Department Of Interior, Environment, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (Senate - June 29, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 1025
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, by previous order, we move to the Dorgan amendment No. 1025.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order to consider amendment numbered 1025.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me describe the amendment. This amendment is very simple. It does not require an elaborate explanation. It provides additional resources, desperately needed resources to particularly the Indian Health Service.
We have had a lot of discussion in the Senate in the last several years about the Indian Health Service. We have a responsibility for the health of Indians under trust responsibilities to the Federal Government. The Federal Government also has a responsibility for health care for Federal prisoners. It is interesting to note that the Federal Government spends almost twice as much per person for health care for Federal prisoners as it does to meet its trust responsibility per person for American Indians.
If you travel to Indian reservations in this country, there is a bona fide crisis in health care on reservations and in other areas as well. Go to a reservation, and you will find a dentist practicing out of a trailer house, a small trailer, for 5,000 people. That is the dentistry. Go to a reservation and find half a dozen kids have committed suicide recently. You will discover there is virtually no mental health treatment available for those kids who end up taking their lives.
There is such a desperate need to satisfy the obligation here for health care for American Indians. We are so short of funding, it is unbelievable. This amendment adds $1 billion to funding particularly for Indian Health Service but also to the BIA to provide the other services that are necessary on the reservations.
I have indicated we have a bona fide crisis in health care, housing, and education on Indian reservations. Let me tell a story I have told previously about a young girl named Tamara Demaris. Tamara was a 3-year-old. I read about Tamra in a newspaper. I met with her and her granddad. She was 3 years old and placed in foster care by a person who was handling welfare cases and so on. The woman who was handling the case was handling 150 cases. So this was a case of a 3-year-old child who was put in a foster care situation. But the person did not check out the home to which she was assigning the 3-year-old child. She was working on 150 cases. So Tamara Demaris goes to this home. There is in this home a drunken brawl and party. The aftermath of that drunken brawl and party was this 3-year-old girl named Tamara had a broken nose, a broken arm, and her hair pulled out at the roots.
This is a 3-year-old child. That was our responsibility. We did not provide sufficient funds for available resources to check the foster home in which they would put this little kid. The result is this little kid is scarred for life.
I helped fix it on that particular reservation so that will not happen now. But why did it happen? They do not have the resources. One person handles 150 cases? That is unbelievable. A child gets injured, badly. It is going on all across this country on Indian reservations.
Again, I have told my colleagues about a hearing I held in which a young woman who had just assumed the job on an Indian reservation--this was for child welfare--said on the floor of her office was a stack of folders with allegations of child abuse, including sexual abuse of children. She said they have not even been investigated. Those folders sit there without an investigation because they do not have the resources.
She broke down at the hearing and began to sob, began to cry. She said: I have to beg and borrow to try to get a car to take a kid to a clinic or take a kid to see a psychologist or get mental health treatment. I don't have a vehicle, let alone the money to investigate the cases in the files on the floor.
I could go on at great length about diabetes, about all of the issues faced on these reservations.
My late colleague, Mickey Leland, with whom I traveled to many areas of the world, was a great humanitarian. He died when his plane crashed into a mountain in Ethiopia. He was a Congressman who worked with me and others on hunger issues. Mickey Leland came to the three affiliated tribes in North Dakota to hold a hearing.
This is what we discovered that day in the testimony about diabetes. They do not have double, triple or quadruple the rate of diabetes of the rest of the population; theirs was 10, 12 times the rate of the rest of the population. It is a devastating situation on Indian reservations. It means people are losing their legs, losing their good health, losing their lives, sitting through dialysis in a crowded room.
We have so many challenges to meet, and we are so far from meeting them with the necessary resources. These are the first Americans. I am talking about American Indians. They are the ones who greeted Christopher Columbus. These books that say Columbus discovered America--I am sorry, he was greeted by the American Indians, the first Americans. Yet we are not meeting our trust responsibility.
I suggest now is the time simply to take the step and say, if we care about health care, if we care about funding for these needs on Indian reservations in this country, let's do it. We have Third World conditions in some of these areas. Sarah Swift talked about a grandmother who goes to bed, lies down on a cot, and freezes to death. She freezes to death in this country. This was a Native-American grandmother, an American-Indian grandmother who at 35 below zero in the middle of the winter was living in a house that had only plastic sheeting on the window. She froze to death. One would think, if you read in the paper, it was a Third World country. No, that wasn't. That was South Dakota. We have to do better. That is the purpose of my amendment.
This amendment is paid for with $1 billion we take from the Federal Reserve surplus funding. Most of my colleagues--perhaps none of my colleagues know--in the Federal Reserve Board, there is an $11 billion--yes, I said it right--an $11 billion surplus fund. I call it the rainy-day fund. They should not have it, first of all. The Federal Reserve Board was created in the nineteen teens. We have a rainy-day fund so that if they run out of money, they have some money--$11 billion. How do you run out of money when you actually create money, for God's sake? The Federal Reserve Board does not need $11 billion.
Senator Reid and I had the GAO do an investigation of this back in the 1990s. That was at a time when they had $4 billion to $5 billion. Now they have $11 billion squirreled away. I say take less than one-tenth of that and invest it in the health of America's first citizens, citizens who now all too often are living in Third World conditions.
I will not describe at greater length the health challenges. I have done it before in speeches in the Senate. I want one person to tell me it does not matter that a young kid is lying in bed today on an Indian reservation thinking of committing suicide, and tomorrow or the next day they may find that young child hanging from the closet as they found Avis Littlewind hanging from her closet after missing 90 days of school. Her sister, by the way, committed suicide 2 years before. The mental health services on that reservation did not exist to help these kids.
The question is, Do we want to help these kids? Do we want to meet our responsibility? Do we want to keep our promise and tell people this matters? It does to me.
My hope is, with this amendment, my colleagues will finally decide to do what is right and do what is necessary to invest in the things in which we need to invest to say to the Native Americans: Your health matters, too. Your education matters, too. Housing matters for you as well. That is our obligation.
I recognize I have to make a motion to waive the applicable sections of the Budget Act. The reason is because people with very small glasses and very narrow breadth of thought have decided that $11 billion sitting in a squirreled-away bank account as a rainy-day fund for the Federal Reserve Board, a board full of people wearing gray suits, living in a concrete building, squirreling away $11 billion--there are some people with these tiny glasses who decided this $1 billion cannot be used for this because it would violate the Budget Act.
I might observe, however, that on previous occasions in the Senate other Members of the Senate have found a way to use a portion of this in the normal process. So I suggest perhaps there is not a greater need than doing what we should do for the children I have just described and for those who are suffering, those who are living in poverty, those who through no fault of their own are having a tough time. This would be a great way to reach out our hand and say to them: You are not alone. Let us help you up and out of this situation. Let us help improve your lives.
When my colleague rises, I am sure in aggressive support of my amendment, I will ask for a proper waiver of the Congressional Budget Act.
I ask unanimous consent Senators Bingaman and Johnson be added as cosponsors of my amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 1059
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is the next order of business would be my amendment numbered 1059, and there is 10 minutes per side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask to claim as much time as I may consume from the 10 minutes. Perhaps we can move through this rather quickly.
This relates to an issue I have already spoken to the Senate about on two occasions. It relates to a soldier named Carlos Lazo. Carlos Lazo escaped Cuba on a raft. He tried to escape once and was caught and put in prison in Cuba. The second time he escaped on a raft, he got to this country. His wife and children were not able to get out of Cuba. After he got to this country, he subsequently joined the National Guard, and went to Iraq on behalf of this country to fight in Iraq. Sergeant Lazo received the Bronze Star for from his country for courage and bravery in fighting in Iraq. He is now back in the U.S. from his service in Iraq.
He has a son who has been quite ill in Cuba, so he wanted to go see his sick son in Cuba. His Government, the U.S. Government, the Government that he served by going to fight for freedom in Iraq, said: No, you are not free to travel to Cuba to see your son. Why is that the case? Because the President of the United States has created a new regulation, and the regulation says you can only travel to Cuba once every 3 years.
So this soldier, the soldier that wins the Bronze Star fighting for this country in Iraq, is told he can't go to see his sick son because he does not have the freedom to do that. He visited me and asked me about it. I called Condoleezza Rice. She didn't call back, Bob Zoellick her deputy did. I called the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Snow. He did not call back. One of his underlings did. I called Karl Rove at the White House. He called back, and later the Chief of Staff's office called me and said that relative to Karl Rove's call, Bob Zoellick in the State Department would handle it. And I have not heard back from him. We talked once. He said he would call back, and I have not had the call.
The question is this, Is there a humanitarian relief exception to the travel ban for someone with a sick kid in Cuba, for a soldier to go see his sick kid? The answer, according to the head of the Office of Foreign Assets Control at Treasury, which runs this is, no, there is no humanitarian relief. He said: We get calls from people who say my mother is going to die in a few days, and we can't give them the opportunity to go to Cuba to see them if they have traveled once before in the 3-year period.
He said: I understand what you are saying, Mr. Senator, but we turn them all down because we must.
I said: But you created the regulation. What on Earth are you thinking about?
This soldier's story--and I have told the story about the woman that distributed free Bibles in Cuba, who gets fined by her Government, the U.S. Government, for doing it--this soldier's story begs out and screams for attention by this Congress. So I have offered an amendment that will provide for humanitarian circumstances under which Americans can travel to Cuba to visit or care for a member of the person's family who is seriously ill, injured, or dying; make funeral or burial arrangements for a member of the individual's family.
I am just wondering who in this Chamber is going to stand up for this soldier and this soldier's right. It is not just him, it is the others who are applying who say their mother or father or child is dying and now they are now being turned down by the Federal Government because there is no humanitarian exception.
This is unforgivable. There ought to be a humanitarian exception. I hope my colleagues will stand up for this soldier's rights. He fought for freedom in Iraq and now doesn't have the freedom to see his sick son? What can we be thinking about? Why do I need to go further?
I have spoken about this issue previously, but Sergeant Lazo obviously comes to us because he has a selfish interest. It is in seeing his sick son. That is a pretty good selfish interest as far as I am concerned. Others have come to me. Joan Slote, who is in her midseventies, took a bicycle trip in Cuba and got fined by her Government. It is unbelievable what is going on.
I come to the Senate today only because I am persuaded from last week's visit with Sergeant Lazo that this ought to stop. This Congress ought to have the courage to stand up and do what is right. If we don't have the courage to do this, we don't have the courage to object to anything the White House does. This came from the White House. This is all about politics. This rule that says Americans visit their family in Cuba only once in three years is all about Florida politics. Everybody in this Chamber knows it.
This amendment does not overturn the travel rule with Cuba. I happen to think people ought to be able to travel to Cuba. I know Fidel Castro pokes his finger in America's eye. The quicker we get rid of that Government, the better. But the fact is, we will do that, it seems to me, by allowing trade and allowing travel, just as we do with Communist China and Communist Vietnam. But that is not the way this country deals with Cuba because of Florida politics. We have decided that Sergeant Lazo shall not be allowed to go see his sick child.
The question is, Will the Senate, will the men and women in the Senate, have the courage and the good sense to cast the right vote and say to Sergeant Lazo and others, If you have a member of your family who is seriously ill, injured, or dying, you have a right to go see them? We will give you the license to do that.
We have had vote after vote on these issues. The question today is will we have enough Senators to decide to use a little common sense? If you care about families--a lot of people are talking about profamily these days--if you care about family, if you are profamily, cast the right vote. Cast the right vote on this amendment.
My understanding is the Senator from Montana will have some time, as well.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it will be unbelievable to me if the Senate buys this line that somehow waiving the rules creates chaos in the Senate. That must be confusing appealing the ruling of the Chair with waiving the rules. Waiving the rules does not create any chaos. It simply says in this circumstance, with this set of facts, this Senate says that soldier, who fought in Iraq and won a Bronze Star, ought to have the right to see his sick kid. If this Senate cannot find that common sense, then there is something wrong, something dreadfully wrong.
So we are told: Well, why don't you have the kids come to the United States. Did you forget the word ``sick''? We have a sick kid here, among other things. But this is not about common sense; it is about politics. It is about Florida politics. That is why a new regulation went into effect that replaced the old one. And, by the way, the old regulation did have a humanitarian exception. It did have a circumstance where this soldier would have been able to go to Cuba to see his sick son.
But when the President made it a new rule, a new regulation--only one visit every 3 years--they eliminated all exemptions. It does not matter. Your mother is dying on Saturday? Tough luck. A real ``profamily'' stand, as far as I am concerned. It seems to me there ought to be a humanitarian exception.
Look, if I were doing what I wanted here, I would lift the travel limitations completely. I am not doing that. I am providing a humanitarian exemption to say that if a member of your immediate family is seriously ill, injured, or dying, you ought to be able to get a license to go see them 90 miles off the coast of Florida.
So if you want to come to the floor and decide we should not do this, then, please, if you don't mind, call Sergeant Lazo tonight--I will give you his telephone number--and tell him why you don't think he has the freedom to see his sick kid. A guy who put on the uniform and traveled halfway around the world to fight for this country does not have the freedom to go see his sick child. There is something fundamentally bankrupt with that thought process.
If this Senate does not have the backbone to stand up to the White House on this--and, yes, it is the White House; that is who formed the rule, a rule with no exemption at all, no humanitarian exemption--if we do not have the backbone to stand up on this, I probably will not come with another story like this, because if you cannot do it for this soldier, you cannot do it for anybody. But it ought not just be this soldier, it ought to be anybody who has a sick or a dying relative who ought to have the right to go see them 90 miles off the coast of Florida.
This is not rocket science. For all the times that people stand up and talk about being compassionate, caring about the individual, talking about freedom, for all of those occasions they talk about being profamily, let's see it. Let's see it manifested on this vote, at this time. Do not vote against this and say: Oh, it had something to do with suspension, it had something to do with this, that, or the other thing.
This is simple. You cannot misunderstand this vote: Do you believe this guy ought to have the right to see his sick kid or not? Do you believe the American people ought to have the right to travel in circumstances where one of their relatives is sick, injured, or dying? If you do not, then vote against my amendment. But if you believe in some common sense here, then, please, support this amendment. Send the right message.
This does not eliminate the travel ban. It does provide the humanitarian exemption that used to always exist and should exist again.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 1059--MOTION TO SUSPEND
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally divided on the motion of the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, to suspend paragraph 4 of rule XVI to consider his amendment No. 1059.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am not going to belabor the discussion. I think all Members understand what this is. This vote will be on whether we decide to provide a humanitarian relief piece in the legislation that otherwise does not allow a soldier--who went to Iraq to fight for America's freedom in Iraq, won the Bronze Star, and comes back here to have the freedom--to go see a sick child in Cuba. Why? Because there is no humanitarian relief in the regulation that was passed by the President.
I am not going to go on at great length. I have spoken about this three times. It is not just about this soldier but about others. When I called down to the Treasury Department, they said: No, there is no opportunity for this soldier to go see a sick child. In fact, we have people calling here saying, My mother is going to die on Sunday according to the doctor, and we say, Sorry you can't go. That is the regulation. The new regulation says you get one visit in 3 years. If you had that visit, no matter what is happening to your family in Cuba, you can't go. Period. So this young man goes to Iraq, fights for his country, wins the Bronze Star, and doesn't have the freedom to go see his sick child in Cuba. That is wrong, and everybody in this Chamber ought to know it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov