Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have cosponsored the amendment offered by my colleague from Washington. I want to make a couple comments. It seems to me, on the question of what the priorities are around here, what are the right choices, veterans health care has to rank right up at the top. We had a hearing at one point. We had Secretary Rumsfeld come, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. We asked a lot of questions about this issue because I think everyone wants the same thing. We want to say to young men and women who wear the uniform of this country: Please support this country's efforts. Go fight for freedom. Answer your country's call. And when they do, and put themselves in harm's way--and most of us understand what ``harm's way'' means because we have been over to Walter Reed, we have been out to Bethesda Naval Hospital. We have seen these young men and women with lost limbs, limbs that have been blown off, and all kinds of other wounds. We understand the sacrifice that is made. We asked the Secretary about the difference between someone who is a soldier on active duty and someone who has come home to a hospital to be treated for a lost leg or a lost limb or other devastating injuries and then is moved out of the service with a discharge--what is the difference between the level of health care for an active-duty soldier at Walter Reed or Bethesda and a veteran in a veterans hospital setting? Should there be a difference? No, there should not be. These are soldiers: active duty or retired, but soldiers. I do not think there is a debate in this Senate about whether we adequately fund veterans health care. We all know the answer to that. The answer is no, we are not adequately funding it. So the question is, will this be a priority? Will the Congress, will the Senate think this is as important as some other issues? Someone once asked the question hypothetically: If you were asked to write an obituary for someone you had never met and the only information with which you could write that obituary was their check register, what would it tell you about the person? You could take a look and determine, what did that person spend money on? What did that person determine to be valuable? You could make the same case with respect to the Federal Government. Take a look at the checkbook and evaluate, what did we determine was important? What were our priorities? Where was veterans health care, because we know the esteem in which this country holds its veterans? We know that starting with the poster that says ``Uncle Sam Wants You'' pointed to the face of Americans for decades to say: Join the service, represent this country, support and fight for it, fight for freedom. We know that call. But we also know a promise was made. The promise was, you do this for your country and, when you come back, we will have a veterans health care system available for you. Some say--not publicly--why have a veterans health care system? Why not just have those folks go to a regular hospital? Especially after major wars, you don't ask that question because if you go to the veterans hospitals or Active-Duty hospitals that are treating these veterans, you will discover there is a kind of medical challenge that you don't find often in other hospitals. I visited a young man at Walter Reed a couple times. I had appointed him to West Point. He is a proud member of the armed services. He went to Iraq. Because of an improvised explosive device, he lost his leg. He came back, was in Walter Reed, and went through a long period when they didn't know whether he was going to make it. He had a lot of infections and serious problems. He lost his leg right up to his hipbone. Go visit those folks at the military hospitals or the veterans hospitals and understand these are different medical challenges than you find every day at the hospitals in the inner cities or the hospitals in the suburbs. I am not saying other hospitals don't face challenges. I am saying the wounds of war are deep, challenging. Go to the orthopedic section out here and understand the difference. It is a big difference. I have told my colleagues about a Sunday morning at Fargo, ND. I will tell the story again because it is so important. It illustrates such an important point in support of my colleague. A man served his country, left the Indian reservation when called during the Second World War and served. His name was Edmund Young Eagle--Native American, Standing Rock Reservation. He served in Africa, Normandy, Europe, served as his country asked him to, never complained about it. At the end of the war, he came back to the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, lived, had a tough life, didn't have a family of his own, loved to play baseball but had a tough life all of his life. Toward the end of his life, he went to the Old Soldiers' Home in North Dakota, and following that, he developed lung cancer. His sister contacted my office and said: My brother has never had very much, but he was always very proud of serving his country and never received the medals he had earned for serving in Africa and Europe and Normandy during the Second World War. Could you help get his medals? So I did. I got the medals that this Native American had never received from his country for going all around the world and fighting for America. By that time, Edmund Young Eagle was transferred to the VA Hospital in Fargo with advanced lung cancer. In his late seventies, on a Sunday morning, I went to his room at the VA Hospital with his medals. His sister came. The doctors and nurses from the ward came and crowded into Edmund's room. We cranked up his hospital bed to a seating position, and I pinned on his pajama top the medals that Edmund Young Eagle had earned fighting for his country in Africa, Normandy, and Europe. This man, who would die 7 days later, said to me: This is one of the proudest days of my life. He was a very sick man but enormously proud that his country had recognized what he had done for America in the Second World War some 50 years later. The fact is, he and so many like him, particularly now, those Tom Brokaw called the ``greatest generation'' who went off to win the Second World War, beat back the forces of nazism and Hitler, the fact is they are now at an age where they claim an increasing amount of health care in their late seventies, eighties, and nineties. There is a strain on the VA medical health care system. Added to that, the Vietnam War and the age of those veterans, the gulf war, now the war in Iraq, this is a system that is straining at the seams. My colleague offers an amendment. She has offered it before. I have supported it previously on many occasions. It says: Let us, on an emergency basis, decide as a country that veterans health care is our priority. Let someone years from now look back at what we spent money on and have some pride in knowing that we spent money on a priority that was critically important, a priority that said to us: We will keep our word to veterans. We promised health care, if you served your country. Now we are going to deliver it. It is not satisfactory to me and to many others in this Chamber to decide that among a whole series of priorities, providing another tax cut is more important than providing health care or keeping a promise to veterans. That is not acceptable to me. That is why I am happy to join. I mentioned a tax cut as one example. We tried to offer an amendment to the emergency supplementals that previously went through this Congress. We just had an $81 billion supplemental, none of it paid for. We have now a $45 billion emergency supplemental passed by the House that is coming this direction. My colleague from Oklahoma made the point that we have increased spending. We sure have increased spending. No question about that. Take a look at what has increased with respect to defense spending and homeland security spending post-9/11. I have not opposed that spending. I happen to think we need to replenish Army accounts when you send troops to Iraq. I happen to think we need more security at our ports and other places. But it seems to me logical that progressives, conservatives, moderates, everything in between at some point ought to decide to get together and say: If we are going to spend this money, we ought to pay for it. Instead of doing that, we have done emergency supplementals. My colleague from Washington is saying, if you are going to do emergency supplementals for everything, how about doing it for the first and most important thing, and that is keeping our promise to America's veterans.

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. Was there a question?

Mr. DORGAN. Let me say, that is why I support the amendment. It is a question of priorities. I know everyone has their own view of what priorities might be. One of the top priorities ought to be keeping your promise to America's veterans. I appreciate the amendment being offered. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin be added to the Byrd- Cochran amendment No. 1053 as a cosponsor.

Mr. DORGAN. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1002

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask the Senator from Montana, my understanding is that we have a request from Senator Byrd, and I believe Senator Cochran, that on their behalf, the Byrd amendment, amendment No. 1053, be adopted by voice vote. My understanding is that both sides have had that request of Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran. I wonder if we might be able to accomplish that, I would ask the Senator from Montana.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. The majority leader suggested that perhaps CAFTA might be brought up later this week. As the majority leader knows, CAFTA is brought to us under something called fast-track procedures, No. 1, and No. 2, an expedited procedure by which, when it is brought to the floor, it is given 20 hours of debate. Some of us feel very strongly that fast track is wrong, but, nonetheless, that is the process. I ask the majority leader if he is intending to bring up CAFTA under fast track as the last order of business because the suggestion then would be you bump fast track up against the Fourth of July recess. I think that would mistreat a very serious issue. My hope is that the majority leader will not decide to make the CAFTA trade agreement the last order of the day in this week because, if so, that will suggest that there is a desire to truncate the debate, to shrink the 20 hours, and not have a thoughtful and full debate on a very important trade issue at a time when we have the largest trade deficit in the history of this country. My question would be, is there consideration to bringing up the Central American Free-Trade Agreement when we return from the Fourth of July recess?

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside so I can offer an amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Feinstein.

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

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

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. DORGAN. I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Kerry and ask for its consideration.

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

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

Mr. DORGAN. I send two amendments to the desk and ask unanimous consent that they be considered sequentially, offered by Senator Bingaman.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on Friday I brought to the floor a picture of a wonderful young soldier. This soldier is a man who fled from Cuba on a raft in 1992. His name is Carlos Lazo. Sergeant Lazo has not been able to bring his family to this country from Cuba. He kept in contact with them, visiting them a number of times under the rules that allow Cuban Americans to visit close relatives in Cuba once a year. In 1998, Carlos joined the National Guard. They were mobilized in 2003, deployed to Iraq in March of 2004. In June of 2004, Sergeant Lazo came back to the United States from Iraq on a 2-week R&R. He hoped to use that time to make his annual visit to Cuba to see his sons. But just before Sergeant Lazo came home on leave, the President announced new regulations that would limit Cuban-American family visits to once every 3 years. Even though Sergeant Lazo got to the Miami airport a day before the new regulation went into effect, our State Department prohibited him from boarding a charter flight to Cuba to visit his children. Mr. Lazo, in the country of Iraq wearing America's uniform, won the Bronze Star award. Let me show you the award, the Bronze Star medal given SPC Carlos Lazo, Charlie Company, 181st Support Battalion, for exceptionally meritorious service while serving as a combat medic with Charlie Company. It goes on to talk about his heroism and courage. Here is an American soldier who went to fight in Iraq because his country asked him to fight in Iraq. He was fighting for freedom. This American soldier wins the Bronze Star fighting in Iraq. He comes home to this country and his young child in Cuba has a very high temperature and is in the hospital, quite ill. He wants to go to Cuba to visit his child. After fighting in Iraq, he is told he doesn't have the freedom to travel to Cuba to see his sick child. He came to see me the other day and asked if I could help him because I have been involved in legislation in the Senate dealing with travel to Cuba. I happen to believe that we ought to treat Cuba just as we do China and Vietnam, both Communist countries. Our official policy is that we will advance the interests of each through engagement. Travel and trade will be beneficial to moving China and Vietnam towards greater human rights. But we believe that is not the case with Cuba because we have clamped down on trips to Cuba. Now a fellow like Carlos, an American soldier who is willing to fight in Iraq and wins a Bronze Star, is told, You can't visit your children in Cuba except for once every 3 years. Even when your child is ill in a hospital, we won't allow you to visit him. He asked the question last week: What about freedom? I was fighting for freedom. I don't have the freedom to go travel 90 miles off the shores of Florida to the country of Cuba to see a sick child who is in the hospital? I called the Department of the Treasury, which runs the agency that would provide the licenses, and asked to speak to the Treasury Secretary. He didn't return the call. I called the State Department, asked for Condoleezza Rice. She didn't return my call. As an aside, I would observe that she was happy to return my call when she was up for confirmation on the floor of the Senate to be the Secretary of State. But she didn't return my call this time. At any rate, her Deputy, Mr. Zoellick, returned the call. I have great admiration for him so I was pleased to talk to him. I also called the White House and talked to Karl Rove on Friday afternoon. I just got a call back from the White House saying that Mr. Rove will not be contacting me today. In fact, Mr. Zoellick will be handling this. I have not yet heard from Mr. Zoellick, but he indicated he would be getting back to me. When I talked to the Treasury Department, they said: The regulations that came into effect that President Bush has announced provide no humanitarian relief at all. It means that you can't travel to Cuba except once every 3 years to see your family. I said: Surely there must be some humanitarian exceptions to that. This guy wins the Bronze Star fighting for this country, and he doesn't have the freedom to go visit a sick kid? They said: There are no exceptions. We have people calling us saying: My mother is dying in Cuba. I need to go see her. We tell them no because there are no exceptions. I said what on Earth are you thinking about? You created the regulation. Don't tell me the regulations prevent you from doing the right thing. You created them; change them. So here it is, on Monday afternoon, this Sergeant Lazo--Carlos Lazo--still asks the question: Why, when I fought in Iraq, demonstrated courage under battlefield conditions, won a Bronze Star, do I come home and find I don't have the freedom to visit my sick child 90 miles away from the shores of America? That is unbelievable. Not surprising to me, but unbelievable. I will show you a picture of another young woman who visited my office. This is Joan Scott. Joan went to Cuba, but she didn't get permission. She didn't know she had to get permission. She went to Cuba because she wanted to distribute free Bibles. She took a supply of Bibles and went to Cuba to distribute them. Guess what this Government did. They tracked her down and slapped a $10,000 fine on her. Why? She didn't have a license to go to Cuba. Fidel Castro has been sticking his finger in our eye for many years. But if we think we are slapping him around by restricting the rights of the American people to travel there, we are seriously mistaken. The quickest way to get Castro out of office in Cuba--and he has lived through 10 Presidencies--is through trade and travel, just as we do with China and South Vietnam, both of which are also Communist countries. Trade and travel will rapidly advance the day in which Cuba will have a new government. To penalize and punish American citizens-- someone who wants to distribute free Bibles in Cuba, or someone who wants to take his father's ashes with his last request to distribute his ashes on the grounds of a church he once ministered in in Cuba, to punish these people--and this Government is doing that--is unbelievable. In this case, it is Sergeant Lazo who is penalized. So this Monday afternoon he waits and I wait. Will I get a call from the State Department saying, No, our rules in America are that you can fight for America and for freedom, but you don't have the freedom to go see a sick kid? If that is the result, that is unbelievable. Mr. President, we will see if I get a telephone call this afternoon. If they don't find a humanitarian way to provide exceptions, not just for Sergeant Lazo but for someone whose father or mother is dying and they need to go to Cuba, then we are going to vote on that on this appropriations bill. Yes, it will take a suspension and it will take a two-thirds vote. But we will see who wants to stand up for the interests of a young soldier who was willing to fight and die for this country but doesn't have the freedom to go see his sick son. We will see who is willing to stand up for his interests and the interests of the basic proposition that you ought to be free to travel. We will see at the end of today. I say, again, I fully intend to offer an amendment to this bill, and it will require suspension of the rules, but I will offer that and ask my colleagues to vote on it. Mr. President, there is more to say, but I will reserve that until I get a call from the State Department today telling us what they have decided to do. Amendment No. 1032