Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Senator Lott and I.

Mr. DORGAN. Well, I appreciate the Senator's courtesy. Of course, I am familiar that last week, perhaps for the last time, the committee has gotten unanimous consent requests for relevancy. I say ``for the last time'' because I have discovered both last evening and this morning that the amendment, as originally drafted, would be nonrelevant. Let me describe my surprise at that.

Mr. DORGAN. I am.

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Virginia has been here longer than I have, but he understands when one comes to the floor to manage a bill with the ranking member, that there will be dozens of opportunities for you, in the next couple of days, to have unanimous consent agreements between the two of you. That is the way you manage a bill on the floor of the Senate. I am not suggesting some new approach. You will be required to ask unanimous consent for a number of things to happen on the floor of the Senate. One of those will, I hope, be to say that you want to allow to be considered on the floor of the Senate concurrent receipt, for example. I think it would be a travesty if you leave the floor, or I should say if we leave the floor--the Senate takes the floor for final vote on a Defense authorization bill, having prevented those retired soldiers who are disabled from having had a vote on this issue. What a travesty that is going to be. I hope it will not be your intention to prevent that amendment from being offered. It is clearly right in the bull's-eye of this bill. Clearly it is. I guarantee you, to the extent I can guarantee you as a non- Parliamentarian, that 3 years ago, 5 years ago, or 10 years ago, if this were offered on this bill, it would be relevant. We all know that. The only reason we are surprised this morning is because relevancy is changing in a way that I hope surprises you because I don't expect that you last Thursday would have wanted to prevent the concurrent receipts being debated and voted on. And I wouldn't expect that you want my amendment to be voted on. As I said before, I have great respect for the chairman and ranking members of this committee. I think they do wonderful work for this country. I have great admiration for them. I support much of what they have done. I will offer a couple of amendments. One which I very much hope you will allow to be offered is the one Senator Reid, myself, and Senator McCain want to offer on concurrent receipts. And one that certainly should never be prevented from being offered is on the Base Closure Commission. I have already made the comments about that amendment and why I think it is important and why I think it is timely to offer it today. I know that both Senators will object to that. But there is a very solid and strong group of Senators who feel the other way. I and Senator Lott intend to offer this amendment to the extent that we can find a way to offer it, either by rewording it or finding a way to allow us a consent to offer it. It would be a mistake not to do this before the bill leaves the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. You do not have to overrule the Parliamentarian. If one were to move to do that, that would be a different issue. But by consent we can--and you know we will--do most anything on the floor of the Senate. My point is not to ask you to overrule the Parliamentarian. My point is to ask you whether you believe, whether the committee believes that it is somehow not relevant to this bill to be talking about the Base Closure Commission that was created by the Defense authorization bill in the Senate, or to be talking about concurrent receipts which affect emolument and reimbursements for veterans and retired veterans. Clearly, the Senators from Virginia and Michigan could not feel that is somehow outside the scope of this bill. If you believe it is in the scope of the bill, let us not be technical. Let us by consent allow amendments that are at the heart of this bill to be offered. That is what I am asking. That is my point.

Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, the Senator from Michigan made a suggestion which is I think perhaps a better approach, to have the Parliamentarian communicate with us about that subject. I don't know.

Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. DORGAN. When I say ``this bill,'' I am referring generically to the Defense Authorization bill that we do each year. This bill is where the Senators who wanted to add the base-closing BRAC commission put it. It is in this piece of legislation. Generically. Now, this bill you wrote this year that comes to the floor does not create the BRAC because the BRAC now is in law. I am trying to strike it. Let me say, however, that on page 349 of your bill: For base closure and realignment activities as authorized by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Part A of title XXIX of public law 101-510-- My point is, that portion of law is already referenced in your bill because you are proposing to spend $370 million in pursuit of certain requirements there. My point is, it is not as if base closing as a concept or as a subject is not there. It is there. I assume that neither you nor the Senator from Michigan--perhaps I should ask both of you. I assume that neither of you would anticipate when you propound a unanimous consent request on relevancy that you would want to prevent someone from coming to the floor to offer an amendment that is clearly relevant. I assume you would not want to try to prevent this kind of amendment. I assume you want to prevent an element that deals with, say, CAFE standards on automobiles, having nothing to do with defense or something dealing with health care that has nothing to do with defense. That is what relevance, in my judgment, is about. I ask the Senator from Virginia, if I may reserve my time and ask for a response, or perhaps the Senator from Michigan, did you anticipate last Thursday preventing amendments such as the amendment I was intending to offer with Senator Reid on concurrent receipt, which clearly deals with the military, or the amendment that I intend to offer on base closing, is that what you intended to prevent with the unanimous consent request? I am happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. That is correct.

Mr. DORGAN. That is my feeling. I hope the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan were surprised as well. If not, if their suggestion last Thursday of what relevance was, by unanimous consent, in effect, was to say: Oh, by the way, those of you who want to come with a base-closing round, we are not willing to fight you on that; You can't offer it; We will find a way to prevent you from offering it. It is partly our fault. I had no idea that what you were doing last Thursday with a relevancy request, by consent, would have prevented Senator Reid from offering the concurrent receipt issue. The fact is, we were going to offer the concurrent receipt issue last week on the tax bill and decided not to do that, decided to offer it here because here is where it ought to be offered. When someone works 20 years in the military for this country and then retires and earns a retirement pay, if during that time they were disabled, what our current law says, in most cases--not all, but in most cases--is that you are not going to be able to collect your disability and your retirement; concurrent receipt is prohibited. That is wrong. We ought to change that. Most of us know we ought to change that. The place to change that is on the Defense authorization bill. Of course it is the place to change it. I am just as stunned that Senator Reid has been told it is not relevant as I am about my amendment. I have spent more time this morning trying to figure out how on Earth someone could determine that this may not be relevant. I do not know what else that someone might want to offer here that deals directly with a defense issue, deals directly with policy in defense, will now be ruled as nonrelevant. What on Earth are we talking about here? I hope the two of you, the chairman and the ranking member, will agree that at least those issues that appear well within the scope of what we have always thought to be relevant, and Senator Reid described it exactly, about which those in our caucus who are the experts--I am not an expert on relevancy--are surprised, I hope those issues that you are preventing with a unanimous consent, at least by this latest rule, I hope we will be able to offer them. I will try to offer to the Parliamentarian's office some version of this amendment that will meet the relevancy test. I hope I can do that. If I can't, I hope it is not your intent that relevancy should be described in the way that prevents the offering of legislation that would strike a provision that you put in the law in 1990 in this very Defense authorization bill. I hope that is not your intent.

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator is correct.

Mr. DORGAN. Well, Madam President, that is patently absurd. The chairman asked--the first time he asked the question, he asked in the last decade.

Mr. DORGAN. Well, Madam President, it is hard to describe the smile the Senator from Nevada blesses us with, but if he wishes the Record to include that, we will do that. Look, we have gone on long enough. My interest is in substance, not procedure. I understand the Senate operates based on procedures and precedent, but I am not very happy today because the fact is, people whose judgment I rely on are very surprised by this. I just don't have the foggiest idea--not the foggiest idea--how my ability to strike a provision that was put in this bill 2 years ago is thwarted because it is not relevant to this bill. I don't have any idea. I would ask the question, if I can't do it now, then when can I do it? If I can't do it in this bill, then where can I do it? I don't have any understanding of that. Sometimes logic gets turned on its head. That is clearly the case here. Now, to the Parliamentarian's Office, I say I am sorry we have this disagreement. But the fact is that what I heard this morning, both with respect to retired veterans who are prohibited from getting their disability payments--you know something, they have been shunted around this Chamber now for years--for years--and the fact is a whole lot of them deserve more than they have gotten from this Congress. These are people who served this country, earned a retirement, and then were disabled while serving their country and can't collect full disability payments. And every time we try to solve that, there is one reason or another it can't be done. It is just one amendment Senator Reid and I and Senator McCain want to offer. But it just does not make sense to me to be in this position. I hope my two colleagues, Senator Warner and Senator Levin, would not intend for these amendments to be nonrelevant. They have some notion of what is relevant, what is nonrelevant in terms of what they wanted to prevent, and I assume they didn't want to prevent these types of amendments from being offered. So I will be working with them and seeing if we can find a way through this. I will work with the Parliamentarian's Office. But I must tell you, this is the first time--I have been in this Senate for a long time. I have never come to the floor ever, not one instance I think you will find where I have come to the floor and been upset with the Parliamentarian's Office or others. I am not a complainer. But I tell you what, this defies common sense. And I think, frankly, in a quiet moment, off the floor, the chairman and ranking member would tell me they didn't intend to preclude these two amendments. And if that is the case--and I think that is the case--then they ought not be precluded, and we need to find a way to allow them to be offered. So I will come back. I intended to come and speak to the substance and raise the question, and then try to solve it. I am sorry we got into a longer discussion than that. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN. No, no, no. I am not asking him to repeat the question. I have the floor. He asked the last decade. Then he asked the last several years. Then he asked the last 5 years. The fact is, people who watch this, going back through several Parliamentarians, are surprised this is not a relevant amendment. Relevancy is purely judgmental. If I were a Parliamentarian, a member of the Parliamentarian's Office, I would say nothing has changed in 200 years. God bless us.

Mr. DORGAN. Let me ask this, if I might ask the Senator from Michigan. I don't disagree with you at all. I understand you don't want 100 extraneous amendments that have nothing to do with this, so you want a relevancy test. But as I understand, the provision in law that I reference in my amendment is exactly the provision in law that is referenced on page 349, lines 16 to 19. That will now be prevented, so I will have to rewrite this amendment. The Parliamentarian says he thinks it is not relevant--their office thinks it is not relevant, ``after consultation with both the majority and minority staff of the Armed Services Committee.'' I might wonder what kind of consultation exists there. Can either of the Senators tell me?

Mr. DORGAN. Might I----

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, last Thursday and early Friday morning, the Senate was in session for I believe 17 hours, and it took 36 rollcall votes. Many of us arrived at our homes at 1:30 or 2 in the morning. I had trouble sleeping despite the hour because of what happened on that day. I want to describe something that has bothered me all weekend. In the middle of discussing the tax vote that came to us from the Finance Committee, the majority leader brought up the global AIDS bill. I guess it was about 10 o'clock at night. Those of us who prepared to offer amendments were told by the majority leader twice on the floor of the Senate that we would be able to offer our amendments and they would defeat them. Understand that this is a global AIDS bill that was done in committee, and none of us who do not serve on that committee had an opportunity to deal with that subject. Yet we were told in the Senate we would be able to offer our amendments and they would defeat them. This was about 10 o'clock at night. We were, by the way, at that moment debating a $430 billion or $450 billion tax cut. And I proposed an amendment to the global AIDS bill to spend $250 million--one-fourth of a billion dollars--to address a famine, particularly in central and sub-Saharan Africa, that threatens 11 million people. But before we had a debate about the substance of that, we were told: Your amendments will be defeated. Why? Because they are not a priority. We had already passed the level of food aid that was proposed in my amendment previously. That $250 million was already passed by the Senate in the omnibus bill and taken out by the House of Representatives in conference. But we were told we didn't have the capability in the Senate to do it last Thursday. So we had a record vote. I lost 49 to 51. Just so we understand this is not about some abstract theory, let me read Nicholas Kristof's piece in the New York Times of May 13. Ladawi is a 16-month-old girl with twigs for limbs, blotched skin, labored breathing, eyes that roll back and skin stretched tautly over shoulder blades that look as if they belong to a survivor of Auschwitz. She is so malnourished that she cannot brush away the files that land on her eyes, and she does not react when a medical trainee injects drugs into her hip in a race to save her life. ``She's concerned only with trying to breathe,'' says the trainee, the closest thing to a doctor at a remote medical center here in southern Ethiopia. ``Most likely she will not survive.'' I don't understand this. I just do not understand. We have people dying, children dying, and we have substantial food in this country and the most productive farmers in the world. They are told at the grain elevator that food has no value. If you produce it in such abundance, it has no value. And then a young girl in Boricha, Ethiopia, lies on her bed dying because she doesn't have food. I served on the Hunger Committee when I served in the House. I have traveled to many spots in the world to refugee camps. I have seen desperate hunger. I have held in my arms children who were dying because they didn't have enough to eat. We live in a world of plenty-- at least here in the United States. Obesity is a major problem. A substantial part of our country is on a diet. Our farmers can't make a living because they are told their food has no value. Yet we have 11 million people at risk. This Senate says no to the food aid that needs to go to those kids, to help those kids. I just do not understand it. Let me read further from the Nicholas Kristof piece: We've all been distracted by Iraq, but an incipient famine in the Horn of Africa has been drastically worsening just in the last few weeks. It has garnered almost no attention in the West, partly because it's not generally realized that people are already dying here in significant numbers. But they are. And unless the West mobilizes further assistance immediately to Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia, the toll could be catastrophic. . . . ``We've been overwhelmed by this, especially in the last three weeks,'' said Tigist Esatu, a nurse at the Yirba Health Center, crowded with mothers carrying starving children. ``Some families come and say, `We've lost two children already, three children already, so you must save this one.' '' He continues: Since weapons of mass destruction haven't turned up so far in Iraq, there's been a revisionist suggestion that the American invasion was worthwhile because of humanitarian gains for the liberated Iraqi people. Fair enough. But as long as we're willing to send hundreds of thousands of troops to help Iraqis, what about offering much more modest assistance to save the children dying here? ``How is it that we routinely accept a level of suffering and hopelessness in Africa that we would never accept in any other part of the world?'' asks James Morris, the executive director of the World Food Program. . . . Fair enough. But as long as we're willing to send hundreds of thousands of troops to help Iraqis, what about offering much more modest assistance to save the children dying here? Later in the article he quotes a mother: ``Now I worry about my other children,'' said Tadilech Yuburo, a young woman who lost one child last month and has three left. In her village, Duressa, population 300, five children have died in the last month. In nearby Falamu, population 400, six children have died. This famine has not yet registered on the world's conscience. I offered an amendment to provide some food aid which we have in abundance. We have plenty of food aid to give. I offered an amendment at 10, 11 at night. We didn't have the time to do that, didn't have the willingness to do that. We didn't have the votes to do that. We were way too busy providing tax cuts, the majority of which will go to upper income Americans. I had a friend who died of a car crash in 1981. He was a wonderful man, a singer, named Harry Chapin, who dedicated most of his life to fighting rural hunger. Harry wrote a song I want to read that describes why I feel so passionately about this. The song is called ``The Shortest Story.'' I am born today. The sun burns its promise in my eyes. Momma strikes me and I draw a breath to cry. Far above a cloud tumbles softly through the sky. It is now my seventh day. I taste the hunger and I cry. Brother and sister cling to momma's side. She squeezes her breast, but it has nothing to provide. Someone weeps. I fall asleep. It is 20 days today. Momma does not hold me anymore. I open my mouth but I am too weak to cry. Far above a bird slowly crawls across the sky. Why is there nothing left to do but die? Those were lyrics by the late Harry Chapin. Harry was a terrific friend. He dedicated the proceeds from one-half of his concerts every year to fight world hunger. He used to say, if one night 45,000 people died of hunger in New Jersey, it would make headlines around the world, giant headlines in every paper in the world. But the winds of hunger blow every day, every hour, every minute, and 45,000 people, mostly children, die every day, and it doesn't make the newspaper. Now we have a gripping famine in a part of the world that some of us believe we have a moral responsibility to address in a much more aggressive way than we have been willing to address previously. Yet a relatively small amendment I offered on Thursday was defeated by two votes, and I was told before I offered it: Go ahead and offer your amendment. We will defeat it. And this was before they knew what the amendment was about. That is not the kind of priority you would expect from the Senate. I regret very much that we passed this global AIDS bill and did not attach the $250 million in food aid to which the Senate had previously agreed. We don't have much time if we care about world hunger. If we care about saving these children, if we care about doing what we need to do, what our responsibility would call us to do at this moment, then we must regroup and pass legislation of the type I offered Thursday night. Again, it was hard to sleep, and this weekend I thought a lot about that, wondering why was the Senate so much more interested in providing tax cuts than it was in providing assistance to those starving in other parts of the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, am I recognized for 10 minutes?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment provides $250 million in food aid through the Commodity Credit Corporation to those who are suffering from AIDS/HIV infections in sub-Saharan Africa. The Senate is already on record in supporting this level of food aid. During the consideration of the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill, the Senate approved a bipartisan amendment that would have provided $500 million for this type of food aid. That was reduced to $250 million in the conference. This amendment would simply add back the amount which was cut in conference. In 1984, 8 million people were in need of food aid. In sub-Saharan Africa today, that number is 11 million. Some are predicting that it will go up to 20 million. Yet there is little attention in 2003 to this crisis. The United Nations reports that 29.4 million adults and children are infected with the HIV virus in sub-Saharan Africa, and 11 million orphans currently living in Africa are facing the risk of malnutrition as a result of the AIDS crisis. The relationship between these two crises is very strong. The World Food Program Director, James Morris, testified before the Senate on February 25 of this year and stated that HIV and AIDS was the central cause of famine in that part of Africa. Poverty in that part of the world contributes to the AIDS epidemic. Not only are the health systems inundated but poverty and hunger lead many women to be commercial sex workers. Devastation in the rural areas causes many men to become migrant workers in urban areas which leads to multiple partners. In addition, once a person is infected with the HIV virus, for those who are lucky enough to get medical treatment, good nutrition is crucial in helping ward off infections. Malnutrition complicates and accelerates the problems associated with this HIV infection. The body is unable to fight the disease when it is starving for food. This is a crisis that calls out for a dramatic response. Anyone in this Senate who has held a child in his or her arms who is dying of malnutrition and starvation--and some of us have--will never forget that experience. The fact is that tonight in sub-Saharan Africa, there are hundreds of thousands--millions--of people at risk, especially children. This Senate has already made the decision that it would support $500 million. That was cut to $250 million in conference on the omnibus. I propose that we restore that $250 million, and do what we should do--do what a generous and good country must do at this point. I ask that my amendment be supported by my colleagues. I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there is indeed a point of order. But I hope someone in this Chamber will take it upon themselves to explain to those who are sick and to the hungry children who are dying that this can't be done because there was a point of order in the Senate at 11 o'clock at night in consideration of this bill. The fact is we have already made this decision. This is not a partisan issue. We have made this decision previously. The Senate said we will provide $500 million to try to provide assistance to those who are devastated by HIV and devastated by malnutrition and hunger. We have already made that decision in the Senate. It was cut to $250 million in conference. Let us again decide that this emergency problem cries out for our response and not for a claim of a point of order. This is talking about feeding hungry people who are devastated by famine and who are ravaged by HIV and AIDS. This deserves our support, and deserves it tonight. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the consideration of the pending amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there should be no point of order. But let me say, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act and the budget resolution for the consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.