Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, how much time have I consumed?

Mr. DORGAN. I want to make a couple other points that are not related to this specific bill but to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill for the continuing Iraq War and fight against global terrorism. We have a $152 billion request in front of us with another $45 billion expected on top of that. All of this is emergency spending and none of will be paid for. This will take us to the neighborhood of three quarters of a trillion dollars or more, when spent, with respect to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and other related matters. All of these costs will be added directly to the federal debt. During wartime, in most cases, this country has decided it should pay for things that we consume and pay for the cost of wars. We did it in the Civil War. We did it in the Spanish-American War. We did it in World War I and World War II and other wars. We began a process by which we tried to pay for some of that which the war was costing. The question about whether we should commit ourselves as a country to pay for war is an interesting question. In the Iraq war, our soldiers were sent to fight, and President Bush indicated we could best serve our country by going shopping. We should go to the mall to keep our economy moving. We could also best serve our country, in my judgment, by deciding not to send our soldiers to fight and then come back later and pay the bill because we decided to charge all of it--every penny of it borrowed. Let me read something Franklin Roosevelt said during one of his fireside chats: Not all of us can have the privilege of fighting our enemies in distant parts of the world. Not all of us can have the privilege of working in a munitions factory or a ship yard, or on the farms or in the fields or mines, producing the weapons or raw materials that are needed by our armed forces. But there is one front and one battle where everyone in the United States--every man, woman, and child--is in action. . . .That front is right here at home, in our daily lives, and in our daily tasks. Here at home everyone will have the privilege of making whatever self-denial is necessary, not only to supply our fighting men [and women], but to keep the economic structure of our country fortified and secure . . . President Johnson said: The test before us as a people is not whether our commitments match our will and courage; but whether we have will and courage to match our commitments. When the emergency supplemental bill comes to the floor of the Senate this time, I am going to ask if we should begin to pay for some of this and to begin to ask for some sacrifice. At least in the easiest of areas for all of us to make a decision, let me show you $23 billion of revenue right now that we might use to offset some of that which otherwise will be described as emergency. I have a piece of legislation that will shut down offshore tax haven abuses. This is one I described 2 years ago on the floor of the Senate. It is the Ugland House, a five- story white house in the Cayman Islands, that is home to 12,748 corporations. They are not there. That is a legal fiction created by lawyers to allow those companies to avoid paying the taxes they owe in the United States. I have a piece of legislation, S. 396, that says if U.S. corporations are going to set up a paper company in an offshore tax haven simply to avoid paying taxes, it is not going to work. We close that loophole. Here is an obvious one we could change immediately: end abusive foreign sale and lease transactions. We can use some of these to pay for some of that which we are spending on the war. This is a case of the lease of 65 streetcars in Germany by a United States corporation, First Union Bank. Here is one in which Wachovia Bank bought a sewage system in a German city. Do they want to own a German sewer system? No, they want to save $175 billion in taxes through a tax loophole. We could close this right now. I am going to suggest, when we bring another emergency bill to the floor--in this case nearly $200 billion--that maybe it is long past time for us to meet the obligation we have; that is, to ask all of us to sacrifice a bit. In this case, ask those who have exercised huge loopholes to avoid paying taxes in the United States. This is a picture relating to another bill I have. This is called the Radio Flyer. I expect every Member of the Senate when they were little toddlers rode in a little red wagon called a Radio Flyer. This was made in Illinois. It was made by an immigrant who over a century ago built the company that created the Radio Flyer. The reason he named it Radio Flyer is, he liked Marconi. He enjoyed airplanes so he decided to call his little red wagon the Radio Flyer. Guess what. After a century this is gone. There are no more red Radio Flyer wagons built in America. They have all gone to China. And by the way, the company that shut down the plant in the United States and moved the red wagons to China in search of cheap labor got a tax incentive from this Congress to do it. We can shut that down immediately. So these three ideas and a temporary 1 percent emergency tariff on imported foreign goods would raise some $23 billion in the first year alone. Do we need to wait? Do we need a month, a year, 10 years? I don't think so. All we need is the will and the commitment to do what is right. With respect to these issues, I believe we could do plenty of things that would begin to reduce the cost that will inure to our soldiers, who valiantly fight when asked to, when they come back and discover we have spent a lot of money but we charged it all. So they get to fight today and pay the bill tomorrow. I think we can and should do much better than that. I have described in shorthand four proposals that I hope we will consider when we do the second piece of this issue of Defense appropriations. Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens worked very hard on this legislation. This is one of the largest bills we consider in the Senate. There are a lot of issues, some very controversial. I appreciate the work they and their staff have done to put this together. It is not an easy appropriations bill to do. My hope is that as we work through this in the next day or so, we will be able to have final passage in a couple of days and get this into conference so we can resolve all of these issues. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their work. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, October 4, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on backlogs at the Department of the Interior: Land into Trust Applications; Environmental Impact Statements; Probate; and Appraisals and Lease Approvals. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I thank Senators Specter and Casey for raising this issue. Extending the section 508 program is critical for many North Dakota hospitals and is an important step to address the long-standing inequities in Medicare payment between urban and rural providers. I appreciate the commitment of the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee and look forward to working with them to see that this extension is enacted.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me make a couple of comments. I will not take a long time. I have to observe that there was a time when there was substantial courage in this Chamber. I recall we had some very large budget deficits growing over a long period of time, and we passed a new fiscal policy. I was here then some long while ago. It passed by one vote in the Senate and one vote in the House. That took some courage. Some people who cast those votes did not come back here, because they were very controversial votes. But we turned our fiscal policy around in this country by making tough choices. We turned the Federal budget deficit into a Federal budget surplus and began paying down the Federal debt. In 2001, on this floor, in this Chamber, we had a debate about fiscal policy again. A new President came to the White House. President Bush said he was a conservative. He said: Well, now, we have all of these surpluses. He and his friend, Alan Greenspan, were worried that the biggest problem facing America was that we were going to pay down our debt too rapidly. The President and the White House said: We have got all of these surpluses. Let's decide to give the wealthiest Americans some large tax cuts because I believe in trickledown economics. Put a lot in the top, and see if some will drain down a bit. Some of us stood on the floor of the Senate and said, you know what, we have just finally turned this economy around, turned these huge budget deficits around. The plan under the Clinton administration worked, and we turned big deficits into big surpluses and began to pay down the Federal indebtedness. Some of us stood on the floor of the Senate and said: Mr. President-- to President Bush--maybe we ought to be a bit conservative. What if something happens? These big surpluses for the next 10 years do not yet exist. Yes, there is a surplus now, but we do not have a 10-year surplus that exists. That is the projection. What if something happens? Why do we not be a bit more conservative in how we deal with this? The President and his supporters said: No. No. No. What we are going to do is we are going to give very large tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. We want to do it right now. They won. They had the votes to win, and they turned this economy around, all right. They turned budget surpluses, in a period where we were actually paying down the Federal debt, into some of the largest Federal deficits in this country's history--once again, unbelievable. So when I hear people talking about courage, let me say we had some courage on the floor of the Senate. I am proud to have been one of them who cast a vote that passed by one vote, that turned around this country's fiscal policy. And now we leave an example of a fiscal policy that was reckless, one of the most reckless fiscal policies I can ever imagine, given to us in 2001 by a new President who said he was conservative but who was not. In fact, my colleague just described what we are spending and not paying for. Yesterday in the Senate Appropriations Committee, President Bush sent his Defense Secretary, he sent the Assistant Secretary of State, he sent the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to ask us for another $189 billion to prosecute the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, oh, by the way, the President said: I do not intend that we pay for any of that; put that right on top of the debt. We are going to charge it all. That is the direction this White House is leading. That is what brings us to the floor of the Senate tonight, with a fiscal policy that has rung up an enormous amount of additional debt; the worst possible fiscal policy you can imagine. You know what happened? Some of us said, maybe we ought to be a little bit conservative, a little bit careful. The President said: No. No. No. We are not going to do that. We are going to take these 10 years of estimated surpluses and we are going to spend them with tax cuts. Here is what happened very quickly. We were in a recession. The President likes to say he inherited the recession. He did not. But very shortly after he took office, we experienced a recession. Then we experienced the terrorist attack of 9/11, and then a war in Afghanistan, then a war in Iraq, then an economic slowdown. Would not it have been smarter to have a fiscal policy that was a bit more careful, one that would have given a bit more thought about how to best care for this country's finances? I know it is easy to blame. I watched today as we had people come to the floor of the Senate blaming this, that, and the other thing. It is easy to take the negative. I understand that. Mark Twain was once asked if he would engage in a debate. And he said: Oh, sure, as long as I can take the negative side. Somebody said: We have not told you the subject. He said: Doesn't matter. If I take the negative side, it will take no preparation. So I understand those who come to the floor of the Senate and tell us what is wrong. But I can tell you about a fiscal policy that was right, because I supported it and am proud to have done it some years ago, that turned big deficits into budget surpluses and began paying down the Federal debt. That is the kind of fiscal policy we need. It is the kind of fiscal policy we had, and this administration and those who supported it in this Chamber turned their back on it 6 years ago. Now we have paid the price for those votes. I hope those who describe these issues remember, remember what a good fiscal policy was and how to recapture it once again. Yes, it take a little political courage. Those of us who supported a fiscal policy that works understand how it worked when it happened. We have a lot to be thankful for, living in this great country of ours; only one spot like it on the planet. We have responsibilities that are very significant here in this Chamber. There is plenty wrong with this country, plenty of things that need fixing. But it is a wonderful place that requires our stewardship to do the right thing. I only came to the floor as I listened this evening to point out that we have seen good fiscal policy and bad fiscal policy. I, and I think many others, recognize the difference. If all of my colleagues will recognize that difference, we can put this country back on track once again. That is what the American people deserve and expect from us. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I strongly support reinstating the ability of States to deem necessary providers to be critical access hospitals. The Critical Access Hospital Program has helped ensure that the doors stay open at many hospitals in rural America. Without this program, many Medicare beneficiaries in my State would have to drive hours to receive health care. I think it is important to give States flexibility to deem necessary providers as critical access hospitals and not rely on a one- size-fits-all definition. If we don't address this issue, I am worried that one of our hospitals in western North Dakota, St. Joseph's Hospital, may not be able to survive. I appreciate Chairman Baucus' commitment to work with us to address this issue and to consider modifications to the Critical Access Hospital Program that would allow St. Joseph's Hospital in Dickinson, ND, to participate.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. In fact, the request before the Senate Appropriations Committee this afternoon for the war in Iraq is two requests: $145 billion that now exists for this year, and we expect another $50 billion on top of it. That is nearly $200 billion in one single year, totaling about three-quarters of a trillion dollars, over time none of it paid for. This program to provide health insurance to children is $7 billion a year fully paid for. What bothers me about this issue is this clearly is an issue of trying to take care of things here at home. What is more important than taking care of a young child who is sick? It is interesting to me, we voted a while back about making English the national language. It is a reasonable request. If you want to become an American citizen, you ought to aspire to learn the language, English. Yet I come to the floor and I hear a foreign language. I don't understand what they are talking about: ``socialized medicine,'' ``Cuban-style, government-run health care.'' It seems to me they ought to speak English. I get so tired of people using these terms, such as ``socialized medicine.'' Yes, there is a government aspect to this issue. But as my colleague said, much of this is the private sector as well implementing it. I am so tired of people saying the Government can't do a thing. How about those firefighters climbing the World Trade Center and giving their lives as those buildings came down? You know what, they were on the public payroll, were they not? Public service, that is what they were doing. Government workers. How about the teachers taking care of our kids today in the classroom? Government workers; yes, they are. How about Dr. Francis Collins working at NIH, who gave us the owners manual for the human body with the mapping of the genome code? Are we proud of him? Government worker. I am a little tired of this language--``socialized medicine,'' ``Cuban-style system.'' What a load. That is thoughtless rather than thoughtful debate. This is not some massive socialized medicine program. I say to my colleagues, look a 4-year-old child in the eye who is hurting and say to them: You know what, we made a decision that the question of whether you get to see a doctor or get to go to a clinic or get to go to a hospital today is a function of how much money your parents have, and if they don't have the requisite amount of money, I am sorry, youngster; tough luck. I am sorry. Just bear the pain. We shouldn't do that. As a country, we shouldn't do it. What is a higher priority than our children and our children's health? How on Earth, given what we are doing, spending money in this Chamber, a $200 billion request this afternoon before the Senate Appropriations Committee, none of it paid for, on an emergency basis, $200 billion, and now we come with a $35 billion request fully paid for to address the issue of children who do not get health care, children who, when they get sick, do not have adequate health care--what is more important for this country? I don't understand. I have said from time to time, we have all these events in the Olympics for running and jumping. If ever there were an event for sidestepping, I have some gold medal candidates in this Chamber. Sidestepping the important issue--they don't want to talk about the question of why do you not want to address the health care of children. They want to talk about other issues--socialized medicine. It is a foreign language to me, but maybe not to some. I guess I would ask this question: Can we--not just on this subject but other subjects as well--can we come to the floor of the Senate and take some pride in taking care of business at home? My colleague from Oregon and I offered the only amendment that cut down a bit the $20 billion--yes, with a ``B''--$20 billion this Congress passed for reconstruction in Iraq. A massive amount of it was wasted. Talking about health care, guess what. We gave a $243 million contract to a private contractor to rehabilitate 142 health care clinics in Iraq. An Iraqi doctor went to the Health Minister of Iraq and said: I would like to see the health clinics that were rehabilitated. The money is all gone. The Iraqi Health Minister said: In many cases, those are imaginary health clinics. The money is gone. Reconstruction in Iraq-- how about taking care of things at home? How about doing first things first? And you tell me what is in second place. The first place, in my judgment, is taking care of America's kids, and we don't do this through some massive Government program, through some socialized health care system, some Cuban-style system of Government programs. We do this in a thoughtful way, and we do it in a way that works. How do we know it works? Because this program has existed and been an exemplary program, and it has given low-income families an opportunity to believe that when their kids get sick and they don't have money and are having a tough time, they can still take their kids to a doctor. God bless them for knowing that and God bless the Congress and the President for doing something about it in past years. It is very different now. We are trying to expand the program to millions of additional kids, and we are told somehow this is a program that is unworthy, it cannot be done this way, it is some sort of big bureaucratic mess. Nothing could be further from the truth--nothing. I hope when the dust settles this week and we do the conference report, I hope we understand that this conference report is bipartisan--Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus, Senator Hatch, Senator Kennedy, and so many others have advanced this legislation on the floor, Republicans and Democrats. Let's pass this legislation, and let's hope the small amount of opposition in this Chamber will not deter us from doing what we know is best for the country. And, second, let's expect this President to sign it. I know he has threatened to veto the bill. Let's expect him to sign it because it is taking care of business at home and doing first things first. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. DORGAN. I believe they have. It is a fact that this is paid for with revenue coming from the sale of cigarettes. It is also a fact that about 3,000 children a day will begin to smoke and become addicted to cigarettes, and 1,000 of them will ultimately die from that choice. The only chance you have to hook someone on cigarettes is to do it when they are kids. Does anybody know of anybody who is around 30 or 40 years old sitting in a La-Z-Boy recliner and watching television and thinking, what have I missed in life? What have I not yet done that I should do? And they come up with the answer that I ought to start smoking. Does anybody believe that would happen? Of course it doesn't. We know now that smoking has dangerous health effects. The only chance you have to get someone to smoke, get them addicted for a lifetime, is to get kids addicted. So I think that which we do to persuade children not to smoke is something very important in our lives. It is also a contributor to a healthy lifestyle.

Mr. DORGAN. Yes.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, has the time for morning business expired?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this afternoon, I will be attending a hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Secretary of Defense will be there, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will be there, as will someone from the State Department, and they will be here supporting a proposal by the President to the Congress that we supply up to $200 billion in additional funding for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan--all of it declared ``emergency,'' none of it paid for, and that is $200 billion for this year. That will take us to almost three-quarters of a trillion dollars, with respect to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, all added to the Federal debt as a result of a request by the President that it be emergency spending. I mention that only because we have been talking out here on the Senate floor about something called the children's health insurance program. It is a fraction of what we will be discussing this afternoon as emergency funding. The children's health insurance bill is fully paid for. That which came out of the Senate Finance Committee on a bipartisan basis to address the issue of health insurance for children and do so in a way that fully pays for it. It is a very different circumstance than exists with the President's request for war funding, for example. But it is interesting to me that the loudest moans in the Chamber of the Senate come when we take the floor of the Senate to talk about taking care of things here at home, taking care of basic things in this country. What is more basic than taking care of children and the health care of children? If it is not in first place, tell me what is in first place among your concerns about life. I am talking about the health of our children. If that doesn't rank No. 1, tell me what does. It ought to rank No. 1, front and center. Everybody individually, I think, would say the most important thing in my life is my children and my children's health. Yet we bring a bill to the floor of the Senate dealing with children's health, paid for, and it provides expanded coverage, coverage to those children who don't have coverage--millions of children whose health is now a function of how much money their parents have in their checkbook, and who, in some cases, are lying in pain, walking with a limp, suffering through agony but cannot go to a health care facility because their folks cannot take them because they don't have any money or insurance. Does anybody here believe we should not aspire to address that? And we have. We have a piece of legislation that is fully paid for----

Mr. DORGAN. Compared to what we will hear this afternoon, a request for $200 billion of emergency funding for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, none of it paid for, and this is a fraction of that to reach out to try to provide health insurance to America's children, particularly America's poor children. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with Senators Stevens, Schumer, Ensign, Kerry, Kohl, Feingold, Clinton, Feinstein, and Nelson of Florida, the Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007. We seek with this bill to ensure that millions of Americans who signed up for the ``Do-Not-Call'' registry do not face a resumption of unwanted calls from telemarketers next year when registrations on the registry begin to expire. Most Americans are unaware that their registration on the list is set to expire after 5 years. The expiration is unnecessary, most people who initially wanted to be rid of telemarketing calls likely still want to block these calls. The system automatically removes numbers that are disconnected and reassigned. The automatic expiration will only create a hassle for Americans as they start receiving calls again and have to go through the process of re-registering. The U.S. Government would have to spend money to let people know they need to sign up again. This bill would prevent the automatic expiration and removal of numbers from the registry. Congress established the ``Do Not Call'' registry in 2003. It quickly became one of the most popular consumer protection programs in history. Congress did not provide for automatic expiration of ``Do Not Call'' list registrations, but the FTC and FCC included an automatic five year expiration for registrations when they wrote the rules for implementing the program. That was not what Congress intended. As things stand today, 52 million Americans will either have to re-register on October 1, 2008, or get ready to hear their telephones ringing during supper time again with unwanted, commercial solicitation calls. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Conrad to introduce legislation called the Northern Plains Heritage Area Act. This legislation would designate a core area of historically significant resources in Burleigh, McLean, Mercer, Morton and Oliver counties in North Dakota. This National Heritage Area extends nearly the entire length of the last of the free-flowing Missouri River in North Dakota, the last place the river can be seen as it was seen by Lewis and Clark and the ancestors of today's Mandan and Hidatsa tribes. But what makes this area a particularly good fit for a National Heritage Area designation is the distinction arising from the patterns of human activity shaped by geography. This is the northern extremity of Native agriculture on the Great Plains. The scenic breaks of North Dakota's Missouri Valley overlook a rich agricultural tradition stretching back a thousand years. Along the length of the State's remaining free-flowing Missouri River, from Huff National Landmark on the south to the Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site on the north, the Northern Plains Heritage Area would encompass the ancient homeland of the Mandan and Hidatsa nations. While farming methods have changed, the agricultural traditions and the scenic, cultural and historic values remain. The same attributes of geography and climate that attracted the Mandan and Hidatsa later appealed to homesteading farmers and ranchers and the energy industry, all of whom benefited from the natural resources of the land. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with Senators Stevens, Schumer, Ensign, Kerry, Kohl, Feingold, Clinton, Feinstein, and Nelson of Florida, the Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007. We seek with this bill to ensure that millions of Americans who signed up for the ``Do-Not-Call'' registry do not face a resumption of unwanted calls from telemarketers next year when registrations on the registry begin to expire. Most Americans are unaware that their registration on the list is set to expire after 5 years. The expiration is unnecessary, most people who initially wanted to be rid of telemarketing calls likely still want to block these calls. The system automatically removes numbers that are disconnected and reassigned. The automatic expiration will only create a hassle for Americans as they start receiving calls again and have to go through the process of re-registering. The U.S. Government would have to spend money to let people know they need to sign up again. This bill would prevent the automatic expiration and removal of numbers from the registry. Congress established the ``Do Not Call'' registry in 2003. It quickly became one of the most popular consumer protection programs in history. Congress did not provide for automatic expiration of ``Do Not Call'' list registrations, but the FTC and FCC included an automatic five year expiration for registrations when they wrote the rules for implementing the program. That was not what Congress intended. As things stand today, 52 million Americans will either have to re-register on October 1, 2008, or get ready to hear their telephones ringing during supper time again with unwanted, commercial solicitation calls. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Conrad to introduce legislation called the Northern Plains Heritage Area Act. This legislation would designate a core area of historically significant resources in Burleigh, McLean, Mercer, Morton and Oliver counties in North Dakota. This National Heritage Area extends nearly the entire length of the last of the free-flowing Missouri River in North Dakota, the last place the river can be seen as it was seen by Lewis and Clark and the ancestors of today's Mandan and Hidatsa tribes. But what makes this area a particularly good fit for a National Heritage Area designation is the distinction arising from the patterns of human activity shaped by geography. This is the northern extremity of Native agriculture on the Great Plains. The scenic breaks of North Dakota's Missouri Valley overlook a rich agricultural tradition stretching back a thousand years. Along the length of the State's remaining free-flowing Missouri River, from Huff National Landmark on the south to the Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site on the north, the Northern Plains Heritage Area would encompass the ancient homeland of the Mandan and Hidatsa nations. While farming methods have changed, the agricultural traditions and the scenic, cultural and historic values remain. The same attributes of geography and climate that attracted the Mandan and Hidatsa later appealed to homesteading farmers and ranchers and the energy industry, all of whom benefited from the natural resources of the land. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, September 27, 2007, at 9 a.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a business meeting to consider pending business, to be followed immediately by an oversight hearing on the prevalence of violence against Indian women. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am going to make a few comments this morning about a hearing we just completed in the Democratic policy committee, but I am waiting for some charts. While I am waiting for those charts, I want to talk a moment about what is happening with respect to the debate here in this Chamber dealing with the war in Iraq. It relates to some things I said on the floor of the Senate yesterday but I think really bear repeating. We are talking about the war in Iraq, the need to attempt to change course in Iraq, and yesterday I described again what the latest National Intelligence Estimate tells us. Now, all of us have access to this. There is a classified version, a top-secret version, and a nonclassified version, but all of us have access to this information. Here is what it says in the context of protecting this country and providing security and safety for this country. Here is what the National Intelligence Estimate says: Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the homeland. We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability, including: a safe haven in the Pakistan federally administered tribal areas, operational lieutenants, and its top leadership. Here is what it says. It says the greatest terrorist threat to our homeland is al-Qaida and its leadership, who even now are plotting attacks against our country and who have a safe haven in the Pakistan region. Now, if that is the case, it is quite clear that the central fight on terrorism is not going door to door in Baghdad in the middle of a civil war. Yet that is what we are doing. I have asked this question, and I have repeatedly asked it: Why should there be 1 square inch on the planet Earth that is secure or safe for Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaida? Yet our National Intelligence Estimate says they are in a safe haven. A ``safe haven.'' These are the people who boasted of killing Americans on 9/11. They boasted about engineering 19 terrorists aboard airplanes full of fuel and passengers, and they ran them into buildings, killing innocent Americans. And 6 years later, our National Intelligence Estimate tells us that those who engineered that attack have regrouped, are developing new training camps for terrorists, and are in a safe haven and developing new plans to attack America. That is unbelievable to me. We are debating the war in Iraq, which our National Intelligence Estimate also says is largely sectarian violence, or a civil war. Yes, there is some al-Qaida in Iraq, but that is not the central front, and that is not the central war on terrorism. If, in fact, our role as a responsible country is to protect our citizens, then it seems to me we would change course and change strategy so that we are taking the fight to the terrorists and fighting the terrorists first. We have been bogged down--longer now than in the Second World War--in what has become a civil war in Iraq. Meanwhile, the greatest terrorist threat to our homeland is in a safe haven. Osama bin Laden, al- Zawahiri, and others, the leadership of al-Qaida, in a safe haven. What are the consequences of that safe haven? Let me show a newspaper report from last week. All of us understand this because we heard about it. They picked up terrorists in Denmark, they picked up terrorists in Germany. The terrorists in Germany were plotting attacks against the largest U.S. military base in Europe. Where did those terrorists train? In Pakistan. In terrorist training camps in Pakistan. We are now seeing the fruit of what has been allowed to happen--the leadership of al-Qaida in a safe or secure place, operating or developing new training camps, training new terrorists to launch attacks against our country. Meanwhile, we are going door to door in Baghdad in the middle of sectarian violence. If ever there is a description of a need for a change of course, that is it. I do not understand why some fail to recognize what has happened. You can go back to February, you can go to June, you can go to the disclosures and read them. This one is June: ``Al-Qaida regroups in new sanctuary in Pakistan border.'' While the U.S. presses its war against insurgents linked to al Qaida in Iraq, Osama bin Laden's group is recruiting, regrouping and rebuilding in a new sanctuary along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, senior U.S. military, intelligence and law enforcement officers said. The threat from the radical Islamic enclave in Waziristan is more dangerous than from Iraq, which President Bush and his aides called the central front of the war on terrorism, said some current and former officials. Bin Laden himself is believed to be hiding in the region guiding a new generation of lieutenants and inspiring allied extremist groups in Iraq and other parts of the world. I don't, for the life of me, understand the failure to recognize a set of facts. This reminds me of the period prior to the invasion of Iraq--a set of information that on its face later turns out to have been wrong. We don't need to be told what is right or wrong in terms of the set of facts--read the facts, understand the facts. If the central threat to our country, the greatest threat to our country, according to National Intelligence Estimates, is al-Qaida and its leadership and its reconstruction of its system of terror and the development of new terrorist camps, if that is the case then, that is where America has to be to wage the fight against that kind of terrorist group. Instead, we are in the middle of a civil war. That is why we need a change in course, a change in strategy. It is not as some of my colleagues talk about, a plan for surrender. It is simply deciding we are going to attack and launch an effort to destroy that which represents the greatest threat to our country. It is surprising to me that 6 years later there is anyplace on the planet Earth that should, by our national intelligence officials, be declared safe or secure for the leadership of al-Qaida. Yet that is exactly what we read and what we hear and what we see in official reports. That is not something we should accept. I wish briefly today to talk about the results of a hearing that the Democratic Policy Committee held this morning. The hearing was about the subject of contractors in Iraq and also the subject of what are called whistleblowers, those are people who are, in many cases, very courageous people who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse on behalf of the taxpayers of America; to say this is wrong and it must stop. We had some very disturbing testimony this morning. We had eight witnesses. Four of them were whistleblowers. They have paid dearly for having the courage to come forward. Let me read the testimony of a Donald Vance, U.S. Navy veteran; 30- year-old U.S. Navy veteran. When leaving the Navy, he chose to go to Iraq as a civilian to help American efforts to rebuild the country. He worked for a couple of private military contractors in Iraq. Here is what happened to him. What he saw with respect to the last contractor he worked with was the sale of weapons, the sale of stolen weapons to interests who should not have weapons, insurgents and others. So he began to report it. It was something he believed very seriously. He reported it to his superiors. He reported it to the FBI. He reported it to U.S. military officials. As a result, this U.S. Navy veteran found himself in big trouble. Here is what he said. Because of the information I possessed and because of my unwillingness to condone the corruption in the company that I saw, I became a target within the company. They took measures to ensure that I could not leave their compound in the Red Zone in which [they] were located. When I called the United States government for help, [the U.S. Government] came to the compound to rescue me. But what started as a rescue ended up as a nightmare. That night I was taken to the United States Embassy and debriefed. I told the agent that questioned me everything I had witnessed [about the sale of illegal guns and illegal activity that had gone on.] I also told him that I was informing for the FBI. Instead of contacting the FBI to verify the information I provided, these U.S. government officials blindfolded me, handcuffed me, and took me into detention. According to the Department of Defense spokesperson, they did not bother to contact the FBI until three weeks into my detention. To this day [he said] even though the Freedom of Information Act requests [have been made] no government official has explained what was asked of the FBI regarding myself and what the FBI said in response. I spent 97 days in . . . isolation. I was denied food and water. I was denied sleep. I was also denied requested, and much needed, medication. There was intolerably-loud heavy metal and country music blaring into the cells. The lights in the cells were always on. The guards would threaten me and physically assault me. For example, the guards would walk me into walls while I was blindfolded and handcuffed, ``shake down'' my cell for contraband, threaten to use excessive force if I did not obey all of their orders. Finally, for the first few weeks I was [in this prison] I was denied a phone call. No one in my family knew where I was, if I was alive or if I was dead. During [that] time I was interrogated constantly. Before each session, I would ask for an attorney. The request was invariably denied. Instead, I was interrogated by a host of United States government personnel, including FBI agents, Navy Criminal Investigative Service officers, as well as possibly CIA and DIA agents. . . . According to the government, I was being held as a security internee because of my affiliation with [the private security firm], certain members of which the government believed were selling weapons to insurgents. . . . Three months after I was detained, and after alleged subsequent ``re-examination'' of my case, the government released me. Before I was released, however, I had one final interrogation. The main focus of that interrogation was what was I going to do when I got home: Was I going to write a book? Was I going to tell the press? Was I going to get an attorney? When they released me, he said, they ``gave me a $20 bill and dumped me at the Baghdad airport to fend for myself without the documentation I needed to return to the United States.'' A whistleblower who saw illegal activity, saw the selling of improper guns in Iraq, some to insurgents, he felt, went to authorities. His country, the United States of America, held him prisoner for 97 days. No habeas corpus--which is in the Constitution, by the way. No right of habeas corpus for an American citizen here. No right to contact an attorney. If this doesn't disturb the American people, I don't know what will disturb the American people. We heard today from other witnesses talking about two things. One was the abuse of the taxpayer by contracting firms in Iraq--waste, fraud, and abuse that represents I think some of the worst waste, fraud, and abuse in the history of this country. I have held, I believe, 10 or 12 hearings on this subject as chairman of the Policy Committee over the last 3 years. The evidence is unbelievable: $40, $45 for a case of Coca-Cola. It doesn't matter, the taxpayer is going to pay for that. You order 50,000 pounds, 25 tons of nails, and they deliver the wrong size, it doesn't matter, throw them on the sand of Iraq, the taxpayers will pay for it. Or a $7,000-a-month lease payment for an SUV. Henry Bunting over in Kuwait, working for Halliburton--KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton--he had a job as a purchaser. He said, as a small example, I was supposed to order hand towels for the American troops so I filled out an order to order white hand towels. My supervisor said: No, we don't want those white hand towels. We want hand towels with KBR, the logo of our company, embroidered on the towels. Henry says: But it will triple the cost. The supervisor says: It doesn't matter, the American taxpayer is paying for this. It is a cost-plus contract; don't worry about it. These are small items, but there are large items. It is unbelievable the amount of waste, fraud, and abuse we have uncovered. The fact is, there seems to be an attitude in some parts of this Government to sleepwalk through it all. It doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. Can you imagine a circumstance where a contractor, in this case Halliburton, KBR, is charging us for 42,000 meals a day it is providing American troops, American soldiers--42,000 meals a day, and it turns out they are only giving 14,000 meals a day? They overcharged by 28,000 meals a day, according to Government estimates. How do you miss 28,000 meals a day? The evidence is unbelievable when you go through this. This morning we had a hearing about contracting abuse. We had testimony. I read some from Donald Vance, who worked for a contractor in Iraq and was imprisoned by his Government for 97 days, not given the right to an attorney, not given the right to contact anybody on the outside at any time during the early stages of that confinement. That is unbelievable. Bunnatine Greenhouse testified once again this morning, the highest ranking civilian official in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. She said the abuse related to the awarding of contracts--here is what she said exactly. This is the highest ranking civilian official in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to the contracts awarded to KBR-- that is a subsidiary of Halliburton-- represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career. Do you know what happened to this woman for that? She lost her job. That is unbelievable, when you think about it. I talked to Secretary Rumsfeld about this case. I talked to Secretary Gates about this case. I talked to Deputy Secretary England about this case--nothing. Oh, we are all looking at it, we are all investigating. They have been doing that for 2 years. I called the commanding officer of the Army Corps of Engineers when Bunnatine Greenhouse was given this job. This is a woman with three master's degrees, judged by everyone from outside the Government who deals with contractors as outstanding, given outstanding references on her performance reviews all along, until somehow she got into a situation where she said: I saw things going on with sole-source contracting, awarding big contracts, billions of dollars of contracts and doing it improperly, abusively. ``I blew the whistle,'' she said, and all of a sudden she got into trouble and they demoted her. I called her former commanding officer, General Ballard, now retired. I called him at home one night and I said: Tell me about Bunnatine Greenhouse, because she has paid for her courage to speak out with her career. Here is what her boss said: ``She did an outstanding job.'' This is an outstanding employee. But because she had the courage as a whistleblower to stand up and report things that were wrong, abusive behavior, behavior that abuses the American taxpayer, she paid for it with her job. We can't let that continue to happen. That is why I held this hearing. The best disinfectant for bad behavior is sunlight, and I hope, as we continue to expose more and more of this, I hope we can put an end to it. Those who have the courage to come forward and report wrongdoing, to report waste and fraud and graft and corruption--in my judgment, we ought to thank them. There is a story, I don't have a copy of it here, a story in the USA Today newspaper, written by an investigative reporter, that deals with these issues, the issues of oversight of contractors and the oversight of contracts that are let with respect to the war in Iraq. What we have found--Senator Wyden and I have worked on this in the Senate--the Pentagon wants to hire companies to oversee other companies. You can't do that. You can't delegate that responsibility. Who is looking out for the taxpayer here? We had testimony today from Robert Isackson. Robert Isackson is a patriotic American. He was someone who saw criminal activity with a company called Custer Battles. He reported it. For that, he and others who were with him were surrounded by people with guns, threatened. He came today and expressed profound disappointment at the way the Federal Government has responded or failed to respond. As a person who had the courage to be a whistleblower, who saw something wrong and decided to try to right it, as a person who stood up for the best interests of this country and its taxpayers, we owe him a debt of gratitude. And yet we see today that what has happened, systematically--the Associated Press wrote a big article about this, exposing it. What has happened systematically under this administration to whistleblowers is they are abused, not protected; not thanked, but abused. I would hope whoever in this administration is responsible and listening and understanding might decide that has to stop. I will speak more at some point soon about the results of this hearing. My colleague Senator Grassley from Iowa I know has spent a lot of time on whistleblower issues, and other colleagues have as well. It is very important for us that when people come forward to report acts of wrongdoing, fraud, waste, abuse, that this country says thank you and follows up and will not allow those people to be abused and penalized. Yet, all too often, that has not been the case. It has to change. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I have watched and listened to the debate today on the floor of the Senate. It is a debate in many ways that is similar to debates we have had on previous occasions, and I know there are people on all sides who feel passionately about these issues. I respect differences of opinion. I respect those who come to the floor and say: Here is how I see it, here is what I believe, and here is what I think we should do. This is a very important issue. There is so much at stake for our country with respect to this issue of the war in Iraq. It casts a shadow on virtually everything else we consider and do in public policy and our relationships around the world. It is a situation I think that requires us to do the best we can to develop public policy that finds a way to extract ourselves from what has largely become a civil war with sectarian violence in the country of Iraq, and take the fight to the terrorists. I wish to raise a few points about fighting terrorism, even as I come to the floor to support the amendment offered by Senator Webb. I think it is an amendment that has great merit and an amendment that will be supportive of the best interests of this country in pursuing the war against terror. Let me say there have been a series of reports--an almost dizzying number of reports and speeches and testimony over the last several weeks--about the status of the war in Iraq and the performance of the Iraqi Government. There are claims and counterclaims; I expect there is spinning on all sides of these issues. Much of it has been about whether the U.S. military surge of 30,000 troops since January 2007 has worked and about the benchmarks--about whether the Iraqi Government has been willing to or has made progress in meeting benchmarks it has promised to meet to do its job, to justify U.S. troops fighting and dying in their country. Through all of that, it seems to me there are three facts that are clear. First, only political reconciliation among the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds will stop the civil war that rages in Iraq. Only political reconciliation will ultimately solve this problem. Second, the Iraqi Government has made very little progress--perhaps some in several areas but in the main very little progress toward the needed reconciliation. Third, terrorism remains the No. 1 threat to the United States. The July National Intelligence Estimate makes the case. This is not coming from me; this comes from a July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate. The unclassified portion says: Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the homeland. We assess that the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability, including: A safe haven in the Pakistan federally administered tribal areas, operational lieutenants, and its top leadership. Let me say again that it says that ``al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the homeland.'' We know that as of last week, Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaida, al-Zawahiri, and others who lead al-Qaida are still speaking to us through videos and through voice tapes, giving us their version of the world. These are people who have boasted about murdering innocent Americans on 9/11, and six years later, they remain in what the National Intelligence Estimate says is somewhere on this planet that is secure or safe. It is almost unbelievable to me that there is a ``safe haven'' anyplace on this planet for the people who have boasted of initiating the 9/11 attacks against this country, but that is what our National Intelligence Estimate says--they are in a safe haven. There ought not be 1 square inch on planet Earth that is safe for the leadership of al-Qaida. How did we come to this point of having a safe haven for those very terrorists who initiated the attacks against this country and who, as our most recent National Intelligence Estimate says, remain the most serious terrorist threat to our country? How have we reached that point? What has been happening while we have surged troops in Iraq? Well, as I indicated, Osama bin Laden released two videos, one on September 7 and one on September 11. He boasted about the 19 hijackers who did the killings on September 11 and rambled on about the coming downfall of America, as is his custom. Regardless of what Osama bin Laden has said, our National Intelligence Estimate says that al-Qaida is back stronger than ever and terrorism remains the No. 1 threat to the U.S. homeland. I think we need a set of policies that focuses on fighting terrorists first. Frankly, what is happening in Iraq is not the central fight on terrorism. It seems to me the central fight on terrorism is to eliminate the leadership that represents the greatest threat to our country, and they are not in Iraq. That leadership, we are told by the National Intelligence Estimate, is in a safe haven in the Pakistan federally administered tribal areas. I don't mean to say that dealing with that would be easy or without difficulty. I do mean to say that if this represents the judgment of our National Intelligence Estimate, and if we know--and we all do--that those who boasted about initiating the 9/11 attacks are there and are pledging additional attacks against our homeland, it seems to me that should be where we focus our country's priority of action. We are told, by the way, that the leadership of that terrorist organization that is, again, the most serious threat to this country-- we are told they have regenerated. Here is a September 11 story quoting our intelligence officials. The headline is ``Al-Qaida's Return: The Terrorists Have a Sanctuary Once Again.'' In the last week or so, we have seen terrorist arrests in Denmark and in Germany, and we see that these arrests, particularly in Germany, are for terrorists plotting attacks against large U.S. military bases. Those attacks against our military base in Europe are being plotted by terrorists who have trained in Pakistan, which is the very area where the Intelligence Community says Osama bin Laden has regenerated his terrorist training camps in the tribal area. Madam President, this issue of a sanctuary for terrorists to begin planning additional attacks against our country, as they are apparently now doing, it seems to me ought to claim our attention and ought to claim the policy debate about what is the approach this country might best use. My colleague from Virginia comes to the floor with respect to this issue of the war in Iraq. What are we doing in the war in Iraq? What about the surge and the road ahead? What about the Petraeus report? My colleague has made an important argument on the Senate floor about the strength of the U.S. military if you don't provide ample opportunity for the U.S. military to have sufficient time home from the battlefield to rest and regenerate and also sufficient time for additional training. Madam President, the point of the amendment offered by Senator Webb is to provide a sufficient opportunity for troops who are on station, on duty in a war zone 24 hours a day, to give them time to retrain, rest, and refresh. You cannot have a fighting force that doesn't have that opportunity. That is what my colleague from Virginia is suggesting in his amendment. My point about this is that as we discuss how to deal with these issues in Iraq, we are, on a course at the moment that says our mission in Iraq is to go door to door in Baghdad in the middle of sectarian violence or a civil war. My point is, while that is going on, while we are in the middle of a civil war in Baghdad with our soldiers--and, yes, there is some al-Qaida presence there, but that is not the majority of what is happening there; it is largely a civil war. While we are doing that, here is what we are understanding and knowing. This is not a claim, this is what we know: ``Europeans Get Terror Training Inside Pakistan.'' We picked them up in Denmark and Germany. We find out that the terrorists are being trained in Pakistan. We are told that is where the al-Qaida leadership is, reconstituting its base, its strength, building new training camps. We picked up the people who are threatening to attack the largest military installation owned by the United States in Europe. Should that surprise us? Not if we have been reading the newspaper. We don't have to read the intelligence; we can just read the newspaper. This is a New York Times newspaper story from February 19 of this year. This is from our intelligence officials talking about what they know: Senior leaders of al-Qaida, operating from Pakistan over the past year, have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials. American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, al-Zawahiri, have been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistan tribal area of north Waziristan. Now we have picked up terrorists who were trained there. We are told by the National Intelligence Estimate that the greatest threat to our country is from the al-Qaida organization and the leadership of al- Qaida, who are now planning terrorist attacks against our homeland. That is the greatest threat to our country. So what are we doing? We are going door to door in Baghdad in the middle of a civil war while there is a ``safe haven'' on this Earth, apparently, for the leadership of al-Qaida. Is there common sense missing here? Would one not think those who boasted of murdering 3,000-plus Americans on 9/11, 2001, that they would have long ago been apprehended? President Bush was asked about this, and he said, ``I don't think about Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaida.'' I really think we ought to take the fight to what the National Intelligence Estimate insists is the greatest threat to our country, and I don't believe that is happening. I support the effort of my colleague from Virginia. I think that amendment is one which will give our military the opportunity to retrain, rest, and be refreshed and represent the kind of fighting force we want and need. All of us are proud of our American soldiers who walk in harm's way. There is a verse about those soldiers and patriots: When the night is full of knives and the drums are heard and the lightning is seen, it's the patriots that are always there ready to step forward and fight and die, if necessary, for their country. We have a lot of patriots who got up this morning and put on body armor and are walking in harm's way on behalf of this country. What we owe them, it seems to me, as policymakers is our unyielding support for whatever they need to finish their job. In addition, we owe them good policy that focuses on attacking and destroying and eliminating the greatest terrorist threat to this country. And nobody should take it from me; take it from the National Intelligence Estimate of July of this year. The greatest terrorist threat to our country is Al-Qaida.--I will put the chart back up: Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the homeland. The NIE says that they have a safe haven in Pakistan. So that is the fight--to eliminate the greatest terrorist threat to our homeland. There ought not to be a square inch of safe haven anywhere on this planet for that group. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Deron Waldron be permitted floor privileges for this debate.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am here today with my colleagues Senators Reid, Murkowski, Inouye, Johnson, Tester, Domenici and Bingaman to introduce legislation to reauthorize and amend the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, NAHASDA. This bill, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007 will not only reauthorize the primary housing programs for Indian Country but it will enhance the crucial services provided under these programs. The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act provides formula-based block grant assistance to Indian tribes which allows them the flexibility to design housing programs to address the needs of their communities. Since its adoption in 1996, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act has transformed the way in which Indian housing is provided in the tribal communities. It is clear that the programs have been very successful. For example, in 2006, Tribes have been able to build, acquire, or substantially rehabilitate more than 1,600 rental units and more than 6,000 homeownership units. Each of these units became a home to an American Indian or Alaska Native family. Even with these improvements, we are still facing a housing crisis in Indian Country. At the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs March and July hearings on Indian housing, we heard alarming statistics: 90,000 Indian families are homeless or under-housed. Approximately 40 percent of on-reservation housing is considered inadequate. Over one-third of Indian homes are overcrowded. More than 230,000 housing units are immediately needed to provide adequate housing in Indian Country. Tribal elders in the Northern Plains are living in homes without roofs, with only tarps to shield them from the harsh elements including below-zero temperatures. Indian children across the country are forced to live in overcrowded conditions in homes with 23 other people or in trailers in the Northern Plains with wood stoves and no fresh drinking water. This is a national disgrace. How are children supposed to grow and learn in these conditions and how are communities supposed to thrive? This is particularly distressing given the fact that funding for Indian housing has decreased over the last several years, because it has not kept up with inflation and the rising cost of building materials. The U.S. has a trust responsibility to provide housing for our First Americans. The bill my colleagues and I are introducing today will strengthen NAHASDA by providing tribes with increased flexibility, with the goal of producing more homes in Indian country. The amendments are incremental changes to current law. We realize that ``one size does not fit all'' in Indian housing. Housing needs in the Great Plains differ greatly from those in the southwest. This is why we retained the basic structure of the Indian Housing Block Grant Program, because through this block grant program, tribes and tribal housing entities are able to use the funds to serve their unique needs. NAHASDA works and with the amendments we are proposing, it will continue to improve housing conditions for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Please allow me to highlight some of the major amendments we are proposing. Title I of the bill would reauthorize the Indian housing block grant and amend the program to streamline reporting requirements. Title I will also allow Indian tribes to have increased flexibility in running their housing programs by allowing funds to be utilized for community buildings such as day-care centers, Laundromats, and multi-purpose community centers. Through housing we are not only building homes, but the hope is to also build communities. Title II of the bill creates a new Self-Determined Housing Activities program under which grant recipients may use a portion of their funding to meet their distinct needs in a self-determined manner. This title also expands the list of activities that grant funds may be used for to include operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of rental and homeownership units, mold remediation and necessary infrastructure. Title III of the bill authorizes a study to assess the existing data sources for determining the need for housing for funding purposes, while Title VI creates a new demonstration project to allow grant recipients to access vital economic development and infrastructure programs. I am committed to finding ways to provide more homes in Indian Country. The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007 is an important and crucial step towards fulfilling this commitment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am here today with my colleagues Senators Reid, Murkowski, Inouye, Johnson, Tester, Domenici and Bingaman to introduce legislation to reauthorize and amend the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, NAHASDA. This bill, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007 will not only reauthorize the primary housing programs for Indian Country but it will enhance the crucial services provided under these programs. The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act provides formula-based block grant assistance to Indian tribes which allows them the flexibility to design housing programs to address the needs of their communities. Since its adoption in 1996, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act has transformed the way in which Indian housing is provided in the tribal communities. It is clear that the programs have been very successful. For example, in 2006, Tribes have been able to build, acquire, or substantially rehabilitate more than 1,600 rental units and more than 6,000 homeownership units. Each of these units became a home to an American Indian or Alaska Native family. Even with these improvements, we are still facing a housing crisis in Indian Country. At the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs March and July hearings on Indian housing, we heard alarming statistics: 90,000 Indian families are homeless or under-housed. Approximately 40 percent of on-reservation housing is considered inadequate. Over one-third of Indian homes are overcrowded. More than 230,000 housing units are immediately needed to provide adequate housing in Indian Country. Tribal elders in the Northern Plains are living in homes without roofs, with only tarps to shield them from the harsh elements including below-zero temperatures. Indian children across the country are forced to live in overcrowded conditions in homes with 23 other people or in trailers in the Northern Plains with wood stoves and no fresh drinking water. This is a national disgrace. How are children supposed to grow and learn in these conditions and how are communities supposed to thrive? This is particularly distressing given the fact that funding for Indian housing has decreased over the last several years, because it has not kept up with inflation and the rising cost of building materials. The U.S. has a trust responsibility to provide housing for our First Americans. The bill my colleagues and I are introducing today will strengthen NAHASDA by providing tribes with increased flexibility, with the goal of producing more homes in Indian country. The amendments are incremental changes to current law. We realize that ``one size does not fit all'' in Indian housing. Housing needs in the Great Plains differ greatly from those in the southwest. This is why we retained the basic structure of the Indian Housing Block Grant Program, because through this block grant program, tribes and tribal housing entities are able to use the funds to serve their unique needs. NAHASDA works and with the amendments we are proposing, it will continue to improve housing conditions for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Please allow me to highlight some of the major amendments we are proposing. Title I of the bill would reauthorize the Indian housing block grant and amend the program to streamline reporting requirements. Title I will also allow Indian tribes to have increased flexibility in running their housing programs by allowing funds to be utilized for community buildings such as day-care centers, Laundromats, and multi-purpose community centers. Through housing we are not only building homes, but the hope is to also build communities. Title II of the bill creates a new Self-Determined Housing Activities program under which grant recipients may use a portion of their funding to meet their distinct needs in a self-determined manner. This title also expands the list of activities that grant funds may be used for to include operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of rental and homeownership units, mold remediation and necessary infrastructure. Title III of the bill authorizes a study to assess the existing data sources for determining the need for housing for funding purposes, while Title VI creates a new demonstration project to allow grant recipients to access vital economic development and infrastructure programs. I am committed to finding ways to provide more homes in Indian Country. The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007 is an important and crucial step towards fulfilling this commitment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.