Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today my colleagues Senators Smith, Pryor and I are introducing legislation to ensure the sustainability and longevity of the Universal Service Fund and to support the deployment of broadband to unserved areas. Section 254 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act sets forth the principles of universal service. Section 254 states that all citizens, including rural consumers, deserve access to telecommunications services that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas, at reasonably comparable rates. This goal to ensure that rural consumers are not left behind continues to be critical, particularly as technology advances in leaps and bounds in this 21st century. Access to a robust communications infrastructure is a necessity for all Americans. Our bill will further that goal in two ways. First, it will ensure that the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, will address reform of universal service and intercarrier compensation to support the cost of a national, quality communications network. Over time, the Universal Service Fund has become increasingly strained, with the burden of support placed on only a limited class of carriers, creating inequities in the system and incentives to avoid contribution. Reform is needed, and our bill directs the FCC to embark upon this reform, with specific guidelines to ensure equity and fairness and continuing sufficient support for networks. In addition, our legislation will set up an account within the Universal Service Fund for broadband deployment to unserved areas. This will enable deployment of broadband to areas of the country that remain prohibitively expensive to serve, leaving consumers in those areas behind the technological curve. This legislation is only a starting point. I believe more dialogue is necessary among my colleagues and industry, in order to achieve comprehensive universal service reform. I invite my colleagues to join me in this dialogue and in cosponsoring this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this bill be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing bipartisan legislation to remedy a long-standing and glaring inequity in our so- called free-trade system. There are significant and costly differences in prices between agricultural chemicals sold in Canada and similar-- and in some cases, identical--chemicals sold in the United States. This disparity in prices puts an extra burden on American farmers, and it puts them at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to competing in the world market. Currently, American and Canadian farmers use many of the same products on their fields. These products use the same chemicals, are made by the same company, and are sometimes even marketed under the same name; but they are often sold at a much lower cost north of the border. For example, U.S. farmers use the pesticide Garlon, which is sold as Remedy in Canada. It is manufactured by the same company, with the same chemicals. But American farmers pay $8.02 more per acre than their Canadian counterparts. The pesticide Puma, which is widely used on wheat and barley, costs farmers in North Dakota $2.82 more per acre than Canadian farmers pay for Puma 120 Super, which is the same product, made by the same company. That means North Dakota farmers paid nearly $7.9 million more to treat their fields with Puma than they would have paid if they could have accessed it at prices paid by Canadian farmers. This legislation would address that inequity by setting up a process that would allow American farmers to access these chemicals, which are lower priced, but identical to those already approved for use in the United States. Data collected by the North Dakota Department of Agriculture show that farmers in just my home State of North Dakota alone would have saved nearly $11 million last year if they had been able to access agricultural chemicals at Canadian prices. But this problem does not just affect farmers in North Dakota. Farmers all across the northern tier of the United States would benefit if they were able to access U.S.-approved pesticides at Canadian prices. I have come before the Senate time and again to talk about the hidden inequities of trade. For trade to benefit our country, it must be fair. But the pricing inequities in the Canadian and U.S. pesticide markets are a failure of our current trade system. This legislation I am introducing today, along with the Senator from Montana, Mr. Burns, authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to require that certain agricultural chemicals which have already been approved in the U.S. carry a joint label, which would allow them to cross the border freely. The new labels would still be under the strict scrutiny of the Environmental Protection Agency, as would the use of these products. The EPA would continue to insure the health and safety standards that govern the products we use in our food supply. This bill keeps those priorities intact. This bill is not an ending but a beginning. Hidden trade barriers and schemes riddle the fabric of our trade agreements. We cannot continue to accept trade practices that, on the one hand, hamstring Americans, and on the other hand, unduly promote our competitors. We ought not accept second best all of the time, and this bill is a step in bringing American producers back to a level playing field.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today my colleagues Senators Smith, Pryor and I are introducing legislation to ensure the sustainability and longevity of the Universal Service Fund and to support the deployment of broadband to unserved areas. Section 254 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act sets forth the principles of universal service. Section 254 states that all citizens, including rural consumers, deserve access to telecommunications services that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas, at reasonably comparable rates. This goal to ensure that rural consumers are not left behind continues to be critical, particularly as technology advances in leaps and bounds in this 21st century. Access to a robust communications infrastructure is a necessity for all Americans. Our bill will further that goal in two ways. First, it will ensure that the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, will address reform of universal service and intercarrier compensation to support the cost of a national, quality communications network. Over time, the Universal Service Fund has become increasingly strained, with the burden of support placed on only a limited class of carriers, creating inequities in the system and incentives to avoid contribution. Reform is needed, and our bill directs the FCC to embark upon this reform, with specific guidelines to ensure equity and fairness and continuing sufficient support for networks. In addition, our legislation will set up an account within the Universal Service Fund for broadband deployment to unserved areas. This will enable deployment of broadband to areas of the country that remain prohibitively expensive to serve, leaving consumers in those areas behind the technological curve. This legislation is only a starting point. I believe more dialogue is necessary among my colleagues and industry, in order to achieve comprehensive universal service reform. I invite my colleagues to join me in this dialogue and in cosponsoring this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this bill be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my agreement with the majority leader was that we would pass by consent S. 792 which the Senate passed by consent last year. We are now passing it once again to go to the House. This deals with sexual predators. This legislation is called ``Dru's Law.'' My colleagues and I who have joined together to pass this legislation tonight do so in honor of this wonderful young woman who was tragically murdered in a parking lot in Grand Forks, ND. The man accused of murdering Dru Sjodin spent 23 years in prison. He was a violent sexual predator who was let of prison with a wave. So long. Check in now and then. Compare that, for example, to Martha Stewart, who was let out of prison but had to wear an electronic ankle bracelet. Violent sexual predators judged to be at high risk for committing another violent sexual act are let out of prison with a wave. As a result, this young woman, Dru Sjodin, was tragically murdered. This is the man who spent 23 years behind bars. The psychiatrists said before he was released that he was a high risk for committing another violent sexual act. Within 6 months, he is now accused of murdering this young woman. It is not only this man. It is Mr. Duncan. Remember the last couple of weeks, the two young children kidnapped, one murdered. The other is still alive, with her family dead. We know about this man. He raped a 16-year-old boy at gunpoint, a violent sexual predator. Last April, he was put in the arms of law enforcement and let out on $15,000 bail. More Americans are dead because of it. This is not some mysterious illness for which we don't know the cure. We know what causes it and we know how to stop it. Again, if Martha Stewart has to wear an electronic ankle bracelet ordered by a judge, then surely violent sexual predators, when and if released, can be highly monitored by local governments. Surely, we ought to decide that if violent sexual predators are a high risk for reoffending, then the local State's attorney ought to be notified in case they want to seek a civil commitment to protect the public at large. This bill does three things: One, create a national sex offender registry; No. 2, if a violent offender judged to be at high-risk is to be released from prison, the local State's attorney must first be notified so they can seek additional civil commitment; No. 3, if a high-risk sexual predator is released, then there must be maintenance and monitoring of that sex offender. No more ``so long, see you at the prison door,'' for a violent sexual predator. We must stop this. How many more Americans will lose their lives? How many kids are going to be killed before we do the right thing? Tonight the Senate takes an important step in the right direction. Senator Specter and I and others who have authored this legislation-- Senators Dayton, Clinton, and others--have decided that enough is enough. It is long past time to do what is right with respect to dealing with sexual predators and protecting the American people. We do this in the name of and in honor of Dru Sjodin, a young woman who tragically lost her life. Perhaps in her name, with this legislation, we can save other lives. I feel good about what we do tonight in passing Dru's Law.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, is one more failed chapter in a book of trade failures. How deeper must the hole get before we understand we are in trouble? How many more Americans must lose their jobs, with manufacturing, engineering and, yes, more white-collar jobs going overseas, outsourced, before we understand we are in trouble? We have the largest trade deficit in the history of this country, $2 billion a day every day, 7 days a week. This is unsustainable. Everybody in this room knows it. When will we understand that the next trade agreement is one in which we ought to stand up for the economic interests of our country, stand up for the interests of American workers? Let's not be ashamed of believing that our interest is in this country's economic opportunity, supporting our workers, our manufacturers, our farmers. This trade agreement pulls the rug out from under our sugar beet growers, from under our farmers, pulls the rug out from under American workers one more time. The House passed this bill by two votes last night. There is a 15- minute vote in the House. This one lasted well over an hour, while they were trying to get the rest of the votes. Let me describe what they had to do to get the votes, because this trade agreement is awful. It is bad for the country. It is going to pile debt on top of debt and make more American jobs disappear overseas. Here is what they said, from today's paper: The last-minute negotiations for Republican votes resembled the wheeling and dealing on a car lot. Republicans who were opposed or undecided were courted during hurried meetings in Capitol hallways, on the House floor, and at the White House. GOP leaders told their rank and file that if they wanted anything, now was the time to ask, lawmakers said, and members took advantage of the opportunity by requesting fundraising appearances by Cheney and the restoration of the money for their programs. Lawmakers said many of the favors bestowed in exchange for votes will be tucked into the huge energy and highway bills Congress is scheduled to pass this week before leaving for the August recess. Why do my colleagues think it was necessary to do what they did last night in the House to try to buy these votes with side deals and special deals and keeping the vote open for over an hour? Because this is a terrible agreement, and everybody knows it. When will we have the backbone to stand up for this country's economic interests? What will it take? How many more bad trade agreements? This isn't rocket science. This is our trade deficit. Year after year after year we are drowning in trade debt, and there is not one person on the floor of the Senate who wears a blue suit who is going to lose their job because of a bad trade agreement. It is working folks who lose their jobs, who find out their job left for China because they were making $11 an hour and the company can hire somebody for 30 cents an hour and work them 15 hours a day, 7 days a week. So the American people lose their jobs. No politicians are going to lose their jobs. That is why they keep writing bad trade agreements. That is why the country is deeper in debt, the largest trade deficit in the history of this country. NAFTA, CAFTA, ``SHAFTA,'' GATT, you name it. With every single step we have taken with this trade strategy, the country has gone deeper into debt, and more Americans have found their jobs in peril. When, oh when, will it stop? Apparently not tonight. Last night they bought CAFTA by two votes in the House. It passed by a slim margin in the Senate. But what this demonstrates to me is this Congress has not yet awakened to the reality of what it is doing to this country. Kids and grandkids wondering about their economic future will find they have less opportunity than their parents did. The one thing we all aspire to have happen always is that we want things better for our kids. We want to leave a place that is better for our children. That is not going to happen with these kinds of trade agreements in which we trade away American jobs, in which we decide that jobs that used to be performed by proud Americans to build products in this country are gone. There is no social program in this Congress we deal with that is as important as a good job that pays well, with good benefits. That is the way people are able to take care of their families and pursue a career and have the opportunity to expand this great country of ours. Yes, we live in a global economy, we are told. It is a global economy, all right. The global economy has galloped along for the major corporations so they can produce where it is cheap and sell into this marketplace. But it is unsustainable. This won't last. The global economy has galloped along but without rules. Now a corporation can decide to do business through a mailbox in the Bahamas. It can decide it wants to produce in China or Indonesia or Sri Lanka and hire people for 20 cents an hour and force them to work in unsafe plants. They can hire 12-year-olds to work 12 hours a day and pay them 12 cents an hour. All of that is just fine with this trade strategy. It is not fine with this Senator. It is not fine at all. Because I understand where it takes this country. We will not long remain a world economic power without a first-class manufacturing capability. And our manufacturing base is shrinking dramatically. Why? Because major corporations have decided they don't want to produce here. Is it because our workers don't do well? Not at all. That is not what it is about. It is about corporate profits by hiring people to work for 30 cents an hour and then selling the product at 30-cents labor to the grocery stores or on the store shelves of Toledo and Fargo and Brainard, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, New York. I am telling my colleagues, this will not work much longer. Yet this Congress acts completely deaf and blind to the realities of what has come from our recent trade agreements. The North American Free Trade Agreement was one of the last agreements. We had all these economists tell us how many jobs it was going to create in our country. The fact is, our country has lost massive numbers of jobs as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement. That bad agreement turned a modest trade surplus with Mexico into a huge deficit, and turned a modest deficit with Canada into an even larger deficit. Yet people still say that agreement worked. That is total rubbish. I hope the Senate will turn down this agreement. I know they have voted for it once before, but now is the time to have some backbone, some nerve, some will to turn down this bad trade agreement. I yield back my remaining time.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, late this evening or perhaps tomorrow morning, there will be a vote in the U.S. House on something called the Central American Free Trade Agreement. I have come to the Senate floor to speak about trade issues, but I especially want to discuss the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which passed in the Senate by a very narrow margin. The estimate is that the votes do not exist to pass this agreement it in the House. Lord knows how many bridges and highways have been promised in the last 48 hours, and it may very well be, at midnight tonight, magically the votes sufficient to pass this trade agreement will appear and we will have miles of highways and all kinds of bright bridges built in this country in order to persuade wavering House Members to vote for this awful trade agreement. It will be one more chapter in a boom of failed trade strategy and will mean more Americans will lose their jobs. Incidentally, there are some people today from the textile area of this country saying there will be some changes in CAFTA to protect the textile industry, which presumably would require some other legislation to be passed to implement these changes. Let me just say to anybody who thinks there are going to be any changes to this, there will be nothing coming through this Senate that will not be slowed down to the nth degree, and we will try in every way possible to block it. But also if anybody promises you that they will do something in a trade agreement, don't believe it, it is not worth the paper it is written on. I have papers in my desk going all the way back to the United States-Canadian Free Trade Agreement, that have promises in writing from the Trade Ambassador, Clayton Yeutter, that didn't mean a thing, wasn't worth the paper it was written on. The same is true with sugar and sweeteners in Mexico. It could go on and on. My hope is that those few who have been promised the Moon with respect to some changes for the textile folks will not swallow that minnow tonight. (Mr. CRAIG assumed the Chair.) I hope they will vote against CAFTA, and I hope the CAFTA trade agreement will be defeated. Let me say why. Similar to all the other trade agreements, it sets us up for losing more jobs. I am going to talk about a company I have spoken about a number of times on the Senate floor, but there is new news about this company which is what brings me to the floor at a time when we are all talking about international trade. This company is kind of a poster child for what is going wrong in our economy. It is called the Huffy Bicycle Company. Now I have talked about this company before, and the reason I come to the floor tonight is there is new news about Huffy Bicycles. Huffy Bicycles makes a lot of bicycles. At one point in one plant I believe they were making 19,000 bicycles a day. Huffy Bicycles had a substantial portion of the bicycle market in our country. They could be bought in Wal-Mart, Kmart, and Sears Roebuck. Everybody remembers Huffy Bicycles. They can be found in most of our communities. The problem is, Huffy Bicycles left this country. Their first plant in Dayton, OH dates back to 1898. They made bicycles under the brand name of Huffy for many decades. In fact, between the handle bar and the front tire they had a little emblem on it that had the U.S. flag. When Huffy escaped our country, as have so many companies, to produce their bicycles in China, they replaced the flag with a little decal of the globe. I am told it was the last job that the U.S. employees had when that company moved its jobs to China. They had to take the existing inventory of bikes and change the U.S. flag on the bicycle to a globe. Well, let me talk about the production plant in Celina, OH. This was the headline in the Dayton Daily News, June 29, 2005. Now I told my colleagues that Huffy Bicycles are not made in America any more. All the folks that work for Huffy lost their jobs because these jobs are now in China. Here is what happened last month: Huffy Corporation, a 117-year-old bicycle and sporting goods company, on Tuesday, announced it wants to quit paying pension benefits and become a Chinese- controlled company. Let me read that again. Huffy wants to quit paying its pension benefits and become a Chinese-controlled company. So how did that come to pass? Well, in 1998, the company celebrated its 100th anniversary by laying off 1,800 workers from its three plants. The jobs were outsourced both to Mexico and a plant in Shenzhen, China. That plant is located in the very same Chinese city where Wal-Mart held its annual board meeting last year. Eight hundred fifty workers got fired by Huffy, and they earned $11 an hour, plus benefits. The company felt that was way too much money to pay people to build bicycles. Now those employees were not getting wealthy but they liked their jobs. I have talked to some of them. They enjoyed working at Huffy. Many of them worked there for a lifetime, but their jobs went to a plant in Shenzhen, China. The workers there make 33 cents an hour. They work 15-hour shifts, according to the reports from those who visited the plants, they work from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m., 7 days a week. They are housed in crowded barracks and fed two meals a day. They have no health benefits, and when they get sick, as many do, they are fired. If, of course, they tried to organize--there is no evidence that these workers tried to organize--they not only would be fired, but precedent would suggest some of them would be sent to prison for organizing for workers' rights. Even though the jobs are gone, the bicycles are still sold in America, made in China but sold in America. Now, Huffy wants to become a Chinese company. The vice president of the Chinese company that is planning to buy Huffy said this: We look forward to Huffy's future growth as one of America's leading bicycle brands . . . Notice he did not say one of America's leading bicycles because those bicycles are not made here any more, just ``one of America's leading bicycle brands.'' Meanwhile, the U.S. workers who lost their jobs read this in the Dayton Daily News: Huffy to quit paying pension benefits and become a Chinese company. This is a letter that former Huffy employees received a couple of weeks ago. I obtained a copy of this letter from a former Huffy Corporation worker in Ohio with whom I spoke yesterday. This says that as a result of its Chapter XI, Huffy will be filing a motion asking the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to approve a distress termination of the Huffy retirement plan. If approved, the PBGC, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the Government agency that ensures these plans, will take over. It says: You are still going to get your benefits. That will not be affected by this action. It is just that the PBGC, or the American taxpayer, the Federal Government, will pay your retirement. Then, down in the other portion, it says, but some may lose a portion of their retirement. You may not get all of your retirement. So they want to become a Chinese company, make all their bikes in China, sell their bikes in America and pawn off pensions that were promised to workers who used to work for Huffy to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which is guaranteed, of course, by the American taxpayers. The letter says: Your retirement benefits will not be affected by this action, but after it states that retirees will receive their full pension benefits, it says some may lose benefits. That is the fine print. As I said, I recently spoke to a former Huffy employee. The reason I am talking about this company is that it is symbolic of so many companies in exactly the same position. He told me that there are many people who worked a lifetime for Huffy, and now they are worried sick. They earned a pension because they worked every day, came to work every day, liked their job, were proud of the work they did, and now they are worried sick. Many older workers could only find low-wage jobs after being laid off and losing their jobs to China, so they were counting on their pensions to be there. The workers at the Celina, OH, plant took a 30-percent wage and benefit cut to keep their jobs at one point, only to have Huffy decide it did not matter. The Huffy worker whom I spoke to yesterday told me something poignant. He said, when the workers at the plant in Celina, OH, lost their jobs, on the last day of work, as those employees left the parking lot for the last time, they left a pair of shoes in the place where their car had been parked. So when the last car left the lot, there was a parking lot full of shoes. Workers wanted to tell this company that they had worked a lifetime for that company and loved their jobs. They wanted to say to that company: You are not going to find people to fill our shoes, you just will not find people to fill our shoes. You can find people who will work for 30 cents an hour. You can find people whom you can fire who want to join a labor union. You can find people whom you put in a plant working 15 hours a day, 7 days a week, but you will not find people who will fill these shoes. Another worker who worked at the Celina plant was Ruth Schumaker. I did not know Ruth Schumaker, but I came across her name when I began looking at this case--I looked at many cases, Fruit of the Loom, Levis, Fig Newton cookies, I can talk forever about these companies who have left our country and taken their production elsewhere--Ruth Schumaker was one of those employees who made bicycles. She had been paid $12 an hour. She worked 28 years and was very proud of her job. When she was told she was going to be laid off, she was going to lose her job because it was going to China, she was not able to retire because she still had many costs to deal with. The only job she could find at that point was a part-time job at $7 an hour at the breakfast bar at the Holiday Inn. Her daughter said she never quite got over the stress of losing that job. Ruth died 2 years ago of cancer. At the time they closed this plant, by the way, and moved these jobs to China and laid off Ruth and the last car left that parking lot with shoes in the parking spaces saying you will not fill these shoes, the CEO of that company was paying himself $771,000 a year. And, oh, by the way, Wal-Mart has expanded now in Celina. A Wal-Mart supercenter has been built on 50 acres that used to belong to Huffy. So it comes full circle. I talk about Huffy only because of this news, this venerable old bicycle company with bicycles built by American hands that were proud of their jobs, announces that it wants to become a Chinese company after having moved all of its production to China. I have 33 pages-- single-spaced, front and back--of information from the Department of Labor that describes jobs lost in this country this year by companies that have certified to the Department of Labor, so their employees can get trade adjustment assistance, that they have moved certain jobs overseas or that certain jobs have been displaced by overseas trade. I have 33 pages--front and back, single-spaced, in small lines--of the names of the companies and the number of employees. That is just since the first of this year. The question is: Does anybody care? The answer likely is, not people who matter, not people who can affect the outcome of this, certainly not this Senate because by a handful of votes this Senate said, let us just keep doing this. Let us continue to give tax breaks to companies that move their jobs overseas. Let us keep rewarding those who fire American workers and move those jobs overseas. Let us say to the American worker, you ought to have to compete against 30-cent-an-hour labor, you ought to have to compete against people who work in unsafe plants and are put in jail if they try to join a labor union. Tonight there will be a vote in the House on CAFTA, and likely the message coming from the House will be, let us do more of the same. My colleagues from the South have all of these sayings, and former Congressman Stenholm always used to talk about the law of holes: When you find yourself in a hole, you ought to stop digging. But that does not seem to be the case with this Congress and international trade. It is obvious to everyone this is not working. We have the biggest trade deficit in the history of this country. We have massive job loss. We have jobs that are moving outside of this country very quickly, and when American workers can find a job to replace the job they have lost, in most cases, they find a job paying 75 or 80 percent of their former income. The question for our kids and their kids is what kind of a country will they inherit? We fought for a century over the conditions of production. We became the most productive country in the world. We are the world's leading economic power and military power. But we will not long remain the world's leading economic power without our major manufacturing base, and that manufacturing base is shrinking dramatically. Again, nobody seems to care very much. I have introduced legislation to address this. We get blocked. It cannot even come to the Senate floor, regrettably. When the next trade agreement comes to the floor that does exactly the same thing and sets up American workers against unfair foreign competition, this Congress embraces it like a teddy bear. In September, I intend to provide three or four lengthier discussions about international trade and talk about the specifics and remedies. Today, on the eve of the CAFTA vote in the House, I wished to call the attention of my colleagues to this company's story. It is so symbolic of the failure of our trade policy. My hope is that perhaps, instead of talking about the general and instead of talking about the theory of it all, perhaps we can start thinking about and talking about real Americans who go to work every morning proud of their jobs, and who believe that this country they have inherited ought to give them an opportunity to do well if they play by the rules and do the things that are necessary. The Pledge of Allegiance is not said everywhere these days. There is a pledge in the board room, and a pledge to profits, but not necessarily a pledge to this country's long-term economic health. I hope very much that is going to change, and I hope that the circumstances that existed for these employees will one day call to action the conscience of this Congress, and that it will say, this ought not to continue, this country can do better than that. These people in this company, similar to the people in so many other companies I have talked about, did not lose their jobs and were not fired because they were not good Americans. It is because they could not compete against 30-cent labor, and they could not compete against a country that says: Try to organize, and we will fire you. They could not compete against a country that says to companies: Come on in, build your plants here and dump your chemicals into the streams and into the air. They could not compete against a country that says: Come on in and put your workers in an unsafe plant because we are not going to have OSHA here, and we are not going to enforce safe workplaces. We cannot compete against countries in which little kids are taken into a workplace at ages 9, 10, 11, and 12 and locked into that workplace, and where then the work product comes out and goes to the shelves of stores in Fargo or Toledo or St. Louis, and then the American worker is told: Compete with that, compete with, that; if you cannot, you lose your job. That is not the way we built this country. It is not the way Congress should allow this trade strategy to continue. It is my hope that at some point, some way, somehow in the days ahead we will be able to take action on the floor of the Senate and further strengthen this country's long-term opportunities, help rebuild a manufacturing base, and give people the opportunity in this country, and the belief in this country there is an opportunity, for them and their families to have a good job that pays well, with job security. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to pay tribute to a group of people whose tireless, dedicated service to those in need too often goes unnoticed--North Dakota's and our Nation's health care providers. As I travel around North Dakota, I frequently stop in to visit hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes. I am continually impressed by the quality, compassionate care that I see being provided by doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, and other medical staff, as well as by the administrative and support staff. Rural America depends on its small town hospitals, its tertiary hospitals, on physicians and nurses, nursing homes, those who provide emergency ambulance services, and many others to provide a seamless system of care. There are a range of challenges facing rural health systems, from difficulty recruiting and retaining staff and inadequate reimbursement to rising costs and reams of paperwork to fill out. Despite these challenges, our health care providers do an admirable job remaining focused on providing quality care. Our hospitals, nursing homes, and clinics are also important engines driving North Dakota's economy. Health services account for 8 percent of North Dakota's gross State product. And health care providers are often among the largest employers in a rural community, representing about 15 percent of direct and secondary employment. In short, a strong health care system is an important part of our rural infrastructure, and the people who make up that system have my deep respect and thanks. Over the years, we have determined that rural electric service, rural telephone service, an interstate highway system through rural areas, and rural mail delivery, to name a few services, make us a better, more unified nation. The same is true of rural health care, and I will continue fighting for policies that reflect rural health care as a strong national priority.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, am I now recognized for 15 minutes?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague has sought to have the yeas and nays on his amendment. Let me do the same. I have two amendments pending. Should there be cloture invoked on this underlying bill, as my colleague from Oklahoma has suggested, I would like my amendments to be considered prior to cloture. I have an amendment No. 1429, which is offered. I ask for the yeas and nays on both of my amendments. Then I will speak on the amendments ever so briefly. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask that we consider amendment 1429. I previously filed that amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 1429.

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we consider amendment No. 1426, which I previously filed.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 1426.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will briefly describe amendment No. 1426. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. That amendment one that I described at some length on Friday. It has to do with the joint inquiry of the two Intelligence Committees into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It has to do with the 28 pages in this joint inquiry that have been redacted and classified as top secret. The American people should see these 28 pages. The chairman and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee at the time said they believe the American people should see these 28 pages. The Government of Saudi Arabia said the American people deserve to see these 28 pages. This book went to the White House for publication. The White House redacted it and classified it as top secret. I have read the 28 pages. My colleagues have had an opportunity to read them. My former colleague from Florida, who was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, described the question of whether the hijackers on 9/11--and 15 of the 19 were Saudi citizens--whether the hijackers received support from foreign interests and, if so, what kind of support, which foreign interests. The American people have a right to see this. I hope the Senate will finally vote on asking the President to declassify these pages and give the American people the right to understand what is in those 28 pages. Again, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking member, a Republican and a Democrat, believed at the time those 28 pages should not have been classified. I will now turn to amendment No. 1429. It deals with waste, fraud, and abuse in contracting in Iraq, and it deals especially with Halliburton, but not exclusively with Halliburton. I have offered this amendment previously as well. It is unbelievable to me the billions and billions of dollars being spent. A substantial portion of it is being wasted. We know that, and yet no one seems to care or do much about it. Let me show some charts, if I may. This is a chart of someone who testified before a policy committee hearing I held. This fellow--you cannot see his face--this fellow in the blue striped shirt testified. He was in Iraq when this picture was taken. This is Saran-wrapped bundles of 100-dollar bills, some millions of dollars in 100-dollar bills. He said in this particular area they often played football with these Saran-wrapped bundles of 100-dollar bills. What was he doing with bundles of 100-dollar bills? The area where this cash was stored, subcontractors in Iraq were told: Bring a bag because we pay in cash; bring a bag. Show up here and want to get paid for whatever you are doing? Bring a bag because we pay in cash. Let me talk for a moment about the five hearings we held. We heard about cash transactions that were unrecorded, $9 billion that was unaccounted for. ``Uncle Sam Looks into Meal Bills: Halliburton Refunds $27 Million as Result.'' A company that was a Saudi subcontractor doing business through Halliburton billed the Government for 42,000 meals a day, but they only served 14,000 meals to our troops. Let me say that again. They were charging the Government for 42,000 meals served every day to our troops; they were only serving 14,000 meals. This was not the first time Halliburton has been questioned about this. This was in February 2004. Also in February 2004, ``Halliburton Faces Criminal Investigation.'' They focus on efforts to solicit bids that transport fuel to Baghdad. Prices Halliburton charged for that work were substantially higher than the cost of trucking in fuel from Turkey. Pentagon launches criminal investigation for possible fraud. ``Ex-Halliburton Workers Allege Rampant Waste.'' Said one employee: They did not control costs at all. Their motto was do not worry about costs. It is cost plus. Henry Bunting--who testified, incidentally, before one of our Policy Committee hearings--said that they spent $7,500 a month to rent ordinary vehicles, cars and trucks, when the vehicles could have been rented for less than $2,000 a month through the Internet. He also held up some towels. He said they had purchased monogrammed towels for $7.50--these are hand towels for the troops--that should have cost $2.50. Why $7.50? Because Halliburton wanted their logo on the towels. Now it is May. In February, they talked about overcharging 42,000 meals when they only served 14,000 meals. Now it is May of last year, 4 months later, and the Pentagon says: We are suspending $159 million in meal charges to Halliburton for feeding soldiers because the fact is they were charging for meals they were not serving. They are still engaged in the same contract, still cheating, and nobody does a thing about it. ``Millions in U.S. Property Lost.'' Halliburton lost $18.6 million in Government property in Iraq. Auditors could not account for 6,975 items on the ledgers of Halliburton's unit. ``Halliburton is Unable to Prove $1.8 Billion in Work, Pentagon Says.'' This has gone on and on. Has Congress done a thing about it, any oversight hearings? None. Nobody seems to care much. Let me read from a hearing we held in the Policy Committee, a hearing we held because the oversight committees do not hold these hearings. Let me read what the top civilian in the Corps of Engineers, who is engaged in these contracts and approves these contracts, said. This is a woman named Bunnatine Greenhouse. She rose to the highest level in the Corps of Engineers for civilian employees, and now she is losing her job because she was honest. Here is what she said: I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to Halliburton represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career. This courageous lady comes forward to testify to say these things, and now her career pays a price for it because we do not want to upset the good old boy network around here. They want to give a sweetheart deal to a company, suspend the rules, and give a sweetheart deal. They cheat you, cheat you again and again, do not worry about it. Do a little investigation down at the Pentagon, but don't anybody in Congress call attention to it. It would be uncomfortable and embarrassing to somebody. In 1941, Harry Truman, the Senator from Missouri, served in this Chamber. He was a flinty, tough independent. A member of his own party was in the White House, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. A Democrat in the Senate took on the task of identifying the waste, abuse, and fraud that was occurring in spending on our defense. They held hearing after hearing, and they unearthed a massive amount of fraud, waste, and abuse. I am sure that was uncomfortable for the Democrat in the White House, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, because a Democrat Senator was leading the fight. He did it through the Truman Committee that took a hard look at this kind of fraud and abuse. My amendment would reestablish a Truman-type committee, with Members of both parties on it. When we are shoving tens of billions of dollars out the door to companies such as Halliburton in sole-source contracts, somebody has to watch the cash register. We had a fellow named Rory testify recently at the Policy Committee. Again, we are holding hearings only because there are not aggressive oversight hearings held in the rest of the Congress because the majority party worries it would embarrass somebody. So Rory comes to testify. He is running a food service unit for Halliburton in Iraq and he says: We are getting food that is in some cases over a year expired on the date stamp for the food. What do they do? They are told: Feed it to the troops. We get food that comes in on a convoy that has been attacked. What do they do? The supervisors say go into those trucks and remove the shrapnel and remove the bullets and save the bullets as souvenirs for the Halliburton supervisors and feed the food to the troops. Yes, this fellow ran one of those agencies. Here is what he said: When I was an employee for Halliburton and they were doing this sort of thing, we were told if a Government auditor comes around, do not dare talk to the Government auditor. If you do, one of two things will happen: You will either be sent to a fire zone in Iraq, one under attack, one with significantly more danger than where you work now, or you will be fired summarily. Do not talk to Government auditors. The question is: When will someone care enough to begin to take a hard look at the money we are spending? Nearly $200 billion has gone out of here, all of it emergency funding, none of it paid for. A substantial portion of that goes to contractors and much of it sole- source contractors, no-bid and cost-plus contracts. The American taxpayers, in my judgment, are paying the price for very substantial abuse and very substantial waste and fraud. The moment someone comes to the Senate floor and mentions the word ``Halliburton,'' they say: You are attacking the Vice President. I am not. The Vice President used to run Halliburton Corporation. He does not and has not since the year 2000. None of the examples I have cited have happened prior to that time, they have happened since that time. This is not the Vice President's corporation. It is not on his watch as CEO of Halliburton. But these are sweetheart contracts, sole-source contracts. Fifty thousand pounds of nails are ordered to the country of Iraq, and they are the wrong size. So if one wants some nails, they are laying on the ground somewhere there in the sand, just another piece of waste. Seventy-five hundred dollars to rent a vehicle for a month. Buy new trucks for $85,000, get a flat tire, leave them by the roadside to be trashed. Buy new trucks for $85,000 and have a fuel pump plugged, leave them by the roadside to be trashed and looted. All of that comes from testimony from people who used to work for Halliburton. They have come before our Policy Committee and told these stories that describe outrageous amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse. The question is: Why does no one in this Congress seem to care? My hope is that this Congress would agree to create a Truman-type committee, a committee of Republicans and Democrats that would take a hardnosed, flinty look at how money is being spent. How much time remains?

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized following the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, some of my colleagues have said they would like a vote on their amendments prior to cloture. My hope is that we will not have a cloture vote, by the way. I think the best Defense authorization bills that we have had in the Congress have been those that have been debated on the Senate floor for a week or two where we have had a substantial opportunity to think through and debate significant and difficult issues. So I would hope we will not have a cloture vote tomorrow. If in fact we do, I will join my colleague from Oklahoma and others who suggest that I would like a vote prior to cloture because his amendments and mine would fall postcloture. That is one of the dilemmas of cloture. Clearly, my amendment deals with something that is very important, that attends to the money we are spending on defense and the money we are going to authorize to be spent on defense, but because of the way it is written and the subject, it will fall postcloture. For that reason, I hope we will not invoke cloture tomorrow. I thank my colleagues for the time and hope they will seriously consider both amendments I have described today.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to offer a couple of amendments. First I will say a few words about the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from California. Senator Feinstein was speaking on it when I came to the Chamber today. That is the question of money that is designated to begin research on the construction, hopefully, according to those who want it, of an earth penetrating bunker buster nuclear weapon. There is somewhere in the neighborhood of 25,000 to 30,000 nuclear weapons on this Earth. Mr. President, 25,000 to 30,000 nuclear weapons exist on this Earth. And now we have people talking about building new nuclear weapons in this country, building designer nuclear weapons, creating a new category of nuclear weapons, beginning to test nuclear weapons once again. That strikes me as pretty foolhardy because our responsibility as the world's superpower is to lead in a direction that tries to prevent nuclear weapons from ever entering into the hands of terrorists or rogue nations or adversaries. Our leadership responsibility is to try to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, to convince others not to build nuclear weapons. Let me read from Time magazine, March 11, 2002. For a few harrowing weeks last fall, a group of U.S. officials believed that the worst nightmare of their lives-- something even more horrific than 9/11--was about to come true. In October, an intelligence alert went out to a small number of Government agencies, including the Energy Department's top secret Nuclear Emergency Search Team based in Nevada. The report said terrorists were thought to have obtained a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon from the Russian arsenal and planned to smuggle it into New York City. The source of the report was an agent code name Dragonfire who intelligence officials believed was of ``undetermined'' reliability. But Dragonfire's claim tracked with a report from a Russian general who believed his forces were missing a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon. Since the mid-'90s, proliferation experts have suspected that several portable nuclear devices might be missing from the Russian stockpile. That made this Dragonfire report alarming. So did this: Detonated in lower Manhattan, a 10- kiloton bomb would kill some 100,000 civilians. . . . And counterterrorist investigators there went on their highest state of alert. That was from Time magazine, March of 2002. Many of us heard reports of this before. It said following 9/11 in October of that year, there was a rumor that intelligence officials took seriously that terrorists had acquired a nuclear weapon and were intending to smuggle that nuclear weapon into a major American city and detonate it. Interestingly, no one believed it was impossible for someone to have obtained a nuclear weapon. There are 25,000 to 30,000 nuclear weapons on this Earth. We hear the stories about the then-Russian nuclear stockpile of thousands of weapons without adequate control and maintenance, some reports about the command and control of those weapons being dealt with with pencil notations and notebook paper. So it was not beyond the pale that someone could have stolen a nuclear weapon. Neither did intelligence officials doubt that having stolen a nuclear weapon, terrorists would be able to find a way to detonate a nuclear weapon. Why do I mention this? Because with the thousands of nuclear weapons that exist in this world, the acquisition of one nuclear bomb by a terrorist group detonated in a major city in this country or in other countries will cause a catastrophe unlike any we have ever known. (Mr. LUGAR assumed the Chair.) That ought to persuade us that our responsibility is to do everything humanly possible, as the world's most powerful nation, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, to prevent terrorists in rogue nations from ever acquiring nuclear weapons, and to begin reducing the number of nuclear weapons. That is our leadership responsibility. That responsibility falls to our country and yet we have people who say, well, not to worry about that; in fact, let us talk about building new nuclear weapons; let us design different nuclear weapons. There is even talk about potentially using a nuclear weapon. There is discussion about beginning testing nuclear weapons. I think that sort of thing is reckless because it sends a signal to the rest of the world that we are not really serious about trying to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in this world. We should be serious about it. It ought to be the highest priority for this country to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, halt the ability of terrorists to ever acquire a nuclear weapon with which they would threaten thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people. This Defense authorization bill is spending a great deal of money on an antiballistic missile defense system, kind of a catcher's mitt, in case a terrorist organization or rogue nation would launch an intercontinental ballistic missile against our country with a nuclear warhead. This antiballistic missile program is kind of a catcher's mitt to go up and catch a speeding bullet and hit it with another speeding bullet. Frankly, it is the least likely threat to this country. The threat that a terrorist organization or a rogue nation would acquire an intercontinental ballistic missile armed with a nuclear warhead and then shoot it at our country, that is one of the least likely scenarios. The most likely scenario would be a terrorist or rogue nation acquiring a nuclear weapon through theft or some other device and then deciding to put it in the trunk of a rusty car sitting in a dock in New York City or putting it in one of the many containers that show up at an American port on a container ship. After all, there are 5.7 million containers that show up at our ports. Only a very small percentage are ever inspected. That is a much greater, much more likely threat to this country. I have great concern about those who talk so easily about our country building new nuclear weapons, perhaps even using a nuclear weapon. We have heard that language in recent years, talking about the need to create designer nuclear weapons. Our responsibility is far greater than that. I believe our responsibility as a world leader is to lead in the direction of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons; to do everything humanly possible to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons; to do everything humanly possible to control the nuclear weapons that now exist and safeguard those nuclear weapons that now exist. Since the Presiding Officer is from the State of Ohio, I will show something I have shown many times that is in my desk. I ask unanimous consent to show my colleagues two pieces of information.

Mr. DORGAN. This happens to be from a wing strut of a backfire bomber that the Soviets used to fly when we were in the Cold War. My assumption perhaps is that this bomber carried nuclear weapons. In the Cold War, the nuclear weapons on top of missiles were aimed at our country. The nuclear weapons carried in the bomb bay of a backfire bomber did not mean good things for our country. How did I acquire a piece of an airplane that was part of a Soviet bomber? This happens to be sawed off the wing of that airplane. It was sawed off the wing of an airplane at American taxpayer expense, one of the most successful things we have ever done. The reason I mention it now is the Presiding Officer's name is on that legislation, and through a program advanced by Senators Lugar and Nunn, we have had remarkable success in reducing the weapons delivery systems. This is from a bomber. This is the ground-up copper wire of a submarine that used to stealthily move under the waters of our oceans, again with nuclear weapons, with warheads prepared to aim at American cities. How did I acquire copper wire from a submarine that belonged to the Soviet Union? That submarine was taken apart, dismantled, as a result of arms control agreements that dismantled weapons delivery systems that at one point threatened America. It is now in this form, a piece of a bomber and copper wire from a submarine, which I hold in my hand on the Senate floor because programs like the Nunn-Lugar program, things like arms control agreements, do work and can work to reduce the threat in this country. I have had this in my desk for some while and have used it only to demonstrate that our responsibility as a world leader is to lead in the direction of doing everything humanly possible to reduce the number of nuclear weapons on this Earth, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to rogue nations, terrorists, and other countries that desperately wish to acquire them, and to safeguard the nuclear weapons that already exist in our arsenal to make certain that they are not acquired by other interests. That is a diversion from the point I was making but an important one, I think. I came here to say that I support the amendment that has been offered today. I do not support the spending of money for the development of a designer nuclear weapon, bunker busters, whatever it might be called. It seems to me that is moving in exactly the wrong direction. Since I think the most likely threat is a stolen nuclear weapon put in the trunk of a rusty car at an American dock or an American city, I would hope that we would begin to spend as much time and resources dealing with the most likely threats as we do dealing with the most unlikely threat, and that is the spending of billions and billions of dollars to create an electronic catcher's mitt, an antiballistic missile system, in the belief that a rogue nation or a terrorist would acquire an ICBM and then arm it with a nuclear warhead. Could that conceivably happen? Perhaps, but it is the least likely threat we face from terrorists. The most likely threat is the theft of a nuclear weapon and the placement of that in the trunk of a car or in a container on a ship, and I hope we will spend as much time worrying about that and dealing with that as we do the other. Again, that is sort of a long way of saying I support the amendment that has been offered to strip the funding for the robust nuclear earth penetrator bunker buster. Amendment No. 1426 I send an amendment to the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding was we had ample time this afternoon. I will truncate my remarks. I had intended to speak longer than 10 minutes, but I don't want to disadvantage my colleague on the floor or disadvantage those managing the bill. I will come back on Monday and speak at greater length about the amendment I will offer now and keep my comments short at this moment.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment for myself, Senator Durbin, and Senator Lautenberg. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that deals with a subject I have previously brought to the floor of the Senate, so far unsuccessfully, but my hope is this time perhaps I will have better luck. It deals with the question of dramatic waste, fraud, and abuse in contracting, particularly with respect to the war effort in Iraq. In the early 1940s, 1941 to be exact, Harry Truman, a Democrat from the State of Missouri, serving here in the Senate when a Democratic President was in the White House, decided that he wanted to have an investigation of what he considered substantial waste, fraud, and abuse in Pentagon spending and spending by contractors. I am sure it was uncomfortable for a Democrat in the White House to have a member of his own party in the Senate pushing, but he did. He kept pushing as only Harry Truman could, and created finally a Truman committee, a special committee. They held hearings all around the country. They were relentless. They found massive amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse in spending--yes, even during the war effort. It was, perhaps, uncomfortable for everybody that this was going on, that this kind of inquiry existed. But Harry Truman was not about to take a ``no'' answer from anybody, so he pushed and pushed. Finally, it came on the radar screen in the Senate that when you spend money, particularly when you are at war, you can't have people profiteering. It has to be spent effectively in support of this country's interests in support of our troops. We have a war in Iraq. We have soldiers in harm's way in Afghanistan. We are moving massive quantities of money out the door in the Congress--$81 billion here, $45 billion there, $55 billion there. It is, in many cases, going to contractors--some substantial amounts to replenish Defense Department accounts, but a substantial amount to contractors. We hear substantial waste, fraud, and abuse. It almost makes you sick. This is a picture of $2 million wrapped in Saran wrap. In fact, the guy standing right here said they were playing football, playing catch with bundles of hundred-dollar bills. What were they doing with this? They were actually giving money to contractors in Iraq. Contractors were told: Bring a bag, we pay in cash. Bring a bag because we pay in cash over here. This picture shows what was going on. The guy who did this testified before a committee at a hearing that I held. I don't need to go through a lot of charts, but ``Uncle Sam Looks Into Meal Bills, Halliburton Refunds $27 Million.'' We had one example: Halliburton corporation charging the American taxpayer. They were feeding 42,000 a day--at least that is what they were charging for, 42,000 meals a day. Guess what. They were only serving 14,000 meals a day. I came from a small town that had a really small restaurant. I can understand them missing a cheeseburger or two, but a corporation that overcharges the Federal Government for feeding soldiers by 28,000 meals a day? Then we had another hearing. We had one of the food service supervisors in Iraq who works for a subsidiary of Halliburton. He said we were feeding food that was outdated and expired, expired stamps on it by as much as a year. I see the Washington Times had a little blurb today. They mentioned that. People were writing in and saying: That is nothing, we used to eat old K rations. Does anybody believe it is right that when we send our soldiers to Iraq and we have food hauled over by a contractor and we pay for good food to be fed to our troops, and then they end up with food that is expired for a year, they say that is OK, serve it to the troops; and if a convoy comes through and is subject to attack the supervisor says, you grab that food out, pull the shells out and shrapnel out, and feed it to the troops. I put that testimony in the Record. Let me tell you, a top civilian official at the Corps of Engineers, involved in awarding sole-source contracts to companies like Halliburton--and there are more involved--the top civilian official is a wonderful woman with a wonderful record who has worked for years for this country. Here is what she said. And by the way, she is paying for it with her career because whistleblowing is not looked upon with favor by the old boys network. Here is what she said, Bunny Greenhouse: I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to the contracts awarded to K.B.R. Halliburton represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career. She is paying for this bit of honesty with her career because the good old boys don't like to hear that. The question is, for all the things that are being done--payment to have a room air conditioned, have the contractor come pick up a bag of cash, and it goes to a subcontractor--pretty soon the American taxpayers' payment to have room air conditioning, turns out the room has a little fan in it and we paid for air conditioners. It is unbelievable what is going on. There are 85,000 brand new trucks left on the roadside because they had a flat tire, to be trashed and torched. Plugged fuel pumps? Dump the truck. It is unbelievable what is going on in waste, fraud, and abuse. I have held five hearings in the policy committee on this. We had whistleblowers who have the courage to show up and talk about what is going on. There are 50,000 tons of nails laying in the sands of Saudi Arabia because they ordered the wrong size, so they dump them on the sands. The American taxpayer will pay for that. Need some towels for troops? The Halliburton subsidiary orders towels for troops and they nearly doubled the cost of the towels so they could put their logo on the towels. Yes, it is going on all the time. It is unbelievable. And nobody does a thing about it. Nothing. Do you think this Congress is holding aggressive oversight hearing? None. Nobody is interested. Why? Because it would embarrass somebody. Meanwhile the American taxpayer is taking a bath and the troops are being poorly served, in my judgment, with this sort of nonsense. My amendment is simple. I will speak at some length on Monday. I want to truncate this for the sake of the time problems my colleagues have. My amendment is very simple. My amendment calls for the establishment of a Truman-type committee again that would do the oversight that is not being done by this Congress. It will be bipartisan. It seems to me we have an obligation to the American people and we have an obligation to our troops. I offer the amendment and I will come back and speak later. In the interest of time problems, I yield the floor.