[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22336-22343]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                            2004--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed 
to speak for up to 5 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Alexander pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1628 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the matter now before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. H.R. 2691, the Interior appropriations bill, 
is now before the Senate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am going to send an amendment to the desk. 
I have spoken with both leaders. I have not spoken with Senator Burns. 
I have spoken through his staff to him. I have spoken, of course, to 
Senator Dorgan. I am sending this amendment to the desk with the 
understanding that we will not vote on it until after the caucus on 
Tuesday. The reason for that is this is a very important amendment for 
this side. We want to make sure we have the opportunity on Tuesday to 
speak on it, all 49 members of the Democratic caucus, prior to the 
vote.

[[Page 22337]]




                           Amendment No. 1731

     (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for initiating any new 
                     competitive sourcing studies)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk not only on 
my behalf but on the behalf of Senators Lieberman, Landrieu, Kennedy, 
and Murray.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Kennedy, and Mrs. Murray, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1731:
       On page 137, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:

     SEC. 3__. COMPETITIVE SOURCING STUDIES.

       None of the funds made available by this Act shall be used 
     to initiate any competitive sourcing studies after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is a very short amendment, but it 
affects the lives of thousands and thousands of people who work for the 
Park Service. It affects the lives of every American who enjoys the 
great resources of our country.
  The amendment I sent to the desk will stop this administration from 
moving forward to privatize our national parks, forest lands, and other 
public lands. It would nip the administration's ill-conceived 
privatization plan in the bud.
  More specifically, this amendment prohibits the expenditure of funds 
on new outsourcing studies. These are privatization studies for the 
agencies funded in this bill. These agencies were created to protect 
special places in nature as a legacy for future generations. They 
should be managed for posterity and not managed for profit.
  The House of Representatives has agreed that privatization is a bad 
idea. It included this language in the Interior appropriations bill 
that passed in July. The Nation's hard-working public servants who care 
for our forests and parks not only collect fees and maintain parks, but 
also give directions, fight wildfires, and help injured visitors.
  Volunteers who love our public spaces provide tens of thousands of 
hours of work for these agencies every year. Will contractors receive 
volunteers? Will there be volunteers for these people who are working 
for profit in our national resources, our national treasures? It is 
very unlikely.
  While the administration's plan has been marketed as a cost-saving 
measure, just the opposite is true. Privatization will waste taxpayer 
dollars. Privatization studies may cost as much as $8,000 per position 
studied. This means that next year, the agencies funded in this bill 
could waste as much as $26.4 million on these studies, studies for a 
wrongheaded idea that is bad for our parks, forests, the people who 
care for them, and the people who visit these parks.
  Also, these contractors lack the knowledge of the sites that public 
servants possess. They are at the sites for one reason: Not people, but 
profit. I have nothing against profit motive. I think it is great 
selling cars, books, shoes, clothes--virtually everything. I certainly 
don't think it is a good idea to privatize our beautiful resources, our 
national treasures.
  At a recreation area in Nevada, a contractor designed metal courtesy 
docks to be built in an area where temperatures reach up to 120 degrees 
in the summer. These docks would have burned visitors in the months 
when the docks were the busiest. The discarded design cost $21,000 in 
taxpayer money, and instead of building five courtesy docks as 
intended, the recreation area only had funding to build two docks.
  Nevadans visiting our public places, Americans visiting our public 
places want professionals enriching their experience by directing them 
to famous sites and the best-kept secrets of our parks.
  These are a few things people have written to me about on this 
subject. Zephyr Cove, NV, is in the Lake Tahoe region. It surrounds 
Lake Tahoe. This is not a public employee, but she says:

       I'm one small voice, but I'm convinced that privatization 
     of our National Park System would be another step to 
     demolishing what little resources we have now and what we can 
     hope to gain in the future to hold and treasure for future 
     generations.

  She says further:

       Many of the Park Service personnel are neighbors and our 
     friends. They care deeply about what they do. Their pay is 
     relatively low for the expertise they have. They do it 
     because they know the value of protecting our parks, wildlife 
     habitats, and environment.

  I do not know for sure if the administration's true agenda here is to 
undermine that commitment to our national parks, forests, and other 
public lands. I don't know that, but that is what many feel.
  An editorial in The Tennessean believes that. Editorializing recently 
against this plan, the paper had this to say:

      . . . privatizing the professionals on whom the parks depend 
     to manage resources will rid the administration of those 
     pesky folks who keep pointing out what harm has been done by 
     President Bush's reckless environmental policies.

  This is an editorial that was written in The Tennessean on August 29, 
2003.
  We have heard not only from newspapers around the country and people 
who don't work for the public entities, but we also heard from public 
custodians of our treasures. I am not going to use their names here, of 
course. They might somehow be harmed at work.
  One public employee writes:

       The depth and breadth of loyalty that is inherent to the 
     average [public] employee cannot be contracted out.

  And he is absolutely right. The public employees my amendment would 
honor share a lot in common with Members of this body, our staffs, our 
police, and others who work here. They, like us, sought their jobs to 
serve other people and to advance positive goals and ideals. It is that 
motivation and loyalty that cannot be outsourced no matter how much 
money we throw at studying it.
  The privatizing concept, as set forth in The Tennessean, says it all:

     . . . privatizing the professionals on whom the parks depend 
     to manage resources will rid the administration of those 
     pesky folks who keep pointing out what harm has been done by 
     President Bush's reckless environmental policies.

  Loyalty, public service, and dedication to our public lands cannot be 
outsourced. It cannot be privatized.
  I hope people understand these great national parks we have. These 
are treasures. These national parks are the envy of the world. Nevada 
is fortunate, but we only have one national park. It is a wonderful 
place, Great Basin National Park, a very new national park. It is small 
by national park standards, about 80,000 acres. It has a 13,000-foot 
mountain on it, Wheeler Peak. It has a glacier. It has the oldest 
living thing in the world, a bristlecone pine.
  These trees are over 5,000 years old. Think about that--trees that 
started growing before Christ came to Earth. These trees were around 
the same time the pyramids came into existence. They are living things 
at the Great Basin National Park.
  In our park, we have the Lehman Caves. Around the turn of the last 
century, a man who was a cowboy was out riding his horse and he 
suddenly found himself in a deep underground cavern. The horse, as far 
as I know, was not injured, but that was the beginning of a great 
odyssey for people to visit this magnificent part of nature, Lehman 
Caves, which is now in the Great Basin National Park.
  We were fortunate enough a short time ago to be present at that 
facility when they dedicated the new visitors center. It is in a remote 
part of the State of Nevada, but it is a place that people from all 
over the world travel to because of its uniqueness.
  Great Basin is only one of our many national parks. I was in Montana 
and Wyoming recently. I had the good fortune, after these many years, 
to once again visit Yellowstone National Park. I was only able to spend 
a couple of hours there, but it was a great experience.
  I first went there shortly after my wife and I returned from law 
school in Washington. We traveled from Las Vegas on one of the first 
vacations we ever took. We could have gone anyplace our small budget at 
that time would handle, but we drove from Las Vegas to Yellowstone. I 
still look back

[[Page 22338]]

with great awe at Old Faithful and the many other things we were able 
to see, the buffalos and other animals. So when I returned there, even 
though it was only for a few hours, the place I wanted to go visit 
again was Old Faithful.
  Old Faithful spewed a few times during the time I was there. We took 
a walk through Geyser Park. We saw buffalo lying right near the 
geysers. The reason these great animals come and lie down near these 
spewing geysers is that, to a great extent, they keep the pests off 
themselves by doing so.
  Even though I was there just a short time, it was wonderful again, 
after 25 years, to reflect back on my little children when they were 
tiny going there and visiting that park.
  This experience I had was magnified on both occasions by virtue of 
the people who work there. They have nothing of which to be ashamed. 
They are Government employees who have dedicated their lives not to 
seeing how much money they can make but to being in the great outdoors, 
being part of nature.
  I can remember the woman who took us on our walk through this little 
Geyser Park. She was an expert. She knew when every geyser was going to 
spew forth some water. She was able to tell stories about how people 
first discovered them. She is a woman who makes very little money but 
is talented, as a person in her position should be.
  So on the two occasions I visited Yellowstone, my experiences were so 
much better as a result of the people who work there for the Federal 
Government--park rangers, other park employees.
  I hope this Senate will respond overwhelmingly and support this 
amendment, as was done in the House.
  The people who work in these parks are not Democrats. They are not 
Republicans. In the true sense of the word, this should not be a 
Democratic amendment. It should be an amendment that is supported by 
the Senate to protect these faithful employees of the Federal 
Government.
  We are very fortunate in the State of Nevada to have a large presence 
of the Federal Government. I say fortunate because 87 percent of the 
land in the State of Nevada is owned by the Federal Government. Only 13 
percent of Nevada is owned by individuals; the rest is Government land. 
The Bureau of Land Management's largest assets are in the State of 
Nevada.
  In addition to the national forests and the park I have described, we 
have large parts of the State of Nevada, as I have indicated, that are 
controlled by the Bureau of Land Management. The employees who work for 
the BLM are just as dedicated as those people who work in our parks.
  The forest rangers are also people who work so hard for so little 
return. I am convinced that if this is put out to the lowest bidder, we 
are going to have parks that are visited by people who recognize that 
these people are not there for any purpose other than somebody who got 
the contract and is trying to make a buck, someone who has gotten 
minimum-wage employees to get by with as little as possible.
  We cannot let this go forward. It is a slap in the face to these 
loyal, dedicated public servants. It is a slap in the face of the 
American public. These Federal assets are owned by all of us, and all 
of us should have a say in how these parks are run. Renting them out to 
the lowest bidder is not the way to do it.
  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 (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1732

  Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1732.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire certain 
                  land located in Nye County, Nevada)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. ACQUISITION OF LAND IN NYE COUNTY, NEVADA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior may acquire 
     by donation all right, title, and interest in and to the 
     parcel of land (including improvements to the land) described 
     in subsection (b).
       (b) Description of Land.--The land referred to in 
     subsection (a) is the parcel of land in Nye County, Nevada--
       (1) consisting of not more than 15 acres;
       (2) comprising a portion of Tract 37 located north of the 
     center line of Nevada State Highway 374; and
       (3) located in the E\1/2\NW\1/4\, NW\1/4\NE\1/4\ sec. 22, 
     T. 12 S., R. 46 E., Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.
       (c) Use of Land.--The parcel of land acquired under 
     subsection (a) shall be used by the Secretary of the Interior 
     for the development, operation, and maintenance of 
     administrative and visitor facilities for Death Valley 
     National Park.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1733

  Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1733.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide for the conveyance of land to the city of Las 
 Vegas, Nevada, for the construction of affordable housing for seniors)

       On page 137, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:

     SEC. 3__. CONVEYANCE TO THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS, NEVADA.

       Section 705(b) of the Clark County Conservation of Public 
     Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2015) is 
     amended by striking ``parcels of land'' and all that follows 
     through the period at the end and inserting the following: 
     ``parcel of land identified as `Tract C' on the map and the 
     approximately 10 acres of land in Clark County, Nevada, 
     described as follows: in the NW\1/4\ SE\1/4\ SW\1/4\ of 
     section 28, T. 20 S., R. 60 E., Mount Diablo Base and 
     Meridian.''.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, before I turn the floor over to the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, I would simply like to say 
that upon completion of the last judge vote today, that means we have 
approved 151 judges during the little over 2\1/2\ years President Bush 
has been President. I think we are doing remarkably good work for this 
President as relates to judges. The count is 151 to 3. That means there 
have been three judges who have been submitted to us we have not 
accepted.
  President Reagan did not reach 150 judges until well into the fourth 
year of his first term. The first President Bush did not receive his 
150th Federal judge until well into his fourth year. During President 
Clinton's second term, the term just preceding this administration, he 
did not appoint his 150th judge until his fourth year. So we are a year 
and a half--at least a year ahead of Reagan, first President Bush, and 
the second term of President Clinton.
  So we have done extremely well. Senator Leahy is to be commended for 
his ability to move these judges in conjunction with the distinguished 
Senator from Utah, the chairman, Senator Hatch.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                                  IRAQ

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I rise today to voice my concern about the

[[Page 22339]]

disastrous turn which the fortunes of this Nation have taken. The Bush 
administration, in a scant 2\1/2\ years, has imperiled our country in 
the gravest of ways, and set us up for a possible crisis of mammoth 
proportions. The crisis may not occur tomorrow in these proportions, or 
the next day, but it is coming.
  Instead of linking arms with a world which offered its heart in 
sympathy after the brutality of the terrorist attacks in September of 
2001, this White House, the Bush White House, through hubris and false 
bravado, has slapped away the hand of assistance. This administration 
has insulted our allies and our friends with its bullying and go-it-
alone frenzy to attack the nation of Iraq.
  In order to justify such an attack, it was decided somewhere in the 
White House to blur the images of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. 
Blurred images notwithstanding, what is becoming increasingly clear to 
many Americans is that they are going to be asked to carry a heavy, 
heavy load for a long, long time.
  Let me be clear. We are presently engaged in not one war but two 
wars: The war begun by Osama bin Laden, who attacked this Nation on the 
September 11, 2001, and then there is the war begun by President George 
W. Bush when he directed U.S. forces to attack Iraq on March 19, 2003. 
The first war was thrust upon us. The bombing of Afghanistan was a just 
retaliation against that attack. The second war, on the other hand, was 
a war of our choosing. We chose it. It was an unnecessary attack upon a 
sovereign nation. This President and this administration have tried 
mightily to convince the people of America that attacking Iraq was 
critical to protecting them, the people of this country, from 
terrorism. The case that the administration makes is false, it is 
flimsy, and the war, I believe, was unwise and was unnecessary and was 
without ample justification.
  The war against Iraq has crippled the global effort to counter 
terrorism. The war in Iraq has made a peace agreement between Israel 
and its adversaries harder to obtain. The obsession with Iraq has 
served to downplay the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The 
focus on Saddam Hussein has diverted attention from bin Laden, who is 
apparently still on the loose and threatening to attack again. The war 
in Iraq has alienated our traditional allies and fractured the cohesive 
alliance against terrorism which existed after 9/11. It has made the 
United States appear to the world to be a bellicose invader of another 
country. It has called our motives into question. It has galvanized the 
worldwide terrorism movement against us. The war in Iraq has cost us 
lives and treasure. Yet this President will shortly request $87 billion 
more for his ill-fated adventure.
  He says we will spend whatever it takes. So he says your money--it is 
your money. We have heard that many times. It is your money, and he 
says your money we will spend, whatever it takes.
  Prudence dictates that we consider the risks. This Nation has 
suffered massive job losses amounting to 93,000 in August alone and 
approximately 600,000 since January of this year. Job losses of this 
magnitude mean less money coming into the Treasury and more money going 
out. U.S. manufacturing jobs continue to disappear overseas as 
companies relocate operations on other shores. There seems to be no 
end, thus far--there seems to be no end to the job hemorrhage. The 
manufacturing sector has lost jobs for 37 months in a row. The weak job 
market threatens to sap our strength from our domestic economy. Should 
inflation begin to creep up, as some worry that it will, higher energy 
costs and lower consumer confidence may slow the economy further.
  Suppose another massive al-Qaida attack were to occur here at home, 
killing hundreds or thousands and delivering another devastating blow 
to the U.S. economy? Could we still afford to continue to send billions 
of taxpayer dollars to Iraq? At best, our future economic growth is 
uncertain. There are too many unknowns. Our deficit is growing. When 
the $87 billion 2004 Iraq Supplemental is included, as it probably will 
be, the deficit for 2004 alone is expected to total $535 billion.
  That is $530 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. That 
number will only grow, if we continue to experience massive job losses 
and the economy takes a turn for the worse.
  We can ill afford to finance the rebuilding of Iraq alone. Yet 
President Bush steadfastly resists doing what it takes to involve the 
international community.
  It should be obvious that we need assistance. The United States 
cannot even continue to supply the troops to secure Iraq without more 
help. A recent Congressional Budget Office study, which I requested, 
makes it clear that maintaining the level of troops we now have in Iraq 
will stretch us very thin should something happen in Korea or elsewhere 
on this troubled globe. Our National Guard is being asked to stay 
longer and longer in Iraq to help backfill the shortage in regular 
troops. These are men and women with jobs and families and key roles to 
play in their own communities. We cannot continue to utilize their 
skills in Iraq without suffering the consequences at home.
  Even now, as a hurricane lurks off our shores, there are worries 
about shortages of emergency personnel because so many National Guard 
men and women are serving in Iraq.
  But the Bush administration continues to spend our treasure and our 
troop strength in a single-focusd obsession with the fiasco in Iraq. 
Are we to mortgage the future of our Nation to years of financing this 
unwise adventure? Surely we cannot ask American families for sacrifice 
indefinitely, especially when their sacrifices are made to advance a 
war we do not need to fight, that we ought not to have gone overseas to 
fight. We chose to attack another country.
  We must come to grips with our limits. We must acknowledge risks and 
reality.
  Yet on last Sunday, Vice President Cheney dug his heels in at the 
suggestion of rethinking our policy in Iraq. In a television interview, 
Vice President Cheney said he saw no reason to ``think that the 
strategy is flawed or needs to be changed.''
  He went on to try to convince the American public that Iraq was ``the 
geographic base'' for the perpetrators of 9/11. Think of that--a claim 
that this humble Senator has never heard before, and that flies in the 
face of U.S. intelligence agencies which repeatedly have said they have 
found no links--none--between the 9/11 attacks and Saddam Hussein or 
Iraq. We may come to rue the day when we took our eyes off bin Laden 
and sapped our energies and our credibility in this quagmire in Iraq. 
We chose to attack that country. Yet there seems to be no soul 
searching in this White House about the consequences of this war.
  While Bush's aides talk of ``generational commitment'' and the 
President talks of ``sacrifice,'' I wonder if the American people fully 
comprehend what they are being urged to forego. They have already 
sacrificed loved ones with 158 troops killed and 856 wounded just since 
President Bush declared the end of major combat on May 1. How many more 
families must sacrifice? How many more families must sacrifice while we 
occupy Iraq?
  The President says we will do whatever it takes. Mr. Rumsfeld says we 
will do whatever it takes. How many more families must sacrifice while 
we occupy Iraq?
  A generation of ``sacrifice'' may also mean a slow sapping of key 
national priorities, including repairing the infrastructure which fuels 
our economic engine and funding the institutions and programs which 
benefit all Americans. Compare the latest request for the Iraq 
supplemental with the commitment in dollars to other vital programs, 
and the picture becomes more clear. President Bush is asking for $87 
billion for Iraq but only $34.6 billion for Homeland Security--$29-plus 
billion--which will come to the Senate soon in a bill which was marked 
up today. The President wants $87 billion for Iraq but only $66.2 
billion for the discretionary programs for the Department of Health and 
Human Services.
  The President seeks $87 billion to secure Iraq but only $52.1 billion 
for the

[[Page 22340]]

U.S. Department of Education. The President wants $87 billion to shore 
up Iraq but only $29.3 billion for America's highways and road 
construction.
  For the State Department and foreign aid for the entire world, 
President Bush sees a need for only $27.4 billion. Yet Iraq is worth 
over three times that much to this White House.
  Remember that $87 billion is just for 2004 alone. Does anyone really 
believe it will be the last request we will receive for Iraq? No. This 
is just the tip of the iceberg, in all likelihood.
  The President asked America for a generation of ``sacrifice,'' but 
that noble-sounding word does not reveal the true nature of what the 
President demands from the American people. He asks them to supply the 
fighting men and women to prosecute his war.
  Yes, he asked them, the American people, to supply the fighting men 
and women to prosecute his war. I am not talking about the war that 
began on September 11, 2001. That was an attack upon us by al-Qaida. I 
am talking about his war, the President's war in Iraq, which began in 
March of this year in which he, the Commander in Chief, ordered the 
attack on Iraq, a sovereign country that had not attacked us and which 
did not represent an imminent threat to the security of our country.
  He implores our people to sacrifice adequate health care. He asks our 
people to settle for less than the best education for their children. 
Think about it. He asks our people, the American people, to sacrifice 
medical research that could prolong and save lives. He asks the 
American people to put up with unsafe highways and dangerous bridges. 
He asks them to live with substandard housing and foul water. He asks 
the American people to forego better public transportation and not just 
for now but for generations. And all of it for his folly in Iraq.
  Most puzzling to this Senator is this President's stubborn refusal to 
guard against the terror threat at home by adequately funding Homeland 
Security. Is he asking us all to risk the safety of our homeland, too?
  And to further insult the hard-working people of this Nation, George 
Walker Bush proposes to lay this sacrifice not only on the adult 
population of this great country but on their children and their 
grandchildren by increasing the deficit with nary a thought to the 
consequences.
  Yet not a peep can be heard from this White House about paying for 
some of this sacrifice of which the President speaks by foregoing a 
portion of future tax cuts, tax cuts that mainly benefit those citizens 
who do not need so many of the services the Government has to provide.
  Our reputation around the globe, America's reputation around the 
globe, has already been seriously damaged by this administration. Are 
the dreams and hopes of millions of Americans to be ``sacrificed'' as 
well on the altar, on the bloody altar, of Iraq?
  I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about the growing 
quagmire in Iraq. I urge members of the President's own party to warn 
him about the quicksand he asks America to wade in. We need a long and 
thorough debate about the future of our country. We need a serious 
discussion about the kind of America we will leave to our children and 
grandchildren. We need to renew our efforts to negotiate a peace 
agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Are we fighting a war in 
Iraq when pushing the peace might better serve our cause? We must think 
again about world-wide terrorism--and it comes in many forms and 
shapes--and the best way to combat it. Let us not continue to simply 
wage the wrong war, Mr. Bush's war in Iraq.


             ANNIVERSARY OF THE SIGNING OF THE CONSTITUTION

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, September 17 is a day of history in American 
calendar. On this day in 1630, the city of Boston was founded. On 
September 17, 1947, James V. Forrestal was sworn in as this Nation's 
first Secretary of Defense.
  On September 17, 1920, the National Football league was formed in 
Canton, OH. On September 17, 1954, Ernie Banks became the first Black 
baseball player to wear a Chicago Cubs uniform. He was voted ``best 
player ever'' by Chicago fans when he retired in 1971. On September 17, 
1984, Reggie Jackson hit his 500th career homer, seventeen years to the 
day after he hit his first major league home run.
  On this day in 1911, the first transcontinental airplane flight took 
place between New York City and Pasadena, CA. It took pilot C.P. Rogers 
82 hours to cover that distance. Just 65 years later, on September 17, 
1976, the Space Shuttle was revealed to the public for the first time, 
ready to take men into the heavens. Such a lot of change in such a 
short period of time.
  Last week, in another airplane related piece of history, the nation 
sadly observed the second anniversary of the tragic events of September 
11, 2001. It was a terrible, terrible day, marked by the awful, abrupt 
end of too many innocent lives. September 17, 1862, was another 
terrible, terrible day. On that beautiful September day, over 23,000 
men were killed, wounded, or missing in action after the Battle of 
Antietam, outside Sharpsburg, MD--just over the line from the eastern 
panhandle of West Virginia. That battle was a turning point in the 
Civil War.
  But by far, one of the most important events in this Nation's history 
happened on the 17th of September, 1787. On that memorable day, the 
members of the Constitutional Convention signed the document that has 
led this Nation safely through the shoals of history for the past 216 
years, surviving even the devastation of the Civil War. It was this 
document that I hold in my hand: the Constitution of the United States 
of America.
  That Constitution was not our first attempt at self-governance. It 
followed on the heels of the Articles of Confederation, which was the 
first Constitution, correcting the failures of that weak Government by 
establishing a stronger central Government to manage the differences 
between the States and to provide for the common good. And then, to 
assuage the concerns of those citizens who feared that a strong central 
Government would trample on the rights of the individual, the 
Constitution was amended after ratification with the first 10 
constitutional amendments, guaranteeing individual freedoms in what has 
become known as the American Bill of Rights.
  The Constitution of the United States has, sadly, been overlooked by 
many in the public over the years. It is not a lofty piece of rhetoric 
like the better known Declaration of Independence. But the Constitution 
is the strongest piece of armor protecting the rights and the freedoms 
of each and every citizen--your rights, your rights, your rights, yes, 
your rights, and yours, and yours, and mine. It deserves to be better 
known. It is, after all, our manual for governance, our handbook of 
Government, the tech manual for our national operating system. And 
unlike many technical manuals, it is easy to read and to understand, 
even 216 years later.
  This short document is blunt and straightforward. It starts with only 
a preamble and then gets right to the heart. In Article I, it sets 
forth the domain of the legislative branch and the qualifying 
requirements for us legislators. It does the same for the executive 
branch in Article II, laying out the procedure for selecting a 
President and stating what his domain and powers shall be. Then the 
judicial branch gets the same treatment, short and sweet, in Article 
III. Article IV sets out the States' rights and duties to the central 
Government and provides for the addition of new States. Article V, in a 
single paragraph, lays out the procedure for amending the Constitution. 
Article VI provides for the transfer of power from the Articles of 
Confederation to the new Constitution and makes the Constitution and 
the Federal laws the supreme law--together with treaties--the supreme 
law of the land. Article VII provides the procedure for ratifying the 
Constitution.
  There it is. There it is--a new Government in only seven articles. It 
takes more verbiage than that just to buy a house in these days.
  The Constitution is an amazing product of compromise and balance, 
created by just a handful of delegates--55--in under 4 months. Many of 
the delegates'

[[Page 22341]]

names should be familiar to most Americans, names such as George 
Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, and James 
Madison, George Mason, Benjamin Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton. Other 
famous names were not present, such as Thomas Jefferson. He was not 
there. He was serving at the time as the Ambassador to France. Then 
there was John Adams, who was in London as the U.S. Ambassador. The 
details of the Convention of 1787 make fascinating reading.
  The Convention met in closed session, but James Madison obtained 
permission to take notes on the debates. His notes, supplemented by the 
outlines or drafts of other delegates, were not published until 1840--4 
years after his death. They outline the evolution of the document, 
showing competing alternatives and the compromises that allowed the 
large and small States, and all of the other conflicting interests, to 
reach agreement on a final document that all agreed could be ratified 
by the States.
  The body in which I speak, and to which I have been elected time and 
time again by the people of West Virginia, the Senate, is the result of 
one such contentious debate that almost caused the Convention to 
adjourn.
  I was talking with the pages just the other day, and we talked about 
the Great Compromise. I talk with these pages, the Republican pages and 
the Democratic pages. They change from time to time. They will be here 
perhaps for half a semester or a full semester or a few days. When we 
are out for a break, there will be a different group of pages. And we 
talk about history. These fine pages and I were just commenting the 
other day about the Great Compromise. I said, What do we mean by the 
phrase the ``Great Compromise''? Well, that is what I am referring to 
now.
  At one point during the Convention, the Virginia plan called for the 
creation of a bicameral legislature, with each House's representation 
apportioned by population. This suited Virginia and other large States 
well but was opposed by small States that feared joining a Union so 
dominated by the larger States. The delegations from the small States 
argued that their citizens would never ratify a Constitution that did 
not recognize some form of State equality.
  After 3 weeks of increasingly bitter debate, the delegates agreed to 
what has come to be known as the Great Compromise. The result of that 
compromise is the Congress that we know today--a lower House, chosen 
according to population, and with the sole authority to originate 
revenue bills; and an upper House, the Senate, in which each State has 
an equal vote.
  Other compromises were necessary for the Convention to reach 
agreement, some less successful than that which led to the composition 
of the Congress, some positively inspired. The delegates deliberated 
over the power of the executive; they deliberated over interstate 
commerce; they deliberated over the subject of slavery--these among 
other topics.
  A small but inspired compromise is contained in the Preamble. The 
Preamble to the Articles of Confederation named the States in 
geographic order from north to south. Without knowing which States 
would ratify the Constitution, and in what order, the delegates in 
Philadelphia were uncertain how to list the participating States.
  So the answer was a graceful new opening: ``We the people of the 
United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution . . .'' 
without ever mentioning the States by name.
  Every citizen should be familiar with the Constitution. We should 
each have a little radar system, an intuitive raising of the hairs 
along the back of one's neck, when attempts are made to flout the 
Constitution, either by design or out of misguided good intentions. I 
fear that this radar system is not functioning as well as it should be. 
When it fails, the checks and balances contained in our Constitution 
begin to rust and then begin to grind to a halt. When the Congress does 
not jealously guard its prerogatives against an overreaching executive, 
the executive branch gains strength from power that it should not have.
  The Founders of this Nation worried about creating too strong an 
executive. They worried about creating a tyrant such as the one, George 
III, against whom they had fought a war for freedom. So they created a 
system where the people's direct representatives called the shots the 
Congress writes the laws, controls the funds, and approves the nominees 
for key executive posts. If all of those restraints failed, the 
President was subject to impeachment and trial by Congress.
  But today, in our fears about national security and our national 
political system dominated by political party considerations, we face a 
situation in which Congress is being pressured to act as a rubber stamp 
for a strong-willed Executive. We have seen this happen with respect to 
various and sundry executives some Democratic, some Republican. But in 
this instance, in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, there was a 
stampede to do something, anything, to avenge this vile attack on our 
citizens. The Congress did not seriously debate or consider the long 
term consequences of the call to action, and apparently, neither did 
the White House. We rushed into war without a real declaration of war. 
Instead, Congress passed a resolution giving the President sweeping 
powers to take such action as he saw fit, including military action, in 
that region. As a result, our military is over-extended and committed 
to long-term nation-building efforts in Iraq and, to a degree, in 
Afghanistan. Members of Congress are labeled ``unpatriotic'' if Members 
question--even question--any request for additional funds for those 
efforts.
  At the same time, political party pressures were applied to pass 
expensive ``temporary'' tax cuts theoretically aimed at restarting a 
sluggish economy. The long-term impact on the deficit will hamstring 
the Nation for years to come. Congress should know better. This Senate 
should know better. Those of us who have been around for a while can 
recall the tremendous effort--and compromise--needed to achieve deficit 
control in the late 1980s and early 1990s. We can recall all of the 
hard, hard decisions that had to be made to bring the deficit under 
control. Did we really forget all of that in those few short years of 
surplus? Well, if we did forget that lesson from history, I fear we are 
doomed to repeat it, and we struggle to bring these even larger 
deficits under control.
  The time is long past for Members of Congress to reassert the 
authorities granted to them in the Constitution. A citizenry familiar 
with their Constitution should demand it. We are, after all, ``. . . 
bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution . . .'' in 
Article VI, if we take the time to read it that far.
  In his Farewell Address, delivered to his cabinet on, fortuitously 
enough, September 17, 1796, George Washington made this observation:

     . . . [Y]ou have improved upon your first essay by the 
     adoption of a Constitution of government better calculated 
     than your former for an intimate union and for the 
     efficacious management of your common concerns. This 
     government, the offspring of your own choice, uninfluenced 
     and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature 
     deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the 
     distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and 
     containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, 
     has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect 
     for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence 
     with its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental 
     maxims of true liberty.

  Our Constitution is the foundation of our liberties, and we must be 
its guardians.
  I would like to close with a poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, 
entitled ``O Ship of State.''

     Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State!
     Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
     Humanity with all its fears,
     With all the hopes of future years,
     Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
     We know what Master laid thy keel,
     What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel,
     Who made each mast, and sail, and rope,
     What anvils rang, what hammers beat,
     In what a forge and what a heat
     Were shaped the anchors of thy hope!
     Fear not each sudden sound and shock,
     'Tis of the wave and not the rock;
     'Tis but the flapping of the sail,

[[Page 22342]]

     And not a rent made by the gale!
     In spite of rock and tempest's roar,
     In spite of false lights on the shore,
     Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea!
     Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee.
     Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears,
     Our faith triumphant o'er our fears,
     Are all with thee, -are all with thee!

  I yield the floor and suggest absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1734

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1734.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide additional funds for clinical services to the 
                 Indian Health Service, with an offset)

       On page 88, beginning on line 17, strike ``$2,546,524,000'' 
     and all that follows through ``Provided'' on line 20, and 
     insert the following: ``$2,838,524,000, together with 
     payments received during the fiscal year pursuant to section 
     231(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 238(b)) 
     for services furnished by the Indian Health Service, of which 
     $2,329,414,000 shall be available for clinical services: 
     Provided, That section 13031(j)(3) of the Consolidated 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 
     58c(j)(3)) is amended by striking `September 30, 2003' and 
     inserting `September 30, 2004': Provided further''.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, once again I come to the floor to bring 
to the attention of the Senate the critical shortfall in funding for 
the Indian Health Service. Through treaties and Federal statute, the 
Federal Government has promised to provide health care to American 
Indians and Alaskan Natives. Sadly, we have not even come close to 
honoring this commitment.
  The Indian Health Service is the only source of health care for many 
Indians and is required to provide it, yet funding has never been 
adequate.
  The chronic underfunding has only grown worse in recent years, as 
appropriations have failed to keep up with the steep rise in private 
health care spending.
  Last March, we offered an amendment to the budget resolution to 
provide $2.9 billion to the Indian Health Service for the budget for 
the fiscal year 2004. Our amendment would not have met all of the 
health care needs in Indian country, not by far, but it would have 
provided enough room in the budget to fund basic clinical health care 
services for American Indians and Alaskan Natives.
  Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated by a vote of 48 to 51, on 
a party-line vote.
  The Republican leadership made a counteroffer. They proposed an 
amendment to increase IHS funding next year by $292 million, one-tenth 
of what our amendment called for. The Senate adopted that amendment.
  Since then, two important reports have been released.
  In July, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released a report 
documenting shocking health care disparities between Indians and other 
Americans. In August, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control issued a 
report showing that Native Americans live sicker and die younger than 
other Americans as a result of inadequate health care.
  Another important thing happened since the Senate voted last March to 
add $292 million to the Indian Health Service's budget next year. Our 
colleagues on the other side agreed in conference to kill that funding 
increase. I am now offering an amendment that simply does what the 
Senate is on record having supported last March.
  The amendment would restore the $292 million increase for the Indian 
Health Service that this Senate supported overwhelmingly last March.
  The Civil Rights Commission report compared health care funding for 
Native Americans to that for other groups for which the Federal 
Government has direct responsibility for health care. The report 
compared per capita health expenditures for 2003 by category.
  This chart describes in detail the comparison, I would say in 
somewhat embarrassing detail when you look at where we are. For the 
general U.S. population on an annual per capita basis, about $5,000 is 
spent. We spend in the VA a little more than what we spend on a 
national per capita basis, $5,214. For understandable reasons, seniors 
generate more expense, and the per capita cost for Medicare is $5,915. 
Medicaid drops somewhat below, about $2,000 or $1,500 below what we 
spend for the general population. Prisoners actually do almost as well 
as Medicare beneficiaries with $3,803 for Federal prisoners and $3,879 
for Medicare.
  Look where we are for the Indian Health Service clinical services per 
capita spending, $1,914, well below what we pay for Federal prisoners; 
about half, frankly, of what it is we pay for prisoners today. This is 
what the Indian population gets per capita, this is what Federal 
prisoners get per capita: $3,800 to $1,900.
  I have to say that I don't know what clearer message we could send 
than that if we only spend per capita half for the Native American and 
Alaska population than what we spend for Federal prisoners in this 
country.
  This funding is obviously woefully inadequate to meet the health care 
needs of Native Americans who, as I already noted, have a lower life 
expectancy than other Americans and a disproportionate number of 
serious medical problems. Indians have the highest rates of diabetes in 
the country, the highest rates of heart disease, the highest rates of 
sudden infant death syndrome, the highest rates of tuberculosis. There 
is also a great need for substance abuse and mental health services.
  So while they have the greatest need, the greatest incidence of these 
extraordinarily difficult health problems, they have one-half the 
resources of what we commit to our Federal prisoners.
  Native Americans are often denied care most of us take for granted, 
and in many cases would even consider essential. They are often 
required to endure long waits before seeing a doctor and may be unable 
to obtain a referral to see a specialist. Sometimes lack of funds means 
care is postponed until Indians are literally at risk of losing their 
lives or their limbs. Others receive no care at all.
  I will never forget talking to a man who is now a tribal leader from 
the Yankton reservation. He told me he was hunting and he stepped in a 
hole. This was before he was elected. He stepped in a badger hole or 
one of the holes in the field as he was hunting. He broke his leg, went 
to the hospital, and they said there was nothing they could do. They 
told him to come back. He came back the next day. They said there was 
nothing they could do. They said, we do not know when we can help you. 
You may need to go somewhere else.
  Well, he was in such pain that he ended up lying in bed for close to 
6 months and healed without any help whatsoever.
  Today he walks with a limp, he has deep scars on his leg, and he 
considers himself lucky, lucky because he can walk again. That is 
happening today in America, and I think that is so intolerable, so 
unacceptable, so contrary to the commitment we made to Native American 
people. This is rationing at its worst. Rationing of care means all too 
often Indians are forced to wait until their medical condition becomes 
even more serious and more difficult to treat. It is a situation none 
of us would find acceptable, but this is the reality in Indian country.
  Right now, the IHS service unit at Eagle Butte in South Dakota does 
not have an obstetrician. The Eagle Butte service unit is funded at 44 
percent of the need calculated by the Indian

[[Page 22343]]

Health Service. The facility has a birthing room and 22 beds, but there 
are only 2 to 3 doctors to staff the clinic, hospital, and emergency 
room.
  Naturally, as a result, many children and expectant mothers do not 
receive the care they need and deserve. Due to budget constraints, the 
IHS policy is to allow only one ultrasound per pregnancy. The visiting 
obstetrician is available only every couple of weeks.
  The story of Brayden Robert Thompson points out how dangerous this 
situation is. On March 3, 2002, Brayden's mother was in labor with a 
full-term, perfectly healthy baby. Brayden's umbilical cord was wrapped 
around his neck, but without ultrasound that went undetected. The 
available medical staff did not know what to do about his lowered 
heartbeat, abnormal urinalysis, or the fact his mother was not feeling 
well. Despite the symptoms, IHS refused to provide an ultrasound or to 
send her to Pierre, which is the closest city off the reservation, to 
see an obstetrician. Brayden was stillborn.
  This tragic death was completely preventable, but tough choices are 
being made every single day at IHS facilities throughout the country 
because there simply is not enough money to provide the care every 
American deserves.
  I received a letter not long ago from Michelle German about her 
daughter Brittany.
  This is Brittany. I have the letter, and I will read portions of it. 
Michelle writes:

       My daughter Brittany is thirteen years old and for the last 
     couple of years has suffered from a skin disorder called 
     polymorphous light erosion/eruption, which basically means 
     she is allergic to UV rays (the sun). We had visited many 
     doctors, at the Sisseton Indian Health Service and the Coteau 
     des Prairie Clinic (also located in Sisseton) before being 
     referred to a dermatologist in Fargo. . . . The Indian Health 
     Service denied our request for a referral due to the lack of 
     funding, but I find this very ironic because I had my own 
     insurance. However, I was told that her condition has already 
     been diagnosed, it is not life threatening and that the 
     Indian Health Services were not going to be responsible for 
     any debt that my insurance would not cover. Since this had 
     all taken place, I had lost my job and my insurance. I find 
     it frustrating that we were over income to qualify for 
     Medicaid or the CHIPS program through the State of South 
     Dakota!
       To make a long story a little shorter, we have been 
     doctoring back at the Indian Health Service and now we are 
     battling the pharmacy because it does not carry the 
     medication that has been prescribed to her by the 
     dermatologist. Brittany has been [on] various medications 
     throughout her clinic visits at the Indian Health Service 
     without success. The prescribed medications, that are 
     working, are not available through the Indian Health Pharmacy 
     and I have been purchasing it from our local drug store in 
     the amount of forty-five dollars per forty-five gram tube.
       Brittany has gone through quite an ordeal because of the 
     question ``what is the matter with your face?'' and now it is 
     on her arms and legs which are beginning to scar due to the 
     scratching. She has been limited to being kept indoors from 
     the hours of 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. to prevent any outbreaks and 
     the itchiness that follows. This is very hard for both of us 
     because she is a very active teenager who enjoys playing 
     golf, softball and swimming. We have had to change the type 
     of clothing worn in the summer, the bathing soaps and 
     lotions; she is now required to wear sunscreen and lip screen 
     throughout her time outside. . . .
       I could go on, . . . but I think you get the idea. I have 
     attached a picture of my daughter when the skin rash started 
     on her face for your review.

  I hope this helps explain her story. We have case after case. This 
may not be life-threatening. But Brittany is not able to get the help 
she needs, the attention she needs, the treatment she needs, in large 
measure because IHS has said in her case they do not see a life-
threatening problem.
  This is not solely an Indian issue. It affects surrounding rural 
community hospitals, ambulance services, and other health care 
providers who work with the IHS.
  The Lake Andes-Wagner ambulance district in southeastern South Dakota 
is facing financial disaster, in part because they have not been 
reimbursed properly by the Indian Health Service. This ambulance 
service offers emergency transport for citizens of Charles Mix County 
and Yankton Sioux tribal members, since the Wagner IHS hospital cannot 
afford to operate its own service. If this ambulance service shuts 
down, what will these residents, Indian or non-Indian, do when they 
face an emergency?
  Bennett County Hospital in southwestern South Dakota suffers similar 
IHS reimbursement problems, as do others in the non-IHS areas 
throughout rural America.
  In his budget request for the next fiscal year, the President 
requested only $1.9 billion for clinical services for Indians. This 
represents a very small increase over what the President requested for 
fiscal year 2003 and no increase over what was finally included in the 
omnibus appropriations bill. We can and we must do better.
  The amendment I am proposing again would increase funding for 
clinical services by a mere $292 million. I would like to say that this 
is the minimum amount that is necessary to provide basic health care to 
the current IHS user population, but I can't say that. The minimum 
amount necessary is an additional $2.9 billion, and this is one-tenth 
of that amount.
  Today, I am asking the Senate to live up to the commitment it made 
last March, to make that extremely modest $292 million increase real by 
including it in this appropriations bill. It is nowhere near enough, 
and it is sorely needed to address the severe funding shortfall the 
Indian Health Service faces.
  The cost of the amendment is offset by revenue raised from an 
extension of the customs user fee that will otherwise expire on 
September 30. We all agree the extension is inevitable. This will 
require only a small portion of those funds, and I can think of no 
better use for the money.
  Native Americans are facing a literal ``life or limb'' test before 
they can access health care today. We are spending twice as much per 
capita on Federal prisoners' health than on the health care for the 
Indians to whom we promised full health benefits. We simply cannot 
tolerate this. The problem is real. The solution is simple. We must 
start giving the Indian Health Service the funds it needs to provide 
Native Americans the health benefits they were promised.
  Let's take this modest step toward that end.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. 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. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as 
if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  (The remarks of Mr. Chambliss pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1635 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________