[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 15, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9360-S9366]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10:30
having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2658,
which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2658) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and
for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator
from Michigan for his thorough and thoughtful statement involving many
of the questions that need to be asked and need to be answered. His
recommendation to the Senate and to our country that there be a
thorough investigation, a bipartisan investigation, where these
questions can be answered and the information provided, in my view, is
essential.
We have become more and more confused over the course of the last
several days with regard to the conflicting information provided by the
administration on these and other key questions. We must find a way
with which each of these questions can be clarified and for the
administration to come forth with a clear acknowledgement of the need
for this clarification is essential.
The American people deserve a thorough, complete, open review of each
and every one of these questions. The Intelligence Committee has begun
its work, and I commend the distinguished ranking member for his
efforts and his persistence in bringing it to this point. I think this
has now gone beyond the matter of just intelligence, as the Senator
from Michigan has pointed out with questions and the concerns he raised
in his speech this morning.
We will address these questions both legislatively and rhetorically
over the course of the next several days. But I have very fundamental
questions with regard to the bill itself. Others have raised them.
Why is it that there is not one dime requested for the Iraqi
operation in the Defense appropriations bill? Why is it that there is
not one dime requested for the Defense Department's efforts in the war
on terror? Not one dime. I am just baffled. It is sort of legislative
never-never land for us to be involved in a war that we are already
told by the Secretary of Defense--at least with regard to Iraq and
Afghanistan--is costing this country $5 billion a month, and there is
not $1 requested in this bill for that operation.
How in the world can we be on the Senate floor talking about
something as consequential as this--not only to us but to the world--
and not have a better appreciation of what the costs and implications
and fiscal consequences are? So that, too, will be a matter that I hope
will be the subject of great debate in the Senate Chamber.
We admire the work done by our military. We are grateful for the
extraordinary effort and sacrifice made by the Armed Forces. Many of
our National Guard and Reserve personnel have been in that country now
for over 6 months. The sacrifice and the extraordinary effort they have
made on behalf of their country ought to be commended. But another
question comes to mind as we consider that sacrifice: Why are we doing
it alone? And why is it the administration continues to refuse to
request additional resources, officially, from NATO? Why is it they are
unwilling to ask the United Nations to urge its members to provide
military force and civilian police? Why is that not a part of the
administration position?
We find ourselves in a very unusual set of circumstances. We are
debating the single largest Defense appropriations bill in history but
a bill that does not in any way reflect the cost of our presence and
the effort being made at this very moment in Iraq or in Afghanistan or
the war on terror.
We know it is going to continue to cost this country billions of
dollars each and every month, but we do not know why the administration
refuses to ask others officially for help, especially NATO, and we
certainly do not know the answers to the questions raised by the
distinguished Senator from Michigan just moments ago.
We must have those answers, and I hope during the course of this
debate we can find mechanisms and subscribe to procedures that will
ensure that the American people have all the facts.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do not mean to be disrespectful and
interrupt the distinguished leader, but I wonder if the Democratic
leader knows that I am responsible for not having more money for Iraq
in this bill. We met with the President and the Secretary of Defense
and pointed out the enormous amount of money we had provided in the
supplemental passed earlier this year for that action in Iraq. We had
to have money to meet some of the problems caused by my interpretation
of the budget resolution in not having enough money for some of the
other subcommittees.
We worked out the arrangement whereby we took $3.1 billion out of
this bill and allocated it to other subcommittees with the
understanding that if additional moneys are needed in Iraq because of
our actions there, beyond what we have already provided, that we will
have a supplemental in the spring.
We anticipate the moneys we provided in the massive supplemental,
$62.6 billion, is sufficient to carry them forward. As a matter of
fact, there are not only sufficient funds, but in this bill we actually
rescinded about $3 billion of the supplemental to make it available to
other areas of defense, not having it totally earmarked to Iraq.
We are trying to manage this money. The distinguished Democratic
leader is exactly right. The costs are running somewhere around $4
billion to $5 billion a month. We expect that to start tapering down as
this involvement in Iraq continues. It is certainly not the same as
when we were building up forces and transmitting personnel and material
to Iraq. We have tried to manage this situation and keep a firm hand on
the expenditures in Iraq. In doing so, we made more money available to
other subcommittees because they have problems related to homeland
security and other matters.
While I am honest in the fact that I do not think we have enough
money yet for some of those subcommittees, I do think we have more
money available for nondefense matters, for homeland security matters,
than we would have had had we continued with the approach that was in
the budget to start.
[[Page S9361]]
I congratulate the Democratic leader for stating frankly his feelings
about the overall involvement in terms of our being in Iraq almost
alone. We do have support from other nations, but we do not have the
involvement of other troops to the extent I, too, would like to see
take place. I hope that will occur. But I hope the leader will
understand, one of the reasons the money is not there now, in terms of
asking for more money for Iraq, is that I pleaded with the President
and the Secretary to give us a little running room on those other bills
and to realize that we thought there was adequate money to carry us
through this calendar year--that means at least the first quarter of
this next fiscal year--for the involvement in Iraq.
It is my hope that by the time we get to January and February, we
will find the amount of money we are spending in Iraq is much less than
it is right now, and that we can, in fact, shift gears a little bit as
far as that involvement.
Iraqis should have, I am told, somewhere around $7 billion of income
from oil by the end of this year. If that cashflow starts going into
their economy and into their own local security rather than into the
military budgets, as it was in the past, I think we will achieve the
constraints we need in terms of the expenditures of Federal U.S.
dollars in Iraq. I hope the Senator understands that point.
I just happened to be here at the time the Senator made his
statement. I do, as a matter of fact, take pride in the fact the
President and his people did listen to us. Chairman Young and I
explained the problems of this budget resolution and its impact on the
other subcommittees which, as the Democratic leader knows, the budget
resolution was less than the President had requested in this year's
appropriations process.
I hope we will await the developments in Iraq and we can all see
whether the administration will ask for more money in 2004, starting
some time after the first of next year, if that is necessary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I may respond, as the Senator from
Alaska knows, I am a big admirer of the distinguished Senator from
Alaska, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. There are no two
more able Members of this Senate than the Senator from Alaska and the
Senator from Hawaii, his ranking member.
I appreciate, first, the chairman's explanation, and I also
appreciate the fact that he could foresee the budgetary and
appropriations problems that could have been generated as a result of
the allocation made initially by the administration. We are able to
address some of the other concerns in other subcommittees on
appropriations in part because he saw the problems arise and took
action to avoid them.
I guess I go back to a fundamental question of management, not by him
but of the administration, a fundamental question about what it is they
anticipate will be the costs involving fighting the war in Iraq--not
for this year but for the next fiscal year that this particular
appropriations bill addresses.
It will take $60 billion to address those concerns in the next fiscal
year. We appropriated in the supplemental $68 billion in this fiscal
year. Obviously, that will take us into the first part of the next
fiscal year. The question from us to the administration ought to be:
Why have you not made a specific proposal with regard to the commitment
that will be required in Iraq for the next fiscal year? If it is $60
billion, request it. If it is $60 billion, defend it. If it is $60
billion, give us some appreciation of how it will be spent and why we
are the only ones spending it. Why is it that other countries are not
more engaged? Why have you not asked? Those are the questions that any
appropriations bill ought to address.
I supported the supplemental and most likely, whenever another one is
requested, if it comes, I will support it. But it is not good fiscal
management to take these matters piecemeal, to expect through a
supplemental process--which, I might add, is not offset, which simply
adds to the deficit. We now see a deficit of some $450 billion. If we
take Social Security out, it is $600 billion, and we are still not at
the end of this fiscal year.
We have serious management and budget considerations that have to be
taken into account but are only exacerbated by these supplemental
budgets that are offered, considered, and voted upon throughout the
year.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Amendment No. 1232
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will make a statement while I am trying
to locate the amendment I am going to offer. The 2004 budget request
included no funding for the establishment of additional weapons of mass
destruction civil support teams. There are currently 32 teams that are
certified and operational. The plan is to field a total of 55 teams to
ensure there is at least 1 team established in each State and
territory.
The Senate Armed Services Committee included additional manpower and
funding to establish 12 additional teams in fiscal year 2004. We
included additional National Guard manpower for these teams, but we did
not provide operation and maintenance or procurement funding.
I will send an amendment to the desk and ask that we consider it.
This amendment conforms our bill to that of the Senate-passed national
defense authorization bill regarding what we call CSTSs of the funds
provided to the Department of Defense. This amendment would earmark
$39.3 million in operation and maintenance funds, $25.9 million in
procurement, and $1 million in research and development funds. I
present the amendment as one that is offset and merely allocates funds
to these teams as required by the Senate-passed authorization bill. I
believe it has the support of my colleague Senator Inouye.
Mr. INOUYE. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself and Mr.
Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 1232.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide funds for 12 additional Weapons of Mass
Destruction Civil Support Teams)
On page 120, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8124. Amounts appropriated by this Act may be used for
the establishment and support of 12 additional Weapons of
Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams, as follows:
(1) Of the amount appropriated by title II under the
heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', up to
$23,300,000.
(2) Of the amount appropriated by title II under the
heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard'',
up to $16,000,000.
(3) Of the amount appropriated by title III under the
heading ``Other Procurement, Army'', up to $25,900,000.
(4) Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the
heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Defense-Wide'', up to $1,000,000.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the immediate consideration and adoption of
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1232) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator wish some time?
I say to the Chair, in about 20 minutes we will have a package of
amendments we have cleared and we are prepared to offer under unanimous
consent.
I ask unanimous consent that we have a period for routine morning
business until the hour of 11:15 with Senators being permitted to speak
therein.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have Senators who want to speak on the
bill.
Mr. STEVENS. I am misinformed. I withdraw that request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
[[Page S9362]]
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Appropriations Committee for his forbearance. I thank my colleague,
Senator Reid, for making this arrangement for me to speak out today on
the 2004 Defense appropriations bill as a member of the Senate Armed
Services Committee.
As I begin my remarks today, I am cognizant that a funeral service is
about to begin in Minnesota. It is the funeral of the first Minnesota
soldier to die in Iraq this year, PFC Edward J. Herrgott of Shakopee,
MN. Private Herrgott was only 20 years old. He said he joined the Army
so he could earn some money to go to school and become a police
officer. He was patrolling in front of the Baghdad Museum on September
3 when a sniper's bullet ended his life.
Private Herrgott is an American hero. He stood guard in 115-degree
heat, in the most dangerous city in the world, because his commanding
officer assigned him that duty. He went to Iraq because his Commander
in Chief, the President of the United States, assigned him that duty.
It took extraordinary courage and patriotism for him to perform that
duty, to stand guard in that sweltering heat in the midst of that ever-
present danger. Private Herrgott lost his life performing his duty. He
lost his life 63 days after his Commander in Chief declared that major
hostilities were over in Iraq. They did not end on May 1 for Private
Herrgott, nor for the 77 other American soldiers who have died in Iraq
since then, nor for the hundreds more who have been wounded, nor for
the 145,000 other American soldiers who still risk their lives in Iraq
every day and every night and wonder when will they come home.
Congress also bears responsibility for sending Private Herrgott and
those 145,000 other brave men and women to Iraq. Last October, Congress
voted to give their constitutional responsibility to declare war over
to President Bush. Congress gave the President what he wanted, what he
insisted then he must have, a blank check, a blank check signed in
advance, authorizing the President to use whatever means necessary,
including the use of force in Iraq, whenever, and with whomever, for
however long, at whatever cost, until the President decides to end that
war. Congress gave the President all of that authority and all of that
responsibility. I did not vote for it, but a majority did, and now we
must pay for that war.
Last week in the Senate Armed Services Committee, we were told by the
Secretary of Defense that the war in Iraq is costing $3.9 billion per
month and that the continuing military operations in Afghanistan are
costing $900 million per month. That is a combined $4.8 billion a
month, totaling $57.6 billion over 12 months. That is $57.6 billion
which I thought was going to be in this 2004 Defense Appropriations
bill, and the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations
Committee, who has been engaged in these matters for far more years
than I have been around, has clarified the circumstances why that money
is not in there now.
But I point out that the estimate of over $1 billion a week is
probably way too low. According to this week's Newsweek magazine:
That billion a week is just the beginning. It doesn't
include the cost of running Iraq's government and rebuilding
it, which could be an additional billion a month--according
to pre-war United Nations estimates.
Nor does it include presumably, as this article details, the $1.2
billion which Ambassador Bremer's budget says must be spent up front in
capital improvements if Iraq's oil production is to get under way
again. Nor does it include the $680 million given to the Bechtel
Corporation for infrastructure improvements; nor, I suspect, the $3
billion to $5 billion that it is estimated is necessary to make
emergency repairs to Iraq's electrical power system.
So why is it that we cannot get from the administration a clear,
direct, and reliable accounting about the cost of this war? I am
guessing it has something to do with today's report that the Federal
budget for fiscal year 2003 is expected to run a $450 billion deficit,
and the next year's deficit may be as high as $500 billion, without
even including all of the costs of the war efforts.
Those are staggering deficits. This year's deficit will be over 50
percent greater than the largest annual deficit in U.S. history, and it
results from the most colossal financial mismanagement that has ever
been witnessed in this country's history, the worst ever.
Just 2 years and 2 months ago, President Bush submitted his
administration's first budget for fiscal year 2002 and the years
beyond. It was a proud document dated April 9, 2001. The President
stated:
This budget offers a new vision of governing for our
Nation.
His budget projected a $5.6 trillion surplus for the 10 fiscal years
from 2002 through 2011. It promised to save the entire Social Security
surplus of $2.6 trillion; to spend every penny, it said, of Medicare
tax and premium collections on Medicare; to achieve historic levels of
debt reduction, $2 trillion over 10 years; to provide $1.6 trillion in
tax relief; and set aside a $1.4 trillion reserve for additional needs,
debt service, and contingencies.
As we all know, there have been big contingencies since then, but not
enough to justify the total destruction of all of those promises, not
enough to warrant the abandonment of a fiscally responsible Federal
budget, which was bequeathed to this administration by the
administration which preceded it.
For fiscal year 2003, the fiscal year we are in presently, just 2
years and 2 months ago President Bush predicted a $262 billion surplus
in the combined Federal budget for that year. The on-budget operating
fund surplus was expected to be $49 billion; the off-budget Social
Security surplus, $193 billion.
The Social Security surplus now is expected to be slightly less than
was predicted then, but still $160 billion. But combined, the Federal
budget deficit of $450 billion means the operating fund, the main
operating account of the Federal Government, this year will run a
deficit of over $600 billion. A $49 billion surplus was expected 2
years and 2 months ago and a $610 billion deficit is expected today.
The non-Social Security revenue for this year, in personal and
corporate income taxes, capital gains tax, estate tax, and the excise
tax was projected to exceed expenditures in fiscal year 2002, as they
did in the year 2000 under President Bill Clinton--for the first time
in 40 years. But now in actuality, those progressive taxes, which have
constituted almost the entire tax base of the operating accounts of the
Federal Government for all these years, those revenues generated will
only amount to two-thirds of expenditures. The two tax bills of 2001
and 2003 have decimated the progressive tax base of the Federal
Government. And 2004 is expected to be no better. If anything, it is
projected to get even worse. The change from expectations to now the
projection of a $500 billion deficit means a change of over $750
billion in projections.
Saving the Social Security surplus--that is gone. Every year--this
year, next year, every year in the foreseeable future--it is going to
be wiped out to nothing.
Reducing the national debt by $2 trillion? That is gone. In fact,
according to the President's own Office of Management and Budget, if we
adopt his budgets as he has proposed them, we will increase the
national debt by $2 trillion over the next 10 years.
Setting up a reserve fund? Forget that, too.
Lowering the growth in discretionary spending to 4 percent a year?
Not yet. The President's request for the last 3 years has increased
that by 9 percent, 10 percent, and 11 percent, and that does not
include these so-called supplemental appropriations, which is maybe one
of the reasons that is the preferred approach--come back in, in the
middle of the year, and ask for the increased money everybody knows is
going to be needed to fund the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is very frustrating, I find, to not be able to get clear, reliable
facts from this administration. They act as though this is their
government, that we in Congress do not even exist, or that we are an
unnecessary and unwanted intrusion into their affairs. So much for a
new vision of government. So much for a new tone of bipartisanship. It
has become worse, not better. Instead of facing up to these realities,
the administration is trying to hide them.
[[Page S9363]]
When I returned from Minnesota last night, I was given a book, by a
colleague, Senator Bennett of Utah: ``Reagan, Man Of Principle,'' by
John Harmer, a former State senator in California. I just glanced
through the beginning pages of it.
I was struck by this anecdote from the senator. He had been involved
as the majority leader there, trying to work out the redistricting bill
for 1971. California was going to set the lines for the legislative
districts for the State for the next 10 years. They finally, after all
this thrashing back and forth and cutting deals and making
arrangements, got agreement. Governor Reagan--President-to-be--vetoed
that bill.
So in frustration, the State senator came to President Reagan. He
said, reading now directly:
``What exactly do you want?'' I asked, in total
frustration.
His response was so purely honorable that I dared not
repeat it to my senatorial colleagues, knowing that they
would hoot me out of the room. Yet, though I did not fully
appreciate it at the time, the response was just one of many
examples of Reagan's strength as a political leader. Reagan,
like Thomas Jefferson, had a fundamental faith in the
American people and their ability to make the right decisions
if only they had all the facts. Not just the Republicans
among the people, but of all the people, once they had all of
the facts. . . .
I am skipping ahead here, but Governor Reagan said to State Senator
Harmer:
``I am really disappointed . . . that individual
Republicans are so willing to sell out the best interests of
the people in order to save themselves. That is not what I
regard as worthy of my signature.''
``John,'' he said, ``I'm as dedicated to the Republican
cause as you are. Our party's core philosophy represents the
best assurance for the continued freedom and prosperity of
the nation. But I am not the governor of just the
Republicans. There are millions of people out there who,
whether they voted for me or not, expect me to represent them
with good judgement and integrity. The issue is not one of
protecting what you call the Republican base. The issue is to
do that which is right in principle.''
That could apply to the Democratic majorities in other States. There
is no monopoly, I have learned here, in truth or wisdom or virtue. But
that principle, ``to do what is right,'' and that principle, ``to
present all the facts forthrightly to the American people,'' are
principles that are certainly needed even more in Washington today, and
that stands in marked contrast to what we experience in Washington
today.
We are not being trusted with the facts: Not about the budget, not
about the timetables for troop deployments and bringing the troops back
home, and not about the circumstances that led up to this war in Iraq.
We have a right to those facts here in the Congress. More important,
the American people have a right to those facts. We have a right to
know how much this war is costing and how we are going to pay for it.
We have a right to know how long our troops are going to be over there
in Iraq. We have a right to know how we got into that war in Iraq and
how what we were told over the last months squares with the truth as it
was known at the time.
What were the facts that led President Bush to say before the Nation,
in a televised speech last October 7, that Saddam Hussein could have a
nuclear weapon in less than a year when we now know there was no such
program in evidence there? Or that Iraq is exploring using unmanned
aerial vehicles for missions, targeting the United States, when in fact
it was known back then and certainly is known today that those
missiles, which were not even used against our invading forces, thank
God, had a range of only a few hundred miles and were no threat to the
United States?
What facts led Vice President Cheney to say last August 26 that there
is no doubt Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction, there
is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, our
allies, and against us? What caused National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice to say last September that Iraq had provided chemical
weapons training to al-Qaida members? What prompted Secretary of
Defense Rumsfeld to say last fall that the United States must act
quickly to save potentially tens of thousands of citizens? What led the
President to say that Saddam Hussein could strike the United States
first and inflict massive and sudden horror?
These are the questions I have. These are some of the facts that need
to become known, as the distinguished ranking member of the Senate
Armed Services Committee said just before me on the floor. We need a
bipartisan investigation into all these circumstances, into what was
known by the intelligence community, what was reported to members of
the administration.
What was reported in top secret briefings to members of the Armed
Services Committee which I was invited to attend, 20 or more such
briefings over the course of last fall and early into this year?
What was being told to the administration that was at variance with
that information? What caused the administration to speak so
emphatically, with certainty, about acts which it seems were not so
factual and which were not even presented as absolute facts in the
briefings which I attended at the time? We have a right to those
answers. Thus far it has been very difficult to get the agreement from
colleagues on the other side to undertake these investigations or
inquiries, whatever euphemism we use.
The Senate Intelligence Committee evidently, and hopefully, has
agreed to undertake such an inquiry. We have not been able to obtain
that consent in the Senate Armed Services Committee. In fact, we are
being told such a bipartisan investigation is not going to be
forthcoming.
What recourse does that leave? How do we get to the truth when those
in possession of the facts and the information will not provide them?
How can we get to the truth when we cannot conduct a bipartisan inquiry
or intelligence into obtaining that truth? What does it say about those
who would not provide that information or that opportunity to seek the
truth? What do they have to hide? What are they afraid we might find
out? Why is it we cannot know the circumstances that caused the
Commander in Chief to send 150,000 U.S. troops to Iraq, including PFC
Edward Herrott being buried in Minnesota this morning, to whom I pay my
greatest respects.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I remember reading a book I enjoyed very
much by James Michener called ``Caravans,'' an excellent history of
Afghanistan. Of all the books he wrote, the only one I enjoyed more
than that was ``Hawaii.'' When I read ``Caravans,'' I knew very little
about Afghanistan. After I finished the book, I knew a lot more about
Afghanistan and the constant struggles of the Afghan people.
America first focused on Afghanistan during the Cold War. The Soviets
came in and brutally tried to take over that country. As we know now,
American forces supplied arms to the Afghan people, who courageously
drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Many scholars believe that defeat
marked the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union. After almost 80
years, the impoverished country of Afghanistan was the reason for the
fall of one of the greatest powers in the history of the world.
I will return to the subject of Afghanistan in a moment, but first I
want to comment on what some of my colleagues have said this morning
about the situation in Iraq. I supported the resolution that authorized
the use of force in that country, and my vote was based on more than
the evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Still,
the controversy that has arisen concerning these weaspons has hurt
America in the international community. All the turmoil going on now,
the accusations of coverups, the exaggerations and half truths, which
persuaded some of my colleagues to vote for the resolution--it has
damaged our country's credibility. It could take a long time to repair
that damage.
The ongoing fight against terrorism has challenged our military as
never before. But I think all my colleagues would agree that our men
and women in uniform have risen to the task and performed heroically.
As pointed out by the distinguished senior Senator from Minnesota,
Mr. Dayton, American soldiers are still dying in Iraq. Another was
killed just yesterday.
I was impressed with the statement of the Senator from Minnesota
because he mentioned not only a fallen soldier,
[[Page S9364]]
but also the other casualities of war; that is, people who have lost
limbs, people who are paralyzed, people who are disfigured as a result
of incendiary devices, people who are scarred permanently--and I'm
referring also to the psychological scars that will be with these men
and women for the rest of their lives.
All of our troops have performed heroically. It is our constitutional
responsibility to ensure that our military gets the resources it needs
to remain the strongest in the world. The bill we are considering today
does that. It was not an easy task, and it is a tribute, as I have said
already, to the two managers of the bill, the senior Senator from
Alaska and the senior Senator from Hawaii, and of course their fine
staffs. But, interestingly enough, as the Democratic leader mentioned
today, this bill does not fund continuing operations in Afghanistan or
Iraq. I have great admiration for the two managers of this bill, as I
said on the floor yesterday. These two Senators are role models for me.
These Senators have distinguished careers and represent their States as
well as they can be represented. They both understand Defense issues
from personal experience.
They both served their country in war. The Senator from Hawaii earned
the highest honor that our country can confer upon an American military
hero--the Congressional Medal of Honor. We sometimes take this great
man for granted, but I try never to do that.
I can remember traveling with the distinguished Senator from Alaska
to Czechoslovakia when the Iron Curtain was still down. I can remember
in Prague, Czechoslovakia, encountering a man in a World War II flight
jacket. It led to a conversation with the Senator from Alaska because
that is the kind of jacket he wore.
I have the greatest respect for these two fine men. But I think this
bill should have money in it to fund military operations for the next
fiscal year in Afghanistan and Iraq. I say, as one of the
appropriators, that I think it was genius how the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee has allowed the appropriations bills to go
forward this year. I think we are going to finish all of the
appropriations bills in a reasonable period of time. It was genius how
the Senator from Alaska found the money. It was enough to set what we
call 302(b) allocations. Those are allocations for the 13
subcommittees. But for his ability to take some money from defense and
put it into domestic programs, we could not have gotten that done. I
acknowledge from a legislative standpoint how important it was to do
that.
But I think we should fund these bills prospectively as we do with
everything else.
I heard an exchange between the Senator from Alaska and the
Democratic leader about the decision being made by the President and
the Republican leaders on enough money to take the military in
Afghanistan and Iraq probably up to the first of the year. But we can't
fund appropriations bills based upon one-quarter of a fiscal year. We
have to fund them for a full year.
The reason this is done, of course, is that we have a supplemental
appropriations bill for emergency expenditures. They don't count
against the budget rules we have around here. As a result of that, they
add to the deficit. I wish that were not how we had to do things this
year. But I accept that it has been done. Unless there is some magic
that occurs, or something that I don't see which is untoward, I will
support the supplemental appropriations bill. We have to support the
military.
But I have to say this is not the way to do things around here. I
continue to believe that any operation that puts our young men and
women at risk should be funded through the regular appropriations
process which allows people an opportunity to weigh in on our
priorities, policy judgments, and efforts.
Last week, I came to the Senate floor and urged my colleagues to
support our neighbor, Mexico. I acknowledge and appreciate the Members
of the Senate having supported that amendment. Today, as we consider
our military priorities for the coming year, I want to speak today
about what I fear has become another forgotten commitment, the
reconstruction of Afghanistan.
Keep in mind, Mr. President, that we walked away from the people of
Afghanistan once before. We supplied them with weapons. After the
Soviets took tail and ran, the United States followed suit. We no
longer were interested in Afghanistan after we won that battle of the
Cold War. The chaos that ensued after we left led to the rise of the
Taliban, one of the most brutal, repressive tyrannies in the history of
the world. Remember. We walked away once before. We cannot allow
history to repeat itself.
When U.S.-led forces defeated the Taliban more than 19 months ago,
President Bush promised a ``Marshall Plan for Afghanistan,'' and he
assured us that our Nation would help Afghanistan become a stable,
self-governing state free from the clutches of terrorism. I welcome
that commitment from the President. The people of Afghanistan deserve
that.
In the months immediately after the war, Afghanistan appeared to be
making progress. A council of Afghans elected Hamid Karzai, a very
courageous man, to lead an interim government. But we haven't done much
to help this courageous man. As hope returned to Afghanistan for the
first time in many years, the administration redirected its focus
toward Iraq. Afghanistan virtually fell off the radar screen. Now, the
Afghan people are paying the price. In short, all is not well in
Afghanistan.
What are the current conditions? The security situation is
particularly threatening. I was in a meeting this morning. I asked my
Senate friends to guess how many troops are in Afghanistan today. The
answer surprises people. I got different estimates--40,000, 20,000. We
have 9,000 troops in Afghanistan. Where are they? They are in Kabul.
The rest of the country is a jungle.
Outside Kabul, there is no security unless you are on the good side
of one of the warlords. Aid workers don't feel safe. They don't travel
through the country anymore. Many of the organizations have pulled out.
In some of the provinces of Afghanistan--particularly in the southeast
region--there is anarchy. Where there isn't anarchy, warlords are in
control. These warlords seek only to enrich and empower themselves
instead of helping President Karzai to address the urgent needs of the
people. They fight among themselves and hoard Afghanistan's precious
resources. Afghanistan does enjoy the luxaries of fertile land, oil and
riches. Afghanistan is a country that is driven by poverty. It is a
desert.
On rare occasions when the warlords aren't battling each other, they
are joining together to weaken the central government. The absence of
central authority in Afghanistan isn't anything new. That is why we had
to cooperate with some of these warlords when we fought the Taliban.
But when the war ended, we promised the Afghan people we would help
them develop a stable country. That came from our President. We are
reneging on that promise.
We simply can't accept a warlord-dominated Afghanistan. That would
spell certain defeat for a long-term war against terrorism.
I came to this floor and said there is a need for the interim
government in Afghanistan to include women. The Taliban brutalized
women, but in some areas of Afghanistan women are not doing much better
now than they were under the old regime. Some warlords are imposing
Taliban-like restrictions on women and girls.
What does that mean? This means they are treated like nonpeople. It
means they cannot show their faces. It means they cannot go anyplace
unless they have their husband with them. They cannot even go to
school. Some of the schools that were opened just for girls after the
war have closed up.
Border security in Afghanistan is nonexistent. Is Osama bin Laden in
Afghanistan? Is he near the country's border with Pakistan? It does not
matter. He's certainly not in Kabul, where most of our forces are
stationed. The rest of the territory is controlled by warlords or is in
complete anarchy.
Afghanistan's porous border with Pakistan has allowed pro-Taliban
elements to slip in and out at will, on the rare occasions they need to
escape U.S. forces searching remote areas. Iran continues to try to
influence affairs in the areas around Kabul.
The Afghan army does not have the manpower, training, or the
resources
[[Page S9365]]
to deal with these cross-border incursions. The hinterlands of
Afghanistan are essentially up for grabs to the lethal, devious, and
dangerous insurgents that were cast out of Kabul at the start of
Operation Enduring Freedom some 20 months ago.
Economically, the landscape is bleak, to say the least. Fifty percent
of the population in Afghanistan lives in absolute poverty. The average
life expectancy in Afghanistan is 46 years. It goes without saying
there are exceptionally high rates of malnutrition and child and
maternal mortality. Up to 7.5 million Afghans are said to be dependent
on external food aid. It is the only food they get. Unemployment--we
don't know how high it is but we know it is well over 50 percent.
Illiteracy--maybe one out of four can read and write; maybe one out of
four. Seventy percent of Afghans cannot read or write.
But the real impetus for me to come here and say how I feel about
this issue is the result of my reading Newsweek magazine last week.
Newsweek had a feature story about the No. 1 product in Afghanistan:
poppies, used in the production of heroin. Unfortunately, the
development of illegal narcotics is the one sector of Afghanistan's
economy that has experienced positive growth.
Last year, Afghanistan regained the dubious title of the world's
largest opium producer, and it is on track this year to produce even
more. Afghanistan accounts for almost 80 percent of the world's illicit
opium production.
It has been a long time, but I used to do criminal law work. The
first case I ever had--at that time Clark County, Las Vegas, did not
have a public defender. I was appointed by Judge Zenoff, Department 1,
the Eighth Judicial Court, Clark County, to represent a young man who
was in jail. I can still remember his name: Humbert Gregory Torres, the
first criminal case I ever had.
I went to the jail. I was a new lawyer. I had my suit and tie on. I
went to the jail and talked to a man through the bars. I thought: This
guy's a criminal? He should be a movie star. He was so handsome. He was
a heroin addict, and had been since he was 15 years old.
When I met him in that jail, he was 20 years old. He was smart,
handsome but terribly addicted to heroin. I saw the life he led after
that. Because it was my first case, I kept in touch with him,
represented him in many different battles with the law. He went to
prison. I don't know where Greg is now. I am sure he is not in a good
situation. Last I heard, he was back in prison.
Heroin destroys people, families, neighborhoods, and societies. It is
a horrible thing. That young man did not want to be addicted to heroin.
He got addicted to it when he was a little boy in New York City. He
could have done anything with his life had he not been addicted to
heroin. Instead, he became a criminal.
Well, almost 80 percent of the product that gets to people like Greg
Torres comes from Afghanistan. Drug laboratories are sprouting up
across Afghanistan, producing heroin that eventually finds its way into
our country, our cities, and our neighborhoods.
Most of the money from this deadly trade does not even go to the
impoverished farmers, but instead to corrupt civil servants and drug
lords. Look at the Newsweek article. It tells of a senior general in
northern Afghanistan who brought in experts from Burma to help him
operate a string of heroin labs, and of a senior police official in a
northeastern province operating a heroin lab in the garden of his home.
The nexus between the illegal drug trade and civil servants is very
clear but even more troubling is the link between the opium trade and
the remaining Taliban extremists. It is no coincidence, according to
the United Nations, that Taliban insurgents are most prominent in the
poppy-producing provinces of Afghanistan. This ``unholy alliance''
serves the interests of the drug lords, who need the protection, and
the Taliban, who want the money.
We have the Drug Enforcement Administration, of course. Its agents
are very professional, and very well trained. We have really unloaded
on Afghan drug lords with these agents. We have two in Afghanistan--two
DEA agents in the entire country. Eighty percent of all the heroin in
the world is produced in that country, and we have two Drug Enforcement
Administration officers there. With that kind of manpower, I'm sure
we'll get to the bottom of this. I am being a little facetious, but I
don't know what two agents can expect to accomplish.
Amid the drug, economic, and security crises plaguing Afghanistan, we
cannot forget that the key government and private financial
institutions were all destroyed under the Taliban. The image I see when
I think of the Taliban is of them destroying that huge, historic,
religious monument, which had been there for more than 1,000 years, by
shooting rockets from airplanes. That is what the Taliban is all about.
We can't forget that they destroyed key government and private
financial institutions. Recovery and reconstruction in Afghanistan
therefore is an enormous challenge, but if we fall short, the
consequences will be enormous. We cannot afford to fail in Afghanistan,
and yet we are not doing anything to address the problems there.
Some are saying: So what? Does it matter? I don't think it is
possible to exaggerate the stakes in Afghanistan. It is, of course, the
front line in the war on terrorism. That is why we went there in the
first place. Terrorists had built training camps there. The September
11 attackers all had contact with terrorists in Afghanistan.
Although a diverse and committed international force is participating
in the reconstruction effort--there are several thousand international
people in Kabul--we can't pass the buck and say reconstruction in
Afghanistan is somebody else's responsibility. It is our
responsibility. We led the war there. We need to lead the
reconstruction.
We have a responsibility to help Afghans create a stable, self-
governing state with the resources for long-term economic development.
If we succeed, we will have denied the terrorists a strategically
located base. We will have put a long-suffering people in a position to
lift themselves to freedom and prosperity. We will have created a model
that can help the international community in reconstruction efforts
elsewhere. And we will have silenced skeptics around the world who
thought the United States would not fulfill its promise to Afghanistan
and would cut and run a second time. These are the benefits of success.
The costs of failure are almost too troubling to imagine. Terrorists
could again regain a foothold. The Afghan people would remain
impoverished under a fundamentalist regime. And this confluence between
a failed state in a strategically vital area and terrorist forces could
result in lethal consequences, as we so painfully learned in 2001.
What can we do? As the President stands ready to deploy troops to
Liberia--and I have been to Liberia and acknowledge that it deserves
our attention--we cannot forget about Afghanistan. The President also
is weighing options on what to do about force protection in Iraq. As
important an issue as that is, I again implore him not to forget our
promise to the Afghan people.
There is much more we can do. The report issued last month by
Ambassador Frank Wisner and the Council on Foreign Relations provides
an excellent roadmap. First, with regard to security measures, we need
to maintain adequate military forces until Afghanistan can assume the
responsibility itself. We should also be seeking ways to bolster the
international security forces there as well as substantially expanding
the proposed size of the Afghan Army, which at its peak will stand at
10,000 soldiers. This hardly seems adequate for a country of 28 million
people. Reconstruction efforts cannot be effective until the territory
beyond Kabul is secure.
Second, politically and diplomatically we need to support the Afghans
as they organize presidential and parliamentary elections to be held
next year. We need to continue to press Iran and Pakistan to secure the
border region and end their interference in Afghan affairs, and we need
to continue to assist the Afghans in developing a vibrant civil society
that is inhospitable to extremism.
Third, reconstruction measures must resume fully. Despite the urgency
of the situation, road building and other major reconstruction projects
have stalled. Despite receiving billions of dollars in financial
commitments from
[[Page S9366]]
the international community, President Karzai still faces a gap of $276
million in his very modest budget. Afghanistan will require $15 billion
over the next 5 years in reconstruction funds, over and above
humanitarian aid.
Congress has authorized funds to cover one-third of this total.
Authorizing it, as we have learned, doesn't mean much. We have to
appropriate the money. It is great to issue press releases about all
the things we are going to do with this program and that program, but
in the Congress there is a two-step procedure: We authorize and
appropriate. If we don't appropriate, the authorization is meaningless.
We should fully fund the authorization so that, among other things, we
can complete construction of the road linking Kabul and Kandahar.
The United States obviously can't cover reconstruction costs on its
own. I don't expect us to do so. The reconstruction effort will fail
unless we persuade other countries to live up to their financial
commitments. But we cannot do that until we fulfill our own
obligations.
President Bush has the power to place the reconstruction of
Afghanistan back on the world agenda. But as I said earlier, the issue
seems to have fallen off the White House radar screen. I say to
President Bush: Fulfill the promise you made to the Afghan people and
to the American people, and deliver on your Marshall Plan for
Afghanistan. The Congress will support those efforts. We will do so not
only for the Afghan people but also for the security and safety of the
United States and its allies.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the hour
of 2:15 p.m. the Senator from West Virginia be recognized to offer an
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 1233 through 1236, En Bloc
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have amendments from our side of the
aisle which have been cleared.
The first is Senator Roberts' amendment to make amounts available for
research, development, test, and evaluation defense-wide, $2 million
for the development of integrated systems analysis capabilities for
bioterrorism and response exercises.
Second is Senator Lott's, to set aside Marine Corps procurement funds
for use for the procurement of nitrile rubber collapsible storage
units.
Next is for Senators Graham and Hollings of South Carolina to make
amounts available for research, development, test, and evaluation,
Navy, $6 million for Marine Corps communications systems for the
Critical Infrastructure Protection Center.
Finally, another is for Senator Lott to set aside other procurement,
Army funds, for the procurement of TSC-750 computer systems.
I ask unanimous consent to offer the amendments en bloc and have them
reported en bloc and considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes amendments
en bloc numbered 1233 through 1236.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
Without objection, the amendments are agreed to en bloc.
The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:
Amendment No. 1233
(Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, $2,000,000 for the
development of integrated systems analysis capabilities for
bioterrorism response exercises)
Insert after section 8123 the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this
Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', up to $2,000,000 may be available
for the development of integrated systems analysis
capabilities for bioterrorism response exercises.
Amendment No. 1234
(Purpose: To set aside Marine Corps procurement funds for use for the
procurement of nitrile rubber collapsible storage units)
On page 120, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title III under
the heading ``Procurement, Marine Corps'', up to $1,500,000
may be used for the procurement of highly versatile nitrile
rubber collapsible storage units.
Amendment No. 1235
(Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, $6,000,000 for Marine Corps
Communications Systems (PE#0206313M) for the Critical Infrastructure
Protection Center)
Insert after section 8123 the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the appropriated by title IV of this Act
under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Navy'', up to $3,000,000 may be available for
Marine Corps Communications Systems (PE#0206313M) for
Critical Infrastructure Protection.
Amendment No. 1236
(Purpose: To set aside Other Procurement, Army funds for the
procurement of TSC-750 computer systems)
Sec. 8124. Of the total amount appropriated by title III
under the heading ``Other Procurement, Army'', up to
$1,500,000 may be used for for the procurement of TSC-750
computer systems.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Amendments Nos. 1237 and 1238, En Bloc
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may continue, on behalf of Mr.
Miller, the Senator from Georgia, I have sent to the desk an amendment
to make available from amounts available for research, development,
test, and evaluation for the Navy, $1 million for the Trouble Reports
Information Data Warehouse; and for the Senators from Florida, Mr.
Graham and Mr. Nelson, an amendment to make available from amounts
available for operation and maintenance, Navy, $2 million for night
vision goggles in advanced helicopter training. I ask unanimous consent
that these amendments be considered en bloc and passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] proposes amendments en
bloc numbered 1237 and 1238.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
Without objection, the amendments are agreed to.
The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:
Amendment No. 1237
(Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation for the Navy, $1,000,000 for the
Trouble Reports Information Data Warehouse)
Insert after section 8123 the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this
Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Navy'', up to $1,000,000 may be available for
Combat Systems Integration (PE#0603582N) for the Trouble
Reports Information Data Warehouse.
Amendment No. 1238
(Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Operation and
Maintenance, Navy, $2,000,000 for night vision goggles in advanced
helicopter training)
Insert after section 8123 the following:
Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title II of this
Act under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', up
to $2,000,000 may be available for night vision goggles in
advanced helicopter training.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________