[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 16, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9448-S9484]
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 Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2658, which the clerk will report by 
title.
  The 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.

  Pending:

       Dorgan amendment No. 1264, to require from the President a 
     budget amendment for the budget for fiscal year 2004 on the 
     amounts requested for military operations in Iraq in fiscal 
     year 2004.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 30 minutes equally divided 
in relationship to amendment No. 1264 by Senator Dorgan.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time of the quorum call not be charged 
either to the Republican or Democratic side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is there is a 30-minute 
timeframe on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me indicate I have just been sitting 
with my colleagues, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, discussing this 
amendment. I want to discuss just for a moment why I have offered this 
amendment and then indicate that I think we have a responsibility here 
in the Congress to try to understand how much these operations in Iraq 
and Afghanistan and other areas of the world cost us and how we plan to 
pay for them.
  Before I do that, let me say the chairman of this subcommittee and 
the ranking member, two Members for whom I have the highest regard--and 
I happen to serve on this subcommittee--have distinguished military 
records. The ranking member has the Medal of Honor. The chairman flew 
over the hump in China during the Second World War. He has a very 
distinguished record. I very much appreciate working with them. They 
have done an extraordinary job with the piece of legislation brought to 
the floor of the Senate to fund our defense needs.
  I visited Afghanistan during the past year or so. I have not visited 
Iraq. But I happen to think what we have done, with the wonderful men 
and women who wear America's uniform, is kick the Taliban out of 
Afghanistan and free the people of Afghanistan. What we have done is to 
drive underground--at this point--Saddam Hussein and liberate the 
people of Iraq. It has been done by very brave, courageous, and 
wonderful young men and women, and with equipment which is funded by 
this subcommittee.
  I know my colleagues likely have done what I have done. They have 
visited the site where they are producing a little airplane called the 
Predator. It is not much bigger than a little Piper Cub. It flies at 
about the same speed. It is a little airplane without a pilot which 
sits up there for nearly a day and flies around the battlefield and 
with a sensor can give you a vision of exactly what is on the 
battlefield, and you have someone sitting in Florida watching a 
television monitor seeing what is on the battlefield in Afghanistan or 
Iraq. It is really breathtaking technology which is being used.
  The Predator is low tech. The Global Hawk does the same at multiples 
of altitude. The Global Hawk is also an unmanned aerial vehicle that 
has been used extensively in both theaters.
  Those are the kinds of new technologies that are really quite 
remarkable--the technologies that are funded by this subcommittee.
  In addition to the technology, weapons, and air assets and ground 
assets, the soldiers themselves are quite extraordinary. I appointed a 
young man to the United States Naval Academy, Jason Frye, from Hazen, 
ND. Jason Frye was recently at the Bethesda Naval Hospital. In fact, 
Senator Inouye called Jason on Friday. He is a young marine who was in 
Iraq. He had part of his arm blown off by a rocket-launched grenade. 
When I went to visit him at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, he was worried 
about his unit. He wanted to be back with his unit. He wondered how his 
unit was doing in Iraq. This young man had a battlefield injury. They 
had to use the cord from the radio in his Humvee to wrap around his arm 
as a tourniquet to stop the bleeding. He got medical attention at a 
field hospital in Iraq.
  What a remarkable young man. He is a symbol of all the young men and 
women who answered the call and have done their duty. Our thoughts and 
prayers are with them. Our hearts go out to those who have been injured 
and killed, and to their families.
  This piece of legislation is extraordinary. It was introduced by two 
remarkable legislators. I am pleased to be a part of the subcommittee 
that supports our national defense needs and supports the men and women 
who serve this country.
  The amendment which I have offered says there is kind of an illusion 
going on with respect to the cost of what we are doing in defense. It 
is not a deliberate illusion by anyone. It is this:
  We are spending about $3.9 billion a month in Iraq at the moment--
almost $4 billion. We are spending nearly $1 billion at the moment in 
Afghanistan. Those are the costs of the ongoing activities in both 
countries. Both of these activities are very important.
  If we are spending about $5 billion a month--an annualized rate of 
about $60 billion--the question is, How will all of that be funded? 
Some of it is funded in this legislation. The salaries of the soldiers 
who would be stationed at Fort Sill, or Fort Lewis, or some other post, 
we would be paying those salaries anyway. Now they are in Iraq. They 
are being paid in Iraq.

[[Page S9449]]

  The question is, What are the extra costs in the $5 billion a month 
we are spending to be in these two theaters, Afghanistan and Iraq?
  The answer is, we don't know. The President likely doesn't know. The 
OMB and the DOD do not know. But the Pentagon's chief financial officer 
said last week they have a ``pretty good sense'' of what is going on on 
the ground for next year. Obviously, they have some planning. My 
expectation is we will have substantial numbers of troops on the ground 
in Iraq for some long while. It is not unlikely that we could see more 
troops going to Afghanistan at some point. If they have a good sense of 
what is going on on the ground, we ought to plan for that.
  I respect the fact that some would say we don't know what this is 
going to cost next year. We know the answer is not zero. My only 
concern, as I indicated to the Senator from Alaska, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, is I don't want us to be in a situation where each spring 
we have to produce larger and larger supplemental appropriations bills. 
I would prefer we do some planning. It is certainly true, as the 
chairman pointed out, that we have been doing this for a long time, but 
not in the theaters of Bosnia, Kosovo, and others. I understand that. 
But these are larger numbers. We have not been confronted with $4 
billion a month, and then another $1 billion on top of it, or $5 
billion a month. We have never done this. We have never done this at a 
time when the front pages of the newspapers say we have a Federal 
budget deficit of $450 billion. It is a different time. We face 
different circumstances.
  My point is we know what the answer for the cost of these operations 
next year is not. It is not zero. It is something. The question is, 
What? If the comptroller at the Pentagon has a pretty good sense of 
what is going to be on the ground in the next fiscal year, I would 
prefer we get a sense of what that is and try to plan for that and 
estimate that in our regular appropriations bill.
  I understand the difficulty. I understand why in previous years we 
have always said, Well, let us just wait; we will see what the Pentagon 
spends on it. We will add it up and replace it in a supplemental 
appropriations request. I think this is a different set of 
circumstances.

  I know there is disagreement in the Chamber. I think we are going to 
be in Iraq for some long while. We have been in Agfhanistan for some 
while now. The troop strength has been drawn down. But I think there 
are some storm clouds over Afghanistan. I worry a great deal about what 
the needs are going to be there and how to solidify and maintain what 
we have achieved in Afghanistan.
  My own feeling is we would be better served at this point as we try 
to produce a final piece of legislation on Defense appropriations if we 
would have a supplemental amendment that says here is what we think we 
will need in the coming fiscal year for these operations.
  Again, if the comptroller at the Pentagon has a pretty good sense of 
what is going to be on the ground, they very likely have documents that 
tell them, at least, and perhaps us, what they think they will need. Is 
it accurate? I do not know. But again, I know zero is not the starting 
point.
  Having said that, I offered an amendment that asked the President to 
send us in 2 weeks a budget amendment giving us the information the 
Pentagon apparently has in terms of having a ``pretty good idea'' of 
what is going to be on the ground for the next fiscal year and tell us 
what those costs will be above that which already exists.
  The chairman makes a point that money previously appropriated in a 
supplemental is available--a $60-plus billion supplemental, $30-plus 
billion of which was to replace money taken from previous accounts.
  If there is money available, how much above that will be required for 
expenditure, and do the comptroller at the Pentagon and others know 
what their estimate might be of what our costs will be in the coming 
fiscal year? That is what my amendment is requesting.
  I have visited with the chairman and ranking member about my 
amendment. I wanted to make the comment that I, on a general basis, 
believe this bill is an extraordinarily good bill. The work of the 
chairman and ranking member is, in my judgment, some of the best work 
in the Senate. I am proud to be a member of the subcommittee. I believe 
we ought to find a way to do this differently with respect to major 
theaters of operations in the annual spring request with respect to 
very large and larger supplementals each year.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I strongly oppose Senator Dorgan's 
amendment. The Secretary of Defense has testified that the cost for 
this last month was $3.9 billion in Iraq and $900 million in 
Afghanistan. As was stated, we provided, in a supplemental, $62.6 
billion in late April. By the time it was available, it was May. And 
$30-plus billion, as the Senator said, went to pay costs that had 
already been incurred in moving our forces to Iraq.
  But the Senator's proposal would instruct the President to submit a 
fiscal year 2004 budget amendment for the cost of the war in Iraq. 
Congress has not and should not instruct the President to submit such 
an amendment. As a matter of fact, Congress should not instruct the 
President to request funds now for future contingency military 
operations. We have opposed that concept in the past. We have not done 
it, and we should not start now.
  We only need to review the recent history of financing military 
contingencies to know this would be a dangerous precedent. Just take 
into account that the number of times the Congress has directed a 
President, any President, to submit a budget to pay for future 
operations is zero. We did not do it in Desert Storm. We did not do it 
in Somalia. We did not do it in Haiti. We did not do it in Bosnia. We 
did not do it in Kosovo. We did not do it in Afghanistan. And we should 
not do it now. The reason is clear: because to try to estimate 
contingency costs in the future would lead us to creating contingency 
funds, which could be spent in any way the Department wants them.
  Any submission would be inaccurate because the operational situation 
could change repeatedly during any time in the future. The Department 
does not know how much it might need for Iraq. They do not know what 
accounts they might need it in. That depends on the strategy that 
evolves as we deal with the situation in Iraq.
  I personally believe the costs in Iraq are coming down. Slowly but 
surely, they are coming down. The amendment would force the 
administration to request a large, unspecified fund from which they 
would transfer money to pay for whatever contingency developed. We 
denied that. We denied that this year. The administration made such a 
request and we said no, we will not do that. That would only reduce 
congressional oversight and would give the Department of Defense a 
blank check.
  I asked the Congressional Research Service to look at this matter and 
tell us how we budgeted for wars in the past. I quote from the CRS 
report:

       Presidents have not requested and Congress has not provided 
     funding for wars in advance [never]. Rather, administrations 
     have requested . . . and Congress has subsequently 
     appropriated money to meet specific, documented budget 
     requirements.

  That is what the O&M account is for. Presidents use the O&M account. 
We subsequently get their requests to add money and replace it in the 
accounts from which they have taken it. They show us what they have 
spent it for, and we go ahead and budget after the amounts have been 
determined.
  In keeping with longstanding practice, the Department did supply us, 
in the President's submission, a peacetime budget for fiscal year 2004. 
That is for the ongoing baseline programs of the Department of Defense. 
It is not a wartime budget. As operational requirements change, we will 
see such a budget. Funding war costs separately, and in a supplemental, 
if necessary, makes the costs visible to Congress and ensures we do not 
distort the baseline funding.

  We believe the Department will be able to define what the costs are 
when they determine what they are going to do. As they spend their 
money, they will come to us with fully explained, well justified, 
reasons for their expenditures of the moneys they have, and we will 
replace those moneys.

[[Page S9450]]

  I do oppose Senator Dorgan's amendment. If he is going to present it 
as it is currently before us, I will move to table it.
  Again, let me say, as I did yesterday, Congressman Young and I did 
meet with the President about the problem of the total amount of money 
in this bill for defense and other matters, and we took $3 billion out 
of the President's 2004 request. His budget request has been reduced by 
Congress, and this amendment would require him to submit us a 
supplemental now to pay for costs for Iraq.
  We have already agreed, in effect, that the money the President has 
now, the Department of Defense has now, should fund the requirements of 
Iraq until we determine what permanent relationships there will be 
there. Hopefully, that will be done by early next year, and we will 
know. As these account amounts decline--and I believe they will--they 
should not average more than $2 billion a month, in my opinion, for 
this calendar year. If that is the case, there will be money left in 
the supplemental that has already been passed and adopted by the 
Congress and accepted by the President.
  I believe we should follow the tradition of appropriations and handle 
money for defense based upon a firm understanding of what the costs 
are, not upon predictions of what the costing will be when we are at 
war. We deal with a prediction budget in the overall concept of 2004. 
Every year we get the President's prediction of how much money needs to 
be spent and will be spent in the coming fiscal year, and based on that 
prediction we provide money.
  Wartime expenses have always been treated differently. No President 
has asked for money in advance, no President has ever received money in 
advance for a wartime budget. They have had concepts, like the 
supplemental we passed for 2003 to carry through in terms of the 2003 
actions which will carry into 2004. And we will get a supplemental for 
2004 when the time comes, if that is necessary.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, listening to my chairman reminded me of 
my days of youth. During World War II, when I was a young man, I had 
the high honor of serving as platoon leader of 40 men. It was a small 
part of the war. But if someone had come up to me, say, my colonel, and 
said: How many men will you lose in the next 30 days? How many rounds 
of ammo will you use during the next 12 months? How many grenades will 
you explode during the next 12 months?--my answer would have had to 
have been: I don't know. There is no way of knowing how many men I will 
lose in this battle or the next battle. I have no idea how many rounds 
we will fire or how many grenades we will throw. We will do our best to 
maintain our force.
  But to require any commander to come forth with even a good guess as 
to what one can anticipate--who in his right mind could have predicted 
what Midway would turn out to be like or the battle of Guadalcanal? No 
one had any idea. We had contingency plans as to how we should cope 
with the enemy if it came from the northern slope or the southern 
slope, but as for the outcome, we went into a battle once that lasted 5 
days and we thought we would come through with minimal casualties. In 
those 5 days, we incurred 800 casualties in my little regiment, 300 
dead--in a battle we thought we could resolve in 3 days. But we had no 
idea the opposing forces were three times our size.
  I realize my colleagues are very eager to know what the costs of this 
war will be. Senator Stevens and I would like to know that also because 
we are in charge of bringing forth to this body our recommendations on 
what to spend. Frankly, we have no way of knowing. We can make a 
calculated guess. We tried to do that the last time, and we did not 
succeed. So we have called upon the administration to do their best. 
And when the time comes they need supplemental appropriations, we will 
consider that, and we will inspect and just look over every account. 
Keep in mind, if it is going to be a calculated guess, we have no way 
of conducting oversight. So I hope my colleagues will be a bit more 
patient with us.
  I realize that it may pay political dividends in some cases. But in 
this case we are dealing with the lives of men and women. I hope that 
in dealing with the lives of men and women, we will make certain that 
we conduct the affair in the best way possible.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, we find much to agree about, as a matter 
of fact. We do not fund wartime budgets in advance because we don't 
know what a war will cost. There is no disagreement on that score. We 
do not have a wartime budget, and we do not have an appropriations bill 
in front of us that deals with the cost of war. We agree with that.
  In fact, all of us know the President indicated the war in Iraq was 
over. We understand at this point we have had some difficulty restoring 
order completely and there is some violence occurring in Iraq, but most 
of our troops in Iraq are not fighting. Most of the troops in Iraq are 
engaged in some kind of peacekeeping and restoration of order.
  The point I was trying to make is this: This country always supports 
its troops and does so very aggressively, and no one will question 
whether that is the case. This subcommittee does that and does it 
aggressively. If we find in Iraq and Afghanistan--two theaters in which 
we have been engaged for some while--that troop strength in those areas 
remains about the same level as it has been and we are spending about 
$5 billion a month, my understanding is somewhere near the end of this 
year we will be about out of money, and we will be taking money from 
other accounts.
  So there will be 9 months left in the next fiscal year. If they 
continue to spend money at that level, we are talking about $40 or $50 
billion. The chairman says he expects that not to happen. I hope it 
does not happen. I hope we are not confronted with that choice.
  My point is, if the Pentagon at this point understands some notion 
about what kind of troop strength they intend to have for some long 
while in Iraq or Afghanistan, then we should understand how we prepare 
and plan for paying for it.
  We now face a very large Federal budget deficit. Frankly, we don't 
have a choice in dealing with these issues. We must pay the bill. We 
can't commit our sons and daughters to a war, send them overseas, 
whether they are restoring order or keeping peace or actually war 
fighting, we can't do that and say: We will not provide everything you 
need to be successful. That is what this subcommittee has always done 
under the leadership of the chairman and ranking member.
  It is important for us to understand that we have a $450 billion 
estimated budget shortfall. It is growing by leaps and bounds. The 
point I am trying to make is that we are likely to face much larger 
expenditures in the coming 12 months to meet our military needs, and 
they do not exist in this bill.
  The chairman has explained properly that in the past we have never 
required it to be a part of this bill. He indicates it is because we 
don't fund wars in advance. I say that we are not at this point in an 
active war in Afghanistan or Iraq. The war is over. The columns of 
humvees and tanks and mechanized vehicles moving into Iraq have 
stopped. Now there is a different circumstance. It is heartwrenching 
some mornings to hear of the attacks on American troops. But most of 
what is happening in Iraq is the restoration of order and the 
peacekeeping. It seems to me that if we are going to be there for some 
while, it makes sense for us to evaluate what the Pentagon thinks. They 
are finding documents and they are talking about them. What will that 
cost? And then ask the President to submit that to us along with his 
vision of how we deal with that, how we pay for it.
  My colleague indicated we would have to fund it. Look, this is part 
of a broad set of priorities. Yes, this has to be funded but how? What 
are the consequences of it and how and where does it come from?
  My point is not to cause angst to the chairman and the ranking 
member. If we are going to be involved in longer term theater 
operations that are not wartime operations but require the commitment 
of troops--140,000 troops

[[Page S9451]]

in Iraq perhaps, 20,000, 25,000 troops in Afghanistan, and that may 
increase--if we are going to require the placement of troops in these 
theaters for some longer period of time, if we have longer anticipated 
costs, we ought to figure out what those are and put them in the 
regular appropriations bill. That is the point I am making. We just 
have a disagreement about that.
  To me, it is just about where we find ourselves in fiscal policy, 
what the requirements are with respect to military policy, and whether 
we can find a way to more orderly anticipate the future costs that we 
almost certainly know, and the Pentagon has some notion, and trying to 
respond to those and deal with them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, it is beautiful, the way my colleague 
from Hawaii remembers things that happened in his own life and puts in 
perspective what we are dealing with. I hope the Senate listens because 
the problem that the Senator from Hawaii had as a platoon leader is 
exactly the problem the Commander in Chief has right now: How much are 
they going to spend and where are they going to spend the money.
  The Senator from North Dakota wants us to tell the President, submit 
a budget to tell us how money will be spent, and we don't know what the 
plan is because the contingencies are so great.
  Let me mention to you what we have just come through. We originally 
intended to send part of our forces into Iraq through Turkey. When we 
found out we had a difficulty there because of the change in 
administration in Turkey, we had to take those troops out, send them 
back through the canal and then come back up through the Persian Gulf 
into Kuwait.
  Could we have anticipated those costs? Could the President have 
submitted us a budget for that operation? Absolutely not.
  One of my tasks is to handle the appropriations bills and try to 
assist in handling the funding for our executive branch and all 
branches of the Government. But one thing continues to bother me about 
the emphasis on the current deficit. It is big. It is going to get 
bigger. Do you know why? Our whole economy is getting bigger.
  When I first came to Washington, I had a mortgage of about $45,000. I 
sort of choked about that. My God, how could I do that? Our income at 
the time was $30,000 a year. I thought, this is a pretty tough thing 
but we had to have a house for our family of seven. Now our mortgage is 
10 times that. Do you know why? My income has expanded.
  The same thing has happened to our Nation. Our overall gross domestic 
product is so large that $450 billion, $500 billion is not as great as 
the deficit was at least 3 years of the Clinton administration. 
Percentage-wise we have to start thinking about what the debt is and 
how it relates to overall economic activity. I hope one of the joint 
economic committees will come forth and explain this deficit to us. It 
is bad. I don't like high deficits. I don't like to owe a mortgage 
either.
  I hope the Senate will concentrate on what we are spending and not 
what the size of the deficit is right now. We want to hold down 
expenses. I think the best way to hold down expenses is to follow the 
precedent we have followed in every war to date.
  I am reading a book right now about the revolutionary period and how 
Washington tried to get the Continental Congress to give him money. He 
was forced to spend money and then have them help him pay for it. We 
borrowed money around the world, particularly from France in those 
days.
  You talk about a deficit; my God what the Continental States must 
have had in terms of a deficit. Somehow or other, the country survived 
based upon faith and trust in the system.
  The system we have followed so far is that we do not fund wars in 
advance. I hope the Senate will defeat this amendment.
  Does the Senator have any further time?
  What is the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 10 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time on the other side.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to table the amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Under the previous order, that vote will occur later, 
and the order of the stacked votes will be determined by the leaders; 
is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The order has already been determined. This 
amendment is first.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 1268

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the Senator from New 
Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, is now recognized to offer an amendment on which 
there shall be 40 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senators Specter, Daschle, Byrd, Leahy, Levin, 
Rockefeller, Corzine, Durbin, and Carper.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Mr. Specter, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
     Rockefeller, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Carper, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1268.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require a report on the individuals being detained by the 
             United States Government as enemy combatants)

       Insert after section 8123 the following:
       Sec. 8124. (a) Report on Individuals Detained as Enemy 
     Combatants by United States Government.--Not later than 90 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report on the individuals being 
     detained by the United States Government as enemy combatants.
       (b) Elements.--Except as provided in subsection (c), the 
     report under subsection (a) shall set forth the following:
       (1) The name and nationality of each individual being 
     detained by the United States Government as an enemy 
     combatant.
       (2) With respect to each such individual--
       (A) a statement whether the United States Government 
     intends to charge, repatriate, or release such individual; or
       (B) if a determination has not been made whether to charge, 
     repatriate, or release such individual, a description of the 
     procedures (including the schedule) to be employed by the 
     United States Government to determine whether to charge, 
     repatriate, or release such individual.
       (3) With respect to each such individual who the United 
     States Government intends to charge, the schedule for the 
     filing of the charges and the trial of such individual.
       (c) Classification of Certain Individuals.--(1) If the 
     Secretary determines that the inclusion of an individual in 
     the report under subsection (a) would harm the national 
     security of the United States, the Secretary may include such 
     individual in a classified annex.
       (2) Determinations under paragraph (1) shall be made on a 
     case-by-case basis.
       (3) If the Secretary determines to omit one or more 
     individuals from the unclassified form of the report, the 
     Secretary shall include in the report an explanation of the 
     omission of the individual or individuals.
       (d) Form.--The report under subsection (a) shall, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, be submitted in unclassified 
     form, but may include a classified annex.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
       (A) the Committees on Armed Services and the Judiciary and 
     the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committees on Armed Services and the Judiciary and 
     the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House 
     of Representatives.
       (2) The term ``enemy combatant'' means--
       (A) an individual held under the authority of the Military 
     Order of November 13, 2001 (Volume 66, No. 222, pages 57833-
     57836 of the Federal Register); or
       (B) an individual designated as an enemy combatant and held 
     under other legal authority.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I came to the floor two days ago to 
express my concern about the administration's detention policies with 
respect to three different categories of

[[Page S9452]]

individuals, and this is particularly in the period since 9/11.
  One of those groups I spoke about was immigrants. There, of course, 
the concern has been underscored by the report done by the inspector 
general in the Department of Justice pointing out the abuses that have 
been engaged in by both the Department of Justice and the FBI with 
regard to immigrants after the 9/11 tragedy.
  Another group I spoke about were material witnesses. There have been 
several abuses there. In some cases, I think the FBI has acknowledged 
that. I think, again, we have a serious issue there of adequate 
attention to civil liberties and human rights.
  The third group I spoke about is the group designated by the 
Department of Defense and the President as so-called enemy combatants. 
That is a group my amendment deals with today.
  The amendment is very straightforward with regard to these 
individuals. It requires a report. It says to the Department of 
Defense, the Secretary of Defense, give the appropriate committees of 
the Congress a report within 90 days of the time this law becomes 
effective. The report shall indicate who these people are that the 
administration has designated as enemy combatants, and it shall tell us 
what plans the Department has with regard to charging these individuals 
with crimes, with regard to trying them for those crimes, and if there 
is an intention to repatriate some of these individuals to particular 
countries, to please advise us of that, but tell us something about who 
these individuals are and what you intend to do with them. That is the 
thrust of the amendment.
  There is a proviso in the amendment that says if there is a national 
security problem that the Department or the Secretary of Defense sees 
in giving us any of this information, of course, that doesn't need to 
be included in the unclassified version of the report. That could be 
kept in a separate, classified annex and assigned whatever 
classification the Secretary determines is appropriate.
  The administration is holding 3 individuals today--that I am aware 
of--in the United States as enemy combatants and is holding close to 
700 at our military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In all cases, these 
individuals are being called incommunicado. They are given no access to 
counsel and no opportunity for judicial review as yet.
  Let me say what I think should be obvious to everybody, and that is 
that I am not advocating that these individuals be released. What I am 
saying is that we should afford them the right to be charged with a 
crime. Tell us what action they have taken that justifies their 
incarceration, and set up some opportunity for them to be tried for 
those actions. Many of these enemy combatants have been in custody by 
our Government for well over 18 months--in some cases over 20 months.
  President Bush announced recently--in the last 2 weeks--that 6 of the 
700 or so of these enemy combatants will be tried by a military 
tribunal. As far as I know, there has been no indication yet as to what 
they will be tried for. There is no indication yet, or designation, or 
appointment of a military tribunal or commission to do the trying of 
these individuals. There has been no date set for these trials. But the 
President has said that 6 of the 680 or 700 individuals are eligible--I 
believe that is the phrase used by the Department of Defense and the 
White House--to be tried by military tribunals.

  There are serious questions about how those tribunals will function, 
and I am sure there will be many debates about that. Even more serious 
is a question relating to those who remain in jail, who have not--as 
yet at least--been given any indication of charges, any indication of 
when trials might be conducted in relation to them.
  The obvious question we need to be asking--we in the Congress--since 
we have an oversight responsibility over the administration, the 
executive branch, is, Where does the Government or this administration 
intend to go with regard to these individuals?
  So far, the administration takes the position that once the President 
says someone is an enemy combatant, they can keep them incarcerated, 
presumably until the war on terrorism is over. But the President has 
said--and I think he is probably right--this war on terrorism is of 
indefinite duration; it is not a war that we can see the end of--at 
least not in the near future. It appears to be the President's view and 
the administration's view that these individuals can be kept as 
prisoners from now on, without the administration having an obligation 
to say who they are, without the administration having an obligation to 
charge them with a crime, without the administration having any 
obligation to afford them a hearing.
  The administration takes the view that they do not come under the 
Geneva Convention, but evidently they come under none of the other 
procedural requirements that we have always thought applied in our 
system either.
  In my view, this is not a tenable position. It is not consistent with 
the commitment to liberty and the rule of law on which this country was 
founded. We demand that other governments show greater respect for 
human rights than this, and we should be demanding better from our own 
Government as well.
  The amendment is very straightforward and very modest, in my view. It 
simply says that the Secretary of Defense shall provide us with a 
report on the status of these detainees--provide that to the relevant 
committees of the Congress. Under the amendment, the report should 
include the name and nationality of the individuals involved, a 
statement as to whether our Government intends to charge them with some 
offense, or intends to repatriate them, or intends to release them--
whatever action we intend to engage in.
  There is nothing in the amendment that biases what is done with these 
individuals in any way. In the case of the individuals for whom such a 
determination has not been made, we ask for a description of the 
process the Department of Defense is intending to follow and the 
timeline for actually making a decision regarding these individuals.
  Madam President, I believe strongly that we have an obligation to 
require some accountability with regard to this set of individuals.
  We have made provision in the amendment, as I said before, so that 
the Secretary can withhold any information from any report he deems to 
be information necessary to withhold for national security reasons.
  The administration, in my view, needs to take some action and needs 
to advise the Congress on what it is doing with these people. If the 
individuals have committed crimes, let's see them charged with crimes. 
If they have not committed crimes, let's see them repatriated. Let's 
see some action taken. We in Congress need to understand what that 
action is. That is the thrust of the amendment. I hope it will receive 
broad bipartisan support.
  I appreciate Senator Specter cosponsoring the amendment, as well as 
the other Members I mentioned. I believe there is at least one other 
Member who wishes to speak in behalf of the amendment. So I reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, 
Mr. Bingaman, has an amendment which would require the Department of 
Defense to share with the relevant congressional committees information 
about those who are being held as enemy combatants. I am pleased to 
cosponsor this amendment.
  The amendment safeguards any national security concerns by 
authorizing the Secretary of Defense to provide this information in 
classified form where national security requires it. It is a cautious 
amendment. It does not force the administration to change the way it 
designates or treats enemy combatants, but merely secures the ability 
of Congress to carry out the oversight that our laws, our Constitution, 
our traditions, and our practice require us to do.
  Although the cases involving enemy combatants detained within the 
U.S. have been well publicized, we know very little about those who are 
being detained in Guantanamo Bay. Because they are held outside U.S. 
territory, the courts have found they do not have the power to review 
their detention. I do not doubt some of these detainees are dangerous 
individuals who wish the United States harm, but doubts have been 
raised on behalf of some of these detainees, and I think the Congress 
should have the information necessary to make judgments about this 
situation.

[[Page S9453]]

  I hope this amendment will be adopted. It will make the Department of 
Defense to make decisions more quickly as to whether to charge many of 
the individuals it is currently holding. No one advocates haste that 
will compromise ongoing intelligence gathering or hurt our national 
security, but at the same time, the United States cannot be in the 
position of indefinitely detaining individuals without charging them 
with any wrongdoing. That is inconsistent with United States traditions 
and will continue to cause us difficulty in our relations with the 
nations of citizens who are being held, ranging from Pakistan to Great 
Britain. It also puts us in a difficult situation when we tell other 
countries not to do what we are doing.
  Indeed, according to the New York Times, the President's decision to 
certify two British nationals for trial before a military tribunal 
created friction between our two nations, as Prime Minister Blair 
arrives to address a joint meeting of Congress tomorrow.
  Let me be clear, this amendment does not require any enemy combatant 
to be charged, let alone released, but it does ask the Secretary of 
Defense to explain where the investigatory process stands in the case 
of each detainee.
  Finally, I hope this amendment will encourage the administration to 
make decisions about what charges he intends to bring, if any, against 
Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, U.S. citizens currently being held 
indefinitely without charge in the United States. Their detentions have 
raised grave legal questions, and it is deeply discomforting to see in 
this case American citizens held indefinitely, in a legal twilight 
zone, without access to counsel or those protections to which we 
believe U.S. citizens are generally entitled, and also those 
protections that we preach to the rest of the world we uphold and we 
ask them to uphold when one of our citizens is being detained in their 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, soon after the war in Afghanistan 
started, I joined with others to go with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld 
to Guantanamo Bay to assure ourselves that the Department of Defense is 
complying and will comply with provisions of the Geneva Convention with 
regard to the treatment of prisoners who are held at Guantanamo Bay and 
other places arising from that war.
  It is my understanding the individuals who are detained are those who 
have participated in the battles in Afghanistan against our soldiers, 
and those who are, at the request of the Department of Justice, held 
for suspected terrorist activities in the United States in the war 
against terrorism.
  The Department of Defense does not have control over these personnel. 
I believe they are really under the jurisdiction of the Department of 
Justice. I do not intend to make any kind of point of order based on 
legislation. I think we should just face this directly.
  I think the concept of Senator Bingaman's amendment is directly 
contrary to what we should be doing with regard to activities of people 
who have conducted themselves as enemies of the United States in war 
and those who are involved in the terrorist activities as part of the 
terrorist war against the United States.
  Placing a requirement that we disclose and give a schedule as 
required by this Bingaman amendment is totally contrary to the best 
interests of the United States. It would place an unwarranted pressure 
on the administration to decide on charging and prosecuting enemy 
combatants prior to completion of intelligence and law enforcement 
analysis.
  These people in Guantanamo Bay were held incommunicado from one 
another. One of the reasons was the concept of the knowledge of who 
else was detained might deter one of these people from giving us the 
information we needed to find the leaders in the war on terrorism 
against the United States.
  The process of investigation is a very long and tedious one. These 
people use different languages. We found they are using names and 
declaring they are from countries that are totally untrue. The real 
problem is how to deal with these people in a way to end the war in 
Afghanistan and to end the war on terrorism.
  It is the executive branch's authority and responsibility to conduct 
the global war on terrorism. It is the executive branch's 
responsibility to conduct the war in Afghanistan. For Congress to 
impose a restriction on the activities that are consistent with 
precedent and consistent with the manner in which similar people have 
been detained over the years when we have been involved in war, such as 
World War II, and the Germans came to our shores and the spies who were 
intercepted throughout the world--they were held in the combatant 
status. These people are in combatant status and, as such, their 
treatment is subject to the Geneva Convention.
  Only this basic law would impose conditions upon the right of the 
administration and the Departments of the executive branch to fully 
exploit the intelligence and investigative capabilities of the 
detention in a combatant status in order to deal with these two 
terrible scourges we face right now.
  Unfortunately, the war in Afghanistan seems to be taking unfortunate 
turns lately, and I hope we can meet that situation. We meet it through 
information that we gather from some of these people. I am reliably 
informed that some of these people, in the way they have been treated, 
have divulged information to us that has led to the capture and 
detention of others in a similar capacity as having been enemies of the 
United States.
  In short, I think it would be highly inadvisable to adopt the 
Bingaman amendment, and it would have a negative impact on both the war 
on terrorism and the conduct of wartime operations in Afghanistan.
  There are cases pending in the courts now that this amendment, I 
understand, would terminate because there are people who, through civil 
rights cases, filed to determine the court's opinion as to the ``combat 
status'' designation, and I do not think we should take action now as a 
Congress to interrupt that process.
  Madam President, does Senator Inouye wish to comment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, the committee has been advised, No. 1, 
that the procedure and process employed in Guantanamo and other places 
of detention meet the requirements set forth by the Geneva Convention.
  No. 2, the matter is being represented by counsel and presently in 
court. As our chairman indicated, it would not be appropriate for this 
committee to be intervening while a court case is pending.
  No. 3, I think we should keep in mind that this is not a war. This is 
an experience that this Nation has not had in its past history. This is 
a war on terrorism. It is not the uniformed enemy to which we are 
always accustomed where we know who their commanders are, we know where 
they are coming from, they wear a different type of uniform. In this 
war, we have no idea who the terrorists are. It could be this young 
lady here, for all I know.
  Having said that, if we follow provisions of this amendment and the 
Defense Department and the Department of Justice are required to give 
out the names, the rank, the charges, et cetera, and to give an 
indication as to when one can expect this prisoner to be released, I 
think we may be working right into the hands of the organization we are 
trying to combat: al-Qaida.
  If I were in charge of the al-Qaida operations, I would like to know 
what is happening to those below me. And if I new Mr. One is coming out 
next August or Mr. Two is coming out in September, I can make plans 
accordingly.
  As I pointed out, this is a war that none of us have experienced in 
the past. The chairman and I could speak of World War II and the Hump, 
the Japanese, the Germans, the camps and such.
  On this matter, we have never experienced anything like this. So I 
hope as long as Guantanamo is open to inspection--and the chairman and 
I have gone there. It has been always open to Members of Congress if 
they wish to go there for themselves to look over the conditions, to 
taste their food, and in fact talk to them to see if they are being 
tortured, as some would suggest. I think my colleagues will find that 
as Americans we have treated our detainees in an humane fashion.
  Now, no one would want to be detained even for an hour, but in this

[[Page S9454]]

wartime condition and terrorist condition I think there is a necessity. 
We have done our duty in a way that Americans need not be embarrassed 
and ashamed. So I hope my colleagues will not look favorably upon this 
amendment and wait for another day.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam President, I will respond to a few of the points my colleagues 
from Alaska and Hawaii made. First, I will say what this amendment does 
not do. There is nothing in this amendment that restricts what action 
the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, or any other 
agency of the Government is permitted to take with regard to these 
enemy combatants. This is an amendment that asks for a report. It does 
not say certain action has to be taken with regard to these 
individuals. It says tell us the status.
  Second, there is nothing in this amendment that affects court cases. 
If there are court cases related to any of these enemy combatants, then 
it is perfectly appropriate for the Justice Department to indicate who 
the person is or which individuals are involved and say they are 
subject to pending litigation, if that is the case. But the reality is, 
if one is designated an enemy combatant, they are taken out of the 
court system. That designation takes one out of the court system and 
puts them in the custody of the military. It is the position of our 
military that from that point on, one has no right to a hearing, no 
right to be charged, is an enemy combatant, and accordingly they will 
deal with them as they choose.
  The Senator from Alaska says this is something that is probably in 
the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. I think that sort of 
makes my case. These people are in nowhere land. They are in limbo.
  There is an article that came out in the morning paper in my home 
State in Albuquerque where there was a little report on the speech I 
gave 2 days ago talking about this problem, and I will read a sentence 
from that report: White House spokesman Taylor Gross referred questions 
about Bingaman's speech and proposed amendment to the Justice and 
Defense Departments. A Justice Department spokeswoman referred 
questions to the Defense Department. A spokesman for the Defense 
Department declined to comment.

  The reality is, we are allowing the administration to put these 
people in a category and then take the position that no rights apply to 
these individuals. There is no obligation on the Department of Justice 
to follow procedures with regard to these individuals. There is no 
obligation on the Department of Defense.
  There is nothing in my amendment that questions the treatment of 
these individuals. Others have questioned the treatment of these 
individuals. I have not questioned the treatment of these individuals 
in Guantanamo. There is nothing in the amendment that questions the 
treatment of these individuals.
  Also, the point my good friend from Hawaii has made, that this would 
give al-Qaida or some other terrorist organization information that 
could be useful to them about when individuals might be released, 
first, we have a proviso that anything the Department of Defense 
determines might be contrary to national security, they should keep it 
classified. They can give it any level of classification they want to 
give it. If they want to say it is code level classification, they can 
do that, whatever classification they think is appropriate.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to yield to my colleague from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I ask the 
Senator from New Mexico--he has made the point it is still up to the 
administration to decide which names and identities will remain 
classified and not publicly disclosed. If there is any concern about 
national security and the threat of terrorism, as I understand this 
amendment, the Senator makes a clear exception so the administration 
has the last word in terms of this disclosure; is that not true?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, in response to that question, let me 
say that is exactly right. We have gone out of our way to make it clear 
the Departments can keep secret, can keep code classification, whatever 
classification level the Department decides is appropriate, any 
information they think is vital to our national security. So we are 
saying, as to the information that is not of that type, tell us what 
can be told about who these people are and what the intent is as far as 
what to do with them.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from New Mexico, through the Chair, if 
he would yield for one additional question. Is it not true historically 
that when we are in the midst of a national security challenge or 
crisis, and questions of civil liberties arise, that many times we do 
not want to face them head on; that it is not until later in history 
that we look back and say we should have asked harder questions, 
questions about the suspension of civil liberties in wartime, questions 
about internment camps, questions about policies that we followed?
  If I understand what the Senator is seeking in this amendment, it is 
to say at this point in time what we are asking for is a disclosure of 
those people who have been detained and arrested and are in special 
status, whose rights at least may be compromised because of our concern 
about national security; and that disclosure is all that this amendment 
is about, giving the administration the last word and determination as 
to which names might be held back and not disclosed because of security 
concerns.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, in response to that follow-on 
question, that is exactly correct. The Senator from Illinois is exactly 
right in pointing out that in what we are trying to do, we are not--
this is not an amendment I am offering 6 weeks after the 9/11 tragedy. 
This is an amendment I am offering 20 months or more after the 9/11 
tragedy. We know that many of these individuals have been there well 
over a year and a half. It is time that we in Congress exercise our 
oversight responsibility and say: Who are they? What are they intending 
to be charged with? I do not anticipate that these are individuals we 
are going to some day say we have decided to release. I assume that we 
have them there for good reason, and that we are going to prosecute 
them and that we are going to find them guilty. That is my assumption, 
assuming the system works as it is intended to work.
  So my thought is, let's get some idea of where we are going so that 
we begin to build in some accountability and begin to recognize what we 
historically have recognized, and that is that there are certain legal 
protections that apply if one is jailed by the United States 
Government. There are certain legal rights that we will be afforded.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from New Mexico if--I do not know how 
much time he has remaining, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3 minutes 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I might ask the Senator from New Mexico this question: 
What is at issue in his amendment, if I am not mistaken, is whether we 
are going to afford any form of due process to these detainees. Is it 
not also true that we have to look beyond these detainees to how we as 
Americans would be treated in other countries, whether we are 
establishing a standard which we could live by?
  In other words, I am asking the Senator from New Mexico if we believe 
that we can detain individuals, without disclosure of who they are, and 
the circumstances of their detention, does that not invite the same 
conduct against Americans or service men and women overseas and give 
the United States little or no room to complain?
  I ask the Senator from New Mexico if he is not asking for us to stand 
up for some basic elements of due process which we would ask to be 
afforded to Americans in similar situations.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. In response to the question, I think the Senator from 
Illinois makes a very good point. If we are going to proclaim our 
commitment to liberty and to freedom as we always have, and as I 
certainly want to be able to do, and if we are going to insist that 
U.S. citizens, when they are captured

[[Page S9455]]

in overseas incidents, whether they be military or civilian, that they 
be given some reasonable treatment through the court systems of those 
countries, then we have to have some adherence to reasonable legal 
process for these individuals that we have incarcerated. That is all I 
am asking. Tell us what we are going to do. If they come back and say 
we are not going to do anything, then we can see whether a follow-on 
amendment or follow-on action is appropriate.

  This amendment simply says, give us a report. Tell us the status of 
these individuals; tell us your plans with regard to these individuals; 
or give us some idea whether or not you are going to charge them. If 
you are going to charge them with something, tell us what you might 
charge them with. If you decide to make that decision later on, tell us 
when you might decide to make that decision.
  It is the most modest of amendments. I hope very much it will be 
supported by my colleagues on a bipartisan basis.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 53 seconds.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I retain that and I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, for the information of the Senate, the 
Intelligence Committee has access to information about enemy combatants 
who are being detained, including names the Red Cross is fully engaged 
with in the continuing meaningful access to detainees.
  This Congress was briefed about the creation of the military 
tribunals and the handling of detainees. The tribunals were created by 
Executive order. That was published in the Federal Register. It has 
been a matter of public record for some time.
  Any detainees brought before military tribunals have full access to 
military and, at their request, civilian counsel. We are talking now 
about the requirement to publish, to release these names. By the way, 
they have been released, in effect, in classified form, but with the 
intervention of our Intelligence Committee, which is the oversight 
committee for this body in regard to information such as this.
  I cannot believe we would be faced on an appropriations bill with a 
matter of this kind. It does not get into money, but it does deal with 
something the Department of Defense has connection with. It is relevant 
and therefore we must deal with it.
  However, the broad release of the names of these individuals, even in 
classified form, could compromise our ability to access information 
which could prevent more terrorist attacks, could prevent more attacks 
on our military in Afghanistan. This is a military problem in that 
sense. That is why the Department of Defense is involved. It is the 
Department of Justice's sense in terms of deciding how they are 
prosecuted. If they are prosecuted in civilian courts is another 
matter. Then they would be fully accounted for in the public sector. If 
the prosecutor in the tribunals--the tribunals themselves can be 
closed, if that is the decision. The person would still have the right 
to counsel and a right to be tried before the tribunal, but we would 
not necessarily have public access to that trial because of the 
information involved.
  If people want to go to Guantanamo and know who is there, go there. 
We went there. I don't understand why we should take this action now.
  By the way, the Senator is not quite correct; it not only says the 
names and the nationality but also whether they are to be charged, 
repatriated, a statement of what procedure is going to be followed to 
determine whether they are charged or repatriated. That is intelligence 
information. And with respect to such individuals in the United States, 
intention to charge, a schedule for the filing of the charge and the 
date for the trial. If it is a military tribunal, it could well be 
classified. To require the determination now of what would be done--it 
is true there is an exclusion here; the Secretary can omit. But if he 
omitted one or more individuals, then he would include in the report an 
explanation of the mission of the individual or individuals. It could 
include a classified index. If it could include a classified index, why 
should it be published? We do not publish a classified index.

  The term ``enemy combatant'' means an individual held under the 
authority of military order of November 13, 2001, as published in the 
Federal Register, or an individual designated as an enemy combatant and 
held under other legal authorities. In both instances, they have 
quality access to courts that protect their rights. Other people are 
pursuing those cases.
  The interrogation process of people like this is ongoing and very 
timely. It does not lend itself to detailed plans, firm dates, and firm 
schedules. We saw some of that when we were in Guantanamo, but the 
interrogation efforts in many ways require somehow to get through to an 
individual who has lied to us about who the person is, where they are 
from, and refused to give any data at all concerning their own 
background. They were captured under wartime conditions.
  This amendment is an attempt to poke Congress' nose under a tent, 
that we belong only if we are in an unclassified area. That is what the 
Intelligence Committee has already done. I am reliably informed the 
Intelligence Committee has access to information about these enemy 
combatants in detention, including their names. If they started 
releasing the names of these individuals, even in classified form, it 
could compromise sources and methods of their acquisition and 
compromise the possibility of gaining information on them that might 
prevent further terrorist activities.
  If the Senator wishes further time, I will be glad to not yield back 
my time but I intend to yield back the time and move to table.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate the courtesy. I will use my remaining 50 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-five seconds.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, first of all, if the Secretary of 
Defense believes the release of any of these names compromises our 
national security, he is given full reign to keep that information 
classified at any level of classification he decides is appropriate. So 
we are not in any way interfering with national security.
  In my view, it is not appropriate for us to say, look, if you want to 
check on them, get on a plane and go down to Guantanamo. We and the 
American people need to be persuaded there is some adequate due process 
and legal process being followed.
  Regarding the idea of these military tribunals, there have been no 
tribunals established. The President said 6 individuals out of the 
nearly 700 are eligible to be considered or to be tried by military 
tribunals. There are no military tribunals established.
  I urge support for the amendment and I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Before that, I ask unanimous consent that the second and third votes 
in this stack of three votes be limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield back the remainder of my time, I move to table 
the Senator's amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. The first vote will be on tabling the Dorgan amendment; 
the second vote will be on the Bingaman amendment; and the third vote 
will be on Burma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                           Amendment No. 1264

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 2 
minutes evenly divided prior to a vote on the motion to table the 
Dorgan amendment.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS. There are 2 minutes equally divided before a vote on 
each amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Since Senator Dorgan is not here, I will claim 1 minute. 
I ask unanimous consent I be recognized for 1 minute to close this 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. As cosponsor of this amendment, what we are setting out 
to do is to ask the administration for the

[[Page S9456]]

costs of the Iraqi war. That is not included in this Defense bill. We 
are living on money appropriated in the supplemental appropriation that 
we know will run out before the next fiscal year ends, so we are 
leveraging from one supplemental appropriation to the next.
  This war, in fact, is costing in the realm of $4 billion a month and 
the Afghanistan war another $1 billion a month. We are asking the 
President to disclose the cost of this war, to give us an idea for the 
American taxpayers and for Congress of the financial responsibility we 
have undertaken.
  I support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, we fund peacetime budgets in advance. 
Congress has never agreed to fund wartime expenses in advance. Instead, 
we have always, in every instance, as stated by the Congressional 
Research Service, funded them after those costs have been incurred and 
with the President's request for the payment. Presidents take the money 
from existing funds and we replace those funds, rather than having 
budgets determined in advance.
  As the Senator from Hawaii so vividly pointed out, it is impossible 
to know what the costs will be in fighting a war in advance. That is 
what this amendment urges, and that is why I moved to table that, and I 
urge the support of the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the motion to table. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Sununu) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay''.
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 278 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--41

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Miller
     Sununu
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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.


                           Amendment No. 1268

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Under the previous order, there 
are now 2 minutes equally divided prior to a vote on the motion to 
table the Bingaman amendment.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is a very straightforward amendment 
which just requires a report from the Secretary of Defense on those 
people we are incarcerating under the status of ``enemy combatant'' and 
what our intentions are with regard to charging them or making a 
decision on charging them.
  We have a proviso in there that if the release of any of this 
information will jeopardize national security, the Secretary can 
withhold that and put it in a classified annex and give it any level of 
classification the Secretary determines is appropriate.
  So it seems to me essential that the Congress exercise some oversight 
of this process. If we are going to be a nation that stands for liberty 
and freedom and legal process, then we ought to ensure that everyone 
who has been taken into custody in our country be afforded some legal 
protection. There are no military tribunals that have been established. 
The problem is not resolved. We should ask for this report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, these people are being held consistent 
with the Geneva Convention. The Intelligence Committee of the Senate 
has access to names and information concerning those who are detained.
  The Red Cross is fully engaged and has meaningful access to the 
detainees. We need to have the interrogation process continue so that 
we can see if we can get information from these people that might lead 
to us having the ability to prevent further terrorist attacks against 
the United States.
  They are enemy combatants. There is fully published, in the Federal 
Register, the procedure under which they will be handled. This 
amendment, as a matter of law, forces the disclosure and a plan of when 
they are to be released. It is contrary to the best interests of 
national security, in my opinion. I made a motion to table and I urge 
its support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question now occurs on agreeing to the motion to table amendment 
No. 1268. This will be a 10-minute vote. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Sununu) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 279 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Miller
     Sununu
  The motion was agreed to.
  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.

[[Page S9457]]

               BURMESE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2003

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, pursuant to the previous order, I ask 
that the Senate proceed to a vote on the passage of H.R. 2330, the 
Burma sanctions bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now proceed to the 
consideration of H.R. 2330, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H. 2330) to sanction the ruling Burmese military 
     junta, to strengthen Burma's democratic forces and support 
     and recognize the National League of Democracy as the 
     legitimate representative of the Burmese people, and for 
     other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on passage of the bill. The 
yeas and nays are in order. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Sununu) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 280 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Enzi
       

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Miller
     Sununu
  The bill (H.R. 2330) was passed.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator 
from Louisiana have 4 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Ms. Landrieu pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1419 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')


                           Amendment No. 1269

  Mr. DASCHLE. I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] for himself, 
     Mr. Graham of South Carolina, Mr. Leahy, Mr. DeWine, Mr. 
     Miller, Mr. Smith, and Mrs. Clinton, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1269.

  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:

     SEC.   . IN RECOGNITION OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE'S 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND 
                   EXPRESSING STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE SENATE'S 
                   PREVIOUS BIPARTISAN VOTE TO PROVIDE THESE 
                   FORCES ACCESS TO TRICARE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Forces in the U.S. National Guard and Reserve have made 
     and continue to make essential and effective contributions to 
     Operation Iraqi Freedom and other ongoing military 
     operations;
       (2) More than 200,000 reserve personnel from the Army, 
     Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard are currently 
     serving their nation on active status;
       (3) Our dependence on the National Guard and Reserve has 
     increased dramatically over the course of the past decade. 
     Annual duty days have grown from about 1 million in the late 
     1980s to more than 12 million in every year since 1996;
       (4) While our dependence on the reserves has increased in 
     the post-Cold War era, their basic pay and benefits structure 
     has remained largely unchanged;
       (5) Offering TRICARE to reservists for an affordable 
     monthly premium enhances our national security by improving 
     their medical readiness when called to duty, streamlining and 
     accelerating the mobilization process, and enhancing our 
     military's ability to recruit and retain qualified personnel 
     to reserve duty;
       (6) The Congressional Budget Office, the official, non-
     partisan scorekeeper of all congressional legislation, has 
     estimated the cost of this proposal at just over one-tenth of 
     one percent of the Administration's FY2004 defense budget 
     request;
       (7) On May 20, 2003, a strong majority of Senate Democrats 
     and Republicans joined together and voted 85-10 for an 
     amendment to the FY2004 Defense Authorization bill to provide 
     reserve personnel and their families access to TRICARE 
     regardless of their current deployment status; and
       (8) The Appropriations Committee indicated in its report 
     accompanying the FY2004 Defense Appropriations bill that it 
     supports this proposal.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that:
       (1) The National Guard and Reserve play a critical and 
     increasingly demanding role in protecting our national 
     security, and
       (2) The Senate supports the Appropriations Committee 
     position as articulated in the report accompanying the FY2004 
     Defense Appropriations bill and affirms its support for 
     providing Guard and Reserve personnel access to TRICARE.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we have received word of four more 
reservists killed in Iraq and Kuwait over the past week. They are the 
18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st reservists who have made the ultimate 
sacrifice during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and numerous others have been 
wounded.
  Four other reservists have died this year in support of Operation 
Enduring Freedom.
  Their deaths offer a stark reminder of how our military functions 
today. A National Guard or Reserve member is more likely to serve on 
active duty than at any other time in our nation's history. In fact, 
reservists have been called to support every military operation since 
Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, whether it was peacekeeping in 
the Balkans, defending our Nation's airspace after the September 11th 
attacks, or neutralizing the Baathist regime in Iraq.
  These troops work hard to stay prepared for the time when their 
Nation calls, and they are eager to prove themselves when summoned to 
active duty. Nonetheless, we have been demanding more and more of them, 
and it's time that we as a Nation considered what we can give back.
  For that reason, a bipartisan group of us introduced legislation 
earlier this year to allow reservists to pay a premium and receive 
coverage from TRICARE, the military health program. I joined with the 
Senator, from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, Senator Clinton, Senator 
Leahy and Senator DeWine, to press for inclusion of a similar proposal 
in the Fiscal Year 2004 Defense Authorization bill. The outcome was a 
strong, bipartisan vote, 85-10, in favor of allowing reservists to buy 
into TRICARE.
  Today, we are asking the Senate to underscore our resolve to move 
forward on this issue. We are asking our fellow Senators to join in 
affirming the importance of the reserves to our national security and 
the necessity of a new TRICARE benefit to keep this force intact and 
improve its readiness.
  Some have argued that we would diminish the value of active-duty 
service by providing the same health benefit to part-time soldiers. In 
fact, we are requiring reservists to pay for a benefit that comes at no 
charge to active-duty troops and their families.
  Other have said we would be undermining recruiting and retention and

[[Page S9458]]

quality of life programs. This argument fails the laugh test, as any 
Guard and Reserve recruiting officer will tell you.
  Still others say this is too costly. But when we rely so heavily on 
the Guard and Reserve to protect our national security, I question 
whether we can afford not to provide this benefit. CBO says the price 
tag would come to just over one-tenth of one percent of the President's 
proposed Fiscal Year 2004 defense budget. In return, we will take a 
major step toward ensuring the integrity of this force, by improving 
its medical readiness when called to active duty, by streamlining and 
accelerating the mobilization process, and by enhancing our military's 
ability to recruit and retain qualified personnel to reserve duty.
  Today, 40 percent of our reservists between the ages of 19-35--and 
that represents a pretty broad spectrum of reservists on active duty 
today--are uninsured. It is in our national security interest to make 
sure they have health insurance and do not have to go for long periods 
of time without being able to see a doctor or provide for the most 
basic health needs of themselves or their families.
  Today, more than 200,000 reservists are on active duty, having left 
behind families, careers, and their everyday lives to serve their 
Nation. Some may never come home. Our military relies on this force to 
protect our borders, our national interest, and our people.
  I think it is important once again the Senate go on record and send 
as clear a message as we can that we are not going to rest and we are 
not going to quit until they have the access they deserve to the health 
care program they so badly need.
  At this time, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I would like to speak, if possible.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I wouldn't be calling for the vote at this point. I am 
just asking for the yeas and nays and for a vote later on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Madam President, I thank Senator 
Daschle for the great help he has been and for his partnership on this 
piece of legislation. I associate myself with his remarks about the 
TRICARE program being extended to family members of the Guard and 
Reserve.
  During the last Desert Shield-Desert Storm conflict, I was in the Air 
National Guard unit that was called up to active duty. Planes, pilots, 
and crews went over and did a magnificent job. I was in a support role 
as a military lawyer. I was called to active duty--along with doctors 
and other folks--to take care of families who were left behind by 
providing legal services.
  When a family member is deployed in the Guard and Reserve, more 
likely than not the military pay will be smaller than the civilian pay. 
The Soldiers and Sailors Civil Leave Act allows a renegotiation of 
loans and a restructuring of debt so the military pay can cover family 
expenses. You are not successful all the time. I spent hours 
negotiating new loans, house payments, and car payments so the military 
pay would cover the family expenses. But one thing that we haven't 
addressed is health care.
  As Senator Daschle indicated, there are many members without health 
care. But for those who have health care, once they are activated, the 
physician network that your family is used to is replaced by the 
military.
  In the case of our unit--Swamp Fox Unit in the South Carolina Air 
National Guard that I served in from 1991 to the present--they have 
been deployed six times. That is not unusual. You have families 
bouncing from one health care network to the other.
  We are trying to make sure that continuity of health care is 
available to Guard and Reserve families by allowing them, in addition 
to their membership in the Guard and Reserve, access to the TRICARE 
military health care system when they are in their civilian capacity as 
well as when they are activated. So when they are activated, there is 
no major upheaval in their lives when it comes to health care. They 
will have a safety net.
  You can't be everything to everybody. But they are having to pay a 
premium that is fair to them, helps reduce the cost of the bill similar 
to what retirees pay.
  It is important to me to put this on the table, and do it in a way so 
we can afford it. I think the premium helps offset the cost.
  I am here to report that I have talked with the administration and 
the Pentagon which have concerns about implementing this program now 
because we haven't budgeted for it in this budget cycle. We are going 
to compromise on the Defense authorization bill and initiate a study of 
the best way to provide TRICARE coverage to Guard and Reserve members 
in terms of cost, affordability, and availability. We will have that 
study. Next year, Senator Daschle and all of the others who have worked 
with us have my solemn promise we are going to go after the money 
necessary to fund this program.
  The proposal we are speaking about today has a statement in it that 
they are willing to help fund this if we can find the money. This 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution is important in the sense that we are 
letting our Guard and Reserve families know we haven't forgotten about 
them and that we are trying to do this in an affordable and efficient 
way by studying it for a year. But help is going to be on the way.
  The recruiting and retention problems that we suffer in the Guard and 
Reserve we haven't yet begun to understand. You have some Guard and 
Reserve units that are indispensable to the war-fighting machine that 
we have created and which is so effective. Their employers have 
suffered greatly because they are gone from their work stations in the 
civilian community a lot. Employers have been paying the difference 
between the military pay and the civilian pay in many instances.
  We are going to work in a bipartisan fashion to have a tax credit. 
The retirement age is 60. On active duty, you can retire after 20 years 
of service. As a Guard or Reserve member, I am 5 years away. I have to 
get 5 good years somehow so I can get my retirement. I am not worried 
about me. But we have a proposal that for every 2 years you stay on to 
help your country, we will allow you to retire early. That is not part 
of the package we are talking about in TRICARE but it will be part of a 
package to upgrade Guard and Reserve benefits. The total cost for all 
three--health care, reduced retirement, and tax credits--is in the $15 
billion range over 5 years. That is a lot of money. But I agree with 
Senator Daschle, we can't afford not to do it.
  I ask all of my colleagues to look at this closely and support this 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution so we can sit down with the 
administration next year in good faith--they have been very good about 
dealing with this issue in a responsible way this year--and come up 
with the money and get a commitment from the administration, the 
Pentagon, the House, and the Senate to fund this program.
  If we improve the benefit package, not only are we doing what we 
should do to help our Guard and Reserve families, which they will 
appreciate, but we will have a better chance of retaining these great 
Americans because we are asking so much of them. It is time for us to 
deliver a better benefit package because they have really delivered for 
this country.
  I appreciate working with Senator Daschle, and the administration has 
been very good to work with. This time next year I hope we can take the 
floor and tell the Reserve and Guard families of this country that they 
have a benefit package that shows how much we respect and care for 
them.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
South Carolina for his great effort on this amendment and for his 
generous words. He speaks from experience--first, as a member of the 
Guard but then also as a member of the Armed Services Committee. I 
appreciate the work he has done in getting us to a point where we have 
a commitment from the administration that they will work with us. I 
hope we don't have to wait a year. But I recognize reality. I believe 
it is important to get a commitment regardless of how long it takes.
  The message we want to send today with this sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution is that there is strong bipartisan

[[Page S9459]]

support for the concept that we ought to be able to allow the Guard and 
Reserve to access TRICARE as soon as possible so that in the very 
situation the Senator from South Carolina has noted--this recognition 
that they may be called to active duty not once but several times as 
they go in and out of their role as active guardsmen--they have the 
time to transition with the coverage and the peace of mind required as 
they commit themselves once again to their country.
  I hope we can get a strong bipartisan vote. I hope we recognize that, 
while this is not inexpensive, we estimate that one-tenth of 1 percent 
of the overall cost of the defense budget is a price worth paying for 
the commitment and the message that we send about our recognition of 
the important role the Guard and Reserve play today as they serve in 
Iraq and around the world.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Daschle-
Graham amendment. This amendment expresses the strong sense of Congress 
that members of the Guard and Reserve should be made eligible for the 
TRICARE health insurance program.
  I am the co-chair of the Senate's National Guard Caucus, and I have 
watched closely as over 200,000 members of the Guard and the Reserves 
have been called to duty for the war in Iraq. Our reservists have 
distinguished themselves in every respect, underscoring that our 
Nation's defense rests--as it has been since our founding--on our 
citizen soldiers.
  We have a responsibility to ensure that this force is as effective as 
possible. Yet a recent GAO report indicated that almost 20 percent of 
our reserves do not have access to adequate health insurance. This 
means that we are deploying men and women to fight when they are not as 
healthy as possible.
  This resolution makes the strong statement in support of a cost-share 
program that ensures that reservists and their families have coverage. 
It puts the body's weight behind the strong report language in this 
bill and follows on the Senate's 85 to 10 vote during our consideration 
of the Defense authorization bill in favor of this innovative cost-
share program.
  The defense conferees are currently reviewing this provision, based 
on legislation I crafted along with Senators DeWine, Daschle, and 
Smith, and a strong vote today would send a signal that a final bill 
should include health insurance eligibility.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote again to support this effort.


                           Amendment No. 1271

        (Purpose: To require reports on U.S. Operations in Iraq)

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I have been working on an amendment that 
I trust would get support from both sides of the aisle, and I would 
like, at this time, to send this amendment to the desk and ask 
unanimous consent that the previous amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1271.
       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.   . REPORTS ON IRAQ

       Not less than once every 30 days, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit a report to the congressional defense 
     committees, the House International Relations Committee, and 
     Senate Foreign Relations Committee that contains the 
     following information:
       (a) Total and monthly costs of U.S. operations in Iraq,
       (b) Number of U.S. military personnel serving in Iraq and 
     the immediate region.
       (c) Total and monthly contributions made by foreign 
     governments and international organizations in support of 
     U.S. operations in Iraq.
       (d) Number of foreign military personnel serving in support 
     of U.S. operations in Iraq,
       (e) Defense articles and services offered by foreign 
     governments and international organizations in support of 
     U.S. operations in Iraq,
       (f) Total number of U.S. casualties as a result of U.S. 
     operations in Iraq by date and cause,
       (g) All contracts in excess of $10 million entered into by 
     the U.S. government for the reconstruction of Iraq.

  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Madam President. And I am glad the 
clerk was able to read this amendment because I think it is a very 
straightforward amendment, not one of those that is convoluted.
  Essentially, my amendment is an assurance that the American people 
will receive the full and accurate costs relating to the operations in 
Iraq; will know more about the monthly costs therein; will know more 
about the contribution of our coalition of the willing and other 
nations that may come in, both in terms of their support of military 
personnel and their monetary support, and other support; and also will 
have detailed reports on the casualties.
  This is a very important amendment because, quite frankly, as a 
member of the Foreign Relations Committee myself, we do not have the 
information we need. I am going to attempt to prove that as I go 
through my points.
  Basically, the amendment would require that each month--every 30 
days--the Secretary of Defense send a report to the congressional 
committees with specific information. You have heard that information 
read by the clerk, so I will not go into that until my summary.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Landrieu and 
Murray be added as cosponsors to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, last August, the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, on which I serve, began a series of hearings on 
U.S. policy toward Iraq, hearings that began under the leadership of 
Senator Biden, and have continued with our current chairman, Senator 
Lugar.
  From the very first hearing, my position on this issue was very 
clear. I felt if our policy toward Iraq was going to be successful, it 
should be done in conjunction with our allies and in coordination with 
international institutions, such as NATO and the United Nations.
  Why did I feel that way? Because I felt that the burden of this 
situation should be shared by the world. Surely, the world has 
something at stake if there is stability in Iraq, and that burden ought 
to be shared.
  The fact is, for many different reasons--and I am not going to rehash 
them--the burden has not been shared. And this situation is very 
different than the first Persian Gulf war, where George Herbert Walker 
Bush built a very broad international coalition to share the burdens of 
war.
  All we have to do is look at the cost. That is one example. The 
estimated cost of the first gulf war was $61 billion total. The 
operation was financed by more than $53 billion pledged by countries 
around the world, and some of that came in the form of in-kind services 
that also counted toward the estimate. So our allies picked up roughly 
85 percent of the cost of the first gulf war. Our allies also provided 
a quarter of the military force on the ground.
  How different is this current situation? We have 146,000 troops in 
Iraq, and they are dying every day. I have come to the floor to 
eulogize those who have died who had any connection to California. Let 
me say, since President Bush declared an end to major hostilities on 
May 1, 15 of those who were either from California or based in 
California have been killed. In the total of all those killed, 56 have 
been from California or based in California. This war is touching the 
people of my State very deeply.
  So here are 146,000 troops from our country in Iraq, and the British, 
our top ally, have 12,000 troops. They certainly have been our deepest 
friends in this particular situation. They have 12,000 troops. We have 
146,000. Poland and Australia have a small number of troops. All these 
troops are greatly appreciated. But you cannot come close to the type 
of international coalition that we had in the first Persian Gulf war 
or, more important, what we need to have today so that the burden does 
not fall so hard on our families.
  Last night, I heard a report on CNN about a little child that would 
just break your heart. He was there with his mom. You never can script 
a child. This little boy said: I was supposed to

[[Page S9460]]

have my daddy home, and this is the second time, but the President 
changed his mind again.
  Clearly, the President doesn't want to see little kids crying for 
their parents. No one does. But what it means is we need to 
internationalize the troops in the field so we do not have to carry 
this burden. We also need rules and regulations so we keep to our word 
about the length of the terms served over there, and that is an issue 
that will come back again. We had a vote on that yesterday.
  For a moment I rise to talk about the money. In a hearing on July 9 
before the Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense, Donald 
Rumsfeld, was unable to recall the monthly cost of U.S. operations in 
Iraq. The committee actually had to go into a recess so the Secretary 
could get the information.
  This is unacceptable. I have the transcript from that hearing. I am 
going to read from it.
  Senator Byrd:

       Mr. Secretary, what is the current monthly spend rate to 
     support our ongoing military operations in Iraq?

  Mr. Rumsfeld:

       I'll have to get you that for the record.
       It's a combination of appropriating funds, as you know, 
     sir, know better than any, plus the expenditures of funds 
     taking place from Iraqi frozen assets, from Iraqi siezed 
     assets and from U.N.-Iraqi assets under the oil-for-food 
     program. And I can certainly have Dr. Zakheim come up and 
     provide a very precise answer as to what's currently being 
     spent.

  Senator Byrd:

       Do you recall a figure? Can you give us an estimate? I've 
     heard the figure of $1.5 billion a month.
  Secretary Rumsfeld:

       I would not want to venture a guess and be wrong, sir.

  Senator Byrd:

       Well, somebody ought to know.

  Secretary Rumsfeld:

       Well, they do know. We'll be happy to brief you on that.
       Well, I'd like to know now.
       Well, we'd have to adjourn . . .
       Well, OK.

  Madam President, how do you come before the Armed Services Committee 
without an estimate of the cost? I don't quite understand it.
  Secretary Rumsfeld says these expenditures are in a variety of 
categories, et cetera.
  This is what Senator Byrd said:

       I understand that, Mr. Chairman, but I've been around here 
     going on 51 years and I'm on the Appropriations Committee, 
     and we want to fund our military and meet the need. But there 
     must be some figure, some amount that we can cite as an 
     amount that we're spending monthly in Afghanistan and the 
     same with respect to Iraq.

  Secretary Rumsfeld:

       I'm sure there is, and we'll get it for you.

  Senator Byrd:

       Very well. That'll be another figure we hope to have when 
     we return, Mr. Chairman, I would hope.

  And Secretary Rumsfeld says:

       In that case not likely. That fast?

  Senator Byrd:

       Well, you like to have figures fast when it comes to 
     appropriating money.

  Secretary Rumsfeld:

       That's for sure.

  Senator Byrd:

       I would [like to] know, on behalf of the Appropriations 
     Committee and the Congress, how much we're spending.

  Secretary Rumsfeld:

       We'll try and get it for you.

  Then Senator Byrd says:

       Well, anyhow, so much for that . . .

  I ask unanimous consent to print these conversations in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       BYRD: Mr. Secretary, what is the currently month spend rate 
     to support our ongoing military operations in Iraq?
       RUMSFELD: I'll have to get you that for the record.
       It's a combination of appropriated funds, as you, sir, know 
     better than any, plus the expenditures of funds that are 
     taking place from Iraqi frozen assets, from Iraqi seized 
     assets and from U.N.-Iraqi assets under the oil-for-food 
     program. And I can certainly have Dr. Zakheim come up and 
     provide a very precise answer as to what's currently being 
     spent.
       BYRD: Do you recall a figure? Can you give us an estimate? 
     I've heard the figure of $1.5 billion a month.
       RUMSFELD: I would not want to venture a guess and be wrong, 
     sir.
       BYRD: Well, somebody ought to know.
       RUMSFELD: Well, they do know. We'll be happy to brief you 
     on it.
       BYRD: Well, I'd like to know now.
       RUMSFELD: Well, we'd have to adjourn and I'd have to get on 
     the phone with Dov Zakheim.
       BYRD: Well, OK.
       We'll be back, won't we, Mr. Chairman?
       WARNER: Yes, we will, Senator.
       BYRD: And along with that, how much are we spending a month 
     to support U.S. military forces in Iraq?
       RUMSFELD: The expenditures for Iraq are in a variety of 
     categories. You might include the salaries of the people that 
     are serving there; those salaries would be paid whether 
     they're serving there or they're back in Germany or back in 
     the United States.
       It might include funds, as I indicated, that are coming 
     from other sources. It might include funds for reconstitution 
     that are currently being spent, but we're spending on 
     rebuilding stocks of bombs, for example, and weapons that 
     were used during the conflict.
       So it is not a question that can be posed and then answered 
     with a single number. I wish I were able to do that, but if 
     fall into a variety of different baskets under our 
     appropriated funds.
       BYRD: I understand that, Mr. Chairman. But I've been around 
     here going on 51 years and I'm on the Appropriations 
     Committee, and we want to fund our military certainly and 
     meet the need. But there must be some figure, some amount 
     that we can cite as an amount that we're spending monthly in 
     Afghanistan and the same with respect to Iraq.
       RUMSFELD: I'm sure there is, and we'll get it for you.
       BYRD: Very well. That'll be another figure we hope to have 
     that when we return, Mr. Chairman, I would hope.
       RUMSFELD: In that case not likely. That fast?
       BYRD: Well, you like to have figures fast when it comes to 
     appropriating money.
       RUMSFELD: That's for sure.
       BYRD: I would know, on behalf of the Appropriations 
     Committee on the Congress, how much we're spending.
       RUMSFELD: We'll try and get it for you.
       BYRD: I hear and I read that it's something like $3 billion 
     to $3.5 billion a month to support U.S. military forces in 
     Iraq. And where are these figures coming from that we read 
     about, and that we in the Appropriations Committee are told 
     from time to time?
       Well, anyhow, so much for that . . .

  Mrs. BOXER. If anything that happens in the Senate means anything at 
all, if we are not just spinning our wheels when we have committee 
hearings, we ought to learn what to do when things are not going right. 
I suggest things are not going right when a man as intelligent as 
Secretary Rumsfeld cannot answer a simple question like what it is 
costing us every single month.
  We have found out from the Department of Defense Comptroller that the 
cost of U.S. operations in Iraq has cost $48 billion thus far. The cost 
per month is $4 billion, not what Senator Byrd thought, 1.3 or 1.4; it 
is $4 billion. And given that we are going to be in Iraq for years, not 
months, according to everyone, how does the administration propose we 
pay for this, given the tax cuts they have created, deficits as far as 
the eye can see, and the international community has pledged only $1.7 
billion so far, and it is costing us $4 billion a month?
  Sometimes it is hard for my constituents--to understand these 
dollars. What I have done today in a handmade chart--forgive me, it is 
not the most beautiful-looking chart, but I think it says it all--is 
ask, how do we know exactly what $45 billion a year is that we are now 
currently spending on Iraq? I thought I would take a look at selected 
issues that we care about in the Senate in a bipartisan way and tell 
the people of this country, as well as remind my colleagues what we are 
spending on these things compared to $45 billion a year in Iraq.
  We spend on the Drug Enforcement Agency--that is the agency that does 
everything to get the bad guys who are trying to push drugs on our 
children and interdicting drugs at the border--in a year, $1.6 billion. 
We are spending $45 billion in Iraq, and we still have people waiting 
in line to get treatment on demand for their drug habit. We can't take 
them. We don't have enough money. But we are spending $45 billion in 
Iraq.
  On higher education, across party lines, we have worked so hard to 
make sure we have enough money for education. Let's look at higher 
education--the kinds of grants and loans we give out to deserving 
middle-class families so that their kids can get a college education. 
We spend $23.4 billion on higher education in a year. We are spending 
$45 billion a year in Iraq.
  Afterschool programs: I have a special feeling for those because I 
wrote

[[Page S9461]]

the law. Senator Ensign, on the other side of the aisle, and I teamed 
up on that one. We are spending $1 billion a year on afterschool 
programs, and we have thousands and thousands and thousands of children 
on waiting lists whom we cannot accommodate because we don't have the 
money. But we are spending $45 billion a year in Iraq, and that is 
before the major reconstruction starts.
  We are all talking about Head Start. The President has a plan to give 
it back to the States. I oppose that fiercely. This is a program that 
works for poor families. Be that as it may, whether it is a block grant 
or a Federal program, we are spending $6.7 billion a year on Head 
Start. Millions of children are waiting to get in. We are spending $45 
billion a year on Iraq.
  Highways: There isn't one Senator in this body who would say their 
State doesn't need highway funding. We are spending $31.8 billion a 
year on highways. By the way, that comes from the gas tax our citizens 
pay. That is less than we are spending for a year in Iraq.
  NIH, the National Institutes of Health: Again, there is no one I have 
ever met whose family or friends have not been touched by cancer, 
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or heart disease. The bottom line is that we 
are spending $27.1 billion a year to find cures for these diseases. And 
we are spending $45 billion a year in Iraq.
  Veterans' health: These are people who have served this Nation 
proudly. We have made a commitment to take care of them. We are going 
to have a whole lot more veterans coming back from this war. We want to 
meet our commitments. How much do we spend a year on veterans' health? 
We spend $23.9 billion on all of the veterans' health. We are spending 
$45 billion a year in Iraq.
  The Transportation Security Agency: I sit on the Commerce Committee, 
we know what we have to do to make sure our public is protected from 
these terrorists who are still in our country. There are declassified 
reports that say there are tens of thousands in our country. Will they 
strike again? We are doing everything to make sure the President has 
the resources he needs. But, bottom line, what are we spending on the 
TSA to protect the flying public? It is $5.2 billion.
  There is a lot more we have to do, such as retrofit airplanes so if 
there is a shoulder-fired missile a terrorist gets hold of and shoots 
that at a plane, there will be a missile defense system through the 
technology that is on our military planes. We want them on civilian 
aircraft. This is a bipartisan issue. We don't have enough money for 
that. But we are spending $45 billion a year in Iraq.
  Coast Guard: Again, they are out there protecting us from drugs that 
are being smuggled, from human cargo that is being smuggled, and 
looking out for terrorists. That costs $6.1 billion a year.
  The EPA enforces our laws for clean air, clean water, safe drinking 
water, and Superfund sites. They are terribly underfunded. The 
Superfund sites that were to be cleaned up under this administration 
were cut in half. We don't have the money. As a matter of fact, the 
``polluters pay'' is falling on taxpayers, and yet $8.1 billion is all 
we are spending, compared to $45 billion in Iraq.

  My last example is the Superfund Program. If anybody has a Superfund 
site in their State, they know these are highly polluted sites that 
need to be cleaned up so that there can be economic development on 
those sites and so that our children and all of our people can be 
protected from these poisons. That is $1.3 billion, and we are spending 
$45 billion a year in Iraq.
  Why did I go through this? Because sometimes people's eyes glaze over 
when they hear numbers. Mine tend to do that. We have to put this into 
perspective. We are spending $4 billion a month. Secretary Rumsfeld 
eventually came up with those numbers later. So we know that is a fact. 
That is what we are spending. That is $45 billion a year, and we don't 
come close to spending that on the priorities of the American people. 
We don't even come close.
  So why is my amendment important? Because it is going to tell the 
American people how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in Iraq and 
how much of a contribution our allies, our friends, are making. It is 
also going to tell us the details of when people get wounded or 
killed--how did it happen and why did it happen? We need that 
information. We need it on behalf of the American people. That is for 
sure.
  In closing, again, this is a very straightforward amendment. It is 
written in plain English. It is very clear.
  I will close my statement by reading the amendment one more time. I 
cannot imagine why my friends on the other side would object to this. I 
hope they don't object. The fact is, the American people deserve to 
know what is happening to their tax dollars. They don't have to have a 
situation where someone comes up and Senator Byrd asks a question--
regardless of who it is on either side of the aisle--and says, gee, I 
don't know. That is not acceptable.
  Here is how the amendment reads:

       Not less than once every 30 days, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit a report to the Congressional Defense Committee, 
     the House International Relations Committee, the Senate 
     Foreign Relations Committee that contains the following 
     information:
       (a) Total and monthly costs of U.S. operations in Iraq;
       (b) Number of U.S. military personnel serving in Iraq and 
     the immediate region;
       (c) Total and monthly contributions made by foreign 
     governments and international organizations in support of 
     U.S. operations in Iraq;
       (d) Number of foreign military personnel serving in support 
     of U.S. operations in Iraq;
       (e) Defense articles and services offered by foreign 
     governments and international organizations in support of 
     U.S. operations in Iraq;
       (f) Total number of U.S. casualties as a result of U.S. 
     operations in Iraq by date and cause;
       (g) All contracts in excess of $10 million entered into by 
     the U.S. Government for the reconstruction of Iraq.

  On this last one, as someone who has fought hard to end that sole 
source contract to Halliburton, I am very worried that this could 
repeat itself. That sole source contract was worth many billions--at 
least $7 billion or $8 billion. It didn't go out for bid. It was going 
to go forward and we stopped it. I thank Senator Warner for teaming up 
with me to stop it.
  On August 14, we are supposed to get the follow-on contract. I hope 
that will happen. I am counting on it. Let us not be sanguine about 
this whole military procurement situation. I served on the Armed 
Services Committee for many years on the House side. You turn your back 
one minute and there is another contract; it didn't go out for a bid, 
it is costing a fortune, and you wind up with $7,000 coffee pots on 
airplanes. I have been there and I have seen that. So all contracts in 
excess of $10 million entered into by the U.S. Government for the 
reconstruction of Iraq--we will know about that, I say to colleagues.
  So I think if the Senate has some regard for its own power, its own 
role in this entire matter, then the Senate will go on record and 
support this very simple amendment, just asking for information on a 
monthly basis so we can stay ahead of the curve.
  With that, Madam President, I finish my statement. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this amendment is redundant and 
unnecessary. It, in effect, requires a report to committees of Congress 
every 30 days by the administration on operations in Iraq.
  The supplemental that the Congress passed in April just before the 
Easter recess providing fiscal year 2003 funds for the Iraqi operations 
required that many reports be submitted to committees of Congress. As a 
matter of fact, within 5 days of the transfer of funds from the Iraqi 
Freedom account, a report is sent to the Appropriations and Defense 
Committees of the House and Senate advising the Congress of how these 
funds are going to be spent.
  No such reporting has been required of recent operations elsewhere in 
the world. For example, during the Clinton administration, no such 
reports were required for operations in Somalia or Bosnia or Haiti. Nor 
were they required during the operations in Afghanistan or Kosovo.
  This report duplicates information the Department of Defense is 
already routinely providing through congressional hearings and 
briefings for Members of Congress and press organizations, news 
organizations that have access to the regular briefings at the 
Department of Defense.
  The reports on the cost of Iraq and the number of personnel serving 
in the

[[Page S9462]]

region are widely available. We all know that representatives of news 
organizations are all over Iraq gathering information, making reports 
every day on television through their news organizations back to the 
United States and around the world. There are no secrets.
  There were members of the press involved and personally present 
during all of the military operations and, to a great extent, 
Ambassador Bremer and General Abizaid still make information available 
to those representatives of news organizations who are seeking 
information about what is going on in Iraq. We all have access that is 
unparalleled and truly unlimited.

  The Senator complains that this should be required as a matter of 
statute, that we ought to have an enactment of law that makes the 
administration provide these reports. But if we look at the 
supplemental the Congress adopted just before the Easter recess, that 
has already been done. This is redundant. It is unnecessary.
  The Senator read from her amendment to tell us exactly what is in it. 
We have already provided for reports, and I am going to read it so 
everybody will know what we have already ordered the administration to 
do by law:

       Not later than 45 days after date of enactment of this Act, 
     the President shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations a report on the United States strategy 
     regarding activities related to post-conflict security, 
     humanitarian assistance, governance, and reconstruction in 
     Iraq that are undertaken as a result of Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom. The report shall include the following:
       (1) The distribution of duties and responsibilities 
     regarding such activities among agencies of the United States 
     Government, including the Department of State, the United 
     States Agency for International Development, and the 
     Department of Defense (to be provided within 30 days within 
     enactment of this Act)
       (2) A detailed plan describing the roles and 
     responsibilities of foreign governments and international 
     organizations, including the United Nations, in carrying out 
     activities related to post-conflict security, humanitarian 
     assistance, governance, and reconstruction in Iraq.
       (3) A strategy for coordinating such activities among the 
     United States Government, foreign governments and 
     international organizations, including the United Nations.
       (4) An initial estimate of the costs expected to be 
     associated with such activities.
       (5) A strategy for distributing the responsibility for 
     paying costs associated with reconstruction activities in 
     Iraq among the United States, foreign governments, and 
     international organizations, including the United Nations, 
     and an estimate of the revenue expected to be generated by 
     Iraqi oil production that could be used to pay such costs.
       (b) Subsequent Reports.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter 
     until September 30, 2004, the President shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations a report that contains:
       (1) A list of significant United States Government-funded 
     activities related to reconstruction in Iraq that, during the 
     90-day period ending 15 days prior to the date the report is 
     submitted to the Committees on Appropriations--
       (A) were initiated; or
       (B) were completed.
       (2) A list of the significant activities related to 
     reconstruction in Iraq that the President anticipates 
     initiating during the 90-day period beginning on the date the 
     report is submitted to the Committees on Appropriations, 
     including:
       (A) Cost estimates for carrying out the 
proposed activities.

       (B) The source of the funds that will be used to pay such 
     costs.
       (C) Updated strategies, if changes are proposed regarding 
     matters included in the reports required under subsection 
     (a).
       (4) An updated list of the financial pledges and 
     contributions made by foreign governments or international 
     organizations to fund activities related to humanitarian, 
     governance, and reconstruction assistance in Iraq.

  Madam President, we would be hard pressed to require anything further 
that the Congress ought to know about the expenditure of funds in 
carrying out the operations of the activities described in this 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  This bill we are considering enacting now in the Senate applies to 
appropriations that will be available beginning in the next fiscal 
year, fiscal year 2004. Reports are required by law now. They will 
continue to be required and be available to Members of Congress on 
whatever committee one serves--the Foreign Relations Committee, the 
Defense Committees, the Appropriations Committees, and any others.
  We can read every day about the witnesses who are called before the 
Congress and questions are asked about what is going on in Iraq. We are 
entitled to that information. So it is not that I rise to oppose this 
amendment because we are not entitled to the information the Senator 
suggests we ought to have, but that we already have it and it is 
already required to be given to the Congress routinely, and it is made 
available under provisions of law that have already been enacted. 
Therefore, if you hired all the accountants and bookkeepers who would 
be required to fill in all the forms and submit all the documents that 
Senator Boxer requires, I suggest we should consider renaming her 
amendment. It should be the Bookkeepers and Accountants Civil Relief 
Act of 2003. That is my suggestion.
  I hope the Senate will table the amendment, and it will be the 
intention of this Senator, when everybody has had an opportunity to 
talk about the amendment who wants to talk about the amendment, to move 
to table the amendment of the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, it is a sad day when one Senator will 
rename an amendment of another Senator who simply wants to know what it 
is costing my taxpayers every single day.
  If the Senator is right and this has already been done, he did not 
complain about it then. He did not stand up and say: We want this 
report, but, gee, we should not have it because it is too much work.
  The bottom line is, I have seen the report to which the Senator 
refers. It is nine pages, and it is estimates. It is not costs 
incurred. I have asked as recently as today to find out the 
contribution of other countries, and I have asked it of people in very 
high-up positions, and they do not have the answer.
  Senator Cochran talks about the news: The news knows this; just turn 
on CNN, they know it. That is not what I was sent here to do, watch 
CNN. I do not want to give up my power of the purse to CNN or to Fox 
News or to MSNBC. He talked a long time about the press. If I wanted to 
be a reporter, I would have stayed a reporter. I was a reporter for a 
while. But people sent me here to get the facts and figures.
  If the Senator believes it is a waste of time and it is a matter of 
bookkeeping to find out the total monthly cost of United States 
operations in Iraq so I can stand up at a townhall meeting and tell the 
people what it costs--if he thinks that is a waste of time, then I am 
confused. Why are we here? Why are we bothering?
  Why are we bothering? If he thinks it is a waste of time to find out 
how many U.S. personnel are serving in the region, then I am very 
confused. There was a Presidential candidate who was asked that 
question, and he said between 100,000 and 200,000. He was right, but he 
was chastised. Why did he not know it was 146,000?
  So perhaps the Senator believes it is not important to know in any 
given month how many people are serving in Iraq. I think it is, 
because, guess what, they are my constituents. I have lost 50 of them. 
So I would like to know who is over there.
  I also would like to know, when one of our Americans dies, the 
circumstances surrounding that. I want to know what the coalition of 
the willing is actually doing, not what the Senator talks about, 
estimates.
  See, he is talking about a report that talks about estimates. I am 
talking about what actually has occurred, and what costs have been 
incurred. The Senator never mentioned the fact that I am going after 
these contracts. Maybe that is because he does not want to go after 
them. The fact is we see a contract let to Halliburton, a sole-source 
noncompetitive bid. What does it cost? It could have cost $9 billion 
except some of us found out about it, and happily Senator Warner agreed 
with me and we came together, and this is supposed to be ended. But it 
could happen tomorrow.
  So I would call the Senator's position, since he has now 
characterized my position, the stonewall position. I could throw around 
charged words, too. I could call his words the cover-up-the-true-costs 
position. That was not my intent. I do not stand here, after a Senator 
is sincere, to try and demean what they do. I do not think that is 
right.

[[Page S9463]]

But since it was done to me, I say people who do not support this are 
not interested in knowing the truth, are not interested in getting the 
facts, are trying to hide something from the American people.
  Now maybe the Senator feels $45 billion a year is a little bit of 
money. I do not know where he comes from. Maybe that is a little bit of 
money. Where I come from, that is a lot. We spend $1.6 billion in all 
on drug enforcement in this country. We are spending $45 billion, 
roughly, but the Senator feels we do not have to have some report that 
basically tells us how it is being spent. He calls it redundant when it 
is not at all redundant, because it is not about estimates, which is 
the report he is talking about, but it is about actual costs incurred.
  One thing I thought we could come together on in this Senate is the 
people's right to know how their money is being spent, and the people's 
right to know, if troops are lost, what are the conditions, why did it 
happen, and the people's right to know who is sharing the burden of 
these costs.
  I have spoken to families who have heard from their loved ones that 
our people over there are more scared now than they were during the hot 
war, where they performed so brilliantly. I am hearing the words 
``sitting ducks'' used now. It is not a happy situation. We have to 
work to bring down the burden on our troops, and the financial burden 
on our people, and we could do that with leadership. At least the 
Senate ought to know the true costs, not the estimated costs. What I am 
talking about is accountability, and anyone can stand up and say it is 
redundant, but the fact is it is far from redundant because I saw the 
report my friend talks about and it has nothing to do with this. It is 
about estimates and projections. This is about reality.
  So I hope that notwithstanding the opposition I have heard today, 
which I think frankly is couched in a way which was not fair, that my 
colleagues will vote for this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to table the Boxer amendment and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask consent that at 3:15 today, the 
Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment No. 1271, 
to be immediately followed by a vote in relation to the Daschle 
amendment No. 1269, with no second-degree amendments in order to either 
amendment prior to the votes; provided further that there be 2 minutes 
for debate equally divided in the usual form between the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
1271. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Sununu), is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 281 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Miller
     Sununu
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INHOFE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1269

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to the vote on the Daschle amendment.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask 
unanimous consent that the time not be charged to either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
agreement to have 1 minute on each side be waived, that we start the 
vote immediately.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Sununu) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 282 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Kyl
     Nickles
       

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Miller
     Sununu
  The amendment (No. 1269) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S9464]]

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to indicate to the Senate 
how long that vote took.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It took 23 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have to take credit on this one, I say 
to my friend. I asked that it not be completed until I completed a 
conference that I had conducted.
  Mr. REID. I only say to my friend, the distinguished Senator from 
Alaska, this is not a complaint to the Senator from Alaska. This 
complaint is to the fact that these votes take so long and are so 
unnecessary. We waste so much time. We have a significant number of 
people on this side who want to offer amendments. There are some on the 
other side. We waste hours waiting for stragglers to come in on votes. 
If people are not here, let them not vote. We are wasting time. I hope 
we can speed up the votes.
  Mr. President, unless the Senator from Alaska has some other matter 
that he wants to tend to, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy 
be allowed to offer the next amendment. Senator Kennedy has agreed--and 
the other side has seen the amendment--to 30 minutes on his side. We 
would agree to an hour evenly divided on this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator making that unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1273

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1273.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To require a report on the United States strategy for 
                        reconstruction in Iraq)

       On page 120, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress 
     an unclassified report (with a classified annex, if 
     necessary) on the United States strategy regarding activities 
     related to post-conflict security, humanitarian assistance, 
     governance, and reconstruction in Iraq that are undertaken as 
     a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The report shall include 
     the following:
       (1) A schedule for the President to seek NATO 
     participation, as an organization of many nations, in ongoing 
     operations in Iraq.
       (2) A schedule for the President to seek and obtain the 
     approval of a resolution of the United Nations Security 
     Council authorizing a multinational civil and security force 
     (including substantial participation by armed forces of NATO 
     member countries under unified command and control) to 
     guarantee the stability, democratization, and reconstruction 
     of Iraq.
       (3) An estimate of the number of Armed Forces personnel 
     that are needed in Iraq to guarantee the stability and 
     reconstruction of Iraq, separately stated for each of the 
     Armed Forces and, within each of the Armed Forces, for each 
     of the components.
       (4) An estimate of the number of personnel of armed forces 
     of foreign countries that are needed in Iraq to guarantee the 
     stability and reconstruction of Iraq.
       (5) A statement and justification from the President for 
     his actions in seeking or failing to seek NATO participation 
     or a UN Security Council resolution.

  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I modify the request made a few minutes ago 
to indicate that there would be no second-degree amendments prior to 
the vote on or in relation to the Kennedy amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have had the opportunity to share this 
amendment with the manager of the bill. I believe the floor manager is 
familiar with it.
  The amendment is now at the desk. I welcome the opportunity to 
address the Senate on the substance of the amendment. I supported the 
Boxer amendment that we just voted on, which failed to carry. She was 
seeking important information on the Iraqi operation. I believe the 
American people deserve this information. But they also deserve a plan.
  My amendment requires the administration to report information on 
that plan. This amendment asks the President to submit a report to the 
Congress within 30 days of enactment on the efforts to internationalize 
our operations in Iraq. The report would provide a timetable for the 
President to seek NATO participation as an institution in the ongoing 
operations in Iraq. It would provide a timetable for the President to 
seek and obtain the approval of a resolution of the United Nations 
Security Council authorizing a multinational security force, including 
substantial participation by the Armed Forces of NATO member countries, 
to guarantee the stability and reconstruction of a democratic Iraq.
  The report would include an estimate of the number of American Armed 
Forces personnel needed in Iraq to guarantee the stability and 
reconstruction of Iraq, and an estimate of the number of personnel from 
foreign countries that the administration believes are necessary to 
accomplish that goal.
  Finally, if the administration chooses not to go to NATO or the U.N., 
the report would require an explanation of the rationale.
  Last week, by a vote of 97 to 0, the Senate approved a resolution 
encouraging the President to consider requesting the involvement of 
NATO and the U.N. in Iraq. This amendment builds on that action by 
seeking a plan and timetable for doing just that.

  The administration has had plenty of time to consider this. For the 
sake of the soldiers in Baghdad, it is time to act. Supporters and 
opponents of the war alike are enormously proud of the way our troops 
performed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The speed and success of their 
mission in toppling Saddam Hussein demonstrated the extraordinary 
ability of our Nation's Armed Forces. It is no accident that so few of 
our forces paid the ultimate price during the 3 tumultuous weeks this 
took.
  It was a foregone conclusion that we would win the war, but the all-
important challenge now is to win the peace. In fact, we are at serious 
risk of losing it. Each day now, as the guerrilla war goes on, our 
troops and their families are paying the price. Our clear national 
interests in the emergence of a peaceful, stable, and democratic Iraq 
is being undermined.
  Since May 1, when President Bush announced on the aircraft carrier 
that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, 82 more American troops 
have died. For the men and women of our Armed Forces who are dodging 
bullets in the streets and alleys of Baghdad, and other parts of Iraq, 
the battle is far from over. President Bush says to the attackers, 
``bring 'em on,'' but how do you console a family by telling them their 
son or daughter is a casualty of the postwar period?
  The debate may go on many months, or even years, about our 
intelligence failures before the war began. The failures of 
intelligence were bad enough, but the real failure of intelligence was 
our failure to understand Iraq. There is no question that long before 
the war began, the serious issue was raised about the danger of winning 
the war and losing the peace. In fact, it was one of the principal 
arguments against going to war.
  Based on our past experience in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, and 
Afghanistan, we knew the postwar rebuilding of Iraq would be difficult. 
These are not new issues. Rather than learning from the past experience 
in these previous conflicts, the administration rushed ahead, and the 
result has been chaos for the Iraqi people and continuing mortal danger 
to our troops--all because we insisted on doing it unilaterally, 
without the support of the two international organizations that could 
have made all the difference in winning the peace.
  Sadly, we quickly went from liberators to occupiers in a few short 
weeks. Cynicism and anger against America are rife. Many Iraqis believe 
we are unwilling, not just unable, to restore basic services. They are 
losing faith and trust in our promise of a reconstructed, stable, 
peaceful future, and they fear that Saddam may still be alive. Under 
fire from guerillas who are determined to see America fail, our 
soldiers are now performing police

[[Page S9465]]

functions for which they have had little training. We are straining 
their endurance, and they want to know how long they will have to stay 
in Iraq. Even President Bush is now saying rebuilding Iraq will be a 
massive and long-term undertaking.
  What we need most now is to share at least some of the burden with 
the international community. Our troops are now sent overseas for 
longer tours of duty than ever. Because we rely on their skill and the 
skill to meet commitments on a global scale, more than 150,000 troops 
are in Iraq, and many have been deployed in the region for close to a 
year. Half of our Army divisions are in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of the 33 
Army combat brigades, 18 are in Iraq. The strain is also great for 
citizens serving in the Guard and Reserves because we depend upon them 
with greater frequency, ever since we reduced our forces after the cold 
war.
  It is difficult to continue to put patriotic reservists through the 
deployment grinder year after year and expect them to hold up 
indefinitely. It is also difficult to sustain the cost of such 
missions. We are now spending $3.9 billion a month in Iraq, and with 
the ongoing costs of the war on terrorism, our operations in 
Afghanistan, and our potential new responsibility around the globe in 
places such as west Africa, let alone Iran and North Korea, we are 
creating an unsustainable financial burden at a time of exploding 
budget deficits, soaring demands for homeland security, and mounting 
needs for health care, education, and other domestic priorities.
  As a nation with honor, responsibility, and the vision of a better 
world, America cannot invade and then cut and run from Iraq, but we 
also cannot afford the continuing costs in dollars or in blood of 
continuing to go it alone. If our national security is at stake, we 
will spare no cost.
  The alternative is so obvious. Working with the international 
community, we can develop and implement an effective strategy to reduce 
the burden and risk to our soldiers, stabilize Iraq, and deliver on the 
promise of a better future for its people.
  Whatever our divisions before the war, the challenge is very 
different now. There is every chance we can secure broad international 
support and participation in the stabilization and reconstruction of 
Iraq. All we may have to do is ask because so much is clearly at stake 
for the rest of the world.
  At issue is the stability and the future of the entire highly 
volatile Middle East. No one would be immune from the dangers that a 
resentful and disorganized Iraq presents for its nation and neighbors 
everywhere. If we diversify the faces of the security force, it is far 
less likely that Iraqis will see us as the enemy, oppressor, and 
occupier. We want the 25 million citizens of Iraq to see the armed 
strangers in their country as friends and partners in their pursuit of 
freedom. We want the new governing council appointed last Sunday to 
succeed.
  We need to bring regional forces into Iraq, especially Muslims. 
Countries such as Jordan, Pakistan, and Egypt could transform this 
mission with both their diversity and their expertise. The United Arab 
Emirates have contributed to the effort in Kosovo. Morocco, Albania, 
and Turkey have worked with us in Bosnia. Many nations have well-
trained police. Reaching out to other countries and bringing them into 
the postwar process is the surest path to a stable Iraq.
  But most other nations are unlikely to send troops to serve what is 
perceived as an American occupation. India turned us down earlier this 
week. Other nations will be far more likely to do their part if the 
international mission is approved by the United Nations or organized by 
NATO. Instead of asking our Armed Forces to carry out a mission they 
are not trained for, and to do it alone, we need to rely on the 
expertise and the resources of the international community. The United 
Nations has assumed that responsibility in other countries in the past, 
and it is one of the major reasons the U.N. was created. Necessity is 
the mother of invention.
  In the case of Iraq, President Bush obviously had to modify his 
strong opposition to nation building. The challenge now is to move 
beyond unilateral nation building. The new Iraqi council announced on 
Sunday is a step in the right direction, but it will be much more 
effective if the United Nations has a major presence in overseeing it.
  Those who join a United States-dominated, government-run council run 
the high risk of being dismissed by the Iraqis as American puppets. As 
long as America alone is calling the tune, Iraqi moderates may remain 
in the background or even oppose us.
  Our interests in the emergence of a true democracy in Iraq are best 
fulfilled by involving the world community, and especially other Arab 
nations, as part of helping the Iraqis themselves shape a new Iraq. 
Only then would a new Iraq government be viewed as legitimate by the 
Iraqi people. The U.N. has a modest role now through its mandate 
for humanitarian issues, but it has only an advisory role in the civil 
administration of Iraq. That has to change. The U.N. should have a 
formal role in overseeing the establishment of a political process. The 
U.N., rather than the United States, should preside over the evolution 
of a new Iraqi government. Doing so will win international legitimacy 
and indispensable international support for this challenge, minimizing 
the danger that Iraqis will keep regarding their new government as a 
puppet of ours.

  With Arab-speaking spokesmen, the U.N. could also convey a different 
image and a different message to the people of that country, a sense of 
reassurance that an overwhelming American occupation never can.
  NATO, as an institution, should clearly be in Iraq as well. Military 
experts believe it will take at least 200,000 troops to stabilize Iraq. 
Our goal should be to include NATO and some of its 2 million-member 
pool of armed forces in military operations as soon as possible. 
America will provide a majority of troops, but over time the overall 
number of forces would decrease.
  As in Kosovo and Bosnia, we should ask the United Nations Security 
Council to authorize NATO to organize an international security force 
to demilitarize and stabilize Iraq. To do so does not mean the United 
States should or must relinquish all military control. On the contrary, 
we would have a significant role in the NATO force and could continue 
to have a defining role in Iraq.
  An American commander was in charge of American troops in Bosnia, and 
the head of NATO forces in Europe is and always has been an American.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventeen minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Secretary Rumsfeld told the Armed Services Committee 
last week that except for the area around Baghdad, most of Iraq is 
already secure. If that is so, then why not reduce the burden on our 
military and allow this large area of Iraq, which needs police officers 
as well as combat troops, to be turned over as soon as possible to the 
United Nations-approved and NATO-led force? Why not allow American and 
coalition forces to secure the area around Baghdad and allow other 
nations to provide security for the rest of Iraq?
  We all know that as long as Iraq continues to dominate our attention, 
we cannot give other aspects of the war against terrorism the clear 
focus they deserve. It is not just what happens in Iraq itself, as 
important as that issue is, but the continuing urgency of the ongoing 
fight against terrorism that should persuade us to seek allies in an 
international plan for a peaceful Iraq. Otherwise, we run the grave 
risk of exposing our Nation to more terrorist attacks.
  We won the war in Iraq, as we knew we would, but if our present 
policy continues, we may lose the peace. We must rise to the challenge 
of international cooperation. Saddam may no longer be in power, but the 
people of Iraq will not truly be liberated until they live in a secure 
country. The war will not be over until the fighting stops on the 
ground, democracy takes hold, and the people of Iraq are able to govern 
themselves.
  My amendment asks the administration to make a major, genuine effort 
to enlist the official support of NATO and the United Nations for our 
forces in Iraq. I urge the Senate to affirm it.
  Mr. President, I will take a few moments to review the amendment. It 
is two pages. It says:

       Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the President shall submit to Congress an unclassified 
     report (with

[[Page S9466]]

     a classified annex, if necessary) on the United States 
     strategy regarding activities related to post-conflict 
     security, humanitarian assistance, governance, and 
     reconstruction in Iraq that are undertaken as a result of 
     Operation Iraqi Freedom. The report shall include the 
     following:
       (1) A schedule for the President to seek NATO 
     participation, as an organization of many nations, in ongoing 
     operations in Iraq.
       (2) A schedule for the President to seek and obtain 
     approval of a resolution of the United Nations Security 
     Council authorizing a multinational civil and security force 
     (including substantial participation by armed forces of NATO 
     member countries under unified command and control) to 
     guarantee the stability, democratization, and reconstruction 
     of Iraq.
       (3) An estimate of the number of Armed Forces personnel 
     that are needed in Iraq to guarantee the stability and 
     reconstruction of Iraq, separately stated for each of the 
     Armed Forces and, within each of the Armed Forces, for each 
     of the components.
       (4) An Estimate of the number of personnel of armed forces 
     of foreign countries that are needed in Iraq to guarantee the 
     stability and reconstruction of Iraq.
       (5) A statement and justification from the President for 
     his actions in seeking or failing to seek NATO participation 
     or a U.N. Security Council resolution.

  Basically, what this amendment is saying is, let us hear from the 
President on what the plan is for postwar Iraq.
  Let the Senate hear from the President his response to what was the 
97 to 0 vote in the Senate Chamber last week that asked him to consider 
going to the United Nations, going to NATO, and reporting back to the 
Congress so the American people will have knowledge and understanding 
of exactly what the plans for the future of Iraq would be.
  I hope as we were able to gather a virtually unanimous vote in the 
Senate last week on the previous resolution, we could gather support in 
the Senate on this resolution.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Did the Senator modify his amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has not been modified.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The amendment I sent to the desk did not need a 
modification. I provided for the Senator paragraph 5.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is that the subparagraph 5?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. That was the modification. Rather than sending the 
modification to the desk, I sent a completely new amendment and I 
believe my staff shared it with the Senator. The only difference was 
these four lines:

       A statement and justification from the President for his 
     actions in seeking or failing to seek NATO participation or a 
     U.N. Security Council resolution.

  So the purpose of the last paragraph is that if the President decides 
he is not going to follow this, that he will send back to the Congress 
and to the Senate a report stating to the American people the reasons 
and the justification for not doing so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I consider the Senator from Massachusetts a great 
personal friend and I hope he takes no umbrage at what I am going to 
say. I have been here now 35 years. I certainly was not here during 
Senator Kennedy's brother's administration, but I was alert and part of 
the national constituency at the time and admired very much what 
President Kennedy did in terms of handling foreign policy, and 
particularly the Cuban crisis.
  I read this and I see an amendment that tells the President to report 
to Congress on what he intends to do in the future in terms of 
negotiations, to give us a schedule of the strategy he and Ambassador 
Bremer will follow almost on a daily basis. I wonder what would have 
happened to President Kennedy in the Cuban crisis had that been the 
demand of Congress, to tell us in advance what they were going to do 
about the possibility that those missiles from Russia might come to 
Cuba. I really cannot believe the Senate has gone so far that they want 
to handle the President's daily schedule and have it in advance.
  The President of the United States is the President of the United 
States. I really cannot believe anyone would vote for this amendment, 
and I hope the Senator will reconsider his language.
  This last section says the President should give a statement and 
justification for his actions in seeking or in failing to seek an 
agreement for NATO to participate, or a U.N. Security Council 
resolution. That is required by the Senator's amendment. First, it 
tells him to seek it and then it tells him to follow up on almost a 
daily basis through this continuum now of handling the Iraq crisis. 
This is worse than the amendment we considered before, which would ask 
the President to predict how many mortars, how many missiles, how many 
whatever are going to be needed in the future, what is the plan for the 
future contingencies that might occur in Iraq. This is saying the 
President should give us a schedule that the President is going to use 
to seek to obtain approval of a resolution for the United Nations 
Security Council, including participation by armed forces of NATO and 
member countries.
  As a matter of fact, we have already delegated that authority to 
SACEUR and to the ambassador to NATO. They have a daily proposition. I 
do not imagine they themselves even give the President a daily schedule 
of what they are going to do in the future with regard to NATO. 
Certainly to ask Mr. Bremer and the President's representatives to tell 
us what is their schedule now and in the future in dealing with other 
countries, when are they going to ask for U.N. participation, NATO 
participation, how are they going to do it, and will they please tell 
us, if they do not do it, why they did not do it, and if they failed, 
why they failed--my God, Senator, I really believe we should seriously 
consider what we are doing. This expects the President to seek and 
obtain. No, it does not expect. It directs him: The President shall 
seek and shall obtain.
  The Presidency is a separate, independent portion of this great 
democracy. We have some checks and balances on it, that is true, and 
they are pretty strong, but we do not have the power to tell the 
Commander in Chief what to do. We do not have the power over foreign 
affairs. He does. If he wants to make an agreement, he has to submit a 
treaty, and he has to submit it to us for our advice and consent, but 
he still has the power to make them. We cannot tell him what to do. 
This tells him what to do. It not only tells him what to do, it tells 
him to succeed and, if he fails, to tell us why he failed.

  Now, I do not know, maybe I am too much of an old trial lawyer. I get 
excited about some things, and I hope the jury is listening. I was 
pretty successful as a trial lawyer, as a matter of fact, because 
jurors listen if you get their attention. I hope I am getting the 
attention of the Senate, no matter where it is, because this amendment 
goes far too far:

       Shall submit to the Congress an unclassified report (with a 
     classified annex, if necessary) on the United States strategy 
     regarding activities to the post-conflict security, 
     humanitarian assistance, governance, and reconstruction in 
     Iraq that are undertaken as a result of Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom.

  Then it gives five separate categories of things that are done in the 
future. It is not a report of what has happened in the past. To demand 
it of the President and say the President shall submit a report to us 
on anything I think overlooks the concept of checks and balances.
  We can ask the President to do something by a bill, and he can veto 
it. He is surely not going to veto this bill, although if I were 
President, if that came to me I would veto it because it does not 
represent the distinction I understand to exist under the Constitution 
in terms of the three great branches of this democracy.
  Now, to have the President give us an estimate of the number of Armed 
Forces personnel that are needed in Iraq to guarantee the stability and 
reconstruction of Iraq, separately stated for each of the Armed Forces 
and, within each of the Armed Forces, for each of the components, 
predict again--predict the future, predict the contingencies, predict 
whether Turkey is going to participate, predict who else is going to 
participate, predict who will not participate, my God, do we want the 
President to publish that, that so far this nation has not agreed, so 
far that nation has not agreed?
  We were privileged to listen to the Secretary of State today in a 
classified session upstairs give his opinion of what might be possible, 
but to ask even the Secretary of State to give us a plan and publish it 
for what he intended to do to try to achieve a goal that is a goal of 
all branches of our Government,

[[Page S9467]]

and that is terminate our affair in Iraq as soon as possible and 
successfully, I think it would be highly improper. I do not think he 
would submit it.
  I take umbrage at the fact that this amendment tells the President 
what to do, and tells him to tell us how he is going to do it, in 
advance of even knowing what the circumstances are that he has to plan 
for.
  We do not know how long we are going to be in a security situation in 
Iraq. I have told the Senate, and certainly I think most people know, I 
got a little upset when they would not let part of our committee into 
Baghdad. Other parts of the United States forces and executive branch 
are in Baghdad, and I pointed out to them that with other Senators I 
went in and out of Vietnam several times on helicopters that were shot 
at, but we went throughout Vietnam to see and report back to the Senate 
what was occurring. I thought we had that right to go into Iraq and 
report back what was occurring, but I was convinced later that--and we 
now know that there is a serious security threat there because of the 
snipers who are there, because of those people who are still so allied 
with the Baath party and Saddam Hussein that they are willing to 
literally commit suicide to cause us problems. That is not a new 
phenomenon if we look at what has been happening between Palestine and 
Israel for so many years, but we did not expect it there. I confess 
that was really a shock to me to hear about that, when our people were 
there to protect those who have been given their freedom, that some of 
their countrymen are willing to continue to kill us because we are 
protecting their own countrymen. This concept now is getting to the 
point of really being a difficult problem.
  I think the Senate has a right to participate in these plans and to 
have hearings when the time comes and ask these people to come up and 
testify before us about what the plans are. Those plans undoubtedly 
would require expenditures of some Federal funds. I expect them to come 
before our committee and tell us they have requirements and then set 
forth the nature and extent of those requirements.

  I certainly do not expect this committee to send a demand to the 
executive branch, particularly the President himself, to tell us now 
what they are going to do in the future and to predict now what the 
contingencies are in the future that have to be met or to have a 
statement and justification for the President for his actions in 
seeking or failing to seek NATO participation or a U.N. Security 
Council resolution. That is something the Constitution gives the power 
of the President to do. We are going to demand he give us a statement 
of justification for not taking action? I don't think that is within 
our province. Not at all.
  I hope the Senate is listening. I hope the jury will agree with me 
and we will not approve this amendment.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 19 minutes remaining.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, 82 American soldiers have been shot since 
the President of the United States landed on the Abraham Lincoln and 
effectively said this war is over. There is no postwar policy. It is a 
bankrupt policy.
  We attended the hearings with General Garner regarding postwar Iraq 
policy. He lasted 21 days and was fired. Now we have new personnel in 
Iraq, operating out of the palace in Iraq. We have American servicemen 
who are in a shooting gallery over there; and the Senator from Alaska 
is rejecting our request for the President of the United States to tell 
us what our policy is?
  We do not have a postwar policy for development in Iraq. We have 
failed intelligence. One day they are saying the army is going to 
defect and join us; the next day they fire the army, the next day they 
are trying to rehire them. One day they say they will recruit the 
police and the next day they say they are thugs and will have nothing 
to do with them. They don't have a policy.
  For the Senator from Alaska to stand here and say he is indignant 
because the American people want to hear what the policy is surprises 
me just as much as I surprised him. The American people want to know 
how long their sons and daughters are going to be shot at in Iraq. What 
is the policy?
  A week ago we had 97 Members of the Senate, including the Senator 
from Alaska, urging the President of the United States to consider 
going to the United Nations and to consider, as well, using NATO. The 
Senator from Alaska supported that.
  What this amendment is saying is, tell us if you are going to go to 
the United Nations, tell us if you are going to include NATO. And if 
you are not going to, come back and tell the American people why not.

  We had a President who said we were going to use NATO in Bosnia. It 
worked, and we reduced the number of Americans who were killed. We had 
a President say we were going to use NATO in Kosovo. It worked, and we 
reduced the number of Americans killed. We had a President who said we 
would bring in U.N. forces in East Timor. We did and reduced the 
dangers to America. There are many who believe that is a viable option. 
Maybe the Senator from Alaska does not, but there are a lot of people 
and a lot of parents who do.
  I say to the Senator from Alaska, the American people are entitled to 
know the policy of this administration. To hear such rejection to find 
out the policy is amazing.
  This is supposedly an open government. We would think the President 
would want to share his thinking in order to galvanize support. No 
President can lead a country in time of war unless he galvanizes the 
support of the American people.
  We ought to know what the policy is. If this is not the policy, tell 
us what it is--not behind closed doors but in open session. Tell us 
what it is. We did not hear it at the Armed Services Committee last 
week from the Secretary of Defense and we did not hear it today, 
evidently--unless a few selected Senators heard it in a closed session.
  What is wrong with requesting the President of the United States to 
tell the American people where we are going to be in 30 days in Iraq 
when our American servicemen are being shot and killed every day. I am 
sorry that irks or bothers the Senator from Alaska but parents of 
American service men and women would like to know. The American people 
want to know. We are entitled to that kind of information. If he does 
not want to go that particular route, come back and tell us what he 
does want to do.
  This is a makeup policy over in Iraq. One person heading it up today 
and he is gone tomorrow. We have people deciding they will do one thing 
today and they change it tomorrow. In the meantime, one thing is 
consistent: the killing of American servicemen who are doing tasks they 
were not trained for and they should not be doing in that country.
  Many believe it would be worthwhile to bring other troops in and 
share the responsibility and burden of securing Iraq. Maybe the Senator 
rejects that. There are people within the administration who want to go 
it alone. If that is the position, the posture of this President, let's 
hear it out and have a debate on it.
  One day it is, no, we do not want to go it alone; we want to use the 
United Nations and NATO but we really do not want to request them. 
Secretary General Robertson of NATO has indicated that the United 
States has not made a direct appeal to him in order to galvanize NATO 
as an institution to provide security. Sure, some of the countries have 
been asked, but the Secretary General of the United Nations says the 
United States has not asked the United Nations in a formal way to try 
to take over some of the responsibilities. Maybe there is good reason 
for it. But the American people are entitled to know what the reasons 
are.
  This amendment is to try to find out that information. We do have a 
responsibility in foreign policy in terms of making war, the war 
powers, as well as in approving treaties.
  This Senate, the people's Senate, has a responsibility in foreign 
policy. The American people are entitled to know the thinking of this 
administration as their sons and daughters are getting shot every day. 
I am sorry if 30 days is too long a time. But we know what is going to 
happen. There will be 30 more Americans killed during that period of 
time. We are entitled to know.
  With all respect--and I have great affection for the Senator from 
Alaska--I

[[Page S9468]]

am as troubled by his reaction as he is troubled by this amendment.
  I withhold the remainder of my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 19 minutes and the 
Senator from Massachusetts has 5 minutes 24 seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. I postulate, if this power exists to do what the Senator 
from Massachusetts wants to do, we might not have been in Vietnam. I 
had a conversation with a former Senator who disagreed with President 
Johnson and wished he had some way of deterring him from his course.
  I remind the Senator of the power of the President:

       The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and 
     Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several 
     States, when called into the actual Service of the United 
     States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the 
     principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon 
     any subject relating to the Duties of their respective 
     Offices. . . .

  Nothing in this Constitution gives the Congress the right to ask for 
that. In fact, to the contrary, there is a specific power for the 
President. In section 3 of article II it says:

       He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information 
     of the State of the Union, and recommend to their 
     Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and 
     expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both 
     Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement 
     between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may 
     adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; . . .

  There is nothing in this Constitution that gives us the power to tell 
the President of the United States what to do--not at all. The 
separation of powers is one of the most distinct advantages of this 
democracy. It is the longest living government on the face of the Earth 
today because it is a government of the people, by the people, and for 
the people, but it has a Constitution. That Constitution we all swear 
to uphold and defend. Part of that Constitution is the separation of 
powers concept. We do not have the power to dictate to the President of 
the United States. We can send him a bill and ask him to do something, 
and he can veto it if he wishes, but we cannot, in my judgment, tell 
him to do anything.
  We cannot command him to plan in advance; to tell us what he is going 
to do; to tell us what is the plan of action for an area that is still 
so unstable that people are being killed. I regret that as much as the 
Senator from Massachusetts. We all do. There is no question about that.
  There seems to be building up a feeling here that somehow or another 
we are wrong to be in Iraq; we are wrong to stay in Iraq. Yesterday, I 
had in my office a young man from the 101st Airborne who had served in 
Iraq. I asked him, What do you think about being there?
  He said: Senator, I am proud I went there, and I want to tell you I 
am proud of what we are doing there.
  He said: I never thought I would live to see the day we would see the 
results of a person like Hitler. I saw those graves. I saw the way they 
had been treated by that dictator. We were right to be there and we are 
right to be there.
  I believe he would go back there today if we asked him.
  The problem is not the presence of our people over there in danger. 
The problem is people questioning our right to keep them in danger 
without some plan in advance that would absolutely protect them from 
danger. I think we have the best system of defense in the world. I know 
we have the best military in the world. We have the best systems 
available to them in the world. We have the best sensors. But it is 
still possible to fool all of this technology and have a person come in 
and kill one of them.
  As a matter of fact, it is possible to come and kill one of us. We 
can't tell them to give us a plan how to protect us, as a matter of 
fact. We don't have a plan to protect ourselves, as a matter of fact.
  We live in a democracy. The democracy is that we elect people to 
carry out the duties under this book, the Constitution of the United 
States. I say this amendment violates the spirit and the meaning and 
intent of the Constitution of the United States. It is not our right to 
tell the President to give us a statement of justification for his 
actions in seeking or failing to seek an agreement in terms of foreign 
policy.
  I do believe that we have a right, again, to schedule hearings, to 
ask them to come up and give us their opinions, as we did today with 
the Secretary of State--off the record, however, on a classified basis 
because of the nature of it. I believe we have an absolute right to ask 
him to give us details of the money he asks us for. And he will ask us 
for money, I am certain. But to go this far, to say that not later than 
30 days from the enactment of this bill the President shall submit to 
the Congress this report, a schedule, to seek approval of the United 
Nations authorizing multinational force; an estimate of the number of 
forces we are going to have there to guarantee reconstruction for each 
component; an estimate of the number of personnel, armed forces of 
foreign countries that are needed to guarantee the stability and 
reconstruction--all of this--a schedule for the President to seek 
participation as an organization of many nations in NATO, ongoing 
operations in Iraq--I couldn't prepare that schedule. I couldn't 
prepare a schedule of my actions for the next week if I tried. And I 
don't see how the President can prepare a schedule of his actions on a 
matter so deep and so intricate as trying to determine how we should 
complete our actions in Iraq.

  If I remember right, in October we passed a resolution the President 
signed giving him authority to do what he is doing. That resolution 
didn't say, and as you do, give us your plan of action in advance; 
define for us your strategy in advance; give us the number of people 
you are going to deploy; tell us how you are going to get foreign 
troops to come at us; go to the U.N.; go to the NATO.
  We knew better than that. We responded to his request to get our 
approval of his intent to use his power as Commander in Chief to try to 
restore freedom to Iraq. I am proud of this President and what he did. 
I intend to defend him as much as I can and assist him as much as I can 
in achieving what the Congress asked him to achieve, and I do not 
believe he should be put in a straitjacket to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes 22 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will not take the time.
  Mr. President, American service men and women are dying every day. 
This amendment does not require the President to go to the United 
Nations. It does not require him to go to NATO. All we are trying to 
find out is what his policy is. If he does not want to go to the United 
Nations, if he does not want to ask NATO to come in there and get 
additional help and assistance and troops that might provide some 
relief for ours--just tell us. Just tell us. He ought to be able to 
tell us, give us the answers very quickly.
  All we are asking for is to know the policy. I think parents are 
entitled to know whether this President will go to ask for additional 
kinds of military force in terms of NATO--in Muslim countries, other 
countries that will be interested in helping and assisting the 
Americans secure Iraq. I think the American people are entitled to know 
whether we will follow the other measures that have been taken that 
have been successful in Kosovo and in Bosnia and also in East Timor.
  If the President doesn't want to do it, fine, but just tell us. 
American servicemen are dying over there. We are entitled to know what 
the President is going to do.
  But we do not have an answer now. We do not have an answer except 
more of the same. And this postwar policy is adrift. It is bankrupt. It 
is nonexistent. It is being made up on the back of an envelope every 
single day, and American service men and women are dying. That is what 
this amendment addresses.
  Finally, the Senator from Alaska, as I understand it, voted on this 
resolution last week, where the Senate included in the sense-of-the-
Senate resolution that the President should consider requesting 
formally and expeditiously that NATO raise a force for deployment. The 
Senator supported that sense of the Senate that the President should 
consider calling on the United Nations.

[[Page S9469]]

  This was passed last week. All we are saying is, if you are not going 
to do it, tell us you are not going to do it, and tell us within the 
30-day period. If you are going to do it, let us know that as well.
  I think the American people are entitled to know what our policy is 
because I don't believe they do know, today.
  I reserve my time.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 12 minutes; the 
Senator from Massachusetts has 2 minutes 24 seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I sense the Senator from Massachusetts 
wants to place the responsibility for those who are in harm's way, who 
do lose their lives, who do, as we say, make the ultimate sacrifice for 
democracy; and he wants to have a plan in advance.
  It is true I voted for that resolution. It was precatory. It was a 
sense of the Senate saying to the President of the United States we 
think he ought to get as many people in there to help as possible. We 
think we ought to get the U.N. involved. We think we ought to use NATO 
forces to the extent we think we can. We think we ought to get a 
burden-sharing arrangement in Iraq because it is in the best interests 
of the whole world that we have eliminated Saddam Hussein. It is in the 
best interests of the world that peace be restored in Iraq. I firmly 
believe that.
  We passed a resolution that told the President to use all necessary 
means to achieve the objectives we outlined. He asked for our approval 
of his intention to deploy our forces to take down the Saddam Hussein 
regime.
  I absolutely agree. I voted for the resolution. It had nothing to do 
with asking the President to make the statements and to give us within 
30 days a statement of justification for his actions in seeking or 
failing to seek NATO participation or a United Nations Security Council 
resolution: Thirty days; tell us now; and, if you haven't done it in 30 
days, you failed. How is that consistent with the Constitution?
  If we want to sort of assess blame for the deaths that are occurring 
in Iraq or Afghanistan, as far as that is concerned, we all share the 
blame. We are Americans who asked young people to volunteer. We didn't 
conscript them. Every single one over there--God bless them--is a 
volunteer. I think we are the only nation in the world today that has a 
totally volunteer military. We asked them to join. We asked them and 
told them what their duties would be. Their duty is to obey the 
commands of the Commander in Chief and to support the Constitution of 
the United States. Again, God bless them; that is what they are doing 
very well. I almost puddle up thinking about the young people who die 
because of the request of this Congress and the President's compliance 
with that request.
  How we get out of this in terms of satisfying the demands of people 
who want a daily plan for what we are going to do tomorrow: We were 
privileged to see part of the plan that dealt with the embarkation of 
our forces going to Iraq. As I said here before, part of that plan was 
to go through Turkey. If that plan had been published about going 
through Turkey, and had it been discussed here, and had Turkey changed 
its mind, then the question would be, What was your contingency plan? 
Would we have published a contingency plan? We have contingency plans 
right now in case there are people who come back into Iraq who want to 
really restore war there.

  The Senator says the President said the war was over. We all thought 
it was. Today, the military forces who are there in uniform are there 
because we don't have a civilian component capable of maintaining 
security in an atmosphere such as Iraq.
  I just visited with some of the people who came back from there. They 
say it is sort of a scary place. There are places where you can drive 
down the road just like you would drive from here to Chicago. There are 
other places where you wouldn't cross the street. Our job is to 
maintain forces there to protect people who have to cross the street. 
Until our job is done, the President will keep our people there. Until 
that happens, and until he makes the decision to bring them back, I 
will vote for the money to support them. I will give them the authority 
and whatever he needs to protect them. And I will ask the Congress to 
make certain that we understand we will get further requests for money 
for Iraq. That is for sure. How much, I couldn't tell you.
  Again, back to my great friend from Hawaii who made the statement 
about his time as platoon leader and how he would not have known how 
many grenades would be used in the next week. How does the President 
know how many forces he is going to have to use next week to protect 
those who are there? I understand that some of them are coming home. I 
saw a young man in my office who told me about his experience there.
  But I don't think we are in a position yet where we can demand an 
estimate of the personnel of the Armed Forces in foreign countries and 
who are needed in Iraq and for reconstruction. That even implies that 
the forces would be used to reconstruct Iraq. I don't think they are 
going to use military people to reconstruct Iraq. I think we will have 
the council that has just been nominated put forth an Iraqi government 
that will seek support to use their own income from their oil and start 
bringing about an economic system that is based upon supply and demand 
and have reward for every individual for their contribution to their 
society. I expect to see a really vibrant economy and a vibrant 
democracy in Iraq before I leave this world because of what we are 
doing now.
  Again, I urge Members of the Senate to support the Constitution. 
Don't get in the position where we try to dominate the executive branch 
by requiring a schedule in a bill which he cannot veto because of the 
circumstances which exist today. He cannot do that.
  We must protect this bill against any threat of veto. Certainly there 
would be a threat of a veto. If I were President of the United States, 
I would certainly veto a bill that had that direction to me.
  I urge Members to vote to table the amendment. I will do so when the 
Senator is finished with his time.
  I yield such time to the Senator from Hawaii as he might use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, it was not my intention to participate 
in this debate.
  As it is well known in this Chamber, I was one of the few who voted 
against the resolution to grant the President of the United States 
authority to carry out the strike. So my views are rather well known 
here.
  But on matters that are being discussed today, in war it is almost 
impossible to predict what will happen tomorrow. As I indicated 
earlier, as a young lieutenant in charge of 40 men, if someone should 
have asked me how many men I thought I would lose today in battle, my 
response would be that I hope none. But who can predict that?
  Like many of my colleagues here, I have seen too many men killed. I 
have sensed the anger of war, and I have tasted the hatred involved.
  I say these things not to criticize my dear friend. In fact, I 
commend him for bringing these matters up for discussion. But one in 
war cannot make predictions, much as you want to.
  Equally as important, in the world of diplomacy--and in this case 
pointed out very astutely by my chairman, the Senator from Alaska--the 
President of the United States is in charge of the foreign policy of 
this Nation. In the world of diplomacy, when one sits down with another 
diplomat, one doesn't tell the world, I am going to tell that person 
that I want this or I want that or I am going to do this if you do not 
do that. It is just not done that way. Most of the conversations 
between heads of state are in private. That is the way it should be. We 
are not here to embarrass the head of state of some country by telling 
the Senate that, in my discussions with prime minister such-and-such, 
he said this and he is reneging now. That is not the way it is done.
  Equally as important, whatever disclosures our Commander in Chief 
makes, they impinge upon the future of the men on the front line. I 
would not want any sort of activity that would place our men and women 
in jeopardy. I think if we force the President of the United States to 
do what is required in this resolution, we may be placing our men and 
women in jeopardy.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I understand there are 2 minutes 
remaining.

[[Page S9470]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, it is important to know what this is 
and what this is not. We are not asking for war plans. We are talking 
about how we are going to win the peace.
  We have a policy which is adrift in Iraq today. Americans are getting 
shot every single day. We are not asking for secret conversations 
between heads of state. All we are trying to do is ask the President of 
the United States, as we did a week ago, to consider going to the 
United Nations. We asked him to consider going to NATO. Now we are 
asking him: If you are going to NATO, tell us; and if you are not going 
to NATO to try to get relief for our military, tell us.
  This is about the postwar period, not a secret plan about whether we 
are going through Turkey or how many bombers we are going to have or 
how many ships. We are talking about the plan for the postwar period 
and where Americans are getting shot every single day.
  The policy is adrift. We are asking the President to clarify for the 
American people what his policy is. I think the American people are 
entitled to it.
  I am prepared to yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the law we passed authorizing the 
President to proceed requires reports to the Congress:

       The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to 
     the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint 
     resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise 
     of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning 
     for efforts that are expected to be required after--

  ``after''--

     such actions are completed. . . .

  That is in the resolution we voted for. That is the authorization for 
use of force.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement by Paul 
Bremer, the President's representative, our representative, in Iraq, 
which was an op-ed piece he provided to the New York Times, dated July 
13, 2003, be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. STEVENS. In it, Ambassador Bremer states:

       In all this, the coalition is working closely with Iraqis 
     who will eventually be responsible for their country's well-
     being. For our three priorities--security, politics and the 
     economy--the strategy provides for the successful transition 
     to a stable and reformed Iraq. This does not mean that the 
     road ahead is without danger. The combination of a broken 
     infrastructure and acts of sabotage could mean a rough 
     summer. We will suffer casualties, as the bitter-enders 
     resort to violence. We are also braced for an increase in 
     terrorism by non-Iraqis, but no one should doubt our 
     determination to use our power in the face of violent acts.
       Once our work is over, the reward will be great: a free, 
     democratic and independent Iraq that stands not as a threat 
     to its neighbors or the world, but as a beacon of freedom and 
     justice.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the New York Times, July 13, 2003]

             The Road Ahead in Iraq--and How To Navigate It

                        (By L. Paul Bremer III)

       Baghdad, Iraq.--Americans can be proud of the role their 
     fighting men and women played in freeing Iraq of Saddam 
     Hussein and his cronies. The people of Iraq are now on the 
     road to political and economic independence.
       The first official step in this political transition at the 
     national level occurs today, with the convening of the Iraqi 
     Governing Council. This is the latest sign of progress. For 
     the first time in decades, Iraqis are truly free. More than 
     150 newspapers have been started since liberation. All major 
     cities and 85 percent of towns now have a municipal council 
     where Iraqis are increasingly taking responsibility for 
     management of local matters like health care, water and 
     electricity.
       Iraqis are speaking out and demonstrating with a vigor 
     borne of 35 years of imposed silence. This is not yet a full 
     democracy, but freedom is on the march, from north to south. 
     Sadly, this progress is despised by a narrow band of 
     opponents. A small minority of bitter-enders--members of the 
     former regime's instruments of repression--oppose such 
     freedom. They are joined by foreign terrorists, extreme 
     Islamists influenced by Iran and bands of criminals. These 
     people do not pose a strategic threat to America or to a 
     democratic Iraq. They enjoy no support since their only 
     vision is to reimpose the dictatorship hated by Iraqis. Our 
     military will hunt them down and, as President Bush said, 
     ``They will face ruin, just as surely as the regime they once 
     served.''
       These shadowy figures are killing brave Iraqis working with 
     us, attacking soldiers and civilians, and trying to sabotage 
     the fragile infrastructure. The attacks have drawn concern 
     worldwide. My coalition colleagues and Iraqi friends have 
     noticed that the attacks are often aimed at successes in the 
     renewal of this nation. A week ago, an American soldier was 
     mixing with students at Baghdad University, which reopened on 
     May 17. Their presence was testimony to the educational 
     progress that is blossoming here (public schools have also 
     reopened). But our enemies fear enlightenment, so one of them 
     killed the soldier.
       The day before, 250 Iraqi police recruits graduated, the 
     latest success in re-staffing law enforcement. Tens of 
     thousands of Iraqi policemen are now on duty. But the enemies 
     of freedom correctly felt threatened by the cooperation and 
     professionalism the day represented, so they set off a bomb 
     that killed seven new officers. Before the war, women had to 
     travel miles for propane. Now, local councils are 
     establishing distribution centers that make the gas readily 
     available to households. On June 18, one American soldier was 
     killed while guarding a center. The June 24th explosion at an 
     oil refinery in Barwanah is another example of political 
     sabotage on Iraq's energy supply.
       With these attacks on Iraq's new successes, citizens of 
     coalition nations ask how long we will remain in Iraq--and 
     some Iraqis may doubt our ability to improve their lives. As 
     President Bush has made clear, we are committed to 
     establishing the conditions for security, prosperity and 
     democracy. America has no designs on Iraq and its wealth. We 
     will finish our job here and stay not one day longer than 
     necessary.
       We have a plan to support the establishment of this 
     government of, by and for Iraqis. After months of 
     consultations with Iraqis, we have take the first step in 
     establishing an interim administration. Today, the Governing 
     Council of Iraq will meet. It represents all the strands from 
     Iraq's complicated social structure--Shiites, Sunnis, Arabs, 
     Kurds, men and women, Christians and Turkmens. The council 
     will immediately exercise real political power, appointing 
     interim ministers and working with the coalition on policy 
     and budgets.
       At the same time, the council will establish procedures to 
     write Iraq's new constitution. Once it is ratified by the 
     people, elections can be held and a sovereign Iraqi 
     government will come into being. So the question of how long 
     the coalition will stay in Iraq depends in part on how 
     quickly the Iraqi people can write and approve a 
     constitution.
       The coalition recognizes the urgency of marrying economic 
     well-being to political freedom. For 35 years, the country's 
     assets were misappropriated or stolen. We are pouring 
     resources into re-establishing basic services and creating 
     jobs. Our economic reform plan will entail a major shift of 
     capital from the value-destroying state sector to private 
     firms. We are also creating a social safety net for any 
     resulting disruptions. And we believe that a method should be 
     found to assure that every citizen benefits from Iraq's oil 
     wealth. One possibility would be to pay social benefits from 
     a trust financed by oil revenues. Another could be to pay an 
     annual cash dividend directly to each citizen from that 
     trust.
       In all this, the coalition is working closely with Iraqis 
     who will eventually be responsible for their country's well-
     being. For our three priorities--security, politics and the 
     economy--the strategy provides for the successful transition 
     to a stable and reformed Iraq. This does not mean that the 
     road ahead is without danger. The combination of a broken 
     infrastructure and acts of sabotage could mean a rough 
     summer. We will suffer casualties, as the bitter-enders 
     resort to violence. We are also braced for an increase in 
     terrorism by non-Iraqis, but no one should doubt our 
     determination to use our power in the face of violent acts.
       Once our work is over, the reward will be great: a free, 
     democratic and independent Iraq that stands not as a threat 
     to its neighbors or the world, but as a beacon of freedom and 
     justice.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to table the Senator's amendment 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, were the yeas and nays ordered on the 
Kennedy amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays were ordered on the motion 
to table.
  Mr. STEVENS. I call for the regular order.

[[Page S9471]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 1273.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Sununu) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 283 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Miller
     Sununu
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, Senator McCain will be recognized to 
offer an amendment and after that Senator Corzine.
  Mr. REID. Senator McCain was gracious, and he said he was going to be 
long. Senator Corzine can go first.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is agreeable. I state to the Senate that Senator 
Corzine will offer an amendment and then Senator McCain will offer an 
amendment. We will vote on those two amendments. Hopefully, we will 
start at 7 o'clock on those two amendments.
  I want to tell the Senate, I have been negotiating with my great 
friend, our great leader--can I call you the great leader?--about the 
process. Senator Frist has agreed that I can state, if we can finish 
this bill tomorrow night, there will not be any votes on Friday. The 
Senate will be in session. And on Monday we will be in session but 
there will be no votes. It will be our intention to call up and start 
statements and even consider amendments, if Senators wish to raise 
them, on homeland security on Monday, but no votes. That is conditioned 
upon us finishing this bill before we go home tomorrow night. I know a 
lot of people want to make plans to travel west. You can leave in the 
morning or late at night where I live.
  As a practical matter, I urge Senators to cooperate with us and find 
ways to raise their amendments. We will be pleased to stay in session 
tonight and have amendments offered and have them voted on at a time to 
be determined tomorrow. We are going to try to do our best to continue 
through tomorrow. We do have a Joint Meeting of Congress for the leader 
of Britain tomorrow. That will interrupt this process a little bit. But 
we will continue after that tomorrow and finish if Members will 
cooperate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Daschle and all the 
Democrats, we recognize that it is a heavy push to do this tomorrow. We 
are going to do everything we can to meet this schedule. We have people 
on our side who also have things to do the next day. We will do 
everything we can.
  The Senator from Alaska is absolutely right, the Blair meeting, as 
important as that is, is going to slow us down. We have made great 
progress today. We will do the best we can.
  Mr. STEVENS. We can turn this into a little prayer meeting. So others 
might follow the example, I yield to the Senator who wishes to state he 
will not raise an amendment.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I was considering offering an 
amendment regarding Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico because of punitive 
action that was taken in the House bill requiring the shutting down of 
Roosevelt Roads within 6 months, simply as a punitive measure over the 
fact that some of the leaders in the House did not like the fact that 
the Puerto Rican people took a position that they did not want training 
at Viegues Island. Instead, it ought to be done in a deliberative and 
professional process, just like any other military base, through the 
normal BRAC process.
  The resident commissioner or the delegate from Puerto Rico has 
requested that I not offer the amendment. He feels very confident that 
he will be able to prevail in conference. So at his request, I will not 
offer the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, we have about 1 hour 15 minutes under the 
suggested schedule of the Senator from Alaska. That will mean the 
Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, will have 45 minutes. He wanted 45 
minutes himself. I wonder if he will take a half hour plus 15 minutes 
for the Senator from Alaska?
  Mr. STEVENS. I shall take care of myself, Madam President.
  Mr. REID. We need to have some time agreement if Senator Corzine is 
going to be followed by Senator McCain. We cannot leave Senator McCain 
with no time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Senator McCain assured me he would cooperate with our 
schedule, knowing the event Senator Inouye and I will attend tonight at 
7:30 honoring World War II veterans. We will come back to continue the 
bill after that ceremony.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, Senator Reed has been most cooperative. 
Following those two votes, he wishes to speak on the bill. He would 
like to speak for up to half an hour after the completion of the two 
votes that have been mentioned by the Senator from Alaska.
  Because Senator McCain has allowed Senator Corzine to go first, I 
wish to make sure Senator McCain has time left to debate his amendment. 
It is my understanding that the two Senators who are going to speak on 
this will use no more than a half hour between them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. CORZINE. I thank the Chair. Will the Chair inform me as I 
approach the 20-minute mark?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I will put that in the form of a unanimous 
consent request that we have Senator Corzine, then we have Senator 
McCain, and that there be no second-degree amendments prior to a vote 
on or in relation to both those amendments, and that Senator Jack Reed 
be recognized following those votes to speak on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from New Jersey.


                           Amendment No. 1275

  Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I call up my amendment which is at the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Corzine] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1275.

  Mr. CORZINE. Madam 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:
       At the appropriate place insert the following:

[[Page S9472]]

   TITLE ______.--NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF 
                      INTELLIGENCE RELATED TO IRAQ

     SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       There is established the National Commission on the 
     Development and Use of Intelligence Related to Iraq.

     SEC. 102. FINDINGS.

       (1) The Congress underscores its commitment to and support 
     for ongoing Congressional reviews regarding the collection 
     and analysis of intelligence related to Iraq.

     SEC. 103. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of the Commission are to--
       (1) examine and report upon the role of policymakers in the 
     development of intelligence related to Iraq and Operation 
     Iraqi Freedom;
       (2) examine and report upon the use of intelligence related 
     to Iraq and Operation Iraqi Freedom;
       (3) build upon the reviews of intelligence related to Iraq 
     and Operation Iraqi Freedom, including those being conducted 
     by the Executive Branch, Congress and other entities; and
       (4) investigate and publicly report to the President and 
     Congress on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

     SEC. 104. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Members.--The Commission shall be composed of 12 
     members, of whom--
       (1) 3 members shall be appointed by the majority leader of 
     the Senate;
       (2) 3 members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives;
       (3) 3 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of 
     the Senate; and
       (4) 3 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (b) Chairperson; Vice Chairperson.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) the Chairperson 
     and Vice Chairperson of the Commission shall be elected by 
     the members.
       (2) Political party affiliation.--The Chairperson and Vice 
     Chairperson shall not be from the same political party.
       (c) Qualifications; Initial Meeting.--
       (1) Qualifications.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     individuals appointed to the Commission should be prominent 
     United States citizens, with national recognition and 
     significant depth of experience in such professions as 
     intelligence, governmental service, the armed services, law 
     enforcement, and foreign affairs.
       (2) Initial meeting.--Once six or more members of the 
     Commission have been appointed, those members who have been 
     appointed may meet and, if necessary, select a temporary 
     chairperson, who may begin the operations of the Commission, 
     including the hiring of staff.
       (d) Quorum; Vacancies.--After its initial meeting, the 
     Commission shall meet upon the call of the chairperson or a 
     majority of its members. Six members of the Commission shall 
     constitute a quorum. Any vacancy in the Commission shall not 
     affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner in 
     which the original appointment was made.

     SEC. 105. FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

       The functions of the Commission are to--
       (1) conduct an investigation that--
       (A) investigates the development and use of intelligence 
     related to Iraq and Operation Iraqi Freedom; and
       (B) shall include an investigation of intelligence related 
     to whether Iraq--
       (i) possessed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and 
     the locations of those weapons;
       (ii) had links to Al Qaeda;
       (iii) attempted to acquire uranium in Africa, and if so, 
     when;
       (iv) attempted to procure aluminum tubes for the 
     development of nuclear weapons;
       (v) possessed mobile laboratories for the production of 
     weapons of mass destruction;
       (vi) possessed delivery systems for weapons of mass 
     destruction; and
       (vii) any other matters that bear upon the imminence of the 
     threat to the national security of the United States and its 
     allies.
       (2) submit to the President and Congress such report as is 
     required by this title containing such findings, conclusions, 
     and recommendations as the Commission shall determine, 
     including proposing organization, coordination, planning, 
     management arrangements, procedures, rules, and regulations.
       (A) Form of report.--Each report prepared under this 
     section shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may 
     contain a classified annex.

     SEC. 106. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Hearings and evidence.--The Commission or, on the 
     authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member 
     thereof, may, for the purposes of carrying out this title--
       (A) hold such hearings and sit and act at such times and 
     places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, 
     administer such oaths; and
       (B) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and 
     testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 
     records, correspondence, memoranda, cables, e-mails, papers, 
     and documents, as the Commission or such designated 
     subcommittee or designated member may determine advisable.
       (2) Subpoenas.--
       (A) Issuance.--Subpoenas issued under paragraph (1)(B) may 
     be issued under the signature of the Chairperson of the 
     Commission, the Vice Chairperson of the Commission, the 
     chairperson of any subcommittee created by a majority of the 
     Commission, or any member designated by a majority of the 
     Commission, and may be served by any person designated by the 
     Chairperson, subcommittee chairperson, or member.
       (B) Enforcement.--
       (i) In general.--In the case of contumacy or failure to 
     obey a subpoena issued under paragraph (1)(B), the United 
     States district court for the judicial district in which the 
     subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found, or 
     where the subpoena is returnable, may issue an order 
     requiring such person to appear at any designated place to 
     testify or to produce documentary or other evidence. Any 
     failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the 
     court as a contempt of that court.
       (ii) Additional enforcement.--In the case of any failure of 
     any witness to comply with any subpoena or to testify when 
     summoned under authority of this section, the Commission may, 
     by majority vote, certify a statement of fact constituting 
     such failure to the appropriate United States attorney, who 
     may bring the matter before the grand jury for its action, 
     under the same statutory authority and procedures as if the 
     United States attorney had received a certification under 
     sections 102 through 104 of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States (2 U.S.C. 192 through 194).
       (b) Closed Meetings.--
       (1) In general.--Meetings of the Commission may be closed 
     to the public under section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) or other applicable law.
       (2) Additional authority.--In addition to the authority 
     under paragraph (1), section 10(a)(1) and (3) of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to any 
     portion of a Commission meeting if the President determines 
     that such portion or portions of that meeting is likely to 
     disclose matters that could endanger national security. If 
     the President makes such determination, the requirements 
     relating to a determination under section 10(d) of that Act 
     shall apply.
       (c) Contracting.--The Commission may, to such extent and in 
     such amounts as are provided in appropriation acts, enter 
     into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its 
     duties under this title.
       (d) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission is 
     authorized to secure directly from any executive department, 
     bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent 
     establishment, or instrumentality of the Government 
     information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the 
     purposes of this title. Each department, bureau, agency, 
     board, commission, office, independent establishment, or 
     instrumentality shall, to the extent authorized by law, 
     furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and 
     statistics directly to the Commission, upon request made by 
     the Chairperson, the chairperson of any subcommittee created 
     by a majority of the Commission, or any member designated by 
     a majority of the Commission.
       (e) Assistance From Federal Agencies.--
       (1) General services administration.--The Administrator of 
     General Services shall provide to the Commission on a 
     reimbursable basis administrative support and other services 
     for the performance of the Commission's functions.
       (2) Other departments and agencies.--In addition to the 
     assistance prescribed in paragraph (1), departments and 
     agencies of the United States are authorized to provide to 
     the Commission such services, funds, facilities, staff, and 
     other support services as they may determine advisable and as 
     may be authorized by law.
       (f) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property.
       (g) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as departments and agencies of the United States.

     SEC. 107. STAFF OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Appointment and compensation.--The chairperson and vice 
     chairperson, in accordance with rules agreed upon by the 
     Commission, may appoint and fix the compensation of a staff 
     director and such other personnel as may be necessary to 
     enable the Commission to carry out its functions, without 
     regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, 
     governing appointments in the competitive service, and 
     without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter 
     III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification 
     and General Schedule pay rates, except that no rate of pay 
     fixed under this subsection may exceed the equivalent of that 
     payable for a position at level V of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Personnel as federal employees.--
       (A) In general.--The executive director and any personnel 
     of the Commission who are employees shall be employees under 
     section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of 
     chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, and 90 of that title.
       (B) Members of commission.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be 
     construed to apply to members of the Commission.
       (b) Detailees.--Any Federal Government employee may be 
     detailed to the Commission without reimbursement from the 
     Commission, and such detailee shall retain the rights, 
     status, and privileges of his or her regular employment 
     without interruption.

[[Page S9473]]

       (c) Consultant Services.--The Commission is authorized to 
     procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance 
     with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at 
     rates not to exceed the daily rate paid a person occupying a 
     position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5315 of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 108. COMPENSATION AND TRAVEL EXPENSES.

       (a) Compensation.--Each member of the Commission may be 
     compensated at not to exceed the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at level IV 
     of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, 
     United States Code, for each day during which that member is 
     engaged in the actual performance of the duties of the 
     Commission.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--While away from their homes or 
     regular places of business in the performance of services for 
     the Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed 
     travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, 
     in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the 
     Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703(b) 
     of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 109. SECURITY CLEARANCES FOR COMMISSION MEMBERS AND 
                   STAFF.

       The appropriate executive departments and agencies shall 
     cooperate with the Commission in expeditiously providing to 
     the Commission members and staff appropriate security 
     clearances in a manner consistent with existing procedures 
     and requirements, except that no person shall be provided 
     with access to classified information under this section who 
     would not otherwise qualify for such security clearance.

     SEC. 110. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION; TERMINATION.

       (a) Report.--Not later than nine months after the date of 
     the first meeting of the Commission, the Commission shall 
     submit to the President and Congress a report containing such 
     findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective 
     measures as have been agreed to by a majority of Commission 
     members.
       (b) Termination.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission, and all the authorities of 
     this title, shall terminate 60 days after the date on which 
     the report is submitted under section (a).
       (2) Administrative activities before terminating.--The 
     Commission may use the 60-day period referred to in paragraph 
     (1) for the purpose of concluding its activities, including 
     providing testimony to committees of Congress concerning its 
     reports and disseminating the second report.

     SEC. 111. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission 
     to carry out this title $5,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

  Mr. CORZINE. This amendment is premised on a strong view that 
intelligence and its honest analysis are vital tools in our war on 
terrorism. To protect the American people, our intelligence must not be 
shaped to win an argument, but must be used to inform.
  This amendment calls for a bipartisan commission to study the use of 
intelligence related to Iraq. The commission would examine several key 
issues, including intelligence related to the following questions:
  Whether Iraq possessed chemical, biological and/or nuclear weapons;
  Whether Iraq had links to Al-Qaida, and;
  Whether Iraq attempted to acquire uranium in Africa.
  Earlier today I joined in a growing expression of concern by my 
colleagues and the American people about the representation of 
intelligence information by the President and the administration in 
building its case for the war in Iraq. Without a thorough explanation 
of why many of the administration's statements are in conflict, and 
have included claims unsubstantiated by the best intelligence, the 
American people, their representatives, and many of our would-be 
international partners in post-conflict Iraq, will most certainly begin 
to lose confidence in the administration's intelligence analysis, if 
not their word. Simply put, the Nation's credibility, in my view, is at 
stake.
  This credibility is important for the security of the American people 
who have and continue to bear an enormously high cost, a heavy burden, 
in both life and treasure, with regard to our presence in Iraq. I know 
in my home State of New Jersey there have been seven soldiers who have 
been lost since the beginning of the conflict. It is something that 
impacts people's daily lives.
  We stand with our troops. We stand with the mission they are trying 
to do, to bring about democracy, but we do have a right, and they have 
a right to have credibility with regard to the intelligence that is 
presented.
  There have been a lot of accusations and allegations circulating in 
recent days. Some may be trying to politicize this debate. This 
amendment is an attempt to ensure that this debate does not become a 
political one, and that we focus in a bipartisan way on getting to the 
facts.
  In my view, in order to preserve the public credibility of the United 
States, we need a thorough public review, one that is above politics, 
one with conclusions that will be regarded as credible and definitive, 
not only in the U.S. but around the world.
  As we are now all well aware, in this year's State of the Union 
Address President Bush said:

       The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein 
     recently sought significant quantities of uranium from 
     Africa.

  The power of the President's allegations in those 16 short words 
cannot be overstated. The Bush administration, using legalistic 
language, was leading people to embrace, at least in the opinion of 
many, the view that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear program. The 
President did not say the British were claiming anything. He did not 
say they alleged anything. He said they ``learned'' that Saddam was 
attempting to buy uranium, implicitly accepting the charge as fact.
  Although just 16 words long, it was a powerful statement that 
resonated in the context of debates that had gone on throughout the 
Nation and the world for nearly 5 months, in every public forum, the 
floor of the Senate, the halls of the United Nations, and across the 
airwaves. Only after many months did we the people and the Congress 
learn this statement was based on information that our own intelligence 
agency earlier learned was false. In fact, the administration's own 
spokesperson said the statement was inappropriate for the State of the 
Union address. And the Director of Central Intelligence has stated 
that: These 16 words should never have been included in the text 
written for the President.
  Yesterday morning, Senator Levin, the distinguished ranking member of 
the Senate Armed Services Committee, raised several areas of particular 
concern, including: the aluminum tubes; the Iraq-al-Qaida connection; 
whether Iraq reconstituted nuclear weapons; whether Iraq possesses 
chemical and biological weapons; allegations of mobile biological 
warfare labs.
  Furthermore, Senator Levin laid out seven questions about claims 
specifically regarding Iraq and the uranium. He argued that these 
should be answered in the context of a bipartisan investigation. I 
believe that is true, and I could not agree more.
  This is not just a concern about the African uranium issue. It is 
about whether there was a fair and full presentation to the American 
people. But to that list of questions, I would add several others.
  For example, if the information in the State of the Union Address was 
``technically accurate,'' as administration officials have lately 
argued, why was it excluded in Secretary Powell's 90-minute 
presentation before the United Nations only 8 days later?
  Also, why did we learn about the misleading nature of these comments, 
not from the administration, but from the International Atomic Energy 
Agency and the media?
  This is not an academic matter. At stake is nothing less than the 
credibility of the United States, and that credibility is important for 
protecting the American people. That credibility gets weakened each day 
we fail to have a full accounting of the facts about what happened, 
facts such as who knew that certain information was false? When did 
they know it? Why was it expunged from one administration speech but 
not another? And why are we just learning about much of this now?

  Keep in mind, political leaders around the world, not just here at 
home, have staked their own reputations on their support of President 
Bush and the United States. As a consequence, many of our closest 
allies and their elected officials are facing enormous criticism from 
their own citizens, and sometimes--and this is quite telling--from 
their own political parties. We owe it not only to the American people 
but to all those who stood with us to be straight and to come clean 
immediately; otherwise, this episode will only undermine our ability to 
win support for other critical foreign policy interests in the future, 
and they are substantial. In fact, without a clear explanation, we put 
the American people at risk facing a world

[[Page S9474]]

where our partners question our credibility on many interconnected 
concerns: Korea, Iran, Syria, and the road map to peace in the Middle 
East.
  We need to understand whether this is part of a broader pattern of 
selective release of information or just a series of unfortunate 
snafus. Last October, for example, during the Iraq debate, Secretary 
James Kelly was in Pyongyang, meeting with the North Koreans. At that 
meeting, a meeting that occurred a full week prior to the Senate vote 
on the resolution authorizing force in Iraq, the North Koreans admitted 
to an active nuclear program. Yet despite its importance and relevance 
to the debate regarding Iraq and America's national security posture 
generally, administration officials waited until after the Congress had 
voted on the resolution--6 days, by the way--to authorize the use of 
force before revealing the details of the North Korean disclosure.
  To this Senator, that information was both relevant and timely to the 
Iraq debate. Was this information withheld because it might affect the 
tenor of the debate, or might impact the Congress's view of the Iraqi 
threat, or the relative view of the Iraq threat?
  As Senator Levin and others have explained, there may have been other 
instances in which the administration selectively, in some form or 
another, misrepresented or withheld information to support their case 
for the war in Iraq.
  For example, the administration claimed there were linkages between 
al-Qaida and Iraq. But many now believe those claims were overstated or 
exaggerated, and based on scant and circumstantial evidence.
  Another widely discussed issue relates to Iraq's purchase of aluminum 
tubes, where there was considerable debate within the intelligence 
community about whether the tubes were intended for use as part of a 
nuclear program.
  When these claims are added up, many people have concluded that the 
administration may have been seeking to win an argument--not inform the 
American public. And we need to know the truth. We need to be informed 
to make good decisions, to set priorities, to go forward, to protect 
the American people. The American people deserve to be informed 
accurately.
  The commission I am proposing would be completely bipartisan. It 
would neither supplant nor interfere with ongoing Congressional reviews 
regarding the collection and analysis of intelligence related to Iraq.
  So, again, I hope we can support this proposal. We need to ensure 
that the facts come out. We should do it on a bipartisan basis, and we 
should do it immediately. The safety and security of the American 
people are at stake.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise to support the Corzine 
amendment. I think this is an incredibly important amendment to this 
important bill. In doing so, once again, as I have done before on this 
floor, I commend our service men and women who have served us so well 
in Iraq, as well as around the world.
  We join in our pride and gratitude for their courage and their 
service.
  However, I must rise today to express my deep concern about 
revelation after revelation of the fragile nature of the facts 
presented to the American public and the world about the reasons we had 
to preemptively, unilaterally attack Iraq.
  Those misleading words in the President's State of the Union Address 
this past January have brought into question the credibility of our 
Government. This is extremely serious. It hurts our country because 
Iraq is not the only threat to our Nation, as the Senator from New 
Jersey indicated. We continue to be threatened by terrorists in 
emerging nuclear countries such as Iran and North Korea. In order to 
win the war on terrorism and ultimately disarm Iran and North Korea, we 
are going to have to work with NATO and other allies to protect 
American citizens.
  Unfortunately, the misleading statements about Iraq attempting to 
purchase uranium from Niger will make building such coalitions even 
more difficult. This means our homeland will be less safe and our 
American citizens less secure. This is a deep concern of mine. I wish 
the misleading statements about Iraq and Niger were the only statements 
in question that the President and his administration have made to the 
American people. Unfortunately, there have been others.
  First, let's go through what transpired with the statements on Iraq 
and Niger. Before the State of the Union referencing Iraqi purchases of 
uranium from Africa, the administration, at the direction of the CIA, 
took out a nearly identical line in a speech the President gave in 
Cincinnati last October justifying the use of force in Iraq. Then, the 
African uranium purchase was back in the State of the Union Address, 
although we were told now this was a mistake by the CIA director George 
Tenet. Then, the African reference was dropped from Secretary of State 
Powell's presentation on Iraqi weapons capabilities to the United 
Nations just 8 days later. Then, Saddam's nuclear weapons came back 
with certainty when Vice President Cheney appeared on Meet the Press in 
March and said, ``We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear 
weapons.''
  This was one of the main assertions used that took us to war, and I 
believe the American people have a right to know which is it. If it was 
good intelligence, why the constant change of mind? Either Iraq had 
nuclear weapons or it didn't. If it was bad intelligence, who kept 
pushing to use it in the administration speeches and interviews? We 
need to know the answers to these questions. It is important for the 
credibility of our country and for the trust of the American people in 
our Government.
  It does not end there. We heard much about specially-made aluminum 
tubes that could be used to build centrifuges to create weapons-grade 
uranium. In the same State of the Union where he referenced uranium 
purchases from Africa, President Bush also said: Our intelligence 
sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength 
aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
  But, in fact, an unclassified intelligence assessment back in October 
stated some intelligence specialists ``believe that those tubes are 
probably intended for conventional weapons programs.''
  Last February, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the U.N. Security 
Council that ``we all know there are differences of opinion,'' and that 
``there is controversy about what these tubes are for.''

  However, the International Atomic Energy Agency, after conducting its 
own study, concluded the uranium tubes were not for uranium enrichment.
  Which is it? Enough time has gone by; we should have and are entitled 
to answers. We are entitled to the truth. Most importantly, the 
American people are entitled to the truth. Although we now have more 
than 140,000 troops in Iraq, we have not yet found chemical or 
biological weapons or even the plants needed to make them. We have not 
found evidence of al-Qaida training camps, although in the runup to the 
war the administration not only said they were there in Iraq but that 
they knew precise locations.
  Again, this administration has taken us into a new age, an age where 
we claim the right to unilaterally, preemptively strike another nation 
because we believe our national survival is at stake. In such a world, 
the intelligence used as proof for striking first has to be 
unassailable, has to be totally credible, or the American people and 
our allies will be deeply suspicious of any future claims.
  The claims led to decisions to put American men and women in harm's 
way and in too many instances have led to the loss of life. We need to 
find out the truth behind the various claims and questions, legitimate 
questions that have arisen, questions that have been asked by 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, questions that have taken us 
into the deserts of Iraq and put our men and women in harm's way.
  The only way we can get to the bottom of this is to set up an 
independent commission to get the facts, a bipartisan commission, a way 
to objectively look at what happened so it does not happen again.
  There is nothing more serious than a potential nuclear threat to our 
people. If there was ever a need for an independent commission, it is 
now. We now

[[Page S9475]]

face potential nuclear threats from Iran, from North Korea. We could 
face more in the future. American families and our American troops 
deserve answers to the questions that have been raised. We all deserve 
answers. We all deserve the truth.
  I hope my colleagues will join in support developing this independent 
commission. I believe nothing less than the credibility of our country 
is at stake. I hope we all join in supporting the Corzine amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise for a couple of minutes to 
compliment the distinguished Senator from Michigan for her very 
eloquent statement and for the leadership of the Senator from New 
Jersey, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Both Members have 
made their points very ably. I am grateful to both of them for their 
leadership in this effort.
  The real question is, How do we assert the facts in the most logical 
and the most bipartisan manner? As we have seen on so many other 
occasions, the only way to ensure that is done with a public review of 
the information provided and all of the facts available to us is 
through this independent approach. The Intelligence Committee has done 
an outstanding job. I commend them for their session, even this 
afternoon as we speak, looking into the facts as they are presented 
from those within the intelligence community.
  As Senator Rockefeller has noted on several occasions, they are 
constrained by their own understandable jurisdictional review and do 
not have the capacity to go beyond that jurisdictional review when 
issues involving other branches of the Government, other agencies of 
the executive branch, and certainly the White House itself, are 
involved.
  So this affords an opportunity to do the right thing, to give the 
American people the confidence they need that we understand now what 
the facts are, what the story is, and how we can ensure as we make 
these judgments we are doing so with the very best policy and goals in 
mind.
  I think this is a very worthy amendment. I think it ought to pass on 
an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. I am hopeful we can do that this 
evening, and I am grateful to those who have committed to this 
amendment, and especially for the leadership of Senators Stabenow and 
Corzine.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise also in support of Senator 
Corzine's amendment. Yesterday was a very grim day in Minnesota. We had 
the funeral service of the first Minnesotan to be killed in Iraq this 
year in the line of duty, PVT Edward James Herrgott. It is a grim 
reminder that 63 days after the President declared the hostilities 
almost over in Iraq, this young man lost his life on July 3, standing 
out in front, guarding the Baghdad Museum, the site where some of my 
colleagues and I had swept by, well protected, just 2 days before. He 
was killed, murdered by a sniper's bullet. At the age of 20, his life 
and all of its promise was snuffed out.
  We learned last week from the Secretary of Defense that, in his 
judgment, the military presence, some major component of which will 
have to be from the United States--hopefully much less will be, when we 
do as we must, which is to internationalize the continued development 
and hopefully economic recovery in Iraq--but as long as there is going 
to be a presence there, United States troops are going to be a big part 
of that, and it is almost unavoidable under the circumstances, 
especially as they exist today, the number of men and women who have 
lost their lives since May 1--which stands now at 79--will only 
increase.
  So, as Americans are faced, again and again, with a member of the 
family, a friend, an acquaintance, or just through the media a fellow 
citizen of that State, again and again they are going to be confronted 
with this question of, what are we doing in Iraq? What is the game plan 
to extricate our troops after achieving the success the military had so 
dramatically, remarkably in the 3 weeks it took from entering the 
country to sweeping into Baghdad with an incredible display of 
technology, the training, and most of all the dedication of those men 
and women who have really redefined the words ``courage'' and 
``patriotism'' for this Senator.
  They continue to labor there under the most extreme conditions, 115-
degree temperatures, all the other difficulties that are manifest 
there, not to mention the life-threatening danger that so many of them 
are under day and night.
  Given all that, I think it is imperative for our national security 
that we understand that we--all of us collectively in the Congress and 
the President, this administration--made what is the most momentous 
decision that can be made by this body and the administration, the 
decision whether or not to go to war--in this case, to initiate a war 
against another sovereign nation. To know that decision was made on 
accurate information from our intelligence operations, to me, is 
essential to our national security in the days and years ahead.
  It is also essential to our democracy to know the information we are 
getting from our leaders is truthful, accurate, to the best of their 
knowledge. There are enough questions that have been raised that must 
be answered, and they must be answered with the truth and with the 
facts as that can be determined objectively and dispassionately to be.
  I regret that the Senate Armed Services Committee, of which I am a 
member, is not going to be undertaking the bipartisan investigation 
into these issues as its counterpart, the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, has agreed to do. I think there has to be that kind of 
willingness on both sides of the aisle to seek the truth. I cannot 
understand why anybody would not want to find the truth and present it 
to the Members of this body and, even more importantly, to the American 
people. But that is a decision that evidently has been reached.
  In the absence of that, I think this independent commission is 
essential. We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to the Private Herrgotts 
whose lives have been sacrificed in this endeavor. We owe it to the 
future men and women who will be over in Iraq, in future engagements, 
if necessary. We owe it, ultimately, to our country, our democracy, and 
to ourselves.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1270

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1270.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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 prohibit the use of funds for certain programs, projects, 
                            and activities)

       On page 120, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended for any of the following programs, 
     projects, and activities:
       (1) The canola oil fuel cell initiative.
       (2) Shakespeare in America military communities.
       (3) Control of brown tree snakes.
       (4) The Academy for Closing and Avoiding Achievement Gaps.
       (5) Hangar renovation at the former Griffis Air Force Base, 
     New York.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment strikes funds for the 
canola oil fuel cell initiative, Shakespeare in American military 
communities project, control of brown tree snakes, hangar renovation at 
the former Griffiss Air Force Base, and the Academy for Closing and 
Avoiding Achievement Gaps.
  First, I would like to address the Senate concerning the 2004 Defense 
Appropriations Act. With each and every appropriations act, I come down 
to the floor of the Senate to point out many of the special interests 
and pet projects Members add to the legislation each year. Today I have 
the opportunity to speak on H.R. 2658, the Defense Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 2004.
  I remind my colleagues, the responsibilities of authorizers and 
appropriators are supposed to be distinct. The

[[Page S9476]]

role of the Senate Armed Services Committee is to establish policy and 
funding levels and to oversee the Department of Defense and its 
programs. The role of the Appropriations Committee is to allocate 
funding based on policies provided by authorization bills.
  The appropriators' function today, as we all know, has expanded 
dramatically and the Appropriations Committee now engages in 
significant policy decisionmaking and micromanaging, clearly usurping 
the role of the authorizing committees.
  The chairman of the Rules Committee was kind enough, a week or so 
ago, to have a hearing on a proposal I have to change the rules so that 
a point of order can be more easily lodged against an unauthorized 
appropriation. I will not bore my colleagues with further details 
because I have already introduced the rule and explained it.
  But during that hearing, chaired by my friend from Mississippi, 
Senator Lott, there was discussion of the process. This situation, this 
imbroglio in which we find ourselves, is not entirely the fault of the 
appropriators. I know it sounds strange for me to make that statement, 
but the fact is that there are holds on bills which are authorizing, 
which are done anonymously in many cases, and prevent the authorizing 
aspect of the process to be carried out, thereby forcing the 
appropriators to act in a policy fashion. Many times these holds are 
permanent and, really, there are some occasions where the Senators 
themselves do not know that those holds have been imposed.
  Additionally, there is the process that, unfortunately, results that 
many programs and important agencies of Government even are not 
reauthorized. The Federal Communications Commission, which falls under 
the responsibility of the committee I chair, has not been reauthorized 
since 1993. So then it is understandable why the appropriators would 
act in such fashion.
  I preface my remarks with the full acknowledgment that the system 
itself has broken down to a great degree.
  As I came to this floor before and pointed out, the process of 
earmarking and outrageous appropriating has increased in a dramatic but 
reasonable fashion when you consider that any evil unchecked is going 
to rise.
  According to information compiled by the Congressional Research 
Service, which examined earmarks for fiscal years 1994-2002, the total 
number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 in fiscal year 1994 to 10,540 
in 2002--an increase of over 150 percent. The level of funding has 
risen from $26.8 billion in 1994 to $44.6 billion in fiscal year 2002, 
an increase of over 66 percent.
  We are talking about real money.
  We now see on the front page of the Washington Post this morning that 
the budget deficit may surpass $450 billion.
  I might remind my colleagues that there is a little chart on the 
other side.
  In 2000, we had a surplus of $236 billion; $127 billion in 2001; a 
deficit of $157 billion in 2002; and, in 2003 it is estimated to be 
$450 billion.
  My dear friends, if you believe it is only going to be $450 billion, 
I have some land in the Arizona desert I would like to sell you.
  This does not take into account, as recently admitted by the 
Secretary of Defense, $4 billion a month just for our operations in 
Iraq, which I support.
  My point is we can't afford to do this anymore. We can't afford to 
continue to spend money like drunken sailors. I never knew a sailor, 
drunk or sober, who had the imagination to spend hard-earned taxpayer 
dollars on the Shakespeare in American Military Communities Project--$1 
million. Shakespeare in America Communities Project? Come on. Out of 
the Defense appropriations bill?
  The hangar renovation at the former Griffiss Air Force Base--the 
Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, NY, was closed in 1995. It has been 
reopened to civilian flight operations. In 1999, the airbase hosted 
Woodstock. Yet we are going to spend money to renovate the hangar 
there. We are going to spend $2 million. On a closed Air Force base we 
are going to spend $2 million. Meanwhile, we still have men and women, 
wives and husbands and family members who are fighting in Iraq on food 
stamps.
  I don't know what the Canola Oil Fuel Cell Initiative is. Canola is 
grown in the Western United States and Canada. Forty percent of each 
seed can be produced into canola oil. Prices for canola oil have 
dropped, I am sorry to say. But we are spending money for a Canola Oil 
Fuel Cell Initiative.
  What does that have to do with defense?
  Let me just add an additional comment. The very highly respected, I 
believe, Concord Coalition came up with a study in the last couple of 
days which is excoriating in its comments. I think it is right on the 
mark.
  The Concord Coalition Report on Fiscal Responsibility:

          Deficits, Deception and Denial Rate a Failing Grade

       The first six months of the 108th Congress were the most 
     fiscally irresponsible in recent memory. The crux of the 
     program was the schizophrenic pursuit of small government tax 
     policies and big government spending initiatives. Following 
     the lead of the Bush administration, Congress made no attempt 
     to reconcile the cost of new tax cuts on spending initiatives 
     within the framework of a realistic long-term balanced budget 
     plan. Instead, policymakers took a deteriorating budget 
     outlook and made it worse. To add insult to injury, Congress 
     used deceptive accounting gimmicks that would land a 
     corporate CEO in jail. It is hard to say which is worse, the 
     sunset gimmick used to hide the cost of an unaffordable tax 
     cut, the doughnut hole gimmick used to hide the cost of an 
     unaffordable, new Medicare entitlement, the shell games used 
     to hide the appropriations of the disingenuous budget 
     resolution that led to such in the first place. Then there 
     was denial. Policymakers simply closed their eyes to the 
     inevitable cost of reforming the alternative minimum tax and 
     the growing cost of the war against terrorism at home and 
     abroad.

  I commend the Concord Coalition report to my colleagues which gives a 
grade of a D and an F.
  You know what we are doing. We are heading for a train wreck. 
Everybody knows it. I don't know whatever happened to the old lockbox. 
Do you remember the old lockbox where we were going to take everybody's 
money for Social Security and put it in a lockbox so it couldn't be 
touched? You know what we are doing with the lockbox. It is simply 
because we are paying the retirement benefits of people who are 
retired. Those who are working have no money in accounts bearing their 
names. It is unfortunate.
  The summer blockbuster is not showing on your local movie screen but 
rather on the floor of the Senate. I am alarmed about a large green 
monster, and it is not the ``Incredible Hulk.'' I am talking about the 
exploding national deficit, and it should make the blood boil. We are 
now learning that the irresponsible tax cut and spending binge in 
Washington is resulting in this huge deficit. Even ``The Terminator'' 
can't stop the river of red ink that is endangering our fiscal future. 
It is like the ``Pirates of the Caribbean'' stealing our children's and 
our grandchildren's financial future.
  I thought that was pretty well written.
  I recognize the failure. I want to tell my colleagues that I 
recognize that the failure of the authorizing committees to pass 
authorizing legislation contributes to the broken system.
  I want to work together with the appropriators to try to solve this 
issue because often the appropriators have no choice but to fund 
unauthorized programs and take it upon themselves to make policy 
determinations.
  The fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act not only contained 
$3.7 billion in pork but also the dubious Boeing tanker lease. The 
conference report for the fiscal year 2002 Defense appropriations bill 
contained $8.1 billion in pork. The Senate version included $5.2 
billion. This year's bill contains well over $4 billion. This number is 
less than last year's Senate version of the legislation.

  This is real money.
  The projects that appear in the Defense appropriations Member-add-ons 
are items requested by Senators and not included in the President's 
budget request. They do not appear on the Joint Chiefs unfunded 
priority list. They are not authorized in the Defense authorization 
bill.
  This criteria is used by many organizations. And it has been useful 
in ferreting out programs of questionable merit and determining the 
relative priority of projects requested by Members for parochial 
reasons.
  The fact remains that in the years I have created these lists no 
offsets have been provided for any project.

[[Page S9477]]

  At a time when some of our soldiers and sailors still receive food 
stamps and live in inadequate housing, we find a way to provide over $4 
billion in unnecessary spending through the Defense appropriations 
bill.
  For example, the Joint Chiefs provided a list of critical 
requirements above what was provided for in the President's budget 
request. That list totaled nearly $18 billion for fiscal year 2004. We 
should provide additional funding for defense for items and programs 
which the Joint Chiefs need, and we need to set that as a priority.
  I point out once again that the bases in Alaska stand to benefit a 
great deal in this legislation. Alaskan bases alone will receive $214 
million in unrequested spending for improvements, renovations, and 
upgrades.
  Looking back at my career in the Navy, I wish I had been so fortunate 
as to be stationed in Alaska.
  Some of the more egregious examples of pork in this year's 
legislation include, as I mentioned, $1 million for Shakespeare in 
American Military Communities.
  What is wrong with Ernest Hemingway? I wonder why Shakespeare was the 
greatest writer in the English language. But there may be a difference 
of opinion as to who the greatest writers in the English language were. 
Why not Chekhov or Ibsen?
  Forty-nine million dollars for the Maui Space Surveillance System. 
Arizona is home to an observatory. But we are going to earmark $49 
million to Maui while there are many observatories in the United States 
that offer many of these same benefits.
  Two million dollars for miniature autonomous vehicles.
  There is $5 million for the bug-to-drug program. It is not often I 
bother the distinguished chairman but perhaps he can tell me what the 
bug-to-drug program is. There is an appropriation of $5 million for the 
bug-to-drug program. While he is looking it up, I will continue.
  There is $1.5 million to educate the 21st Century Information 
Operations Workforce, $2.5 million for the Hawaii Undersea Vehicle Test 
and Training Environment.
  I mentioned there is $2.5 million for the canola oil fuel cell 
initiative. I would think the only canola oil the Department of Defense 
should be investing in should be used for salad dressing for our 
troops, not inventing batteries.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would be interested in the bug-to-drug program.
  Mr. STEVENS. The so-called bug-to-drug program has an official name. 
The official name is the Engineered Pathogen Identification Program. 
Its goal is to identify and protect soldiers from both unknown and 
genetically engineered pathogens, such as anthrax, plague, and Ebola. 
Currently, there are no pathogen vaccines. It would take 7 to 15 years 
to develop one.
  This program is an attempt to shorten the time from drug development 
to its release for use as some type of an antigen to these pathogens 
which are very dangerous to our service men and women worldwide.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the chairman for that explanation. It makes it 
much more clear. I appreciate that.
  There are a number of them. One of them that is interesting is $9 
million for SensorNet. SensorNet is developed by a company in Modesto, 
CA. They obviously make hardware and software because that is in their 
advertisement. In researching this earmark on the Web site, I found 
this 10- to 15-percent-off coupon on the Internet.
  Now, I would ask my colleagues, if they are going to give average 
Americans 10 to 15 percent off, and we are going to give them $9 
million, could they give us 10 to 15 percent off? Maybe we could save 
over $1 million. They are giving everybody else 10 to 15 percent off. 
Maybe they could give us 10 to 15 percent off as well.
  This is the advertisement:

                     10-15% 0ff--Order Now and Save

       At AccuLab Products Group, we understand the difficulties 
     of integrating science applications into the classroom. 
     That's why we developed the SensorNet Science Program--the 
     friendliest system on the market! Its ease of operation and 
     flexibility offers the user wide ranges of applications 
     without requiring a degree in computer technology. Our 
     precalibrated, precision engineered probes offer the accuracy 
     and reliability needed to perform in the toughest of 
     situations and are backed by a 1 year guarantee.

  So they are going to give 10 to 15 percent off. I would hope we could 
negotiate 10 to 15 percent off on our appropriation to them.
  The hangar renovation at the former Griffiss Air Force Base, New 
York, the site of Woodstock 1999. Perhaps unintentional damage was done 
during Woodstock that requires that hangar to be renovated.
  Of course, we are back to the old smart truck for the auto industry, 
and $12 million for the 21st century truck. It would be fun to drive 
one, I am sure.
  Here is an interesting one: $4 million for the Ernest Gallo Clinic & 
Research Center. I love a fine wine as much as the next guy, I think, 
but do we need to fund Ernest Gallo or his research center with defense 
dollars?
  Here is another: $8 million for the New England manufacturing supply 
chain. This is above and beyond the $6 million earmarked for them in 
last year's legislation. There is $9 million for the medical free 
electron laser, $1 billion for the brown tree snakes.
  The Senator from Hawaii and I had a discussion about this item and 
the following items. The brown tree snake may be a serious threat to 
the Island of Hawaii. The question remains--and the Senator from Hawaii 
has never satisfactorily answered, at least not to my satisfaction--why 
this money has to come out of defense, why the brown tree snake should 
not be addressed by the Department of the Interior or the appropriate 
branch of Government. Why do we have to take it out of the hides of the 
men and women in the military to fight the brown tree snake? Shouldn't 
it come out of the appropriate agency of Government?
  We have $150 million for breast cancer research, $85 million for 
prostate cancer research, $50 million for the Peer-Reviewed Medical 
Research Program, $24 million for the Hawaii Federal Health Care 
Network, $3 million for tribal colleges-science lab and computer 
equipment, $3 million for Pacific Island health care referral, $1.5 
million for neurogenetic research and computational genomics--this is 
on top of $650,000 included in this year's omnibus appropriations.
  These are all worthy causes. The cause of breast cancer research is 
worthy. The $85 million for prostate cancer research, it has no place 
in the Defense bill. When we are spending $3.9 billion a day just to 
take care of our operations in Iraq, we cannot take much needed defense 
dollars and put it for other programs that are not related to defense.
  So I want to talk about one other area that is of concern, and that 
is the potential impact on readiness because of our restrictive trade 
policies with our allies.
  From a philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of 
protectionist policies. I believe free trade is an important element in 
improving relations among all nations and is certainly essential to 
economic growth. From a practical standpoint, ``buy America'' 
restrictions could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in 
international markets.
  I would like to point out something else to my colleagues. We impose 
these ``buy America'' provisions while we buy from our allies and 
friends overseas a much smaller amount than they buy from us. If we 
keep restricting the ability of our Government to buy products that are 
made in other countries, sooner or later those countries will 
stop buying equipment, military equipment and others, that are built in 
the United States unless there is a compelling national security 
interest.

  ``Buy America'' provisions include these items: anchor chains, 
carbon, alloy, or armor steel plate, ball and roller bearings, 
computers, diesel engines, and propellers.
  There is a seafood waiver as a provision in this legislation in which 
we dictate we can buy only American seafood. I wonder if there is a 3-
mile limit or a 10-mile limit or a 100-mile limit. Or does it have to 
be just caught by Americans, the same fish but caught by Americans, not 
by somebody else?
  Why does the Department of Defense need to protect the American 
seafood industry? Why is the entire industry singled out for 
protection? Why not protect the American dairy product industry? Why 
aren't they covered?
  Believe it or not, I do not enjoy coming to the floor on this issue. 
But I

[[Page S9478]]

would argue--I would argue strenuously--that with a budget deficit--and 
it is in the headlines of every major newspaper in America: $455 
billion--we cannot afford to spend additional billions on unneeded and 
unwanted projects.
  There are many projects on this list that I will submit for the 
Record which are very badly needed and are legitimate but it is hard to 
know the difference when all we know is it appears in an appropriations 
bill. All of a sudden it just appears.
  Was there a hearing on the issue of allowing the Department of 
Defense to only buy American seafood? That is a pretty significant 
measure that only American seafood can be purchased by the Department 
of Defense. Was there ever a hearing on it? Was there ever any 
discussion or debate on it? No. It shows up in this appropriations 
bill.
  Do we really have to not allow other countries to sell us things as 
simple as anchor chains? What are we protecting? Could we save money by 
buying somebody else's anchor chain and spend that money, perhaps, on 
upgrading the lives of the men and women in the military?
  In case you haven't heard, my friends, we have a problem in the 
military today, and it is keeping people in the Reserves and the Guard, 
and it is keeping people on active duty. I think if you watch 
television tonight you will see interviews with a number of men and 
women serving in the military who have just been told they will be 
extended for another 6 months on duty in Iraq because there are not 
sufficient troops to replace them.
  So instead of perhaps expanding the size of the military to meet 
these new requirements, we are going to spend $1 million on the canola 
oil fuel cell initiative, brown tree snakes, the Shakespeare in 
American Military Communities project, and an Academy for Closing and 
Avoiding Achievement Gaps. The Academy for Closing and Avoiding 
Achievement Gaps is a grant to the Timbuktu Academy located in Baton 
Rouge, LA to conduct research on academic achievement gaps between 
students of varying socioeconomic backgrounds. It sounds like a very 
worthy cause to me. But why again should this come out of defense 
dollars?
  I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues. The amendment I 
proposed will eliminate the canola oil fuel cell initiative, the 
Shakespeare in American Military Communities project, the brown tree 
snake funding program, hangar renovation at the former Griffiss Air 
Force Base, and the Academy For Closing and Avoiding Achievement Gaps.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Galleries will refrain.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we had a time agreement and the Senator 
from New Jersey and the Senator from Arizona have spoken. I will make a 
few brief remarks and yield to my colleague. Then it is my intention to 
move to table these two amendments. Let me state why.
  First in regard to Senator McCain's amendment, I state this 
sincerely, I think Senator McCain provides a very useful function for 
this Congress and this Senate with regard to the process we are 
involved in, the appropriation of money from the Treasury, spending the 
people's money. I am very sincere. We have checked every one of the 
amendments we have agreed to by unanimous consent with the Senator's 
staff before getting that agreement. That is a process we didn't use 
before. At times they make comments that lead us to change the 
amendments. And the Senator has, through this process, picked out some 
he would like to take out of the bill or put in the bill before we pull 
it out of committee. Let me comment on a couple of those.
  The Senator mentioned the brown tree snakes. We have provided $1 
million for control of these snakes. That primarily is to continue a 
very successful program so far that has been carried out on military 
planes to Hawaii from Guam. These snakes are carried inadvertently on 
military planes to Hawaii from Guam. The snakes are endemic to Guam and 
come on the military planes at Anderson Air Force base in Guam and then 
go into Hawaii. We hope we can prevent it. It will have an enormously 
adverse impact on the agriculture sector of the economy. But it is a 
military function. It is trying to eradicate or control these brown 
snakes where they come from, as they have been a menace to Hawaii 
because of their ability to crawl on to military planes as they come 
to Hawaii from Guam.

  I commend the Senator for raising the question, but clearly we have 
examined it. It is an ongoing program.
  The canola oil fuel cell initiative is an existing program between 
the Department of Defense and the Department of Interior. It is funded 
in this bill for $2.5 million. Both Departments put money into it. This 
project will extract and convert technologies, transforming agriculture 
materials into bio-based fuel. Specifically, it is the rapeseed-based 
biodiesel fuel, and the underlying goal is to convert bio-based fuel 
into a hydrogen-rich gas stream to use with fuel cells and micro 
turbines and other power generation systems. It does have a legitimate 
defense interest, and it is a program for the Department of the Army, 
primarily in research and development.
  Shakespeare in American Military Communities is a very interesting 
program. This is being done in conjunction with the National Endowment 
for the Arts. It is a partnership with the Department of Defense. The 
goal is to bring the arts to military personnel and their families as 
they are brought to other communities and high schools throughout the 
country. The proposal for this year is to perform ``Macbeth'' on 16 
military bases in conjunction with educational programs. This is one of 
the programs the military is very pleased that we are trying to make 
available to them to improve the cultural activities on military bases, 
particularly for young children. We are looking into the prospect of 
taking some of these cultural programs overseas to meet the needs of 
the people stationed there. We have under consideration Fort Huachuca 
and Davis Monthan Air Force Bases. I know them both very well.
  Further, the Senator raised the question of the Griffiss hangar 
renovation. This is part of a hangar that is used for the ongoing work 
and research of the Air Force research laboratory in Rome, NY. Damage 
to the hangar increases the heating, utility, and other fixed costs of 
the laboratory facility to its detriment. It is a renovation of a 
former Air Force base, but it is used by the Air Force research 
laboratory.
  I regret to say I disagree with my good friend. I do note that what 
he is doing is trying to make certain we know what we are doing. On 
this amendment, I am sad to say I disagree with him, and I will move to 
table it in just a moment.
  With regard to the amendment offered by Senator Corzine, I have a 
problem, a decided problem with this. There is an ongoing investigation 
or series of hearings--I don't know whether you want to call it an 
investigation yet--of the items covered by this proposed amendment, 
creating a national commission on the development and use of 
intelligence related to Iraq.
  Iraq is still ongoing. To create a commission now to look into Iraq 
primarily based upon the problem related to the President's statement 
in his State of the Union Message--which, by the way, was true, but not 
really totally accurate in terms of the interpretation people gave to 
it--in order to start the campaign of 2004, at a time when we have men 
and women in uniform over there now, their commanders, Ambassador 
Bremer, all of the people who participated in the process of this 
intelligence activity, including the CIA and the National Security 
Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, all of them will be 
involved in hearings before the commission. They are already in 
hearings before the House and the Senate, and they have unknown 
involvement in the internal investigation also going on in the 
Department.

  As I said previously, almost all of us heard the Secretary of State, 
my great friend Colin Powell, tell us about his involvement and how 
this train of circumstances developed with regard to how that statement 
was in the President's State of the Union Message. We all know 
Presidents don't write their own State of the Union Message. They 
review drafts, and they rely on their

[[Page S9479]]

subordinates to see that they are absolutely accurate. In the process, 
a statement was inserted that could be interpreted in a way that could 
mislead people.
  Already the Director of the CIA has admitted his system made a 
mistake. He has taken responsibility, as he should, for something that 
should have been taken out by the CIA reviewer. It was not. It was 
taken out of a previous statement at another time. No question was 
raised about its being taken out. In this instance, it was not taken 
out and Director Tenet said it should have been taken out. He takes the 
responsibility himself because of the failure of his Agency, just as I 
make a policy when any member of my staff makes a mistake, I treat it 
as my mistake. George Tenet didn't make the mistake. The process in the 
CIA made the mistake. The President didn't make a mistake. In the 
process of preparing that statement, there was a mistake made.
  I am tired of making a mountain out of a molehill on this one. I am 
particularly disturbed with the fact that people want to create another 
commission. This is not a time for a commission like the commissions we 
have known in the past. This is not Watergate. That is the impression. 
This is not a Watergate. It is not even a ``truth gate.''
  The President read a speech that was prepared for him. We all clapped 
at it, and we all approved of it. It was one part of it, one tiny part 
of it that should have been taken out in the process of review.
  Now to create a commission primarily for that and all the rest of the 
garbage in this thing--pardon my French--all the statements in here as 
to what is going to be investigated with regard to the possession of 
mobile laboratories, with regard to an attempt to procure aluminum 
tubes--it wasn't an attempt; they were procured. But the concept of 
whether or not Iraq possessed delivery systems for weapons of mass 
destruction--we had 17 resolutions of the United Nations that were not 
complied with. Why were they passing 17 resolutions if there was 
nothing to investigate?
  But the main thing, why should we create a commission now to look 
into something that is ongoing? Once this is all tied down and we have 
our people home and Mr. Bremer is residing in the U.S., and the people 
involved in all of the intelligence activities that led to the 
statement are in the United States again, we can have some form of 
commission to review it. This Senator would not oppose that.
  But this is an ongoing operation, and this is an attempt to smear the 
President of the United States. I shall not permit that if I can 
possibly avoid it.
  As I understand it, there is no further time agreement. I have the 
floor. I intend to keep the floor until I make a motion to table this 
amendment.
  I am happy to yield to my friend from Arizona for a question.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will ask my colleague from Alaska a 
question. I will preface it by saying I do appreciate the cooperation 
that has been displayed while addressing this bill. I tell my friend 
from Alaska also that it has been very helpful for us to have the 
information and to be able to look at these amendments as they have 
come up. I hope next year we will see Hemingway, Faulkner, F. Scott 
Fitzgerald, and others of my favorite authors included in this program.
  I also ask the Senator, concerning the Corzine amendment, isn't it 
true that the Senate Armed Services Committee is holding, and will be 
holding, hearings concerning the entire conflict, including friendly 
fire casualties, including the enormous success, including the issue of 
weapons of mass destruction; and those will be held openly and in a 
systematic manner, which Senator Warner and Senator Levin have been 
working on in a bipartisan manner? Didn't the chairman of the 
Intelligence Committee hold a closed hearing today, and will he not 
hold a public hearing next week? Aren't we going through an orderly 
process of hearings concerning the conduct of the war?
  The American people, of course, want to know about the friendly fire 
tragedy, and they also want to know how we did so well, how our 
equipment performed in such a magnificent fashion. It was one of the 
most rapid military victories in history.
  Isn't it true that we are going through an orderly process of 
hearings concerning this conflict, in a very appropriate manner? If at 
such time those hearings are not satisfactory to the American people, 
or they don't cover enough information, or something like that, 
wouldn't sometime later be more appropriate to say a commission should 
be appointed rather than at the time when the appropriate committees, 
as far as I can tell, are carrying out their responsibilities and 
reviewing the conduct of the war and the oversight policies dictating 
our military? Does the Senator agree with that?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is absolutely correct. What is more, Senator 
Inouye and I went to the CIA and we talked to the Director, and he 
informed us that he sent a stack of material this high to the committee 
already for its review. It is going to take some time to review all 
that. It is ongoing. This would have us appoint a commission to review 
the same thing that we are already investigating in the Senate 
Intelligence Committee and that the House is investigating. I presume 
the Armed Services Committee has some jurisdiction on this matter, 
also. The Foreign Relations Committee has jurisdiction.
  Why should we appoint a commission to do what we should do--to do our 
work, particularly when it is not on a timely basis? As the Senator 
from Arizona stated in his question to me, the time may come when the 
public will question the results of our activities as Members of 
Congress. If they do, then the right thing for us to do--or the time 
may come when they develop such a conflict within Congress that it 
cannot be resolved, and that would be an appropriate time to perhaps 
look at a commission outside of the Congress. But right now is not the 
time.
  Mr. BOND. Will the chairman yield for a question?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I 
know we have been having these hearings and the oversight hearings. We 
are conducting the investigations. I wonder if the chairman is aware of 
the fact that I believe the Office of the Inspector General of the CIA 
is conducting an investigation. I believe the President's Foreign 
Intelligence Advisory Panel had jurisdiction. Is it correct that the 
ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, is 
conducting an inquiry?
  At my count, at least five different investigations are going on. I 
wonder if that number is accurate, and does the chairman think that a 
sixth, which would not start until later on, would add anything?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the question is relevant because the 
purpose of this commission is to support ongoing congressional reviews 
regarding the collection and analysis of intelligence data. We have not 
done it yet. We don't need any support that I know of. The support base 
is the executive branch and in the media to examine the report and the 
role of policymakers relating to Iraq and Iraqi freedom. That is not 
over yet.
  Again, there is a timeliness to commissions. But more than that, 
there is the ongoing impact coming into this Senator's soul that we are 
starting a campaign of 2004. It is too early to do that, when we have 
men and women overseas in uniform trying to defend themselves and carry 
out the orders of the Commander in Chief. It is not timely to do this, 
and I do object to it.
  Mr. President, I don't often do this. I am really going to be a 
little bit brash--you could not imagine I would do that, I am sure. 
Does the Senator from Nevada wish to ask a question?
  Mr. REID. No. I was hoping we could vote on Corzine first and McCain 
second.
  Mr. STEVENS. I was going to make that order. I am pleased that the 
Senator said that.
  Mr. President, in order that the Senator from Hawaii and I can go to 
an appointment we have involving World War II veterans, I will take it 
upon myself to move to table the Corzine amendment and to ask for the 
yeas and nays.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.

[[Page S9480]]

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time that 
it be in order to move to table the McCain amendment, and for that 
purpose I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection. Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, 
following these two amendments, there will be a period for routine 
morning business.
  I ask unanimous consent that following the votes there be a period 
for routine morning business, and that the Senator from Rhode Island, 
Mr. Reed, make a statement.
  Mr. REID. He wants to speak on the bill. After that, we will go into 
morning business.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Senator Reed will be making a statement 
on the bill. Following his statement, I ask unanimous consent that 
there be a period for routine morning business until the Senator from 
Hawaii and I have returned from our event, which will be, I believe, 
about 8:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the only question I ask is this: We would 
love to have you back here, but I don't think there is need to come 
back tonight. We have a schedule set up for the morning.
  Mr. STEVENS. We have not done that. We need to have the time to do 
that.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator from Alaska wants to be here to do that, 
that is fine, but otherwise, valiant staff will take care of it and 
whoever is closing. We will see you back. That is fine.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in explanation, it is my intent to come 
back. The Senator from Hawaii will not have to come back. We want to 
enter into a unanimous consent agreement for the order of amendments. 
There will be two amendments. At 10 o'clock Senator Byrd will offer an 
amendment. I believe we will have an order for the Senate to come in 
sometime just prior to 9 o'clock.
  Mr. REID. Nine o'clock is fine.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am not going to make that order yet. That is the 
understanding I have, that we will come in around 9 o'clock and 
consider two amendments, and Senator Byrd is to offer his amendment at 
10 o'clock.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The yeas and nays have been 
ordered on these requests.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 1275. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 284 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Miller
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1270

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 1270. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 285 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--16

     Allard
     Bingaman
     Conrad
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     McCain
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Sununu
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bond
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Miller
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2004 
Defense appropriations bill.
  First, I would like to congratulate Chairman Stevens and Senator 
Inouye on an appropriations bill that has widespread, bipartisan 
support. It is never an easy job to bring this bill to the floor and, 
as usual, they have done an excellent job.
  One of the most important aspects of this bill is the commitment that 
the Senate is making to improve the lives of the service men and women 
who protect us every day.
  The bill provides a well-earned, average military pay raise of 4.15 
percent and funds an increase in the basic allowance for housing to 
reduce our service members' average out-of-pocket expenses from 7.5 
percent to 3.5 percent.
  That being said, one of the most important aspects of this bill is 
its commitment to transformation.
  Now, we have heard this word being used during the last few years in 
conversations relating to defense matters. So what does it mean?
  Simply put, ``transformation'' is about changing the way our Nation's 
military operates, through the utilization and development of 
innovative tactics based upon new technologies and, of course, our most 
important resource--the hard work and training of our service members.
  Transformation could be seen in the recent conflict in Iraq. Here, 
instead of

[[Page S9481]]

a long, sustained air campaign, our forces were able to achieve a 
tactical surprise using precision weapons that destroyed our 
adversaries' ability to react to our initiatives.
  As I have mentioned before, transformation could also be seen during 
war when information was gathered from a variety of sensors, whether on 
the ground or in the air, and that information was transmitted very 
quickly to commanders who could then exploit the weakness of our enemy. 
It was a remarkable operation and it reflects the high level of 
competence and expertise of our Nation's service men and women.
  The appropriations bill continues this revolution by funding such 
programs as the development and procurement of such new systems as the 
DD(X) destroyer, the littoral combat ship, C-17 air transport, V-22 
tilt-rotor and the Army's future combat system.
  I am particularly pleased that the Appropriations Committee has 
recommended funding for the procurement of 22 F/A-22 Raptors.
  This program lies at the heart of transformation. The F/A-22's 
supercruise engines allow for extended supersonic flight. This is a 
magnitude longer than its afterburning predecessors such as the F-15. 
The aircraft's stealth characteristics will allow it to penetrate even 
the most advanced air defense systems while internally carrying GPS-
guided munitions. This will allow the F/A-22 to clear the skies of 
enemy aircraft while nearly simultaneously attacking both fixed and 
mobile targets, such as surface-to-air missile sites. I hope that the 
authorizing committee will join the Appropriations Committee in 
recommending the procurement of 22 of these vital aircraft.
  I would also like to highlight a program that I support, the Full 
Spectrum Active Close-in Layered Shield, or ``FCLAS'', which is a 
revolutionary new technology promising to enhance dramatically the 
survivability of existing and future mechanized and wheeled combat 
vehicles without the normally accompanying weight gain. FCLAS has the 
potential to save many American lives and it is an important step for 
the committee to fund this system.
  FCLAS works by using radar to detect an incoming kinetic energy 
weapon, antitank missile or rocket-propelled grenade. Once the incoming 
object is identified, FCLAS fires an explosive projectile to destroy 
the threat at a safe distance from the vehicle.
  Such a system is currently under development in Russia, Canada and 
France. However, those systems, unlike FCLAS, have a fatal flaw. Their 
radar systems are placed in a prominent position and can be easily 
disabled with a single rifle shot.
  In contrast, each FCLAS defensive explosive projectile has an 
individual radar system. FCLAS is placed around the protected vehicle 
in a device similar to a smoke grenade launcher. That means if the 
radar is damaged in one projectile the rest of the vehicle's active 
protection is unaffected. It also provides the same level of protection 
from every side and angle of the vehicle. The system is remarkably 
light and has drawn considerable interest by those designing the Army's 
Objective Force.
  Currently, officials at the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, 
Development and Research Center are testing FCLAS and by all accounts 
they are very pleased with the system's initial results. The Marine 
Corps and Special Operations Command have also expressed strong 
interest in adapting this system for use in both land vehicles, such as 
the advanced amphibious assault vehicle and even aircraft.
  In closing, again, let me express my commendations to the chairman, 
the ranking Democratic member, all of the members of the committee, and 
their capable staffs, for their work on this bill. It will be of great 
service in the support of our Nation's service men and women.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep 
concern that the fiscal year 2004 Department of Defense appropriations 
bill contains no additional funds for military operations in 
Afghanistan and Iraq. This is simply unacceptable and raises serious 
concerns about the administration's long-term intentions in both 
countries.
  Given the commitments of the men and women of our Armed Forces all 
over the world and the risks they face in defense of our freedoms and 
national security, I am committed to providing the tools they need to 
perform their jobs at the highest level. It is surprising and 
troubling, then, that two of the most significant and critical 
deployment of U.S. troops in years--Afghanistan and Iraq--do not 
receive funding in the fiscal year 2004 Defense appropriations bill.
  Clearly, these are not emergency situations that have only recently 
come to our attention. These are ongoing military operations that will 
most likely require a substantive American presence for years to come.
  One hundred forty-five thousand U.S. troops are currently serving in 
Iraq facing almost daily attacks from guerilla forces. Eighty-one 
Americans have died since the President declared an end to major combat 
operations on May 1, 2003.
  In Afghanistan, 8,500 U.S. troops are searching for remnants of al-
Qaida and the Taliban and trying to stabilize the interim government of 
Hamid Karzai. Just yesterday, more than a year and a half after the 
fall of the Taliban, a U.S. Special forces convoy came under attack by 
unknown gunmen using small arms and explosive devices.
  Americans are putting their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan 
and we cannot find any funds for them in this bill.
  These operations are certainly not cheap.
  During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last 
week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated that the U.S. has 
spent nearly $4 billion a month in Iraq since January and is spending 
an additional $700 million a month in Afghanistan. He continued that he 
did not know if the figures for Iraq would go up or down in the next 
fiscal year or how much the administration intends to propose to 
Congress for military operations in Iraq.
  Surely the Defense Department, in fact, has some idea about the funds 
it needs for Afghanistan and Iraq--and those commitments should be 
reflected in this bill.
  Silence on this matter causes me great concern that our troops will 
serve far longer than we are being told and the cost will be far 
greater than we have been led to believe.
  I urge the administration to level with the American people and this 
Congress about the costs of our engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
The fiscal year 2004 Department of Defense appropriations bill is 
exactly the appropriate mechanism to do just that.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate resumes the Defense appropriations bill on Thursday, Senator 
Harkin be recognized to speak for up to 25 minutes.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the next order of Democratic 
first-degree amendments be the following, and further that if a 
Republican amendment is offered it be interspersed between the 
amendments mentioned: Dodd, Byrd, Wyden, Durbin, Biden, Byrd, Kennedy, 
Byrd, and Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, there will be no further rollcall votes 
tonight. I understand that under the order Senator Reed is to be 
recognized for up to 30 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that following 
his remarks my colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, be recognized to 
speak as if in morning business for up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, under the agreement entered earlier, we 
have a lengthy lineup of Senators who intend to offer amendments to the 
Defense appropriations bill, as I just outlined. We will be voting 
throughout the day tomorrow and into the evening in order to complete 
this measure tomorrow afternoon or evening.

  I have had a number of discussions with the chairman of the 
committee. As he announced a few hours ago, if the Senate completes 
action on this bill, and if the Senate can begin consideration of the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill on Monday, the Senate will not be 
voting on Friday.
  I will have more to say tomorrow on the schedule for this week and 
next week, after we have made further progress on the pending 
legislation.
  I thank my colleagues. We continue to make good progress. I think it 
is

[[Page S9482]]

clear if we finish tomorrow night, there being no votes Friday--and 
Monday is a no-vote day--we will be able to continue on Homeland 
Security early Monday during the course of the day.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, just a few days ago I had the privilege of 
traveling, with Senator Warner and Senator Levin, and other colleagues, 
to Iraq. I wish to comment upon my observations of that trip in the 
context of this Defense appropriations bill.
  After the most stunning victory in the annals of military history, 
the fighting and dying in Iraq goes on. The war is not over. It has 
changed its character. Conventional warfare of major formations against 
major formations has yielded to hit-and-run attacks against our troops. 
We are in a tenuous moment where the momentum of the battle has shifted 
from our coalition forces and may shift dramatically to opposition 
forces in Iraq.
  We are being opposed by groups of Baathist diehards, Islamic 
fundamentalists, and criminals. Although this resistance, until 
recently, appeared to be uncoordinated and spasmodic, there are strong 
signs emerging that organizations are beginning to coalesce and we are 
facing a much more serious threat.
  Just today, in Iraq, a manned portable air defense missile was fired 
at an American aircraft over Baghdad International Airport, signaling a 
major escalation of the capabilities of our opponents and the ability 
of these opponents to interfere with our occupation forces in a 
significant way.
  Another American soldier died. The mayor of an Iraqi city was gunned 
down. Indeed, today General Abizaid indicated that we are facing a 
classical guerrilla-type war situation. And I must say, General Abizaid 
is a person I had the privilege of serving with 30 years ago in the 
82nd Airborne Division. There is not a more talented and dedicated and 
decent officer in our Army or our military force. His expertise and 
knowledge make him the most capable person we could have there. So his 
conclusion, I think, is one that should resonate through these halls.

  Now, if one of these groups--Baathists or fundamentalists, radicals, 
or criminals--becomes more coherent in their efforts--and it seems, 
based on today's events, they are becoming more coherent--then the 
danger to our force will rise.
  Let me suggest this is a startling revelation today. It was difficult 
to bear the sight of American troops being hit with RPGs, rocket-
propelled grenades, but to have the capability and the cunning to 
launch a missile against an aircraft in Baghdad should send shivers 
down our spine, not just with respect to Baghdad but throughout the 
world.
  One of the issues which I am sure they are desperately trying to 
determine today is: How many of these manned portable missiles are 
there in Iraq? I do not know for a fact, but I would suggest there are 
hundreds, if not thousands.
  While we were visiting the northern area of Iraq under the control of 
the 4th Infantry Division, General Odierno, the commander, indicated 
they had identified and were securing almost 3,000 ammo dumps, 
including small arms, all the way up to medium-range missiles with 
about a 100-kilometer range. This country is chock-full of RPGs and 
other weapons. The other question is: If they are in Iraq today, have 
some of these manned pads exfiltrated out of the country into very 
dubious hands? We face a serious issue.
  Now, if all of these elements are able to come together with a common 
purpose--the Baathists and the criminal elements and the radical 
fundamentalists--we have a very serious challenge. And, most important, 
if any one or all of these groups can tap into an innate nationalism 
among the Iraqi people, if they can translate their disappointment 
about their economic position today, their dashed expectations of what 
liberation would mean, then we have a great challenge to our occupation 
of Iraq.
  To dismiss these forces as inconsequential or without support, I 
think, is a serious mistake. What they may lack in popular support and 
skill--although, again, their demonstrated performance increases each 
day--they can make up in desperation and fanaticism. There are remnants 
of Saddam Hussein's regime. The disgruntled Baathists have no place to 
go, and they know it. For them, it will be a fight to the death.
  In Chris Hedges' brilliant polemic about the corrosive effects of 
war, entitled ``War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning,'' he described a 
visit to an Iraqi prison in Northern Iraq that was liberated at the end 
of the gulf war. In his words:

       When it was attacked in 1991 by Kurdish fighters and 
     enraged civilians, 300 Iraqi secret policemen and guards, 
     including the warden, held out for three days. None of the 
     defenders survived. And after the battle, a triumphant 
     fighter expressed the wishes of many. In his words:
       We wanted them all to come back to life . . . so that we 
     could kill them again.

  This is the nature of the struggle and the combatants in Iraq. There 
are thousands of former secret police and Fedayeen, not just the 52 
cards in the famous deck. We can expect fierce and persistent 
resistance from most if not all.

  It is no surprise, then, that our military commanders assume that the 
situation in Iraq will get worse before it gets better. We should be 
prepared for continued casualties on a frequent basis. Indeed, we 
should be prepared for heavy casualties on given days.
  Again, this is absolutely consistent with General Abizaid's 
conclusion that we are in a classic guerrilla war struggle today.
  The most obvious objective of opposition forces is to inflict 
sufficient casualties on our troops so that support within the United 
States for a continued presence within Iraq will erode and evaporate. 
As such, our immediate response must be to communicate to the American 
people that the road ahead will be difficult. We are likely to sustain 
constant casualties, and we must commit significant resources to the 
struggle to rebuild Iraq.
  That is why the absence of appropriations in this bill for our effort 
in Iraq is unfortunate. The administration has not requested funds so 
this absence is not the fault of the committee. It represents a very 
deliberate policy of the administration to avoid declaring to the 
American public, in an explicit fashion, the true course of our 
operations in Iraq.
  We all anticipate that the administration will make a supplemental 
request early next year and argue that the funds are critically needed 
to cover costs that have already been incurred. But the American people 
deserve something better. They should know these costs now.
  Having decided to use military force to eliminate the regime of 
Saddam Hussein, we cannot walk away from the difficulties of pacifying 
and rebuilding Iraq. We may come to seriously question the commitment 
we have undertaken, but to walk away at this point from the challenge 
would deal a serious blow to our prestige and power in the 
international community. To ensure that we stay the course, it is 
essential the American people know the costs, and the cost of our 
passage.
  Our efforts in Iraq ultimately depend on the attitudes of the Iraqi 
people. They will be the final judges of our policies and our continued 
presence. At present, the long and terrifying shadow of Saddam Hussein 
continues to bedevil them. Many of our military officers and our 
civilian administrators attribute the noncommittal attitude of the 
Iraqis to the continuing uncertainty of Saddam's fate. There is much 
truth to this assertion. But we should be careful not to see the 
capture or death of Saddam as the ``silver bullet'' that will transform 
our presence in Iraq.
  The Iraqi people seem to be withholding their enthusiastic 
endorsement for our efforts not just to await the fate of Saddam, but 
to be assured that the coalition can deliver at least the same degree 
of economic security they enjoyed under Saddam and, hopefully, much 
more.
  It strikes me that the Iraqi people are not simply motivated by a 
residual fear of Saddam. They have grown up in a system that provided 
meager sustenance in exchange for utter subservience, a subservience 
that was enforced by ruthless terror. It will take more than Saddam's 
demise to erase this pervasive authoritarian culture. It will take many 
years and significant improvements in every phase of Iraqi life.

[[Page S9483]]

  The most pressing demand in Iraq today is to provide a secure 
environment for our forces and for the Iraqi people. That challenge is 
inextricably linked and bound up with the economic revitalization of 
Iraq. Coalition forces are occupying a country whose economy has 
collapsed. Iraq under Saddam was a country in which everyone directly 
or indirectly worked for the regime. And now the regime is gone. 
Perhaps the single greatest long-term danger to our efforts is the huge 
number of unemployed. Unless we can rapidly put these people to work, 
they will be vulnerable to the overtures of those who wish us ill. We 
are in effect in a sprint to revive the Iraqi economy before the Iraqi 
people decide that freedom is not worth the uncertainty of a 
dysfunctional economy, and they become susceptible to the overtures of 
those who want to eject us from Iraq.
  Another pressing demand is to create a legitimate Iraqi Government 
acceptable to the Iraqi people. We have begun to take the first steps 
in that process by the selection of a governing council. This council 
will exercise defined powers such as the appointment of Iraqi 
ministers. All of their actions, however, are ultimately subject to the 
veto of Ambassador Bremer. The council was selected to reflect the 
ethnic, religious, and demographic realities of Iraq. That was a 
positive and appropriate step. This council will participate in the 
selection of a larger conclave that will draft a constitution for Iraq.
  All of these efforts are leading up to putting, as so many people 
have said, an Iraqi face on the Government of Iraq. We all realize that 
the longer we appear to be running the show, the more likely it is that 
opposition to our presence will grow.
  At this juncture, we have avoided ceding authority to any one faction 
in Iraq. We are for the moment holding the various factions at bay. But 
this balancing act will become more and more difficult as we approach 
the time when real power is transferred to a real executive. At that 
point, the traditional rivalries of Sunni and Shia and Kurd will emerge 
and emerge with some force.
  One aspect of the new governing council that I find troubling is the 
attention and influence given to exiled leaders. According to a report 
in the New York Times:

       . . . significantly, the new interim government will be 
     dominated by the Iraqi exile leaders and Kurdish chieftains 
     who carried out the long campaign to remove Saddam Hussein 
     from power.

  Given the presence of Kurds in northern Iraq and their obvious 
power--they have their own army; they control their own territory--it 
is not surprising that they would have a major role. But giving such a 
significant role to the exiles seems likely to be more controversial 
than constructive.
  The best known of these exiles is Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi has long 
resided outside of Iraq. In 1992, he was convicted in absentia by a 
Jordanian court for embezzlement and bank fraud. He was sentenced to 22 
years in prison. It is not surprising that reaction to Chalabi and the 
exiles is not entirely favorable.

  Hassan Zahrawi, a 23-year-old student at Baghdad's Mustansariya 
University, was quoted in the Washington Post as saying:

       We are the people who suffered. . . . They are thieves. 
     They do not know anything about the suffering of the Iraqi 
     people.

  This certainly is not a scientific sampling. You could perhaps find 
people who would endorse Mr. Chalabi. But I think we are taking a risk 
by inserting, insinuating exiles in a dominant place in this governing 
council. I think that will strike a chord in Iraq and not a favorable 
chord as people who have suffered, who have very little, see these 
people who have just arrived dominating the political process. It could 
be a severe miscalculation.
  Let me suggest another potential miscalculation. I read with great 
interest Ambassador Bremer's op-ed piece in the New York Times. One 
quote struck me:

       Our economic reform plan will entail a major shift of 
     capital from the value-destroying state sector to private 
     firms.

  No one could disagree with that logic. But I think we have to be very 
careful that we do not replicate the experience we have seen in Russia, 
for example, where the winners of this transition of capital from the 
state to the private market were the insiders, the people with the 
connections, the people who were able to influence the government. We 
have made serious mistakes in our occupation planning. I hope we don't 
compound those mistakes by creating a government that has no legitimacy 
really and that serves simply as a conduit to enrich those who are 
participating in that government.
  All of these concerns resonate throughout a country with distinction 
and disparate regional characteristics. On our trip, we visited Basra 
in the south, Baghdad in the center of the country, and Kirkuk in the 
north. The southern portion is predominantly Shia. They are engaged in 
a very careful balancing act between Iranian influences and their 
desires to participate in a secular government but certainly 
participate so that their religious culture is recognized. They are the 
largest population group in Iraq. We have been working with them. In 
the south my impression is that they are still weighing all of their 
options, and we have to be extremely careful.
  In the north there is a significant population diversity, Kurds, 
Turkmen, Assyrians, Arabs. They are much more comfortable with our role 
there. They have seen the example of several years of a virtually 
autonomous region the Kurds established after the 1991 war.
  The most stable regions at the moment seem to be the north and the 
south, although there are incidents of violence in all parts of Iraq.
  But the key point, the most dangerous place is Baghdad. There in the 
suburbs leading to the west towards Falluja and up towards the north, 
toward Tikrit, the ancient home of Saddam and his tribal relatives, 
that is where the action is, that is where our soldiers are, frankly, 
being killed.
  Our biggest concern at the moment is intelligence. Frankly, we did 
not expect this type of operation, and we are rapidly and diligently 
trying to understand who is attacking us, where they are getting their 
weapons and money and their support and supplies. Are their foreign 
influences? How many foreign fighters have come into Baghdad? We are in 
a race to find out about them before they do us even more grievous 
harm.

  There is, of course, the issue of how many troops we should have in 
Iraq. I have heard reports that General Abizaid will recommend force 
strength in-country of about 160,000 soldiers and sailors, marines, all 
of our Armed Forces participating in one way or the other. That is a 
function of how much we know. My sense is that if we don't know who the 
enemy is, if we have uncertain threats from multiple directions, then 
we will err on the side of more troops rather than fewer. This 
situation could go on for a very long time.
  There are those who have said we have gotten ourselves into another 
Vietnam. No, we haven't. That was a different time, a different place, 
a different situation. We don't have a rural insurgency as we did in 
Vietnam. We don't have a country that is a proxy for international 
politics being supported and encouraged by a significant infusion of 
foreign resources, wealth, and guidance. But we very well might have 
our own version of Belfast or the Intifada, urban guerrilla warfare in 
which there is insignificant foreign support at the moment but, as I 
indicated before, more than enough people who are determined to attack 
us and to hurt us.
  As we traveled around in Iraq, we talked about the issue of weapons 
of mass destruction. Just one point: I assumed in my deliberations that 
the Iraqi regime would have chemical and biological weapons, but I 
assumed that they did not pose an immediate threat to the United 
States. Therefore, I did not vote to authorize the unilateral use of 
force. We have been surprised. But now what I sense is happening is 
that the search for weapons which so many declared were absolutely 
there and were so critical in their decision to mount a unilateral 
military attack, now that has been transformed into a search for a 
program. I wouldn't be surprised that in the months ahead, based upon 
analysis of documents, that some type of program emerges.
  But with each passing day, it seems less and less likely that we will 
find a militarily significant concentration of chemical or biological 
weapons. I thought there was no credence to the

[[Page S9484]]

claims by the President and others that there was an ongoing nuclear 
program in Iraq at the time, and I think that will be borne out.
  Now, all of this leads me to several conclusions. One is particularly 
pertinent to this appropriation. Our Army and our marines--particularly 
our Army--are stretched thin, taut. They won't break because they are 
magnificent soldiers. They are under extraordinary pressure.
  Let me suggest where our Army is. We have 370,800 soldiers in 120 
countries, not just Iraq. In Iraq itself, we have the 3rd Infantry 
Division. These are the troops who led the fight into Baghdad. They 
have been told they are going home; they have been told they are 
staying. Once again, decisions have been reversed because of the 
situation. They are good soldiers. They will do their job, but 
certainly this is not the way to have a good plan, to rotate and move 
soldiers throughout the world.
  The 4th Infantry Division is in the north. The 101st Airborne 
Division is in the north in Mosul. The 1st Armored Division has 
elements in the country. The 173rd Airborne Brigade conducted a 
parachute assault in the first days, and they are in Kirkuk. The 2nd 
Brigade of the 82nd Airborne is there. The 2nd and 3rd Light Cavalry 
Regiments are there. There are about 134,000 soldiers, together with 
44,000-plus soldiers in Kuwait for supporting operations. In 
Afghanistan, we will have, by the end of summer, two brigades of the 
10th Mountain Division. In the Balkans, we have the 34th National Guard 
Division from Kansas. In Kosovo, we have elements of the 1st Infantry 
Division, which will be replaced shortly by the Pennsylvania 28th 
National Guard Division. In the United States, we have soldiers 
deployed in counterdrug and other operations. Our Reserve elements are 
the 1st Cavalry Division, 1st Infantry Division Brigade, and we have 
new Stryker battalions or brigades up in Fort Lewis, and one in Alaska.
  This is an extraordinary deployment of American forces. Included in 
the total are a significant number of National Guardsmen. These 
National Guardsmen and Reserve are one part of our great Army--one 
whole unified element.
  I have left for last Korea. We have 37,000 soldiers there from the 
2nd Infantry Division. I was shocked when I read yesterday of Secretary 
William Perry's conclusion that we are in a serious crisis with North 
Korea. Over the last few months, the administration has been trying 
diplomatically. But Secretary Perry, who is probably the most 
knowledgeable and experienced with respect to North Korea, is now 
convinced that we might have missed our opportunity for diplomacy to 
work.
  One of the factors that goes into our strategy is whether we can 
complement our diplomacy with real military force. There is not much 
left to do that. Those 37,000 soldiers from the 2nd Infantry Division 
are not the kind of combat power you need to stare down the North 
Koreans if there is a serious breach of the current situation. But we 
are stretched thin. We cannot pull forces out of Iraq. We would 
jeopardize the mission there. We cannot pull them out of Afghanistan. 
We would jeopardize that mission. We have to consider what is most 
important for the Army, and we have to make decisions. Those decisions 
have to come to us quickly from the Department of Defense. What will we 
do?
  This bill should have considered and included those types of 
recommendations--not our ideas, but the proposals of the Department of 
Defense and the administration, and there is scant detail with respect 
to Iraq and potential conflict with Korea. I hope diplomacy will work. 
But we have discovered that diplomacy without credible and 
complementary military forces is not as effective. This is a situation 
where we are stretched and we have an ongoing classic guerrilla war in 
Iraq, we have a situation in Afghanistan that is unstable, and we have 
a potential crisis in Korea. We need recommendations from the 
Department of Defense about where we are going to get soldiers to take 
these missions. I had hoped this bill would include such information. 
It doesn't.
  Certainly, I am going to support the legislation, but I hope these 
questions are answered very quickly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.

                          ____________________