[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 23, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S158-S179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         INDIAN HEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1200, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1200) to amend the Indian Health Care 
     Improvement Act to revise and extend that Act.

  Pending:

       Bingaman/Thune amendment No. 3894 (to amendment No. 3899), 
     to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 
     for a limitation on the charges for contract health services 
     provided to Indians by Medicare providers.
       Vitter amendment No. 3896 (to amendment No. 3899), to 
     modify a section relating to limitation on use of funds 
     appropriated to the Service.
       Brownback amendment No. 3893 (to amendment No. 3899), to 
     acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-
     conceived policies by the Federal Government regarding Indian 
     tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf 
     of the United States.
       Dorgan amendment No. 3899, in the nature of a substitute.
       Sanders amendment No. 3900 (to amendment No. 3899), to 
     provide for payments under subsections (a) through (e) of 
     section 2604 of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 
     1981.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak as in morning business for 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Labeling Cloned Food

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I know the Indian health bill is very 
important. Senator Dorgan will be coming to the floor to lead the 
advocacy of its passage, which I support.
  Mr. President, I come to the floor because I want to share some very 
disturbing news with you and all of my colleagues. Last week, the FDA 
gave the green light for cloned foods to enter our food supply.
  The FDA announced food from cloned animals, or their progeny, is safe 
for human consumption. Despite pleas from thousands of Americans, and 
this Senator, to wait until there was more science, the FDA went ahead 
anyway.
  Mr. President, I want to be clear. I am not opposed to cloning that 
follows strict scientific and ethical protocols. This Senator has 
always been on the side of science for the advancement of mankind. This 
Senator has always been on the side of the consumer and the consumers' 
right to know, right to be heard, and their right to be represented.
  So today I come to the floor for a vigorous call to action that my 
legislation to label cloned food be passed as quickly as possible. This 
is a consumer alert today and a call for action.
  My bill requires the Government to label any food that comes from a 
cloned animal or its progeny. Mr. President, my bill requires that the 
FDA and the Department of Agriculture put a label on this cloned food. 
The FDA handles milk products. We say FDA should work on this issue. 
The Department of Agriculture regulates meat products. That, too, 
should be labeled.
  My labeling bill would insist that cloned food be labeled at the 
wholesale level, the retail level, the restaurant level, the school 
lunch level, and the Meals on Wheels level.
  My bill allows the American public to make an informed decision. 
People have a right to know what they are eating. This is necessary 
because the FDA and the Department of Agriculture have refused to put a 
label on cloned food. My legislation allows for consumer choice and 
also, at the same time, it would allow for monitoring of food as it 
comes into the food supply for postsurveillance to see if there are any 
negative consequences.
  Americans find cloned food disturbing, and some even repulsive. Close 
to 80 percent of Americans have said they would not drink cloned milk. 
There is a ``yuck'' factor to this technology. Right now, under FDA and 
USDA provisions, there would be no way to tell if food comes from a 
cloned animal or its progeny. I want the public to be informed, so that 
is why my labeling bill is for their benefit.
  The FDA has been most troubling to me. They made their decision 
despite two congressional directives--one in the omnibus bill and one 
in the farm bill. The omnibus bill, which the President signed on 
December 26, strongly encouraged FDA to hold off on a cloning decision 
before additional studies were done. On December 14, the Senate 
overwhelmingly passed the farm bill that would require the National 
Academy to peer-review FDA's decision.
  Now, this was limited to 1 year. So I wasn't talking about a 20-year 
longitudinal study. I do want more science.
  Second, I am concerned if we discover a problem with cloned food 
after it is in our food supply, and it is not labeled, we will not have 
any way of monitoring this. It is labeling that allows us to monitor.
  The FDA has been very weak in postmarketing surveillance of drugs. 
Why would they be stronger on cloned food? Who will worry about the 
ethics? And where is the urgency? We are not facing a global shortage 
of beef and a global shortage of milk.
  I know FDA's decision on the risk assessment is over 900 pages long. 
Mr. President, I have been skeptical of long reports. I have found that 
the longer the report, usually the more shallow the information.
  My concerns are grave. I am for more science, and I have asked for it 
responsibly through the legislative process. I am going to continue to 
advocate for more studies on this issue. In the meantime, I want to 
protect the consumer and also allow scientists to monitor this new 
technology.
  If America doesn't keep track of this from the beginning with 
labeling, our entire food supply could be contaminated. I am not 
opposed to cloning. I

[[Page S159]]

am on the side of science, but let's label and monitor it.
  The National Academy of Sciences suggested that we monitor this new 
technology because it is very new. They urged the Federal Government to 
use diligent postmarket surveillance mechanisms. That requires 
labeling.
  Mr. President, last week, the EU decided that cloned foods were safe, 
but they also put up a big yellow flashing light. They referred it to 
their science and ethics and new technologies committee. They said 
there is no ethical justification to use cloned food. The EU called for 
more scientific study on cloned food, and they also said it should be 
labeled.
  Denmark and Norway have already banned cloned food from their food 
supply. I am worried that they will start banning our exports if they 
are not labeled. My State depends on the export of food, whether it is 
seafood, chicken, or other products. We want to be able to export our 
food.
  Mr. President, we are going down a track that I want to be sure is 
not irrevocable or irretrievable. The way to ensure safety in our food 
supply and consumer choice and the ability for science to continue is 
monitoring and labeling.
  I stand here on behalf of the consumer to say, please, let's pass 
this labeling bill. It is needed, it is responsible, and it will be 
effective. I think it will save us a lot of ``yuck'' in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   U.S.S. ``Pueblo''--40th Anniversary

   Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise now, 40 years since the North 
Korean government unlawfully captured the lightly armed U.S.S. Pueblo 
while it was on a routine surveillance mission in international waters. 
The U.S.S Pueblo was the first ship of the U.S. Navy to be hijacked on 
the high seas by a foreign military force in more than 150 years, and 
is currently the only commissioned U.S. naval vessel that is in the 
possession of a foreign nation. Forty years ago today, 83 crew members 
were kidnapped and 1 sailor was killed in the assault. Following the 
capture, our men were held in deplorable, inhumane conditions for more 
than 11 months before being released. While we were grateful to see the 
return of our brave sailors, 40 years later we are still waiting for 
the return of the U.S.S. Pueblo.
   The U.S.S. Pueblo remains a commissioned naval ship and property of 
the U.S. Navy. Currently, the North Korean government flaunts the 
Pueblo as a war trophy and a tourist attraction in Pyongyang, North 
Korea's capital. We must not continue to remain silent about North 
Korea's continued violation of international law by possessing our 
ship, the U.S. Navy's ship. Each day tourists visit and tour the U.S.S. 
Pueblo, similar to the way visitors see retired naval ships in New York 
and San Diego. Americans in particular are encouraged to be 
photographed by the U.S.S. Pueblo. As recently as April 2007, it was 
reported that President Kim Jong Il stated that the Pueblo should be 
used for ``anti-American education.'' North Korea's capture of the 
U.S.S. Pueblo is in blatant violation of international law and the 
further exploitation of the Pueblo is tasteless and disingenuous. I 
believe 40 years of relative silence on this issue is far too long, and 
it is important that the Senate take action and denounce the current 
situation.
  The U.S.S. Pueblo bears the name of the town of Pueblo, CO, a city 
with a proud military tradition and is the only city to be home of four 
living Medal of Honor recipients simultaneously. In fact, in 1993 
Congress deemed Pueblo the ``Home of Heroes'' for this unique 
distinction. Many in our State and all over the country want to see the 
vessel returned to its proper home. To this end, I am reintroducing a 
resolution seeking the return of the U.S.S. Pueblo to the U.S. Navy. 
This bill is cosponsored by my good friend and proud veteran, Senator 
Daniel Inouye, and I encourage all of our colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to support this legislation and see to it that the U.S.S. 
Pueblo is returned to the U.S. Navy.
  Mr. President I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
an editorial that appeared in the Pueblo Chieftain today regarding the 
anniversary.
   As that editorial says, ``Mr. President, bring back the U.S.S. 
Pueblo.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Pueblo Chieftain, Jan. 23, 2008]

                                 Infamy

       Today marks the 40th anniversary of what for Puebloans is a 
     day that shall live in infamy. On Jan. 23, 1968, naval and 
     air forces of North Korea attacked and took hostage the USS 
     Pueblo and its crew.
       The Pueblo was a Navy intelligence ship operating in 
     international waters. Despite that, the Stalinist regime in 
     Pyongyang decided on a bold course of action and sent patrol 
     boats and MiG fighters to harass the lightly armed U.S. 
     vessel.
       This was during the height of the Vietnam War, and the 
     North Koreans correctly figured that American military brass 
     weren't focused on the American spy ship's mission. They were 
     right.
       Armed only with one .50-caliber machine gun, the Pueblo 
     crew tried to fend off the advancing Communist forces, to no 
     avail. One crewman was killed while comrades tried to destroy 
     as much equipment and paperwork as possible.
       But the die was cast. The North Koreans boarded the Pueblo 
     and took the rest of the crew hostage.
       For the next 11 months, the crew was subjected to cruel and 
     inhumane treatment at the hands of their captors. But the 
     American spirit was not to be tamed.
       During propaganda photo sessions, the Yanks dutifully 
     smiled for the Koreans' cameras--and flashed ``the bird,'' 
     that one-finger salute that Americans know too well but was 
     above the heads of the Communists.
       But that did not last. When the Reds figured out what that 
     sign of defiance meant, the men of the Pueblo were subjected 
     to more severe beatings.
       The man who took the worst of the pummeling was Cmdr. Lloyd 
     Bucher, the Pueblo's skipper. After each torture session, 
     he'd crawl back to his cell--and surreptitiously give his 
     comrades the high sign.
       He, and his men, were not to be beaten.
       It was exactly 11 months after the seizure when the North 
     Koreans freed their American captives. They were allowed to 
     walk one by one across the Demilitarized Zone separating 
     North and South Korea.
       While the Pueblo crew was free, their ship was and still is 
     not. It is being held as a trophy of war in a river near 
     Pyongyang--a tourist attraction and propaganda piece for the 
     regime.
       North Koreans have been forced at times to eat grass, so 
     poorly is their economy run by central planners. But they 
     have ``bread and circuses'' in the form of the American 
     intelligence ship which bears this city's name.
       Many attempts have been made to persuade the North Koreans 
     to give the ship back to its rightful owners. When he was 
     governor of California, Ronald Reagan urged Washington to 
     bomb North Korea in order to force the ship's release.
       Over the years since, numerous diplomatic moves have been 
     tried. Recently, at the behest of Colorado's U.S. Sen. Wayne 
     Allard, a Korean battle flag on display at the U.S. Naval 
     Academy was returned to the Hermit Kingdom as a sign of this 
     nation's goodwill.
       That and all other overtures have thus far been fruitless. 
     But this incident of four decades ago remains an ugly scar on 
     the history of this nation, one which cannot be allowed to 
     continue to fester.
       We realize that with the War on Terrorism in Iraq, 
     Afghanistan and elsewhere across the globe, there are other 
     pressing international security issues. But if this nation 
     were to show the world its resolve by getting the USS Pueblo 
     back, by whatever means, we would show those who think they 
     can bring us to our knees that we are not to be cowed.
       Mr. President, bring back the USS Pueblo.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.


                              The Economy

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, when I am completed talking about the 
economy, we will return to the Indian affairs business and debate the 
bill on the floor. If there are those who wish to offer amendments, I 
certainly hope we can bring them to the floor and debate them and vote 
on them.
  As I mentioned, I would like to talk for a moment about the economy. 
There is the 24/7 news hour all across this country talking about what 
is happening: What on Earth is going on in this country's economy? What 
is happening in the stock market, which is moving up and down like a 
yo-yo--not so much up anymore but down substantially in recent weeks 
and months.
  So what is happening? There are many pieces of evidence to suggest 
this economy is in very big trouble, including a substantial reduction 
in the stock market, an increase in unemployment, and a dramatic drop 
in housing starts. As a result of all of that,

[[Page S160]]

there has been frenzied activity, both at the White House and in the 
Congress, to talk about something called a stimulus package. We need to 
do a fiscal stimulus package.
  In fact, the President announced a stimulus package of $145 billion 
to $150 billion. That is a stimulus package of about 1 percent of our 
gross domestic product in this country.
  Yesterday, the Federal Reserve Board took action in monetary policy 
to cut a key interest rate by 75 basis points. That was a significant 
and aggressive move by the Federal Reserve Board. This Congress and 
this President will want to make some aggressive moves with a stimulus 
package that are complementary to what has been done in monetary 
policy.
  I make this point that is very important: If that is what we do, and 
all that we do, we fundamentally misunderstand what is wrong. I think 
most of the American people understand what is wrong. Certainly, most 
of the people around the world who look at this country understand we 
have gone off the track. If we don't fix our trade policy and fiscal 
policy, and if we don't fix things that need regulating that have 
largely been outside of the view of regulators, we are going to 
continue to be in very big trouble. Let me go through just a couple of 
these items.

  We have the largest trade deficit in human history. Every single day, 
7 days a week, we import $2 billion more than we export. That means 
every single day we add another $2 billion to the indebtedness of this 
country. That is over $700 billion a year. We are hemorrhaging in red 
ink. We have to fix it. Warren Buffett, a remarkably successful 
investor in this country, said it quite clearly: This is unsustainable, 
this cannot continue.
  The fact is, the President and the Congress act as if nothing is 
wrong. We have the most unbelievably inept trade policy in the history 
of humankind--$2 billion a day we import more than we export. That 
means we are putting dollars that we pay for those goods in the hands 
of foreigners, and they are coming back to buy part of America. We are 
literally selling part of this country. But the fact is, you cannot 
hemorrhage in red ink like that for any great length of time without 
having significant consequences. It is what undermines your currency. 
It undermines confidence in your economy.
  You add to that $700 billion-plus a year trade deficit a fiscal 
policy that is reckless and ill-considered. It is as if we think people 
cannot see. It is like a drunk who thinks they are invisible. The fact 
is, we have an unbelievable fiscal policy deficit. They say: Well, it 
is $200 billion, $300 billion. Nonsense. Take a look at what we have to 
borrow for fiscal policy every year. The reason they show the lower 
deficit is because they are misusing the Social Security revenues. Take 
a look at the real deficit. It is likely to be over half a trillion 
dollars this year. You add that to the trade deficit and then ask 
yourself, if you were looking from the outside into this country, do 
you think this is off track, the fundamentals are out of line? Do you 
think they have to be fixed? The answer is yes. We have very serious 
abiding problems. You add to that an unbelievably inept fiscal policy 
hemorrhaging in red ink and is way off track.
  By the way, it is not just the normal budgetary Presidential requests 
and congressional actions on spending and taxing. The President, in the 
last year, sent to the Congress, in addition to outside-the-budget 
system, he said: I want you to appropriate money for me, $196 billion--
that, by the way, is $16 billion a month, $4 billion a week--and I 
don't want any of it paid for; I want it added to the debt because I 
want it for Iraq, Afghanistan, and other activities with respect to the 
war. That takes us to over two-thirds of a trillion dollars this 
President has asked for, none of it paid for. We will send our soldiers 
to war, but we will not do anything that requires any effort on our 
part to begin to pay for it. We will send soldiers to war and say: Come 
back and you pay for it later.
  In addition to a fiscal policy that just does not work, we are now 
engaged in a war in which we borrow the money. Even as we borrow the 
money for the war, we have a President who says: I want more permanent 
tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy. It is not a secret. Everyone sees 
what is going on--everyone, apparently, except those in the White House 
and those in the Congress.
  We have to fix the fundamentals, and if we do not, there isn't any 
amount of fiscal policy stimulus or any amount of activity by the 
Federal Reserve Board that is going to set this straight. It just is 
not.
  You add to that inept trade policy and the hemorrhaging of red ink on 
fiscal policy that is reckless and out of control these issues: 
regulators who really do not care. They come to the body of regulatory 
responsibility bragging that they don't like government. What happens? 
We have what is called a subprime lending crisis. What does that mean? 
What it means is no one was watching and no one cared very much, and 
what we had was an orgy of greed with respect to an industry that is 
essential to this country--that is, providing loans so people can buy 
homes.
  We had a bunch of highfliers decide: What we really want to do is to 
sell you a loan, and we want to put you in a new home. To do that, we 
will give you rates that you will not even believe. We will give you a 
home loan at a 2-percent interest rate--2 percent. We will quote the 
payment. That looks good, a 2-percent interest rate. What they don't 
tell you is the interest rate is going to reset in 3 years, it is going 
to reset way up, and then you will not be able to make the payments, or 
they do not tell you there also is an escrow you have to pay every 
month on top of that.
  Here is what was going on. This was an advertisement on television:

       Do you have bad credit? Do you have trouble getting a loan? 
     You've been missing payments on your home loan? Filed for 
     bankruptcy? Doesn't matter. Come to us. We've got financing 
     available for you.

  We have all heard these ads and probably scratched our heads and 
wondered: How on Earth can this happen? The fact is, it can.
  I will give an example. The biggest mortgage lender is Countrywide, 
which now is being purchased by Bank of America, apparently. The CEO of 
Countrywide, Mr. Mozilo, made off now with hundreds of millions of 
dollars. They had brokers cold-calling people saying: We want to put 
you in a subprime loan. Then they sold these subprime loans. They 
packaged these subprime loans with other good loans. They were enticing 
people into these loans at teaser interest rates that were going to 
reset in ways people could not afford to pay. Then they decided, just 
as in the old days when the discussion was about meat-packing plants 
and they put sausage and sawdust together--when you make sausage, you 
need a filler. So they put sawdust in sausage. These companies that 
were hawking these loans decided to put good loans with bad loans, 
subprime with other loans, and then mix them all up like a big-old 
sausage, and they would slice them up, securitize them, and sell them.

  Who wanted to buy them? The rating agencies were sitting there dead 
from the neck up: This looks OK. We don't understand it, but it looks 
good to us. Hedge funds were saying: I like these new pieces of 
financial sausage because they are sliced up in a way that has a big 
yield. Why a big yield? Because they had prepayment penalties for the 
loans, loans that would reset to much higher interest rates that people 
couldn't make. This new piece of financial sausage shows a very high 
yield. So the hedge funds, liking high yields and liking big money, are 
buying all these securitized loans, and then all of a sudden, it goes 
belly up. And we wonder why. It is because people were advertising on 
television: You have bad credit? Have you filed for bankruptcy? Come to 
us; we want to give you a loan. Then they package this up in an 
irresponsible way.
  One might ask the question: How could that all have happened? Weren't 
there some regulators around? No, no. The regulators were first 
ignoring them and then actually giving them a boost. Alan Greenspan now 
stands around scratching his head thinking: What on Earth happened? It 
happened on your watch, my friend. The Federal Reserve Board did 
nothing. In fact, part of this housing bubble that occurred was part of 
the air that comes from these unbelievable subprime loans that boosted 
that bubble. Again, Warren Buffett said: Every bubble will burst. And 
this one did. It shouldn't

[[Page S161]]

have surprised us. But regulators sat by and said: That doesn't matter.
  Did anybody care about those brokers placing a $1 million jumbo 
subprime loan, making a $30,000 commission on that loan? Did anybody 
say: Wait a second, what you are doing is misleading the folks who are 
going to borrow the money; you can't do that. Did anybody say to the 
rating agencies: You can't be rating as top-grade securities this 
sausage with sawdust, these financial instruments that have stuck 
together bad loans with good loans; you can't do that. Did anybody say 
to the hedge funds: You are buying a pig in a poke here; you are buying 
something you think is high yield, but you know better than that. What 
happened was all of this went out over the transom, and nobody even 
knows where it is or how much it is. Now they can't untangle it to find 
out where all these subprime loans exist. Nobody knows.
  The next time somebody talks about regulation, understand, sometimes 
regulation is very important. The danger to this economy, as a result 
of the subprime scandal, is very significant. It is having consequences 
all across this country. You add this subprime scandal and its 
consequences to a fiscal policy that is reckless, to a trade policy 
that is inept, and then add this final factor: We have a circumstance 
where a gambler goes into a casino in Las Vegas and, in most cases, the 
sum total of what they will lose is the money they have carried into 
the casino--that is the risk of loss.
  Here is the other fact about what is happening in our economy that 
nobody wants to talk about. We have hedge funds--yes, they are called 
hedge funds, mostly unregulated--to the tune of about $1.2 trillion. 
Some would say that is not so much, $1.2 trillion. There is $9 trillion 
of mutual funds. There is something like $40 trillion of the total 
aggregate value of stocks and bonds. So $1.2 trillion in hedge funds, 
that is not so much, except one-half of all the trading on the New York 
Stock Exchange is done by those hedge funds. And those hedge funds have 
created, among other things, derivatives. There was something like a 
notional value of $26 trillion in credit default swaps at the end of 
2006.
  It sounds very much like a foreign language when I say it, but the 
product everyone is worried about at the moment is something called 
credit default swaps, trillions of dollars of credit default 
derivatives--fancy financial instruments, much fancier than sausage 
with sawdust but in many ways the same thing. The interesting thing 
about these hedge funds is the dramatic amounts of borrowing, so they 
are not going to lose just what they go into the casino with in their 
pocket money. They are so heavily leveraged and so deep in credit 
default swaps that this could have significant consequences for our 
economy.
  I and others have spoken on this floor for several years about the 
need for regulation of hedge funds. I have spoken on this floor many 
times about the issue of derivatives and the total aggregate notional 
value of derivatives and its potential consequence to the economy in a 
downturn.
  A friend told me there is a saying on Wall Street that you will never 
know who is swimming naked until the tide goes out, and then it might 
not be very attractive. When the tide goes out with respect to this 
economy's difficulties and we evaluate who in the hedge funds, in the 
investment banks, who in all of these enterprises is left who cannot 
pay the bills because they were so unbelievably leveraged in financial 
interests most Americans have never heard of, credit default swaps, 
what are the consequences to our country's economy?
  If this does not sober up our Government on trade policy and fiscal 
policy and regulatory requirements with respect to hedge funds and 
derivatives, then nothing will. If this does not alert all of us that 
we are no longer operating behind a screen somehow--the world sees what 
is happening when there is a subprime loan scandal, the world 
understands it, and its consequences are felt all across this country 
and all across the globe.
  I understand we are going to do something called a stimulus package. 
We have a roughly $13 trillion-plus economy. We are going to do a 
stimulus package probably of $140 billion, $150 billion--1 percent of 
our economy. I understand the Federal Reserve has taken substantial 
action, 75 basis points yesterday. That is a big deal for the Fed, and 
I understand why. It is to try to calm the nerves and say this country 
stands behind its economy, and we should. I believe in this country's 
economy. This engine of opportunity and engine of growth is unusual in 
the world. On this planet, we circle the Sun, and there are about 6.4 
billion neighbors, half who live on less than $2 a day and half who 
have never made a telephone call, and we have the opportunity to live 
in this country. This is a wonderful place. We have built something 
unusual on this planet, but we have run into difficulty. No one seems 
to want to admit it, and we have to fix the fundamentals. Yes, we can 
do stimulative packages, but if we don't fix the fundamentals, we will 
not solve the problems for the future, we will not expand opportunity 
for the future.
  There is so much to say and so much to be concerned about, but there 
is so much hope for the future if--if--we understand that a stimulus 
package is not our only responsibility. We have to fix trade and fiscal 
policy, and regulatory responsibility. We need to begin regulating 
hedge funds and be concerned about the notional value of derivatives. 
If we do not start doing that, we are not going to fix this issue, and 
we are not going to have a better future.
  I feel very strongly, if we do what is right, that we can provide 
substantial opportunity for this country, but the right things will 
include much more than a stimulus package.
  Mr. President, I would like, in concluding my portion of morning 
business, I would like to talk about the underlying bill on the floor 
of the Senate, that is the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.
  I spoke yesterday at some length, but I wish to again talk a little 
bit about why we are here and what all this means because I think it is 
so important. Some might say: Well, why is there an Indian Health Care 
Improvement Act? Why not a Norwegian or a Lutheran Health Care 
Improvement Act?
  The Indian Health Care Improvement Act is designed that way, with 
that name, for a very specific reason. This country, for a long period 
of time, told American Indians: Look, we are going to take your land, 
we are going to force you to a reservation someplace, and we will write 
a treaty for you. Our treaty is going to tell you we are going to take 
care of your health care. We are going to meet our obligation. We have 
a trust responsibility for you.
  So we will take your land, we will move you off to reservations, but, 
trust us, we are going to provide for your health care because that is 
our trust responsibility. Chief Joseph from the Nez Perce Tribe said:

       Good words do not last unless they amount to something. 
     Words do not pay for dead people. Good words cannot give me 
     back my children. Good words will not give my people good 
     health and stop them from dying.

  He was concerned long ago about the inability of this country to keep 
its word on these trust responsibilities. We are here today because, 
finally, back in the early 1970s, President Nixon, President Ford, and 
every President succeeding them understood we have a trust 
responsibility for Indian health care. That is a fact.
  In 1970, President Nixon noted we had 30 licensed Native American 
physicians in all our country. Thirty. And we created back then a self-
determination policy. In 1976, President Ford signed into law the 
Indian Health Care Improvement Act. That is what we discuss today on 
the floor of the Senate.
  I spoke yesterday, and I wish to again briefly about the challenge. I 
have held a lot of listening sessions on Indian reservations, and, 
frankly, the challenges we face are daunting.
  Indian reservations see unbelievable health challenges. On a good 
many reservations, you will find one-half of the adult population who 
are suffering from diabetes. On the northern Great Plains, the rate of 
death from suicide among teenagers on Indian reservations is not double 
or triple, not 5 times the national average, but 10 times the national 
average of teen suicide.
  I have held hearings about that. I have sat down with Indian 
teenagers on an Indian reservation, no other adults present, to say: 
What is going on in

[[Page S162]]

your lives? What is happening? What is causing those clusters of 
suicides? There are so many problems of diabetes and suicide and so 
many other issues on reservations, dealing with health care. Part of it 
is because this system is so dramatically underfunded.
  I wish to mention Ardel Hale Baker. Ardel Hale Baker is a woman on an 
Indian reservation who allowed me to use her photograph. Ardel Hale 
Baker was having a heart attack, diagnosed as a heart attack at a 
clinic. She didn't want them to call an ambulance. The nearest hospital 
was an hour and a half, hour and three-quarters away. She was lucky she 
got to the clinic when it was opened because the clinic, I believe, is 
open from 9 o'clock until 5 o'clock or 4 o'clock, with an hour closed 
for lunch hour. It is not open on weekends, but that is the health care 
on that reservation.
  But she went there when the clinic was open. She was diagnosed as 
having a heart attack. She did not want them to call an ambulance 
because she knew that if the ambulance was not paid for by the Indian 
Health Service, she did not have any money and it would ruin her 
credit, because they would come after her.
  So they said: No matter what you want, you are getting an ambulance. 
They put her in an ambulance, drove her about an hour and three-
quarters to the nearest hospital. As they unloaded this woman from the 
ambulance gurney to a hospital gurney to pull her into the emergency 
room, they discovered a piece of paper attached to her thigh with a 
piece of tape.
  I want to show you the paper that was attached to the thigh of Ardel 
Hale Baker as she was being wheeled into a hospital with a diagnosis of 
a heart attack. This is from the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services. It is a letter attached to this woman's leg with masking 
tape. It says on the letter that: You should understand that you have 
received outpatient medical services from your doctor at so and so. And 
this letter is to inform you that your priority one care cannot be paid 
for at this time, due to funding issues.
  What they were saying is, as they wheeled this Indian woman into the 
emergency room, they were saying to the hospital: Understand this. That 
whatever care you give her is not going to be paid for, because we are 
out of contract health care funds.
  On that reservation, everyone knows the refrain: Do not get sick 
after June because they are out of contract health care funds. What 
does this do? Well, if they treat this woman, then they have a bill 
that they go after this woman on. She does not have the ability to pay 
it. So it ruins her credit rating quickly, just like that. I cannot 
tell you the number of adults I have run into on these reservations who 
have had their credit ratings ruined because contract health care would 
not pay for health care.
  They did not have the money. They were treated anyway, but then it 
ruined their credit rating. This is an example of what is happening 
over and over. It is happening today, on Wednesday.
  Yesterday, I spoke about a beautiful young woman named Ta'shon Rain 
Littlelight. I was on the Crow Reservation in Montana. And Ta'shon Rain 
Littlelight's grandmother stood up at a meeting on health care. And 
this little 5-year-old girl, with the bright eyes and the beautiful 
traditional dress, loved to dance at age 5. And she apparently was a 
good dancer.
  Ta'shon Rain Littlelight is dead. She lived the last 3 months of her 
life in unmedicated pain. This little girl was taken again and again 
and again and again to the Indian health clinic. And she was treated 
for depression. Depression.
  At one of the visits, her grandparents said: Well, she has a bulbous 
condition on her toes and her fingers which suggests maybe she is not 
getting oxygen or something else is wrong, can you check? Treated her 
for depression.
  One day she was airlifted to Billings, MT, to the hospital. In 
arriving at the hospital in Billings, MT, she was very quickly then 
airlifted to the Children's Hospital in Denver, CO, and diagnosed with 
terminal cancer.
  Now Ta'shon Rain Littlelight was a 5-year-old child. She would not 
have known the challenges of this issue of Indian health care. When 
diagnosed with a terminal illness, she told her mother what she wanted 
to do was to go see Cinderella's castle. And the Make-A-Wish Foundation 
folks made that happen.
  A few weeks later, she was in Orlando, FL. The night before she was 
to see Cinderella's castle, in the hotel room, in her mother's arms, 
she died.
  And Ta'shon Rain Littlelight told her mother that night before she 
died: Mommy, I will try to get better. Mommy, I am sorry I am sick.
  This little girl lived in unmedicated pain with an undiagnosed 
illness for many months. Would that have happened in our families? 
Would it?
  A woman goes to a doctor on an Indian reservation, with so much pain 
in her leg because her knee is bone-on-bone, unbelievable pain. And she 
is told: Wrap it in cabbage leaves for 4 days and it will be fine.
  The doctor who subsequently treated her off the reservation said it 
was unbelievable. This is the woman who had a knee condition with such 
unbelievable pain that any of us or our families would immediately have 
wanted to have a new knee, a replacement. But she was told to wrap it 
in cabbage leaves for 4 days and it will be okay.
  Now, if I sound angry about what is going on, I am. Because this 
country has a responsibility to do better. We have a responsibility for 
health care for two special groups of people. One, Federal prisoners 
whom we send, incarcerated, to Federal prisons because they have 
committed crimes. When they are in a Federal prison, it is our 
responsibility for their health care, and we provide it.
  We also have a responsibility because we promised and made a solemn 
trust oath to provide health care for American Indians. We even signed 
that into treaty after treaty. Now, all these years later, I find we 
are spending twice as much per person to provide health care for 
incarcerated Federal prisoners as we are to provide health care for 
American Indians.
  That is why Ta'shon Rain Littlelight loses her life or at least does 
not have the kind of care and diagnosis we would expect for ourselves 
or our families or other Americans. That is why we have to fix it.
  So having said all that I--I am sorry to go through it again--but I 
feel so strongly that this Congress has to take responsibility. Having 
said all that, there is much we can do. We have put together a piece of 
legislation that is 10 years too late. Ten years this Congress has 
delayed in reauthorizing this bill.
  Finally, we are on the floor of the Senate to reauthorize this bill. 
This legislation is not perfect. It is a step forward, a step in the 
right direction. One of my colleagues will come and say: I demand 
reform. Well, he cannot demand it more than I demand it. But if you 
cannot get the first step done, how are you going to talk about reform 
10 years after this should have been done?
  I am looking for amendments that can be brought to the floor that can 
strengthen this. I am for those amendments. As soon as this passes, our 
committee is going to immediately begin a much broader reform of Indian 
health care.
  But first and foremost, we have to move forward. We expand cancer 
diagnosis and treatments, we expand the opportunities for dialysis, we 
expand the opportunity for diabetes programs, we expand the 
opportunities to recruit doctors and nurses on Indian reservations. We 
do a lot of things in this bill that advance the interests of Indian 
health care.
  It is not all I would like to do, but it is a significant step 
forward, that will improve the lives of people who today are not 
getting what was expected and what was promised by this country. This 
country has a responsibility to meet this, and I am determined, 
somehow, someway, we are going to meet it.
  It appears, toward the end of this afternoon, the majority leader has 
indicated we have to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 
because we have a February 1 deadline on that. We likely will not get 
this bill done by the end of this afternoon. We will then turn to FISA 
and work on FISA, I believe, perhaps today, tomorrow, perhaps Friday 
and Saturday, according to the majority leader.
  But when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is completed, the 
majority leader told our caucus a bit ago, then we will pull this back 
on the floor and finish this piece of legislation.

[[Page S163]]

  So I ask my colleagues to come to the floor with amendments. Let us 
debate amendments, talk through amendments, improve this bill, if we 
can. But most importantly, let us get to the end, get it passed and 
have a conference with the House and, finally, after 10 long years, 
send this to the President for signature.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are attempting, with the two 
cloakrooms, to notify offices of Senators that we would like very much 
to find a way to get a list of the amendments that are intended to be 
offered.
  So if there are Senators who have amendments to this bill they intend 
to offer, we hope they would notify their cloakrooms so we can put a 
list together. We would like to make some progress. I do know the 
Republicans have an issues conference this afternoon, or perhaps all 
day. But I know they are now at an issues conference, I believe at a 
location on Capitol Hill. So I expect this bill will be carried over.
  But if we can have some amendments offered this afternoon, still we 
can debate these amendments, I would like to ask Senate offices if they 
have amendments, notify the cloakrooms so we can put them on a list and 
have some notion of what we need to do in order to get this bill 
completed.
  My understanding is the Senator from Vermont wishes to speak in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to continue for 
what will be a relatively short while as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota is absolutely 
right. Having managed a number of bills, I know that sometimes it is 
hard to get people with amendments to come forth. I hope they do. Once 
this bill is finished, we will go to the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act or, as we know it here, FISA. It is intended to 
protect both our national security and also the privacy and civil 
liberties of all Americans. We are considering amendments to that 
important act that will provide new flexibility to our intelligence 
community. We all support surveillance authority. With terrorists 
plotting against us and talking about it, we want to be able to use all 
the various electronic and other means to find out what they are 
saying. Unlike some in the administration who say we are dealing with 
an antiquated law, we have updated this act many times, probably 30 or 
more times since its historic passage after intelligence abuses of 
earlier decades.
  I came here 34 years ago. I well remember that this Nation was still 
reeling from the excesses of the COINTELPRO when people were being 
spied on by their Government simply because they disagreed with what 
the Government was doing; in this case, the war in Vietnam. We enacted 
FISA so we could do the legitimate thing of actually spying on people 
who wanted to do harm to the United States at the time of the Cold War, 
when we had adversaries all over the world. We also wanted to make sure 
that Americans who were minding their own business, not doing anything 
illegal, wouldn't be spied upon.
  We rushed the so-called Protect America Act through the Senate just 
before the August recess and with it were a number of excesses. They 
came about because the administration broke agreements it had reached 
with congressional leaders. The bill was hurriedly passed under intense 
partisan pressure from the administration. In fact, the pressure was so 
strong, they made it very clear why they were willing to break 
agreements with those Republicans and Democrats who had been working 
together to try to craft a bill that would protect America's interests 
but also protect the privacy of individual Americans.
  So we passed a bill that provides sweeping new powers to the 
Government to engage in surveillance, without a warrant, of 
international calls to and from the United States involving Americans, 
and it provided no meaningful protection for the privacy and civil 
liberties of the Americans who were on those calls. It could be an 
American calling a member of their family studying overseas. It could 
be a business person who, as they travel around to various companies 
they represent, ends up having their telephone calls intercepted.
  But before that flawed bill passed--the one that came about because 
of the broken agreements by the administration--Senator Rockefeller and 
I and several others in the House and Senate worked hard, in good faith 
with the administration, to craft legislation that solved an identified 
problem but, as I said, protected America's privacy and liberties.
  Just before the August recess the administration decided instead to 
ram through its version of the Protect America Act with excessive 
grants of Government authority and without any accountability or checks 
and balances. They did this after 6 years of breaking the law through 
secret warrantless wiretapping programs. It was one of the most 
egregious things I have seen in my 34 years in the Senate. First they 
violate the law, and then instead of being held accountable, they ram 
through a law designed to allow them to continue those actions. Some of 
us saw it for what it was and voted against it. Both Senators from 
Vermont voted against it. We are from a State that borders a foreign 
country. We are concerned about our security, but we are also concerned 
about our liberties and our privacy.
  We did manage to include 6-month sunset in the Protect America Act so 
we would have a chance to revisit this matter and do it right. The 
Senate Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee, as well as 
our House counterparts, have spent the past month considering changes. 
In the Senate Judiciary Committee we held open hearings. We had more 
briefings than I can even count and meetings with the administration, 
with people in the intelligence service, with people at the CIA, NSA, 
and others. We considered legislative language in a number of open 
business meetings where Senators from across the political spectrum 
could be heard. Then we reported a good bill to the Senate before 
Thanksgiving.
  The bill we are now considering will permit the Government, while 
targeting overseas, to review more Americans' communications with less 
court supervision than ever before. I support surveillance of those who 
might do us harm, but we also have to protect Americans' liberties. 
Attorney General Mukasey said at his nomination hearing that 
``protecting civil liberties, and people's confidence that those 
liberties are protected, is a part of protecting national security.'' 
Let me repeat what the new Attorney General said:

       Protecting civil liberties, and people's confidence that 
     those liberties are protected, is a part of protecting 
     national security.

  I agree with him. That is what the Judiciary Committee bill does. I 
commend the House of Representatives for passing a bill, the RESTORE 
Act, that takes a balanced approach to these issues and allows the 
intelligence community great flexibility to conduct surveillance of 
overseas targets but also provides oversight and protection for 
Americans' civil liberties. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 
has also worked hard. I know Chairman Rockefeller was as disappointed 
as I at the administration's partisan maneuvering just before the 
August recess. After being here through six administrations, it has 
always been my experience, with Republican or Democratic 
administrations at certain points, when you are negotiating a key piece 
of legislation with the administration, you have to rely on them to 
keep their word and be honest with you, as they have to rely on you to 
keep your word and be honest with them. Through six administrations, 34 
years, I can never remember a time where an administration was less 
truthful or flatly broke their word in the way this one did.

  I commended the efforts of Senator Rockefeller and those working with 
him. I do so again now. I believe both he and I want surveillance but 
we want

[[Page S164]]

surveillance with oversight and accountability within the law. I also 
want to praise our joint members. In the Judiciary Committee we have, 
by practice, a certain number of members who serve on both Judiciary 
and Intelligence for obvious reasons. The ranking member of Judiciary 
and I, of course, have access to a great deal of intelligence whenever 
we have requested it, but that is on an ongoing basis.
  Senators Feinstein, Feingold, and Whitehouse contributed so much to 
the work of the Judiciary Committee. They worked with me to author many 
of the additional protections we adopted and reported. They had worked 
on the bill in the Intelligence Committee and then worked with us. 
These Senators and others on the Judiciary Committee worked hard to 
craft amendments that will preserve the basic structure and authority 
proposed in the bill reported by the Select Committee on Intelligence, 
but then they added those crucial protections for Americans, the part 
the Judiciary Committee, because of our oversight of courts, worries 
about.
  I believe we need to do more than the bill initially reported by the 
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence does to protect the rights of 
Americans. I know the chairman of that committee joins with me to 
support many of the Judiciary Committee's improvements.
  Let me cite briefly what they are. The Judiciary bill, for example, 
makes clear that the Government cannot claim authority to operate 
outside the law outside of FISA--by alluding to other legislative 
measures never intended to provide that authority.
  I will give you an example of what happened. The House and the Senate 
passed an authorization for the use of military force. We did this 
right after September 11. It was authorization to go in and capture 
Osama bin Laden--the man who engineered 9/11, is still loose, and 
taunts us periodically. But what happened? The administration was so 
hellbent on getting into Iraq that when they had Osama bin Laden 
cornered, they withdrew their forces and let him get away so they could 
invade Iraq--a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Now 
they say that authorization allowed them to wiretap Americans without a 
warrant. I have heard some strange, convoluted, cockamamie arguments 
before in my life. This one takes the cake.
  I introduced a resolution on this in the last Congress when we first 
heard this canard. We authorized going after Osama bin Laden, but the 
Senate did not authorize--explicitly or implicitly--the warrantless 
wiretapping of Americans. By their logic, they could also say we 
authorized the warrantless search of the distinguished Presiding 
Officer's home or my home. This body did no such thing, but the 
administration still is clinging to their phony legal argument.
  The Judiciary bill would prevent that dangerous contention with 
strong language that reaffirms that the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act is the exclusive means for conducting electronic 
surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes.
  The Judiciary Committee's amendment would also provide a more 
meaningful role for the FISA court to oversee this new surveillance 
authority. The FISA court is a critical independent check on Government 
excess in the sensitive area of electronic surveillance. The 
administration claims that of course the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance court can look at what they are doing, they just don't 
want the court to be able to do anything about it. No. The Judiciary 
Committee says the court should be able to look at what they are doing 
and should be able to stop them if they are breaking the law. In this 
Nation we fought a revolution over 200 years ago to have that right.

  With the authority of a majority of the Judiciary Committee members, 
I am going to offer a revised version of the Committee's amendment that 
makes some changes to address technical issues and also to address some 
of the claims the administration has made about our substitute.
  For example, in response to concerns raised by the administration in 
its Statement of Administration Policy, we have revised the exclusivity 
provision to ensure that we are not overextending the scope of FISA. We 
have also revised the provision concerning stay of decisions of the 
FISA Court pending appeal, the provision clarifying that the bill does 
not permit bulk collection of communications into or out of the United 
States, and a few other provisions.
  I believe these revisions make the Judiciary Committee's product even 
stronger, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Now, in the bill we have a title I, a title II. Title II in the 
Intelligence bill talks about retroactive immunity. We do not address 
that in the Judiciary Committee's bill, but I do strongly oppose the 
bill reported by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in that 
area. Their bill would grant blanket retroactive immunity to 
telecommunications carriers for their warrantless surveillance 
activities from 2001 through earlier this year. This surveillance was 
contrary to FISA and violated the privacy rights of Americans.
  The administration violated FISA for more than 5 years. They got 
caught. If they had not gotten caught, they probably would still be 
doing it. But when the public found out about the President's illegal 
surveillance of Americans, the administration and the telephone 
companies were sued by citizens who believe their privacy and their 
rights were violated.
  Now the administration is trying to get this Congress to terminate 
those lawsuits. It is not that they are worried about the telephone 
companies. They are not as concerned about the telephone companies as 
they are about insulating themselves from accountability.
  This is an administration that does not want us to ask them anything, 
and they do not want to tell us anything. Interesting policy. If you do 
ask them, they are not going to tell you. If they do tell you, it 
appears oftentimes they do not tell you the truth.
  Now, the rule of law is fundamental to our system. It has helped us 
maintain the greatest democracy we have ever seen in our lifetimes. But 
in conducting warrantless surveillance, the administration showed 
flagrant disrespect for the rule of law. It is like the King of France, 
who once said: ``L'Etat, c'est moi.'' ``The state is me.'' They are 
saying: What we want to do is what we will do. And if we want to do it, 
the law is irrelevant.
  I cannot accept that.
  The administration relied on legal opinions that were prepared in 
secret and shown only to a tiny group of like-minded officials who made 
sure they got the advice they wanted--advice that, when it saw the 
light of day, people said: How could anybody possibly write a legal 
memorandum like that?
  Jack Goldsmith, who came in briefly to head the Justice Department's 
Office of Legal Counsel, described the program as a ``legal mess.'' He 
is a conservative Republican. He looked at this and said: It is a legal 
mess. Now, the administration does not want a court to get a chance to 
look at this legal mess. Retroactive immunity would assure that they 
get their wish and that nobody could ask how and why they broke the 
law.
  Frankly, I do not believe anybody is above the law. I do not believe 
a President is, I do not believe a Senator is, I do not believe anybody 
is.
  I do not believe that Congress can or should seek to take rights and 
legal claims from those already harmed. I support the efforts of 
Senators Specter and Whitehouse to use the legal concept of 
substitution to place the Government in the shoes of the private 
defendants who acted at its behest and to let it assume full 
responsibility for the illegal conduct.
  Although my preference, of course, is to allow the lawsuits to go 
forward as they are, I believe the substitution alternative is 
effective. It is far preferable to retroactive immunity, and it allows 
this country to find out what happened.
  Keep in mind why we have FISA. Congress passed that law only after we 
discovered the abuses of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. Through the COINTEL 
Program, Hoover spied on Americans who objected and spoke out against 
the war in Vietnam--which pretty well involved 100 percent of the 
Vermont delegation in Congress.
  It is like the Department of Defense today that is going around 
videotaping Quakers protesting the war. Quakers

[[Page S165]]

always protest the war. But this administration seems to think, if you 
disagree with them, somehow you are an enemy of the country and they 
can justify spying on you. That is why we put these laws in place. Is 
memory so short around here? Is memory so short or are we so frightened 
by 9/11 that we are willing to throw away everything this country 
fought for and everything that has made this country survive as long as 
it has?
  We were told this building was targeted by terrorists. I proudly come 
into this building every day to go to work. It is the highlight of my 
life, other than my wife and my family. But I come in here because I 
believe 100 Members of the Senate can be the conscience of the Nation. 
We can protect Americans' rights, we can protect those things that our 
forefathers fought a revolution for, that we fought a civil war to 
protect, that we fought two World Wars to protect. Now we are going to 
throw it away because of a group of terrorists? This is ``Alice in 
Wonderland.''
  So as we debate these issues, let's keep in mind the reason we have 
FISA in the first place. As I said, back in the 1970s we learned the 
painful lesson that powerful surveillance tools, without adequate 
oversight or the checks and balances of judicial review, lead to abuses 
of the rights of the American people.
  So I hope this debate will provide us with an opportunity to show the 
American people what we stand for. We can show them that we will do all 
we can to secure their future, but at the same time protect their 
cherished rights and freedoms. Those are the rights and freedoms that 
protected past generations and allowed us to have a future. If we do 
not protect them, what will our children and grandchildren have?
  It is incumbent upon us to stand up for this country. When you stand 
up for this country, it does not mean jingoism, it does not mean 
sloganeering. It means protecting what is best for this country. If we 
do that, the terrorists will not win. The United States of America 
wins. The people who rely on us around the world will win. Our example 
will be one they will want to follow.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             The FISA Bill

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I know that both chairmen, Senator 
Leahy of Judiciary and Senator Rockefeller of Intelligence, are coming 
to the floor to speak on the FISA bill. I wish to take this 
opportunity, as a member of both those committees, to speak about two 
amendments I will offer when the time is appropriate. This is in 
morning business and, therefore, I cannot offer them at this time.
  The first amendment will deal with a new question, and that question 
is: court review of telecom immunity. Let me explain what that means. 
First, this amendment is submitted on behalf of Senators Bill Nelson, 
Cardin, and myself. Senator Nelson is on the Intelligence Committee. 
Senator Cardin is on the Judiciary Committee. I have also worked with 
Senator Whitehouse on this, though I believe he is going in a slightly 
different direction.
  As Members know, the bill before us provides full retroactive 
immunity for electronic service providers--that is the legal language--
that are alleged to have provided assistance as part of the Terrorist 
Surveillance Program. The amendment I am offering creates a judicial 
review by putting forth the issue of whether immunity should be granted 
before the FISA Court. There would be no immunity for any individual, 
private or public official--that is in the underlying bill--or any 
other company other than electronic service providers.
  So the immunity provision in the Intelligence bill only relates to 
those providers of electronic surveillance--no one else and no other 
company. I hear talk this would apply to Blackwater. It does not. This 
is strictly for electronic surveillance.
  The FISA Court has the most experience with FISA practice and 
surveillance law. It has an unblemished record for protecting national 
security secrets. It has 11 judges. They sit 24/7. It has an appellate 
branch, and it is knowledgeable and skilled in intelligence matters.
  Under the amendment, there would be a narrowly tailored three-part 
review. First, the FISA Court would determine whether a 
telecommunications company provided the assistance alleged in the cases 
against them. If not, those cases are dismissed.
  Second, if assistance was provided, the court would determine whether 
the letter sent by the Government to the telecommunications company met 
the requirements of 18 USC 2511. That is part of the FISA law. If they 
did, the companies would be shielded from lawsuits.
  Let me tell you quickly what that law says. That law, in 
2511(2)(a)(ii)(A) and (ii)(B), allows for a certification in writing by 
a person specified in section 2518(7) of this title--which means the 
Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, 
or by the principal prosecuting attorney of any State or subdivision 
thereof acting pursuant to a statute of that State who reasonably 
determines that a series of conditions are met: that an emergency 
situation exists, immediate danger of death or physical injury to any 
person, conspiratorial activity threatening the national security 
interest or conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized 
crime.
  All those provisions, in one way or another, did exist. So a 
certification in writing under section 2511 must be by one of the 
people I enumerated, or by the Attorney General of the United States, 
and say that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all 
statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance 
is required. Then there are some provisions setting forth the period of 
time during which the provision of the information, facilities, 
technical assistance is authorized, et cetera. That is the law.
  So the question is: Were the certifications provided adequate under 
this law that I have read? If they were, the companies would be 
shielded from lawsuits.
  The third part is the hardest. In any case where the defendant 
company did provide assistance but did not have a certification that 
complied with the sections I have read in 2511, the FISA Court would 
assess whether the company acted in good faith, as is the standard 
under common law. The FISA Court would determine whether the company 
had an objectively reasonable belief that compliance with the 
Government's written request or directives for assistance were lawful.
  In the underlying bill, all the cases against the phone companies 
will be dismissed as long as the Attorney General can tell the court 
that the Federal Government assured the companies that the assistance 
it was seeking was legally permitted. That is the way it works in the 
underlying bill. Under this formulation, there is no court review of 
whether the assistance was, in fact, legal and adequate under the law 
or whether the companies had an objectively reasonable belief they were 
legal. This is a major shortcoming of any legislative or executive 
grant of immunity.
  I thought this when I voted for the immunity provision in 
Intelligence. I had hoped it would be revised in the Judiciary 
Committee. I hadn't come upon this solution until I discussed it at 
length with Senator Whitehouse and also with several professors of law 
and also with a Member of the House of Representatives. Then I thought, 
I wonder if this is a way to handle the immunity question that is fair 
and objective and handled by a court that is trained and deals with 
these matters on a continuing basis. I believe it is.
  There are many Senators who believe the immunity provision should be 
taken out wholesale and that the current court case should continue. 
That is why I have introduced this amendment with Senators Nelson and 
Cardin, which puts before the Senate a court review option. This 
amendment would allow phone companies to receive the immunity they are 
seeking, but only if the independent review by

[[Page S166]]

the FISA Court determines whether the assistance that was provided is 
lawful on its face or the companies had a good-faith, objectively 
reasonable belief that it was in fact lawful.
  The arguments run hot and heavy on both sides of the immunity 
question. They may well prevent the successful passage of a bill by 
both Houses. Here is some history, though.
  Shortly after September 11, 2001, the Government reached out to 
telecommunications companies to request their assistance in what has 
become known as the terrorist surveillance program. Within 5 weeks of 
9/11, letters were sent from senior Government officials to these 
companies that put a governmental directive by the executive branch, 
and these letters were sent every 30 to 45 days to the telecoms, from 
October of 2001 to January of 2007, when the program was, in fact, put 
under FISA Court orders.
  Only a very small number of people in these companies had the 
security clearances to be allowed to read and evaluate these letters or 
directives. And then even they could only discuss the legal 
ramifications internally. They could not go out and get other opinions 
and vet it. That is a fact.
  We also know that at the time the requests and directives were made, 
there was an ongoing acute national threat. The administration was 
warning that more attacks might be imminent, and we now know there was 
a plot to launch a second wave of attacks against the west coast. In 
such an environment, I believe, and I think most of us believe, the 
private sector should help the Government when it is legal to do so. In 
fact, we should want the private sector to do all it can to help 
protect our Nation.
  In addition, there has been a longstanding principle in common law 
that if the Government asks a private party for help and makes such 
assurances the help is legal, the person or company should be allowed 
to provide assistance without fear of being held liable.
  One would think this should especially be true in the case of 
protecting our Nation's security.
  However, this is not a situation that had not been contemplated or 
prepared for. Congress passed FISA and included language in that 
statute to address such situations regarding how and when the Federal 
Government may seek assistance from private companies when conducting 
electronic surveillance, where there is no court warrant. Those are the 
sections I have read to you. In fact, the law is very clear on this and 
under what circumstances a telecommunications company may provide such 
information and services to the Government, again, as I have indicated.
  Assistance can always be provided when there is a court warrant. In 
this case, unfortunately, the administration did not even attempt to 
get a FISA Court warrant. It essentially dismissed FISA out of hand as 
a remedy. That is most unfortunate. The question comes, should the 
telecoms be blamed for that? I think that is something we need to 
grapple with.
  The administration could have gone to the FISA Court. It chose under 
its article II power or its misinterpretation of the AUMF that it would 
not do that. Is that the responsibility of the telecoms?
  As I have said, under United States Code, title 18, section 2511, the 
sections I have read, assistance may be provided without warrant if the 
Government provides a certification in writing that ``no warrant or 
court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have 
been met, and that the specified assistance is required.'' That is the 
law.
  With that said, I have read the letters that were sent to the telecom 
companies every 30 to 45 days for several years requesting assistance 
and providing legal assurances. No one can say now with legal certainty 
that the certification requirements of section 2511 were or were not 
met. I believe this is a question that should be addressed by a Federal 
court, and I further believe that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Court is the court to do it.
  The administration has had its own view that article II of the 
Constitution provided the President with the authority to conduct 
international electronic surveillance outside the law, as long as it 
complied with the Fourth Amendment. To what extent the phone companies 
relied on this legal theory I do not know, nor does anyone else at this 
time, I believe.
  But the companies have a reasonable argument. They relied on written 
assurances in which the Attorney General, the top law enforcement 
officer of the country, said their assistance was lawful. They were not 
able to do due diligence because of security limitations. We have no 
way of knowing the full content of their deliberations regarding 
article II authority of the President, despite testimony they have 
given to us on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.
  In addition, these companies face serious, potentially 
extraordinarily costly, litigation and are unable at the present time 
to defend themselves in court or in public because of the Government's 
use of the state secrets defense. This places the companies in a 
fundamentally unfair place. Individuals and groups have made 
allegations to which the companies cannot answer, nor can they respond 
to what they believe are misstatements of fact and untruths.
  I asked the companies, when somebody opposed to their position came 
to testify before a committee of the other body: Why don't you testify 
and respond? They said: Because our hands are tied; we cannot.
  So today we are in a situation that creates a difficult and 
consequential problem for Congress to address. The way Senator Nelson 
of Florida and Senator Cardin and I see this is that the question of 
whether telecommunications companies should receive immunity hinges on 
whether the letters the Government sent to these companies meet the 
requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2511. If not, did the companies have a good-
faith reason to believe there was a lawful reason to comply? In other 
words, we should not grant immunity if companies were willingly and 
knowingly violating the law.
  I believe the best solution is to allow an independent court, skilled 
in intelligence matters, to review the applicable law and determine 
whether the requirements of the law or the common law principle were, 
in fact, met. If they were, the companies would receive immunity. If 
not, they would not.
  I wish to briefly speak on the second amendment which I will broach 
at the appropriate time, and that is the question of exclusivity. This 
amendment is cosponsored by both chairmen, Senators Rockefeller and 
Leahy, Senators Nelson, Whitehouse, Wyden, Hagel, Menendez, and Snowe. 
I will describe it briefly.
  We add language to reinforce the existing FISA exclusivity language 
in Title 18 by making that language part of the FISA bill which is 
codified in Title 50. The second provision answers the so-called AUMF, 
the authorization to use military force, resolution loophole. The 
administration has argued that the authorization of military force 
against al-Qaida and the Taliban implicitly authorized warrantless 
electronic surveillance. My amendment states that only an express 
statutory authorization for electronic surveillance in future 
legislation shall constitute an additional authority outside of FISA. 
This makes clear that only specific future law that provides an 
exception to FISA can supersede FISA.
  Third, the amendment makes a similar change to the penalty section of 
FISA. Currently, FISA says it is a criminal penalty to conduct 
electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute. This amendment 
replaces the general language with a prohibition on any electronic 
surveillance except as authorized by FISA by the corresponding parts of 
title 18 that govern domestic criminal wiretapping or any future 
express statutory authorization for surveillance.
  And finally, the amendment requires more clarity in a certification 
that the Government provides to a telecom company when it requests 
assistance for surveillance and there is no court order.
  Remember, on the question of immunity, we have existing law. The law 
I read earlier is vague and it is subject to interpretation. The 
question is whether we do the interpretation or whether a proper 
authority does the interpretation which, of course, is a court of law, 
namely, in this case, the FISA Court.
  Currently, certifications must say under 18 U.S.C. 2511 that all 
statutory

[[Page S167]]

requirements for assistance must be met. The telecom official receiving 
that certification is not given any specifics on what those statutory 
requirements are, so the company cannot conduct its own legal review.

  This amendment would require that if the assistance is based on 
statutory authorization, the certification must specify what provision 
in law provides that authority and that the conditions of that 
provision have been met.
  I believe our amendment will strengthen the exclusivity of FISA, and 
I believe it is absolutely critical. Without this, we leave the door 
open for future violations of FISA.
  When FISA was first enacted in 1978, there was a big debate between 
the Congress and the executive branch over whether the President was 
bound by law. We have had a repeat of that debate over the past 2 years 
since learning of the existence of the terrorist surveillance program. 
But the end result of the debate in the 1970s was clear. FISA was 
established as the exclusive means by which the Government may conduct 
electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, period. FISA 
was meant to be exclusive, and section 2511(f) of title 18 of the 
United States Code states that it is, in fact, the exclusive authority 
for domestic criminal wiretapping and that ``the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which 
electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such act, and the 
interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may 
be conducted for foreign intelligence purposes.''
  The legislative history is clear--ignored, but clear. In stating that 
``FISA would prohibit the President, notwithstanding any inherent 
powers, from violating the terms of that legislation,'' the 1978 report 
language was a clear statement of the intent of the Congress at that 
time, just as this amendment is now.
  Congress also wrote in 1978 that in terms of authority for conducting 
surveillance, ``FISA does not simply leave Presidential powers where it 
finds them. To the contrary. The bill substitutes a clear legislative 
authorization pursuant to statutory, not constitutional, standards.''
  President Carter signed the 1978 bill. His signing statement said 
this:

       This bill requires for the first time a prior judicial 
     warrant for all

  In italics--

     all electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence or 
     counterintelligence purposes in the United States in which 
     communications of U.S. persons might be intercepted.

  So it is crystal clear on its face that FISA was the only legal 
authority under which the President could proceed when he authorized 
the ``Terrorist Surveillance Program'' after September 11. He chose not 
to. And this is where the issue becomes joined, I believe, one day 
before the highest Court of the land: whether the President's Article 
II power essentially still supersedes these clear statements of 
legislative intent and clear drafting of law over many decades.
  To make matters worse, the administration claimed and still does 
claim that the resolution to authorize the use of force against al-
Qaida and the Taliban provided authority to institute the Terrorist 
Surveillance Program. It does not.
  I do not know one Member of Congress who believes they voted for the 
TSP when they voted to authorize the use of force. It was never 
contemplated, and I was present at many of those discussions, in 
private and in public. It was never considered.
  In fact, FISA allows for 15 days of warrantless surveillance 
following a declaration of war. So Congress in 1978 had spoken on the 
issue of wartime authorities, and it did not leave open the possibility 
of open-ended warrantless surveillance.
  Then the Department of Justice came to the Congress in September of 
2001 with the PATRIOT Act. The legislation included numerous changes 
needed to FISA to wage this new war, but the administration did not 
request changes that would allow the TSP, the Terrorist Surveillance 
Program, to function lawfully. Nor did the administration express the 
limitations on FISA surveillance that the TSP was created to overcome.
  In effect, we have a claim from this administration, which has never 
been recanted, that the President has the authority to conduct 
surveillance outside of FISA. We are spending enormous time and effort 
to rewrite FISA, but there is no guarantee that the President will not 
again authorize some new surveillance program outside the law. That is 
why those of us who put this amendment together have taken so much time 
to write strong exclusivity language right into this law.
  When I have asked the Director of National Intelligence about this, 
he has said that with the new FISA authorities in this bill, the 
intelligence community wouldn't need to go outside of FISA. I would 
like to find comfort in this response, but I don't, and that is why I 
am offering this exclusivity amendment.
  The President does not have the right to collect the content of 
Americans' communications without obeying the governing law, and that 
law is FISA.
  I recognize the administration disagrees with me on this point. The 
White House believes the President's Article II authority allows him to 
conduct intelligence surveillance regardless of what Congress 
legislates. I disagree.
  However, we are not going to resolve that question. As I said, 
ultimately it is for the Supreme Court to decide. But here now we must 
make the strongest case that the only authority for electronic 
surveillance is FISA, and we must again be as clear as possible exactly 
when FISA authorizes such surveillance.
  That is our function under article I of the Constitution.
  Let me say, however, despite the fundamental differences of views 
over separation of powers, this amendment has been carefully negotiated 
with officials at the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director 
of National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency. The 
executive branch has not raised operational problems or concerns with 
this language.
  This exclusivity amendment will not affect ongoing or planned 
surveillance operations. Of course, I should also say clearly that the 
executive branch does not support the language. They do not want FISA 
to be the exclusive authority. But, legislatively, that has been the 
intention of this Congress since 1978.
  I have tried to perform my due diligence on this whole terrorist 
surveillance program and the FISA issue since the news of the 
warrantless surveillance broke in December of 2005. I have become 
convinced that without strong exclusivity language such as provided in 
this amendment, another Congress in the future will be faced with 
exactly the same thing we are now.
  I will repeat what I said in December: I cannot support a bill that 
does not clearly reestablish the primacy of FISA. We took the first 
step with very modest language in the Intelligence Committee. The 
Judiciary Committee passed very strong language, but unfortunately it 
has not been added to the bill before us. Both committee chairmen have 
cosponsored this amendment, as well as the others I have listed. The 
Department of Justice and the intelligence community have thoroughly 
reviewed the amendment. There is no operational impact. I hope we end 
the question once and for all whether the President can go around the 
law.
  At the appropriate time, I will move this amendment, and I hope it 
will be accepted by this body, as well as the court review of the 
immunity amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCASKILL). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, this afternoon the Republicans have held 
an issues conference; in fact, I believe for most of the day. As a 
result, they have not been here today to engage in discussion on the 
Indian Health Care Improvement Act. I just finished speaking with 
Senator Murkowski, vice chairman of the committee. We talked about the 
bill. She has played a significant role as vice chairman in bringing

[[Page S168]]

this Indian health care improvement bill to the floor. We both would 
like those who have amendments to provide notice to us of their 
amendments.
  Our cloakrooms have asked for a list of amendments so that we may 
process them. It appears, based on what the majority leader indicated, 
that we will at some point today, perhaps in the next hour or two, turn 
to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The reason for that is, 
there is a deadline of February 1 by which that Act has to be renewed. 
It expires and we have to take action to renew it. It will be 
controversial and cause quite a debate. So what the majority leader has 
indicated is that he will turn to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act, and we will be on that tonight, tomorrow, perhaps Friday and 
Saturday--who knows?--and that following completion of that, he will 
bring the Indian health care improvement bill back to the floor.
  My appreciation to the majority leader, he is trying to balance some 
difficult things. He, for the first time in 10 years, decided we should 
do what we should have done in the last 10 years, and that is 
reauthorize Indian health care.
  We have a scandal in Indian health care with full scale rationing. 
Only 40 percent of health care needs are being met. We have people 
dying today on reservations because health care that we take for 
granted for our families, many of us, is not being made available on 
Indian reservations. I thank Senator Reid for allowing us to come to 
the floor and putting this in the schedule. When it is pulled from the 
floor to go to FISA, it will be brought back next week or when FISA is 
completed. I appreciate that.
  I notice my colleague from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, is here. 
Senator Johnson and I share the Standing Rock Sioux Indian reservation 
that straddles our boundary of North and South Dakota. It is a large 
reservation. Both of us have been there many times. South Dakota has a 
number of other Indian reservations. Senator Johnson, as a member of 
the committee, has done superb work with us to put this legislation 
together. I appreciate his help and his attention to what is an urgent 
priority for American Indians, to get the health care this country long 
ago promised. We wrote it in treaties. We have a trust responsibility. 
That responsibility is affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United 
States. Yet we have had broken promises and broken treaties. At long 
last we must affirm our responsibility to say to Native Americans: It 
is our responsibility. We assumed that responsibility to provide decent 
and good health care, health care we can be proud of for Native 
Americans. That is what this discussion is about.
  Because I have seen my colleague from South Dakota come into the 
Chamber, I did want to say a special thanks to him. I know my 
colleague, Senator Murkowski, and other Republicans and Democrats on 
the committee worked hard. We all worked together--it was bipartisan--
in getting this bill to the floor. Senator Johnson, over a long period 
of time, has worked to make this day happen. Let me thank him for his 
great work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, I am here to speak in favor of the 
Indian Health Care Improvement Act. To the nine treaty tribes in my 
State, and hundreds of others around the country, this bill is truly a 
matter of life and death. It is a sad fact that the six counties in 
America with the lowest life expectancy are tribal counties in South 
Dakota.
  Poor health care affects not only life expectancy but also the 
quality of life for American Indians; it is also preventable. My office 
gets hundreds of calls from constituents needing help with even the 
most basic needs that ought to be met by the Indian Health Service.
  For example, Butch Artichoker from the Rosebud Sioux Tribe told my 
office he did not want to have a cancer test because he would not be 
able to get contract health treatment from IHS if the test was 
positive. His situation is not unique.
  Another man from Pine Ridge contacted my office after receiving the 
results of a cancer test that showed his PSA levels were ten times 
above normal. He could not get a referral for a treatment MRI because, 
according to IHS, his cancer was not a priority one--threat to life or 
limb.
  I am a cancer survivor myself thanks to early screening and 
detection, which are paramount for effective treatment. This is also 
true for mental health problems and many other treatable disorders. 
Passing this bill will not fix every health problem facing Indian 
Country, but it is a major step that we need to take.
  I returned from my own health challenges with a better appreciation 
of what individuals and families go through when they face the hardship 
of catastrophic health issues.
  Providing better health care through IHS will serve not just American 
Indians but protect the overall public health network for my State and 
the rest of the country.
  IHS is a vital part of the patchwork of providers that serve our 
State and when one of these providers improves, the entire system 
benefits. This is not just a tribal issue or an Indian bill, but a 
moral issue for individuals and families as well as the integrity of my 
State and our country.
  I thank Senator Dorgan for his leadership and persistence. I ask that 
my colleagues quickly pass this bill, as these improvements to Indian 
health care are long overdue.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I rise in strong support of S. 1200, 
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 2007, which will reauthorize, 
improve, and expand necessary health care services and programs for the 
Native American population. I thank Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member 
Murkowski of the committee for their leadership on this legislation. I 
also thank my colleagues on the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus and 
Ranking Member Grassley, for their leadership and contribution. The 
work we have done in the last year and the debate we will have this 
week is a debate that is long overdue.
  It has been 16 years since Congress conducted a comprehensive review 
of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, 16 years since we addressed 
the persistent health disparities in Native American communities across 
the Nation.
  This bill is vital to millions of Native Americans across the 
country, including the 52,000 Native Americans who reside in my State 
of Colorado.
  Colorado is home to two sovereign American Indian nations: the Ute 
Mountain Ute Tribe and the Southern Ute Tribe. They are located in the 
southwestern part of Colorado. But as we must remember--and my 
colleagues have alluded to this in this week's debate--the majority of 
Native Americans across this country, including in Colorado, do not 
live on the reservations. In Colorado, members of 35 different tribal 
nations live in the urban, suburban, and rural communities of my State, 
from Durango to Denver.
  It is hard for us in this Chamber and in America to overstate the 
contributions of Native Americans to our economy, our society, our 
culture, and our history.
  In my State, the Utes are the oldest known continuous residents of 
Colorado. The earliest Ute tribes traveled along the eastern slope of 
the Rocky Mountains before settling in Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico. 
In western Colorado, they hunted, gathered, and worked the lands, often 
moving with the seasons to better climates to better their 
possibilities of livelihood. The Spanish arrived in the Southwest--in 
Colorado and New Mexico--in the late 1500s--in the 1630s and 1640s--and 
in the beginning, they became the trading partners for the Utes, 
exchanging tools for meats and fur.
  What followed that chapter is a set of very sad chapters in Colorado 
and the United States. It was a set of sad chapters characterized by 
violence, retaliation, and tragedy, much of it at the hands of the 
Federal Government.
  Over the next few decades, under pressure from the Federal 
Government,

[[Page S169]]

the Utes would enter into agreements to establish reservations, but 
this included giving up very large sections of their land. While a 
small part of that land was ultimately returned to the Utes in the two 
reservations that were set up in Colorado and the one that was set up 
in Utah, the modern-day reservations are the result of various 
Government actions, encroachment by settlers, and mining interests that 
ultimately limited the two tribes in Colorado to a small percentage of 
the reservations that were originally contemplated for the Ute Indians 
before the existing reservations were established.
  The issues confronting Native American communities today are 
inextricably tied to this history. The Federal Government's 
responsibility to Native American communities is likewise tied to this 
very difficult and painful history.
  But this week, under the leadership of Chairman Dorgan, we hope to 
write another chapter into this history. We hope to take another step 
toward making good on the Federal Government's promise to improve 
health care for Native Americans.
  The health care statistics for Native American communities do not 
lie, and they are troubling. They should be troubling to all of us here 
in America. The infant mortality rate is 150 percent greater for Native 
Americans than that of Caucasian infants. Native Americans are 2.6 
times more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes. Life expectancy for 
Native Americans is 6 years less than the rest of the U.S. population. 
Suicide rates--suicide rates--for Native Americans are 250 percent 
higher than the national average.
  The health care disparities we see throughout the country are also 
evident in my State of Colorado. In 2006--that was not too long ago--
5.5 percent of Native Americans died from diabetes, more than twice the 
rate of the general population. In the same year, 3.9 percent of Native 
Americans died from chronic liver disease, compared with 1.6 percent 
for the general population.
  For many Native Americans, access to health care is the biggest 
challenge they face as human beings. I have heard countless stories of 
individuals, Native Americans in my State, who are sick or are in pain 
and have to drive hundreds of miles to receive any kind of treatment. 
When they get there, after having driven sometimes 9 hours, they will 
find that the clinic cannot provide them the treatment they seek. Those 
services, they learn, are in hospitals located hundreds of miles away.
  Access problems affect not only Native Americans on reservations that 
span hundreds of miles but Native Americans living in urban areas as 
well.
  For the 25,000 Native Americans living in Denver, CO, today, there is 
only 1 health care facility that is available to meet their health care 
needs. That is the Denver Indian Health and Family Services facility. 
This facility is funded by the Indian Health Service program through 
funding allocated through title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement 
Act, which provides funding for urban health centers for Native 
Americans.
  The Denver Indian Health and Family Services began providing health 
care onsite to Native Americans living in the Denver metro area in 
1978. The majority of its patients are single parents, making an 
average of $621 per month--$621 per month. That is a total of 
approximately $7,400 a year. That is not a lot of money for any family. 
When a patient needs specialized treatment, however, they often have to 
travel 6, 7, 8, 9 hours to places such as Rapid City, SD, or 
Albuquerque, NM. This is a long trip for anyone, particularly if they 
are sick or injured.

  The U.S. Government has a longstanding and solemn responsibility to 
the Native American population of our country. That responsibility is 
set forth and recognized in treaties, statutes, U.S. Supreme Court 
cases, agreements, and in our U.S. Constitution. It is a trust 
responsibility that flows from Native Americans' relinquishment of over 
500 million acres of land to the United States of America. Native 
Americans see the reauthorization of this health care bill as part of 
the U.S. Government living up to its end of the bargain with tribal 
governments. And they are right.
  The disparities in health care between Native Americans and the 
general population is a real problem, and it is one Congress has a 
responsibility to address. I am proud of the bill we are considering 
today because it takes major steps toward reducing the health care 
disparities that persist in Native American communities.
  Although appropriations for IHS have traditionally fallen far short 
of the actual health care needed in Indian Country, the focus on 
preventive care in current reauthorization legislation will make more 
efficient use of the Indian Health Service's limited resources.
  Difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified health 
professionals have long been recognized as a significant factor 
impairing Native Americans' access to health care services. The 
programs authorized in this bill will help recruit Native Americans 
into the health care profession. Additionally, this bill provides for 
health education in schools, mammography and other screenings for 
cancer, and helps cover the cost of patient travel to receive health 
care services. Additionally, this legislation removes barriers and 
increases participation and access to Medicare and Medicaid Program 
benefits.
  Title V of this legislation would also fund programs in urban centers 
to ensure that health services are accessible and available to Native 
Americans living in cities across the country, such as Denver, CO. Key 
programs include immunization, behavioral health, alcohol and substance 
abuse programs, and diabetes prevention, treatment, and control.
  In addition to reauthorizing and expanding existing programs, this 
legislation will ensure that Native Americans are able to take full 
advantage of new technologies and new Federal programs that have 
emerged since the last reauthorization, including Medicare Part D and 
the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Indian health programs 
should work hand-in-glove with these new programs and new resources.
  Native Americans in the United States of America deserve access to a 
21st-century health care system.
  I again thank my colleagues, Senator Dorgan, the chairman of the 
committee, and Senator Murkowski, for their bipartisan leadership on 
this very important legislation and for their tireless leadership for 
Native American communities across the country.
  I hope my colleagues will support this bill. We need to get this bill 
to the President's desk as soon as possible.
  In conclusion, as we look at the United States of America, we see an 
America that is an America that has a covenant about being an America 
in progress. We see it in a number of different ways--in the ways which 
we have treated women and other racial or ethnic minorities. But there 
is a sad and painful story to this America in progress that is 
particularly poignant when you look at how we, as the United States of 
America, have treated the Native American communities of our Nation. So 
this is an issue in my mind that is a fundamental issue of civil 
rights. It is a fundamental issue we must resolve in order to be able 
to uphold this covenant of America that makes us an America in 
progress.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Colorado, who 
is a strong voice for fairness and justice and for health care on 
Indian reservations. I appreciate very much his work and his relentless 
determination to help us get this done. I know he comes from a State 
that has a good number of Indian tribes and that he has toured those 
areas and is very concerned about this issue.
  Madam President, I want to, in just a couple minutes, show once again 
a photograph of a man I showed yesterday during this discussion. His 
name is Lyle Frechette. Lyle Frechette, shown in this photograph, was a 
member of the Menominee Tribe of Indians in Wisconsin. He came of age 
during a time when there was what was called the ``termination and 
relocation era of Indians.''
  This picture of Lyle Frechette is a picture of a high school graduate 
who was newly entering the Marine Corps to proudly serve his country. I 
showed that photograph yesterday to describe

[[Page S170]]

that there is no group of Americans that has served their country in 
the military in larger numbers per capita than Native Americans--than 
American Indians and Native Alaskans. There is just no group that has 
enlisted in higher numbers to support their country in our military. 
This is a photograph of one of them. His experience, following his 
service in the Marines, was the experience of so many Indians.
  During the termination and relocation period, many of them were given 
one-way bus tickets and told: You need to mainstream; you need to go to 
a city someplace. They found they had limited opportunities in the 
cities. They lost their health care capability. It was a time that we 
are now not proud of in terms of public policy because it was the wrong 
thing to have done, particularly when we had promised a trust 
responsibility, providing health care for Native Americans.


                Spending Practices At Veterans Charities

  Madam President, I wanted to show that photograph again because I 
wanted to say something else that is not on the topic of this bill but 
something I read last Friday which has bothered me ever since I read 
it. It deals with those such as Lyle Frechette and others who joined 
the military and became soldiers for our country.
  The Washington Post, last Friday, contained a story about a hearing 
that was held the day before in the U.S. House of Representatives. It 
was a hearing about spending practices at veterans charities.
  There is an organization that has evaluated various charities that 
have been established to provide assistance for veterans. That 
organization, the American Institute of Philanthropy--which is the 
leading watchdog group--said there are about 19 military-oriented 
charities that manage their resources very poorly.
  But let me describe what made my blood boil Friday morning when I 
read it. I was not aware of it. But Help Hospitalized Veterans--a tax-
exempt organization--Help Hospitalized Veterans--an organization that 
is presumably going to collect funds from around the country to help 
hospitalized veterans-- it spent, according to the report, hundreds of 
thousands of dollars in donations that were to help wounded soldiers on 
personal expenses instead for those who were running the organization. 
Instead of helping wounded soldiers as the title says--Help 
Hospitalized Veterans--those who were running the charity were bathing 
themselves in cash: a $135,000 loan to the fellow who runs the 
organization for a divorce settlement with his former wife; a $17,000 
country club membership; a $1 million loan to Mr. Viguerie, the direct 
mail guru, for a startup initiative at his firm.

  The second charity, the Coalition to Support America's Heroes--also a 
charity designed presumably to help America's veterans--was 
fundraising, getting tax-exempt donations or tax-deductible donations, 
and they used a four-star general, retired Four-Star GEN Tommy Franks, 
to sign letters of solicitation asking for funds, and paid him $100,000 
for that. Now, I think Tommy Franks ought to explain to the Congress 
and ought to explain to veterans why a retired four-star general is 
being paid $100,000 to sign letters to solicit money to help veterans. 
I think GEN Tommy Franks has a lot of questions to answer, including a 
number of questions dating back about 4 years, from me and others. But 
I was very surprised that a charity is paying $100,000 to a retired 
four-star general for allowing his name to be used to solicit funds 
from individuals across the country to help veterans.
  The Help Hospitalized Veterans raised more than $168 million from 
2004 to 2006. They raised $168 million from 2004 to 2006, and they 
spent one-quarter of it on veterans. Let me say that again. They raised 
$168 million of tax-deductible contributions to an organization called 
the Coalition--excuse me, this is Help Hospitalized Veterans--raised 
$168 million, and one-quarter of it went to help veterans; the rest 
went elsewhere. That is unbelievable, just unbelievable. In this 
Congress--I hope the committee in the House that held these hearings 
will continue, and I am now evaluating whether we can begin a series of 
similar hearings. I think that is equivalent to theft, and I hope very 
much that we will continue to apply heat to those who would use 
veterans' names in this manner. An organization that solicits $168 
million and uses only one-fourth of it in support of veterans when 
their title is Coalition to Support America's Heroes--or I guess Help 
Hospitalized Veterans, one of the two--one-fourth of the money is used 
to go to veterans, the rest of it is going for country club memberships 
and loans for divorce settlements. That is unbelievable to me. I hope 
very much that both the House and the Senate will continue to 
aggressively investigate these organizations, and I hope perhaps if we 
have some hearings, we might ask retired GEN Tommy Franks to come and 
explain to us why it is appropriate for him to accept $100,000 that 
comes from tax-deductible donations in order to sign a letter 
soliciting money that is presumed to be in support of veterans when, in 
fact, three-quarters of the money went elsewhere.
  My colleague from Alaska has come to the floor, and I want to again 
say it has been a pleasure to work with her. She is vice chairman of 
the Indian Affairs Committee and has done a remarkable job. She, 
perhaps more than anyone in the 48 States and the mainland, has very 
unique issues in the State of Alaska, because the Native Alaskan 
villages are remote and the health care issues that relate to them are 
different, difficult, and unusual, and she has represented that 
situation aggressively and relentlessly as we have tried to put 
legislation together to address it. I thank her for the work she has 
done, and I look forward to working with her. We will not apparently 
finish this bill today, but we will get the bill back on the floor 
following the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and when we do--
the two of us have talked--we very much are intent on finishing this in 
1 day and getting to conference, getting the bill to the President, and 
getting it signed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The Senator from Alaska is 
recognized.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee 
for his great cooperation on this very important issue. I know we had 
all hoped--certainly my constituents had hoped, and I think my 
colleagues as well, as so many around the country who have been waiting 
years--literally waiting a decade--for reauthorization of this Indian 
Health Care Improvement Act. We are pleased that we are on the floor. 
We would like to see this moved through the process as quickly as 
possible. We understand the issues we have in front of us and what we 
have to do in order to get this through, but I appreciate the great 
leadership of the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee and of so 
many who have worked to advance this legislation.
  I thank Chairman Dorgan for reminding all of us of the great 
contributions we have had from so many of our American Indians, Alaska 
Natives, when it comes to serving our country. I think if you look at 
the demographics and look at it on a per-capita basis, we see higher 
numbers, certainly in Alaska, of our Alaska Natives serving in the 
military than any other populations in the State, serving admirably 
over the years, whether they be the Eskimo Scouts or whether they be 
the group serving from the National Guard which recently returned from 
Kuwait.
  I had an opportunity a couple of months ago to meet those Alaskans 
who were returning. I met up with them in Camp Shelby and had an 
opportunity to talk to the men who were returning from Kuwait after 
well over a year. They had been in the desert. Most of these soldiers 
came from villages from around the State. There were some 80 villages--
communities--that were represented amongst this particular unit. Many 
of them, when they returned back home to Alaska after coming from the 
desert and going home to the snow, would be returning to very small 
towns and very small villages that are not connected by any form of a 
road system. During the winter months, you have connection because the 
rivers are now frozen and you can take a snow machine to get from one 
small village to another and hopefully out to a larger hub community. 
But the reality is so many of these fine men who have served our 
country are going back to areas where health care options are very 
limited.

  Yesterday I had an opportunity to show my colleagues a couple of 
pictures. There is one of the health clinic

[[Page S171]]

in Atka. We also had a picture of the health clinic in Arctic Village. 
As you look at the pictures, you can see the health clinics are small 
and they are clearly broken down. They are older facilities. They are 
very limited in terms of what they can provide. But this is what we 
have out in these villages. These soldiers who are returning need to go 
to the VA for services. They don't have a VA out in Chevak. They don't 
have a VA facility out there in Atka. They have the Atka Village Health 
Clinic. This is a two-story clinic, so it is by all standards perhaps 
better than some of the others in some of our villages. But what we 
have seen in a State like Alaska where access to care is so very 
limited, is the IHS facility essentially ends up being the entity that 
will provide for that level of care for that serviceman, for that 
veteran, because to get from Atka to Anchorage, to the Anchorage Native 
Medical Center, is costly. Sometimes the VA picks up the travel, 
sometimes not. It depends on your income eligibility. If there isn't 
any--if the Government is not there to pick up your costs, not only do 
you have the cost of air travel, which can be upwards of $1,000 for 
your roundtrip fare, but you have your expenses while you are in the 
city--in town.
  So we look at what is provided to so many in our small clinics around 
the State. Now, is it right that the clinic should have to pick up or 
basically carry the water or carry the bag for the VA? Not necessarily, 
no. But is this where we can provide for a level of care that is in the 
village for the individual, with their family, and ultimately reducing 
so many of the travel costs that are there? Absolutely. So I say this 
to my colleagues, so people can understand that oftentimes what we are 
dealing with in terms of access when you are in a State where it is so 
rural, where you don't have roads, or the cost to travel is 
prohibitive, we have to be more creative in how we provide for the 
level of care. In Alaska, we think we are being more creative with 
that. But with the reauthorization of the Indian Health Care 
Improvement Act, it allows and facilitates greater sharing, greater 
cooperation, ultimately greater collaboration, that leads to greater 
cost savings.
  I want to take a couple moments this evening--it has been mentioned 
by our colleague from Colorado, and certainly the chairman mentioned 
the provision we have in the substitute amendment regarding violence 
against Indian and Alaska Native women. I mentioned in my comments 
yesterday that we have seen some successes in Indian health, even with 
the very stark health statistics that have been repeated by so many on 
this floor. There is one area, though, where I do not believe we have 
made any progress, and one I am very pleased we are addressing in this 
bill, and that matter is the terrible violence that faces native women 
and children.
  Back in September of 2007, the Committee on Indian Affairs held an 
oversight hearing on the prevalence of violence against Indian women. 
We had several witnesses, very compelling witnesses, at that hearing, 
one of whom was from Alaska, a woman by the name of Tammy Young, and 
she represented the Alaska Native Women's Coalition Against Domestic 
Violence and Sexual Assault. She testified about the intensity of such 
prevalence and the need for remedies to properly address the problem.
  In my State, we have one major city. Anchorage holds about almost 
half the population of this State. The Alaska Native people make up 8 
percent of the total population of Anchorage. But the percentage of 
Alaska Native victims in Anchorage alone was 24 percent. You can see 
the disparity in these numbers. Alaska has one of the highest per-
capita rates of physical and sexual abuse in the Nation.
  In Alaska, an Alaska Native woman has a likelihood of rape that is 
four times higher than a nonnative woman in the State. Our statistics 
are horrendous. They are deeply troubling. But we know it is not only 
in Alaska that there is this danger of violence that faces our Native 
women. Statistics show that Native women around the country are two to 
three times more likely to be raped than women from other populations 
in the United States. As I say, in Alaska it is four times higher. But 
even if this fact were not as disturbing as it is, it gets even worse 
because so many of these women who have had this violence upon them 
also face the prospect that the rapist may not be brought to justice.
  This is for a variety of reasons. At the hearing we had a witness 
indicate that the health services within the Native communities simply 
lacked the proper infrastructure, the proper resources, to even conduct 
the forensic exams and therefore assist in the prosecution of the 
perpetrators. It is as simple as not having rape kits available in the 
IHS facilities in that village or that community on that reservation, 
simply not having the forensic equipment, not having it there. Why 
don't you have it there? It is a funding issue apparently. But you have 
a situation where you have a woman who has been violated. She comes 
seeking help, and she can't even have a proper exam so they can collect 
the evidence so she may then go on and try to prosecute the 
perpetrator.
  In addition, it is the training. We simply do not have enough who are 
trained in the proper collection of the evidence. Back in 2005, we in 
Congress passed aggressive programs and services for the 
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA. The 
witnesses who were there at the hearing back in September advocated 
that we build on the foundation of VAWA. That is what this legislation 
does. It provides for just that. It includes programs to address 
domestic and sexual violence that are critical to shoring up this 
health infrastructure, that are necessary to support a successful 
prosecution, whether it is providing for rape kits at the Indian 
clinics and hospitals or the training for the health professionals to 
become the sexual assault examiners. Pretty basic stuff. But if you 
don't have it there, if you cannot collect the evidence, if you don't 
have the trained medical professionals to help facilitate that, these 
victims will be victimized again by simply knowing that the system has 
let them down.
  In addition, the legislation will also require the Secretary of HHS 
to establish protocols and procedures for health services to victims of 
violence, as well as to coordinate with the Attorney General in 
identifying areas for improvement within the health system to support 
these prosecutions. I believe this aspect of the legislation is 
extremely important for so many. Again, our statistics in this area are 
devastating, unacceptable. There is more we can do about it, and this 
is one small step.
  Mr. President, I want to talk about one aspect of the Indian health 
care reauthorization. I don't believe many of my colleagues have spoken 
to the underlying policy of self-determination and self-governance, but 
that is such an integral part of this reauthorization. The Federal 
policy of self-determination was conceived by President Nixon in the 
early 1970s, and it has been nurtured or improved upon by almost every 
administration since then. The legislation, S. 1200, embraces these 
policies in a very profound manner.
  Indian self-determination represents one of our Nation's first 
enlightened Federal Indian policies. It has been by far the most 
successful policy in improving the lives of American Indians and Alaska 
Native people. This policy has been embodied in Federal legislation for 
over 30 years in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 
Act.
  S. 1200 facilitates the important interplay between the Indian health 
care delivery system within the Department of Health and Human Services 
and the policy of Indian self-determination and self-governance. 
Beginning in the 1990s, there were a growing number of Indian tribes 
and Alaska Natives who have taken over the IHS programs. They have made 
them more efficient and responsive and, I would say, more relevant to 
the local needs.
  In Alaska, I think we can point to what has happened in the area of 
self-governance as a good example, a positive example of how the Native 
people have embraced this policy of self-determination and self-
governance.
  In April 2003, the Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing on an 
earlier version of this bill. We had a gentleman there from Seldovia 
Village, President Don Kashevaroff. He testified about how Alaska 
Natives began compacting IHS programs in 1997 and how, within 6 years, 
they had compacted virtually all of the IHS programs within the State 
of Alaska.

[[Page S172]]

  Now, within my State, the Indian health care system is almost 
entirely a Native-driven system. Senator Stevens, my colleague, spoke 
to this in his comments on the Senate floor yesterday. When you take 
into account that in Alaska there are about 230 separate Native 
villages, you manage the numbers there, and despite this large number 
of separate sovereign governments spread out across a State with 
enormous distances from each other, spread out from the State's 
metropolitan area, they were able to create a highly efficient and 
integrated health care delivery system.
  I showed you the pictures earlier of the clinics in Arctic Village. 
Behind me in the photo is the Alaska Native Medical Center, located in 
Anchorage. Quite different. Yet what we have there in Anchorage at the 
ANMC is a model for others to view. In Alaska, we have 180 small 
community health centers, about 180 of what you saw with the Arctic 
Village clinic, and they provide primary care. We have 25 subregional 
midlevel care centers. There are four multiphysician health centers, 
six regional hospitals, and one tertiary care facility. The Alaska 
Native Medical Center in this picture is that one tertiary care 
facility. So in the entire State, the Alaska Native Medical Center is 
the one that provides that tertiary care.
  This system was made possible through the Indian Self-Determination 
Act. This health care system is tailored to meet the very unique needs 
of the Native people. I don't believe it would have been possible 
within the administrative structure of the Indian Health Service 
itself.
  Now, I don't want to spend all my time just talking about the 
situation in Alaska because the success story that you see there is by 
no means limited to my State. Self-governance is being embraced in 
several other areas of the country as well: in the Pacific Northwest, 
the Southwest, in Oklahoma, and in other parts of the country. I think 
it is important to note that many tribes and tribal organizations have 
supplemented their IHS programs with their own resources where 
possible. The Indian Health Service has documented the fact that 
Federal Indian health programs are only meeting approximately 60 
percent of the need. You have heard that time and time again as we have 
discussed this. Only about 60 percent of that need is met.

  The hearings on Indian health held by the committee and information 
from a 2005 GAO report demonstrated that this underfunding has led to 
rationing health care within the Indian community. Of course, the 
unfortunate result of this underfunding is exactly as you have heard 
many of my colleagues say. It results in many American Indians either 
foregoing any kind of treatment or delaying receiving medical care, 
which in turn, then, leads to disease progression. But ultimately it 
leads to higher costs, greater costs to the system.
  I want to point out that several tribes have stepped up with their 
own resources to enter joint ventures with the Federal Government or to 
even supplement the Federal dollars in an effort to bridge that 60 
percent gap we keep talking about between the Federal funding and the 
level of need. I want to show a few of the examples.
  In the Cherokee Nation in Northeast Oklahoma, we have a self-
governance tribe with one of the largest service populations in the 
country. The Cherokees have just constructed a new clinic in Muskogee, 
OK, using their own tribal dollars. This facility serves Indian people 
in northeastern Oklahoma, including members of the Osage, Muskogee 
Creek, Choctaw, and numerous other tribes.
  We also have the Muckleshoot Tribe in Auburn, WA, which built this 
facility in 2005 at a cost of nearly $20 million using its own tribal 
dollars. The Muckleshoot facility is located near the I-5 corridor in 
Washington and also provides very tailored care for its patients. As 
you can see from the picture, they try to cater to some of the younger 
patients as well.
  Another Oklahoma tribe in southeastern Oklahoma is the Choctaw 
Nation, which used their own tribal dollars to construct a 54,000-
square-foot facility at a cost of $13.5 million. In this facility the 
average monthly patient encounter over the past 12 months has been over 
3,800 patients.
  Out in Oregon, located in Chiloquin, we have the Klamath Tribe Health 
Center built in 2004, paid for through a unique partnership between the 
Klamath Indian Tribe and the IHS, as a health center that primarily 
serves the Klamath Tribe. It serves a tribal population of 2,890 
individuals and cost $3.6 million to construct.
  The last one I want to share with you comes out of Bylas, AZ, and the 
San Carlos Apache Tribe has constructed this two-building complex on 
its reservation, which is about 130 miles east of Phoenix. As the main 
source of primary care for Indians there, this clinic provides dental, 
behavioral health, optometry, laboratory, pharmacy, health education, 
and preventive care, among other services.
  I use these examples to demonstrate some of the many cases where 
tribal ingenuity and resourcefulness have changed the Indian health 
care system for the better. I think this is illustrative of what can 
happen when the tribes are given the flexibility to plan, to develop, 
and to determine the future for their own people. We promote that 
ingenuity in this bill through the amendment to the Indian Self-
Determination Act, which will make it possible to bring private sector 
money into Indian communities to supplement--again, I repeat 
``supplement,'' not supplant--the Federal resources that are 
appropriated by Congress.
  S. 1200 establishes the Native American Health and Wellness 
Foundation, the primary purpose of which will be to support the mission 
of the Indian Health Service by supplementing the Federal resources 
with private funds and, hopefully, bringing the level of funding for 
Indian health care closer to that level of need.
  Mr. President, I will conclude my remarks this afternoon by repeating 
that within the Indian health system, you have great disparity. You 
have seen some of the pictures of beautiful facilities and some 
pictures of facilities that are in desperate need of help. We have 
heard stories that just break your heart of people who were denied 
services, of people whose illness was only compounded because of 
failures within the system.
  But we have also heard some statistics that give us cause for hope 
that we are making headway within the system in terms of some of the 
chronic diseases and how we might approach them. Through the Indian 
health care reauthorization, we focus on those areas that will allow us 
to do better, whether it is in the area of behavioral health, 
additional screenings, those programs that focus on prevention, those 
programs that focus on wellness, so that we can, A, lower our cost of 
health care but, B, to really allow American Indians and Alaska Natives 
to have a quality of health care that is at least on par with what you 
would get if you went to a non-IHS facility.
  We have not advanced legislation that would update the Indian Health 
Care Act since 1992. As I have said, all one needs to do is think back 
to what we were doing in 1992 in terms of health care. Think how far we 
have come with the technology. Think how far we have come with the 
techniques that are utilized. Let's not leave the Indian health care 
system 10, 20 years ago. Let's allow them to come into a level of 
service that we care to enjoy.
  I mentioned one way we in Alaska are able to deal with the issue of 
access. In a large State with a small population who are not connected 
by roads, we have to rely on telehealth. Telemedicine has allowed us to 
provide for a level of care, whether it is checking out an infant's ear 
to make sure how bad that ear infection is or whether it is literally 
videoconferencing with a suicidal teenager and counseling to make sure 
he is not going to do something precipitous, that he knows he has 
somebody who is there for him. Our technology allows us to do that, but 
our legislation needs to be put in place to allow us to take full 
advantage of the changes in these intervening years.
  Again, I stand with my colleague, the chairman of the Indian Affairs 
Committee, and urge our colleagues, if they have amendments, if there 
are still issues outstanding, let's work through those, let's get the 
amendments, but let's work through any remaining issues. We owe it to 
all our constituents around the country to provide for a better level 
of care.
  With this legislation, it is one small step forward.

[[Page S173]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
join with the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from North Dakota to 
urge our colleagues to support this legislation that is going to make a 
critical difference to thousands of American Indians in Washington 
State and across our country.
  I join in the words of my colleague, the Senator from Alaska. She 
mentioned several of the tribes in Washington State. This has an 
important impact on them. I agree with her and thank her for the 
tremendous work on this issue, helping us bring it to the floor and 
hopefully to passage so we can make a difference.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this Indian Health Care 
Improvement Act. It does reauthorize and update the health care 
services our Government provides to American Indians and Alaska 
Natives. This bill will allow our Indian health clinics and our 
hospitals to modernize their services and enable them to provide better 
preventive care. These services are vitally important in Indian 
Country, where our tribal members suffer from high rates of diabetes 
and other chronic illnesses. Our Government has a legal responsibility 
to provide health care for American Indians, but we have a moral 
responsibility to ensure we provide the best care possible.
  The Indian Health Care Improvement Act has not been reauthorized 
since 1992, and in the years since it expired in 2001, what Congress 
has done is simply appropriate money for health care programs without 
examining this act to see how we can improve it. This bill we are now 
considering takes important steps toward ensuring we are providing the 
best and the most cost-effective care. It is long time past to pass it.
  The health disparity between American Indians and the general 
population is great. The numbers show why this bill deserves our 
attention now. The infant mortality rate among Indians is 150 percent 
greater than for Caucasians. Indians, in fact, are 2.6 times more 
likely to be diagnosed with diabetes. Indians suffer from greater rates 
of post-traumatic stress disorder, and the suicide rate among Indians 
is more than twice the national average. In fact, life expectancy for 
American Indians is nearly 6 years less than the rest of the U.S. 
population.
  An example from my home State of Washington helps to illustrate the 
impact these numbers have on Indian communities.
  Three years ago, in a 6-month period, the Skokomish Tribe, which has 
a reservation near Hood Canal, lost 9 of its 1,000 members. Among them 
were two children, two young adults, and five elders. One of those 
elders was Bruce Miller. He was a Vietnam veteran and a nationally 
known artist and spiritual leader. Bruce helped restore ceremonies that 
were once banned by the U.S. Government. His work to prevent drug abuse 
and rebuild tribal customs will be sorely missed. Bruce was only 60 
years old when he passed away.
  Many of the Skokomish Tribe members died of conditions that are all 
too common on our Indian reservations--drug overdose, heart disease, 
cancer, diabetes. These conditions we know are preventable, and many in 
Indian Country have been working very hard to reverse the numbers I 
mentioned. But their work has been hindered because Indian health 
services are badly in need of updating.
  The most important thing the Indian Health Care Improvement Act does 
is help to modernize those services. In the last 16 years, as the 
Senator from Alaska said, we have revolutionized the way we approach 
chronic illnesses such as diabetes. Doctors' offices and health clinics 
around the country now emphasize the importance of eating right, 
staying healthy. We have changed where we provide services. Instead of 
treating elderly and chronically ill patients in the hospital, more and 
more people get care at home or in a community clinic. And now, of 
course, it is standard practice to coordinate mental health and 
substance abuse and domestic violence prevention services. But while we 
have done all that, health care for Indians has gone badly out of date. 
We are still providing services today as if it was 1992.
  The bill we are considering today will help bring health care for 
Indians into the 21st century and enable their clinics to do more than 
treat symptoms and instead focus on prevention and mental health.
  It is particularly important to ensure Indian health clinics can 
provide up-to-date care because for many of our tribal members, those 
clinics are the only source of health care available. For tribal 
members in rural Washington State and across the West, visiting a 
doctor off the reservation often means driving for hours to get to the 
nearest big city. In some of our remote areas, some tribal members 
never see a doctor off the reservation. They are born in Indian 
hospitals, they see that doctor for their entire life, and they die in 
the same hospital.
  This bill also funds urban Indian health clinics. In recent years, 
President Bush and some of my colleagues have questioned the need to 
provide health services to Indians who live in and around major cities. 
In fact, disappointingly, the President's budget routinely eliminates 
funding for the 34 urban Indian health centers that exist in this 
country, and every year Congress restores the funding because those 
centers serve thousands of Indians, many of whom are uninsured and 
would not get care elsewhere. The doctors and the nurses who staff 
those urban clinics specialize in the conditions many Indians face. 
Even more importantly, they are sensitive to the cultural needs of 
their patients. That makes the difference all too often when a patient 
is deciding whether to seek care or to do preventive treatment and it 
increases the chance that an Indian will continue to get the treatment 
they need, as I said, for preventive or even mental health care.
  I am disappointed Republican objections have limited how far the 
important improvements for urban Indians in this bill can go, but this 
bill, as now written, does ensure those important health centers stay 
open. My State has two of them. I have to tell you, I have heard 
firsthand from a number of our tribal members how important and 
critical they are.
  Both our urban and our rural Indian health clinics also give tribes 
more decisionmaking power over health programs so they can determine 
how best to serve their people. In Washington State, we have the 
Nisqually Health Clinic that is located near Olympia. It offers a 
community health representative program that trains the tribal members 
about how to provide basic preventive care and education to help their 
elders and members who suffer from diabetes or substance abuse.
  We need to give programs such as those a boost so they can grow and 
they can succeed so other tribes can try similar programs. 
Reauthorizing the Indian Health Care Improvement Act will help us to do 
that.
  Finally, this bill also makes important improvements to the medical 
benefits provided to tribal veterans. Tribal veterans, as many of my 
colleagues know, have served throughout this Nation's history with 
great honor and valor. In fact, American Indians have served in higher 
numbers than any other ethnic minority in this Nation. But despite that 
extraordinary commitment to this Nation, veterans services for American 
Indians oftentimes falls short of what is available for non-Indians.
  Fortunately, this bill we are considering changes current law to 
allow the Secretary to enter into or expand arrangements to share 
medical facilities and services with the Department of Veterans 
Affairs. That provision requires consultation with the affected Indian 
tribes before entering into those agreements, and it requires 
reimbursement to the IHS, tribes or tribal organizations.
  I wish to repeat something I said earlier because it is important. 
Providing health care to Indians is part of our Government's trust 
responsibility. It dates back to the 18th and 19th centuries. Congress 
enacted the Indian Health Care Improvement Act in 1976 to better carry 
out that duty. In President Ford's signing statement, he said:

       Indian people still lag behind the American people as a 
     whole in achieving and maintaining good health. I am signing 
     this bill because of my own conviction that our first 
     Americans should not be last in opportunity.

  Thirty-two years later, we still have a long way to go toward 
achieving that

[[Page S174]]

goal, but we can take some important steps by reauthorizing this bill 
now.


                   Housing and Emergency Preparedness

  While I have the floor this afternoon, I wish to change gears and 
talk about two other issues I heard a lot about at home--housing and 
emergency preparedness--because I am hearing now disturbing rumors that 
the President's upcoming budget proposal is going to recommend cuts in 
those two areas.
  First, I wish to emphasize how important it is we continue to provide 
Federal support for police, fire, and emergency responders in all our 
communities. This past month, I held several roundtables with our first 
responders in Washington State to hear what they need to protect their 
communities, and at every stop, they told me they have already been 
squeezed by budget cuts and that they have spent the last several years 
trying to do more with a lot less. They said they are very worried 
about what it will do if their budgets are cut again.
  Emergency responders in our small and rural communities are 
especially concerned because they depend on Federal grants to keep 
their communities safe. Let me give one example of the impact these 
grants have had in my State that I think illustrates why Federal 
support is so important.
  A month ago, storms causing major flooding and wind damage slammed 
into western Washington. Thousands of our homes on the coast and in the 
inland counties were flooded and damaged severely. Grays Harbor County, 
which sits along the Pacific coast, was one of the hardest hit. But 
Grays Harbor emergency officials told me they were ready because they 
had recently done exercises to practice emergency response training.
  When those horrendous storms hit, first responders in Grays Harbor 
County relied on vital equipment, basic radio and other safety gear. 
Without that training, without that equipment, more people in Grays 
Harbor would have been hurt in that storm. Grays Harbor had both of 
those thanks to Federal homeland security grants.
  From the flooding in Washington State to Hurricane Katrina, to 
California wildfires, we have had too many opportunities now to witness 
the need for effective predisaster planning and response support. Real 
security in our communities does not come cheap.
  Now, I have already written to President Bush to warn him against 
cutting money for port security, transit security, and emergency 
management grants. I am prepared to fight for these grants. Supporting 
and protecting Americans here at home has to be a priority for all of 
us.


                                Housing

  When I was home, I also heard from citizens and lenders, housing 
counselors, people involved in the housing issues in Washington State 
who are very concerned about the potential cuts to housing grants they 
are hearing about.
  Washington State is fortunate that the economy is still relatively 
strong compared to the rest of the Nation. But we are seeing signs of 
trouble. In fact, I heard from a housing official who worked in Kitsap 
County, one of our more rural counties. She has seen a dramatic 
increase in the number of people who are now seeking housing 
counseling. She told me that last fiscal year, their two full-time 
housing counselors helped homeowners with 50 defaults. They saw that 
many people in this first quarter alone. In fact, in the 2 days she was 
with me and others talking about housing, she said she went back home 
and there were seven more calls on her answering machine about 
foreclosures.
  The Federal Government has to do everything possible to address this 
wave of foreclosures. One way we can do that is investing in housing 
counseling. It is vital for troubled mortgage holders to get help early 
so they can avoid foreclosure and keep their homes.
  At a time when we are trying to work to help repair the economy and 
ensure people can pay their bills, we cannot afford any cuts in our 
budget for that safety net for our homeowners.
  We also have to ensure that low-income Americans who are not 
homeowners also get help. That means we have to continue to support 
programs such as Section 8, homeless assistance, and CDBG, which will 
help keep our communities strong through this and help make sure our 
low-income residents have a home and can avoid homelessness.
  Next month, when we get the President's budget sent to us, you can 
count on me, I will be scrutinizing every word of it, and I will be 
back on this floor, if necessary, to fight funding cuts to those 
programs that are so important to keeping our communities strong.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                     Honoring Pennsylvania's Troops

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue which 
is on the minds of millions of Americans, but you would not know about 
it from listening to the news.
  Most of the news has been focused, appropriately so I think, on the 
economy and the challenges we face. We are all going to be focusing on 
that issue and we are going to be talking a lot about it and taking 
action on it.
  But at the same time, the war in Iraq remains an urgent issue for our 
country but especially for the families who are living through this, 
the small percentage of American families who have someone serving in 
Iraq, a loved one, a relative, and also, of course, the troops 
themselves who are serving.
  So Iraq, the war in Iraq, remains an urgent issue, an issue that 
deserves our attention and our continued focus. Today I do not want to 
talk about the policy. We are going to have months and months to talk 
about it. I have strong feelings about it, but today I rise for a very 
simple but I think important reason and that is to salute the troops 
from the State of Pennsylvania who have recently died in the war.
  In July, I came to the floor to talk about the then 169 Pennsylvania 
natives, in some cases residents, who had died in Iraq. Today, 
unfortunately, I have to add nine more since July. We all know a lot of 
the lyrics of the great singer and songwriter, Bruce Springsteen. I 
quoted them last summer when I talked about the lyrics from his song 
``Missing,'' where he talked about, in the context of 9/11, those who 
had perished and the effect on a family.
  His lyrics say, in part, he talks about waiting for that person to 
come home, the person who would have lost their life at the tragedy of 
9/11. He says: Your house is waiting. Then he repeats it. He says: Your 
house is waiting for you to walk in, but you are missing.
  He says: You are missing when I turn out the lights, you are missing 
when I close my eyes, you are missing when I see the sunrise.
  And he goes on from there. I think that song and those lyrics have an 
awful lot of meaning for those who have lost a loved one in Iraq. Even 
if they did not, the time spent away in Iraq for a loved one is 
difficult enough but especially for a family with a member of their 
family who died in Iraq. They are missing, and for a lot of those 
families, will be missing for the rest of that family's life.
  It is important to remember and remind ourselves these troops 
volunteered for service. They were not drafted. They knew their task 
would be difficult. They knew they would be in danger but they made 
that commitment.
  In the end, they made the ultimate sacrifice. To those families 
across Pennsylvania, in communities such as Altoona and Falls Creek and 
State College and Wexford and on and on and on, the war in Iraq is not 
some obscure abstract policy being debated in Washington. For them, the 
war is something very real.
  As I said before, these fighting men and women in Iraq were born into 
families, not divisions and brigades. These families and these 
communities have lost sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers 
and sisters, classmates, friends, all those relationships and all those 
families and communities.
  We know this war has gone on longer than World War II. We know the 
numbers, more than 3,900 dead. In Pennsylvania, it is at 178. 
Nationally, the wounded number is about 28,000. In many cases, those 
who have been wounded are grievously, irreparably, permanently wounded.

  We will not forget their sacrifice. But let me read the names of the 
recently lost from Pennsylvania, the nine members we have to add to our 
list. I will read their names and their hometowns.
  First, Michael A. Hook from Altoona, Pennsylvania; Zachary Clouser, 
from

[[Page S175]]

Dover; Michael J. Tully, Falls Creek; David A. Wieger, from North 
Huntingdon; Adam J. Chitjian, from the city of Philadelphia; also from 
the city of Philadelphia, Camy Florexil; from Pittsburgh, Ryan D. 
Maseth; David A. Cooper, Jr., from State College, PA; Eric M. Foster, 
Wexford, PA.
  So after reading these nine names, we have now read, between July and 
this date, all those from the State of Pennsylvania who have died in 
Iraq since the beginning of the war.
  I know we are short on time today, and we could read biographical 
sketches of all those 178 soldiers. But let me read a couple of notes 
about a few of them before I conclude.
  By way of example, one of the names is Adam J. Chitjian from 
Philadelphia. There is a section called Somerton in the city of 
Philadelphia. He was on his second tour of duty in Iraq, 39 years old. 
He joined the Army and his brother was quoted as saying: He wanted to 
act rather than just talk. That is why he joined the Army.
  He leaves behind a father and sister. When he visited Texas, after 
being in Pennsylvania and serving our country all those years, when 
Adam was in Texas, he met Shirley, who would later become his wife. So 
for that family, we are thinking of Adam and his family. He died on 
October 24, 2007.
  Then we go backward in time to 2003 in November, Nicholas A. Tomko 
from Pittsburgh, and a couple highlights about his life. He was 24 
years old, from just outside Pittsburgh. The town is called New 
Kensington. His father's name is Jack Tomko. He is quoted, in part, as 
saying about his son that: He was a great kid, brave as hell. And he 
goes on from there talking about his son.
  Now this is a young man who left behind a fiance. And he was working 
as an armored car driver near Pittsburgh. He joined the Reserves 3 
years ago hoping to get a head start in a career in law enforcement.
  I wish we could say Nicholas A. Tomko would have that opportunity to 
serve in law enforcement, but this war took him from us.
  His fiance said, and I am quoting in part here: I am going to make 
sure people know about his service--that he went over there to fight 
for his country and that he went over to serve. So we remember him.
  Two more before I conclude. SSG Jeremy R. Horton from Erie, PA, died 
on May 21, 2004. His tour was extended. He was a 24-year-old 
Pennsylvanian. His tour was extended. He joined the Army right out of 
high school, hoping to get money for college. This is what his uncle 
said about him: He certainly loved his family, and he loved his 
country, and he loved the military. It was what he wanted to do. We 
need more like him.
  No one could have said it better than that. We do need more people 
like him, like Jeremy. He is survived by his wife Christie, whom he 
married shortly after joining the Army.
  I will do one more because I know we are short on time. SSG Ryan S. 
Ostrom, from Liberty, PA. He was at one point in his life a baseball 
coach. One of his players quoted the story about his life: He was a 
good leader and a good person to look up to. And he had that special 
smile we used to see in the locker room.
  That is what they said about him as a coach. This man, Mr. Ostrom, 
was 25 years old when he died. Here is what another member of the 
military said, SSG Craig Stevens said about Ryan: He was a soldier you 
could give a task to and know it would get done. You could just look at 
him and know he was a leader.
  Ryan would have started his senior year at Mansfield University this 
fall, meaning then the fall of 2005. He is survived by his father Scott 
and his mother Donna.
  I will add one more. We have a minute. Our last biographical sketch 
is LCpl Nicholas B. Morrison, from Carlisle, PA. He died August 13, 
2004. He was 23 years old.
  He joined the Marine Corps 16 months ago and planned to become a 
state trooper in the State of Pennsylvania. He was a 2000 graduate of 
Big Spring High School, where he was a linebacker on the football team.
  I hope we can all remember his family as well today.
  Here is what one of his friends said: He was the glue. When he would 
come home, we would all make an effort to go out. He would make us 
laugh about stories from when we were growing up.
  And on and on and on, stories such as that from so many families and 
so many communities across our Commonwealth and indeed our country.
  I conclude with this thought: There are a lot of great lines in 
``America the Beautiful.'' We could spend a lot of time talking about 
each one of them. One of those lines, when we talk about ``America the 
Beautiful,'' says: ``Oh beautiful for patriot dream that sees beyond 
the years.''
  That is what a lot of these soldiers did. They not only volunteered 
for service knowing they could lose their lives, knowing they had to 
make a full commitment of their life and their time and their family's 
time, but they had dreams, dreams of serving their country and 
hopefully dreams to go beyond that.
  But they were patriots and they had dreams and it is those dreams we 
remember and celebrate today. It is those dreams that go well beyond 
the years we see before us.
  So we remember these troops today and as always we ask God's 
blessings on their lives, those who gave, as Abraham Lincoln said, the 
last full measure of devotion to their country.
  We remember them today and their families. May God bless them.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that newspaper accounts about 
these soldiers be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Pfc. Adam J. Chitjian, Somerton, PA--Died October 24, 2007


   Somerton Native Killed in Northern Iraq (Philadelphia Inquirer), 
                            October 27, 2007

       A Philadelphia native due to end his second tour of duty in 
     Iraq next month died Thursday of injuries sustained from 
     enemy small-arms fire in Balad, northern Iraq.
       Pfc. Adam J. Chitjian, 39, raised in Somerton, had joined 
     the Army 4 years ago in response to 9/11, his older brother, 
     Martin, said last night.
       When it came to his country's defense, ``he wanted to act, 
     rather than just talk,'' Martin, 41, of Buckingham, Bucks 
     County, said.
       A stocky 5-foot-11-inches, Adam Chitjian ``appeared bigger 
     than he was,'' Martin said. To his brother, Adam seemed 
     invincible.
       ``I would have bet my life he would have come back without 
     a scratch,'' said Martin, a lawyer, who was struggling last 
     night to grasp his brother's death. ``I don't really believe 
     it happened.''
       Their father, Martin, who lives in Furlong, and sister, 
     Kara Spatola of Warrington, were too distraught to talk, 
     Martin said. Their mother, Edith, died 10 years ago of 
     cancer.
       Chitjian was assigned to Third Battalion, Eighth Cavalry 
     Regiment, Third Brigade Combat Team, First Cavalry Division 
     based in Fort Hood, Texas.
       It was in Texas where he met Shirley, who would become his 
     wife. They married in the summer of 2006, after he returned 
     from his first tour of duty in Iraq. The couple have no 
     children.
       Martin said his brother had been a commercial painter since 
     graduating from Northeast Philadelphia's George Washington 
     High School. He had talked of possibly joining a private 
     security firm at the end of his duty in Iraq.
                                  ____


     Sgt. Nicholas A. Tomko, Pittsburgh, PA--Died November 9, 2003


  Pittsburgh-area soldier killed in attack in Iraq (Associated Press, 
                           November 11, 2003)

       Pittsburgh.--An Army reservist from Pennsylvania who was 
     due home in a little more than a month was killed Nov. 9 when 
     a convoy he was escorting in Baghdad was attacked, Defense 
     Department officials and his father said.
       Sgt. Nicholas A. Tomko, a 24-year-old in the 307th Military 
     Police Company out of New Kensington, Pa., was fatally shot 
     in the shoulder and chest when the Humvee he was riding in as 
     a door gunner was attacked by mortar and small arms fire, 
     according to his father, Jack Tomko, and his fiancee, Jessica 
     Baillie.
       ``He was a great kid, brave as hell, he didn't take no 
     chances, he knew his stuff,'' said Jack Tomko, 58, of Evans 
     City. ``I guess that day he didn't know what was going on or 
     something.''
       Tomko and Baillie said Nicholas Tomko was scheduled to 
     leave Iraq in 2 weeks and arrive home on Dec. 22.
       Baillie, of Shaler, the mother of their 2-year-old son 
     Ethan, said she had talked to Nicholas Tomko on Saturday and 
     was stunned by his death.
       ``I didn't think it was going to happen, you know, he had 
     too much to come home to,'' Baillie told Pittsburgh 
     television station WTAE. ``We had too much of a future.''
       Nicholas Tomko, who was working as an armored car driver 
     near Pittsburgh, joined the Army Reserves 3 years ago hoping 
     to get a head start on a career in law enforcement, his 
     father said. He was stationed in Bosnia for 6 months and had 
     2 months off before his unit was reactivated in February.

[[Page S176]]

       Jack Tomko, who served in the Marine Corps from 1966 to 
     1970, said he and his son didn't talk about the war or 
     conditions in Iraq.
       ``I told him you don't tell me what is going on, you tell 
     me when you get home,'' Tomko said.
       Tomko described his son as an average boy growing up and 
     remembered how he would occasionally get into food fights 
     with a friend, placing overripe apples and tomatoes on sticks 
     and hitting each other. But he said his son never got into 
     serious trouble.
       Baillie said she thought their son was too young to tell 
     about his father's death.
       ``I'm gonna make sure that Ethan knows that is dad is a 
     hero and that he did, you know, what he wanted to do and that 
     he went over there to fight for his country,'' Baillie said. 
     ``There is nothing negative you can say about that.''
                                  ____


        Staff Sgt. Jeremy R. Horton, Erie, PA--Died May 21, 2004


    Pennsylvania soldier killed in Iraq (Associated Press, May 2004)

       Pittsburgh.--A soldier from Erie, Penn., whose tour was 
     extended last year, was killed in Iraq by a roadside bomb, 
     according to his family.
       Staff Sgt. Jeremy R. Horton, 24, died Friday near 
     Iskandariyah, Iraq. Defense officials did not release further 
     details, but relatives said Horton apparently was killed when 
     his convoy was stopped for another roadside bomb.
       Horton reportedly stepped from his vehicle and a second 
     bomb went off, killing him and wounding three other soldiers, 
     said his uncle, Rich Wittenburg, 54, of Erie. Horton died 
     from shrapnel in his head, Wittenburg said.
       Horton joined the Army right out of high school, hoping to 
     get money for college, but ended up finding his place in the 
     military. He was a member of Company B, 2nd Battalion, 6th 
     Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division, based in Baumholder, 
     Germany.
       ``He certainly loved his family and loved his country and 
     loved being in the military. It was what he wanted to do. We 
     need more like him,'' Wittenburg said.
       Horton played both the saxophone and drums in high school 
     and played in bands where he was stationed, his uncle said.
       Horton is survived by his wife, Christie, whom he married 
     shortly after joining the Army.
       A memorial service was planned for Thursday in Germany and 
     he will be buried June 2 in Erie, his uncle said.
                                  ____


       Staff Sgt. Ryan S. Ostrom Liberty, PA--Died August 9, 2005


 Student remembers Pa. National Guard soldier as a mentor (Associated 
                          Press, August 2005)

       When Broc Repard was playing junior high basketball, Ryan 
     S. Ostrom was his coach. But he was so much more.
       ``He taught people skills as much as he taught 
     basketball,'' said Repard.
       ``He was a good leader and a good person to look up to. And 
     he had that special smile we used to see in the locker 
     room.''
       Ostrom, 25, of Liberty, Pa., died Aug. 9 from small-arms 
     fire in Habbaniya. He was assigned to Williamsport.
       ``He was a soldier you could give a task to and know it 
     would get done. You could just look at him and know he was a 
     leader,'' said SSG Craig Stevens.
       Ostrom captained his high school's soccer and basketball 
     teams and won a Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic 
     Association sportsmanship award. He was a Youth Leader of 
     Tomorrow candidate.
       A 1999 high school graduate, Ostrom would have started his 
     senior year at Mansfield University this fall, studying 
     chemistry. Professor Scott Davis said Ostrom was one of the 
     few science students who aspired to be a teacher.
       ``He would have been a good one,'' Davis said.
       He is survived by his father, Scott Ostrom, mother, Donna 
     Ostrom, and stepmother, Anice Ostrom.
                                  ____


  Lance Cpl. Nicholas B. Morrison, Carlisle, PA--Died August 13, 2004


   Pennsylvania Marine Killed in Iraq (Associated Press, August 2004)

       Carlisle, PA.--A North Carolina-based Marine killed in Iraq 
     complained about the food and the heat, but nothing else, his 
     mother said.
       LCpl Nicholas B. Morrison, 23, Carlisle, Pa., died Friday 
     during hostile action in Iraq's Anbar province.
       He joined the Marine Corps 16 months ago and planned to 
     eventually become a state trooper, said his mother, Peggy 
     Morrison, of West Pennsboro Township in Cumberland County.
       ``He cared about what he was doing,'' Peggy Morrison said. 
     ``He believed in the war. He was afraid, but not afraid to do 
     what was right.''
       Morrison died when an explosive hit the Humvee in which he 
     was riding, his mother said.
       ``They were on a scouting mission or something,'' said 
     Morrison, adding that she expected more detailed information 
     from military officials Monday.
       Morrison was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine 
     Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force 
     at Camp Lejeune, N.C.
       ``We sent him a digital camera and he'd take pictures 
     during a gunfight,'' Peggy Morrison said. ``We'd holler and 
     he'd say, `It's not that bad.' I think he tried to downplay 
     it.''
       Morrison was a 2000 graduate of Big Spring High School, 
     where he was a linebacker on the football team and had many 
     close friends, said schoolmate Matt Swanger, 22.
       ``He was the glue. When he would come home we would all 
     make an effort to go out,'' Swanger said. ``He would still 
     make us laugh about stories from when we were growing up. I 
     was really looking forward to when he came home.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Let me say to Senator Casey before he leaves 
the floor, the kind of speech he has made is the kind of speech none of 
us wants to make. It happens with each of us in each of our States. As 
the Senator from Pennsylvania was speaking, it caused me to reflect 
back that one of the more painful duties as an active-duty U.S. Army 
captain in the late 1960s was that of going and informing the family 
members, next of kin, about the loss of their loved one. That was 
during Vietnam. That was usually the occasion for the notification of 
next of kin. How difficult a task it is personally to do it because you 
realize how difficult it is for the family to receive that news. I 
thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his obviously heartfelt 
comments about the Pennsylvania citizens who have fallen in combat and 
for his words and expression of appreciation for the patriotism of 
these young men and women.


                         Coral Reef Ecosystems

  I rise today to speak about another subject, the fact that two of the 
committees on which I sit have recently reported out important 
legislation to protect delicate coral reefs off the coast of our 
country. It is called the Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act and 
the Tropical Forest Conservation Act.
  Mr. President, 84 percent of all of the coral reef ecosystems in the 
country happen to be off the coast of Florida. It is important that we 
protect them because--and a lot of people don't realize this--they 
protect us. Coral reefs are fragile, slow-going, slow-growing, and 
long-lived ecosystems. Corals themselves are easily damaged and they 
are vulnerable to severe weather, ship damage, pollution, 
nutrification, and changes in temperature. Even with all of those 
environmental and physical challenges, coral reef ecosystems provide 
invaluable services to us. They protect our shorelines. They enhance 
our economies because of all of the wonderful exploration in dive 
shops. They shelter fisheries, and they are a very valuable ecosystem 
for a variety of marine life.
  Beyond the current ecosystem services and known capacities, coral 
reefs also hold the promise for new discoveries, new and beneficial 
drugs coming from the coral reefs, improved understanding of disease 
and, even now, understanding of new species. As we reauthorize in this 
legislation the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, we are going to take 
an important and significant new step to preserving and restoring 
global natural resources and marine systems. This reauthorization will 
continue our efforts to preserve the world's forests, the coral reefs, 
and now the coastal marine ecosystems. This act will create an 
invaluable debt for nature exchange that benefits both the global 
economy and the global environment.
  We have an aquarium in Tampa, FL that is offering its expertise in 
coral conservation and coral health certification in these 
international efforts that are ongoing. Developing countries are now 
participating in this debt relief initiative, and it will greatly 
benefit from the research that is going on at the Florida aquarium.
  The legislation that is coming forth is a reauthorization that 
strengthens the authority of the Secretary of Commerce. It gives the 
Secretary the ability to address threats to coral reef ecosystems in 
U.S. waters. It expands NOAA's authority to respond to stranded and 
grounded vessels that threaten the coral reefs. The bill also allows 
for NOAA to negotiate agreements with coral reef research institutes 
such as the Institute at Nova Southeastern University in my State in 
the city of Fort Lauderdale. This bill also provides

[[Page S177]]

mechanisms for the Government to recoup costs and damages from the 
responsible parties and then apply those funds to coral restoration 
efforts in damaged areas.
  We have another potential devastation of coral reefs. Many of these 
reefs are right off the Florida Keys. It is an area of endangered, 
critical concern. There are these beautiful coral reefs that do all of 
these protections I talked about for the delicate keys: protection from 
storms, housing the fisheries, a place for research and development 
with regard to disease, and so forth. But let me tell you about a new 
destructive potential for the coral reefs. Remember, 84 percent of the 
Nation's coral reefs are in Florida. Since there is no treaty between 
Cuba and the United States with regard to the operation of the waters 
between the two, there have been exchanges between the Government of 
the United States and Cuba, through the facilities of the Swiss 
Embassy, an exchange of letters that has been going on for 20 years, 
designating a line halfway between Key West and Cuba, which is only 90 
miles, or a line 45 miles off the coast of Cuba, which happens to be 45 
miles off of Key West, as a line at which the jurisdiction of the 
waters in each respective part is the jurisdiction of that country.

  Here is the problem. Cuba, combined with foreign oil companies, now 
including PDVSA, the oil company of Venezuela, is starting to explore 
for oil out in the waters off of Cuba. There has been some exploration 
already near the shore. But unless that agreement is modified, the 
Venezuelan oil company could be drilling for oil 45 miles off of Key 
West. Right off of Key West is the gulf stream. The gulf stream comes 
up through the west side of Cuba and the Yucatan peninsula, goes into 
the Gulf of Mexico, turns eastward and southward and comes down below 
Key West, between Key West and Cuba, and then follows the keys 
northward, hugs the coast of Florida only a couple of miles off the 
coast, all the way up to the middle of Florida at Fort Pierce, and then 
turns and leaves the coast of Florida going across the Atlantic and 
goes all the way over to northern Europe. If we don't call back this 
letter that most recently the Bush White House has sent to Cuba to 
ratify the agreement, which is done every 2 years, it gives perfect 
license for the Castro government to go in and drill. If there is an 
oil spill that is caught up in that gulf stream, you can see the 
potential for destruction of the delicate coral reefs all lining the 
Florida Keys and then right up the east coast of the State of Florida.
  I have written to the President today asking him to recall the 
letter. The letter has been delivered by the State Department to the 
Swiss Embassy, but it has not been responded to by the Government of 
Cuba. It is not too late to withdraw that letter from the United States 
Government setting that boundary, and instead a new letter should be 
sent, perhaps with regard to what this initially started a couple of 
decades ago, on the fishing rights of each country, but one that would 
exempt out the rights of Cuba to drill in such a dangerous area. At 
least this ought to be an issue that is negotiated to keep the oil 
drilling away from the gulf stream which could damage these very coral 
reefs which I have been talking about in this act, this legislative act 
which has come out of the committee on which the Presiding Officer and 
I serve. It is not too late, if the Bush administration will do this. 
This happened 2 years ago and the Bush administration ignored the 
calls. But in the last 2 years, it has become much more apparent that 
oil companies sometimes that may not be safe in their drilling 
practices are in fact going to drill. The United States needs to have a 
say in those drilling operations not being out there close to the gulf 
stream which is only 30 or 40 miles off of the city of Key West which 
is at the lower end of the Florida Keys.
  I come here happily to embrace this legislation protecting coral 
reefs, but I come here with an urgent message asking the White House to 
protect our coral reefs by withdrawing this letter sent to the Castro 
government of Cuba.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, there has been a lot of progress made on 
this Indian health bill that is now before the Senate. A number of 
amendments have been filed. The staff are negotiating further 
provisions and discussing a list of amendments for consideration when 
we return to the bill.
  I extend my appreciation to Senator Dorgan and Senator Murkowski, the 
chairman and ranking member, for their leadership on the floor.
  Many compromises have been made to accommodate my Republican 
colleagues--on Federal Torts Claims Act coverage of traditional health 
care practitioners, on urban Indian programs, and on the need for an 
Assistant Secretary of Indian Health. We even accommodated our 
colleagues when we learned of their midweek retreat, which has 
interrupted debate time on this important bill.
  The caucuses are discussing some final issues, and I will be 
developing a list of amendments that we should consider relating to 
this legislation. I hope these conversations continue so we find a way 
to complete the bill in a timely and efficient manner.
  As an original cosponsor of the Indian health bill, I am committed to 
seeing an Indian health bill signed into law and will continue to work 
with Senator Dorgan, Senator Murkowski, and my Republican counterpart 
to complete this legislation as soon as possible.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am pleased to support the Indian 
Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007. This bill is long 
overdue, and I hope that we in the Senate can ensure this bill's quick 
passage.
  There are significant unmet needs in Indian Country throughout this 
Nation, and addressing the unmet health care needs ranks as one of the 
most significant issues that we must address. The Federal Government 
has a well-established trust responsibility with regard to American 
Indian affairs, and this trust responsibility extends to providing good 
health care to communities throughout Indian Country.
  I am impressed with the bipartisan work that Senator Dorgan and the 
Senate Indian Affairs Committee have put into moving this bill forward, 
and I commend the committee for its dedication to significant 
consultation with Indian Country in drafting and negotiating this bill. 
Because of the strong consultation with individual tribes and 
collective organizations like the National Tribal Steering Committee 
and the National Indian Health Board, the Senate Indian Affairs 
Committee has put together a comprehensive reform bill that will help 
improve the health care services available to American Indians around 
the country.
  This bill has the support of tribal governments throughout the 
Nation, including the 11 federally recognized tribes in my State of 
Wisconsin. I have heard from a number of constituents in Wisconsin 
about the need to pass this important piece of legislation and the 
improvements that the legislation will make to various Indian Health 
Service programs including clinical programs, on the various 
reservations throughout the State and the urban Indian program in the 
city of Milwaukee.
  Health care is consistently the No. 1 issue that I hear about all 
over my home State of Wisconsin. When I hold my annual townhall 
meetings across the State, many people come to tell me about problems 
with our overall health care system, and data shows us that these 
problems are often most acutely felt in Indian Country. Lack of access 
to good health care is a problem that disproportionately affects 
American Indians throughout the United States. According to the Indian 
Health Service, American Indians and Alaska Natives are 200 percent 
more likely to die from diabetes, more than 500 percent more likely to 
die from alcoholism, and approximately 500 percent more likely to die 
from tuberculosis.
  I was disappointed to hear one of my colleagues say yesterday on the 
floor that American lives do not depend on whether we pass the Indian 
health care bill by the end of the month. The staggering health 
statistics I cited earlier show just how imperative it is that we

[[Page S178]]

pass this legislation, which is long overdue. These statistics also 
help illustrate the vast amount of work that needs to be done to 
improve the quality of health care in American Indian communities. This 
piece of legislation takes an important first step toward addressing 
these health care disparities through the many reforms it makes to 
Indian health care programs. Contrary to what my colleague asserted 
yesterday, American lives do depend on this legislation. Modernizing 
Indian Health Services programs through this legislation will help to 
address the diabetes and suicide crises that exist on reservations--
just two examples of the many health care issues that impact the daily 
lives of American Indians across the country.
  Reauthorization of this bill will help encourage health care 
providers to practice at facilities in Indian Country and encourage 
American Indians to enter the health care profession and serve their 
communities. Recruiting talented and dedicated professionals to serve 
in IHS facilities, whether urban or rural, is a key challenge facing 
many tribal communities in Wisconsin and around the country. I hope 
these provisions will help bring additional dedicated doctors, nurses, 
and other health care professionals to our tribal populations.
  This bill also reauthorizes programs that assist urban Indian 
organizations with providing health care to American Indians living in 
urban centers around the country. The Urban Indian Health Program 
represents a tiny fraction of the Indian Health Services budget, but 
the small amount of resources given to the urban programs provide 
critical health services to those Indians living in urban areas. 
Contrary to what some people may think, the majority of American 
Indians now live in urban areas around the country, including two urban 
areas in my State--Milwaukee and Green Bay. Throughout our Nation's 
history, some American Indians came to urban centers voluntarily, but 
many were forcibly sent to urban areas as a result of wrongheaded 
Federal Indian policy in the 1950s and 1960s and have since stayed in 
urban areas and planted roots in these communities.
  As a result of this movement to urban centers, Congress created the 
urban Indian program in the late 1970s to address the growing urban 
Indian population around the country. The Federal Government's 
responsibility to American Indians does not end simply because some 
American Indians left their ancestral lands and moved to urban 
locations--particularly when some of them had little choice in the 
matter.
  While this legislation takes important steps toward improving urban 
Indian health care programs, we need to do much more to support these 
urban programs, including fighting for increased appropriations. I have 
been disappointed that the President has proposed zeroing out the urban 
Indian program in past budgets, and I fear that this year's upcoming 
budget will be no different. As in years past, I will join with my 
colleagues in efforts to restore funding for urban Indian programs to 
the Federal budget, and I hope this year we can also provide a much 
needed boost in funding for the urban Indian programs.
  While this bill is a good first step towards reforming and improving 
access to health care in Indian Country, I also look forward to working 
with my colleagues to examine better ways to address the disparities 
that exist in the funding allocated to various IHS regions, including 
the Bemidji region, which covers Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, 
Indiana, and Illinois. According to the latest available data compiled 
by the Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Epidemiology Center, the Bemidji Indian 
Health service area has lower funding rates than other Indian Health 
Service areas around the country. Even though the Bemidji region's 
funding rates are lower than other areas, the region has higher rates 
of heart disease and cancer than other regions and has the second worst 
diabetes rate in the IHS system. Not only do we need to provide more 
funding for all IHS regions, we also need to better address disparities 
that exist within the system, and I look forward to working with my 
colleagues in the coming months to address those disparities.
  This bill is a solid first step toward improving access to health 
care in Indian Country. Unfortunately, the Senate was not able to 
finish work on this important bill before we had to move to debate 
another matter. I understand the majority leader has made a commitment 
to return to the Indian health care bill after we finish that other 
debate, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the 
American Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007 in the 
near future. We need to move forward on this critical bill, and I urge 
all my colleagues, whether Republican or Democrat, to work together 
quickly to ensure its swift passage.
  Indian Country has made many compromises in order to move this bill 
forward, and passage of this bill is long overdue. This bill takes 
important steps toward addressing some of the health care needs facing 
American Indian communities around the country, and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to build on this legislation in the coming 
months and years. I also hope that we can continue to work together in 
a bipartisan way to pass the reauthorization of the Native American 
Housing and Self-Determination Act, work on legislation to address the 
education needs of American Indian youth, and address other legislative 
areas in order to help ensure stronger futures for American Indians 
throughout the country.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise in support of renewing and 
reinvigorating the Indian healthcare programs. For too long, we have 
neglected our duty to review this program and ensure that it continues 
to efficiently deliver high quality health care. As a part of that 
effort, last Congress Senator McCain, Senator Dorgan, Senator 
Murkowski, and I introduced comprehensive legislation to do just that. 
I am pleased that a great portion of the bill we are discussing today 
includes provisions from that bill, S. 4122.
  In crafting that legislation last Congress, we kept in mind the 80-20 
rule. Eighty percent of the time we were going to agree on a topic. It 
is only 20 percent that we are going to disagree. Therefore, to gain 
broad support, we focused on the 80 percent to ensure that it was 
strong, bipartisan legislation.
  However, there are a few ways in which the bill before us deviates 
from the language in S. 4122. Sometimes, those changes are improvements 
as we all review the language again. Unfortunately, some issues still 
remain.
  Those issues include Federal liability coverage for traditional 
healthcare practices. If we don't correct this, the Federal Government 
could be telling Americans how to practice their own religious beliefs. 
In addition, we need to more fully understand the appropriate role for 
providing services to urban Indians. I do think there is middle ground, 
or a third way--as I like to call it--to be found. In addition, there 
must be an appropriate offset to the legislation. Given the pay-go 
rules in both Chambers, in addition to our own Senate procedural 
hurdles, it is necessary and fiscally appropriate to have a responsible 
offset.
  I have also heard from my colleagues that there are at least two 
outstanding issues within the Finance Committee's title of this 
legislation. I hope those can also be discussed and resolved. 
Specifically, the concerns center around the elimination of Medicaid 
copays and removal of particular citizenship requirements.
  As the optimist and the Senator advocating for the ``third way,'' I 
am hopeful that we all can continue discussing these issues and come to 
an agreement as to how we move forward. Individuals depending on the 
Indian Health Services for their health care deserve no less.
  Mr. WEBB. Madam President, the Senate is in the midst of an important 
debate to extend and improve health care to our Nation's federally 
recognized Indian tribes. I support the Indian Health Care Improvement 
Act and I commend all those, including the distinguished chairman, 
Senator Dorgan, for their work on it.
  As we work to extend health care to more Native Americans, some of 
our oldest and most historically significant Indian tribes will be left 
outside the process, ineligible to participate in either the health 
care services or other programs authorized by the Federal Government.
  I bring to your attention my strong support of a bill passed last 
year by the

[[Page S179]]

U.S. House of Representatives, which would grant Federal recognition to 
six Native American tribes from the Commonwealth of Virginia. That bill 
is the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal 
Recognition Act, H.R. 1294.
  Once the Senate passes that bill and the President signs it into law, 
these six federally recognized tribes would become eligible for the 
benefits conferred under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which 
the Senate currently is debating. I hope that the Senate will pass the 
Indian Health Care Improvement Act this week. Just as importantly, I 
hope that during this session of Congress, the Senate will pass the 
Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act, 
thereby bestowing Federal benefits to these six tribes that have waited 
over 15 years for recognition.
  The six tribes affected by the Federal Recognition Act are (1) the 
Chickahominy Tribe; (2) the Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern 
Division; (3) the Upper Mattaponi Tribe; (4) the Rappahannock Tribe, 
Inc.; (5) the Monacan Indian Nation; and (6) the Nansemond Indian 
Tribe.
  All six tribes included in the Federal Recognition Act have attempted 
to gain formal recognition through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA. A 
lack of resources, coupled with unclear agency guidelines, have 
contributed to a backlog that currently exists at the BIA. Some 
applications for recognition can take up to 20 years.
  Virginia's history and policies create barriers for Virginia's Native 
American Tribes to meet the BIA criteria for Federal recognition. Many 
Western tribes experienced Government neglect during the 20th century, 
but Virginia's story is different. Virginia's tribes were specifically 
targeted by unique policies.
  Virginia was the first State to pass antimiscegenation laws in 1691, 
which were not eliminated until 1967.
  Virginia's Bureau of Vital Statistics went so far as changing race 
records on many birth, death and marriage certificates. The elimination 
of racial identity records had a harmful impact on Virginia's tribes in 
the late 1990s, when they began seeking Federal recognition.
  Moreover, many Virginia counties suffered tremendous loss of their 
early records during the intense military activity that occurred during 
the Civil War.
  After meeting with leaders of Virginia's Indian tribes and months of 
thorough investigation of the facts, I concluded that legislative 
action is needed for recognition of Virginia's tribes. Congressional 
hearings and reports over the last several Congresses demonstrate the 
ancestry and status of these tribes. I have come to the conclusion that 
this recognition is justified based on principles of dignity and 
fairness. I have spent several months examining this issue in great 
detail, including the rich history and culture of Virginia's tribes. My 
staff and I asked a number of tough questions, and great care and 
deliberation were put into arriving at this conclusion.
  Last year, we celebrated the 400th anniversary of Jamestown America's 
first colony. After 400 years since the founding of Jamestown, these 
six tribes deserve to join our Nation's other 562 federally recognized 
tribes.
  As I mentioned, the House overwhelming passed the Thomasina E. Jordan 
Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act, with bipartisan 
support. Virginia Governor Tim Kaine and the Virginia legislature 
support Federal recognition for these tribes. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues in the Senate, especially those on the Indian 
Affairs Committee, to push for passage of the Thomasina E. Jordan 
Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act.
  At a time when we are debating how to effectively promote Indian 
health care, it is important that we grant these six Virginia tribes 
the access to these essential Federal health programs.

                          ____________________