Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment is simple. It relates to the issue of port security, which is the bill we are on. As you know, earlier this year we had a substantial amount of controversy about port security, at a time when the Bush administration gave the green light for Dubai Ports World, which was a government-owned company in the United Arab Emirates, to have the opportunity to take over management of seaports in our country--in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans, and Miami, among others. In February of this year, the Bush administration said that was fine for a company called Dubai Ports World to take over the management of these ports. It had been given official sanction to do so, and the President indicated that if the Congress didn't like it, and if the Congress passed legislation to do something about it, he would veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement that would allow the United Arab Emirates-owned company to manage American seaports. Well, the UAE then indicated it was going to back away, and Dubai Ports World has now moved to try to find a way to sell its interest to others. My understanding is that it has not yet done so. But the circumstances are that the Oman Free Trade Agreement, which will come to the floor of the Senate this week we are told by the majority leader, includes a provision--I will describe it in greater depth later--that would prevent the Congress from interfering in any way with a foreign company from Oman from managing our ports. My amendment is very simple. It would say that trade officials would be prohibited from agreeing to any trade agreement that would preclude the Congress from blocking a takeover of U.S. port operations by foreign companies. In recent trade agreements they have actually included--which we have negotiated with other countries--the opportunity for those countries and their companies to come in and run America's ports. When we are talking about port security, don't tell me about security if we decide we are going to allow other countries, and companies owned in many cases by countries, to take over the management of America's ports. That is not port security and not, in my judgment, improving the security interests of this country. We went through this debate about Dubai Ports World and United Arab Emirates. That issue is not resolved. It is being raised again in every trade agreement that is being negotiated and is included in the one with Oman that will be debated later this week. The majority leader wishes to take up that trade agreement. I believe there is a 20-hour requirement or debate provision with respect to that agreement. I intend to talk at some length about what that agreement provides with respect to this provision. The provision in this trade agreement once again is that it is going to be just fine for foreign interests to come in and provide management and many other functions at America's seaports. Tell me how that will make this country more secure. I don't think anybody can talk about security when at the same time, in trade agreements, we are saying we want other countries, and companies that are owned by these countries, in fact, to come in and manage America's seaports. That is a recipe for disaster, in my judgment. I will speak more about it later. I wanted to at least lay the amendment down and have the opportunity to be in line after lunch and talk about this amendment at greater length. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I previously offered an amendment to the pending bill. My understanding is it will likely be accepted. I did not have a chance to speak at any length on the amendment. I want to do so now. I recognize we have a vote in about 10 minutes. I will be mindful of that. The amendment which I offered says that our U.S. trade officials will be prohibited from agreeing to any future trade agreement that would preclude the Congress from blocking the takeover of a U.S. port operation by a foreign company. I offered this amendment in the shadow of this morning's announcement that our monthly trade deficit--get this--was the highest in U.S. history. It was announced this morning-- $68 billion in 1 month. If anyone needs additional information about the failure of our trade strategy and the failure of this so-called ``free trade'' nonsense we have been hearing around here, take a look at this morning's announcement--$68 billion trade deficit in 1 month.

Mr. DORGAN. This is not money we owe to ourselves. That is money we owe largely to Japan, and China, and other countries and will be repaid someday with a lower standard of living in this country. I offer this amendment dealing with trade as a backdrop to this morning's announcement of the highest trade deficit in history, a trade strategy fraught with error--and this is injuring this country. Let me describe the need for this amendment. You might recall that earlier this year it was announced that Dubai Ports World was going to begin to manage a number of ports in this country. Dubai Ports World, in February of this year, indicated that they were going to manage ports in America in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Miami, and some others. Dubai Ports World is a company that is operated by the United Arab Emirates. In February of this year, the Bush administration gave the green light to Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, to manage these American ports. The President said that he felt it was fine for our ports to be managed by a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. In fact, when a firestorm erupted over this issue, here is what the President said, brushing aside objections from Republicans and Democrats alike. President Bush endorsed the takeover of shipping operations in six major U.S. seaports by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. The President pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement. Even more than that, the head of Homeland Security, Mr. Michael Chertoff, strangely enough said this: Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff reported yesterday that the proposed takeover of terminal operations at five U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World would give U.S. law enforcement a better handle on security at U.S. terminal operations. Here is a member of the Cabinet in this country saying that if we turn our port management over to a foreign company, it will actually improve security. I don't know what he might have had for breakfast that morning, but I am telling you it didn't agree with his thinking process. It is going to improve security to turn the management of American ports over to a company that is owned by the United Arab Emirates? I don't think so. There was a firestorm of protest. The President said he would veto any legislation that we would provide that stopped this takeover of management of these American seaports. Despite that, at some point, it was quite clear the Congress was going to say to the President--Republicans and Democrats--we are sorry. It doesn't matter what you threaten with respect to a veto, we will pass legislation that prohibits this. We believe the security of our seaports is best maintained by not turning the management of our seaports over to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Dubai Ports World, at some point, announced that they were going to find another way to do this and sell their interests. My understanding is that has not yet been done. But in any event, the administration backed away. However, the trade agreements that we are negotiating now include it. Past agreements have included it. I don't intend to interrupt that with this amendment. If I could, I would. But I don't have the votes to do that. But the trade agreements say this, including the Oman agreement, which I am told will be brought to the floor of the Senate on Thursday of this week. I intend to speak at some length on that agreement. I am opposed to it. But it includes this provision, and other trade agreements have included the same provision. U.S. port operations that we couldn't block Oman from acquiring under the FTA, under our Free Trade Agreement with Oman, we would be prohibited from blocking an agreement that included landside aspects of foreign activities, including operations and maintenance of docks, loading and unloading of vessels, directly to or from land, marine cargo handling, ship cleaning, et cetera. In point of fact, we are negotiating trade agreements that include provisions which say we are not able to block a foreign company owned by a foreign country from coming in and managing our seaports. That is what we are doing in trade agreements. Most of our trade negotiators have been fundamentally incompetent from the start. It was Will Rogers who said many decades ago that the United States of America has never lost a war and never won a conference. He surely must have been talking about our trade negotiators. They don't wear uniforms so they do not remember whom they represent. I have often threatened to buy them jerseys so they can look down and see whom they represent--the good old U.S.A.--just like Olympic athletes represent the U.S.A. We negotiate trade agreements that we are told will strengthen this country, and month after month and year after year we sink deeper into this abyss of red ink, with now a $68 billion trade deficit in the last month alone. Is it surprising then that the same incompetence that has led to the largest trade deficit in history--the same incompetence that lead to that--led them to do this, to undermine the very debate we had in February of this year about the management of American ports by a United Arab Emirates-controlled company, Dubai Ports World? Just as an aside, let me describe the incompetence. Let me describe one example. I could give a hundred. Next year, according to a report, we will be getting imports of Chinese cars into this country because the country of China is now beginning a substantial automobile export industry. They have announced they will begin exporting cars from China to the United States next year. So we will be able to see Chinese cars driving up and down the streets of America. Guess what. Our trade negotiators agreed that when Chinese cars come into our country, we will impose a 2.5-percent tariff on Chinese cars that come into the United States. We also agreed that any U.S. cars we could sell in China, they could impose a 25-percent tariff. A country with which we had a $200 billion trade deficit, we agreed they could impose a tariff on automobiles 10 times higher than the tariff we would impose. Is that brain dead? It is where I come from. Is that incompetence? It is incompetence in my hometown. That doesn't represent our country's interests. We come back to the point. I could give you a hundred examples similar to that, where soft-headed foreign policy is masquerading as trade policy. We come back to the newest trade agreements, including Oman, which we will have on the floor of the Senate next Thursday which includes this provision. It is identical to provisions that are included in previous agreements as well. I say we ought to block this from ever occurring in any future free trade agreement. This provision undermines the entire position that we have taken with respect to deciding that it is not in our country's security interests to have the United Arab Emirates engaged in the management of our seaports. For that reason, I believe we ought to pass the amendment I am proposing, prohibiting this from happening in the future. I would like to go back, frankly, and undo that which was done in previous trade agreements. There is a little thing that people outside of this congressional system don't recognize very easily. It is called fast track. Fast track sounds so innocuous--just fast track. Fast track means Congress has decided to give up its opportunity, which exists in the Constitution, to be engaged in trade activities so that when a trade agreement comes to the Congress, this Congress has no opportunity to review it with the understanding of wanting to amend it. Fast track means we have put ourselves in the straight jacket and no amendments. That is why, when a trade agreement comes to the floor of the Senate such as Oman--and there will be others. We are now negotiating nine additional trade agreements with nine additional countries right now. The House of Representatives announced they will take up two additional trade agreements in November. When those agreements come to the floor of the Senate, because the Congress, in its lack of wisdom, decided to put itself in a straight jacket, no one can offer an amendment to strip out this kind of provision of a trade agreement. It surely escapes my line of reasoning why the Congress would want to decide to limit its capability to improve a trade agreement, but it has. Some will say, notwithstanding what trade agreements say, notwithstanding all the other issues, the President can, for national security reasons, decide to back an agreement such as this. Yes, that is true. It was this President who said: I agree that we ought to allow the United Arab Emirates and Dubai Ports World to come in and manage seaports. I agree that we should do that. We have already evaluated it. It makes sense. He is wrong about that, of course. His Secretary of Homeland Security says not only does it make sense, but it will make America safer if we have the management of America's seaports being done by a foreign company through a foreign country. That is the most absurd thing I ever heard. Yet in this country, in this town, it passed with thoughtful debate. Again, it doesn't meet the test of thoughtful debate in my hometown cafe. I am offering this amendment. My understanding is it will likely be accepted, for which I am very appreciative. I will speak more about the general subject when we have the opportunity to talk about the free trade agreement with the country of Oman. My understanding is it may be this Thursday. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Murray and seven of our Senate colleagues in introducing legislation to stop the Internal Revenue Service's plan to outsource part of its tax collection responsibilities to private collection companies. It would be a serious mistake for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to move ahead with its controversial tax debt collection privatization plan. When the IRS attempted a similar plan in 1996, it failed miserably. Mistakes were made at every turn. Taxpayers were harassed by private debt collectors. In many instances, private debt collectors violated Federal debt collection laws and confidential taxpayer information was not properly secured. Serious concerns have been raised by tax experts, including the National Taxpayer Advocate, that the new IRS initiative will suffer from the same kinds of maladies. It is my understanding that the IRS intends to share more than 2.5 million taxpayer accounts with ten private collection companies when its new plan is fully implemented. There is troubling evidence which suggests that the IRS plan may not have adequate safeguards in place to protect confidential taxpayer information. Just over two years ago, a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) investigation found that a contractor's employees committed security violations, placing IRS equipment and taxpayer data at risk. In some cases, TIGTA officials found that contractors ``blatantly circumvented IRS policies and procedures even when security personnel had identified inappropriate practices.'' It is also troubling that the IRS has agreed to pay very large commissions of 21 to 24 percent of the amount of the tax debt collected by three private collection firms at the outset of its initiative. Some tax experts understand what others are choosing to ignore: paying a commission based on the firms' success increases the potential for overzealous collection practices and the misuse of sensitive taxpayer information. Private debt collection agencies are driven by profit motives, not public service. In addition, the IRS admits that if it hired more employees for this purpose, not private collectors, far more revenues would be deposited in the U.S. Treasury fund. It is astounding that the IRS appears ready to pay nearly a quarter for every dollar collected by private collection firms, when internal IRS reports suggest that it would cost the Federal Government just 3 pennies on a dollar to have trained IRS employees collect tax debts that are owed. At a time of exploding deficits and Federal debt, the IRS plan to use of private debt collectors would be an inexcusable waste of taxpayer money. Everybody needs to pay the taxes they owe. If they do not, however, professional IRS employees, not private collectors in search of profits, should be the ones to ensure that outstanding tax debts are paid. If the IRS now says it needs more resources for tax enforcement and collection activities, then Congress should consider providing them. I fully agree with the independent Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's recent recommendation that the IRS ``should abandon all plans to outsource any taxpayer debts and restrict collection activities to properly trained and proficient IRS personnel.'' Indeed, the IRS should immediately reverse course and indefinitely suspend the implementation of its private debt collection plan. It was recently reported in the press that IRS Commissioner Everson has said the IRS will ``immediately stand down'' if the House and Senate act to revoke its authority to outsource tax debt collections to private companies. The House of Representatives has already voted to kill new funding for this IRS initiative. I will be pushing for a vote on this proposal by the full Senate at the first available opportunity. The IRS should act on its own to stop its planned use of private debt collectors and save any further expenditures of taxpayer money for this purpose. If not, however, I will do everything in my power to put the brakes on this plan in the U.S. Senate. There is an old adage: ``Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'' Someone needs to remind the Internal Revenue Service and even some in the Congress of that. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and help us get it enacted into law.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Murray and seven of our Senate colleagues in introducing legislation to stop the Internal Revenue Service's plan to outsource part of its tax collection responsibilities to private collection companies. It would be a serious mistake for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to move ahead with its controversial tax debt collection privatization plan. When the IRS attempted a similar plan in 1996, it failed miserably. Mistakes were made at every turn. Taxpayers were harassed by private debt collectors. In many instances, private debt collectors violated Federal debt collection laws and confidential taxpayer information was not properly secured. Serious concerns have been raised by tax experts, including the National Taxpayer Advocate, that the new IRS initiative will suffer from the same kinds of maladies. It is my understanding that the IRS intends to share more than 2.5 million taxpayer accounts with ten private collection companies when its new plan is fully implemented. There is troubling evidence which suggests that the IRS plan may not have adequate safeguards in place to protect confidential taxpayer information. Just over two years ago, a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) investigation found that a contractor's employees committed security violations, placing IRS equipment and taxpayer data at risk. In some cases, TIGTA officials found that contractors ``blatantly circumvented IRS policies and procedures even when security personnel had identified inappropriate practices.'' It is also troubling that the IRS has agreed to pay very large commissions of 21 to 24 percent of the amount of the tax debt collected by three private collection firms at the outset of its initiative. Some tax experts understand what others are choosing to ignore: paying a commission based on the firms' success increases the potential for overzealous collection practices and the misuse of sensitive taxpayer information. Private debt collection agencies are driven by profit motives, not public service. In addition, the IRS admits that if it hired more employees for this purpose, not private collectors, far more revenues would be deposited in the U.S. Treasury fund. It is astounding that the IRS appears ready to pay nearly a quarter for every dollar collected by private collection firms, when internal IRS reports suggest that it would cost the Federal Government just 3 pennies on a dollar to have trained IRS employees collect tax debts that are owed. At a time of exploding deficits and Federal debt, the IRS plan to use of private debt collectors would be an inexcusable waste of taxpayer money. Everybody needs to pay the taxes they owe. If they do not, however, professional IRS employees, not private collectors in search of profits, should be the ones to ensure that outstanding tax debts are paid. If the IRS now says it needs more resources for tax enforcement and collection activities, then Congress should consider providing them. I fully agree with the independent Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's recent recommendation that the IRS ``should abandon all plans to outsource any taxpayer debts and restrict collection activities to properly trained and proficient IRS personnel.'' Indeed, the IRS should immediately reverse course and indefinitely suspend the implementation of its private debt collection plan. It was recently reported in the press that IRS Commissioner Everson has said the IRS will ``immediately stand down'' if the House and Senate act to revoke its authority to outsource tax debt collections to private companies. The House of Representatives has already voted to kill new funding for this IRS initiative. I will be pushing for a vote on this proposal by the full Senate at the first available opportunity. The IRS should act on its own to stop its planned use of private debt collectors and save any further expenditures of taxpayer money for this purpose. If not, however, I will do everything in my power to put the brakes on this plan in the U.S. Senate. There is an old adage: ``Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'' Someone needs to remind the Internal Revenue Service and even some in the Congress of that. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and help us get it enacted into law.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, Senator Conrad and I have, over the last 2 days, talked about the need for an amendment of this type to be offered to the Defense appropriations bill. We have talked about several different ways of offering this amendment and the circumstances that require us to come here and draft an amendment and offer it to our colleagues. This amendment represents some discussions, as well, with colleagues. I want to say that almost all of that which persuaded us to do this has now been described by my colleague, Senator Conrad. He talked about 9/11 2001. I recall going to Ground Zero in New York as the fire was still burning, smoke coming out of the wreckage of the World Trade Center from the bombing of the trade center by the terrorists and the murder of 3,000 innocent Americans. And as we toured just several days after those terrorists had hit the World Trade Center in New York, and the smoke was still billowing out of that twisted steel wreckage, one of the grizzled firefighters who had not shaved for several days, obviously had not slept, had bloodshot eyes, came up to me as we were touring--a group of Senators--and he said to me: ``Get 'em. Ya'll have to get 'em. If you don't get 'em, they are going to do it to us again.'' Having worked in this wreckage of the World Trade Center and having seen the carnage and the bodies, what he meant was that if we don't get those who did this, they will repeat it. That firefighter was speaking with a real passion, a passion that I think is shared by the American people. That passion was shared on that day and it is now, today. That attack on 9/11--my colleague showed a picture of it--was with commercial airplanes loaded with fuel used as weapons. The New York Times ran a piece on August 11, 2004, by Nicholas Christoff, about a book by Harvard professor Graham Allison called ``Nuclear Terrorism.'' Allison told a story in this book that exactly 1 month after 9/11, on October 11 in 2001, aides told President Bush that a CIA source named Dragon Fire had reported that al-Qaida had obtained a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon, apparently stolen from Russian stockpiles, and had smuggled it into New York City, and al-Qaida terrorists were now prepared to detonate it. This is described in some detail in the book. The CIA apparently found this report plausible. They knew that apparently Russia had small 10-kiloton nuclear weapons. Russia was reported to have lost some nuclear materials. Al-Qaida had made a determined effort to acquire them. The CIA had apparently picked up al- Qaida chatter about an ``American Hiroshima.'' This issue was taken very seriously in October of 2001. Later it was determined the lead by the agent named Dragon Fire was a false lead. But in retrospect of this issue, all of those who evaluated it determined it could well have been true. It is not implausible that a nuclear weapon could be stolen. After all, there are some 30,000 nuclear weapons on this Earth. It is not implausible that having a nuclear weapon stolen by a terrorist group, it could be detonated. And it is certainly likely they would attempt to detonate a nuclear weapon in the center of a major city, especially a city in the United States. I describe that only to say these issues are critically important. Yes, 9/11 breaks our heart--all of the innocent Americans killed by acts of terrorism. But that will be an event that will be small by comparison if, in fact, a nuclear weapon is acquired by a terrorist group like al- Qaida and detonated in an American city in the future. There are responsible people who have said they believe there is a very substantial likelihood such an event could or will happen in the next 10 years, unless this country provides the leadership to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, stops the proliferation of nuclear weapons and does everything necessary to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. The evil of terrorism requires and demands a unified American resolve. As my colleague has previously said, when it comes to fighting terrorism, there are no D's or R's, there are no Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals, there are only Americans resolved to confront this evil. We are determined to confront and defeat those who are intent on murdering innocent people in the name of terrorism. We fight terrorism to preserve freedom, but we betray rather than serve our freedom if we turn a blind eye to the actions which will diminish the very freedoms we cherish, even as we confront the actions of terrorists. As we wage this fight against terrorism, we do not serve the interests of our country by labeling others who may disagree with strategies as appeasers, of the type who appeased Nazism. That does not serve America's interests either. I have heard colleagues today come to the floor to lament that there have been some criticisms of Administration strategies. Let's all understand no one is perfect. Big mistakes have been made. Mistakes, and big mistakes, have been made, both with respect to Iraq and also with respect to the war against terrorism. In Iraq, we discovered later there were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no yellow cake from Niger. The aluminum tubes were not for the purpose of building a nuclear capability. There were no mobile chemical weapons labs. Would we be treated as liberators as was suggested? No. It turns out that was not the case. Were mistakes made? Two days ago, a young fellow who left law school after 9/11 to enlist in the Army to go to Iraq told me that when he got to Iraq his mother, an elementary schoolteacher, had to go on the Internet to buy body armor to send it to him. Were mistakes made? You darned right mistakes were made. Mistakes were made. Let's understand that. Recognizing and understanding that and admitting it allows us to decide not to make those mistakes again. All of us are here to support our soldiers in their fight against terrorism, in their mission in Iraq. Let me say, as an aside as well, that the violence and terrorism in Iraq does have an al-Qaida component; it does. But by far the bulk and the majority of the violence and terrorism in Iraq is Iraqi upon Iraqi, Sunni upon Shia, Shia upon Sunni. There was not an Iraq connection with al-Qaida prior to the war in Iraq. Having said all of that, with respect to the broader war on terror, when we open the newspaper this morning and we see the front page of the Washington Post--and I suspect every other daily paper in this country--and we see the pictures of terrorists who will now be transferred to Guantanamo and be brought to justice, all of us say to the President it is the right thing to do. We support that. Yes, this is progress. We understand that progress and we salute it. My colleague and I believe there is more to do, however. When we talk about the war against terrorism and we talk about al-Qaida and those who have orchestrated the vicious terrorist attacks that have murdered so many innocent people in this country and around the world, the point is there is one person who is the head of that organization, who has admitted ordering the attacks against this country. That is Osama bin Laden. It is 5 long years since 9/11, 2001, and Osama bin Laden is still here. The President, day before yesterday, mentioned Osama bin Laden 17 times in his speech of 45 minutes. That is appropriate to do, although I might observe Osama bin Laden has not been mentioned at all with respect to the war on terror by anyone in the Administration for some long while until a couple of days ago. But I want to describe why I think there is an urgency here and why my colleague, Senator Conrad, and I put together an amendment and are offering it to this bill. I have a record here going back to December 13, 2001--it is about eight pages of Osama bin Laden talking to us, in America, talking to people in the rest of the world, and talking to al-Qaida, his organization. It is December 13, 2001; November 2, 2002; February 11, 2003; February 13, 2003; April 7, 2003; September 10, 2003. I shall not go through the rest of it. But I want to talk about this year. Just this year we have heard from Osama bin Laden on 5 occasions. This chart shows January 19 this year. This is from the news report that evening, Osama bin Laden speaking to the people of the United States and the people of the world. That is the first message this year. Here is the second message, Osama bin Laden speaks again, the head of al-Qaida, 5 years after 9/11. On April 23, he issues his second tape of the year. May 23, this year, once again the news reports: Bin Laden boasts of masterminding the 9/11 attacks. I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers. Those 19 who attacked this country. June 29 of this year, another news report, the fourth tape of the year by Osama bin Laden. July 1, this year, the fifth tape of the year by Osama bin Laden. We are talking a lot about the war on terrorism. We are talking a lot about al-Qaida. This is the head of al-Qaida. This is the leader of that terrorist group. This is the person who says he masterminded the attack against this country, and 5 years after that attack he is still sending us messages--five of them in this year alone. My colleague and I do not question anyone's commitment to doing the right thing. That is not the purpose of our amendment. My colleague, Senator Conrad, and I believe, however, that it is important as we put together a piece of legislation providing funding for the Department of Defense, for the war against terrorism, that we decide on focus and priority with respect to one issue and that is bringing to justice the head of an organization that attacked this country and is determined to attack this country again. The amendment we have offered is not a particularly complex amendment. It simply does two things. It asks that the unit in the CIA, our intelligence community, that used to exist but was closed be reconstituted. Let me describe that unit. I will describe it by a New York Times, July 4, story. The lead of the story is: The Central Intelligence Agency has closed the unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed on Monday. Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the official said, it reflected a belief the agency could better deal with high level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals. Let me quote the former senior CIA official who is quoted by name, Mr. Michael Scheuer, a former senior CIA official, who was the first head of this unit at the CIA. He said the move ``reflected a view within the agency that Mr. Bin Laden was no longer the threat he once was.'' Mr. Scheuer says, ``That view is mistaken.'' Madam President, our amendment would provide the funds to reconstitute that unit, to provide focus, clarity and a specific set of goals. And, second, to require a quarterly classified report to the Congress that would describe, from the standpoint of those in the intelligence community and the defense community who are involved, what they have done with respect to apprehending and bringing to justice those who head the organization called al-Qaida. My hope and expectation would be that upon passage of this amendment my colleague and I will have provided some more clarity and some more focus and even perhaps some more determination that a significant goal of ours is the apprehension of the head of the organization that attacked our country. I do not think that apprehension will occur by accident. I think it will occur if it is in fact a significant goal and one that we pursue with the resources and the vigor that is necessary. I understand that there will be some who say that we have other priorities; this remains a priority but there are many other things to do. Let me go back to the position that I started with and that is this. We live in a very dangerous world, a very uncertain world. The President is dead right when he talks about the war on terrorism being a war in which we must prevail. He is absolutely right that we have to work together and have to be as one as we confront this evil that exists around the world. But I also want to point out that we live in a world, now, where, as I indicated before, there are almost 30,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons that exist in this world. Going back to October 11 of 2001, the threatened loss of one of those nuclear weapons, because of a rumor that it had been stolen from the Russian stockpile, caused an apoplectic seizure in parts of the government because everyone, at that point, in the intelligence community, who had heard of this rumor, knew it was plausible and that the detonation of a nuclear weapon in a major American city by al-Qaida would be devastating. The consequences of that are impossible to describe. The next terrorist act may render the attack of 9/11/2001, a much less significant attack in terms of casualties. Let's hope that is not the case. That is why it is so urgent for us to determine that we are going to apprehend and bring to justice those who head the al-Qaida organization and who masterminded the attack against this country on 9/11/2001. That is what our amendment seeks to do, to provide the resources and the assistance to make that possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there are areas of classified information that are not discussed in the Senate. Senator Conrad has just described that we both have had access to that information. It is the information to which my colleagues allude. There is nothing--I repeat, nothing-- that we are doing here that does anything to injure anything else that was being done anywhere, at any time. There is nothing here that does injury to anything I know about. Frankly, it is far too easy to jump up from a chair in the Senate and allege that the amendment you do not like is somehow borne of politics. Yes, there is a barrel full of politics around these days, a barrel full of politics in this Chamber and downtown. We know it when we see it. But I think it ill serves this discussion to talk about irresponsibility, to talk about politics on the issue of what the role of this country is, the determination and the resolve of this country, to decide to provide more focus, more clarity, and more energy to apprehending the head of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, the person who masterminded the attack against this country. Again, there is never a circumstance where anyone would find myself or my colleague, Senator Conrad, coming to the Senate to do injury to anything else we are doing in this country together. I indicated when I started that I don't think the fight against terrorism is about Democrats or Republicans. It is certainly not about politics, or shouldn't be. However, it is almost unbelievable to me that this amendment is described as ``political season'' campaign period-motivated and, even more, a slam at our national security. Nothing could be further from the truth than that. This is not slamming anyone. This is trying to provide additional resources, additional focus, additional energy toward a goal that I hope every single American shares. In fact, I bet we would be hard pressed to find an American citizen who says this is not a worthy goal for our country. My colleague has said that there has been a continuing, unwavering effort to apprehend the top of the terrorist groups, including the leaders of al-Qaida. Let me read, from 2002, the President's response when asked about Osama bin Laden: I don't know where he is. I know I just don't spend much time on him, to be honest. I am not truly that concerned about him. I know he's on the run. The fact is, there have been times when we have been diverted to other areas. Does anyone here believe Iraq has not detracted substantially from what is happening in Afghanistan? Does anyone here believe that? Most of us have been over those mountains. I have flown over those mountains and looked down at the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is where most believe Osama bin Laden is hiding, among supporters. I understand how difficult it is to apprehend someone hiding in that region. I don't diminish the difficulty and the complexity of accomplishing that mission. My colleague and I offered an amendment which is relatively simple which tries to provide more focus and more clarity on the goal, which tries to provide resources. These resources are not dramatic or substantial resources relative to the amount of money we have been spending, for example, in Iraq. A Member brings an amendment to the floor and someone says: This is political, this is campaign season. That is too easy. I don't think that treats serious issues seriously enough. This is an issue which is serious. It is an issue that deserves attention by this Congress, deserves a statement by this Congress, which I expect we will make unanimously, I hope we will make unanimously. It is a statement that almost every American, I believe, would say they agree with, a statement that says to the American people: Here is a priority, a very substantial priority for which we will dedicate the resources and rededicate ourselves to address these issues. My understanding is the Senator from Alaska will seek a quorum call, which is just fine.

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator is correct.

Mr. DORGAN. I think the Senator puts in perspective the amount of money that is being described. Let me finally say that I noticed yesterday--I was not in the Senate, but I had the television on--noticed the same issue developing yesterday on an amendment my colleague offered. There was a suggestion that this is all political, all politics, every time someone offers an amendment that someone disagrees with. That is total nonsense. This issue deserves much more serious treatment and much more serious debate than that. I am pleased that apparently there will be a unanimous vote. I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of time.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.

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

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me read one additional piece I did not describe in my earlier presentation. Let me read from the State Department's latest report on terrorism because I think it is important for all of us to understand. This is, again, from the U.S. State Department's latest report on terrorism: Al-Qaida's top leaders continue to plot and direct terror attacks worldwide. . . . Over the past four years, al-Qaida, its affiliates and those inspired by the group were also involved in many anti-U.S. or anti-coalition attacks in Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, including suicide bombings and vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices. Again, the first sentence: Al-Qaida's top leaders continue to plot and direct terror attacks worldwide. . . . ``Direct terror attacks worldwide''--it is why I think there is no more important goal for this country than to add additional resources, provide additional focus to this question of bringing to justice the head of the organization that has attacked this country and that now organizes and expands and continues to attack around the rest of the world. I previously described that just in this year alone we have been the recipients of five messages from Osama bin Laden--five just this year. It has been dozens since 2001. I think all of us share a goal and the view that we need to apprehend and bring to justice those who head the organization that attacked this country. Fighting terrorism is difficult and dangerous and complex. We understand all that. All of us salute our troops. All of us want to work together. As I have indicated, this is not about Republicans and Democrats. It is about Americans sharing and aspiring to achieve a goal. And that goal is to defeat terrorism. I think the most effective and important way to defeat terrorism, however, is to try to dismantle the organization, and especially dismantle the organization by apprehending the head of that organization and bringing the head and top officials of that organization to justice. That has not been done, and we are not blaming anybody. I join my colleague, Senator Conrad, in saluting those in our intelligence service and our military who risk their lives every day. But I believe it is very important for us, as we put together a piece of legislation with substantial resources, to provide greater clarity and focus on this goal. That is why Senator Conrad and I have written this amendment and offer it today. I understand there are some who do not want it offered, do not want to have this discussion. I respectfully believe they are wrong. I do not allege that they have political motives. I just believe they are wrong. My hope is, when the Senate speaks to this, it will have accomplished something that is productive and substantial in its comments on this issue. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robin Tibaduiza, a legislative fellow, be allowed floor privileges during the National Defense Appropriations Act on behalf of Senator Harry Reid.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I know that the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and particularly this subcommittee are anxious to move this piece of legislation. I thank them for their work. This is perhaps one of the more difficult pieces of legislation to put together from the appropriations side. It spends an enormous amount of money at a time when we are engaged in wartime activities. There are many accounts that are in urgent necessity of being replenished and restored. Let me say to the chairman and to the ranking member, I think they have done an excellent job with a very difficult piece of legislation. I appreciate their work, and I am privileged to serve on that subcommittee with them and understand the importance this bill will have for the U.S. military at a time when men and women are risking their lives because their country has asked them to do that. I do want to make a point, however, today, as we pass an appropriations bill, and I will make the point understanding that the chairman and ranking member will recognize that this is not about how much money we appropriate but, rather, about how the money is used. I accept that in most cases that is a function of authorizing committees--oversight requirements of authorizing committees--rather than the Appropriations Committee. But I do want to make the point now because we have spent a great deal of money, and will again spend a lot of money--most of it emergency funding outside of this particular bill--dealing with issues in Iraq and Afghanistan, when all around us we are seeing that a fair portion of that money is attached to allegations of misuse and waste and, in some cases, fraud. I think all of us, especially those of us on the Appropriations Committee, wish very much to make certain that what we appropriate is used to support our troops, to improve the security of this country, is used wisely and prudently in support of the things that Congress has authorized. I want to go through some things because I think it is important for all of us in Congress to understand the allegations of waste that have attended some of this spending. And it is important for all of us on the appropriations and authorizing committees to try to figure out: How on Earth do we deal with this? What do we do to put a stop to--not allegations--the waste of taxpayers' funding? There are so many examples it is hard to know where to start. But because there have been so few oversight hearings on the bulk of these issues, I think it is important to describe what we are hearing. Taxpayers in this country have been asked to provide taxpayer funding through appropriations, and here are some of the examples: contracts that are signed, sole-source, no-bid contracts that extend for some long while. And because they are sole-source, no-bid contracts, and they are cost-plus, the taxpayer has been fleeced. These are stories not from someone who alleges to have seen something, these stories are from people who worked for the contractors, whistleblowers: $85,000 trucks, brandnew $85,000 trucks abandoned beside the road to be torched because they had a flat tire; $85,000 trucks abandoned to be torched because they had a plugged fuel pump; a case of Coca-Cola, $45--that is the charge to the American taxpayer--two plates of breakfast, $28 a plate; feed 42,000 soldiers a day--and it turns out they were feeding only 14,000 soldiers a day; they missed it by 28,000 in the charges they made to the U.S. Government--leasing SUVs, $7,500 a month. Hand towels, providing hand towels for our troops, the buyer who was asked to buy the additional hand towels for our troops in the war theater said: Here are the hand towels I was going to purchase. And here are the hand towels I was asked to purchase. And the hand towels I was asked to purchase by my supervisor included the embroidered name of my company, which doubled the price of the hand towels. So when I complained about that, the answer was: It doesn't matter. This is cost-plus. We are the only contractor. The taxpayer will pay the bill. Cost doesn't matter. The list is endless and goes on and on and on. Food service to the troops: A man named Rory, who actually worked in the food service kitchens, in Iraq, of the contractor--an employee of the contractor-- said: We routinely got food that was stamped ``expired,'' date-stamped ``expired.'' He said: Our supervisors said it doesn't matter. Feed it to the troops. It doesn't matter. Just feed it to the troops. He said: We were repeatedly told by our supervisors, don't you dare speak to a Government investigator or a Government auditor. If they show up and you talk to them, you are going to be fired. If they show up and you talk to them, and you are not fired, you are going to be sent to the most hostile area we can find to send you. The fellow named Rory, who showed up and spoke about this, who was an employee and described all of this, in fact, did speak to Government investigators about what he saw happening to the American taxpayer, and he was sent to Fallujah during the hostilities. That is what happened to him. More recently, we have a whistleblower, or several of them, who have come forward to say: We are spending money for a contractor to provide water to our troops at all of the bases in Iraq. That is the money we are spending to provide water to our troops. I want to show you some memoranda and some discussions back and forth about what has happened to that spending. This is an internal report written by Will Granger, who works for the company that has the contract to provide water to all the U.S. bases in Iraq. Will Granger is the top employee for Halliburton on the ground in Iraq. Here is what Will Granger said in his report: No disinfection to non-potable water was occurring at Camp Ar-Ramadi for water designated for showering purposes. Incidentally, this is water that the troops use to brush their teeth and wash their face and shower. This caused an unknown population to be exposed to potentially harmful water for an undetermined amount of time. The whistleblowers came forward who were also involved in the delivery of this water. And they said: By the way, the nonpotable water--that is water you do not drink, but water you brush your teeth with and take showers with, and so on--the nonpotable water was more degraded, more contaminated than if they would have taken raw water from the Euphrates. This is from the whistleblowers. Now, when this became known, the internal report that we had from Mr. Will Granger--again, from the same company--said: The deficiencies of the camp where the event occurred is not exclusive to that camp; meaning that country wide, all camps suffered to some extent from all or some of the deficiencies noted. Now, while all this going on, the company, Halliburton, said: None of this happened. You are wrong. None of this happened. My point is, the discussion of this came from employees of the company itself and from an internal memorandum that was leaked, an internal memorandum written by the top official on the ground in Iraq in charge of water. Will Granger, the man I am speaking of, the man in charge, while his company in Houston was saying publicly, and said it repeatedly, that none of this happened, none of this happened, Mr. Ganger's report said this: This event should be considered a ``near miss'' as the consequences of these actions could have been VERY SEVERE resulting in mass sickness or death. We are spending money on these contracts. Then we have whistleblowers come forward to say there is a waste of money--tragic waste of money. Then we have whistleblowers come forward to say that the companies that are getting these contracts--in this case for water--are not treating the nonpotable water properly, which is a danger to the troops. And the company says: Not true. Just not true. Then we discover the internal memorandum that the company received from that company's person on the ground in Iraq, and the guy says: The consequence . . . could have been VERY SEVERE resulting in mass sickness or death. Shortly after this, by the way, a young woman who is serving in Iraq, an Army physician, wrote me an e-mail, and she said: I have read about this sort of thing. I want you to know it has happened in my camp. And I had my assistant go track the water line to see what kind of water they were bringing into the base that is called nonpotable water, and it, too, was contaminated, and it, too, is of degraded quality and more contaminated than raw water, the raw water you would get from the Euphrates River. So the question is: What are we getting? What are we getting for the money we are spending? Where is the accountability? Now, some of these have been Halliburton. And I know the minute you talk about Halliburton, somebody says: Ah, that is a political attack on the Vice President. The Vice President is not at Halliburton. This is not about the Vice President at all. He used to work for that company, but this is not about him. It is about a company that received large no-bid contracts, sole-source contracts, and the allegations are almost unbelievable about what has happened. Now, there are others. Some of them are with a RIO contract, Restore Iraq Oil contract, others with a LOGCAP contract. But let me give you some other examples: Custer-Battles--two guys show up in Iraq, one named Custer, one named Battles, and they decide: We want to get in on some of this. We want to get in on some of this activity. Before that ended, Custer and Battles had received over $100 million in contracts from our Government. Among the contracts was one to provide security at the Baghdad Airport. There were no flights going in and out of the Baghdad Airport, so presumably they did a pretty good job of that, except they took the forklift trucks that existed at that airport, put them in a shed someplace and repainted them blue, and then sold them back to the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was us. That is an interesting way to do business. And, by the way, here is a picture of $2 million wrapped in Saran Wrap. I know this fellow. This fellow showed up here in Washington, DC. This picture was taken in Iraq in a building. He was the guy holding a portion of this money. He said: Our message in Iraq was, Bring a bag; we pay in cash. If you are a contractor, bring a sack; we pay in cash. This is $2 million, 100-dollar bills wrapped in Saran Wrap. They used them to play football in the office, throwing bricks of 100-dollar bills around. It was like the Wild West, he said. This particular $2 million went to Custer Battles, a company that showed up with no experience, took forklift trucks from the airport, repainted them, sold them back to the American taxpayer, called the Coalition Provisional Authority. The CPA is us, the Coalition Provisional Authority. That was created by Donald Rumsfeld. He signed the creation of the CPA. It was us. So Custer Battles gets a contract for airport security. Here is the Baghdad airport director of security talking about Custer Battles. He wrote it to the CPA. Custer Battles have shown themselves to be unresponsive, uncooperative, incompetent, deceitful, manipulative, and war profiteers. Other than that they are swell fellows. Something else that happened with this contract. They were supposed to provide trucks. The problem is, they supplied trucks and the trucks didn't work. Couldn't get them started. They didn't run. The Custer Battles company said: We just said we would supply trucks. We didn't guarantee they were going to run. They didn't have to be operational. My point is this, this goes on day after day, month after month. It is not the fault of the appropriators. It has nothing to do with the appropriators. It is about accountability. And in most cases, that would come from authorizing committees and from a Congress that would say: Wait a second. When we hear about nonpotable water that is more contaminated than raw water from the Euphrates River, a Congress would say, wait a second; you can't do that to American troops, and begin an immediate investigation. Yet you see very little activity to look into these issues. On behalf of the taxpayers and on behalf of those of us who are appropriators, including the chairman and ranking member and the entire committee, I think all of us, the Congress, the Department of Defense, all of us need to expect more accountability and soon. We are spending an enormous amount of money. I have mentioned previously that in the early 1940s, Harry Truman believed there was substantial waste. He put together the Truman committee, formed by Congress, a bipartisan committee. I am sure there was a great deal of teeth gnashing down at the White House because the President was of his own party. But the Congress, with that bipartisan committee, rooted out a great deal of waste, fraud, and abuse through the Truman committee. I have tried previously on three occasions to pass such legislation here in the Senate. I have not been successful. I think it is time--and I only take the time to speak as we appropriate money--for all of us to expect more from those committees with the responsibility to hold accountable those who spend this money. I have seen precious little energy and far too little activity to respond to these issues. I have talked about food and water to troops. There are many other issues. I will not go through them all today. The issues are sufficient that we need to take a hard look at what is happening. Last Friday I met with a doctor from Iraq. He wanted to go look at the 142 health clinics that were to be restored and rehabilitated and created in Iraq, 142 health clinics with the money we appropriated in the U.S. Congress. This Iraq physician went to the health minister of Iraq and said: I would like to track the money and see what is happening with these 142 clinics. The health minister said: No, you don't understand. Many of these clinics are imaginary. I said: Are you sure? You are sure that is what he said. Oh yes, I am sure. Many of these are imaginary clinics. They don't exist. It turns out 20 clinics were rehabilitated or created of the 142 that were supposed to have been rehabilitated or created. Only 20 were done and all the money is gone. Why? How? Who cares? Does somebody care? That is the question for this Congress. I don't mean in any way to suggest that my colleagues, the chairman and ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, bear responsibility for this. That is not the case. It is the case, however, that we need to be much more aggressive on other committees with oversight responsibility. Oversight is a significant legislative responsibility. It has gone unfulfilled in this Congress and a couple of Congresses preceding it. I have an amendment that I noticed. I understand that the amendment itself is not germane on an appropriations bill. A point of order would lie against it. I would expect my colleagues would insist on a point of order. But the amendment would punish war profiteers, crack down on contract cheaters, and force real contract competition so that we finally can do what we should for the American taxpayer and bring down these costs. I had filed it as No. 4805. I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending amendment in order to have 4805 considered.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I use this opportunity when we appropriate money to make the point. It is not the responsibility or the burden of a couple people who have put together a good appropriations bill to bear the responsibility for a lack of oversight that exists and the lack of oversight that exists in the entire Congress. I only raise this because I think it is critically important that all of us understand. There is far too much waste and fraud and abuse in some of these contracts. I recognize that wartime is different. There are times during wartime when you do things you might not otherwise do. You might not be quite as efficient or effective. Some money may be wasted. But this seems like hogs in a trough when you see what is going on. We are spending so many billions. We added $18.2 billion for reconstruction in Iraq, and the grunting and shoving and moaning of hogs at the trough trying to find some of that money. I mentioned Custer Battles. Two guys would show up with hardly a taxi fare, get $100 million in contracts, and now we discover the American taxpayer has been fleeced for much of that. The water isn't going to clear up until you get the hogs out of the creek. We need to find a way to address these issues, most especially those raised with food and water to troops. Let me say to Senators Stevens and Inouye, I want to work with them. I know they want the same result I want with respect to these issues. That is the only reason I raise this today. This burden also falls on some authorization committees and others that really need to do a much better job with respect to oversight. My hope remains that at some point we will be able to pass my amendment--I expect to offer it again, and I think that will be the fourth time--to create a Truman-type committee that sinks its teeth into these issues and says: We will not put up with this. We won't put up with waste, fraud, and abuse. I will be back again. I thank my colleagues for their forbearance as I discuss these things and know that they share with me an interest in trying to deal with them in an effective way on behalf of our troops and on behalf of America's taxpayers. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me then work with my colleagues, Senators Stevens and Inouye, and see if I can find a way to write this approach in a way that does not have a point of order lying against it and in a way that begins some kind of inquiry. I very much appreciate the cooperation and interest. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield for a unanimous consent request, my colleague from Maine and I wish to speak in 15- minute increments, taking the time from each side in the debate. I ask unanimous consent to follow my colleague from Maine.

Mr. DORGAN. I yield myself 15 minutes from the time on our side.

Mr. DORGAN. I thank my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, who has spoken at some length about the piece of legislation we have offered dealing with prescription drugs and the price of prescription drugs in this country. Thirty-two Senators have cosponsored a piece of legislation. It is a bipartisan group, including Senator Snowe, myself, Senator Kennedy, Senator McCain, Senator Grassley and Senator Stabenow. A wide range of Senators have cosponsored a piece of carefully crafted legislation that allows the American people to import FDA-approved prescription drugs that are, in almost all cases, sold for a much lower price in other countries. I will not go over all of the issues that have been raised by my colleague, Senator Snowe, because she has done an excellent job of laying out the issue. The issue, very simply, is this: The pharmaceutical industry prices FDA-approved prescription drugs in this country with the highest prices in the world. The American consumer is required to pay the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world. That is unfair. This chart shows United States versus Canada. But the chart could show the United States versus Italy, the United States versus Germany, the United States versus Spain, and it would show the same result. I ask unanimous consent to show in the Senate two bottles of Lipitor.