Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I want to talk briefly about an amendment I have offered to the underlying piece of legislation. I would like to ask it be considered in morning business as a separate subject. I have offered an amendment that is very simple. It calls for a report every 6 months by this administration on the subject of what is happening with respect to the search for Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaida. I hope I will get a vote on that amendment perhaps this afternoon, and if not, I hope by tomorrow. That amendment was one I offered last week. I want to show a couple of charts that describe why I have offered such an amendment. Mr. Negroponte was the Director of National Intelligence until about two weeks ago. He and the current leader of the intelligence service have said the same thing in open testimony before the Congress: Al-Qaida is the terrorist organization that poses the greatest threat to U.S. interests, including to the homeland. He also said this: Al-Qaida continues to plot attacks against our homeland and other targets with the objective of inflicting mass casualties. And they continue to maintain active connections and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders from a secure hideout in Pakistan. Again, it says from their secure hideout in Pakistan. On September 15, 2001, 4 days after 9/11, recognizing it was al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida leadership that attacked this country and boasted about it, the President said this: We will not only deal with those who dare attack Americans; we will deal with those who harbor them and feed them and house them. Two months later he said: As a part of our offensive against terror, we are also confronting the regimes that harbor and support terrorists. Two months following that he said: Osama bin Laden has no place to train his al-Qaida killers anymore. And if we find a training camp, we will take care of it. Well, the head of intelligence for this country says he knows where the al-Qaida leadership is. We saw last week film clips on television of al-Qaida training camps. Yet somehow there is a giant yawn about all of this. In fact, the President later said, in 2003: I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It is not important, and it is not our priority. He also said: I am not truly that concerned about him. If the head of intelligence for this country says the greatest threat posed to this country by a terrorist organization is a threat that comes from al-Qaida, a threat to our homeland to inflict mass casualties, and they are in a secure hideout in Pakistan, and if, in fact, the President previously said as a part of our offensive against terror we are also confronting the regimes that harbor and support terrorists, and if Pakistan is our ally and al-Qaida is located there to train new terrorists, why on Earth are we not going after the leadership of al-Qaida? What explains that? It, frankly, escapes me. I have introduced a piece of legislation that does three things: First, every 6 months, there will be a report from this administration to the Congress--a classified report--telling us where is the al-Qaida leadership. If they now say they are in a secure hideout in Pakistan, they can reaffirm that; and, if not, where are they? Second, tell us each country where bin Laden, Zawahiri, and other leadership may be and whether the government of each country is cooperating with our attempts to capture them. If these countries are allies, are they harboring these terrorists, preventing us from the opportunity to go and eliminate the leadership of this terrorist organization? Third, this report will require the heads of our intelligence and of our Defense Department to tell us what additional resources they need to capture the leadership of al-Qaida. Today, it is 2,001 days--let me mark that--since the terrorist attack against our country which murdered thousands of innocent Americans. Osama bin Laden, Zawahiri, and others in al-Qaida boasted about being the perpetrators of that terrorist attack. That was 9/11/2001. Coincidentally, today is 2,001 days later. The perpetrators who boasted that they committed the terrorist acts against our country that murdered so many thousands of Americans remain, apparently, in a secure hideout in Pakistan and still taunt us. They send the television and the radio stations their videos and their voice tracks telling us their views of world events. I have said before on the floor of the Senate in recent weeks, if we have 21,000 soldiers to surge somewhere, I would much prefer those 21,000 soldiers be surged to find the leadership and eliminate the leadership of al-Qaida. I don't understand why this administration says: We don't know where he is. I have no idea and really don't care. It is not that important. It is not our priority. That comes from the President. But his top intelligence chief says they are in a secure hideout in Pakistan. Even more important, I don't understand when the President says he is not concerned about him. The top intelligence chief said this is the greatest threat to our country. We better be concerned about him--the President and the Congress and the American people. We ought to be concerned enough to decide this is a priority; it is a priority for us to bring to justice those who are the greatest threat to our country, the greatest terrorist threat. That doesn't come from me. That comes from Mr. Negroponte and his successor who, in the last 2 months, both said the greatest terrorist threat to our country is al-Qaida. They continue to plot attacks against our homeland with the objective of inflicting mass casualties, and they radiate outward from their leaders from a secure hideout in Pakistan. It is unbelievable to me that 2,001 days later that we saw, according to the New York Times 2 weeks ago, ``Terror Officials See Qaeda Chiefs Regaining Power.'' Senior leaders of al-Qaeda operating from Pakistan over the last 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 Pakistani tribal area of north Waziristan. I don't have the foggiest idea how this is allowed to continue or to happen. In fact, my colleague and I--Senator Conrad and I--offered an amendment similar to this some months ago. It was dropped in conference. Senator Conrad joins me as a cosponsor of this amendment this time as well. Both of us believe there is something missing. When we offered it the last time, there was this enormous concern about our offering it. It seems to me that this just makes common sense--find out what is the most significant threat to our country and take steps to eliminate that threat. This country took its eye off the issue of Afghanistan. All of us understand that, regrettably. I worry about what might happen in Afghanistan this year. We took our eye off this issue. Osama bin Laden--you haven't heard his name around here for a long while. It was Osama ``been forgotten.'' Nobody talked about him. Even the President said: I don't know where he is. I don't care. It is not important, and it is not our priority. What on Earth is that? I don't understand it. This amendment is simple. We are asking for three steps. Every 6 months we would like a report. What are you doing? What is the progress in dealing with the greatest terrorist threat to this country? Don't tell us that we don't have time or resources to deal with the greatest terrorist threat to our country. We must deal with that threat, and we must deal with it on an urgent basis. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I am pleased to speak on this nomination with my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Thomas. I chair the Indian Affairs Committee. Senator Thomas is vice chair of that committee. This is the nomination of Carl Artman to be Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. Mr. Artman is an American Indian from the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin. He is highly qualified. He was nominated twice--once last year by President Bush. Last year, I supported his nomination, which was held up in the Senate. He has been nominated recently again by the President. I held an immediate hearing with Senator Thomas on his nomination. We passed it out of the committee the same day, and we have been waiting to get it to the floor. There has been a hold on the nomination, regrettably. With some irritation, I say it has been 2 full years last month that this position has been vacant. The position of Assistant Secretary for Indian affairs--a position that has existed in this Government since 1806--is one that is responsible for the trust responsibilities and all of the other issues that relate to treaties with Indian tribes. It has always been considered a very important position. For 2 years it has been vacant. That is unbelievable. Nowhere in this country are there more significant and enduring problems than those that exist on many Indian reservations. Many live in Third World conditions. I have told stories of people freezing in their homes in the winter. There are housing crises that exist on Indian reservations. There are health care crises and education crises. It is unbelievable. We need to have this position filled. Finally, at long last, today we will have a chance to vote on the nomination. I am sure there will be an overwhelming vote in support of a well- qualified candidate sent to us by President Bush first last year, then held up, unfortunately, in the Senate, and now this year, held up until now. Finally, perhaps, at long last we will do what we should have done long ago on behalf of American Indians, and that is to put someone in the position of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs to be involved in managing and reacting to all of these responsibilities that have been long ignored--too long ignored, in my judgment. I come today to support this nomination. My colleague, Senator Thomas, will speak for himself, but we have worked together in support of trying to get this nomination to the floor of the Senate. American Indians and Native Alaskans--my colleagues know the information--have higher rates of tuberculosis, 600 percent higher than other American citizens; substance abuse, alcohol abuse, 500 percent higher; diabetes, in some cases up to 10 times the rate; Indian youth suicide, 10 times the rate of the rest of the country. These are unbelievable circumstances. We have to begin to deal with these issues. That is what we are trying to do on the Indian Affairs Committee. But it is absolutely shameful this position has been open for 2 full years. It has been vacant 2 years. This is a well-qualified person. I have met with him a couple of times. I was proud to move his nomination through the committee. This is a well-qualified person, an American Indian from the Oneida Tribe in Wisconsin. At long last, I hope today we will decide to give Senate approval to President Bush's nomination and give Mr. Carl Artman the opportunity to assume this role of Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maine. I have an amendment at the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Conrad. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. DORGAN. I call up my amendment and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment which is similar to one Senator Conrad and I have offered previously. It deals with the issue of al-Qaeda and its leadership. It has been now 5\1/2\ years since that fateful morning with the bright sunshine and the blue sky here in Washington, DC, when I was looking out the window of the leadership meeting which I was attending that Tuesday. We could see the smoke rising from the Pentagon because of the attacks. We watched on television the collapse of the World Trade towers, attacked by commercial airplanes being used as guided missiles full of fuel. None of us will ever forget that morning. More than 3,000 innocent Americans were murdered. Shortly after that period, we heard people boast about orchestrating the murder of those innocent Americans. Osama bin Laden, Mr. al-Zawahiri, his chief lieutenant, and al-Qaeda have boasted about orchestrating the attacks against our country that murdered innocent Americans. The legislation before the Senate deals with the 9/11 Commission Report. That Commission did an extraordinary job. I appreciate Senator Reid bringing this to the floor and the work that has been done by the committees. These are recommendations which are long overdue. They should have been dealt with previously by the Congress, but they have not been. Now we have legislation on the Senate floor, recommendations on how to provide for this country's protection, how to provide security, how to prevent another attack by al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. It is very important legislation. We do need to protect our country from attacks. But there is something else that is long overdue; that is, we have taken our eye off the greatest threat. That is not me saying so. Let me tell my colleagues what the greatest threat to our country is. This is testimony on January 11, a month and a half or so ago, before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence by Mr. Negroponte, who was a top intelligence chief. Here is what he said: Al Qaeda continues to plot attacks against our homeland and other targets with the objective of inflicting mass casualties. And they continue to maintain active connections and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders' secure hideout in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East, northern Africa and Europe. Mr. Negroponte continued by saying: Al Qaeda is the terrorist organizations that poses the greatest threat to US interests, including to the Homeland. That is from the top intelligence expert in our Government. He says the terrorist organization that poses the greatest threat to U.S. interests is al-Qaeda; the greatest threat to our homeland is from al- Qaeda. He says they are in a secure hideout in Pakistan. Tuesday of this week, the new Director of Intelligence, Mike McConnell, said almost exactly the same thing. We also read in the New York Times a week or so ago the following: Senior leaders of Al Qaeda 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, Ayman al-Zawahri, have been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan. Now, let me go back to 4 days after 9/11. President Bush said the following in an address to a joint session of Congress. I was sitting near the front row. The President said: We will not only deal with those who dare attack America. We will deal with those who harbor them and feed them and house them. In his State of the Union Address several months later, he said: As part of our offensive against terror, we are also confronting the regimes that harbor and support terrorists. So the head of our intelligence services, the Directors of Intelligence, know that the leadership of al-Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden--or ``Osama bin Forgotten,'' as some have suggested in recent years--are in a secure hideaway in Pakistan. At the same time, we have 21,000 troops sent on a surge elsewhere. And so I ask: Why are we not making a greater effort to capture the leadership of the biggest terrorist threat to this country, as described by the Directors of Intelligence, past and current? Are they being harbored? We read that there has been an agreement of sorts between the Government of Pakistan and al-Qaeda and those who harbor al-Qaeda in Pakistan. We know there are training organizations now. We see the examples of them in the film and video on our television sets, more sophisticated attacks, additional techniques about terrorist attacks. So we offer an amendment that is very simple. It is an amendment that says: We want every 6 months from this administration a classified report to the Congress that tells us several things: First, where is the al-Qaeda leadership? If they know they are in Pakistan, reaffirm that. If they are not in Pakistan, tell us where they are, each country, and whether those countries are harboring these terrorists. Second, we deserve to know whether these countries in which these terrorists reside are helping us. Are they helping us bring to justice and capture the leadership of the greatest terrorist threat to our country? We deserve to know that. And third, if Osama bin Laden and the other top leaders are still at large, we need a report describing what resources are needed to hunt them down and finally capture them. I don't understand at all why year after year passes and those who directed the attacks against this country that killed thousands of innocent Americans are not brought to justice. It is perfectly appropriate--in fact, it is essential--that we bring to the floor of the Senate a 9/11 Commission bill that helps protect this country. I commend the managers of the bill for it. I want to be out here helping pass this legislation. But that is one part of providing security. Another part of providing security is to apprehend those who perpetrated the most aggressive attacks ever launched against this country. Apparently, based on the testimony of the heads of intelligence on two occasions in the last month, we know where they are. Yet they remain at large. I asked a question the other day of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when they testified. I asked the question: If we know where the leadership of al-Qaeda is and if this is the greatest threat to our country's security and our homeland, then why on Earth, if we have soldiers to surge, are we not trying to apprehend and bring to justice the leadership of al-Qaeda to destroy the leadership? I was told: Well, we can't just invade some other country to go find them. I thought we were getting cooperation from this other country. If they are in Pakistan, are the Pakistanis cooperating with us? If not, are they harboring al-Qaeda? If they are not harboring them, then how about allowing us to work with them to bring to justice the leadership of the organization that poses the most significant terrorist threat to this country? When will that happen? There are some who have said Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaeda do not matter. They are dead wrong. I think the intelligence community knows that. The question is, When will this country, with its capability, decide to eliminate the greatest terrorist threat to America? Let me again quote what Mr. Negroponte said on January 11 of this year: Al Qaeda is the terrorist organization that poses the greatest threat to U.S. interests, including to the Homeland. How long will it be before this Congress can expect the same aggressive activity against the leadership of al-Qaeda as President Bush decided to take against Saddam Hussein? Saddam Hussein has been executed. He is gone. We understand this was a brutal dictator. We have unearthed mass graves with apparently somewhere near 400,000 skeletons of human beings murdered by that dictator. But he is executed; he is gone. Iraq has its own Constitution. They have their own Government. The question is, Do they have the will to provide for their security? That is another issue, and an important one. We have American soldiers in harm's way in the middle of sectarian violence, in the middle of what clearly is now a civil war in Iraq. But when we talk about committing America's soldiers for this country's security, when will this President and this Congress decide to confront the greatest terrorist threat to our country and to our homeland--the leadership of al-Qaeda in a secure hideaway in Pakistan? Four days after 9/11, our President said that those who harbor terrorists are just like the terrorists. So let's decide to ask those in whose countries terrorists now reside to work with us to bring them to justice, to capture them, and to eliminate the leadership of the greatest terrorist threat to this country. My colleague, Senator Conrad, and I have offered an amendment. We will hope it will be given a vote next week. It ought not be a controversial amendment for anybody in this Chamber. It is a deep reservoir of common sense, for a change, for us to do what we ought to do, and protect this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as of this month, it has been 2 full years that the position of Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior has been vacant--2 full years. There has been a Federal position specifically assigned for the responsibilities for Indian affairs since the year 1806. In the year 1849, that position was transferred from the Defense Department--or then the Department of War--to the Interior Department. The Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs and the Department of the Interior is responsible for managing the BIA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and all of the programs that are important to the trust responsibilities and the fiduciary obligations the U.S. Government has to tribes. We do indeed have obligations to tribes through treaties and through other approaches, trust responsibilities. This Congress, and previous Congresses, and future Congresses, have obligations to tribal governments that we must meet. Those obligations are important. As I said, it has been 2 full years since we have had a person in the position of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs in the Interior Department. For 2 years it has been vacant, which is unbelievable to me. We have a man who has been nominated now named Carl Artman, who is a member of the United Tribe of Wisconsin. Mr. Artman is a very capable, distinguished person. I met with him a couple times. President Bush sent his nomination down to the Congress last year. Apparently, a hold was put on his nomination and it did not move. The President re-sent the nomination recently. I chaired the hearing, and we moved his nomination out of the Indian Affairs Committee and now it is before the full Senate. My understanding is it has not moved because there has been a hold put on it once again. I spoke to the Secretary of the Interior today again about that subject, and my hope is--I indicated to him, and I think his hope is--this week we can find a way to resolve these issues and get Mr. Carl Artman confirmed by the Senate for the position of Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. It is a very important position. We have a full-blown crisis in health care, housing, and education on Indian reservations. I have been doing listening sessions with Indian tribes. With respect to education, as an example, they tell about a young schoolkid who is living in a house, a 3-bedroom home with 23 people. That describes the housing conditions on some of the reservations. But what about a young kid who is living in a 3-bedroom home with 23 other people? What kind of homework do you think gets done there? What kind of opportunity is it for that young child to quietly be able to open a book and to learn a lesson? We have a crisis in housing. I have described it many times on the floor of the Senate. We have a crisis in health care. It is almost unbelievable to me, but we had a hearing recently in which a doctor described a woman who had a very serious knee injury who required surgery. She went to the doctor on the Indian reservation and was told: Wrap it in cabbage leaves for 3 or 4 days. That is right: Wrap it in cabbage leaves for 3 or 4 days. It needed to be operated on. It was a torn ligament. ``Wrap it in cabbage leaves''--that is health care? Not where I come from. Or a man who had a bad arm, a bad shoulder, a torn ligament, and for 4 years he could not get it fixed on the Indian reservation because it was not ``life or limb''--4 years. This was a rancher. What do you think a one-armed rancher is able to do on a ranch? Haul hay? I do not think so. I told the story on the floor about the woman who was having a heart attack--an Indian woman--and was transported by ambulance to a hospital. She was hauled into the hospital on a gurney--having a heart attack--and they discovered there was a piece of paper taped to her thigh. What the paper said was: You should understand, hospital administrators, this person is not covered under the Indian Contract Health Services. We are out of money. So, therefore, if you admit this person, you are on your own. Imagine that: a woman having a heart attack, brought in on a gurney to a hospital with a piece of paper taped to her thigh that says: Beware. We won't pay for this treatment. That is unbelievable. We have a lot of problems we need to address in these areas dealing with Indian tribes and the first Americans. I understand the Indian Health Service is attached to Health and Human Services. But I also understand the issues of housing, education, and all of the other related issues belong to the Interior Department. That position in the Interior Department responsible for these issues has been vacant for 2 full years, and I believe it is shameful. I hope this Senate, this week, can resolve this issue and get it done. I am going to push to see if we can't get that confirmation done this week. (The remarks of Mr. Dorgan pertaining to the introduction of S. 684 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, last week I was in my State of North Dakota where we have a wonderful national park. It is named after Teddy Roosevelt. He is the conservation- minded President who established the National Park System. What a remarkable man he was. What a remarkable leader for this country. We have a national park in the Badlands called the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. I picked up a newspaper to read that there are too many elk in the park, an overpopulation of elk, which is going to be a serious problem for the national park. The Park Service has had some discussion about what they might want to do to thin out or cull the elk herd in the national park. It has grown dramatically. They were talking in the newspaper article I read about considering hiring Federal sharpshooters to kill some elk and then use helicopters to remove their carcasses from the national park, for meat, I guess. It occurred to me there are times when the Government is completely devoid of common sense. I understand the Park Service says there is a prohibition on hunting in the national parks. On the other hand, it seems to me if you are hiring Federal sharpshooters to kill elk, they are going to be hunting those elk. It would make a lot more sense, to me, for a limited opportunity for qualified hunters to be able to hunt the elk in cooperation with Federal and State authorities. You do not need Federal sharpshooters to be paid. You do not need helicopters to haul the carcasses out of the park. All you need are hunters with a pickup truck or two, and you will be fine. Today I am introducing a piece of legislation that would allow the Park Service to allow local hunters in my State to work on a cooperative basis with the Federal and State authorities to thin that elk herd. Culling or thinning the elk herd, apparently, is a necessity. It is going to happen. The question is how. Do we spend a lot of money hiring sharpshooters and helicopters or do we do this in a commonsense way and allow hunters to go in, in a coordinated way and a careful way, to thin and cull that elk herd? It seems to me the latter is the better approach. The Park Service, by the way, at the moment also says my State is short of prairie dogs. Of course, that is not the case. We have far more prairie dogs than we know what to do with. The prairie dogs were born--I should say luckily for them--with a button nose and fur on their tail. Otherwise, they would essentially look like a rat. But we have a lot of prairie dogs. We are told by Federal authorities we need more prairie dogs, not because they think prairie dogs are cute, but apparently because they want to reintroduce something called the black-footed ferret in my State. The last person to spot a black-footed ferret in my State allegedly spotted a black-footed ferret some 20 years ago and was widely thought, according to local folklore, to have been drinking at the time. So there apparently are no black-footed ferrets that live in my State. They apparently went to warmer climates in the South some long time ago. Now we are told by Federal authorities we need more prairie dogs as food for black-footed ferrets who are going to be reintroduced to North Dakota. It is no small wonder, then, I look at some of these Federal agencies and wonder if there is any reservoir of common sense left. That is what persuaded me, last week, as I read the newspaper article about hiring Federal sharpshooters to shoot elk and hiring helicopters to take the deer meat out of our national park--a national park proudly named after one of the great hunters ever to occupy the White House, Teddy Roosevelt--I wondered whether there might be any common sense that might be applied that very simply says if we are going to thin or cull the elk herd in the Teddy Roosevelt National Park, let's do it the way Teddy Roosevelt would have anticipated it be done. No, I do not suggest opening up all national parks to hunting. I suggest in this limited circumstance that thinning and culling the elk herd in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park can best be done without a massive cost to the taxpayers and with an opportunity for qualified hunters who live in my State. I recognize that these issues pale in comparison to larger issues like the Iraq war and the health care crisis and fiscal policy that is off track, but it seems to me there are times when we ought to call attention even to comparatively small things that do not seem right. What I read last week about sharpshooters and helicopters not only reminded me of the lack of common sense with respect to this little issue, but it annoyed me once again with respect to the subject of prairie dogs. I spoke about prairie dogs long ago on this Senate floor when the prairie dogs took over a small picnic area, and the response of the Park Service was to decide to spend a quarter of a million dollars to move the picnic area rather than hire a couple of 16-year- old kids to tell the prairie dogs they have to be elsewhere. But having said all that, I am introducing a piece of legislation dealing with the Theodore Roosevelt National Park--a park I am enormously proud of--and an elk herd that needs thinning and an opportunity for qualified North Dakota hunters who will use a substantial amount of common sense to solve a problem that can be solved quickly and easily.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, last week I was in my State of North Dakota where we have a wonderful national park. It is named after Teddy Roosevelt. He is the conservation- minded President who established the National Park System. What a remarkable man he was. What a remarkable leader for this country. We have a national park in the Badlands called the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. I picked up a newspaper to read that there are too many elk in the park, an overpopulation of elk, which is going to be a serious problem for the national park. The Park Service has had some discussion about what they might want to do to thin out or cull the elk herd in the national park. It has grown dramatically. They were talking in the newspaper article I read about considering hiring Federal sharpshooters to kill some elk and then use helicopters to remove their carcasses from the national park, for meat, I guess. It occurred to me there are times when the Government is completely devoid of common sense. I understand the Park Service says there is a prohibition on hunting in the national parks. On the other hand, it seems to me if you are hiring Federal sharpshooters to kill elk, they are going to be hunting those elk. It would make a lot more sense, to me, for a limited opportunity for qualified hunters to be able to hunt the elk in cooperation with Federal and State authorities. You do not need Federal sharpshooters to be paid. You do not need helicopters to haul the carcasses out of the park. All you need are hunters with a pickup truck or two, and you will be fine. Today I am introducing a piece of legislation that would allow the Park Service to allow local hunters in my State to work on a cooperative basis with the Federal and State authorities to thin that elk herd. Culling or thinning the elk herd, apparently, is a necessity. It is going to happen. The question is how. Do we spend a lot of money hiring sharpshooters and helicopters or do we do this in a commonsense way and allow hunters to go in, in a coordinated way and a careful way, to thin and cull that elk herd? It seems to me the latter is the better approach. The Park Service, by the way, at the moment also says my State is short of prairie dogs. Of course, that is not the case. We have far more prairie dogs than we know what to do with. The prairie dogs were born--I should say luckily for them--with a button nose and fur on their tail. Otherwise, they would essentially look like a rat. But we have a lot of prairie dogs. We are told by Federal authorities we need more prairie dogs, not because they think prairie dogs are cute, but apparently because they want to reintroduce something called the black-footed ferret in my State. The last person to spot a black-footed ferret in my State allegedly spotted a black-footed ferret some 20 years ago and was widely thought, according to local folklore, to have been drinking at the time. So there apparently are no black-footed ferrets that live in my State. They apparently went to warmer climates in the South some long time ago. Now we are told by Federal authorities we need more prairie dogs as food for black-footed ferrets who are going to be reintroduced to North Dakota. It is no small wonder, then, I look at some of these Federal agencies and wonder if there is any reservoir of common sense left. That is what persuaded me, last week, as I read the newspaper article about hiring Federal sharpshooters to shoot elk and hiring helicopters to take the deer meat out of our national park--a national park proudly named after one of the great hunters ever to occupy the White House, Teddy Roosevelt--I wondered whether there might be any common sense that might be applied that very simply says if we are going to thin or cull the elk herd in the Teddy Roosevelt National Park, let's do it the way Teddy Roosevelt would have anticipated it be done. No, I do not suggest opening up all national parks to hunting. I suggest in this limited circumstance that thinning and culling the elk herd in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park can best be done without a massive cost to the taxpayers and with an opportunity for qualified hunters who live in my State. I recognize that these issues pale in comparison to larger issues like the Iraq war and the health care crisis and fiscal policy that is off track, but it seems to me there are times when we ought to call attention even to comparatively small things that do not seem right. What I read last week about sharpshooters and helicopters not only reminded me of the lack of common sense with respect to this little issue, but it annoyed me once again with respect to the subject of prairie dogs. I spoke about prairie dogs long ago on this Senate floor when the prairie dogs took over a small picnic area, and the response of the Park Service was to decide to spend a quarter of a million dollars to move the picnic area rather than hire a couple of 16-year- old kids to tell the prairie dogs they have to be elsewhere. But having said all that, I am introducing a piece of legislation dealing with the Theodore Roosevelt National Park--a park I am enormously proud of--and an elk herd that needs thinning and an opportunity for qualified North Dakota hunters who will use a substantial amount of common sense to solve a problem that can be solved quickly and easily.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to that, provided that the 30 minutes which was to have started for our side at 3:30 will be extended for the full 30 minutes following the completion of the presentation.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 30 minutes begin following the presentation of Senator Roberts.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of my colleague from Illinois. This debate we are trying to have is actually a debate about a debate. This must be the only place, the only real estate in the United States of America in which, rather than having a debate about the war and strategy, we are having a debate about whether we should debate it. It is pretty unbelievable. This is called the greatest deliberative body in the world. It is an unbelievable privilege for me to be here. I came from a very small town of about 300 people, a high school class of 9. I am here in the greatest deliberative body in the world. I am enormously proud to be here. But I came here not to avoid debate but to engage in debate, to talk about this country and its future. There is an old saying: When everyone is thinking the same thing, no one is thinking very much. There is a desire in this Chamber by some who have spoken that we all be thinking the same thing about these issues, that we all support President Bush and whatever his strategies might be and wherever he might take us. This Congress has a constitutional role to play, and the constitutional role is not to decide to come to the floor from Monday through Friday to support the President of the United States, it is to come to the floor of the Senate to support this country and its interests as best we see those interests. Some long while ago, I went to a veterans hospital on a Sunday morning and I presented medals to a veteran. His name was Edmund Young Eagle. He was an American Indian. He had fought in the Second World War, had gone all around the world, had fought in northern Africa, fought at Normandy, fought across Europe, and came back to live on the Indian reservation. He never married, never had very much. He loved to play baseball. But he had kind of a tough life. At the end of Edmund Young Eagle's life, this man who served his country, at the end of his life he was dying of lung cancer. He was in the veterans hospital in Fargo, ND, and his sister called and said her brother Edmund Young Eagle had proudly served his country and had never received the medals for his service in the Second World War. Would you get him his medals, she asked? I said, Of course I will. So I achieved getting the medals he earned but never received from the Pentagon, and I went to the VA hospital on a Sunday morning to present medals to Edmund Young Eagle, a Native American, one of those first Americans who served this country and then went home and lived quietly. When I went to his room that morning, Edmund Young Eagle was very sick. I didn't know it at the time, but he would die within a week or so. We cranked up the hospital bed for Edmund Young Eagle so he was in a sitting position, and I pinned his World War II medals on his pajama tops and told him that his country was grateful for his serving our country in the Second World War. This man, very sick, looked up at me and said: This is one of the proudest days of my life. This man who lived in a spartan way, never having very much but served this country with honor, felt great gratitude at the end of his life for a country recognizing what he had done for us. That is the life of a soldier, someone who commits himself or herself to answer their country's call without question. So many have done it. I will attend a funeral this week of a young man killed in Iraq. I received a call this morning from a mother, the mother of a soldier who spent a year in Iraq and returned with very difficult circumstances-- post-traumatic stress, all kinds of difficult emotional problems--who just this week received the alert notice that his reserve unit will likely be called up again. This is about war. It is about commitment. It is about our soldiers. It is about our country and our future. Some say we should not talk about that, we should not debate it. If that is the case, this is the only real estate, this is the only room in America where it is not being discussed and debated. It is being debated in the homes, in the restaurants, in the gymnasiums, in the schools, in the office. It ought to be debated here as well. This has a profound impact on our country and its future. Make no mistake about it, our military has won every battle it has fought. Our military will win the battles they fight. But winning military battles does not win the war in Iraq. We disapprove of President Bush's plan to deepen our escalation in Iraq because it is a military response to a problem that must be resolved through diplomacy and through negotiation. The civil war and the violence in Iraq is only going to stop when there is genuine reconciliation between groups in Iraq. Let's think through what we have done in Iraq. Through our soldiers' blood and our Treasury, we sent troops to Iraq. The Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, is dead. Good riddance, I say. We have unearthed mass graves in Iraq showing that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were murdered by a dictator. But Saddam Hussein was executed. The country of Iraq was able to vote for its own new Constitution. The country of Iraq voted for its own Government. That is very substantial progress. But the next step has not shown much progress. The next step is this: Do the Iraqi people have the will to provide for their own security? This is their country, not ours. Iraq belongs to them, not us. The question is, Do the Iraqi people have the will to provide for their security? If they do not, this country cannot and will not be able to do that for any length of time. That is the question. Do they have the will to take back their country? Iraqi leaders are going to have to make very difficult decisions, political decisions in some cases which may undermine their own power and their own base of support. But it is the only way this is going to be resolved. The sectarian violence that exists in Iraq today can trace its roots in some cases back to the year 700 A.D. This violence is not going to dissipate soon unless there is reconciliation between the factions. This requires Iraqi troops to fight their ethnic and religious allies who are part of the insurgency as well as fight their opponents. It requires Iraqi security, Iraqi police, and Iraqi troops to provide for the security of the whole country of Iraq. The resolution we want to debate is a resolution which does not say we don't support our troops. Clearly we support our troops. We support our troops with everything we believe is necessary for their safety and security and for them to do their jobs the way we expect them to do their jobs. This Congress, every man and every woman, supports America's troops and prays for their safe return. This resolution says we support our troops but we do not agree with President Bush in his desire to deepen our involvement in Iraq. Some come to the floor of the Senate and say: Your position on this emboldens the enemy. It is a message to embolden the enemy. It sends the wrong message to our troops. It is neither of those. It is a message from the Congress of the United States to the President, and that message is we do not support his proposal to deepen our involvement in the war in Iraq. A blue ribbon commission was put together, of some of the best thinkers, foreign policy and military thinkers in our country, headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, very distinguished Americans. That group included former Secretaries of State and military leaders and some outstanding thinkers. They worked for months, many months, to develop a plan. We all understand the alternatives are not good in Iraq. We understand that. If there were an easy way to deal with this, believe me, it would have been dealt with. In many ways, we found a box canyon in Iraq, and it is hard to get out of a box canyon. The Baker-Hamilton report represented a consensus of some of the best thinkers in our country, having worked months on this problem. The President chose to ignore that report. The President says he is the decider. You know, the Constitution says something about that as well. I agree with my colleagues that we can't have 100 or 535 commanders in chief. I understand that. But I also understand that the Constitution has a role for the Congress. Only the Congress can declare war--only the Congress. Yes, the President is Commander in Chief, but only the Congress can declare war. Only the Congress has the power of the purse. The question is, What do we do about what is now happening in Iraq? No other country that I am aware of, in what the President has called the coalition of the willing, has decided they are going to deepen their involvement or expand their troops to Iraq. No other country. Even Great Britain, the strongest supporter of President Bush's Iraq policy, has refused to increase their troop strength in Iraq. In fact, the British news reports say that Britain intends to have all or most of its troops withdrawn by the end of 2007. None of our allies, old or new, of which I am aware, have decided the proper approach at this point, given the sectarian involvement in Iraq, is to deepen their involvement and increase their troop strength in Iraq. The President is saying we should surge some additional troops to Iraq. We have done that before. In early 2004, we surged 20,000 additional troops. A similar one happened in the fall of 2005. Most recently, last summer the President announced that thousands of additional troops would be surged into Baghdad. What happened as a result of that was the violence increased, and deaths and injuries to American troops went up. So we have seen some examples of a surge, and the examples have not been very helpful. In fact, it has been counterproductive. This map is a map of the city of Baghdad--about 4 million to 6 million people, about 250 square miles. We have people in this city who have grievances that go back 1,300 and 1,400 years. The Shia and the Sunni religious split occurred in the seventh century, and they have clashed frequently since then. This country is not put together by natural borders. This country was put together by a pen and paper, by a decision 90 years ago of how to draw the borders of this country. This was a diplomatic decision, that this should be the country of Iraq. Let me describe what is happening now in this city. We have areas that are Shia areas and Sunni areas, and now we have areas that are turning Shia and turning Sunni. In many ways, you will see from this map the dramatic evidence of violence in this capital city of Iraq. It is getting worse, not better. I mentioned that some of the hatred goes back 1,400 years. But a more recent example, in a story I was reading about Iraq, a Shiite was recently driven from his home and farm by the Sunnis who killed his brother and nephew, and he was so bitter and angry, he said, ``A volcano of revenge has built up inside. I want to rip them up with my teeth.'' It is this hatred which fuels a civil war and the atrocities that occur nearly every day. Saturday, February 3, saw the deadliest single suicide bombing since the war began nearly 4 years ago, with 130 people killed and more than 300 wounded. It was the fourth major attack against a densely populated Shia area in less than 3 weeks. On the Thursday before, twin suicide bombers struck a market jammed with people--60 killed, 150 wounded. Again, 60 killed, 150 wounded; spraying body parts so far that police were scouring rooftops late in the night for body parts. A few days before that, 75 people killed in Baghdad's Shia neighborhoods in multiple bombings; 160 wounded. The day before that, 3 car bombs detonated within minutes of each other at the vegetable market. More than 1,000 Iraqis were killed in the last week of January. We are told there were 3,000 killed in the last 3 weeks. Unbelievably, it seems to me, they pick up bodies in the middle of the morning in Baghdad from the night's carnage with holes drilled in their kneecaps, holes drilled in their skulls. These are unbelievable signs of torture. These are acts of unimaginable violence committed against others. No one is safe, nowhere is safe, and this violence pervades nearly every aspect of daily life. The question I think the President proposes with his suggestion of a surge of an additional 20,000 or 21,000 troops in Baghdad poses is: Will additional troops in Baghdad on street corners, going door to door, embedded with the troops, with the security of the Iraqi Government, stem the violence? The answer is likely no. We have seen this attempted previously and it did not stem the violence; the violence increased. Let me make another point I think is important. No one has made, I think, the point that this troop escalation, whatever it is, is temporary. The United States troops are leaving Iraq. The question is when, not if. At some point, United States troops will leave Iraq. The question is: Will we leave in a time that gives us the opportunity to turn the country of Iraq back to the Iraqi people and say, this is your job to provide for your security. Let me talk about the National Intelligence Estimate. The National Intelligence Estimate was done with 16 intelligence agencies. They spent the last 5 months analyzing the situation in Iraq, reviewed by the head of the CIA, the head of the intelligence units at the Pentagon, State Department, Justice Department, and the Director of National Intelligence, our most senior intelligence official. Some of it is top secret, but some was released publicly. Let me read something: Even if violence is diminished, given the current winner- take-all attitude and sectarian animosities affecting the political scene, Iraqi leaders will be hard-pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in this time frame. Continuing to quote: Iraq's neighbors are influenced by the events within Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospect for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal sectarian dynamics. That is a fancy way to describe the civil war. I might say the last National Intelligence Estimate was done was in 2004 and it detailed 3 possible outcomes for Iraq over the next 18 months, which at the time would put us in the fall or winter of 2006. The worst-case scenario for the previous NIE was a civil war. Well, that is what the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate says has now happened. That is right; what is going on in Iraq now is the worst-case scenario of the previous National Intelligence Estimate. Let me make a couple of other points, if I might. General Abizaid just over 2 months ago came to the Congress and here is what he said: I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps Commander, General Dempsey, and I said, ``In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they said no.'' This is our top military commander testifying to the Senate just over 2 months ago: They said no. Now, here is why General Abizaid said the commanders did not believe they should have additional troops brought into Iraq: The reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future. The only way Iraq works in the future is for the Iraqis to take more responsibility for that future. That is what General Abizaid said. He was right then; he is right now. This is the testimony heard by the Senate just over 2 months ago. Interestingly enough, as a side note, just 2 weeks ago--3 weeks ago, John Negroponte, the head of the intelligence in this country at that time said this in open testimony to the Senate: The greatest terrorist threat to America is al-Qaida and its network around the world. The greatest terrorist threat to our country is al-Qaida and its network around the world, and he said they operate from a ``secure hideaway'' in Pakistan. If that is the case, if the greatest terrorist threat to our country is al-Qaida operating from a ``secure hideaway'' in Pakistan, and that comes from the head of our intelligence service in this country in open testimony to the Senate, if there are 21,000 additional American troops available to surge somewhere, why on Earth would we not choose to move those troops through Afghanistan near to Pakistan to eliminate the leadership of al-Qaida, the greatest terrorist threat to our country? I do not understand the priorities coming from the administration. There has to be a change. We all understand that. We know Iraq is a different place. The various sects, tribes, religions, in some cases do not speak to each other, and in many cases don't trust each other. In other cases, they hate each other, and in too many cases, they kill each other. That is what must change. It is why reconciliation is the key. It is why more U.S. troops are not going to make a difference. Does anyone believe that if we go back 4 years and the President brought a proposition to the floor of the Senate and said: Look, we have a civil war in Iraq. What we ought to do is send more American troops to the middle of that civil war, or at least begin sending American troops to the middle of that civil war because we don't believe after 3 years of training that the Iraqi people are prepared to provide for their security, does anybody believe we would think it a good strategy to send additional troops to the middle of a civil war? I don't believe so. I understand there are very different opinions here in this Chamber, and I respect them. I wouldn't diminish anyone in this Chamber for holding any views on this subject. I understand their passions. I share their passions. But I don't understand this: I don't understand how it is that this great body has to spend days debating whether we will have a debate. This is, after all, a debate about the motion to proceed. This isn't a debate about Iraq or Iraq strategy; it is about whether we can proceed to a motion on that subject. It is a debate about whether we can debate. If there is any space left in this country in which this debate should take place, it ought to be this space on this floor, this real estate. This is the great deliberative body. I do not for the life of me understand a vote against cloture that says: No, we believe the United States should not debate this issue. This is an issue the American people care a great deal about, and it is long past the time, in my judgment, for us to have this debate. We are all united, I think, in loving this country. We want what is best for this country. We want to protect the American troops. We want our country to succeed. All of us want all of those things. I don't believe anybody who says we are undermining this or that or anything of that sort. All that is nonsense. This country deserves from this Senate a thoughtful, serious, real debate about what is happening that affects every part of American life, and that is the struggle we are involved in with respect to Iraq. The American people deserve this debate, and I hope that tomorrow when we have a vote on the motion to proceed, we will have the opportunity to proceed from that motion to a debate on the underlying petition that is on the floor of the Senate with respect to the subject of the war in Iraq. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I yield to Senator Durbin.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I wish to make a point. My colleague from Oklahoma was talking about the BRAC funding. I think everybody here supports the BRAC funding. I certainly do. It is not a part of this agreement, but it is not, as the Senator from Oklahoma suggested, the Democrats' fault. Just so people understand, we inherited a heck of a mess. We inherited a huge mess. What was the mess? The fact is, last year, 10 of the appropriations bills never got to the floor of the Senate. We never got here. They never had any discussion on them. Had that happened, we would have had those appropriations bills passed and signed into law, and we wouldn't be discussing these issues. As a result of inheriting an unbelievable mess, we had to put together something between the House and the Senate. Let me make this point: That which was done between the House and the Senate included discussions with Republicans and Democrats on every single subcommittee. We engaged the staff of the Republicans and the Democrats as this was put together. I wanted to make that point. We inherited a mess. We have tried to make the most of it. This BRAC issue is going to get resolved. I support resolving it. The President is going to ask us for, apparently, $100 billion in the coming couple of weeks.

Mr. DORGAN. Let me finish my thought. He is going to ask for $150 billion above that next year with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan. The point I am making is this: I understand that not just the Senator from Oklahoma but any number of Senators might come and say: I wish this had been in it, I wish that had been in it. I personally wish a number of items had happened that didn't happen in this continuing resolution. But I was involved in working on it as chairman of the Appropriations Energy and Water Subcommittee. Last year, I was ranking member of the Appropriations Interior Subcommittee. That bill didn't get to the floor of the Senate. The Energy and water bill didn't get to the floor of the Senate. The bill that would have carried the BRAC funding didn't get to the floor of the Senate. Why not? Don't blame that on Democrats. We didn't control this Chamber last year. But I don't come to blame one side or the other. I only come to say we have tried to make the best of a bad situation. We were left with quite a mess. How did we make the best of this? We worked with the House and the Senate--bicameral; we worked with the staff of the Republicans and the staff of the Democrats, bipartisan--to try to see if we could put together something that would allow us to put the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bills behind us and move ahead, because we need to move immediately now to begin to put together the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills. We need to do that now. So I only make the point that that is why we are here. No one likes it. We have done the best we could to make the best out of a bad situation.

Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, reclaiming my time, it is not going to be taken out of other funding in a supplemental. It will be added to a supplemental, I presume. The President has proposed sending us $250 billion in emergency funding in two tranches, the first for this fiscal year and the second for the next fiscal year. My assumption is that everyone here believes those BRAC funds need to be dealt with and will be dealt with in a supplemental, not by taking it away from other military expenditures. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that following the presentation of my colleague Senator Grassley of Iowa, I be recognized for a period of 20 minutes in morning business.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about two issues today. First, I will talk about the continuing resolution that will be on the floor of the Senate that we will likely finish this week. I know there is some consternation about the fact that a continuing resolution is being done, but there was no choice. We were left with an awful mess. This Congress was left with a mess where 10 appropriations bills were completed by the Senate Appropriations Committee but never brought to the floor of the Senate. They should have been done by October 1, signed by the President. We are now months into the new fiscal year, and those appropriations bills, done by the previous majority here in Congress, were not completed, and so we are left with a mess. We have put together, as best we can, a continuing resolution. We have made some adjustments to that continuing resolution. Earmarks are gone. These are adjustments to avoid some catastrophic things that would have happened without adjustments. I wish to mention with respect to the energy and water chapter of that resolution that we have done a number of things to try to preserve some funding for renewable energy. We have an energy issue that is very compelling in this country. We need to stimulate more renewable energy, so we are trying to keep the accounts which do that intact. We have tried to find the funding to preserve the Office of Science, which is the cutting-edge science that keeps us competitive in the world. That office would have had to lay off people had we not made some adjustments there. In the energy supply and conservation account, which is ongoing and very important, we have made some adjustments. The fact is, we have tried to find a way to address the mess we were left. We are doing it the best way we can. I believe the best approach is to pass this continuing resolution. It is true there are no so- called earmarks or what is, in effect, legislative-directed spending. But it is also the case that adjustments have been made in a number of areas, including the energy and water accounts, that will try to remedy some of the otherwise very significant changes, in some cases catastrophic changes to the issues we care a lot about--energy independence, energy conservation, renewable energy, science, and so many other areas. I am pleased to support this continuing resolution. I wish we were not doing it this way. If I had my druthers, we would have passed the appropriations bills last year on time. That did not happen. So we are now faced with this mess of fixing a mess that was created by last year's majority. We do not have a choice. We have to do that. The Government would shut down if the funding were not available for the agencies, so we have a responsibility, and we will meet that responsibility.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I also rise to talk about a piece of legislation dealing with contracting. The Federal Government is the largest contractor in the world. The U.S. Federal Government contracts for a lot of things. I am going to be introducing a piece of legislation that is entitled the Honest Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act. There are some 23 Senators who have joined me as cosponsors on that bill, and I will return to the floor to speak about this later in the week. But I wish to talk a little today about what this means and why we are introducing it. I held 10 oversight hearings in the Democratic policy committee, as chairman of that committee, on the issue of contracting abuses in Iraq. I held two oversight hearings on the issue of contracting abuses with respect to the response to Hurricane Katrina. We have put together, as a result of the abuses we have seen with this contracting, a piece of legislation which will do the following: It will punish those who are war profiteers. And there are some. It will crack down on contract cheaters. No more of this slap on the wrist, pat on the back, have another contract. It will force real contract competition for those who want to do contract work for the Federal Government. And it will end cronyism in key Government positions--having unqualified political appointees put in positions that require people who know what they are doing. Let me talk about some of the things we have found. I do this knowing, last week, there were some oversight hearings on the House side chaired by Congressman Waxman. I commend him. There has been a dearth of oversight hearings, almost none in the last couple of years-- I guess the last 5 or 6 years, actually--because a majority of the same party as the President do not want to hold hearings that embarrass anyone. So there have been very few oversight hearings. But the hearing held this past week in the House that caught my eye is one that followed a hearing I held in the Senate with the policy committee. They talked about the fact that $12 billion in cash--most of it in stacks of one-hundred-dollar bills--had been sent to Iraq; 363 tons of U.S. cash currency flown in on wooden pallets on C-130 airplanes. That would be, by the way, 19 planeloads of one-hundred-dollar bills; 363 tons. Nearly half of that cash was sent in the final 6 weeks before control of the Iraqi funds were turned over to the Iraqi Government. These were Iraqi oil funds, funds with frozen Iraqi assets here in the United States. The last shipment of $2.4 billion was the largest shipment. It was the largest shipment ever in the Federal Reserve Board's history. And that was 1 week before the government was turned over to the Government of Iraq. Cash payments were made from the back of a pickup truck. One official was given $6.75 million in cash and told to spend it in 1 week, before the interim Iraqi Government took control of the funds. I had a person testify at my hearing who said it was similar to the Wild West. Our refrain was bring a bag because we pay in cash. That is the way we do business. In fact, I have a photograph of a fellow who testified at the hearing I held. These are one-hundred-dollar bills wrapped in Saran Wrap in brick form. This was in a building in Iraq. This is the fellow who testified. He said people used to play catch with them like football. He said it was the Wild West. Bring a bag, we pay in cash. We know a substantial amount of cash disappeared--some American taxpayer money, some belonging to the people of Iraq--with almost no accountability. I wish to talk about accountability. If there was a lack of accountability--and there certainly was, with respect to what happened in Iraq and also here at home with Katrina--what will be the accountability going forward? How do we ensure accountability? How do we ensure that someone is in charge going forward? Let me talk about Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown and Root, its subsidiary. I know the minute you mention Halliburton, someone says you are criticizing the Vice President. No. He used to be president of that company. He has been gone a long while. This has been Halliburton that gets big contracts from the Defense Department and then doesn't perform. Bunnatine Greenhouse is a woman who rose to become the highest ranking civilian official in the Corps of Engineers in charge of all the contracting, the highest ranking civilian official who always got great reviews on her performance evaluations, until the point when the Pentagon decided to award a massive no-bid, sole-source contract to Halliburton's subsidiary called RIO, Restore Iraqi Oil. She protested that this was done in violation of proper contracting procedures. She was appalled when Halliburton was found by auditors to have overcharged nearly double for fuel purchases. And then the Defense Department, the folks in charge of that, instead of being concerned about it, rushed to provide the company with a waiver. This waiver was provided without the approval of the contracting officer who was responsible, Ms. Greenhouse. She was kept in the dark about that decision. She learned about the waiver when she read it in the newspaper. When she did speak up, she was bypassed, ignored, and ultimately forced to resign or face demotion. Here is what she has said publicly, the highest ranking civilian official in the Corps of Engineers who blew the whistle on the good old boys network for contracts awarded, she felt, improperly: I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career. For saying this, this woman was demoted. She lost the job she had for being honest. And she, by all accounts, was a top-notch contracting official. So this 20-year contracting official, responsible for all this, was ignored and then demoted when she was critical of people whom she felt were violating the rules. What happened then to fill her job? The Corps of Engineers decided to replace her with a Pentagon official who had 40 years of Government experience but none of it in Government contracting. At a hearing of the Senate Energy Committee, General Strock admitted the person who replaced Ms. Greenhouse was not certified as an acquisition professional. He stated that Ms. Riley required a waiver in order to apply for her new position. Ms. Riley has now ``gone to school'' and has been brought up to speed about what she needs to know as a contract official. Sound familiar? It does to me. It is happening all too often. Let's take a look at what I found in some of the hearings. Yes, it is about Halliburton because they are the biggest contractor, but it is about other companies as well. An $85,000 brand new truck abandoned beside the road because they had a flat tire in an area where there were no hostilities at all, but they didn't have the right wrench to fix it; $85,000 brand new truck abandoned because they had a plugged fuel pump. It didn't matter. With a cost-plus contract, the American taxpayers pick up the tab. A case of Coca-Cola, $45. Gasoline was delivered by Halliburton for twice the cost that the internal part of the Defense Department said they could have provided it for. Halliburton charged 42,000 meals a day, when they were delivering 14,000 meals, overcharging by 28,000 soldiers a day. They leased SUVs for $7,500 a month. Halliburton supplied troops with hand towels and the person who ordered the hand towels was in Kuwait. He came to a hearing I held. He said he was ordered to purchase towels that were nearly three times more expensive than regular towels. Why? Because the company, KBR, wanted their name embroidered on the towels used by the troops. Their attitude was, the American taxpayer pays for it; it doesn't matter, it's cost plus, don't worry about cost. It is unbelievable when you see what has happened with some of this contracting. We heard from Rory Mayberry, former food production manager. He also was at KBR. He said: Food items were being brought into the base that were stamped expired or outdated by as much as a year. We were told by KBR food service managers, use the items anyway. The food was fed to the troops. For trucks that were hit by convoy fire and bombings, we were told to go into the trucks, remove the food items, and use them after removing the bullets and any shrapnel from the bad food that was hit. We were told, by the way, to turn the removed bullets over to the managers for souvenirs. How about water? Contaminated water, more contaminated than raw water taken from the Euphrates River, delivered as non-potable water to our troops to shower, shave, and so on, more contaminated than raw water from the Euphrates River. Halliburton says it never happened. I have an internal Halliburton report that says it did happen, and they nearly missed having a catastrophe of mass sickness or death. I also have an e-mail sent to my by a captain, a young physician serving in Iraq. She said: I read in the newspaper about your hearing. What you alleged is exactly what is happening at our base. Let me describe a couple of those. This is an internal Halliburton report written by the top water quality manager Wil Granger, May 13, 2005: No disinfection of non-potable water was occurring [at camp Ar Ramadi] for water designated for showering purposes. This caused an unknown population to be exposed to potentially harmful water for an undetermined amount of time. It didn't just happen at Ar Ramadi. It happened at every base in Iraq. The deficiencies of the camp where the event occurred is not exclusive to that camp; meaning that countrywide all camps suffered to some extent for all or some of the same deficiencies noted. This is from an internal Halliburton report written by the top water quality person at Halliburton. These are contracts we pay for. We pay a company to provide water to the military installations that now exist in Iraq. Who is accountable for having water sent to our troops, non- potable water that is more contaminated than water in the Euphrates River? CPT Michelle Callahan, who is currently serving in Iraq--at least she was when she sent me an e-mail--found exactly the same cases of bacterial infections among the troops, traced the problem back to contaminated water that KBR was not treating properly. She had one of her officers follow the lines to find out where that water came from and why. So water to the troops, that is a health issue. Food to the troops, that is a health issue. Two guys show up in Iraq--one's name is Custer, and the other is Battles--with not much experience and no money. But they understand you can make a lot of money in Iraq, American money. So they started a company. Within 2\1/2\ years, my understanding is, they have had contracts of over $100 million. They got into trouble. It has been in the courts. Among other things alleged, they took forklift trucks from the Baghdad airport, moved them to a warehouse, repainted them blue and sold them back to the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was us. This company got a contract for security at the Baghdad airport. Let me show you what the director of security at the airport said about Custer Battles: Custer Battles have shown themselves to be unresponsive, uncooperative, incompetent, deceitful, manipulative and war profiteers. Other than that, they are swell fellows. Once again, who is accountable for the amount of money we are spending for these kind of contractors? How about the Iraqi physician, a doctor from Iraq who came to testify at my policy committee hearing. We spent a couple hundred million dollars on the Parsons Corporation to rehabilitate 142 health clinics in Iraq. This Iraqi doctor went to the Iraqi Health Minister and said: I want to see these rehabilitated health clinics. Because he knew the money had all been spent. An American contractor got the money to do it, and it was gone. He said: I want to see these 142 rehabilitated health clinics for the people of Iraq. The Iraqi Health Minister said: You don't understand. Most of these are imaginary clinics. The money is gone, but apparently the clinics don't exist. Does that bother anybody? Is there any accountability for that? Seems to me there ought to be accountability for something like that. I held hearings not just on contracting in Iraq, which I found to be a cesspool of unbelievable problems, but hearings with respect to contracting to deal with the problems of Hurricane Katrina. I wish to show you a picture of a man named Paul Mullinax. I sat in a grocery store parking lot one Sunday morning talking to Paul on the phone, asking if he would come to testify at a hearing. He wasn't anxious to do it, but he finally did. This is Paul Mullinax. This is his truck, an 18-wheel truck. Let me tell you the story Paul told. Hurricane Katrina hit. And one of the things that was necessary to be provided to the victims of the hurricane was ice. So Paul was contracted by FEMA to pick up ice. He drove his truck from Florida to New York to pick up a load of ice. Then he was told he should take that ice to Carthage, MO. He went to Carthage with his truck and his refrigerated container full of ice. When he got to Carthage, he was told he should proceed to Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, AL. When he got to Montgomery, he discovered there were over 100 trucks sitting there, refrigerated trucks there with ice. So for the next 12 days, this was Paul's life. There were victims of the hurricane waiting for relief, waiting for the cargo in his truck. For 12 days, he sat in front of this truck waiting. He finally said to them: If you are not going to tell me where to go or let me do this, I am going to go on my own and drop off the ice to some people who need it. They said: You can't do that. He said: I had no idea when I parked the truck I would be there for the next 12 days, my refrigerator unit running the entire time. Each truck cost the American taxpayer $6 to $900 a day. You can see him sitting here with a cooler and a little girl for nearly 2 weeks waiting. Finally, he was told: You should take your ice to Massachusetts. So this man from Florida, who to New York to pick up ice, went to Missouri and then went to Alabama and then waited, then was told to take the truck to Massachusetts. Unbelievable. What was the American taxpayers' role in this, $15,000. It cost $15,000 for this incompetence. Why does all of this happen? It happens because in this case with FEMA, a bunch of cronies were put in place to run the place. Were they qualified people? No. Most of them had political connections. They didn't have any emergency or disaster preparedness experience. That is what happens. Who is accountable for that? Who ultimately is going to be accountable? How can we restore accountability? I have described a few of the problems. I have described a very few of the problems. The problems are unbelievable. I think it is the most significant waste, fraud, and abuse, perhaps, in the history of this country, billions and billions of dollars with no one accountable. At the hearings last week, the answer was: It is wartime. So we distribute cash from the back of a pickup truck. We say it is the Wild West, bring a bag. We pay in cash. And it is wartime. I don't understand that. I have tried to find out who was responsible for having a Florida trucker pick up ice from New York to take to the victims of Katrina in the Gulf of Mexico and have the ice dropped off in Massachusetts, and we get stuck with $15,000, and the victims of the hurricane get nothing. But there is no accountability for anything. So we will be introducing legislation, with 23 cosponsors later, this week. It is going to punish war profiteers--and, yes, there has been rampant profiteering going on. There will be substantial punishments for war profiteers. This antiprofiteering provision is based on a piece of legislation that Senator Leahy introduced, and that was included in our contract and reform bill. Our bill will also restore a Clinton administration rule on suspension and disbarment, which prohibits awarding Federal contracts to companies that exhibited a pattern of failing to comply with the law. That provision, by the way, was done away with by the current administration. It seems to me it is time to say that you only get one chance, and if you cheat us, no more contracts. This notion of a slap on the wrist and a pat on the back is over. There was a time when exactly the same company had been in Federal court in Alexandria, VA, with allegations of fraud against the American taxpayer against that company; and on the same day, they were signing a new acquisition contract with the Department of Defense. That ought to never happen again. We ought to crack down on contract cheaters. We ought to force real contract competition. When somebody such as Bunnatine Greenhouse speaks up and says ``this is the most blatant abuse in contracting I have seen in my career,'' that ought not to be a cause for penalty. This woman risked her career and we are still trying to get to the bottom of who is accountable for her demotion. She was given a choice of being fired or demoted because she spoke out against contract fraud and abuse. We think we need to strengthen whistleblower protection. We think it is important to have full disclosure of contract abuses and to restore the provision that says if there is a pattern of abuse, you don't get to engage in contracting anymore with the Federal Government. This is very simple. I come from a small town, a town of slightly less than 300 people. There is a very simple code in towns such as that. If you are a business man or woman on Main Street and someone cheats you, you don't do business with them again. That is simple. That is a lesson apparently lost on a behemoth Federal Government. The contracting provisions we will introduce are common sense, and this Congress ought to adopt them quickly. There will be a substantial number of cosponsors in support of the legislation that is filled with common sense, at the very time that we have witnessed the most significant waste, fraud, and abuse in this country's history. Accountability? What about accountability for what happened? What about accountability for what is about to happen? We are still spending a lot of money. We will have $100 billion requested of us and another $150 billion to replenish accounts, much of it through contracts. We say with this piece of legislation that it is long past the time for this Government to be accountable to the taxpayer and accountable to the citizens of the United States.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this Nation was founded on the principle that the future matters more than the past. It was the first Nation in the world so conceived. The Founders took great pains to ensure that each generation would get a fresh start, free of the encumbrances of the past. They abolished primogeniture, entail, and hereditary titles. Jefferson for one believed that every twenty years or so, the books of the Federal Government should be wiped clean, so that prior generations would not be able to fob their debts off upon later ones who would have no say in the matter. Over the last half dozen years, we have done exactly what the Founders of this Nation did not intend. We have heaped debt upon debt on the backs of our children and theirs--the very people the Founders thought should be free of such debts. In just about every corner of government and policy, the story has been the same--let's have a party today, and let our kids and grandkids clean up the mess. We've done it with energy, the environment, and, perhaps most of all, we have done it with the Federal budget. Just six years ago, we had our fiscal house in order. The government had $5.6 trillion in projected surpluses between 2002 and 2011. We were paying down the debt. But now it's changed. We racked up the second largest deficit in our history in 2003, our largest deficit ever in 2004, the third highest deficit in 2005 and the seventh largest deficit last year. The administration can claim to be making progress only by leaving out of its budget plans the full cost of the ongoing war against terrorism, long term relief from the alternative minimum tax, using Social Security surplus revenues for unrelated spending and by generally setting expectations so low that even failure looks good by comparison. But the reality, of course, is unless the Nation's fiscal policies are dramatically changed, we are going to see large deficits for many years in the future. At the current rate the accumulated debt of this government will grow from $8.6 trillion today to over $12 trillion by 2012. That projected debt is bigger than the economies of Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Canada combined. It's almost $39,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. Meanwhile, the Administration has provided big tax cuts for people who use them to buy third homes, pricey wines and three-hundred-dollar dungarees. This is Me-Generation economics. It is economics that says, ``Let others make the sacrifices while we have a bash.'' It is the total opposite of the economics envisioned by the founders of this country, who said that we should meet our own obligations, clean up our own messes and pay our own way, so that those who come after us can have a future that is clear and bright. To this end, I rise today to introduce legislation called the Act For Our Kids that I hope will help spark a serious discussion in the U.S. Congress, and across our country, about putting the Federal Government's balance sheet back in order. This legislation provides for a package of Federal spending cuts and more revenue that would raise nearly $76 billion the first full year and some $205 billion over five years and every penny would be used to reduce the Federal deficit! It is a real first step in acting like we are serious about fixing our fiscal policies and paying our bills. Last year on the Senate floor I spoke about an agenda that Congress could be pursuing that would benefit all Americans. Among other things, I said that two of our top priorities ought to be paying our bills and taking care of our kids. Regrettably, however, the administration and the majority in Congress at that time adopted a card credit mentality to fiscal policy that would make even the most aggressive credit card companies blush. If a part of the American dream is ensuring that one's kids and grandkids get at least the same opportunities that we had to climb the economic ladder to success, then the Federal Government's recent approach to fiscal policy has been a full-blown nightmare. Unless we change the direction of our fiscal policy, the Federal Government will ``borrow'' trillions of dollars of Social Security surplus revenues over the next decade to pay for tax cuts and other spending. Social Security faces significant financial challenges as the baby boomers retire in the years ahead. Loading up the country with more debt and diverting needed revenues away from the Social Security program will only make the program's fiscal problems worse, not better. The real question is how are we going to dig ourselves out of this fiscal quagmire? The solution offered by the White House and the Republicans in Congress was simple: They said let's run up our Federal credit card balances even more, while at the same time giving more large tax cuts to the richest Americans. And if President Bush is successful in permanently extending the bulk of his previous tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthiest Americans, as he proposed in his Fiscal Year 2008 budget submission just this week, another $2 trillion in revenues will be lost over the next decade. Frankly, I am not aware of any instance in the history of this great country where those in charge of the Federal purse decided to cut revenues on such a large scale while in the midst of war. Today we ask our young men and women in uniform to sacrifice so much, yet the wealthiest among us are not asked to contribute even a portion of their tax cuts to what we are told every day is a noble cause. In one of his famous fireside chats, President Franklin D. Roosevelt described our obligation as citizens to support our troops during times of war. He said: 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 oil fields or mines, producing the weapons or the 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, 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, but to keep the economic structure of our country fortified and secure during the war and after the war. The sentiments of President Roosevelt's remarks are truly lost on an Administration that has borrowed every dollar it has used to pay for the war in Iraq and the global fight against terrorism. I think the American public understands that one of our obligations as U.S. citizens is helping to defend this country in whatever way is best. But what we have been missing is leadership and at least some measure of fiscal discipline in paying our war debt and getting other parts of our fiscal house in order. It is unfair to pile up this massive debt and heave it onto the shoulders of working families and their children. The Federal Government is expected to pay $3.3 trillion in interest payments on the debt alone during the 10-year period ending in 2017. The legislation I am introducing today includes a number of proposals that, taken together, would reduce the Federal deficit by my estimate $205 billion over the next five years. First and foremost, this bill requires Federal agencies to tighten their belts by cutting their administrative overhead expenses. Before we ask others to make sacrifices needed to reduce the Nation's debt load, Federal agencies must do their part. My legislation includes other targeted cuts in Federal spending and will make changes to the tax code to ensure that the wealthiest Americans and most profitable multinational companies that do business in this country pay their fair share of taxes--revenues that are needed to defend this Nation and keep our economy strong and growing. Among other things, the Act For Our Kids would do the following: Cut Federal agency administrative overhead by 5 percent for fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and save taxpayers an estimated $30 billion. This proposal would reduce ``nuts and bolts'' expenditures, including those relating to agency travel and transportation, advertising, office supplies, conferences and equipment. These savings must come from the bureaucracy, not programs. It is generally understood that administrative expenses do not include personnel compensation and benefits. Eliminate $3.5 billion that remains in a giveaway fund in the Medicare drug plan. The 2003 Medicare drug bill included a $10 billion ``slush'' fund that the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services could tap to entice regional preferred provider organizations (PPOs) to participate in Medicare. This fund has been roundly criticized by policy experts as an inappropriate use of Federal resources. The Senate has previously supported eliminating this fund altogether and legislation enacted by Congress late last year used $6.5 billion of the $10 billion in the fund for the physician payment fix. Make drug importation legal and safe. This will not only help consumers by reducing the cost they pay for prescription drugs, but will save the Federal Government and therefore taxpayers an estimated $1.6 billion in Federal health program costs in the five years after its enactment. Stop providing Federal funding for TV Marti broadcasts into Cuba that are jammed and therefore are not watched by their intended recipients. This provision would save U.S. taxpayers an estimated $100 million in the next half decade. Restore honesty and accountability in Federal contracting by, among other things, reinstating a Federal rule that would deny Federal contracts to companies with a pattern of overcharging the government or violating other Federal laws, including tax, labor and consumer protections. Other provisions in the bill would crack down on corporate cheaters and require full disclosure of contracting abuses. It requires real contract competition, bans corporate cronyism and takes other significant steps to ensure that Federal contractors. large or small, are not gouging American taxpayers. Based on information derived from similar experiences in the past, and more recently, one could easily expect these reforms would save the Federal Government some $6 billion over a five-year period. Abolish the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The docket of the Court of Federal Claims includes a hodgepodge of cases, including patent cases, claims involving Indian property, vaccine injury cases, claims arising from the interment of Japanese Americans, and cases arising under the Fifth Amendment's takings clause. The light caseload of this court could be handled more efficiently by Federal district courts. This elimination of the Claims Court would result in additional taxpayer savings of tens of millions of dollars over five years. Impose a temporary 2 percent emergency tariff on all imports for two years to help correct our country's $800-billion-plus trade deficit. Article XII of the GATT, which has been incorporated into the World Trade Organization, specifically allows member countries to impose tariffs to correct a balance of payment crisis. Temporary emergency tariffs over two years would help address this crisis, while raising an estimated $66 billion for deficit reduction. Prevent tax avoidance for U.S. multinational companies that move profits to offshore tax havens by generally treating their controlled ``paper or shell'' subsidiaries set up in foreign tax-haven countries as domestic companies for U.S. tax purposes. This proposal would save taxpayers another $5.8 billion over five years. Repeal the perverse Federal tax subsidy called tax deferral for U.S. companies that shut down manufacturing plants in the U.S. and move jobs abroad, only to ship their now foreign-made products back into our country. Killing this ill-advised tax break for runaway manufacturing plants would help level the financial playing field for domestic manufacturers while saving taxpayers some $4.2 billion over a five-year period. Clarify and enhance the application of the economic substance doctrine that courts apply to deny tax benefits from business tax shelter transactions that do not result in a meaningful change to the taxpayer's economic position other than a reduction in their Federal income tax. This proposal would save taxpayers an estimated $5.8 billion over the next five years. Rescind on a prospective basis a portion of the major tax cuts passed by Congress since 2001 for individuals who are earning more than $1 million annually. Providing some $90 billion in additional large tax cuts over the next five years for millionaires when the Nation is still accruing massive debt and paying ongoing war costs is irresponsible in my judgment. Disallow the tax deduction for punitive damages that are paid or incurred by taxpayers as a result of a judgment or in settlement of a claim. Allowing a tax deduction for punitive damages undermines the use of punitive damages to discourage and penalize the activities or actions for which punitive damages are imposed. Making this change would save taxpayers about $130 million over a 5-year period. Lift the U.S. ban on travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens. Repealing this obsolete and ineffective restriction on travel to Cuba would raise an estimated $1 billion in U.S. tax revenues over five years from increased U.S. business activity. Extend permanently the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) authority to auction licenses to those using the radio spectrum. This FCC authority was recently extended by Congress through 2011. A permanent extension of this authority would raise $1 billion between 2012 to 2016, about $200 million annually starting in 2012. The provisions I have highlighted above and others in the bill would help reduce the Federal debt by what I roughly calculate is $205 billion over the next half decade. I understand that this package does not fully cover our outstanding debt obligations. But I think it is a reasonable and balanced package of spending cuts and revenue enhancements that offer a first installment that will help us begin a thoughtful process of curbing our addiction to deficit spending and hopefully head us once again toward truly a balanced budget not counting Social Security surplus revenue that should be set aside for future beneficiaries, and not used for unrelated spending. Garrison Keillor once said, ``Nothing you do for children is ever wasted. They seem not to notice us, hovering, averting our eyes, and they seldom offer thanks, but what we do for them is never wasted.'' I believe that one of the greatest gifts we can give for our kids is a future without a mountain of debt from under which they may never dig out. To make this happen, however, we need to set aside our differences and come together, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals alike, and begin to confront our recent obsession with debt financing. When we decide to do so, our Nation will be better for it, and so will the future of our children.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this Nation was founded on the principle that the future matters more than the past. It was the first Nation in the world so conceived. The Founders took great pains to ensure that each generation would get a fresh start, free of the encumbrances of the past. They abolished primogeniture, entail, and hereditary titles. Jefferson for one believed that every twenty years or so, the books of the Federal Government should be wiped clean, so that prior generations would not be able to fob their debts off upon later ones who would have no say in the matter. Over the last half dozen years, we have done exactly what the Founders of this Nation did not intend. We have heaped debt upon debt on the backs of our children and theirs--the very people the Founders thought should be free of such debts. In just about every corner of government and policy, the story has been the same--let's have a party today, and let our kids and grandkids clean up the mess. We've done it with energy, the environment, and, perhaps most of all, we have done it with the Federal budget. Just six years ago, we had our fiscal house in order. The government had $5.6 trillion in projected surpluses between 2002 and 2011. We were paying down the debt. But now it's changed. We racked up the second largest deficit in our history in 2003, our largest deficit ever in 2004, the third highest deficit in 2005 and the seventh largest deficit last year. The administration can claim to be making progress only by leaving out of its budget plans the full cost of the ongoing war against terrorism, long term relief from the alternative minimum tax, using Social Security surplus revenues for unrelated spending and by generally setting expectations so low that even failure looks good by comparison. But the reality, of course, is unless the Nation's fiscal policies are dramatically changed, we are going to see large deficits for many years in the future. At the current rate the accumulated debt of this government will grow from $8.6 trillion today to over $12 trillion by 2012. That projected debt is bigger than the economies of Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Canada combined. It's almost $39,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. Meanwhile, the Administration has provided big tax cuts for people who use them to buy third homes, pricey wines and three-hundred-dollar dungarees. This is Me-Generation economics. It is economics that says, ``Let others make the sacrifices while we have a bash.'' It is the total opposite of the economics envisioned by the founders of this country, who said that we should meet our own obligations, clean up our own messes and pay our own way, so that those who come after us can have a future that is clear and bright. To this end, I rise today to introduce legislation called the Act For Our Kids that I hope will help spark a serious discussion in the U.S. Congress, and across our country, about putting the Federal Government's balance sheet back in order. This legislation provides for a package of Federal spending cuts and more revenue that would raise nearly $76 billion the first full year and some $205 billion over five years and every penny would be used to reduce the Federal deficit! It is a real first step in acting like we are serious about fixing our fiscal policies and paying our bills. Last year on the Senate floor I spoke about an agenda that Congress could be pursuing that would benefit all Americans. Among other things, I said that two of our top priorities ought to be paying our bills and taking care of our kids. Regrettably, however, the administration and the majority in Congress at that time adopted a card credit mentality to fiscal policy that would make even the most aggressive credit card companies blush. If a part of the American dream is ensuring that one's kids and grandkids get at least the same opportunities that we had to climb the economic ladder to success, then the Federal Government's recent approach to fiscal policy has been a full-blown nightmare. Unless we change the direction of our fiscal policy, the Federal Government will ``borrow'' trillions of dollars of Social Security surplus revenues over the next decade to pay for tax cuts and other spending. Social Security faces significant financial challenges as the baby boomers retire in the years ahead. Loading up the country with more debt and diverting needed revenues away from the Social Security program will only make the program's fiscal problems worse, not better. The real question is how are we going to dig ourselves out of this fiscal quagmire? The solution offered by the White House and the Republicans in Congress was simple: They said let's run up our Federal credit card balances even more, while at the same time giving more large tax cuts to the richest Americans. And if President Bush is successful in permanently extending the bulk of his previous tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthiest Americans, as he proposed in his Fiscal Year 2008 budget submission just this week, another $2 trillion in revenues will be lost over the next decade. Frankly, I am not aware of any instance in the history of this great country where those in charge of the Federal purse decided to cut revenues on such a large scale while in the midst of war. Today we ask our young men and women in uniform to sacrifice so much, yet the wealthiest among us are not asked to contribute even a portion of their tax cuts to what we are told every day is a noble cause. In one of his famous fireside chats, President Franklin D. Roosevelt described our obligation as citizens to support our troops during times of war. He said: 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 oil fields or mines, producing the weapons or the 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, 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, but to keep the economic structure of our country fortified and secure during the war and after the war. The sentiments of President Roosevelt's remarks are truly lost on an Administration that has borrowed every dollar it has used to pay for the war in Iraq and the global fight against terrorism. I think the American public understands that one of our obligations as U.S. citizens is helping to defend this country in whatever way is best. But what we have been missing is leadership and at least some measure of fiscal discipline in paying our war debt and getting other parts of our fiscal house in order. It is unfair to pile up this massive debt and heave it onto the shoulders of working families and their children. The Federal Government is expected to pay $3.3 trillion in interest payments on the debt alone during the 10-year period ending in 2017. The legislation I am introducing today includes a number of proposals that, taken together, would reduce the Federal deficit by my estimate $205 billion over the next five years. First and foremost, this bill requires Federal agencies to tighten their belts by cutting their administrative overhead expenses. Before we ask others to make sacrifices needed to reduce the Nation's debt load, Federal agencies must do their part. My legislation includes other targeted cuts in Federal spending and will make changes to the tax code to ensure that the wealthiest Americans and most profitable multinational companies that do business in this country pay their fair share of taxes--revenues that are needed to defend this Nation and keep our economy strong and growing. Among other things, the Act For Our Kids would do the following: Cut Federal agency administrative overhead by 5 percent for fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and save taxpayers an estimated $30 billion. This proposal would reduce ``nuts and bolts'' expenditures, including those relating to agency travel and transportation, advertising, office supplies, conferences and equipment. These savings must come from the bureaucracy, not programs. It is generally understood that administrative expenses do not include personnel compensation and benefits. Eliminate $3.5 billion that remains in a giveaway fund in the Medicare drug plan. The 2003 Medicare drug bill included a $10 billion ``slush'' fund that the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services could tap to entice regional preferred provider organizations (PPOs) to participate in Medicare. This fund has been roundly criticized by policy experts as an inappropriate use of Federal resources. The Senate has previously supported eliminating this fund altogether and legislation enacted by Congress late last year used $6.5 billion of the $10 billion in the fund for the physician payment fix. Make drug importation legal and safe. This will not only help consumers by reducing the cost they pay for prescription drugs, but will save the Federal Government and therefore taxpayers an estimated $1.6 billion in Federal health program costs in the five years after its enactment. Stop providing Federal funding for TV Marti broadcasts into Cuba that are jammed and therefore are not watched by their intended recipients. This provision would save U.S. taxpayers an estimated $100 million in the next half decade. Restore honesty and accountability in Federal contracting by, among other things, reinstating a Federal rule that would deny Federal contracts to companies with a pattern of overcharging the government or violating other Federal laws, including tax, labor and consumer protections. Other provisions in the bill would crack down on corporate cheaters and require full disclosure of contracting abuses. It requires real contract competition, bans corporate cronyism and takes other significant steps to ensure that Federal contractors. large or small, are not gouging American taxpayers. Based on information derived from similar experiences in the past, and more recently, one could easily expect these reforms would save the Federal Government some $6 billion over a five-year period. Abolish the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The docket of the Court of Federal Claims includes a hodgepodge of cases, including patent cases, claims involving Indian property, vaccine injury cases, claims arising from the interment of Japanese Americans, and cases arising under the Fifth Amendment's takings clause. The light caseload of this court could be handled more efficiently by Federal district courts. This elimination of the Claims Court would result in additional taxpayer savings of tens of millions of dollars over five years. Impose a temporary 2 percent emergency tariff on all imports for two years to help correct our country's $800-billion-plus trade deficit. Article XII of the GATT, which has been incorporated into the World Trade Organization, specifically allows member countries to impose tariffs to correct a balance of payment crisis. Temporary emergency tariffs over two years would help address this crisis, while raising an estimated $66 billion for deficit reduction. Prevent tax avoidance for U.S. multinational companies that move profits to offshore tax havens by generally treating their controlled ``paper or shell'' subsidiaries set up in foreign tax-haven countries as domestic companies for U.S. tax purposes. This proposal would save taxpayers another $5.8 billion over five years. Repeal the perverse Federal tax subsidy called tax deferral for U.S. companies that shut down manufacturing plants in the U.S. and move jobs abroad, only to ship their now foreign-made products back into our country. Killing this ill-advised tax break for runaway manufacturing plants would help level the financial playing field for domestic manufacturers while saving taxpayers some $4.2 billion over a five-year period. Clarify and enhance the application of the economic substance doctrine that courts apply to deny tax benefits from business tax shelter transactions that do not result in a meaningful change to the taxpayer's economic position other than a reduction in their Federal income tax. This proposal would save taxpayers an estimated $5.8 billion over the next five years. Rescind on a prospective basis a portion of the major tax cuts passed by Congress since 2001 for individuals who are earning more than $1 million annually. Providing some $90 billion in additional large tax cuts over the next five years for millionaires when the Nation is still accruing massive debt and paying ongoing war costs is irresponsible in my judgment. Disallow the tax deduction for punitive damages that are paid or incurred by taxpayers as a result of a judgment or in settlement of a claim. Allowing a tax deduction for punitive damages undermines the use of punitive damages to discourage and penalize the activities or actions for which punitive damages are imposed. Making this change would save taxpayers about $130 million over a 5-year period. Lift the U.S. ban on travel to Cuba by U.S. citizens. Repealing this obsolete and ineffective restriction on travel to Cuba would raise an estimated $1 billion in U.S. tax revenues over five years from increased U.S. business activity. Extend permanently the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) authority to auction licenses to those using the radio spectrum. This FCC authority was recently extended by Congress through 2011. A permanent extension of this authority would raise $1 billion between 2012 to 2016, about $200 million annually starting in 2012. The provisions I have highlighted above and others in the bill would help reduce the Federal debt by what I roughly calculate is $205 billion over the next half decade. I understand that this package does not fully cover our outstanding debt obligations. But I think it is a reasonable and balanced package of spending cuts and revenue enhancements that offer a first installment that will help us begin a thoughtful process of curbing our addiction to deficit spending and hopefully head us once again toward truly a balanced budget not counting Social Security surplus revenue that should be set aside for future beneficiaries, and not used for unrelated spending. Garrison Keillor once said, ``Nothing you do for children is ever wasted. They seem not to notice us, hovering, averting our eyes, and they seldom offer thanks, but what we do for them is never wasted.'' I believe that one of the greatest gifts we can give for our kids is a future without a mountain of debt from under which they may never dig out. To make this happen, however, we need to set aside our differences and come together, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals alike, and begin to confront our recent obsession with debt financing. When we decide to do so, our Nation will be better for it, and so will the future of our children.