in Washington, DC. This picture was taken in Iraq in a building.

He was the guy holding a portion of this money. He said: Our message in Iraq was, Bring a bag; we pay in cash. If you are a contractor, bring a sack; we pay in cash.

This is $2 million, 100-dollar bills wrapped in Saran Wrap. They used them to play football in the office, throwing bricks of 100-dollar bills around. It was like the Wild West, he said. This particular $2 million went to Custer Battles, a company that showed up with no experience, took forklift trucks from the airport, repainted them, sold them back to the American taxpayer, called the Coalition Provisional Authority. The CPA is us, the Coalition Provisional Authority. That was created by Donald Rumsfeld. He signed the creation of the CPA. It was us. So Custer Battles gets a contract for airport security.

Here is the Baghdad airport director of security talking about Custer Battles. He wrote it to the CPA.

Custer Battles have shown themselves to be unresponsive,

uncooperative, incompetent, deceitful, manipulative, and war

profiteers. Other than that they are swell fellows.

Something else that happened with this contract. They were supposed to provide trucks. The problem is, they supplied trucks and the trucks didn't work. Couldn't get them started. They didn't run. The Custer Battles company said: We just said we would supply trucks. We didn't guarantee they were going to run. They didn't have to be operational.

My point is this, this goes on day after day, month after month. It is not the fault of the appropriators. It has nothing to do with the appropriators. It is about accountability. And in most cases, that would come from authorizing committees and from a Congress that would say: Wait a second. When we hear about nonpotable water that is more contaminated than raw water from the Euphrates River, a Congress would say, wait a second; you can't do that to American troops, and begin an immediate investigation. Yet you see very little activity to look into these issues.

On behalf of the taxpayers and on behalf of those of us who are appropriators, including the chairman and ranking member and the entire committee, I think all of us, the Congress, the Department of Defense, all of us need to expect more accountability and soon. We are spending an enormous amount of money.

I have mentioned previously that in the early 1940s, Harry Truman believed there was substantial waste. He put together the Truman committee, formed by Congress, a bipartisan committee. I am sure there was a great deal of teeth gnashing down at the White House because the President was of his own party. But the Congress, with that bipartisan committee, rooted out a great deal of waste, fraud, and abuse through the Truman committee. I have tried previously on three occasions to pass such legislation here in the Senate. I have not been successful.

I think it is time--and I only take the time to speak as we appropriate money--for all of us to expect more from those committees with the responsibility to hold accountable those who spend this money. I have seen precious little energy and far too little activity to respond to these issues.

I have talked about food and water to troops. There are many other issues. I will not go through them all today. The issues are sufficient that we need to take a hard look at what is happening.

Last Friday I met with a doctor from Iraq. He wanted to go look at the 142 health clinics that were to be restored and rehabilitated and created in Iraq, 142 health clinics with the money we appropriated in the U.S. Congress. This Iraq physician went to the health minister of Iraq and said: I would like to track the money and see what is happening with these 142 clinics.

The health minister said: No, you don't understand. Many of these clinics are imaginary.

I said: Are you sure? You are sure that is what he said.

Oh yes, I am sure. Many of these are imaginary clinics. They don't exist.

It turns out 20 clinics were rehabilitated or created of the 142 that were supposed to have been rehabilitated or created. Only 20 were done and all the money is gone. Why? How? Who cares? Does somebody care? That is the question for this Congress.

I don't mean in any way to suggest that my colleagues, the chairman and ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, bear responsibility for this. That is not the case. It is the case, however, that we need to be much more aggressive on other committees with oversight responsibility. Oversight is a significant legislative responsibility. It has gone unfulfilled in this Congress and a couple of Congresses preceding it.

I have an amendment that I noticed. I understand that the amendment itself is not germane on an appropriations bill. A point of order would lie against it. I would expect my colleagues would insist on a point of order. But the amendment would punish war profiteers, crack down on contract cheaters, and force real contract competition so that we finally can do what we should for the American taxpayer and bring down these costs.

I had filed it as No. 4805. I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending amendment in order to have 4805 considered.

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

Mr. President, I use this opportunity when we appropriate money to make the point. It is not the responsibility or the burden of a couple people who have put together a good appropriations bill to bear the responsibility for a lack of oversight that exists and the lack of oversight that exists in the entire Congress. I only raise this because I think it is critically important that all of us understand.

There is far too much waste and fraud and abuse in some of these contracts. I recognize that wartime is different. There are times during wartime when you do things you might not otherwise do. You might not be quite as efficient or effective. Some money may be wasted. But this seems like hogs in a trough when you see what is going on.

We are spending so many billions. We added $18.2 billion for reconstruction in Iraq, and the grunting and shoving and moaning of hogs at the trough trying to find some of that money. I mentioned Custer Battles. Two guys would show up with hardly a taxi fare, get $100 million in contracts, and now we discover the American taxpayer has been fleeced for much of that. The water isn't going to clear up until you get the hogs out of the creek. We need to find a way to address these issues, most especially those raised with food and water to troops.

Let me say to Senators Stevens and Inouye, I want to work with them. I know they want the same result I want with respect to these issues. That is the only reason I raise this today. This burden also falls on some authorization committees and others that really need to do a much better job with respect to oversight.

My hope remains that at some point we will be able to pass my amendment--I expect to offer it again, and I think that will be the fourth time--to create a Truman-type committee that sinks its teeth into these issues and says: We will not put up with this. We won't put up with waste, fraud, and abuse.

I will be back again. I thank my colleagues for their forbearance as I discuss these things and know that they share with me an interest in trying to deal with them in an effective way on behalf of our troops and on behalf of America's taxpayers.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me then work with my colleagues, Senators Stevens and Inouye, and see if I can find a way to write this approach in a way that does not have a point of order lying against it and in a way that begins some kind of inquiry. I very much appreciate the cooperation and interest.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robin Tibaduiza, a legislative fellow, be allowed floor privileges during the National Defense Appropriations Act on behalf of Senator Harry Reid.

Mr. President, if my colleague will yield for a unanimous consent request, my colleague from Maine and I wish to speak in 15- minute increments, taking the time from each side in the debate. I ask unanimous consent to follow my colleague from Maine.

I yield myself 15 minutes from the time on our side.

I thank my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, who has spoken at some length about the piece of legislation we have offered dealing with prescription drugs and the price of prescription drugs in this country.

Thirty-two Senators have cosponsored a piece of legislation. It is a bipartisan group, including Senator Snowe, myself, Senator Kennedy, Senator McCain, Senator Grassley and Senator Stabenow. A wide range of Senators have cosponsored a piece of carefully crafted legislation that allows the American people to import FDA-approved prescription drugs that are, in almost all cases, sold for a much lower price in other countries.

I will not go over all of the issues that have been raised by my colleague, Senator Snowe, because she has done an excellent job of laying out the issue. The issue, very simply, is this: The pharmaceutical industry prices FDA-approved prescription drugs in this country with the highest prices in the world. The American consumer is required to pay the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world. That is unfair.

This chart shows United States versus Canada. But the chart could show the United States versus Italy, the United States versus Germany, the United States versus Spain, and it would show the same result.

I ask unanimous consent to show in the Senate two bottles of Lipitor.

The two bottles of Lipitor are identical bottles: same company, same pill, made in the same manufacturing plant, sent to different places. One is sent to the United States to be purchased by a United States consumer, and the other is sent to Canada to be purchased by a Canadian consumer. What is the difference? This is 40 percent less expensive than this one. The American consumer is charged more than the Canadian consumer.

Why is the American consumer not able to get that 40 percent discount or pay a price that is 40 percent less? The answer is, the pharmaceutical industry stops the reimportation of prescription drugs except for the small use by those who can go back and forth physically across the border. They do that because that enforces their pricing mechanism which requires the highest prices be paid by the American consumer.

Prevacid, 50 percent savings in Canada versus the United States--same pill, same bottle, made by the same company, shipped to two different places, and one is a dramatically lower price. Zocor, 46 percent difference; Celebrex, a 55-percent difference--and the list goes on. The American consumer is charged the highest prices in the world for these prescription drugs.

I, personally, think it is unfair. The way to deal with that is to allow the American consumer access, as others have access, to an international trading system; to say if you can purchase an FDA- approved drug from Canada, you are welcome to import it into this country. The pharmaceutical industry says there are safety issues with that. There are no safety issues with that, not if it is an FDA- approved drug produced in FDA-approved plants.

The Europeans have been doing something called parallel trading for a couple of decades. If you are in Germany and want to buy a prescription drug from Spain, no problem. You can do that. If you are in Italy and want to buy a prescription drug from France, no problem. Under a system called parallel trading, they are able to import and reimport prescription drugs to find the best price. Only in the United States are we prevented from doing that.

We put together a piece of legislation. We worked very hard on the legislation. Thirty-two Senators, Republicans and Democrats, have worked to accomplish this legislation.

On March 11, 2004, over 2 years ago now, at midnight in the Senate, I lifted a hold I had on a nominee in exchange for what I thought was a commitment by the majority leader to bring drug importation legislation to the Senate. I thought it was a commitment. He says he didn't think it was a commitment. I am not going to try to question his integrity but, nonetheless, we still wait 2 years later and are not able to have a vote on this legislation.

In July of 2005, my colleague, Senator Vitter from Louisiana, said he received a commitment from the majority leader to bring this very issue to the Senate if the Senate achieved a 60-vote demonstration of support for reimportation. The Senate met that hurdle when it adopted the Vitter-Nelson amendment on a 68-to-32 vote. On July 14, I and my colleagues--three Democrats and three Republicans--wrote to the majority leader saying: We have now waited for a long while, and we hope that you will decide to do what you had assured us you would do; that is, give us an opportunity in the Senate to pass this legislation.

The U.S. House has already passed legislation on this. The Senate clearly has the votes to pass it if the attempts to block it are ceased and we would be

able to pass legislation that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will save consumers $50 billion over 10 years, $5 billion a year. That is not an insignificant savings.

It seems to me this is an issue that ought not be very controversial except, as I understand, to the prescription drug industry. Let me hasten to say there are some good people working in that industry. Those companies produce some miracle lifesaving drugs. But there are no miracles from miracle drugs if you cannot afford to take them. That is why I believe the pricing of those prescription drugs to the U.S. consumer, charging the highest prices in the world, is fundamentally unfair. It is why I and many others are attempting to remove a restriction in law that prohibits the reimportation of FDA-approved prescription drugs. In many cases, these drugs are actually made in the United States and then exported to be sold for a much lower price in other countries. Then the U.S. consumer is prevented from accessing those same lower priced drugs despite the fact they were made in this country.

We passed a prescription drug benefit in Medicare recently, and it has now been implemented. That had a provision in it that prevents the negotiation for lower prices--just as the VA and others have done. This actually prevents Medicare from negotiating lower prices. I cannot think of anything that makes less sense than a prohibition of the Federal Government from negotiating lower prices. But that is what has happened.

Since the prescription drug benefit in Medicare has taken effect, in the first quarter of 2006, we see while the inflation increased at 1.1 percent, we can see the increase in the price of prescription drugs on this chart. I have developed several of them--Ambien, Proscar, Atrovent inhaler, Lexapro--and the price on average has run triple the rate of inflation in the first quarter. This is like hooking a hose to the tank and sucking it dry.

It will break the bank from two standpoints: One, the cost of this program to the Federal Government; and No. 2, the ability of consumers to be able to access the same FDA-approved drug for lower prices from Canada and other countries just makes great sense. It is why 32 Members of the Senate have cosponsored the legislation before the Senate.

As I said when I started, the majority leader has indicated he fully expected legislation such as this to be in the Senate and to be considered. He said: But we will take it up in the committee of jurisdiction first. That happened last year, in April of last year. They had a hearing. We expected then, and they all said then: We will report legislation out and have time in the Senate to deal with it. But the fact is, it has not happened.

On behalf of the American people, who deserve to have the opportunity to have fair prices on their prescription drugs, this Congress, this Senate, ought to take up this legislation and pass it.

The legislation that is before the Senate is an authorization bill. We are now on the legislation. It is open for amendment. The amendment that I will ask to be considered is not an amendment that falls by the rules. It is an amendment that is perfectly appropriate under the rules. My understanding is that the bill on the floor of the Senate has been amended. I think we have a first-degree amendment and a second- degree amendment. What has been done, as they say in legislative terms, the tree has been filled so that no other amendments are in order.

So in order to offer an amendment, which is proper, you have to ask that the current amendment be set aside, which is the last second- degree amendment that was offered.

My expectation is, and I am told this request will be objected to, but let me say, even if it is objected to, I hope the majority leader will work with us. We have limited time. Representations have been made to a number of Members, including Senator Vitter, myself, and others, that we would have an opportunity in this Congress to deal with this issue.

The U.S. House of Representatives has done so; the Senate has not. My hope is the Senate would allow consideration of a very carefully developed bipartisan piece of legislation that nearly one-third of the Senate has embraced as cosponsors.

With that, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside, that the Senate immediately consider the Dorgan-Snowe amendment number 4742 to make drug importation legal and safe.

I am happy to yield.

Mr. President, the large bipartisan group of Senators that has worked to put this bill together and endorsed the bill through cosponsorship has done so believing, first of all, that there is no safety issue. These are FDA-approved drugs that would be allowed to be imported, No. 1. And, No. 2, very substantial savings would exist. The Congressional Budget Office has said that it would be $50 billion over 10 years, $5 billion a year. There would be additional savings to the Federal Government itself.

At a time when we are up to our necks in debt, it is very important to do the right thing not only on behalf of the American consumers but also on behalf of our Government's fiscal policy. The right thing is allowing this to be an opportunity to access the identical FDA-approved drugs at the much lower price that they are being sold in virtually every other country of the world.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for as much time as I may consume.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this is a piece of legislation which we offered previously during this Congress, unsuccessfully, I might add, that I and others intend to offer once again.

I want to describe it and describe why we intend to offer it again as we find additional legislation on the floor of the Senate with which to offer it as an amendment. It deals with accountability in contracting. The legislation we have introduced is called Honest Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act of 2006. I introduced it on March 2, S. 2361. The bill is sponsored by 30 of my colleagues here in the Senate. Senator Reid joined me in announcing the legislation that day. The bill includes contributions from a number of Members of the Senate and the work they did on issues relating to this which we have put in the bill.

I want to describe the bill briefly. It is a bill that will punish war profiteers with substantial penalties for profiteering during wartime contracts. It is a bill that will crack down on defense contract cheaters by restoring a rule on suspension and debarment, to say we are not satisfied any longer when we see someone cheating on a contract and cheating the American taxpayer to say, Well, you get a slap on the wrist and a pat on the back and a new contract. This gets tough. It cracks down on contract cheaters. It will force real contract competition, and it will do so by prohibiting the awarding of large monopoly, sole-source, no-bid contracts.

The legislation has a number of other provisions as well, but it is important legislation. I want to describe why, and I want to describe some of the things I have been doing.

Let me start by saying this is not about Democrats or Republicans. It is not about conservatives or liberals. Waste is not part of it. Waste is just waste. Contract abuse is not partisan. It is just abuse of the American taxpayer. Let me describe a couple of things to begin this discussion.

This is April 30, 2006, in the New York Times. The United States pays for 150 Iraqi clinics and manages to build 20.

A $243 million program led by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to build 150 health clinics in Iraq has in some cases produced little more than empty shells of crumbling concrete and shattered bricks cemented together in uneven walls.

What is that about? It is about a huge contract, a contract to produce 150 health care clinics in Iraq, and now we see the money is gone, but the health care clinics weren't built--not 150 of them. Only 20 of them were built. Yet the money is gone. Let me talk about these issues and go back to the beginning of what piqued my interest.

In February of 2004, I began hearing from some whistleblowers who said: We want to tell our story. So as chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee, we convened some hearings and listened to them. We held eight oversight hearings on the issue of contracting abuses in Iraq and heard from whistleblowers. I will describe them.

We had two oversight hearings on the response to Hurricane Katrina, and I will describe just a bit of that. But let me describe this, going back to February of 2004, almost 2\1/2\ years ago. This is a description of what is happening in contracts in Iraq.

Henry Bunting is a fellow who came to see me. He worked in Kuwait. He worked for Kellogg, Brown and Root, which is a subsidiary of Halliburton. You might recall, they got big no-bid, sole-source contracts and made a lot of money. He worked as a field buyer in Kuwait.

He told us they spent up to $7,500 a month to rent ordinary cars and trucks. Think of that. American taxpayers pay for that.

The company had purchased monogrammed towels for $7.50 apiece when they could have cost $2.50. These are hand towels for American soldiers. The company that was buying them told Henry: We want the company name embroidered on the towel.

That more than doubled the cost to the taxpayer. The company said: It doesn't matter, this is cost-plus; the American taxpayer is going to pick up the tab.

It is almost unbelievable.

Another thing Henry told us, 25 tons of nails, that is 50,000 pounds of nails, were ordered and delivered to Iraq. They were the wrong size. They are laying in the sand.

It doesn't matter. The American taxpayer is going to pick up the tab.

Henry came forward. I wonder what kind of courage it took for Henry to come forward and tell us that, but he did it and good for him. It piqued my interest, however, in February 2004, to hear whistleblowers talk about what was going on with respect to contracting in Iraq. Then, in subsequent stories we would hear about contracting abuses.

``Pentagon auditors found that Halliburton cannot properly

document more than $1.8 billion in work under its

contracts,'' Army officials said yesterday. The $1.8 billion

amounts to about 42 percent of the $4.3 billion the company

has billed to the U.S. Government under the contracts.

Among other things, they were charging the U.S. Government for feeding 42,000 soldiers every day. It turns out they were only feeding 14,000 soldiers. I can understand missing a cheeseburger or two, but 28,000 meals? Overcharging by 28,000 meals a day? I don't think that is just missing a meal or two.

So we began having some hearings because the committees of jurisdiction, the authorizing committees where this money was spent, were not having oversight hearings.

We had a woman named Bunnatine Greenhouse come to Congress. I want to tell you what Bunnatine Greenhouse said. Bunnatine Greenhouse was the highest civilian official in the Corps of Engineers, the Army Corps of Engineers, in the Pentagon. She was the highest civilian official, highest ranking procurement official in the Corps of Engineers. She was in charge of all procurement.

She had the courage to go public. Here is what she said:

I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to

contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and

improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of

my professional career.

Let me tell you about this woman. Every evaluation ever given her said she is outstanding, she is exceptional. Now she doesn't have her job any longer. She lost that job because she had the courage to speak out. They are investigating that now at the Pentagon. But that is what she said.

Instead of taking the company to task, instead of taking the folks in the Corps of Engineers to task, they took to task the woman who had the courage to come here and speak the truth.

Bunnatine Greenhouse has been replaced. I mentioned she was demoted. She lost her job. She has been replaced by an American who has no experience in procurement. Isn't that interesting? They bring in a person with 40 years government experience and no experience in procurement. They are actually sending her to school to learn about procurement.

I don't understand this. We have seen what happens when you bring in people without experience. We saw it in FEMA, filling top jobs with cronies who had no experience with disaster preparedness or relief, and it just collapsed.

Now we have the top civilian contracting official in Iraq who pays for it with her job when she speaks out. She says what is going on is wrong, and we don't have to take her word for it; just look at the headlines. It is wrong. She pays for it with her job, and she is replaced by someone who doesn't have experience in contracting. It just baffles me that somehow this is continuing.

I mentioned we have had a good many hearings. I have not preferred to have the hearings, but I have said if the authorization committee of jurisdiction isn't going to hold oversight hearings, and there are whistleblowers who want to speak, I am perfectly willing to hear them on behalf of the American taxpayers. The hearings have shown us just a dramatic amount of waste, fraud, and abuse. Much of it is being investigated.

The fellow working for the U.S. Department of Defense for 30 years who ran the fuel operation to get fuel to the soldiers wherever they are in the world retired. Then he came to us publicly, and he said: What the American taxpayer is being charged to fuel those army trucks in Iraq is unbelievable. They are being so overcharged.

This is from the guy who used to do it all over the world for 30 years.

We had a fellow named Rory show up at a hearing. Rory was a food service supervisor in Iraq. Rory actually testified by Internet. He was a food supervisor, worked for KBR, Halliburton.

He said: You know, we had all kinds of food that was transported in to feed the troops in Iraq. We had food brought in that had expired date stamps on it: This food is expired. Don't serve after this date. Our supervisor said it doesn't matter what the date stamp says, serve the food. Put the food on the table. It doesn't matter that it is expired. He said that was routine.

Second, he said he was told and others were told: Don't you dare talk to government investigators. When they come around, if you talk to a government investigator one of two things are going to happen. You are going to get fired or you are going to get sent to an area where there is significant hostile action.

This man named Rory talked to investigators, and guess where he ended up. He ended up in Fallujah, during hostilities. It is pretty unbelievable to me that we have contractors who tell employees don't dare talk to a government auditor if they show up.

Let me show a picture of some money. This is a picture of a transaction in the country of Iraq. This fellow came and wanted to testify. He was a fellow who was in Iraq, in this room.

This, by the way, is $2 million in cash in one-hundred-dollar bills wrapped in Saran wrap. He is the fellow who dispensed the money, early on. He had all these contracts going on. This money went to a company called Custer Battles. We had a hearing on that as well. This $2 million went to Custer Battles.

Two guys show up in Iraq with not much experience and very little money and they decide to get contracts. They get contracts. It is the Wild West. This guy says it is like the Wild West. They say: You bring a bag because we pay in cash. That is the way we operate.

Custer Battles gets a contract to provide security at the Baghdad airport. Among other things, it is alleged they took the forklifts, took them over to a warehouse, painted them blue, and then resold them to the Provisional Authority, which was Uncle Sam. But that is part of the story. They ended up getting $100 million, and this is $2 million of that. This fellow said we actually played football with these things. We pay in cash, bring a bag, it is like the old West. He said it was unbelievable.

Let me show what the Baghdad airport director of security said about the company that got this money. He said:

Custer Battles have shown themselves to be unresponsive,

uncooperative, incompetent, deceitful, manipulative and war

profiteers. Other than that, they are swell fellows.

This is from the director of security, in a memo to the U.S. Federal Government, then called the Coalition Provisional Authority. The Baghdad airport director of security, here is what he said about the people who were getting our money.

I look at all these things, and I ask the question: What is going on? How can they do this?

Just the other day, the Pentagon finally announced that we are going to now require some bidding on contracts--billions of dollars late. Let me show you what they said. ``Army to end expansive, exclusive Halliburton deal.''

I am not just talking about Halliburton. It happens most of these press things are about Halliburton, KBR, but there are others--Custer Battles and others as well. Whenever you have this much money being thrown out there with no-bid contracts and sole-source contracts, I am telling you it is like a hog in a crick. All you hear is grunting, there is a lot of shoving, and everybody wants the money.

``Army to end expansive exclusive Halliburton deal,'' It says:

Army is discontinuing a controversial multibillion dollar

deal with oil services giant Halliburton to provide

logistical support to U.S. troops worldwide, a decision that

could cut deeply.

Understand, the Army says very late: OK, now we will start bidding. We will have several companies bid. And by the way, once the bidding is done, we will have another company oversee the company that gets the bid.

Oversight is the responsibility of the Pentagon. When they put out a contract, it is their responsibility to provide oversight. Our responsibility is to figure out what we are spending in Congress, who is spending it, with what efficiency, and if it is wasted, to call into account those who are wasting it.

Let me go back to the first chart that I showed today. This is yet another company. This company is Parsons.

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

of Engineers, through a contractor, to build 150 health care

clinics in Iraq and has in some cases produced little more

than empty shells of crumbling concrete and shattered bricks

cemented together into uneven walls.

We pay for 150 clinics and we get 20. The money is gone. The question is, Where did the money go and why? Who has it? What did we get for it? Is there accountability to the taxpayer for this sort of thing.

I understand in wartime money is spent in a way that is different, from time to time, than it is spent in peacetime. Sometimes you just have to spend extra money to get things done. But $45 for a case of Coca-Cola; $7,600 a month to rent vehicles? I don't think so. I mean, that is just the tiny little tip of the iceberg.

The question is, What comes of all of this? How do we stop all of this? How do we decide, on behalf of the American taxpayers, that this matters and we are not going to let this happen again? We have some people coming tomorrow who are going to talk about this contract, people who were in Iraq and watched this happen. We are going to evaluate what happened.

As has been the case in every circumstance, we will refer what we find to the Department of Defense and ask why.

We held a hearing on the subject of water. I know the Presiding Officer, in fact, in his subcommittee has taken a look at this and has asked some tough questions and is trying to figure out what was happening there.

We have never quite figured out what has happened because the contractor and the Defense Department each point fingers and say nothing happened. Then they say the other side made it happen.

About this water circumstance, we had people come to testify, saying: We were there.

Here is the report. The report says they were hooking up for nonpotable water--that water which is used by soldiers in Iraq to brush their teeth, to wash their faces, to take showers--they were hooking up hoses that had water that was more dangerous than water that came right out of the Euphrates River, water with no disinfectant at all.

In fact, we had an e-mail from an Army physician who is in Iraq. She said: I have seen this. In fact, I went and tracked the hoses to find out where this water was coming from and what the contractor was doing with it. It was contaminated water that was worse quality than the water you take if you dip a pail in the Euphrates.

It is unbelievable. People get paid for this, they are incompetent, and they decide it doesn't matter? The person in charge of all the water in Iraq to be served to U.S. troops for Halliburton wrote an internal memorandum that I have made public. He said this was a near miss for us. It could have been mass sickness or even death. That was Will Granger, the top water quality manager, on May 13, last year.

Remember, this is a company which says this didn't happen. The Pentagon says it didn't happen. This is the internal Halliburton company report:

This event should be considered a ``NEAR MISS'' as the

consequences of these actions could have been very SEVERE,

resulting in mass sickness or death.

Officially, this company still insists this didn't happen. Their internal reports by their own employees in Iraq demonstrate it not only happened, it was very serious.

I don't do this because I am trying to make life miserable for somebody. I do this because we need to protect the American troops, first and foremost; and second, we need to protect the American taxpayers.

I much prefer that the authorization committees of jurisdiction through which this money moves would hold tough accountability hearings, call people in, put them under oath. But that has not happened. As a result, I have held a series of hearings as chairman of the Policy Committee. Such a hearing will occur in the morning on this issue of health care clinics.

My hope is that at some point, we will find an appetite in this Senate from people on both sides. This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. I hope we will find an appetite by everyone in this Senate to decide we are going to insist on people being accountable for the money that is spent and for what is done with respect to providing for American soldiers and doing what is necessary to be done under these contracts.

These contractors have fallen far short. The American taxpayers have been fleeced. They have taken a bath as a result of these kinds of actions. I know as I say this that there are undoubtedly some very good contractors. They have some good workers who risk their lives. They have done some good work. I say, God bless them. But when I see stories such as this, it makes my blood boil.

Harry Truman served in this Chamber. In fact, the first desk I had was a desk sat in by Harry Truman. He sat in this Chamber back in the early 1940s when we were at war. A President of his own party was in the White House. Harry Truman said: There is too much waste, fraud, and abuse in the Pentagon, in military spending, and they established the Truman Committee. He went all around the country holding hearings. They found billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse. That was the legacy of the Truman Committee.

We ought to have one again. I have offered in the Senate, and I have been voted down. I think I have offered it now three times. By the way, I will offer it again. A good idea does not have to die a natural death. At some point, it can survive and succeed.

But more than the Truman Committee, I believe we ought to pass the legislation I described as I started. That legislation is legislation I introduced on March 3 of this year. It is now the end of July. On March 2, Senator Reid, myself, and 30 of my colleagues introduced legislation called the Honest Leadership and Accountability In Contracting Act of 2006. It is long past the time for this Congress to have done what we should have done a month or 2 ago, 3 months ago; that is, pass this legislation, punish war profiteers, and do so aggressively. End cronyism in these key positions, especially in contracting, crack down on contract cheaters, and force real contract competition, real competition that gives the taxpayer the best price and holds accountable those contractors for getting the job done and getting it done in the right way.

I am going to pursue this, as I have indicated, with additional hearings, if necessary. I would much prefer they be done by the authorizing committees. One way or another, we are going to pursue these questions and ask for accountability and demand accountability.

As I said when I started, none of this is about politics. Republicans and Democrats work together on things from time to time in this Senate. This is one we can and should and I hope will work together on to fix for the good of this country and for the good of the American people.

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

Mr. President, let me ask that my time be taken from the time allotted to Senator Bingaman.

Mr. President, I will speak to an issue I spoke about nearly a month ago in the Senate. Because nothing has happened substantially since then, I wanted to raise the issue. We are coming to the end of the legislative session. We will be here the rest of this week and next week. The time for consideration is going to be devoted to legislation the majority leader has already described. Then we are off in August for an August break, back in September, off in October for the election.

The issue I want to talk about is the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. The reason I want to do that is I want to describe something that is happening in this country that very few people think much about, perhaps some don't care much about, but I know that there are some in this Senate who do, and I believe they would agree with me that we need to move forward and pass the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

Let me describe why this is urgent. Some while ago I came to the Senate and told my colleagues about a young woman--I did that with the consent of the young woman's relatives--a young woman named Avis Littlewind. Avis was, I believe, 14 years old. Avis took her own life. She laid in a bed for 90 days. She was supposed to have been in school. Instead, she lay in a fetal position in bed. At the end of that time she took her own life.

No warning signs went up to anyone, nobody from the school, nobody from the mental health area, the tribe, or the family. Somehow she just escaped attention. She, like her sister, 2 years before her who had also taken her life, decided that life was hopeless, that she was helpless, and she ended her life.

I went to that Indian reservation because there are clusters of teenage suicides on some of these reservations. We had a cluster on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation shortly after that period.

I talked to the folks on this reservation, the school officials, the family members, the classmates, the tribal council. I discovered that had this young woman been referred to treatment, there was very little treatment available, very little mental health capability available to this young girl, and that is the case on most reservations.

Because I have known about the sad situation with respect to health care for American Indians for some long while, I was not particularly surprised at what is happening with respect to mental health treatment on reservations.

We have a trust responsibility for American Indians. We have a trust responsibility for their health care. We

fail miserably. We have tried--my colleague, Senator McCain, myself, and other members of the Committee on Indian Affairs--to put together a piece of legislation to extend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and try to make some improvements in delivery of health care to American Indians--yes, for children, but elderly folks and others who are suffering. Yet that piece of legislation languishes. Senator McCain and I just talked about it yesterday, and the committee wants to get that legislation through, get it passed, complete it.

Let me describe the circumstances in terms of numbers. Then I will talk about some of the Indian folks who have had some difficulty. We have a responsibility under Medicare. Here is what we provide: The per- person expenditure on Medicare is $5,900 a year. We also have a responsibility, by the way, for health care for Federal prisoners, those whom we arrest and convict and send to Federal prison, putting them away from society. We provide a cell, a bed, and we are required to provide for their health care. With respect to their health care, we spend $3,800 a year for Federal prisoners' health care.

We have a responsibility, a trust responsibility, for the health care of American Indians, as well. That responsibility is met in this manner: Indian Health Care Services medical care, $1,900. We spend exactly one-half of what we spend for Federal prisoners on health care for American Indians. The per capita expenditures are exactly one-half.

I have asked the Indian Health System, the folks in charge, how much health care is delivered versus what is needed. The answer is about 60 percent. Forty percent is not available. So the question is: Who is sick, who is hurting, who is injured, who does not get treatment on these Indian reservations?

I mentioned, when I spoke about this before, that one of the chairmen of the Indian tribes in my State said that you cannot get sick after June. The answer is: Don't get sick after June. If you get sick after June, our contract health money is gone, and you are not going to get any help because then the criteria is the only help you get is life or limb. If you lose a limb or lose your life, you get help; otherwise, hobble around in pain. Whatever that chronic condition is, sorry, tough luck, out of luck, out of money. Don't get sick after June.

What an unbelievable message. This is not a Third World country. This is a big country, and we do a lot of things. But some things we don't do nearly well enough; and that is, keep our promise and keep our trust responsibilities with respect to health care for Native Americans.

A man from the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians in my State said: Well, the doctor told me that I needed an MRI urgently on my knee. But he said: The Indian Health System facility on Turtle Mountain has no money, so you don't get an MRI. You have a bad knee, you have trouble, you have pain, but we are sorry, there is no money to find out what the problem is. No MRI.

A member from the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Tribes had a daughter who was born prematurely and suffered some complications as a result. That child died when she was 2 years old because they did not have any funds, the Indian Health Service had no funds to send that young child to a high-risk hospital, one that could probably begin to treat those conditions.

The chairman of one of the tribes told me one day about being out riding a horse with another tribal member when the other member was injured. He was bleeding severely from his injury. That reservation does not have a 911 emergency service. There was no ambulance to take the man to the hospital, not to mention that the health facility on the reservation is not open after hours anyway. And it is not open on weekends.

On that reservation, there are isolated communities, some 30 minutes, almost an hour from an ambulance or a health care facility. So the chairman of this tribe then tried to play doctor and made a tourniquet and tried to find a way to get this person to a health care facility before the person bled to death.

It is pretty unbelievable what is happening with respect to Indian health care. We have a very serious diabetes issue. The prevalence of diabetes on Indian reservations, in many cases, is not double or triple or quadruple; it is even much higher than that. The Indian diabetes mortality rate is quadruple the diabetes mortality rate among other Americans.

On the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation, a couple of the elders ran out of insulin. It was not a very good beginning to that story. You need insulin if you have diabetes. But it got much worse. They went to the Indian Health Service clinic that serves that reservation, and there was no insulin available--none. They said: We will not get another shipment for 24 hours.

That sort of thing goes on because there is not sufficient resources devoted to meet our responsibility to the Indian health needs.

In addition to the kinds of things I have described--these things are rampant--in addition to that, we have this methamphetamine scourge that has a devastating impact all across this country but especially on Indian reservations. The statistics that describe the problems and the chronic difficulties that the Indian Health Service confronts dealing with methamphetamine is just, as I said, devastating.

At a recent hearing we had in the Indian Affairs Committee, a young woman who is a tribal judge from the Turtle Mountain Chippewa Reservation testified that methamphetamine is related to 90 percent of the cases of tribal individuals who enter treatment on the reservation. And there are very few places to get treatment, as a matter of fact.

The plain fact is, this is an area of responsibility for this Congress, and we are not meeting it. We passed a piece of legislation through the Indian Affairs Committee a long while ago, describing the need and describing the requirement for reauthorizing the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and that bill languishes. We have lots of things to bring to the floor of the Senate that should not be here and do not need to be here. This Congress often treats the light far too seriously and the serious far too lightly.

This is a serious matter, and we ought to be dealing with it. We ought to deal with it now. We have responsibilities. Go to Indian reservations and take a look at these children and ask yourself whether the health care of these children ought to be a function of whether this Congress decides to appropriate enough money. It ought not be. A sick child is a sick child anywhere in this country and ought to feel, and their parents ought to feel, they have access to decent health care when that child is sick.

So on behalf of myself and Senator McCain and other members of the Indian Affairs Committee, I say that I believe this is a priority. This is not a Third World country. I do not want anybody to say to me: In our area the refrain is ``Don't get sick after June 1 because there is no money.'' Let's not have that happen in this country anymore. Let's provide the funding that we require for the Indian Health Service to do what they should do to provide the kind of health care we know is necessary.

Once again, we have responsibility for prisoners whom we incarcerate in Federal prisons, and we have trust responsibility for the health care of American Indians; and we are spending half as much for the health care for American Indians per capita as we spend on Federal prisoners. That, in my judgment, is a shame. I am not suggesting we spend too much on Federal prisoners. They are our charge. They are incarcerated. We are responsible for their health care, but so too are we responsible, under a trust relationship, to help take care of the health care needs of that population.

Mr. President, I hope that with the cooperation of the majority leader and others in this Chamber, that Senator McCain and I and others can move this piece of legislation through the Senate and through the House and get it to the President for signature--the sooner the better.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I just this morning spoke to a couple of hundred young people called Junior Statesmen who are gathered in the Capitol. It is an organization that comes to the Capitol and learns about Government. I talked to them about the Voting Rights Act some, and I talked to them about what we take so much for granted in this country, including the right to vote.

I described what happened, at least as I read the history books, on November 15, 1917, at Occoquan Prison. That is the day on which a good number of women were severely beaten at the Occoquan Prison. Several dozen women were picked up because they demonstrated in front of the White House. They were arrested for demonstrating because they were in the streets demonstrating, insisting that women ought to have the right to vote in this country. Because they demanded the right to vote, demonstrating in the streets of this capital, they were arrested and taken to the Occoquan Prison. Among those women were Lucy Burns and Alice Paul.

The description of what they did to those women includes putting handcuffs on Lucy Burns, tying the handcuffs with a chain, and then putting the chain above a cell door and letting her hang the entire evening, with blood running down her arms. That was the fate of Lucy Burns. Alice Paul had a tube forced down her throat. They tried to force feed Alice Paul, and she nearly drowned. The transgression of these women: They were demanding the right of women to vote.

It is interesting what some people have done to demand the right of citizenship and what others so often and so regularly take for granted.

My colleague was talking, I believe, about the struggle that minorities in this country, including especially African Americans, have made to have the right to vote, and I believe the previous speaker was talking about Selma, AL, on March 7 in 1965, when State troopers brutally beat civil rights workers. The marchers were fighting for their right to vote. On that day, in 1965, that day in March, they were brutally beaten because they insisted on the right to vote, just as Alice Paul and Lucy Burns had done some 60 years before that.

Lyndon Johnson said this about what is called Bloody Sunday. He said:

At times, history and fate meet at a single time in a

single place to shape a turning point in man's unending

search for freedom. So it was at Lexington and Concord. So it

was last week in Selma, Alabama. There, long-suffering men

and women peacefully protested the denial of their rights as

Americans. Many were brutally assaulted. One good man, a man

of God, was killed.

From that, we know that the Voting Rights Act was passed a very short time later.

Days later, in a joint session of Congress, President Johnson outlined the Voting Rights Act, and within months, the Congress had passed it.

Let me talk about another minority in this country, Native Americans, the first Americans, those who were here first--American Indians. Although the Voting Rights Act applies to all Americans and all minorities, let me talk just a little about its impact on Native Americans, American Indians.

They were first given U.S. citizenship rights in 1924. Think of that. Almost a century and a half of this country's experience passed before Indians were recognized. It took from 1924, nearly 40 years later, for all of the States in this Nation to say to American Indians: Yes, you have the right to vote. You have the full rights of American citizenship. The last State to clear the hurdles and the obstacles to voting by American Indians was New Mexico, in 1962, only 3 years before the Voting Rights Act. Think of that. These were the Americans who were here first. They lived here when the rest of us came here--American Indians.

We come today on the issue of extending the Voting Rights Act. I believe it has been almost a quarter of a century since we have done that; 1982 was the last time Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act. It has been hailed by many as the single most effective piece of civil rights legislation that has ever been passed.

I was in Philadelphia some weeks ago and went to the Constitution Center. At the Constitution Center they have these statues of the 55 men--yes, only men--who sat in that hot room in the hot summer and wrote the Constitution of the United States. The three words that began that great document were, ``we the people''--not just some of the people, all the people--``we the people.'' And all of the power in this document called the Constitution of the United States is vested in the power of one--one American casting one vote at one time. That is all the power in this Government. That exceeds all the power of all the Presidents, all the power of all the Senators--the power of one person to cast one vote on one day to alter the destiny of this country.

Except we have learned over time that some have been denied that opportunity: African Americans, American Indians, women. It has taken a long time and a bloody struggle, regrettably, to make certain that everyone has the right to exercise the power of one, to become part of ``we the people.''

My guess is that the spirit of Lucy Byrne and Alice Paul exists in this debate about voting rights. The spirit of

the civil rights marchers who were beaten brutally--one lost his life on that bloody Sunday--their spirit exists as this Congress turns again to the subject of voting rights and asks the question: Will we do everything possible to ensure that every American is able to exercise the power of one as part of ``we the people'' in this great country? That is why this is such an important piece of legislation. That is why some take it for granted day after day. It is why others have given their lives for it.

Today, when this Congress passes the Voting Rights Act, to extend the Voting Rights Act once again, I think it will have been one of its finest hours.

I yield the floor.

Is there an order of speaking this evening, if I might inquire of the manager.

First, let me say to the Senator from Utah, as well as to my colleague, the Senator from Delaware, that their leadership has been very important on this legislation. They will not know the names of those whose lives are saved, but lives will be saved because this legislation has passed. I very much appreciate their diligence and hard work.

This is a piece of legislation about protecting children. I don't know what is second place in the lives of many people, but I know what is in first place, and that is the protection of children. They cannot protect themselves. It is our responsibility as parents; it is our responsibility in this country to do the things necessary to protect our children. There are so many stories that it is almost hard to begin, and you don't know where to stop.

My interest in this goes back some long ways. My colleagues have described John Walsh and the tragic loss of his son Adam Walsh. Those of us who have lost children understand that pain, but it must be enormously compounded by the pain of someone who loses a child who has been abducted.

My experience, especially with respect to North Dakota, a couple of years ago was to learn one day that a wonderful young woman had been abducted in a parking lot of a shopping center in Grand Forks, ND, a young woman named Dru Sjodin, and, we later found, murdered.

There is a trial underway for someone charged with murder in that case, but that case is like so many cases, it seems to me. It is the case of Adam Walsh, it is the case of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford, it is the case of a 12-year-old girl named Polly Klaas. It is the case of Sarah Michelle Lunde, age 13.

Pull back the curtain and then ask the question: Who is it abducting these children? Who are the sexual predators killing these children?

This is not some mystery. We know the answer to this. The answer is, in most cases, that these murders and these abductions are done by those who have been in our criminal justice system and who have abducted and murdered before.

I held a meeting in Fargo, ND, following the abduction of Dru Sjodin and the introduction of legislation I call Dru's law. What brings me to the floor of the Senate today is the components of Dru's law have been included in this legislation. So, finally, it will become law.

The Senate has passed Dru's law twice on its own. We have not gotten it

through the U.S. House. Now it will be through the U.S. House and Senate as a part of this Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, and it will become law.

A meeting I held in Fargo, ND, to discuss Dru's law is a meeting at which I showed this poster. This meeting was just over a year and a quarter ago now. I held the meeting at the city hall in Fargo, ND.

Prior to the meeting, I searched the computer for a registry of sex offenders to find out who was living within 1 mile of where we were meeting at city hall in Fargo, ND, who had previously been convicted as a sexual predator--who were they? I would share the names with the folks who came to that meeting to say: Here is a registry in North Dakota of sexual predators. There is no national registry; this is North Dakota's registry.

This is a poster that I showed the folks who came to Fargo that day as an example of someone who lived within a mile of where we were having the meeting. His name is Joseph Duncan, first-degree rape. He raped a 14-year-old boy at gunpoint, burned the victim with a cigarette, made the victim believe he was going to be killed by firing the gun twice on empty chambers; terminated from treatment; served a lengthy prison sentence; paroled, then absconded; had a long history of sexual aggression as a youth.

That is his sheet from the registry in North Dakota.

What I didn't know that day was that 1 month before the meeting I was having in Fargo, this same man had been charged with molesting a 6- year-old boy at a playground in Detroit Lakes, MN, just across the border. Someone in Minnesota checking the registry of sexual predators would not have found his name. He was just miles away living in Fargo, ND, but, in fact, he went over to Detroit Lakes, MN, and was charged with molesting a 6-year-old boy.

That is why we need a national registry. Strangely enough, in April of last year, he appeared on those charges, and a county judge set the bail at $15,000, and he was released after posting cash, promising to stay in touch, and he absconded and that is it. The judge said he didn't know he had this record.

Then 2 months later, this man we know now from intense media coverage was arrested in Idaho for kidnaping 8-year-old Shasta Groene and her brother, 9-year-old Dylan. The children had been missing for well over a month--2 months actually--when the bound and bludgeoned bodies of their mother, their older brother and their mother's boyfriend were found at their rural home. This man is now charged with three additional murders and the kidnaping of two children that he held and sexually abused for a number of months.

Dylan's remains were later located, and Shasta Groene, the young girl, was spotted in a Denny's restaurant by a sharp-eyed waitress who called the police, and she was saved.

This case is an example of why there must be a national registry.

Dru's law, which I introduced, has three components. One is the creation of a national registry of sex offenders. The underlying legislation improves on that by not only requiring the national registry but also standardizing the information that will be in the national registry.

Second, Dru's law requires that when a violent, high-risk sex offender is about to be released from incarceration, the local authorities must be notified, the local States attorney must be notified. There is such a high risk to the population of this high-risk offender being released that perhaps there is cause to seek additional civil incarceration, civil commitment, but they can't do that if they don't know about the impending release.

In fact, when a high-risk offender is released from prison, they can't just say: So long, good luck. That is exactly what happens in too many cases.

Martha Stewart is thrown in jail. They put Martha in jail for 6 months, and when she gets out of Federal prison, she gets out of Federal prison wearing an ankle bracelet, an electronic bracelet that allows law enforcement to track her whereabouts.

I can give you an example of a very violent sex offender let out of prison with no maintenance, no monitoring, no electronic bracelet, just: So long, see you later; you served your time. Yes, we will see them again when they create another violent crime, another rape, another murder, another abduction. That is why I support passing this kind of legislation.

This legislation is going to save lives. Again I ask the question, and it is so fundamental: If we send Martha Stewart home with an electronic bracelet on her ankle, we can't do that to violent sex offenders when the psychiatrists at the institute of incarceration have said, ``We believe this person to be at high risk for real offending''?

Nearly three-quarters of the violent sex offenders are going to repeat that offense when released from prison. We know that from statistics. Do we have an obligation to protect children? The answer is, you bet we do, and it is long past the time. That is why this legislation is so very important.

As I said when I started, there is so much here that is partisan in this Chamber and the other Chamber, and there is so much that swirls around all of us in politics that we don't like very much about today. But there are times when we do things that will make a difference, and we do things working together, Republicans and Democrats. This is one of those moments of which we can be proud.

Senator Hatch and Senator Biden did a wonderful job. They mentioned their staffs, and that is important. It is always the case that politicians take the bows, but it is important to understand that staff plays a very significant role in helping us write legislation, do the research to get it correct and get it passed.

I thank my colleagues, and I especially say to the parents of Dru Sjodin: I believe that in honor of her memory we have, in this legislation, done something significant. Section 120 is the Dru Sjodin national sex offender public Web site. We create the three elements in Dru's law in this legislation, and I believe, in her memory, we will save other lives.

There are many parents out there today who have lost children, some to the horror of abduction by sexual predators. If this legislation will--and I believe it will--prevent others from experiencing that horror, and if this legislation will--and I believe it will--save children, then we will have done significant work here tonight. It is perhaps little noticed by some. We don't have on legislation of this type perhaps filled Chambers and substantial attention to it, but while it is perhaps little known publicly, what transpires here in the Senate tonight will have a significant influence on the future of children in this country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.