[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24451-24455]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN SECURITY 
                      AND RECONSTRUCTION ACT, 2004

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1689, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill, (S. 1689) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and 
     reconstruction for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, 
     and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Byrd amendment No. 1818, to impose a limitation on the use 
     of sums appropriated for the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction 
     Fund.
       Byrd/Durbin amendment No. 1819, to prohibit the use of Iraq 
     Relief and Reconstruction Funds for low priority activities 
     that should not be the responsibility of U.S. taxpayers, and 
     shift $600 million from the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction 
     Fund to Defense Operations and Maintenance, Army, for 
     significantly improving efforts to secure and destroy 
     conventional weapons, such as bombs, bomb materials, small 
     arms, rocket propelled grenades, and shoulder-launched 
     missiles, in Iraq.
       Reid (for Stabenow) amendment No. 1823, to provide 
     emergency relief for veterans health care, school 
     construction, health care and transportation needs in the 
     United States, and to create 95,000 new jobs.
       Bond/Mikulski amendment No. 1825, to provide additional VA 
     Medical Care Funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
       Dorgan amendment No. 1826, to require that Iraqi oil 
     revenues be used to pay for reconstruction in Iraq.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The democratic assistant leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, Senator Stevens is not here. I am covering 
the floor for Senator Byrd this morning. I am sure Senator Stevens 
would have no objection to the Senator from New Mexico offering an 
amendment. I yield the floor for the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 1830

  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleague from Nevada.
  Madam President, so there is no question about the opportunity for 
others to speak, I was asked if I would describe my amendment first and 
then at the end of my description I will ask to set aside the pending 
amendment and send my amendment to the desk. That is how I will 
proceed.
  I intend to offer in a few minutes an amendment on behalf of myself, 
Senator Lugar, Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh, Senator Clinton, 
Senator Durbin, Senator Landrieu, Senator Lincoln, Senator Smith, and 
Senator Reid. This is an amendment to honor our service men and women 
in Iraq who are serving far from home, far from family, far from 
friends.
  Let me indicate from the title of the amendment that I intend to send 
to the desk what it would do: to authorize the award of the Iraqi 
Liberation Medal as a campaign medal for members of the Armed Forces 
who serve in Southwest Asia in connection with Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  These service men and women, as we all know, have left the security 
of this country and their home behind to provide freedom and security 
for those who have not known it for many years. The human cost has been 
substantial, over 300 American fighting men and women will never come 
home. There are over 1,200 who will return wounded, far higher than 
previous conflicts.
  I have a chart that demonstrates the grim statistics, showing the 
casualties our military has incurred in recent conflicts. In Operation 
Desert Storm, with which we are all familiar, the casualties, total 
deaths were 382, killed in action, 143, and the wounded were 467. In 
the Kosovo campaign, there were 16 deaths. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, 
as of last week, there were 196 killed in action, 309 total deaths, and 
1,268 wounds.
  So the casualties have been significant. This is not a minor military 
activity. We have over 130,000 troops in the region. They remain to 
ensure that those who died and those who were wounded did not suffer 
and die in vain. They are also there to build a new Iraqi nation and to 
provide stability and freedom in that nation.
  The liberation of Iraq is turning out to be the most significant 
military occupation and reconstruction effort, clearly, since the end 
of the Vietnam war and perhaps even before that. Despite their 
sacrifice and courage, these brave men and women will not, under 
current policy, be specifically recognized for their service in Iraq. 
Instead, the Department of Defense has decided to award them a Global 
War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.

[[Page 24452]]

  This issue was drawn to my attention by an article that appeared in 
the Army Times and the Navy Times and the Air Force Times called ``One 
Size Fits All?'' ``The Pentagon plans to award one medal for the wars 
in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for any future campaigns related to the 
war on terrorism.''
  I believe this is a mistake in policy, that our military personnel 
deserve better. Accordingly, my colleagues and I are offering this 
amendment to correct the mistake by ensuring there is authorized an 
Iraqi Liberation Medal in lieu of this Global War on Terrorism 
Expeditionary Medal.
  As all who have paid attention in the Senate know, some of us did not 
agree with the administration's decision to proceed in Iraq when it 
did, but clearly we have all been united in our support of the troops. 
Young men and women, both active-duty personnel and National Guard and 
Reserve, have come forward and done their duty. That is clearly the 
essence of patriotism, and we all respect that.
  They continue to serve even though they do not know when they will be 
returning to their families and to their communities. They continue to 
serve despite the tremendous hardships they face and despite the 
constant threat to their lives.
  The President, of course, has agreed entirely with this view of the 
exemplary service our men and women have provided. He has made many 
statements to that effect, and there is no partisan disagreement on any 
of that.
  Let me put up another chart in the Chamber.
  During Operation Desert Storm, service members received three 
separate military decorations for their service: the Armed Forces 
Expeditionary Medal; the Liberation of Kuwait Medal, given by the 
Government of Saudi Arabia; and the Liberation of Kuwait Medal, given 
by the Government of Kuwait. Those are all three depicted on this 
chart.
  In the case of Kosovo, our service men and women received the NATO 
Service Medal and the Kosovo Campaign Medal. And those two medals are 
depicted on this part of the chart.
  In the case of this current conflict in Iraq, the proposal by the 
administration is to give them the Global War on Terrorism 
Expeditionary Medal, and that would apply to Operation Enduring Freedom 
or Operation Iraqi Freedom or any operation in the Philippines or any 
future global war on terrorism operation.
  The policy as it now exists would say that if you are in the military 
and you are directed to duty in one or more of these operations, you 
get this generic medal which indicates you are part of the global war 
on terrorism, which we know is of indefinite duration and which we know 
is not limited by any geographic limitation.
  There is a difference--a substantial difference--between an 
expeditionary medal on the one hand and a campaign medal. We only need 
to look at an excerpt from the U.S. Army Qualifications for the Armed 
Forces Expeditionary Medal and the Kosovo Campaign Medal. In order to 
receive the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, you do not need to go to 
war, you only need to be ``placed in such a position that, in the 
opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hostile action by a foreign armed 
force was imminent even though it does not materialize.'' So that is an 
expeditionary medal.
  To earn the Kosovo Campaign Medal, there was a higher standard. A 
military member had to either ``[b]e engaged in actual combat, or duty 
that is equally hazardous as combat duty, during the Operation with 
armed opposition, regardless of time [spent] in the Area of 
Engagement.''
  Many within the military agree there is a significant difference 
between an expeditionary medal and a campaign medal.
  According to the Army Times:

       Campaign medals help establish an immediate rapport with 
     individuals checking into a unit.

  An expeditionary medal does not necessarily denote any combat or any 
real connection to that particular area of potential combat. A campaign 
medal is designed to recognize military personnel who have risked their 
lives or are risking their lives in combat.
  Obviously, all of us want to see proper recognition given to our 
young men and women who are in Iraq, including Army SP Joseph Hudson 
from my home State of New Mexico, from Alamogordo, NM. He was held as a 
prisoner of war. The Nation was captivated, and particularly people of 
my State were captivated, as we watched Specialist Hudson being 
interrogated by the enemy on videotape. Asked to divulge his military 
occupation, Specialist Hudson stared defiantly into the camera and 
said: ``I follow orders.'' Those of us with sons and daughters were 
united in worry with Specialist Hudson's family. The entire Nation 
rejoiced when he was liberated. He is just one of many who deserve this 
special recognition I am arguing for today.
  We have also asked much of our Reserve and National Guard personnel. 
The reconstruction of Iraq clearly would not be possible without the 
commitment and sacrifice of the 170,000 Guard and reservists who are 
currently on active duty. As recently as this last week, an additional 
10,000 troops from Washington State and North Carolina were activated 
for service in Iraq.
  I think this is a straightforward amendment, one for which I hope we 
can have very strong support. I am very pleased that it is being 
proposed as a bipartisan amendment. My colleagues and I are committed 
to appropriately honoring the 200,000 or so heroes who have served to 
date or are serving in connection with the effort in Iraq. We believe 
current administration policy does not properly honor those personnel, 
and therefore we propose that in lieu of this Global War on Terrorism 
Expeditionary Medal, a new decoration that characterizes the real 
mission in Iraq--one that is distinctive and honors their sacrifice, 
something in the nature of an Iraqi Liberation Medal--be provided.
  Some will argue that Congress has no business legislating in this 
area. But I point out there is ample precedent for what we are 
proposing. Congress has been responsible for recognizing the sacrifice 
and courage of our military forces throughout history. Congress has had 
a significant and historically central role in authorizing military 
decorations. Our Nation's highest decorations were authorized by 
Congress. Those include the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Air Force 
Cross, the Navy Cross, the Army's Distinctive Service Cross, the Silver 
Star, and the Distinguished Flying Cross. All of those were authorized 
by Congress.
  We have also authorized campaign and liberation medals similar to 
what is being proposed here in many cases. A partial list includes the 
Spanish War Service Medal, the Army Occupation of Germany Medal, the 
World War II Victory Medal, the Berlin Airlift Medal, the Korean 
Service Medal, and the Prisoner of War Medal, in addition to the medals 
I have referred to already.
  The men and women of our military are doing their jobs every day in 
Iraq. We should do our job by honoring them appropriately with a medal 
that is specific to their sacrifice and to this campaign in Iraq.
  Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask that it be 
immediately considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Mr. Lugar, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Bayh, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Durbin, 
     Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Reid, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 1830.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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 award of the Iraqi Liberation Medal as a 
 campaign medal for members of the Armed Forces who serve in Southwest 
            Asia in connection with Operation Iraqi Freedom)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) According to President George W. Bush, Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom was ``fought for the

[[Page 24453]]

     cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world...'' and 
     ``to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive 
     regime''.
       (2) The military victory in Iraq has been characterized by 
     President George W. Bush as one of the ``swiftest advances in 
     heavy arms in history''.
       (3) There are more than 130,000 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, 
     and Marines of the United States serving in the Iraqi Theater 
     of Operations, far from family and friends, and for an 
     unknown duration.
       (4) Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, almost 
     300 members of the Armed Forces of the United States have 
     died in Iraq and nearly 1,500 have been wounded in action.
       (5) Congress has authorized and Presidents have issued 
     specific decorations recognizing the sacrifice and service of 
     the members of the Armed Forces of the United States in the 
     Korean War, the Vietnam conflict, and the liberation of 
     Kuwait.
       (6) Current Department of Defense guidance authorizes the 
     award of only one expeditionary medal for overseas duty in 
     Afghanistan, the Philippines, and Iraq.
       (7) The conflict in Iraq is significant enough in scope and 
     sacrifice to warrant a specific military decoration for the 
     liberation of Iraq.
       (b) Authorization of Award of Campaign Medal.--The 
     Secretary concerned may award a campaign medal of appropriate 
     design, with ribbons and appurtenances, to any person who 
     serves in any capacity with the Armed Forces in the Southwest 
     Asia region in connection with Operation Iraqi Freedom.
       (c) Name of Medal.--The campaign medal authorized by 
     subsection (b) shall be known as the ``Iraqi Liberation 
     Medal''.
       (d) Prohibition on Concurrent Award of Global War on 
     Terrorism Expeditionary Medal.--A person who is awarded the 
     campaign medal authorized by subsection (b) for service 
     described in that subsection may not also be awarded the 
     Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal for that service.
       (e) Other Limitations.--The award of the campaign medal 
     authorized by subsection (b) shall be subject to such 
     limitations as the President may prescribe.
       (f) Regulations.--(1) Each Secretary concerned shall 
     prescribe regulations on the award of the campaign medal 
     authorized by subsection (b).
       (2) The regulations prescribed under paragraph (1) shall 
     not go into effect until approved by the Secretary of 
     Defense.
       (3) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the 
     regulations prescribed under paragraph (1) are uniform, so 
     far as practicable.
       (g) Secretary Concerned Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``Secretary concerned'' means the following:
       (1) The Secretary of the Army with respect to matters 
     concerning members of the Army.
       (2) The Secretary of the Navy with respect to matters 
     concerning members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard 
     when it is operating as a service in the Navy.
       (3) The Secretary of the Air Force with respect to matters 
     concerning members of the Air Force.
       (4) The Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to 
     matters concerning members of the Coast Guard when it is not 
     operating as a service in the Navy.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will not ask for the yeas and nays at 
this point. At an appropriate time, I will ask for the yeas and nays. 
It is important that the Senate go on record in support of the awarding 
of a medal of this type. I hope we can have a very strong vote on its 
behalf.
  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. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have been informed that the Department 
of Defense does not support the Bingaman amendment, the pending 
amendment No. 1830. It has bipartisan support.
  Let me explain to the Senate why there is opposition from the 
Department. At the request of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Presidential 
Executive Order 132-89, dated March 12, 2003, authorized global war on 
terrorism, Expeditionary and Service Medals for members of the United 
States Armed Forces who have served in military expeditions to combat 
terrorism around the world as defined by Department regulations on or 
after September 11, 2001.
  This was created and tailored to recognize both combat and noncombat 
operations not just in a single campaign or country but worldwide. To 
be eligible for the Expeditionary Medal, service members must have 
served within the area of eligibility. However, initially approved 
operations for Expeditionary Medals are Operation Enduring Freedom and 
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Battle stars for the Expeditionary Medal are 
provided for service members who engaged in combat against the enemy in 
the area of eligibility. Because antiterrorism operations are global in 
nature, the area of eligibility for an approved operation may be deemed 
to be noncontiguous. The combatant commander has authority to award 
medals for personnel deployed within his or her theater. There is a 
separate medal called the Service Medal that provides commanders the 
flexibility of recognizing supporting personnel and will not be 
restricted by geographical boundaries. Unlike the Expeditionary Medal, 
the Service Medal includes not only support for Operation Enduring 
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom but also Operation Noble Eagle and 
airport security operations from September 27, 2001, to May 1, 2002.
  The Department urges against the establishment of an Iraqi Freedom 
Medal for two reasons. First, it is redundant with the global war on 
terrorism medal in its purpose. Second, it is divisive in that it 
values participation in Operation Iraqi Freedom as being more worthy of 
individual recognition than Operation Enduring Freedom. In other words, 
there are people who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, there are 
people who have served in Afghanistan and not Iraq, and Iraq and not 
Afghanistan.
  The whole concept of this global war against terrorism is that there 
are also combatants in the Philippines and in Indonesia and other 
places throughout the world. I don't know how many there are, but I 
have been told some of the global war on terrorism medals have been 
awarded.
  The problem about the Bingaman amendment is, what happens to those 
people who received those medals? Do they give them back? Do they also 
get an Iraqi medal of freedom? What happens to the people from 
Afghanistan? As I understand it, I could be wrong, but it covers only 
the Iraqi liberation medal.
  Mr. REID. That is true.
  Mr. STEVENS. But not Afghanistan.
  So the best advice I can give the Senate is this: If the Senator from 
New Mexico wishes a vote, I certainly will not oppose that and will 
join in requesting a vote. However, I will say no matter what happens 
here, whether the Senate approves or disapproves, the subject matter 
will have to be dealt with in conference because it is a matter that 
has been raised, and it is of great significance.
  I talk too much about my own service in World War II, which was sort 
of insignificant, but I got a CBI medal--China, Burma, India--but I 
spent only a day or two in India and an hour or two in Burma. We all 
thought we should have had a China medal, but the powers that be gave 
us a China-Burma-India medal. The powers that be right now are the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff. This is not a political issue is what I am 
trying to tell the Senate. This is an issue that arose out of an 
initiative from the Joint Chiefs of Staff themselves, is what I 
understand.
  They decided this current situation is so global in nature that 
people are moved from one area to the other in terms of expertise and 
need, that there ought to be a medal for the period we are in right now 
which is really a global war on terrorism, and as such I am inclined to 
support that concept. I will vote against the Bingaman amendment. But I 
have a feeling it will pass because I think everyone would like to be 
on record now of recognizing the need for medals.
  That would be my last comment to the Senate. The Senator from Hawaii 
is not here, but I do remember on two occasions when I have been with 
him when he has raised the question with the members of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff: Where are the medals?
  People, as they come home from a combat such as we are involved in 
now, may or may not be eligible for the Purple Heart. The concept of 
these other medals, however, has not settled down yet. I think as our 
men and women in the Armed Services start coming home, they should be 
recognized for their service with something of distinction, such as the 
medal of the type we are

[[Page 24454]]

talking about, either the Global War on Terrorism Medal or the 
Expeditionary Medal, or the Service Medal, whatever it is. As a matter 
of fact, if they have been there, I would give them all three. 
Redundancy is not a crime in terms of medals for service in uniform in 
combat, as far as I am concerned. But I do think it has to be sorted 
out. The people who already have the Global War on Terrorism Medal, who 
fought in Iraq, may want the Iraqi medal. On the other hand, people who 
fought in Afghanistan may very much want the Global War on Terrorism 
Medal. It is something I think really requires pretty cautious thought 
in the Department of Defense and the Senate. I intend to join in asking 
for a vote on the amendment at the proper time and hope we can vote on 
it right after the vote that is set at 2:30 today, and then move on 
with further business of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the hour of 12:30 is fast approaching. I am 
wondering if we could enter into an agreement now that that vote occur 
immediately following the vote on genetic nondiscrimination?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would so move and ask unanimous consent 
it be in order at this time to order the yeas and nays.
  Mr. REID. And that Senator Bingaman have 2 minutes prior to the vote 
to speak on his amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like 2 minutes on each side.
  Mr. REID. Of course. With no amendments in order prior to the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. No other motions in order, and up or down on the 
amendment. But I would like 2 minutes for the Senator from New Mexico 
and for myself, and the vote to occur after the already scheduled vote. 
I ask that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is in order to request the yeas and nays.
  Mr. STEVENS. I do request the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
request is agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. I understand the 
Senate will stand in recess at 12:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, that is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the legislation pending before the Senate 
is the emergency supplemental bill dealing with Iraq; and that has to 
do with security: security for our troops, security in Iraq. But there 
are other issues of security that affect us in our country: issues of 
security that deal with protecting our homeland. We provide critically 
needed funds to try to prevent another terrorist attack on our soil.
  So I was surprised, as I was traveling the other day, to hear the 
President talk about using Homeland Security assets to track down 
Americans who are traveling in Cuba illegally and punishing those 
Americans.
  As you know, it is currently illegal for Americans to travel in Cuba, 
except by a license given by the U.S. Treasury Department. The fact is, 
though, that there are many Americans who do go to Cuba. Many go 
because they think it is their right as Americans to travel freely, and 
in many cases, they go because they are not aware that they are 
breaking any rules.
  I believe the travel ban unfairly punishes American citizens. In an 
attempt to take a slap at Fidel Castro, it ends up restricting the 
right of American people to travel. Many of us here think that makes no 
sense at all.
  When I heard the President describe his interest in having Homeland 
Security people track down American tourists traveling in Cuba, I 
thought I would come to the floor of the Senate, and talk about a 
grandmother named Joan Slote. As you can see from this picture, Joan is 
in her mid 70s. She is a Senior Olympian. She is a bicyclist. She 
bicycles all over the world. She is in her mid 70s. And she joined a 
bicycle tour of Cuba, with a cycling club from Canada. They bicycled in 
the country of Cuba for, I believe, 8 or 9 days.
  Joan Slote came back to this country from Cuba, and later on she was 
off to Europe where she was on a bicycle tour. While she was in Europe, 
she learned her son had brain cancer, and she rushed back to the United 
States, and just stopped at her home for a minute, and then rushed down 
to be with her son and attended to her son, who later died of brain 
cancer.
  When she finally came back to her home, apparently there was a letter 
waiting for some long while from the U.S. Treasury Department that 
said: Oh, by the way, you traveled to Cuba with a bicycle club from 
Canada, and that was illegal, and so we are administering a $7,630 
fine.
  So Joan Slote, this mid 70s grandmother--no threat to this country 
for sure--is one of those Americans who is now being punished by the 
U.S. Government for travel in Cuba.
  Now, we have folks down at the Department of the Treasury in an 
organization called the Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC for 
short--and that is the organization that is charged with tracking money 
to terrorist groups to protect our country. But instead of focusing on 
that critically important mission, OFAC officials are tracking retired 
grandmothers who are riding a bicycle in Cuba and try to slap them with 
a big fine.
  And now the President says: Oh, by the way, I would like to get more 
involved here. I want the Homeland Security Department tracking these 
people who are traveling to Cuba.
  I thought our interest here in the Senate was to fund a Homeland 
Security agency to protect our country against the threats of 
terrorists, not to chase little old grandmothers who take a bicycle 
trip to Cuba.
  Incidentally, OFAC finally negotiated with a $2,000 fine for Joan 
Slote. After I intervened, they said: All right, the $7,600 fine we 
will reduce to $2,000. So she sent them the money. But do you know what 
they did then? They sent a collection agency after her and told her 
they were going to begin to garnish her Social Security payments. Why? 
I do not have the foggiest idea. I guess it is just a bureaucratic 
mess.
  But I was just thinking as I was driving down the road the other day, 
hearing President Bush say we have to get tough on Cuba, we are going 
to take Homeland Security people to go chase American tourists in Cuba.
  The interesting thing is, Americans can travel virtually everywhere. 
You can travel to Communist China. Yes, that is a communist country. 
You can travel to Vietnam. Yes, that is a communist country. But you 
cannot travel to Cuba. And we are going to use Homeland Security 
assets--people, time, money--to go track down little old ladies who are 
bicycling in Cuba?
  Are we really threatened by the poor guy who took the ashes of his 
dead father to Cuba, which was his father's last wish, to be sprinkled 
on the lawn by the church where he ministered in Cuba many years 
before?
  Yes, they tracked that fellow down for taking his dad's ashes to 
Cuba. They fined him $7500.
  It is story after story after story like this.
  And now the President wants people in Homeland Security tracking 
Americans to punish Americans for traveling in Cuba.
  What about homeland security? How about tracking terrorists? Let's 
track terrorists, not retired grandmothers who are riding bicycles.
  Marshall McLuhan once said: I don't always believe everything I say. 
I thought to myself, that must surely have been the case in the White 
House when the President announced we are going to take Homeland 
Security Agency resources and start tracking American citizens so we 
can slap big fines on them for traveling into Cuba. This is 
preposterous. What on Earth can the President be thinking?
  I have talked to Joan Slote. She is just one of many examples of 
ordinary U.S. citizens who meant absolutely no

[[Page 24455]]

harm. I have talked to another retired grandmother from Wisconsin. She 
traveled to Cuba innocently and rode a bicycle as well. I have talked 
to many such folks. I held a hearing on this. I had people show up who 
described their travel to Cuba. They did not know it was illegal but--
guess what--they have the Federal Government after them.
  In an attempt to slap Fidel Castro, we are punishing American people. 
We are restricting the right of the American people to travel. And now 
the President gets into the act, which, I assume is about Florida 
politics, and says, oh, by the way, I want to divert Homeland Security 
assets to see if we can't get tougher on people like Joan Slote.
  This issue involves wasted resources, that could and should be spent 
on real threats to our homeland security. Homeland security is about 
protecting this country from the threat of terrorists, not chasing 
senior citizens riding around on bicycles.
  That is where the homeland security assets ought to be employed. That 
is where the Department of the Treasury assets ought to be employed, 
protecting our country from the threat of terrorist attacks, not 
chasing Joan Slote. My hope is that perhaps they will have another 
meeting at the White House and rethink this and finally do the right 
thing, at least meet some basic test of common sense.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________