[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 145 (Thursday, October 16, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12643-S12669]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN SECURITY 
                      AND RECONSTRUCTION ACT, 2004

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1689, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1689) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and 
     reconstruction for the fiscal year ending September 30th, 
     2004, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Byrd amendment No. 1818, to impose a limitation on the use 
     of sums appropriated for the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction 
     Fund.
       Byrd/Durbin amendment No. 1819, to prohibit the use of Iraq 
     Relief and Reconstruction Funds for low priority activities 
     that should not be the responsibility of U.S. taxpayers, and 
     shift $600 million from the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction 
     Fund to Defense Operations and Maintenance, Army, for 
     significantly improving efforts to secure and destroy 
     conventional weapons, such as bombs, bomb materials, small 
     arms, rocket propelled grenades, and shoulder-launched 
     missiles, in Iraq.
       Bond/Mikulski amendment No. 1825, to provide additional VA 
     Medical Care Funds for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
       Dubin amendment No. 1837, to ensure that a Federal employee 
     who takes leave without pay in order to perform certain 
     service as a member of the uniformed services or member of 
     the National Guard shall continue to receive pay in an amount 
     which, when taken together with the pay and allowances such 
     individual is receiving for such service, will be no less 
     than the basic pay such individual would then be receiving if 
     no interruption in employment had occurred.
       Reed/Hagel amendment No. 1834, to increase the end strength 
     of the Army and to structure the additional forces for 
     constabulary duty. (By 45 yeas to 52 nays (Vote No. 382), 
     Senate failed to table the amendment.)
       Feingold amendment No. 1852, to enable military family 
     members to take leave to attend to deployment-related 
     business and tasks.
       Daschle amendment No. 1854, to achieve the most effective 
     means of reconstructing Iraq and to reduce the future costs 
     to the American taxpayer of such reconstruction by ensuring 
     broad-based international cooperation for this effort.
       Feinstein amendment No. 1848, to require reports on the 
     United States strategy for relief and reconstruction efforts 
     in Iraq, and to limit the availability of certain funds for 
     those efforts pending determinations by the President that 
     the objectives and deadlines for those efforts will be 
     substantially achieved.
       Nelson (FL) amendment No. 1858, to set aside from certain 
     amounts available for the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction 
     Fund, $10,000,000 for the Family Readiness Program of the 
     National Guard.
       Reid (for Landrieu) amendment No. 1859, to promote the 
     establishment of an Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority and 
     the use of Iraqi oil revenues to pay for reconstruction in 
     Iraq.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, we urge Senators to contact the 
managers of this bill to try to work out a time when their amendments 
might be considered, and to see if we have any possibility of dealing 
with the several amendments at one time. We tried to do that last night 
with regard to reporting requirements, and I stated to the Senate it is 
our hope we can blend all of the reporting requirements along with 
those that are already in the House bill and work out a logical 
sequence for the reporting and the activities of an inspector general, 
if that is required as far as the Iraq operation is concerned.
  We will be hopeful that today we can look at--there are additional 
amendments being suggested on the list that was approved last night for 
reporting requirements, and I would be pleased to consider taking any 
of those and adding them to the package that is already in the bill for 
reporting requirements and for details regarding the inspector general. 
But my purpose for seeking the floor right now is to urge Senators to 
contact the managers of the bill, and let us work out some logical 
sequence in terms of the amendments that are pending or will be 
offered.
  This is going to be a long day. We still have the commitment that we 
will do our utmost to finish by tomorrow. I congratulate my good friend 
from Nevada, the Democratic assistant leader, for all his efforts in 
getting us to where we are now in terms of knowing the amendments that 
are possible to be considered.
  But within the timeframe we have, we cannot consider them all without 
really a great deal of consideration on both sides in terms of the 
amount of time a Senator takes to explain the amendment and 
particularly in terms of Senators being willing to cooperate with us to 
blend amendments so we can deal with one subject maybe in one or two 
amendments. That is possible. I look forward to working with Senator 
Reid, who is actively involved in trying to reduce the number of these 
amendments, as well as I am, with our joint staffs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from West Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 1818

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1818.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending under the previous 
order.
  Mr. BYRD. Very well. I thank the Chair.

[[Page S12644]]

  Mr. President, I congratulate the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee. He is always on the job. And he is effective. 
He is characteristically courteous. I commend him on the progress he 
has made already on the bill.
  There are several cosponsors of this amendment. I hope they will come 
to the floor and join in the debate concerning the amendment. I need 
their voices to blend with my own, mine being the weakest of all. But I 
need the cosponsors to join and make this supreme effort here to have 
the Senate adopt this extremely worthwhile amendment.
  In all the discussion surrounding the President's request for $20.3 
billion for reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan--in the 
question of whether the funding should be in the form of a grant or a 
loan, in the revelation of a series of frivolous proposed expenditures, 
in the dispute over whether reconstruction funding is a gold-plated 
add-on or an integral part of the occupation strategy--there is an 
overriding issue that we must not allow to be lost in the noise of the 
debate.
  That issue involves the fact that American taxpayers--American 
taxpayers--are being presented virtually the entire bill for the 
stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq because of decisions that were 
made by the President before the war began, decisions to embrace an 
unprecedented doctrine of preemption and to invade Iraq without the 
support of the United Nations or the international community.

  Those decisions are coming home to haunt us today. The chickens are 
coming home to roost. Because of the President's obstinance and go-it-
alone mentality, it is American soldiers who are patrolling the most 
dangerous streets and cities of Iraq, and it is American taxpayers who 
are being asked to foot the bill for the stabilization and 
reconstruction of Iraq--American soldiers and American taxpayers.
  It appears there is little relief in sight. After seesawing back and 
forth, the United Nations Security Council is now expected to accept a 
revised U.S. resolution on Iraq, but the resolution on the table is 
little more than a fancy fig leaf designed to camouflage an empty 
gesture. The resolution proposed by the United States cedes no 
meaningful authority to the United Nations and is likely to have little 
impact on the number of foreign troops or the amount of international 
financial assistance the United Nations will provide for the 
stabilization and the reconstruction of Iraq.
  American troops in Iraq and American taxpayers at home need real help 
from the international community. The President needs to reach out to 
the United Nations, not merely attempt to paper over the glaring lack 
of support from the international community with a resolution that, as 
some Texans are wont to say, is all hat and no cattle.
  The administration's reckless misadventure in Iraq is exacting a high 
price in lost lives, lost respect for our Nation in the world, and lost 
ground in the war on terrorism. And yet, in the past week, the only 
visible response from the President to the continuing chaos in Iraq has 
been to reshuffle the chain of command in Washington by creating a new 
entity to consolidate Iraq's reconstruction in the White House instead 
of the Pentagon.
  The President misses the point. Instead of rearranging the chairs on 
the deck, the President should be changing direction. Creating a new 
Iraq policy shop in the White House will not bring relief to American 
soldiers on the ground, and it will not save American taxpayers from 
having to shoulder, virtually alone, the staggering financial burden of 
rebuilding Iraq.
  Now, the American people, in the first place, did not buy on to this 
idea that we were going to rebuild Iraq. They were not told that. They 
were not told we were going to rebuild a nation there. They were not 
told about the staggering costs of rebuilding Iraq.
  If there is any shift in the balance of power over the reconstruction 
of Iraq--and there should be--it must be across oceans, not just across 
the Potomac. It is long past time to bring in the United Nations as a 
full partner with shared responsibility and shared decisionmaking for 
the future of Iraq. The President does not need another in-house 
committee to advise him on the future of Iraq. He needs to 
internationalize the stabilization and the reconstruction effort.

  Instead of instituting meaningful change in his Iraq policy, the 
President presented a bait-and-switch proposition to the American 
people: Don't look too closely at the policy, just keep your attention 
on the policy shop.
  We cannot undo what has been done in Iraq. But we can chart a better 
course for the future.
  First and foremost, the Bush administration should drop its stubborn 
insistence that the world community not have any authority in the 
political reconstruction of Iraq. The resolution that will be 
considered at the United Nations Security Council this morning makes 
some progress in promoting cooperation between the United Nations and 
the Iraqi Governing Council but keeps the United Nations at an arm's 
length from the Coalition Provisional Authority. It is this authority, 
headed by Paul Bremer, that exercises total authority in postwar Iraq.
  If you don't believe what I have said about total authority, just 
listen. Ambassador Bremer's first regulation as head of the Coalition 
Provisional Authority reads in part as follows:

       The CPA is vested with all executive, legislative, and 
     judicial authority--

  How about that? ``The CPA is vested with all,'' not just an itty-
bitty part--

       executive, legislative, and judicial authority necessary to 
     achieve its objectives. . . .

  Take a look at the first sentence in article I of the Constitution of 
the United States which I hold in my hands. The first sentence in this 
Constitution, article I, section 1:

       All legislative Powers granted shall be vested in a 
     Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a 
     Senate and House of Representatives.

  What a sweeping investiture of power that first sentence makes--``all 
legislative power.'' It doesn't say anything about executive or 
judicial power, ``all legislative power.'' But listen to this, 
Ambassador Bremer's first regulation as head of the Coalition 
Provisional Authority:

       The CPA is vested with all executive, legislative, and 
     judicial authority necessary to achieve its objectives, to be 
     exercised under relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions, 
     including Resolution 1483 (2003), and the laws and usages of 
     war. This authority shall be exercised by the CPA 
     administrator.

  What an enormous grant of power that is. The new resolution that will 
be voted on today at the United Nations will not change the supreme 
authority claimed by Paul Bremer who was installed in his post by the 
President without offering his nomination to the U.S. Senate for its 
advice and consent.
  There is power--power. Remember the old song: There is power, power, 
wonder working power.
  Well, if the international community is going to continue to be 
squeezed out of the political decisionmaking in the Coalition 
Provisional Authority, there is little incentive for the world to 
mobilize to come to the aid of postwar Iraq. The President's ``my way 
or the highway'' approach to the governance of Iraq undermines the 
mission in Iraq and ignores the will of the American people. The United 
Nations is willing to help, but only if the administration drops 
its false pride and its bravado.

  ``Bring them on,'' the President said. That is bravado.
  Before coming into office, then-candidate Bush talked of a humble 
approach to foreign policy. ``Let us reject the blinders of 
isolationism, just as we refuse the crown of empire,'' he said. ``Let 
us not dominate others with our power or betray them with our 
indifference,'' he said. ``And let us have an American foreign policy 
that reflects American character,'' he said. ``The modesty of true 
strength, the humility of real greatness,'' the President said.
  Those were the words of candidate George W. Bush, but they have been 
far from the practice of President George W. Bush.
  Similarly, the administration ought to rethink its extreme good-
versus-evil mantra that seems to be running this Nation's foreign 
policy into a morass of confusion and danger. The administration's 
obstinance continues to strain America's relationship with other 
countries and undermines our credibility with other foreign powers.
  President Bush committed the United States to war without broad 
international support. He said: If you don't do it, we will. He said: 
If the United Nations doesn't do it, we will.

[[Page S12645]]

He refused to go back to the United Nations prior to launching military 
attacks and continues to stiff-arm the international community even 
today, when that help is so vital to the long-term interests of Iraq.
  Instead, the Bush administration has adopted a go-it-alone mentality 
that threatens the stability of the Middle East and could spill over 
into other global areas.
  The United States needs help in Iraq. The United States needs a plan 
that will bring relief to our overburdened soldiers by attracting 
significantly more foreign troops to Iraq and bring relief to our 
overburdened taxpayers by attracting financial assistance from the 
international community for reconstruction.
  The President's proposal does neither. His $87 billion spending 
request places the entire burden of securing and rebuilding Iraq 
squarely on the shoulders of the American forces and American 
taxpayers. That burden ought not be carried by the United States 
alone. That is why Senator Kennedy, Senator Leahy, other Senators and I 
have proposed an alternative.

  What Senator Kennedy, Senator Leahy, and other Senators and I have 
offered is more than an invitation to the international community to 
assume a large and vital role in the reconstruction of Iraq; it is a 
demand, on behalf of the American people, that the President go to the 
nations of the world and work in partnership with those other nations 
of the world. It is a mandate for a new policy in Iraq, a policy that 
will bring peace more quickly and stability more assuredly.
  The amendment, in effect, says: Mr. President, your plan for Iraq has 
not worked. It is costing lives every day and it is jeopardizing the 
long-term security of the Middle East. We need to share political power 
in Iraq with the United Nations, and we must be willing to listen to 
the rest of the world, share the responsibility, attract new partners 
for peace, and protect our men and women in Iraq.
  That is what this amendment would require. It is a commonsense 
approach to what is quickly becoming an American quagmire in Iraq. 
These are dangerous times, Mr. President. These are dangerous times--
times that demand determined, disciplined leadership.
  The path ahead is not a certain one, but what is certain is that the 
United States cannot afford to blaze this path alone. America relied on 
strong alliances, diplomacy, and, only when necessary, armed force to 
lead the world in the 20th century. But the Bush administration's 21st 
century America seems all too ready to focus solely on armed force 
rather than on strong alliances and diplomacy.
  Simply put, we need a plan that would bring relief to the American 
soldiers, to help U.S. troops by attracting significantly more foreign 
military troops to Iraq; and we need a plan that will bring relief to 
the overburdened American taxpayers by attracting meaningful financial 
assistance from the international community for the reconstruction of 
Iraq. We need a framework to begin to bring American troops home, 
supplemented by international forces on the ground--not just on paper--
in Iraq.
  Currently, the United States has approximately 120,000 troops in 
Iraq. They are augmented by about 20,000 foreign forces, primarily from 
Great Britain. Another 10,000 troops from Turkey would help, but it 
would still leave more than 100,000 American troops in Iraq for the 
foreseeable future.
  In an interview published in the Chicago Tribune on October 5, LTG 
Ricardo Sanchez, the head of the coalition forces in Iraq, predicted 
that it would be years--years--not months, before the United States can 
draw down its forces from Iraq.
  The American people were not told that, were they, when we went into 
this war? No, they were not told that. The men and women in the 
National Guard and Reserves were not told that, were they--that it 
would be years, not months, before the United States could draw down 
its forces from Iraq?
  Until a new Iraqi Army is trained and ready to assume command, the 
only relief for American soldiers is to build up foreign troop presence 
in Iraq.
  International financial assistance is equally important. The American 
taxpayers cannot afford to bear the full cost of the reconstruction of 
Iraq. We all know that the $20.3 billion requested by the President in 
this supplemental is just the beginning, just a downpayment. It is not 
the alpha and the omega of American taxpayers' dollars that will be 
asked by the administration in this enterprise.

  The Wall Street Journal recently reported that rebuilding Iraq is 
expected to cost $56 billion over the next 4 years, according to an 
estimate reached by the World Bank, the United Nations, and the 
Coalition Provisional Authority. So far, other countries have pledged 
less than $2 billion to the effort.
  The amendment that Senators Kennedy, Leahy, and I are offering would 
require the President to reach out to other nations for both military 
and financial support--reach out, reach out to other nations.
  Our amendment provides that, after April 1, 2004, Iraq relief and 
reconstruction funds can only be obligated if, one, the President 
certifies to Congress that the U.N. has adopted a new resolution 
authorizing a multinational security force under U.S. leadership in 
Iraq and providing a central role for the U.N. in the political and 
economic development of Iraq; two, the President certifies that he has 
a detailed plan in place for the reconstruction of Iraq, including a 
significant commitment of financial assistance from other nations; 
three, Congress approves the release of the rest of the funds for the 
reconstruction of Iraq in another appropriations bill.
  As part of his certification to Congress, the President must 
establish a plan; he must establish a timetable for withdrawing 
American troops from Iraq. This is the way to get the U.N. in and the 
U.S. out. It is a real alternative to the administration's bull-rush 
approach, and it is a significant gesture to the Iraqi people that 
America is not an occupier but a real liberator.
  The Byrd-Kennedy-Leahy amendment limits the funds for the 
reconstruction of Iraq that may be obligated prior to April 1, 2004, to 
the $5.1 billion fund for Iraqi security and $5 billion for economic 
reconstruction.
  Our amendment compels the President to work with the United Nations. 
Our amendment requires Congress to evaluate the progress of the 
reconstruction effort at the halfway mark next year. Most important, 
our amendment changes the course of the Iraq relief and reconstruction 
effort from a unilateral burden to an international obligation.
  It is important to note that the full $5.1 billion that the 
administration has requested for the Iraq Defense Corps and for 
improving the Iraqi national security force is exempted from this 
amendment. Only the nonsecurity portion of the reconstruction program 
is subject to a second vote.
  It seems to me that this is the least we can do to provide relief to 
American soldiers in Iraq--to have a timetable to bring those American 
soldiers home to once again reunite with their families--and to 
safeguard the interests of the American taxpayers in the 
administration's program to finance the rebuilding of Iraq.

  We have a far clearer vision today of the cost of rebuilding Iraq 
than we did 6 months ago. I think we have a right to assume that we 
will have an even better assessment--or we certainly should have--6 
months from now.
  This amendment gives the President 6 months to round up international 
military and financial support for Iraq and gives his administration 6 
months to demonstrate that the reconstruction program is working. Most 
importantly, the amendment gives the American people--the American 
people who are bearing the burden in the heat of the day--it gives the 
American people some assurance that Congress is not walking away from 
its responsibility to provide oversight of the hard-earned tax dollars 
that are going to Iraq.
  If all goes as planned, Congress can quickly and in good conscience 
release the remainder of the money, but if unforeseen problems or 
serious shortfalls in expectations emerge, Congress has an opportunity 
to make a midcourse correction in America's involvement in postwar 
Iraq. It is the American taxpayers money, you who are out there in the 
plains, the mountains, and the valleys of America looking through these 
electronic lenses. It is your money, your money--deserve no less.

[[Page S12646]]

  This is not an anti-reconstruction amendment. It does not affect any 
of the money being appropriated for American military operations in 
Iraq. It requires, rather, a progress report and a certification from 
the President of the United States at the halfway mark, and it provides 
for a vote--another vote--a vote from the people's representatives in 
Congress on whether the remaining funds for Iraq reconstruction are 
needed and are justified.
  This is a simple amendment to interject congressional oversight into 
the expenditure of United States taxpayer dollars for the 
reconstruction of Iraq. I urge my colleagues to accept the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I think we have been here before. This is 
another amendment--it reminds me of Yogi Berra: It is deja vu all over 
again. We are looking at the same problem. The problem is the 
disagreement of the Senator from West Virginia with the President's 
action with regard to Iraq.
  I read the Constitution, too. The President is Commander in Chief. He 
selected an ambassador who, in fact, has been confirmed by the Senate 
and gave him the powers to execute the actions necessary to move toward 
establishing a new government in Iraq.
  I was interested in the editorial in the Washington Post yesterday: 
``Stay Resolute on Rebuilding.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full editorial be 
printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. STEVENS. The editorial starts off by saying:

       This is a critical week for the U.S. mission in Iraq. The 
     test won't be overseas but in the House and the Senate, where 
     lawmakers are to vote on the administration's request for $87 
     billion in emergency funding. It's imperative that this 
     spending be approved--not only the money required for 
     military operations but the smaller, more controversial, 
     amount for reconstruction aid. We omit an exact dollar figure 
     from the previous sentence because that's a legitimate 
     subject for debate. The Bush administration is asking for 
     $20.3 billion in reconstruction spending; the House 
     Appropriations Committee trimmed $1.7 billion from that 
     amount. What's important is not the precise number but the 
     underlying premise: that reconstruction is in the best 
     interests of both the United States and Iraq.

  The editorial goes on:

       One of the biggest temptations for lawmakers will be to 
     lend the money rather than spend it outright. This approach 
     has particular traction in the Senate, where a number of 
     Republicans are endorsing it. They argue that oil-rich Iraq 
     can pay for its own reconstruction; giving it the money 
     outright will just allow it to pay off existing debt more 
     quickly to countries that shirked the reconstruction task, at 
     U.S. taxpayer expense. This may play well back home, but it's 
     the wrong way to go.

  This amendment will cap reconstruction funds for Iraq at $5 billion 
and require Congress to enact yet another appropriations bill to spend 
the remainder of the funds. It attempts to sweeten the amendment with 
$5 billion for security-rated activities that is excluded from the cap, 
but it is still a very bitter pill for those in charge of our troops in 
Iraq to swallow.
  As this editorial I just mentioned stated:

       Paying to improve life for Iraqis will help create a safer 
     environment for U.S. troops and will hasten the day when they 
     can leave. Rebuilding the electricity grid, fixing the water 
     supply, getting the oil flowing, maintaining public safety--
     all this is central to hopes for stability and representative 
     government.

  In addition to untenable funding restraints, this amendment requires 
a Presidential certification that the U.N. Security Council has adopted 
a resolution authorizing a multinational force under United States 
leadership for Iraq and that reconstruction efforts are being 
successfully implemented according to a detailed plan before additional 
funds can be appropriated.

  I know of nothing in the Constitution that says the Commander in 
Chief of our Armed Forces has to give Congress a plan. He did give us a 
plan. There is a plan, and it is being executed. But to put it in law 
that the Commander in Chief cannot spend money for our troops or for 
reconstruction efforts without a detailed plan is going too far.
  Ambassador Bremer has a plan, and we are funding it. The President 
has a plan, and we are following it, and he is the Commander in Chief. 
I think it is high time we recognize that the Commander in Chief has 
powers abroad, particularly when we have men and women in the field 
still under security restraints. There are people over there still 
being killed daily, and that bothers me greatly.
  What I fear most is the loss of momentum in the program being pursued 
by the amendments being offered that will derail the plan, derail the 
operations, and put in restrictions so we cannot go forward. I believe 
the President has a plan and the Bremer plan will work. If it does not, 
they will be back, I am sure. But if it does, it will be the first time 
in history where we went from the concept of a victory in the field 
militarily to establishing a new government in a country that has 
really been totally destroyed by its former government, the Saddam 
Hussein regime. It will be the first time we went from a military 
victory to a new government without a long period of occupation.
  The result of the Byrd amendment is that it will assure we will have 
increased forces over there occupying Iraq for years and years. I don't 
know where the Senator got that quote from, but no one told me we are 
going to be there years and years. As a matter of fact, our goal is not 
that. We have already withdrawn some troops. The general the Senator 
quoted has already withdrawn some troops. We are not predicting they 
are going to be there for years and years. There may well be a United 
States presence there for some time, whether or not the Iraqi people 
ask for it. I hope they reach a point where they think they can provide 
for their own security.
  We have this ongoing problem in Afghanistan very clearly that is 
going to take some time to establish a government there. We do have 
some international cooperation but not much really in the long run.
  The Senator from West Virginia mentions the U.N. Just yesterday, the 
Secretary of State told us about the improved circumstance in the U.N. 
today.
  We are pursuing a resolution in the U.N. but to make expenditure of 
our funds conditioned upon the resolution passing in the U.N. is 
absolutely wrong. This amendment holds reconstruction efforts hostage 
to the passage of other appropriations bills and hostage to action by 
the U.N.
  Now, I would hope that Senators will read what I consider to be a 
very appropriate editorial from the Washington Post that I have just 
placed in the Record. It says:

       The debate over reconstruction aid has become a means for 
     expressing frustration, much of it legitimate, about the 
     administration's Iraq policy. Why wasn't the administration 
     more honest from the outset about the costs? Why can't it do 
     a better job of getting other countries to help pay? What's 
     the plan for future years? How will it be paid for? Lawmakers 
     are right to use the leverage of debate to seek clearer 
     answers . . .

  But debate is one thing; restrictions in the law is an entirely 
different thing. I do not believe Congress has the power and should not 
try to exercise the power to put restraints on the Commander in Chief 
when we have forces in the field. Our job is to provide the money to 
keep those men and women safe, and that is what this bill does. Sixty-
six-plus billion dollars is to maintain our troops. The balance is one 
of the most distinct things the President has done as a leader, to say 
let's move forward now. Let's give them a chance to create a new 
government. Let's help them set up their security. Let's help them 
restore their means of living. Let's help them restore their energy. 
Let's help them restore their oilfields. Let's help them restore safety 
in the streets. Let's work with them so they can take over their own 
government.
  I received a letter this morning from the Coalition Provisional 
Authority, and I ask unanimous consent that this letter from Ambassador 
Bremer be printed in the Record. I will make copies available for every 
Senator.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              Coalition Provisional Authority,

                                        Baghdad, October 16, 2003.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I want to express my personal 
     appreciation to you for your superb

[[Page S12647]]

     efforts in managing, S. 1689 the President's Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriation. All of us in the Coalition 
     Provisional Authority are especially pleased with the 
     expeditious manner in which the legislation has moved through 
     the Committee and now in the Senate.
       The Supplemental the President has submitted provides a 
     clear strategy for achieving our goal of an early restoration 
     of full sovereignty to the Iraqi people and for making 
     additional progress in the war on terrorism.
        I want you and your colleagues to know that we are making 
     every endeavor to operate in a transparent and accountable 
     manner. But any major cuts of specific portions of the 
     President's request will impact the scope and pace of 
     reconstruction efforts, which in turn will delay the return 
     home of the U.S. troops. There is no doubt that these funds 
     will help contribute to the peace and stability of not only 
     Iraq but eventually of the entire region.
        Likewise efforts to link U.S. restructuring funds to 
     contributions from the International community would be 
     counter productive. Such linkage would send the wrong message 
     to our allies that either they match the U.S. dollar for 
     dollar or America will abandon Iraq.
        I understand there are various proposals being offered 
     which would convert portions of the funding request to a loan 
     mechanism of some type. Any such proposal would merely add 
     further debt to the already huge debt currently owed by 
     Iraqis. As you know from my testimony three weeks ago, I am 
     concerned that as was the case in the young fragile democracy 
     in Weimar Germany, such a situation could destabilize the 
     young Iraqi democracy before it even gets off the ground. 
     Moreover, if the United States makes its contribution in the 
     form of a loan, we will encourage other nations to follow 
     that example at the Madrid Donors' conference next week, 
     further exacerbating Iraq's debt situation, and I might add, 
     complicating the eventual process of restructuring the 
     country's overall debt burden.
        The sooner Iraq is stable and headed toward prosperity, 
     the sooner the American troops can return home. The U.S. 
     stands to gain a great deal of moral capital for deposing the 
     tyrannical Saddam Hussein and then helping to create a 
     stable, democratic and prosperous Iraqi state. Such moral 
     capital would be diminished, if not undercut entirely, if the 
     U.S. forced Iraq to pay the U.S. for its work. Further it 
     would lend credence to the view that the U.S. is an occupier 
     and not a liberator.
        All in the coalition are grateful to you and your Senate 
     colleagues for your efforts and it is our hope that you 
     continue to resist any debilitating amendments which will set 
     back our many successes so far.
           Sincerely,
                                                   L. Paul Bremer.

  Mr. STEVENS. It says:

       The supplemental the President has submitted provides a 
     clear strategy for achieving our goal of an early restoration 
     of full sovereignty to the Iraqi people and for making 
     additional progress on the war on terrorism. I want you and 
     your colleagues to know that we are making every endeavor to 
     operate in a transparent and accountable manner. But any 
     major cuts of specific portions of the President's request 
     will impact the scope and pace of reconstruction efforts, 
     which in turn will delay the return home of the U.S. troops. 
     There is no doubt that these funds will help contribute to 
     the peace and stability of not only Iraq but eventually the 
     entire region.

  That is the dream the Secretary of State explained to us yesterday, 
that we are moving forward in a region that has had instability for a 
century, and what has been needed is a key country such as Iraq turning 
toward a democracy, turning toward involving people. Just listening to 
the people who have seen and talked to the young people in school, we 
now know that young women in Iraq are going to school for the first 
time because of this country. A whole new generation will not just have 
men educated but will have men and women, who are going to participate 
in their own government. They want to do that. There has been an 
overwhelming reaction in Iraq toward freedom.
  We want to hold it back? We want to put up some gates and say you can 
go just this far, but you have to come back to Congress for more money? 
When? In February, and then more money later.
  The whole idea is to put the money up and let the Iraqi people know 
we are assisting them to move forward. We are going to assist them.
  Debate is one thing, but gates, obstruction, is another. This 
amendment is obstructionism. It is intended to require a return to this 
floor before the money the President has requested in the supplemental 
can be spent. I think that is absolutely wrong, and when the 
appropriate time comes I will move to table this amendment.

                 Exhibit 1--Stay Resolute on Rebuilding

       This is a critical week for the U.S. mission in Iraq. The 
     test won't be overseas but in the House and Senate, where 
     lawmakers are to vote on the administration's request for $87 
     billion in emergency funding. It's imperative that this 
     spending be approved--not only the money required for 
     military operations but the smaller, more controversial, 
     amount for reconstruction aid. We omit an exact dollar figure 
     from the previous sentence because that's a legitimate 
     subject for debate. The Bush administration is asking for 
     $20.3 billion in reconstruction spending; the House 
     Appropriations Committee trimmed $1.7 billion from that 
     amount. What's important is not the precise number but the 
     underlying premise: that reconstruction is in the interests 
     of both the United States and Iraq.
       It would be intellectually consistent, though wrong, to 
     argue against both military and reconstruction funding. But 
     to present oneself as a supporter of money ``for our troops'' 
     and an opponent of reconstruction is contradictory and 
     counterproductive. Paying to improve life for Iraqis will 
     help create a safer environment for U.S. troops and will 
     hasten the day when they can leave. Rebuilding the 
     electricity grid, fixing the water supply, getting the oil 
     flowing, maintaining public safety--all this is central to 
     hopes for stability and representative government.
       One of the biggest temptations for lawmakers will be to 
     lend the money rather than spend it outright. This approach 
     has particular traction in the Senate, where a number of 
     Republicans are endorsing it. They argue that oil-rich Iraq 
     can pay for its own reconstruction; giving it the money 
     outright will just allow it to pay off existing debt more 
     quickly to countries that shirked the reconstruction task, at 
     U.S. taxpayer expense. This may play well back home, but it's 
     the wrong way to go.
       Iraq is already burdened with about $200 billion in debt. 
     Either much of that will be forgiven, in which case a U.S. 
     reconstruction loan will prove most symbolic, or Iraq will 
     struggle for years under a crushing debt burden, in which 
     case another loan only adds to the misery. To make a loan in 
     these circumstances is like swimming out to a drowning man 
     and handing him a ten-pound weight. As a practical matter, no 
     Iraqi entity has the legal authority to enter into a binding 
     agreement. Lending the money will harm the U.S. effort to 
     persuade other countries to donate. And forcing Iraq to 
     encumber itself with debt to the United States, with U.S. 
     companies reaping the reconstruction profits, plays into the 
     hands of those who suspect U.S. motives.
       The debate over reconstruction aid has become a means for 
     expressing frustration, much of it legitimate, about the 
     administration's Iraq policy. Why wasn't the administration 
     more honest from the outset about costs? Why can't it do a 
     better job of getting other countries to help pay? What's the 
     plan for future years? How will it be paid for? Lawmakers are 
     right to use the leverage of debate to seek clearer answers 
     and improved performance from the administration. But a 
     failure to obtain satisfaction on these points doesn't 
     justify a vote against needed funding. One of the Democratic 
     presidential candidates who will be called on to vote on the 
     request, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), said yesterday that he 
     will vote against the aid for this reason, and Sen. John F. 
     Kerry (Mass.) seems inclined to follow this irresponsible 
     course. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean's position--yes, 
     but only if the president comes up with a way to pay for it--
     is similarly faulty. As much as we would like to see some tax 
     cuts rolled back, that's not going to happen, at least as 
     part of the current debate. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) 
     had it right the other day, saying that, despite misgivings 
     and his desire to undo some of the tax cuts to pay for it: 
     ``We have no choice but to finance this program.''
       Helping rebuild Iraq is right as a matter of morality and 
     self-interest. Refusing to pay what's needed because the 
     administration's performance has been lacking simply piles 
     error on top of error. Whatever the Bush Administration's 
     failings, it makes no sense to punish the people of Iraq--
     and, ultimately, of the United States--as a result.

  Mr. STEVENS. I want to be courteous to the people on the other side, 
and I will try to see if we cannot find some time limit. It would be 
within my right to move to table right now, but I want to be 
cooperative. The Senator from West Virginia has asked for other 
Senators to be allowed to speak, so I will seek to find some way to 
delineate some time limits. I have spoken for about 8 minutes. I know 
Senator Durbin, Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy, and I believe Senator 
Boxer want to speak. I ask unanimous consent that each be recognized 
for 10 minutes and that I then be allowed the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I urge my friend to please not put such severe time 
limits on this because for some of us this is an extremely important 
amendment that goes to the heart of how we feel about the issue. I know 
my friend vehemently objects. Just the way he vehemently objects, I 
vehemently support

[[Page S12648]]

the Senator. I have not spoken much in this debate thus far and feel 
that it is extremely important to my constituents, who do not want the 
status quo, who want a change, to hear my views.
  I ask my friend if he could withhold a particular time. My own view 
is I probably need about 15, 20 minutes, max, but I do not know for 
sure.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator has the right to object, and I have the 
right to move to table. I still have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. I object to the 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are going to work out some time limit 
on this amendment or I am going to move to table. As a matter of fact, 
right now I believe we have 45 or more amendments remaining. We have an 
agreement of the Senate, a handshake agreement for a change. It was not 
a unanimous consent agreement. It was just a handshake between everyone 
on the floor that we will finish this bill by tomorrow. We are not 
going to finish this if we have people speaking at length on every 
amendment.
  Now, I have been informed we have 58 amendments remaining. This is 
the first one. I ask the Senator, what is a reasonable limitation on 
the Senator's comments?
  Mrs. BOXER. For myself, I would like to speak up to 20 minutes. I may 
only take 15.
  Mr. STEVENS. Twenty minutes for the Senator from California, 20 
minutes for the Senator from Illinois, 20 minutes for the Senator from 
Iowa, and 20 minutes for the Senator from Massachusetts, and I assume 
the Senator from West Virginia wants recognition again. That is more 
than an hour on 1 out of 58 amendments. I think that is excessive.
  I am willing to change it to 15 minutes for each Senator. I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Durbin, Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy, 
Senator Boxer, and Senator Byrd be recognized not to exceed 15 minutes 
before I retain the floor to make a motion to table.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I hope my chairman will not press this request at this 
time. As far as I know, there is no intention on this side of the aisle 
to lengthen the process by which the Senator would consider this 
amendment. This is a very important amendment. I hope the distinguished 
Senator would not press for any time limitation on the amendment at 
this point.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. I still have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. No, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a unanimous consent request pending. 
Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have reserved the right to object and 
expressed the hope that the distinguished chairman would not press this 
request at this time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will be glad to debate a little bit 
what is important and what is not important. I have before me 58 
amendments, and I do not know of any Senator who says his or her 
amendment is not important. This amendment is important. I think the 
amendment of any Senator is important. With 58 amendments pending, we 
have to find some way to limit debate. The only way I know to limit it 
is by making a motion to table.
  I again seek the guidance of the Members on the other side. I think 
we really have eight amendments, other than a reservation of amendments 
to be able to be offered in the second degree. Of the basic amendments 
that are now here, there are, what, 31?
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. STEVENS. Without losing the right to the floor, I yield to the 
distinguished Senator from Nevada for a comment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I state to the distinguished manager of the 
bill, Senator Durbin is not going to be able to come. I think if we 
just proceeded with this, it may move more quickly than one would 
think. Senator Durbin is not going to come. Senator Kennedy will speak. 
Senator Boxer will speak. I think it would move more quickly than one 
would think.
  Mr. STEVENS. Senator Leahy now; that's a sixth one. If each one takes 
20 minutes, we are going to be at 2 o'clock before we vote on this.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield to the Senator without losing my right to the 
floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we have already taken 15 or 20 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have taken 7 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator has not been alone taking time. I am hoping his 
sweet nature will prevail and allow Senators to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The gallery will remain quiet.
  Mr. BYRD. I hope the Senator will not press for an agreement this 
early in the morning. We can move right along. Senators are here. 
Senator Leahy is here; Senator Kennedy is here; Senator Boxer is here. 
We are prepared to move along. We are not attempting to drag out the 
time.
  I hope the Senator will allow Senators to go forward with this 
debate. We will save time in the long run by so doing.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, may I inquire of the minority, are they 
willing to set a firm time for the vote on this amendment?
  Mr. BYRD. Not yet, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has the floor.
  Mr. REID. I do really think this will move more quickly. We don't 
need to allocate 20 minutes on this. If we just go forward, things will 
work out. You still have the right, after somebody completes a 
statement, to get the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Let me try this. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
yield the floor to Senator Boxer to make such remarks as she wishes to 
make, and when she is finished her remarks, I regain the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, he would get the floor, anyway. He is the 
manager of the bill. I have no objection to that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I assure the Senator from Alaska my remarks are really 
not as long as 20 minutes. I certainly will try to get my points across 
in short order.
  Mr. President, I am very proud to stand with the senior Democratic 
Senator on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, and support his 
amendment to require the administration to develop a plan for Iraq, to 
share the burden of Iraqi reconstruction and security, and provide 
Congress with the information it deserves to have, not only as a 
coequal branch of Government but in behalf of our constituents.
  I view this amendment as a very strong alternative to the underlying 
bill, an alternative that is better for our troops, that is better for 
our taxpayers, and will finally give us a plan and an exit strategy we 
should have had a long time ago.
  The Byrd amendment withholds half of the money requested for 
reconstruction until the President certifies and reports to Congress 
that the U.N. Security Council has adopted a new resolution authorizing 
a multinational force under U.S. leadership. That would result in more 
funding and more troops from other nations to relieve our heavy burden. 
And the burden is, indeed, heavy.
  I am very happy the U.N. Security Council just passed a resolution. 
But, if I might say, what that resolution does--and I am glad they 
passed it--is it essentially puts them on record as recognizing the 
United States as the transition power in Iraq. But it does not give one 
dollar toward the effort of reconstruction. It does not give even one 
soldier more from another country.
  So we have a long way to go. I think in many ways the Senator from 
West Virginia was prescient, because he put in his amendment not just 
that the U.N. pass any old resolution, but that the U.N. pass a 
resolution that will in fact relieve the burden on our troops and on 
our taxpayers.
  Senator Byrd and those of us supporting his amendment also say the 
administration must certify and report to Congress that our 
reconstruction efforts are being carried out in accordance with a 
detailed plan that includes

[[Page S12649]]

significant financial assistance from other nations. In short, the Byrd 
amendment requires leadership from this administration--leadership from 
this administration--and the American people deserve no less. It is 
time for leadership.
  In addition, the Byrd amendment requires reports to the Congress on 
efforts to protect our troops. I made a visit to Walter Reed Hospital 
yesterday. It was a very emotional visit. Our troops are extraordinary. 
They are incredibly optimistic young people. Each one of them I visited 
said had they been in a different type of vehicle, they wouldn't have 
lost their limbs, they wouldn't have lost colleagues. Because, as we 
have said many times, after the President landed on the aircraft 
carrier and he said the major hostilities were over, we did not have a 
plan in place and a lot of our people have paid the price of that.
  So we are essentially demanding, asking, requesting, that the 
President report to the Congress on efforts to protect our troops. We 
asked for an estimate of the duration and cost of the military mission 
in Iraq. I might say, for many of us who supported the Levin 
resolution, we have been asking for that since day one and we really 
never had it.
  Why do you think the American people took a deep breath when they 
heard $87 billion for Iraq? They don't even realize, most of them, 
because it slipped through here with a unanimous vote--and at that time 
I think rightly so--we already gave $70 billion for Iraq in an 
emergency supplemental. So there was $70 billion, now there is $87 
billion, and if anyone thinks this is the last of it you are mistaken. 
If we do not get a grip on this, this is a policy that is not in 
anybody's control. They don't even know who is in control over at the 
White House. They sent out a press release that Condi Rice was in 
charge of reconstruction. Then Rumsfeld got mad. Then she came out and 
said, Well, gee, no, that really wasn't so.

  I think Senator Byrd, with all his many years here, his many years 
living, and his many years witnessing other administrations, has done 
us all a favor by putting together this very important amendment. Many 
of us helped put the finishing touches on it. I am very proud of this 
amendment.
  So we ask the President to send a report to Congress on efforts to 
protect our troops, an estimate of the duration and cost of the 
military mission in Iraq, an estimated long-term schedule for the 
withdrawal of U.S. and foreign troops, and a schedule with timetables 
and costs for the establishment of a fully trained and equipped Iraqi 
security force.
  Why is the Byrd amendment an alternative to be strongly supported? To 
me it is clear. It is time to end a blank-check policy. It is time to 
end a blank-check policy. Again, we gave $70 billion with absolutely no 
strings attached. We didn't stop it. We didn't say anything. We 
expected the President at that point would use those dollars and use 
the trust the Congress placed in him with that $70 billion to come up 
with a plan. We still don't have it.
  So clearly we should support this very important amendment as an 
alternative to the underlying bill.
  Let me give you other reasons. We were misled about post-Saddam Iraq. 
There is not one person who is civilized and has a heart and a pulse 
that beat who isn't glad Saddam is out of the picture. That has never 
been the issue. That has never been the question. The question is, did 
we have the right policy so that in the future that part of the world 
will be more secure, that we will not have a vacuum where terrorists 
move in, and where the United States is not the only country that is 
bearing the cost of a post-Saddam Iraq?
  The American people--I know I speak for the people of California who 
have spoken with me about this and, by the way, I have had well over 
1,000 calls on this and it is heavily against the $87 billion--feel for 
the Iraqi people, and they want to do their share--underline ``share.'' 
But they were told the postwar situation would be quite different from 
what we are seeing.
  Let me quote President Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, who was 
press secretary up until recently. This is what he said about 
reconstruction:

       Well, the reconstruction costs remain . . . an issue for 
     the future, and Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy 
     country.

  I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle and my friends on 
this side of the aisle that the spokesperson for the President of the 
United States said:

       . . . unlike Afghanistan, Iraq is a rather wealthy country.

  Still quoting, he said:

       Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi 
     people, and so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to 
     be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own 
     reconstruction.

  My friends, that was this year. Ari Fleischer was speaking for the 
President of the United States who is now putting pressure on us not to 
see this reconstruction money become loans. Ari Fleischer said:

       . . . Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden 
     for their own reconstruction.

  What did Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz say? I sit on the 
Foreign Relations Committee. Let us hear what he said. He said:

       There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to 
     be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the 
     Iraqi people . . . and on a rough recollection, the oil 
     revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 
     billion over the course of the next two or three years.

  Going on, Mr. Wolfowitz, No. 1 in the Defense Department, said:

       We're dealing with a country that can really finance its 
     own reconstruction, and relatively soon.

  What are we being told by the manager of this amendment, Senator 
Stevens? He is saying the Byrd amendment is awful; it is terrible; it 
is going to stop everything; it is a terrible thing. If you think the 
Byrd amendment is destructive, why not call Paul Wolfowitz and find out 
why on March 27, 2003 he said, ``We're dealing with a country that can 
really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon''?
  Why not call up Ari Fleischer, who spoke to the President and said, 
`` . . . unlike Afghanistan, Iraq can pay for its own reconstruction''?
  But it doesn't stop there. There is Defense Secretary Donald 
Rumsfeld. I am quoting him.

       I don't believe that the United States has the 
     responsibility for reconstruction.

  My colleagues, I want to reiterate this. Donald Rumsfeld, No. 1 in 
the Department of Defense, said in March of this year:

       I don't believe the United States has the responsibility 
     for reconstruction.

  He said:

       [Reconstruction] funds can come from . . . frozen assets, 
     oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil 
     for Food, which has very substantial number of billions of 
     dollars in it.

  I could have quoted 10 other people from this administration, but 
from Secretary Rumsfeld who is a key member of this administration, to 
Ari Fleischer who spoke for the President, to Paul Wolfowitz, second in 
command at the Department of Defense, they all told us and they told 
the American people Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction.
  I think the underlying bill is very much another blank check based on 
more statements and promises from an administration that led a 
brilliant military campaign but was wrong on the weapons of mass 
destruction, wrong on what would happen after the war, wrong on what 
the rebuilding would cost, wrong on how many troops would be needed, 
wrong on oil revenues, and wrong on how much other countries would 
contribute. That is just a partial list.
  My constituents are very leery of another blank check, given this 
history and given the need here at home.
  I could not believe this U.S. Senate couldn't walk down the aisle 
together, Republicans and Democrats, and take a month's worth of money 
for Iraq and spend it in this country of ours. We weren't asking for 
much. The Senator from Michigan wrote a brilliant amendment. In it, she 
said, All right, we are spending $5 billion in Iraq. The World Bank 
tells us they can't really absorb all the money we are budgeting now. 
Let us take just 1 month and let us keep our promises to our veterans. 
Let us take just 1 month. That is all--$5 billion. We can take care of 
our veterans' health. We can take care of our school construction 
needs. We can help some people who need health care here in the United 
States of America.
  No. That went down in flames. We can't do that. We can't afford that. 
We can't afford it. After all, we have a deficit. We had a deficit only 
after this

[[Page S12650]]

President took office. We had a surplus before he took office. Now this 
body won't even pay for this war. They won't even pay for this war. 
They make ringing speeches about America, the greatest leader in the 
world. And I agree with every speech. But every time America led the 
world, we didn't tell the wealthiest few that we will give you more tax 
breaks so our sons and daughters can go off.
  This amendment says to me everything that needs to be said. It puts 
an end to a blank-check mentality. We can't afford another blank check. 
We have these pressing needs at home with a deficit that is racing out 
of control.
  I thank Senator Byrd for his leadership. I have enjoyed working with 
him and with his staff, as well as the staff of Senators Leahy and 
Kennedy, to put forward an alternative that puts our troops and our 
taxpayers ahead of a blank-check policy. I hope we will have a strong 
vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Under the 
previous order, the Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have a management problem. I ask 
unanimous consent that the vote on this amendment not occur before 3 
o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of this 
amendment, and I strongly support it. I will not take a great deal of 
time. But Senator Byrd and Senator Kennedy, two senior Members of the 
Senate--actually the two most senior Members of this Senate--have been 
such resolute voices of reason and caution concerning our actions in 
Iraq. Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd have done a thorough job of 
explaining what this amendment does and why it is important.
  There is no secret that I did not support the resolution authorizing 
the use of military force against Iraq. I felt it gave the President 
authority that should be reserved to the Congress. It was used by the 
President to justify abandoning the United Nations prematurely, 
rejecting the recommendation of our allies, and launching a unilateral 
preemptive attack against Iraq with dubious justification.
  Since then, almost everything the White House and the Pentagon have 
said about Iraq has turned out to be wrong. The justification for the 
war, that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of having nuclear weapons, 
has evaporated. There was no link between Saddam Hussein and the 
September 11 attacks despite what the President said--until recently. 
While the Vice President continues to try to make the connection, at 
least the President has finally said there is no connection.

  Is Saddam Hussein a bad man? Of course, one of the most evil people I 
have ever read or heard about. Amazingly enough, it is the same Saddam 
Hussein we strongly supported in many ways in previous administrations. 
Is he a tyrant? Certainly. Did he carry out torture and genocide? Of 
course he did. He gassed the Kurds. The then Reagan-Bush administration 
continued to send military aid. Is he a bad man? Yes, we all agree on 
that.
  Did he have nuclear weapons? Of course not. Was he an imminent threat 
to the United States? Of course not. Was he worse than some of 
dictators we actively support around the world today? That is an open 
question.
  Now we have a different question, as the senior Senator from West 
Virginia and the senior Senator from Massachusetts and others have 
pointed out: The cost to the United States taxpayers in rebuilding 
Iraq. We were told that would be paid with Iraqi oil revenues. But 
suddenly that cost has skyrocketed. Our troops, we were told, would be 
greeted as liberators. They are under constant attack and threat of 
attack.
  I remember when the administration came before the Congress and said 
the costs of rebuilding would be under a couple billion dollars. They 
assured Members, assured the Appropriations Committee of that. They had 
to know they were not being truthful.
  Look at what has happened. Hundreds of our service personnel have 
been killed, many more have been wounded, something the administration 
prefers not to talk about. The wounded are brought back after midnight, 
making sure the press does not see the planes coming in with the 
wounded. They were not talking about wounded. These are not a broken 
wrist or scratched leg. These are terrible wounds--lost limbs, lost 
eyesight, lifetime disabilities. I think of the soldier who fought 
bravely for the United States who is back in Walter Reed now finally 
getting his citizenship. He raised his right hand to take the oath. 
That was the only limb he could raise. He lost his other arm and both 
legs, like our former colleague, Senator Cleland, in Vietnam. These are 
terrible wounds.
  We have lost more of our military since the President said the 
mission was accomplished, the war is over, than we did before. We have 
lost more of our soldiers since the President said: Bring it on. 
Unfortunately, they must have listened because they brought it on and 
more Americans have died since then than died before.
  Having said that, I am not one of those who say everything in Iraq is 
a failure. I do not say that at all. We are far from that. We are 
making progress in Iraq on many fronts. But the situation is dangerous. 
We are there virtually alone. Contributions of troops and money from 
other nations have been a pittance. But who can blame them? We ignored 
the words of caution from our allies. We dismissed our allies as 
irrelevant. We called them ``Old Europe,'' and we refused to give them 
any meaningful say in the political development or economic 
reconstruction of Iraq. Now, having insulted them, having ignored them, 
having not consulted them, having brushed them aside as irrelevant, we 
expect them to jump behind a policy they opposed when they find that so 
many of the things we said to justify our policy turned out not to be 
true? It is not surprising they are not hurrying to get in line behind 
us.

  This amendment of Senator Byrd, Senator Kennedy, myself and others, 
acknowledges what is obvious to everyone except perhaps those in the 
White House who are so convinced of their own version of reality that 
they only see what they want to see. We need help. We need the active 
involvement of the international community. In order to get that active 
involvement of the international community, we need to give these 
nations a bigger say in rebuilding Iraq and doing so to take the 
targets off the backs of our soldiers and defray the financial cost to 
the American taxpayers. We cannot take the attitude that uncle knows 
best and only uncle knows. We want others to help us if we want to be 
in a position to take our brave young men and women out of the line of 
fire.
  This is essential, not only for the success of our policy in Iraq but 
for our ability to work constructively with other nations in all the 
other fights we have in fighting terrorism, in combating poverty, in 
stopping disease, in protecting the environment, in dealing with so 
many other global problems. We are the wealthiest, most powerful nation 
history has ever known. It is almost inconceivable--even when I was 
born, 1940--that we would have any nation as powerful as we are. But we 
have responsibilities around the world that go with that. It is not 
just Iraq.
  There is an AIDS epidemic; there are contagious diseases, including 
ebola; there is ignorance, poverty, environmental damage. All of these 
things need U.S. leadership--not leadership arrogance but U.S. 
leadership. The American people are good people. The American people 
have the heart and the will to do what is best.
  The American people do not need to have leaders who show arrogance. 
That is not the American way. I think of the young people who go in the 
Peace Corps; I think of the young missionaries who go abroad; I think 
of the teachers, of the older retired people going to other parts of 
the world to help out. They do not go with arrogance, they do not go 
with simplistic answers; they go with humbleness, respect, and love.
  This amendment allows half the Iraq reconstruction funds, $10.1 
billion, more than can be spent next year, to be made available 
immediately. In other words, this amendment would get that money out 
the door with no strings attached. Putting this in perspective, $10.1 
billion is equal to more than half the amount of foreign aid we give to

[[Page S12651]]

the rest of the world, and we will give that amount of money to one 
country immediately. The $10.1 billion includes $5.1 billion for 
security, public safety, border enforcement, and justice activities. 
The balance of the $10 billion will be released after April 1, 2004, if 
the President certifies that the United Nations adopted a new 
resolution authorizing a multinational military force of the United 
States command and a central role for the U.N. in the political and 
economic development of Iraq, but the Congress would have to vote to 
release the balance of the funds.
  Over a quarter of a century ago, I went on the Appropriations 
Committee because I believed very strongly--and I don't have to tell 
the senior Senator from West Virginia who has forgotten more about this 
than all the rest of us would know--I believe very strongly the 
Congress has the power of the purse. It is one of those wonderful, 
brilliant acts done by our Founders to have these checks and balances--
our judiciary, executive, our Congress. It has served us in good stead.
  Has the Congress always been right? Of course not. Has the executive 
or judiciary always been right? No. But generally it stays in balance 
and it works very well. The big mistake would be if we just gave it 
away, if we said that the American people do not have a voice so we 
would have to vote to release the balance of these funds.
  This is extremely generous. But the reason I mentioned the power of 
the purse is that we have a duty to protect the taxpayers' money.
  In this Senate, there are only 100 of us who have the privilege to 
serve--and it is a privilege--at any given time. We have 270 million 
Americans. We have a responsibility--a responsibility--not just to 
Americans from Vermont or West Virginia or anywhere else but to all 
Americans. It is their money.
  Now, none of us could predict what is going to happen in Iraq between 
now and April first. It makes no sense to bundle up this $21 billion 
and toss it out the door, without ever asking questions--whether the 
funds are being used wisely, whether other nations are contributing, 
and whether it makes sense to release another $10 billion.
  It is absurd. It is totally unnecessary. It is not only absurd, it is 
unnecessary. This is the thing I cannot understand: Why are we rushing 
pell-mell to give away $21 billion lock, stock, and barrel, all at 
once? Every one of the administration's own people say they cannot 
spend it. They want it, but they cannot spend it. It is like ``give me, 
give me, give me, and I will make up my mind when I want to spend it.'' 
I would hate to run my household finances that way.
  We should not run the Nation's finances that way. It is not the way 
it was done with the Marshall plan. Everyone comes up here from the 
administration and talks about the Marshall plan, the Marshall plan, 
the Marshall plan. I wish one of them would pick up a history book and 
read about the Marshall plan. The way they describe it, I don't think 
they could even spell it.
  There was far more detailed justification for the Marshall plan, far 
more opportunity for review, far more oversight. Let's learn from 
history, especially if we are going to claim to repeat it.
  I am tired of historical sloganeering by people who obviously have no 
idea what the heck they are talking about. For the Marshall plan, we 
had hundreds of witnesses. That was several years after the end of 
World War II. We had special bipartisan committees that really worked 
at overseeing that plan.
  When I first came to the Senate, I talked to some of the Members who 
had been here at that time. They were watching what was going on. They 
knew what was going on. And it was not a blank check. It was not a 
blank check. It was, however, one thing: We worked with other 
countries. We led the effort, of course. We worked with other 
countries.
  I think it is long past time that we should reach out to our friends 
and allies, not with this fig-leaf resolution being discussed at the 
U.N. this week--and that is all it is; it is a PR fig leaf--but in a 
way that builds a genuine coalition that is no longer a unilateral 
policy.
  I want to be fair. The U.N. resolution to be voted on today is 
welcome. It sets the stage. That is what it does. It is a stage-setting 
piece for what should have been months ago, by recognizing the key role 
that other nations can and should play in Iraq.
  It would authorize a multinational military force. It would encourage 
other nations to participate and make contributions to the force and to 
the costs of reconstruction in Iraq.
  It also makes clear that the Coalition Provisional Authority is 
temporary. That is something on which I believe all Members of the 
Senate, Republican and Democrat alike, would agree. It has to be 
temporary.
  So it is a step in the right direction, but it is basically a 
statement of good intentions. There is nothing wrong with good 
intentions, but I think some of us who have been here for a few years 
would like more than just good intentions. We have no idea how it is 
going to be interpreted by the White House, which has resisted 
meaningful input from other nations, nor how it is going to be 
implemented.
  Will the multinational force be anything more than a fig leaf for an 
indefinite U.S. military operation involving more than 100,000 troops, 
as it is today--100,000 American troops over there facing the danger of 
being killed every single day? Will other nations contribute or will 
U.S. taxpayers continue to shoulder 99 percent of the cost?
  Mr. President, save me the stories I hear from the administration 
about 30 countries, 40 countries joining us. I think there is one 
country that has sent over two people. Of course, we had to pay their 
way. Others were willing to send a few thousand dollars. But as ranking 
member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, I know 
we are going to have to pay more than that in foreign aid they all 
want. I do not want fig leaves. I do not want rhetoric. I want reality.
  Right now, the reality is, we are paying 99 percent of the cost. Is 
the administration going to give us a detailed plan, including 
timetables and cost? How about an exit strategy for when our troops 
will come home? That is what I would like to know. We do not know. We 
do not know what is going to come out of that.
  It is good to have, at least, a resolution that says nice things. It 
does not do an awful lot, but it says a lot of nice things at the 
United Nations. But I am not a member of the United Nations. I am not a 
delegate to the United Nations. I am the senior Senator from the State 
of Vermont. I am here to speak on behalf of the people of the United 
States in the U.S. Senate. That is my role. I have one vote here out of 
100. I take that very seriously.
  This amendment is extremely important. It builds on the U.N. 
resolution. It requires tangible results, not just good intentions. If 
the U.N. resolution accomplishes what it says, the President should 
have no difficulty making the certifications called for in this 
amendment.
  We need to know if the U.N. resolution represents the 
``internationalization'' of policy long overdue or if it is nothing 
more than political cover to maintain the status quo, to continue along 
as we are today--alone, with our troops under fire and U.S. taxpayers 
paying through the nose.
  And then we need to vote on whether to release the remaining $10 
billion. There is no reason--there is none--there is not one word in 
all the testimony before the other body or before ours that says they 
need this other $10 billion right now--not one word that says we should 
not have another chance to review this policy and vote again in 6 
months. That is the responsible thing to do. Again, they cannot spend 
the money now.
  So our amendment steers a middle ground. It releases half of the aid 
up front, but it tells the administration we want a multilateral 
approach. We want other nations involved, and not just nations that can 
only contribute enough troops for a small town police force or provide 
a handful of secondhand jeeps.
  I admire the political will of some of these small countries in 
sending people over. From my own State of Vermont, we have sheriffs 
departments that are bigger than some of the forces they are sending. 
That does not detract from their political will in doing it. It is a 
nice symbol, but let's not fool anybody.

  I think the administration takes a strange view of Americans if they 
think we are going to be fooled by this.

[[Page S12652]]

Virtually every American knows who is paying the bill. We Americans 
are.
  So this amendment is in Iraq's interest. It is certainly in the 
interest of the American taxpayers, something we should be concerned 
about.
  I am very proud of my friend, the senior Senator from West Virginia, 
for offering the amendment. I have had the privilege of serving with 
him for 29 years. I have learned as much from him as any one in the 
hundreds of people I have served with in this body, right from the very 
first day I met him as a young Senator elect, as a former prosecutor.
  I think of my good friend from New England, the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts, a man I first met back when he was a brand-new Senator 
and I was a seminew prosecutor in Vermont.
  I think what the two Senators have done is go back to history and 
back to reality and set a good course. Our country will actually be 
stronger and better and, ironically, the Iraq reconstruction will be 
done better, if we follow their course.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in thanking our good friend and 
cosponsor, the Senator from Vermont, for his excellent presentation and 
compelling argument. And I, once again, thank our leader on this issue, 
and someone who has been such an eloquent voice for sane and 
responsible foreign policy for so many years, and particularly in the 
whole debate on Iraq, our friend from West Virginia, Senator Byrd.
  I think it is important at this time to understand exactly what this 
amendment is and what it is not.
  The Byrd amendment is not cutting the $20 billion. There have been 
other amendments that have suggested that and have done so. This 
amendment is not doing that. The purpose of this amendment is plain and 
simple: This is the only amendment that has been offered--and I believe 
will be offered--that is going to require a change of course in our 
policy in Iraq and give us the opportunity in 6 months to have a chance 
to review the administration.
  As pointed out by the Senator from California, otherwise, with this 
$87 billion, we are effectively giving a blank check and a statement 
that we support the current policy, which I believe is a bankrupt 
policy, one that is being made up every day. I spoke earlier on it.
  One of the reasons the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia is 
so responsible and compelling is, first, the World Bank has estimated 
that Iraq could only use $6 billion over the next year. He is letting 
$10 billion go, $5 billion for security, but the other $5 billion. Over 
a 6-month period the World Bank says the most Iraq could use is $6 
billion. This is going to let $10 billion go for 6 months. All we are 
saying is, perhaps after that 6 months, the rest of the money would be 
freed up as well. But at least we here, as the people's 
representatives, will have a chance to review the bidding at that 
particular time.
  I listened to our friend--and he is our friend--from Alaska say we 
ought to stay the course. I believe we ought to stay the right course. 
That is what we are talking about--staying the right course which is in 
the interest of the security of our troops and of the United States. 
Others are saying: Why not just give us a blank check?
  The Senator from West Virginia remembers clearly, as ranking member 
on the Appropriations Committee, it was not long ago when 
administration officials said: We don't need any money at all in terms 
of reconstruction. Iraq is a wealthy country. The oil revenues will be 
able to handle it. Three months ago they said: We think maybe $1.7 
billion will be able to handle it over the next year. Now they ask for 
$20 billion and say: Stay the course; why are you trying to interfere 
with us?
  They have been moving these numbers all around and failing to give a 
full plan. Yes, they gave us some working documents from last year and, 
yes, they gave us a budget but not the plan. The wisdom of the Senator 
from West Virginia is the fact that it is going to require that the 
administration come back in 6 months and give us an opportunity to 
review.
  Finally, as the Senator from Vermont has pointed out, the $20 billion 
for reconstruction is what the United States provides for economic aid 
for the rest of the countries all over the world. This is not an 
insignificant amount. The American people understand that. It is 20 
times what the Federal Government spends annually on afterschool 
programs, 20 times. This $20 billion is 20 times what we spend on 
afterschool programs that reach hundreds of thousands of children, 
helping them get the supplementary services which are so important in 
terms of their education, giving them outlets in terms of participation 
in sports. This $20 billion is 20 times that amount.
  It is also double the amount that this President proposed on 
education to assist the schools. This $20 billion is effectively twice 
as much as we are providing in K-12 federal spending on the title I 
education program for disadvantaged children. We know how important 
that is.

  It is over two times the amount we spend in helping those who have 
special needs. It is four times what the Government spends on cancer 
research. This is not an insignificant amount of resources.
  The only thing the Senator from West Virginia is saying is: Let's get 
another look at it in 6 months. Why should the administration be so 
opposed to that? Doesn't it make sense, in terms of our national 
interests, to galvanize the country in support of foreign policy? Are 
the people who are allegedly supporting whatever this policy is so 
uncertain about what is going to happen in 6 months from now, they say, 
don't do that; you are going to interfere and obstruct our whole effort 
by coming back to the Congress and permitting them to make a judgment 
in 6 months? That is apparently what they are prepared to do.
  I commend the Senator from West Virginia. I know from personal 
experience the amount of time and effort and energy and thought that 
has gone into this amendment. This is the one amendment that says: We 
are giving you 6 months to move ahead. That is sufficient to meet the 
vital needs at the present time. And we are prepared to give you 6 
months after that, in March-April of next year, when the Congress will 
be back and prepared to vote. But at that time at least we will know, 
at that time the American people will know that there are going to be 
other nations that will be a part of the team, that are going to be 
supplying resources, that are going to be supplying additional troops. 
We will be able to indicate to the American service men and women an 
end strategy, an exit strategy.
  I was asked a couple of hours ago about mentioning the exit strategy; 
doesn't this just suggest we are talking about cutting and running? 
That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about being 
sensible and responsible.
  Actually the words ``exit strategy'' were included in the foreign 
affairs article that was written by Brent Scowcroft and former 
President Bush, Bush 1, to which I referred earlier. He was talking 
about what the alternatives were at the end of the first gulf war. He 
was pointing out that this was a world transformed, President George 
H.W. Bush and his National Security Adviser, Brent Scowcroft, in their 
joint memoir on the experiences of the gulf war in 1991.

       There was no viable exit strategy that we could see.

  That was former President Bush 1, ``no viable exit strategy that we 
could see.''
  He believed at the time of the first gulf war we ought to have an 
exit strategy that we could see.
  We haven't got that. It is not in the $87 billion. What the amendment 
of the Senator from West Virginia is saying is, OK, it is not in there. 
OK, it is not in the $20 billion. But let's come back in 6 months and 
we will have a chance to see where we are.
  I commend the Senator for offering his amendment. I hope our 
colleagues will give it strong support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to express appreciation to the other 
Senators who have spoken in support of this amendment: Senator Kennedy, 
Senator Leahy, Senator Boxer. There are some other cosponsors of the

[[Page S12653]]

amendment who may or may not wish to speak on it: Senators Harkin, 
Durbin, Jeffords, and Kerry.
  The amendment provides that not more than $5 billion may be obligated 
or expended before April 1, 2004, from the total of $20.3 billion.
  It provides that the excess of the total amount so appropriated over 
$5 billion may not be obligated or expended after April 1, 2004. We are 
talking about $10 billion of the $20 billion--$10 billion may not be 
obligated or expended after April 1, unless, 1, the President submits 
to Congress in writing certain certifications and unless Congress 
enacts an appropriations law, other than this act, that authorizes the 
expenditure of such funds.
  Keep in mind, I say to Senators, the $5.1 billion provided under the 
heading ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund for Security,'' including 
public safety requirements, national security, and justice, which 
includes funds for Iraqi border enforcement, and so on--keep in mind 
that these moneys are not affected. They will go forward to Iraq--the 
$5.1 billion for the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund for Security. 
They will go forward immediately, and $5 billion of the remaining $15 
billion may be spent before April 1, 2004. The passage of this bill 
would provide for such expenditures. But the remaining $10 billion 
would not, could not be obligated before April 1, 2004, and may not be 
obligated or expended after April 1, 2004, unless the President submits 
to Congress in writing certain certifications described in the 
amendment and Congress enacts an appropriations law, other than this 
act, that authorizes the obligation and expenditure of the remainder of 
the fund.
  Now, the certifications that have to be provided by the President of 
the United States before the remaining $10 billion may be expended are 
as follows, in brief: a certification that the U.N. Security Council 
has adopted a resolution that authorizes a multinational security force 
under United States leadership for post-Saddam Hussein Iraq and 
provides for a central role for the U.N. in the political and economic 
development and reconstruction of Iraq; and the President must also 
certify that there must result a substantially increased contribution 
of military forces and amounts of money by other countries to assist in 
the restoration of security in Iraq and the reconstruction of Iraq. 
There must be a certification by the President that the United States 
reconstruction activities in Iraq are being successfully implemented in 
accordance with a detailed plan, which includes fixed timetables and 
costs and with a significant commitment of financial assistance from 
other countries, so that the American taxpayer does not have to 
continue to bear all the burden; a detailed plan that provides for the 
establishment of economic and political stability in Iraq, including 
prompt restoration of basic services, such as water and electrical 
services; the adoption of a democratic constitution in Iraq, the 
holding of local and national elections in Iraq, the establishment of a 
democratically elected government in Iraq that has broad public 
support, and the establishment of Iraqi security and armed forces that 
are fully trained and appropriately equipped and are able to defend 
Iraq and carry out other security duties without the involvement of the 
United States Armed Forces--so that American men and women who are 
bearing the military burden there today can come home.
  Additionally, not later than March 1, 2004, the President shall 
submit to Congress a report on United States and foreign country 
involvement in Iraq that includes the following information:
  1, the number of military personnel from other countries that are 
supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom, together with an estimate of the 
number of such personnel to be in place in Iraq for that purpose on May 
1, 2004;

  2, the total amounts of financial donations pledged and paid by other 
countries for the reconstruction of Iraq;
  3, a description of the economic, political, and military situation 
in Iraq, including the number, the type, and location of attacks on 
coalition, U.N., and Iraqi military public safety and civilian 
personnel in the 60 days preceding the date of the report;
  4, a description of the measures taken to protect United States 
military personnel serving in Iraq;
  5, a detailed plan containing fixed timetables and costs for 
establishing civil, economic, and political security in Iraq, including 
restoration of basic services, such as water and electricity services;
  6, an estimate of the total number of United States and foreign 
military personnel that are necessary in the short term and in the long 
term to bring to Iraq stability and security for its reconstruction, 
including the prevention of sabotage that impedes the reconstruction 
efforts;
  7, an estimate of the duration of the United States military presence 
in Iraq and the levels of United States military personnel strength 
that will be necessary for that presence for each of the future 6-month 
periods, together with a rotation plan for combat divisions, combat 
support units, and combat service support units;
  8, an estimate of the total cost to the United States of the military 
presence in Iraq that includes, A, the estimated incremental cost of 
the United States Active-Duty Forces deployed in Iraq and neighboring 
countries; B, the estimated cost of United States Reserve component 
forces mobilized for service in Iraq and in neighboring countries; C, 
the estimated cost of replacing United States military equipment being 
used in Iraq; D, the estimated cost of support to be provided by the 
United States to foreign troops in Iraq;
  Furthermore, an estimate of the total financial cost of the 
reconstruction of Iraq together with, A, an estimate of the percentage 
of such costs that would be paid by the United States and a detailed 
accounting specified for major categories of cost and, B, the amounts 
of contributions pledged and paid by other countries, specified in 
major categories;
  10, a strategy for securing significant additional international 
financial support for the construction of Iraq, including a discussion 
of the plan for implementing the strategy;
  11, a schedule including fixed timetables and costs for the 
establishment of Iraqi security and armed forces that are fully trained 
and appropriately equiped and are able to defend Iraq and carry out 
other security duties without the involvement of the United States 
Armed Forces;
  12, an estimated schedule for the withdrawal of United States and 
foreign armed forces from Iraq; so here we have a requirement in the 
report that is to be submitted by the President, an estimated schedule 
for the withdrawal of United States and foreign armed forces from Iraq;
  13, an estimated schedule for the adoption of a democratic 
constitution in Iraq, the holding of democratic local and national 
elections in Iraq, the establishment of a democratically elected 
government in Iraq that has broad public support;
  And, finally, the timely withdrawal of United States and foreign 
armed forces from Iraq.
  Every 90 days, after the submission of this report, under subsection 
C, the President shall submit to Congress an update of that report. The 
requirement for updates under the preceding sentence shall terminate 
upon the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces other than 
diplomatic security detachment personnel from Iraq. The report and 
updates shall be submitted in unclassified form.
  Here at last is a requirement that the President provide a report to 
the Congress and to the American people, information the Congress has 
needed and requested but which has been denied thus far.
  This amendment would require that the President make these 
certifications I have mentioned and that he submit a report which 
outlines the various provisions I have read and, in the final analysis, 
he has to submit a timetable for the withdrawal of American men and 
women from Iraq.
  It is time for the U.N. to get in and the U.S. to get out. That is 
what this amendment would require, in essence. The amendment would help 
save American lives. It would ease the Iraqi fears that America is 
following a policy of compassionate colonialism. This amendment moves 
reconstruction forward. This amendment moves Iraq forward. This 
amendment brings the world together in the overall peace effort on 
those distant sands.
  This amendment would put in motion a plan--a real plan--that would 
bring

[[Page S12654]]

peace more quickly and stability more assuredly, and it would say to 
the people of Iraq that the United States is your friend, not your 
sovereign.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the pending amendment offered by the 
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, Senator Kennedy, myself, and 
others, I believe is key as to whether this bill includes any real 
measure of accountability to Congress and, thus, to the American people 
for this country's policy in Iraq.
  This is essentially similar to an amendment I had offered during the 
committee markup. We had an excellent substantive debate in the 
committee, and we are having I hope again today a debate on 
accountability of this administration.
  I thank Senator Byrd for his tremendous leadership on this issue. I 
thank the chairman of our full committee, Senator Stevens, for 
permitting us again--I know at some point he will want to move to 
table, but I thank him for allowing us to have this time to have our 
say and make our points about why we feel so strongly that this 
amendment should be adopted.
  The amendment allows funding for our military needs in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. The amendment we are debating allows $10.1 billion for 
Iraqi relief and reconstruction over the next 6 months, until April of 
2004; $5.1 billion of that is set aside for police and military 
training in Iraq and about $5 billion would be for reconstruction aid. 
I note the $5 billion is the amount of reconstruction aid the World 
Bank believes Iraq can absorb over the next full year, let alone in 
just 6 months.
  Further taxpayer funding for Iraq beyond that $10.1 billion would be 
contingent on important accountability to Congress and the American 
public. In order to receive Iraqi relief reconstruction funding beyond 
the $10.1 billion, the President would have to certify to Congress that 
the U.N. has adopted a new resolution authorizing a multinational 
military force in Iraq under U.S. command. The President would also 
have to certify that he has a concrete plan for stabilization and 
democracy in Iraq, with fixed timetables and cost estimates, and the 
President would have to submit a report to Congress detailing the 
international support for our efforts in Iraq, both in terms of money 
and troops, as well as a report indicating troop levels and duration 
for our involvement in Iraq. In other words, what is our exit strategy?

  Finally, and most important, this amendment would say there must be 
an additional vote taken by Congress before we spend any more money.
  Again, I have listened to our ranking member, my good friend from 
West Virginia, many times in this Chamber talk about the Founding 
Fathers and how smart they were and how they wanted to balance the 
powers in this country so we did not have a dictator or king or someone 
who could run amok with the public treasury. That is why the clause in 
the Constitution that gives us control over the purse strings is so 
important.
  The intention of the Founding Fathers, at least as far as I have come 
to understand and read in my history books, is they did not mean to 
give us the purse strings so we could open it up and dump money into 
the White House. They wanted us to be accountable to the American 
people for every dime that was spent; that we had to keep a tight pull 
on those purse strings, parcel that money out in a deliberative manner 
so that no President--Democrat, Republican, Independent, or whatever--
would be given a blank check with the taxpayers' dollars.
  This amendment is in keeping with the best traditions and intentions 
of our Founding Fathers and keeping our faith with the Constitution of 
the United States in being diligent at controlling the purse strings of 
taxpayers' dollars.
  I just cannot explain why the administration is so stubborn in 
resisting even this most commonsense accountability. They are insisting 
on a blank check. Again, even the World Bank says we cannot spend any 
more money than that $5 billion in a year. Yet they want $21 billion. 
When people like me and the Senator from West Virginia and others raise 
questions about accountability, the administration, in effect, is 
saying: Trust me. That is exactly the line we heard before the war in 
Iraq.
  I admit publicly--it is on the record--one year ago I voted for the 
Iraq war resolution because I opted to trust the President. I opted to 
give him the benefit of the doubt. In the lead-up to the war, the 
President's approach boiled down to two words: Trust me. Trust me that 
Saddam is in cahoots with al-Qaida because we have that information, he 
said.
  Trust me that Iraq has vast stockpiles of chemical and biological 
weapons and weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them.
  Trust me, said the President, that postwar reconstruction will be 
self-financing because Iraq has fabulous oil wells.
  Trust me, said the President, that we have a serious plan to manage 
postwar Iraq.
  And today the administration dares to say one more time: Trust me 
that this $20 billion for reconstruction is absolutely necessary, and 
that if you will only give us a blank check, we will spend it wisely.
  There was a story on the front section of the business section of 
today's New York Times which illustrates how this vast amount of 
money--if not diligently looked at, if we don't keep a tight rein on 
those purse strings--can boil down to what in World War I and World War 
II was called war profiteering.
  The business section of the New York Times this morning showed that 
Halliburton, for example, was making over 66 cents a gallon on fuel 
that it was selling to the United States government for use in Iraq, 
and we were paying them for it. We are paying them these profits. It 
showed how much Halliburton was spending, up to $1.70 a gallon for fuel 
when they could have gotten the same fuel in the region for basically 
66 cents less a gallon. Where is that money going? We don't know.
  That is the problem with all of this money floating around: Trust me, 
the administration says. As the old saying goes, there is no education 
in the second kick of a mule. Quite frankly, I admit publicly I have 
been kicked repeatedly by this administration's mule saying, Trust me.
  A few years ago, the administration pushed through this No Child Left 
Behind bill for education. The President said: Trust me, we will come 
up with the resources to make sure it works. Now we have the mandates 
but we do not have the resources.
  Trust me, they said, that we will have the evidence that Saddam 
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological 
weapons, the means to deliver them, that he had connections with al-
Qaida. We now know none of this is true.
  I am basically here today saying, Not this time around; I am not 
willing to give a blank check; I insist on a measure of basic 
accountability.
  I recall President Reagan's policy with regard to arms control. 
Remember what he said? He said, Trust but verify, and that is exactly 
the purpose of this amendment. It allows $10.1 billion for Iraqi 
reconstruction through the end of March 2004. Further funding would be 
contingent on two things: The President must certify to Congress that 
the U.N. has adopted a new resolution authorizing a multinational 
military force in Iraq under United States command; and, two, the 
President must certify that he has a coherent plan for the 
reconstruction of Iraq, including a significant commitment of financial 
assistance from other nations. In short, trust but verify, no blank 
check.
  The administration will be on notice that additional money for Iraq 
reconstruction will not be automatic. The President first must come 
forward with a coherent plan to internationalize the occupation of 
Iraq, to stabilize and democratize Iraq, and then bring our troops home 
as soon as possible.
  Everyone is talking about ``supporting our troops,'' and certainly we 
want to do everything we can to support our troops. At issue is, how do 
we best support the troops?
  The Stars and Stripes, the newspaper all of us relied upon during our 
tenure in the military, has just released a poll showing that one-half 
of the troops surveyed say their unit's morale is low in Iraq. Almost 
50 percent say it is very unlikely or not likely that they will 
reenlist when their term is up. According

[[Page S12655]]

to Stars and Stripes, a key reason for this dissatisfaction is:

       Uncertainty about when they will be returning home.

  Let me be clear, nothing will be better in terms of support for our 
troops than to compel this administration at long last to 
internationalize the reconstruction efforts in Iraq, to 
internationalize the military involvement in Iraq. As the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia has said many times, it is time to get the 
U.N. in and the U.S. out. That, along with a clear and credible exit 
strategy from Iraq, is how we best support our troops, who are risking 
their lives every day, separated from their friends and their families, 
many of them not continuing with their education, not knowing when they 
are going to come home, performing duties for which really they were 
not trained.
  The Byrd amendment is the amendment that supports our troops, and 
that is why it should be adopted.
  I yield the floor.


               Amendments Nos. 1832, 1853, 1865, and 1866

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, both sides have cleared for approval four 
amendments that I ask be considered en bloc. The first is amendment No. 
1832 by Senator Feingold. The second is amendment No. 1853. The other 
two have not been filed. I send the amendments to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Hollings and Senator Durbin, and I ask unanimous consent that 
these four amendments be considered en bloc. They are primarily 
technical in nature.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Hollings, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1865.
       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Durbin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1866.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                           amendment no. 1832

(Purpose: To require reports on Iraqi oil production and revenues to be 
         made available to the public in English and in Arabic)

       On page 35, line 14, strike ``available,'' and insert 
     ``available in both English and Arabic,''.


                           amendment no. 1853

       On page 6, before the period on line 12, insert the 
     following:
       : Provided further, not less than $4,000,000 shall be 
     transferred to ``Office of the Inspector General'' for 
     financial and performance audits of funds apportioned to the 
     Department of Defense from the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction 
     Fund''
       On page 24, line 14, insert after $4,000,000 the following:

     ``of which not less than $4,000,000 shall be transferred to 
     and merged with ``Operating Expenses of the United States 
     Agency for International Development Office of Inspector 
     General'' for financial and performance audits of the Iraq 
     Relief and Reconstruction Fund and other assistance to Iraq''
       On page 38, after line 20, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 2313. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REVIEW.

       (a) The Comptroller General of the United States shall--
       (1) review the effectiveness of relief and reconstruction 
     activities conducted by the Coalition Provisional Authority 
     (hereafter in this section ``CPA'') from funds made available 
     under the ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund'' in this 
     title, including by providing analyses of--
       (A) the degree to which the CPA is meeting the relief and 
     reconstruction goals and objectives in the major sectors 
     funded under this title, and is enhancing indigenous 
     capabilities:
       (B) compliance by the CPA and the government departments 
     with federal laws governing competition in contracting; and
       (C) the degree to which the CPA is expending funds 
     economically and efficiently, including through use of local 
     contractors;
       (2) report quarterly to the appropriate congressional 
     committees on the results of the review conducted under 
     paragraph (1).
       (b) In this section, the term ``appropriate congressional 
     committees'' means--
       (1) the Committees of Appropriations, Armed Services, and 
     Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committees of Appropriations, Armed Services, and 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives.


                           amendment no. 1865

 (Purpose: To clarify the fiscal year limitation in a provision of the 
                           Public Law 108-11)

       Paragraph (1) of section 1314 of Public Law 108-11 is 
     amended by inserting ``without fiscal year limitation'' after 
     ``available'' the first place it appears.


                           amendment no. 1866

(Purpose: To require quarterly reports on the status of the efforts of 
     the Iraq Survey Group to account for the Iraq weapons of mass 
                         destruction programs)

       At the end of title I, insert the following:
       Sec. 316. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) The Iraq Survey Group is charged with investigating the 
     weapons of mass destruction programs of Iraq.
       (2) The Special Advisor to the Director of Central 
     Intelligence for Strategy and Iraq heads the efforts of the 
     Iraq Survey Group.
       (b) Quarterly Reports on Status of Efforts of Iraq Survey 
     Group.--Not later than January 1, 2004, and every three 
     months thereafter through September 30, 2004, the Special 
     Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence for Strategy 
     and Iraq shall submit to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress a comprehensive written report on the status of the 
     efforts of the Iraq Survey Group to account for the programs 
     of Iraq on weapons of mass destruction and related delivery 
     systems.
       (c) Form of Report.--Each report required by subsection (b) 
     shall be submitted in both classified and unclassified form.
       (d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (1) the Select Committee on Intelligence and the 
     Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the Senate; and
       (2) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the 
     Subcommittee on defense of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives.

  Mr. STEVENS. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are trying to go back and forth here. 
Senator Warner has an amendment he would like to offer. After that, I 
understand Senator Lautenberg has an amendment to offer.
  At the moment, there is another Senator on the floor. I see that the 
current occupant of the chair might be interested in a comment he 
wishes to make about some Cubs. I asked him if they were little bears, 
but he said no.
  I yield 5 minutes of our time to the Senator from Illinois, if he 
would agree to that amount of time, to talk about the Cubs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. The current occupant of the chair may not consent to 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do I have a right to object?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding that Senator Durbin is going to 
speak for 5 minutes. We are going to move to set aside for Senator 
Warner and, following that, move to set aside for Senator Lautenberg. 
Is that right?
  Mr. STEVENS. That is right. I do not know if he is going to call up 
his amendment or just file it, but in any event, yes, we are prepared 
to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Before we go to Senator Durbin, will the Chair approve the 
unanimous consent request that was propounded?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from New York 
also wants to do something.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object, I have an amendment which 
I know is not yet in the queue, but after Senator Durbin speaks, I 
would also like to speak for 5 minutes about the tragedy that happened 
in New York. I was going to ask to do that later but it seems an 
appropriate time, and I ask unanimous consent to be able to do that, 
and only that, for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. We would have no objection to a statement about that 
very serious accident that happened in the Senator's State.
  It is my understanding it would be 5 minutes for Senator Durbin, 5 
minutes for Senator Schumer, and then we return to Senator Warner. 
Following Senator Warner, we would go to Senator Lautenberg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the only thing I would like to ask before we 
get started is, does the Senator from Alaska think the Presiding 
Officer is qualified to speak about baseball?

[[Page S12656]]

  Mr. STEVENS. I would say to the Senator from Nevada, I have heard the 
current occupant of the chair talk about some of his experiences in 
baseball and one of these days we ought to convene the Senate and 
listen to him for a while.
  Mr. REID. I would like that very much.
  Mr. STEVENS. There is some marvelous history we could learn from the 
Senator about baseball, but I am out of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Has the unanimous consent request been agreed to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Chair recount, for the benefit of the Senate, 
the order that has just been accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The order that has just been accepted is 
Senator Durbin has 5 minutes, Senator Schumer has 5 minutes. Then it is 
the Senator from Virginia's turn to offer an amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.
  Mr. STEVENS. Followed by the Senator from New Jersey?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Followed by the Senator from New Jersey.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  (The remarks of Mr. Durbin and Mr. Schumer are printed in today's 
Record under ``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1867

(Purpose: To increase the Federal share of the cost of disaster relief 
provided in connection with Hurricane Isabel; and to provide for repair 
   or replacement of Department of Defense infrastructure damaged or 
                     destroyed by Hurricane Isabel)

  Mr. WARNER. 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 Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself, and 
     Mr. Allen, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Mikulski, and Mrs. Dole proposes 
     an amendment numbered 1867:
       On page 39, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 3002. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Federal share of the cost of any disaster relief payment made 
     under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) for damage caused by 
     Hurricane Isabel shall be 90 percent.
       Sec. 3003. Of the funds appropriated by this Act, 
     $500,000,000 shall be available for repair or replacement of 
     Department of Defense and National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration infrastructure damaged or destroyed by 
     Hurricane Isabel, related flooding, or other related natural 
     forces.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I purposely desired the clerk to read the 
short amendment because this affects the interests in 6 States. This 
tragic hurricane struck North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, West 
Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.
  Those are the States that were declared by the President as Federal 
disaster areas. The technical decision has been made by the appropriate 
authorities that these States suffered severe damage.
  On the 19th of September, the hurricane caused 45 deaths, and 
approximately $1.7 billion of total damages, of which approximately 
$450 million was sustained in Virginia and $410 million in Maryland.
  I offer this amendment on behalf of colleagues in all of those 
States. I have listed thus far myself, Senator Allen, Senator Sarbanes, 
Senator Mikulski, and Senator Dole. I expect other Senators from those 
States will desire to add their names at their own initiative.
  Why on this particular bill should this funding be provided? It is a 
legitimate question.
  No. 1, it is taken out of the funds in this bill for the Department 
of Defense. It is not an add-on or an end run. It is straightforward 
from the Department of Defense. In consultation with the individual 
military services, it was relayed to me that the functioning of these 
military facilities in the States enumerated is essential to the 
current operations of the United States military.
  Senator Allen, members of the Virginia delegation, and I, together 
with the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security went down to 
these hard-hit communities. We spent at least 1 day with the Secretary 
of Homeland Security looking at the damage in the Commonwealth of 
Virginia; and specifically, to the Langley Air Force Base and NASA 
facility. It is a relatively modest sum, but the Langley facility has a 
dual purpose. It serves both for the Department of Air Force and the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
  We simply couldn't have the construction and repairs eligible for one 
part of the facility and not the other. Of course, the debate was 
primarily for the Department of Air Force. That is one very modest and 
minor technical aspect of this.
  But the Department of Defense is willing to take those funds 
necessary for NASA from the funds I put in here, the reason being you 
simply cannot take a water line, for example, for a flood-damaged area 
and stop at the arbitrary line between where NASA operates and where 
the Department of Air Force operates.
  I am hopeful colleagues will not look upon that as any significant 
departure from the managers' effort to contain this legislation to 
expenditures related to the military. I really urge colleagues to 
support this. Our colleagues from these 6 States support it. I cannot 
speak for those who are not on here. I intend to visit with the 
distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia on this matter in the 
course of the day as well as the junior Senator from West Virginia. It 
is my hope this Chamber will accept this amendment.
  Again, there was a Presidential designation of areas of destruction, 
and here in the Nation's Capital some of our military installations 
suffered damage.
  I point out that in the course of my trips--I think I made seven 
trips back to my State in connection with this very frightful 
hurricane--I worked with FEMA. I commend FEMA. The FEMA people came in, 
as well as the Small Business Administration, and helped tremendously. 
I recall being in Alexandria along with the Small Business 
Administration people, and we walked in and out of the various places 
of business--small restaurants and shops where water had come up waist 
high the previous evening. You can't imagine the despair on the faces 
and in the minds of a shopkeeper who was there amidst all of this mud, 
debris, foul-smelling effects of the flood; and then also trying to get 
briefed on the pathogens that could flow from the mold that will come 
forward.
  But I found the Small Business Administration people, and 
particularly FEMA, to be very reassuring to those people who were 
overcome with emotion and dispair. Senator Allen and myself on this 
particular day, and FEMA and the Small Business Administration people, 
gave assurance that the Federal Government would give a measure of 
help: Here are the forms, here is the instruction book, there will be a 
representative from FEMA and SBA at this location. You can go to that 
entity and seek assistance.

  That all worked quite well in my State. However, SBA or FEMA is not 
available to provide assistance to the military installations who were 
damaged. It is left up to the commander of those bases to finance these 
costs. I spent considerable time with the commander at Langley Air 
Force Base. I commend him. He stayed throughout the storm even though 
the base was largely evacuated. It was important to get the military 
equipment out of the path of the storm and locate that equipment in a 
remote area so they could continue to function. There was no gap in the 
fulfillment of the military mission. That commander and indeed the 
general officer in charge of that base and others are to be commended.
  I could recite other bases and installations, including Fort Story, 
the same thing: The commander and senior officers and enlisted 
personnel stayed throughout the storm. By and large, they helped save 
property and lives, no question about it. Had everyone departed and 
tried to get back--in some instances the roads were severed and

[[Page S12657]]

you could not get back and more destruction would occur in that passage 
of time.
  There was considerable bravery from military and civilians on the 
military installations. FEMA cannot by law step in, nor can the Small 
Business Administration. Who is to fill the vacuum? The Congress. That 
is why I am asking the support for this amendment.
  Again, this includes six States. I have an evaluation of the various 
damages assessed by the military department in the several States. As 
far as I can determine, they are good, hard substantiated figures. 
There is no padding that I know of nor would I permit it.
  For example, in the U.S. Marine Corps, $16.5 million, primarily in 
North Carolina and right here below the District of Columbia, Quantico; 
the U.S. Army, $92 million; the Navy, $185 million; and the Air Force, 
$210 million.
  Mr. President, this amendment will provide approximately $500 million 
to repair and replace military and NASA facilities along the east coast 
that were damaged by Hurricane Isabel. These are the facilities in 
which our military personnel and their families live and work. The Air 
Force alone suffered approximately $210 million, much of that was the 
result of flooding at Langley Air Force Base. Damage at Naval 
facilities is estimated to exceed $180 million, while damage at Army 
and Marine Corps facilities is estimated to exceed $100 million. There 
was also an estimated $5 million in damage at the NASA facility in 
Langley.
  Make no mistake, this damage will have to be repaired and unless we 
provide the funding in this bill, it will come at the expense of 
operations and training.
  I am hopeful colleagues will support this amendment.
  I will leave it to the managers of the bill to decide how and when 
this matter is addressed formally, either by voice or recorded vote.
  I ask unanimous consent this be the pending business subject to the 
managers, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the 
amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Warner, which seeks to 
address the damages at Department of Defense installations in those 
States impacted by Hurricane Isabel.
  The State of Maryland was particularly hard hit by Hurricane Isabel 
and the strong winds and flooding that accompanied it. Entire 
communities were submerged, power was lost in some areas for a week and 
countless individuals sustained damage to their homes, businesses and 
property. A number of Maryland's military facilities were similarly 
affected.
  Perhaps the hardest hit was the United States Naval Academy in 
Annapolis which suffered approximately $39 million in damage. Several 
weeks ago, I met with the Academy's Superintendent, Vice Admiral Rodney 
Rempt, who shared with me photographs of the destruction brought on by 
the hurricane. Hurricane-related swelling of the Chesapeake Bay, the 
Severn River and the Annapolis Harbor resulted in the flooding of 
academic buildings and laboratories, the submerging of athletic fields 
and the destruction of electrical systems. Our future Naval officers 
are now forced to take classes wherever they can be offered in the 
chapel, on a Navy barge, in administrative offices.
  Hurricane destruction was not limited to Annapolis alone. Officials 
at the Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground, Patuxent River Naval Air Station 
and the Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Division, among 
others, also report significant amounts totaling in the millions of 
dollars to repair roofs and buildings, replace piers, and clean up 
debris related to the storms.
  As you know, Operation and Maintenance funding at our bases is 
routinely among the most thinly stretched. And that is in years without 
a major natural disaster. This amendment provides $500 million to cover 
the much-needed cost of repair at facilities along the East Coast 
facilities whose continued operation are vital to our national defense. 
I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting its passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am going to talk about an amendment 
that I will be sending to the desk, and that is why I sought 
recognition. However, I also take just a couple of minutes to commend 
Senator Byrd for his leadership on this issue, for reminding Members we 
have an obligation to examine the conditions under which we operate to 
make certain funds that are expended--I served with Senator Byrd in the 
Appropriations Committee for many years, and he is just as diligent on 
the floor as he is in the committee--to make sure the funds we expend, 
our taxpayer funds, are clearly examined and clearly understood before 
we make the commitment to send those funds on their way.
  For the almost 19 years I have served in the Senate, I am always 
impressed when I hear Senator Byrd stand up and act as the conscience 
of the Senate, reminding all Members of our responsibilities in such 
eloquent ways. I am grateful to him for the time he has allowed me to 
speak today as we discuss the supplemental appropriations bill.


                           Amendment No. 1868

  I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration, and I ask the pending amendment be laid aside to 
accommodate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey, [Mr. Lautenberg], for himself, 
     Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1868.

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

   (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for any contract or other 
     financial agreement or arrangement with any entity that pays 
 compensation in the form of deferred salary to certain United States 
                         Government officials)

       On page 38, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 2313. (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as 
     the ``Ethics in Government Contracting Act of 2003''.
       (b) Prohibition on Contracts With Certain Entities.--None 
     of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     title may be obligated or expended for any contract, any 
     financial agreement, or any other arrangement between the 
     United States and any entity that--
       (1) at the time of such obligation or expenditure, is 
     obligated under an agreement or otherwise to pay deferred 
     compensation to any individual who holds a position listed in 
     subsection (c); or
       (2) has issued to such an individual one or more options 
     for such individual to purchase a total of more than 1,000 
     shares of stock of such entity.
       (c) Covered Individuals.--The positions referred to in 
     subsection (b) are--
       (1) President;
       (2) Vice President;
       (3) Secretary of State;
       (4) Secretary of the Treasury;
       (5) Secretary of Defense;
       (6) Attorney General;
       (7) Secretary of the Interior;
       (8) Secretary of Agriculture;
       (9) Secretary of Commerce;
       (10) Secretary of Labor;
       (11) Secretary of Health and Human Services;
       (12) Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;
       (13) Secretary of Transportation;
       (14) Secretary of Energy;
       (15) Secretary of Education;
       (16) Secretary of Veterans Affairs;
       (17) Secretary of Homeland Security;
       (18) Director of the Office of Management and Budget;
       (19) United States Trade Representative;
       (20) Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
       (21) Director of National Drug Control Policy; and
       (22) Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff.
       (d) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, along with Senators Schumer and 
Corzine, I offer an amendment to this supplemental called the Ethics in 
Government Contracting Act. We must ensure that taxpayer-funded 
contracts in Iraq are of the highest ethical standards for contracting 
that we can achieve.
  The question arises as a result of a contract that is now worth over 
$1.4 billion and was awarded without competitive bidding or public 
notice. The contract was given to the Halliburton Corporation, a 
company in which Vice President Cheney maintains a financial interest. 
The definition of the ``financial interest'' is confirmed by the

[[Page S12658]]

Congressional Research Service, which is the nonpartisan research arm 
we turn to when we have questions. They have a great deal of skill and 
ability, and they agreed with me that despite the Vice President's 
claim to the contrary, that he had no financial interest, in fact, the 
conditions under which he is operating in connection with Halliburton 
do indicate a financial interest.

  Now, there is no accusation here of any wrongdoing. But I have got to 
ask, Is the taxpayer best served by the award of a lucrative contract 
to a company formerly headed by the Vice President and from which he 
still draws compensation?
  It is well known that the standard for ethics is not just to avoid 
wrongdoing but also to avoid the appearance of impropriety because 
public perception of insider deals can be just as damaging as a 
wrongdoing itself.
  Right now we are looking at a stark example of activity that gives 
rise to the appearance of impropriety. To put it simply, the largest 
recipient of reconstruction contracts in Iraq is currently paying a 
salary directly to the Vice President of the United States. In 
addition, the Vice President holds hundreds of thousands of unexercised 
stock options in this company.
  We toppled a corrupt dictatorship to instill democratic principles in 
Iraq, but what does it say to the Iraqi people when the largest 
recipient of United States reconstruction contracts in Iraq is paying 
compensation to the second highest official in the U.S. Government? I 
say it sends the wrong message to the people of Iraq and certainly 
sends the wrong message to the people in our country.
  Also, in an untimely fashion, it sends a message to those who are 
serving in our military in Iraq. Today's Washington Post, on the front 
page, has the result of a poll that was taken by the Stars and Stripes, 
the bible all of us use when we are serving our country, in which there 
is considerable criticism about the way they are being asked to serve 
and the conditions under which they do it. Many say they do not plan to 
reenlist, and that is a terrible condemnation of what is going on.
  Now, these are brave souls. These are good, loyal people. And the one 
thing we are not discussing in this $87 billion supplemental is whether 
or not the troops are being supported, because outside of the $20 
billion that is under discussion now, there is unanimous support, in my 
view, for just getting those funds out there that can help protect, 
that can help make our military more efficient, make their living 
conditions better. No question about that.
  So when those who are serving see that it appears there is an inside 
relationship, that Halliburton got this fantastically fat contract, 
estimated to be worth a lot less than is now being spent--the American 
people are already skeptical about the pricetag of this supplemental 
appropriations bill, and if we are going to spend such a massive amount 
of their money, we have to help reassure them we are following the 
highest ethical standards with these funds.
  My amendment would make the ethics standards very clear. It says that 
none of the Iraq reconstruction funds may be used to award a contract 
with a company that currently pays compensation, including stock 
options, to the President, Vice President, or any member of the 
President's Cabinet.
  Ideally, there should not be a need for such an amendment, but over 
the last few weeks it has become clear we need to draw some very 
visible ethical lines.
  As I mentioned, the most controversial contract in Iraq is the one 
that was awarded to the Vice President's former company, Halliburton, 
to repair and maintain oil fields. This contract was negotiated in 
private, with no competition from other bidders.

  Last winter, we heard that this no-bid contract with Halliburton 
might cost $50 million and was there for the exclusive mission of 
putting out oil well fires. Then we were told that the contract was for 
much more than putting out fires; that it would be operating and 
maintaining oil facilities across Iraq. And now this sole source, no-
bid Halliburton contract is growing at an accelerating rate.
  Halliburton has been billing taxpayers at a furious pace under this 
no-bid contract. In September, the amount of money billed by 
Halliburton under this contract rose to $1.4 billion. That was 
estimated to be a $50 million contract, done in the dark of night--from 
$50 million up to $1.4 billion.
  If we just look at this chart, we see what has happened. If you go 
back to January 2003, it was just starting. And these are amounts in 
millions on the chart. The acceleration, the shape of the curve, tells 
you just what has happened. Look at where we are on October 1, 2003--10 
months after this contract began--and we are up to $1.4 billion. Look 
at the spike in just September alone. The contract doubled over that 1-
month period.
  This no-bid, exclusive contract for Halliburton was negotiated in 
private and not revealed to the public until Members of Congress 
demanded information. And now the Army Corps has finally agreed to open 
this contract for competitive bidding, but it is unclear when the new 
contract will be effective.
  Rather than offer reassurance to the American people that the no-bid 
Halliburton contract was above board, the Vice President raised 
suspicion with his recent comments. On national television, the Vice 
President recently said, regarding Halliburton, that he--and I quote--
``severed all of my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my 
financial interest.''
  He went on to say--and I quote again--``I have no financial interest 
in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three 
years.''
  The problem is that the Vice President's own financial disclosure 
reports contradict that claim. His financial disclosures reveal that he 
has received over $205,000 from Halliburton in deferred salary in 
2001--more than his salary as Vice President. In 2002, he received 
$162,000 in deferred salary from Halliburton. His financial disclosure 
forms indicate that he expects to receive similar compensation this 
year, and in 2004 and 2005.
  The Vice President's statements regarding his ties to Halliburton 
were not correct. And I called on him to correct the record. He did not 
do that.
  The Vice President is currently receiving salary payments from 
Halliburton worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, as this 
administration doles out billions of dollars in contracts to 
Halliburton.
  In addition, the Vice President holds 433,000 unexercised Halliburton 
stock options. And even though the exercise price is above the current 
market price, the options extend to 2009, and any option holder--Mr. 
President, I come out of the corporate world--has to hope that the 
stock price surges so the value of the options increase. One way this 
can happen is to be sure that lucrative contracts keep coming from the 
U.S. Government.
  Halliburton's stock value has increased 75 percent over the last 
year, even though the rest of the oil services industry has remained 
relatively flat. And we know that the biggest boost Halliburton has 
gotten is the multibillion-dollar Government contract in Iraq. This has 
an unwholesome appearance.
  We want to change the environment in which we are presently 
operating. I offer this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the 
ethics in government contracting amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment has more than a whiff of 
politics in it. If I had the power to do so, I would close the room and 
turn on some fans. This is the most outrageous amendment I have heard 
in my time in the Senate in 35 years. As a practical matter, it is also 
wrong.
  Contracts were bid. Brown and Root contracts were bid. The December 
contracts were entered into for Bosnia, Kosovo, by the last 
administration.
  The Vice President stated what the Senator from New Jersey said in 
part. He did not say fully what the Vice President said. Let me say 
what the Vice President said on September 14:

       I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and 
     haven't had now for over three years. And as Vice President, 
     I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge 
     of in any way, shape or form, of contracts let by the Corps 
     of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government . . .

  The Vice President has a deferred compensation obligation from his

[[Page S12659]]

former employer. He has no financial interest in Halliburton. The 
Senator's amendment cleverly works through a connection to the Vice 
President because he does have a deferred compensation concept. He has 
a right to receive money that was owed to him by Halliburton before he 
left that company for work he did before he left that company. The 
deferred compensation is money the Vice President earned as part of his 
monthly salary while he was at Halliburton but elected not to receive 
until he left the firm. This is done in many cases. It is a fixed 
amount that is being paid out over a period of time. The amount is not 
tied to the success or failure of Halliburton in any way. It is money 
owed by Halliburton to the Vice President for the time he was employed 
by the company before he left the company.
  While employed by Halliburton, the Vice President routinely deferred 
a portion of his salary. That was his right to do. And each year he had 
the option of electing to receive a deferred salary in a lump sum 
payment when he left the firm or in a stream of payments over a period 
of time. In December of 1998, long before he contemplated returning to 
public life, Vice President Cheney elected to defer a portion of his 
1999 compensation and receive it over a period of years following his 
departure from the company. Once he made that election in 1998, it was 
irrevocable.
  When the Vice President left Halliburton some 2 years later, he was 
not able to change this election, and Halliburton was required to 
distribute the 1999 compensation in five annual payments. To avoid even 
the appearance of a conflict of interest, the Vice President voluntary 
complied with the practice then required by the Office of Government 
Ethics and purchased an insurance policy to ensure that he had no 
financial interest in the future of Halliburton. The Vice President 
purchased this policy out of his own pocket. He paid the premium 
himself. The insurance policy guarantees the Vice President will 
receive the deferred compensation owed to him, whether Halliburton is 
successful or goes bankrupt. The insurance policy ensures the Vice 
President has no financial interest in the success or failure of this 
company.
  The Vice President eliminated any potential conflict of interest 
related to his deferred compensation arrangement and he resolved any 
financial interest he had in Halliburton. The Vice President reported 
the deferred compensation arrangement in his 2001 and 2002 public 
financial disclosure forms.

  On January 18, 2001, the Vice President signed an irrevocable 
agreement donating to charity the after-tax proceeds from the exercise 
of his Halliburton stock options. Again, this is something the Senator 
from New Jersey could have found very easily.
  Under the agreement, the Vice President divested himself of all 
economic benefits of the options and gave them to charity. The three 
charities named in the agreement are the Capital Partners for 
Education, the George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates, 
and the University of Wyoming. The Vice President has no control over 
the remaining stock options. This agreement gave the administrative 
agent the power to exercise the stock options and pay the proceeds to 
the charities. The administrative agent has total discretion to decide 
when to exercise the options without consultation with Mr. Cheney.
  Under the agreement, the Vice President will owe not a penny more or 
a penny less in taxes. The Vice President reported his gift arrangement 
on his 2001 and 2002 public financial disclosure forms.
  If you read this amendment, it covers every official of the executive 
branch on a senior level. Beyond that, it covers assistants to the 
President, the director of national drug policy. I wonder why the 
Senator didn't include every Senator in the United States. I have never 
had the honor to own 1,000 shares of stock in anything. Some Senators 
do. I just wonder what is going on here in terms of this concept. We 
already accepted an amendment that requires any contract entered into 
using the funds in this bill to be full and open competition. But this 
contract was full and open. It is competed approximately every 5 years. 
It is a Brown and Root company to which Halliburton is related.
  This is a slur against the Vice President of the United States. I 
have known him now since he was over in the House of Representatives as 
assistant to former President Ford. I have known this man for years and 
years and years. I know no more honorable man who has served in 
government than Dick Cheney. That is why I am here. I heard about this 
amendment.
  I am sad to say that I am here to respond to it. I never expected 
this from the Senator from New Jersey. It would unfairly and unwisely 
punish those who have been successful in the private sector and then 
voluntarily enter into the service of the United States in the 
executive branch. It doesn't touch the legislative branch or the 
judicial branch, only executive, and it does so very unfairly.
  I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
1868.
  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. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the call of the quorum be rescinded.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The clerk will continue the call of the roll.
  The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
or in relation to the Byrd amendment occur at 3 p.m., without any 
amendments being in order to the Byrd amendment. I further ask 
unanimous consent that following the Byrd amendment there be a vote on 
my motion to table the Lautenberg amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could, would it be appropriate to have 
2 minutes equally divided prior to the vote on the Lautenberg 
amendment?
  Mr. STEVENS. That is all right with me. I thought we had a standing 
order that there are 2 minutes on either side.
  Mr. REID. Also, I ask that Senator Byrd have 2 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes on 
either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair cannot hear what the Senators are 
saying. Please talk one at a time.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that when we order a vote on 
this bill, there be 2 minutes of debate on either side on amendments 
prior to a vote.
  Mr. REID. I ask that it be 1 minute on each side. OK, 2 minutes is 
fine.
  Mr. STEVENS. Two minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have the Warner amendment also. I 
would like to have scheduled for a vote following the Lautenberg 
amendment, the vote on the motion to table.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I think we have come close 
to clearing that amendment on this side. I don't think it will require 
a vote. I don't know if we need to waste the time on that.
  Mr. STEVENS. I will withdraw that. I thought there would be a 
necessity for a vote.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask also if the second vote--the one on 
the motion to table the Lautenberg amendment--can be a 10-minute vote. 
I don't see why we cannot speed this up a little.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection to that. I ask unanimous consent 
that the second vote be a 10-minute vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the second vote will be 10 
minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Warner amendment is still pending, is it not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask it be scheduled for a vote. It may not require a 
vote or the yeas and nays, but I want to dispose of it now before the 
Lautenberg amendment.

[[Page S12660]]

  Mr. REID. If I may say to my dear friend, we have a number of 
amendments at the desk that are entitled to consideration before that 
one. I will do my best to get Warner cleared, but I would rather not 
have a vote on that because we have some at the desk also that have 
been offered and debated. So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.


       Amendments Nos. 1863, 1814, As Modified, and 1855, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have amendments Nos. 1863, 1814, and 
1855. The first amendment is by Senator McConnell, which I will send to 
the desk. The second is an amendment by Senator Leahy, No. 1814, as 
modified. The third is No. 1855 by Senator Harkin. I send them to the 
desk and ask that they be considered en bloc.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I haven't had the opportunity to talk to 
Senator Byrd or his staff.
  Mr. STEVENS. We rely on our staffs and they have been cleared.
  Mr. REID. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. McConnell, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1863.
       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Leahy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1814, as modified.
       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Harkin, for 
     himself and Mrs. Clinton, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1855.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 1863

       On page 34, line 1, strike everything after ``proviso,'' 
     through ``Iraq''; on line 5, and insert in lieu thereof:
       striking the first proviso, and inserting in lieu thereof:
       Provided, That subject to the determination and 
     notification requirements of this section, exports are 
     authorized to Iraq of lethal military equipment designated by 
     the Secretary of State for use by a reconstituted (or 
     interim) Iraqi military, private security force, other 
     official Iraqi security forces or police forces, or forces 
     from other countries in Iraq that support United States 
     efforts in Iraq:


                    amendment no. 1814, as modified

  (Purpose: to require the Coalition Provisional Authority to provide 
 additional information justifying allocations for capital projects in 
                                 Iraq)

       On page 25, line 21, before the colon, insert the 
     following:
       : Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading may be allocated for any capital project, 
     including construction of a prison, hospital, housing 
     community, railroad, or government building, until the 
     Coalition Provisional Authority submits a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations describing in detail the 
     estimated costs (including the costs of consultants, design, 
     materials, shipping, and labor) on which the request for 
     funds for such project is based: Provided further, That in 
     order to control costs, to the maximum extent practicable 
     Iraqis with the necessary qualifications should be consulted 
     and utilized in the design and implementation of programs, 
     projects, and activities funded under this heading


                           Amendment No. 1855

(Purpose: To provide for a report by the Comptroller General on certain 
 contracts performed in, or relating to, Iraq, and for other purposes)

       On page 39, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 3002. (a) The Comptroller General shall conduct 
     studies on the effectiveness and efficiency of the 
     administration and performance of contracts in excess of 
     $40,000,000 that are performed or are to be performed in, or 
     relating to, Iraq and are paid out of funds made available 
     under this Act or the Emergency Wartime Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-11). The studies 
     shall specifically examine the profits, administrative 
     overhead, management fees, and related expenditures for the 
     management of subcontracts (and further subcontracting) under 
     any such contract. In conducting studies under this section, 
     the Comptroller General shall have access to any information 
     and records created or maintained by the United States, or by 
     any entity receiving funds for contracts studied under this 
     section that the Comptroller General considers appropriate.
       (b) Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act and again 4 months thereafter, the Comptroller 
     Government shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report that 
     includes--
       (1) an evaluation of the studies conducted under this 
     section; and
       (2) any recommendations for the improvement of the 
     contracting process for contracts performed or to be 
     performed in Iraq and for contracts generally, including the 
     selection process, contract content, and oversight of the 
     administration and performance of contracts.

  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.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the administration's justification 
materials for the $20 billion in reconstruction funds for Iraq, which 
we received just last week, contains broad categories of projects with 
no supporting details about how the administration arrived at the 
expected costs of those projects.
  For example, they want $400 million for two prisons, at a cost of 
$50,000 per bed. How is that possible? Are we going to ship the cement 
over there?
  They budget $150 million for a tertiary care, pediatric hospital, 
with no details about how they arrived at that number and no 
explanation of why this is the best use of these funds in Iraq, versus 
far less costly public health clinics and immunization programs.
  They want to spend $100 million for seven housing communities. 
Housing is short in Iraq, but should American taxpayers really pay $100 
million?
  We simply do not have nearly enough information to justify these 
exorbitant expenditures.
  My amendment says that before funds are allocated for capital 
projects like prisons, hospitals, railroads, and government buildings, 
the Coalition Provisional Authority must submit a report to the 
Committees on Appropriations describing the estimated cost on which the 
request for funds for the project is based.

  The amendment also says, that in order to control costs, to the 
maximum extent practicable, Iraqis with the necessary qualifications 
should be consulted and utilized in the design and implementation of 
reconstruction projects. We want to employ Iraqis, not $500 and hour 
consultants.
  I don't doubt that Iraq needs new prisons, government buildings, and 
housing, although I am not yet convinced the American people should pay 
for these things. This amendment does not prevent any project from 
being built.
  But we hear about spending millions of dollars in Iraq for things--
from vehicles to cement factories--that with a minimum of frugality 
could be bought or built for a fraction of the price.
  Before we spend 5 or 10 times more than we need to, let's find out 
what we are paying for to be sure it is the best use of the money.
  That is what my amendment does. It requires the administration to 
give us the information that justifies these costs, before the funds 
are allocated. The American people deserve to know what their money is 
paying for, before it is spent.
  I thank the managers for agreeing to this amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senate's passage of the 
amendment Senator Clinton and I proposed today that requires the 
General Accounting Office to report to the Congress in 6 and 10 months 
about the contracting and subcontracting process in Iraq. I appreciate 
Chairman Stevens' support.
  The GAO would study the effectiveness and efficiency of those 
contracts, particularly looking at profit and things like 
administrative overhead as the contracts turn into subcontracts and 
subsubcontracts.
  It calls for the GAO to make recommendations on how to improve the 
process. I believe we must do a lot of work to improve how we are doing 
things before the Congress gets the next large request for funds for 
Iraqi reconstruction.
  I would like to insert into the Record at the end of my remarks a 
letter of support for the amendment from Taxpayers for Common Sense, a 
nonpartisan watchdog group.
  I fear that there is a lot of very poor performance and clear waste 
going around for the grants already let. I fear we may be seeing some 
of the worst taxpayer wastes in decades. That is saying an awful lot.
  I would note that there are press report that U.S. AID only has 14 
employees in Iraq overseeing $3 billion in contracts. That is 
maladministration.

[[Page S12661]]

  The first Iraqi military battalion has just been trained under a $49 
million contract to Vennel, a subsidiary of Northrup Grumman. The work 
got subcontracted to something called MPRI. The interesting thing is 
that first battalion was not detailed to work in areas where there are 
difficulties in Iraq. Instead of taking a load off of American troops, 
they have been assigned to the desert to defend against Iran. It smells 
like nobody trusts the quality of that work and we are hiding the 
result.
  It looks like Halliburton is charging the U.S. $1.62 for gasoline 
that can be bought and transported to Iraq for about 96 cents. Price 
gouging would be a kind way of saying it.
  The budget documents indicated that $50,000 is being budgeted for the 
creation of 8,000 new prison cells. I fear contracts will be issued at 
that level when the real cost of construction in Iraq is far, far less. 
Given the cost of construction, it makes one wonder why the price is so 
high. It is, I believe more than it would cost to build such facilities 
in the United States, where labor costs are far higher.
  There is a plan for an $800 million Iraqi police training facility. I 
am told there is likely to be a $26 million per month ``management 
fee'' associated with this project.
  We need to understand what the reality is on expenditures like these. 
We need to have real examination of what is going on and make sure that 
the structure is in place that U.S. taxpayers' money is well used and 
not wasted.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Increase Contract Accountability For Iraqi Reconstruction Efforts

                                        Taxpayers for Common $ense


                                                       Action,

                                                 October 15, 2003.
       Dear Senator Harkin: Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, a 
     non-partisan budget watchdog group, strongly supports your 
     amendment to require the Comptroller General to conduct a 
     review of the effectiveness and efficiency of all contracts 
     in excess of $40,000,000 that are performed in Iraq and paid 
     out the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act.
       With a $20 billion pot of available funds, Congress must 
     ensure that federal taxpayer dollars are spent wisely on 
     Iraqi reconstruction efforts. Current oversight of Iraqi 
     reconstruction contracts has been virtually non-existent. We 
     need to reintroduce accountability and transparency into the 
     process to ensure that federal tax dollars are spent 
     judiciously. This is especially true in light of current 
     skyrocketing budget deficits.
       Your amendment is essential to ensure the American people 
     that the federal government is not improperly wasting Iraqi 
     reconstruction dollars.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jill Lancelot,
     President.
                                  ____

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate passed the 
Harkin-Clinton amendment.
  The Constitution gives the responsibility for appropriating taxpayer 
funds to the Congress. Thus, Congress has a responsibility to ensure 
that the taxpayers' money is well spent. However, the size and scope of 
the administration's $87 billion request makes it harder for Congress 
to exercise its oversight responsibilities.
  Our amendment ensures that Congress will have the information that it 
needs to track expenditures and monitor the use of taxpayer funds. It 
would require the Comptroller General to conduct studies on the 
effectiveness and efficiency of the administration and performance of 
contracts in excess of $40 million that are paid out of this bill or 
the previous supplemental. The studies would specifically examine the 
profits, administrative overhead, management fees, and related 
expenditures for the management of subcontracts, and further 
subcontracting, under any such contract. The Comptroller General would 
be required to submit a report to Congress within 6 months that 
includes this evaluation and any recommendations for improving the 
contracting process.
  Thus, we will know if companies are making reasonable profits or are 
simply exploiting the situation for huge profits. In almost every major 
war in our country's history, there have been instances of war 
profiteering where companies take advantage of the rush to get the job 
done to gouge the taxpayer. Usually, instances of war profiteering are 
discovered after the war is over and the damage has already been done. 
Here is an opportunity to be ahead of the curve and ensure that this 
abuse does not take place at all.
  With the huge sums being expended in Iraq, we need to ensure that 
there is a level of accountability. As my colleague Senator Johnson 
pointed out, there are literally plane loads of cash being flown into 
Iraq. According to a Wall Street Journal story from August, the United 
States has already sent a billion dollars in cash to Iraq. As the story 
says, ``the U.S. has improvised a money pipeline that runs from a New 
Jersey warehouse, to a Maryland air base, down Baghdad's Ambush Alley, 
and even, at times, underneath the black burkas of two middle-age 
female accountants--until it ends up in the pockets of ordinary 
Iraqis.'' The story details how the United States is currently flying 
planes full of cash to Baghdad, and that these banknotes are 
``seeping'' into the economy through cash payments to guards, 
pensioners, and other Iraqis.
  With an additional $87 billion being added to the mix, $20 billion of 
which will be spent on Iraq reconstruction, it is critical that we 
understand how these funds are being spent. Furthermore, we need to 
know how much of these taxpayer funds are actually going to rebuilding 
Iraq and how much is filling the coffers of U.S. contractors?
  I certainly hope that the General Accounting Office study called for 
in this amendment will reveal that contractors are not raking in 
outside profits or hiding profits in user and management fees. However, 
if we discover that there are abuses by contractors receiving taxpayer 
funds, it will be incumbent upon the Congress, which has the 
Constitutional authority to appropriate these funds, to take steps to 
prevent profiteering. This $87 billion appropriation is not the end of 
Congress's responsibilities to safeguard taxpayer funds, it is only the 
beginning.
  I thank my colleagues for supporting the Harkin-Clinton amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1872

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have an amendment I will be offering 
shortly. First, I am going to discuss it for a little bit to inform 
colleagues about it. The amendment I will offer expresses a sense of 
the Congress that the Attorney General should appoint a special counsel 
to conduct an independent investigation of the leak of a CIA agent's 
identity. The bottom line is this--and we have been through this on the 
floor, so I will not go over the basic facts, other than to say that, 
to me, this act--disclosing the name of an undercover agent--is 
dastardly. It places a gun to the head of that agent; it puts in grave 
danger operatives that agent may have had while he or she was 
undercover and, of course, perhaps most important of all, it says to 
every member of our intelligence community who puts themselves on the 
line, just as our soldiers do, if you go seek the truth, report the 
truth as you see it, and somebody upstairs doesn't like it, you are 
putting yourself or your spouse in real danger.
  To me, this is something that is not befitting of a great power, not 
befitting not only because of its immorality--and I believe it is 
immoral to do such a thing--but also for practical reasons, because 
when great powers, as history shows us, lose touch with what is 
actually happening and begin to delude themselves one way or another, 
they lose power.
  This country has had as its hallmark truth, open debate, and has had 
as its hallmark, if you disagree, speak out. That, by the way, has been 
one of the great things about our intelligence services, certainly 
since World War II. The CIA, the DIA, and many of the other 
intelligence services are known for reporting the truth. That is why 
they are somewhat insulated. That is why the CIA was separated and made 
its own agency. The day this country cannot gather the truth, at least 
as seen by the brave men and women representing us in the intelligence 
services, is the day we begin to decline. Yet that seems to be what has 
happened here.
  Ambassador Wilson went to Niger and reported the truth, as he saw it, 
on a mission he was asked to undertake, and somebody didn't like what 
he said. First, they tried to suppress it, and then when they couldn't 
because Ambassador Wilson had the courage to go

[[Page S12662]]

forward, it seems that somebody--it seems likely maliciously this was 
done but perhaps not; we don't know; we don't know all the facts--gave 
to Mr. Novak the name of his wife and identified her as an agent of the 
Central Intelligence Agency.
  That, in itself, is a crime. It doesn't matter what the motivation 
is. That is a serious crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison. So 
it is a very serious act.
  Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives--people from every 
corner of the country--are totally aghast that this happened.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I will after I finish my basic outline. I have great 
respect for my friend from Arizona and will yield for a question at the 
conclusion of what I have to say.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I may be a little while. He might want to take his seat. 
He is a strong man. He can stand if he likes. I just want to inform 
him.
  There was a view that we ought to get to the bottom of this 
situation. I think, again, that was universally held. Our President 
himself stated it. However, when we looked at the mechanism to get to 
the bottom of this, there didn't seem to be a very good one. You 
couldn't go to the inspector general of either the Justice Department 
or the Defense Department because they can't look at the White House. 
The independent counsel law had lapsed, and to allow the Justice 
Department itself to conduct the investigation seemed to many of us at 
the outset to pose, at the very least, an apparent conflict of interest 
that now seems to be a very real conflict of interest given the facts 
that have come out about the Attorney General's relationship with Karl 
Rove and some of the others who, it is bandied about with no backing in 
the sense there is proof, but there are signs, have said that he was 
involved. So many of us called for a special counsel. A special counsel 
is still allowed.
  Special counsel was the type of law that allowed Archibald Cox and 
Leon Jaworski to get to the bottom of Watergate. A special counsel does 
not run into the problem that the independent counsel did: that it can 
run amok and just look at everything under the Sun because it is still 
under the Attorney General's control ultimately. If that special 
counsel were to decide to, say, investigate something that went on in 
Indonesia unrelated or something related to the President's campaign 
finances, the Attorney General could snip it right off. That was the 
main objection to the independent counsel law.
  The advantage of the special counsel is very simple, particularly if 
someone of some stature and independence is appointed, such as some of 
our previous colleagues--Senator Danforth, Senator Rudman, Senator 
Mitchell, or Senator Nunn. Then there is an assurance of some 
independence and integrity and, at the same time, the day-to-day 
operations of the special counsel are not under the control of the 
Attorney General.
  The special counsel, if he or she were blocked by the Attorney 
General, would at the end of his or her investigation have to report to 
the Congress that ``I wish to interview so and so and the Attorney 
General said no.'' Or ``I wish to pursue this lead, and the Attorney 
General said no.''

  We all know the Brandeisian quote: Sunlight is the great disinfectant 
and, therefore, as long as this becomes public, there is almost a 
prophylactic effect. People will be unlikely or be far more reluctant 
to block an avenue of investigation or the interrogation of a certain 
witness.
  The investigation has proceeded, and it is very clear that all of the 
things we worry about--we worry about an apparent conflict of interest. 
That obviously exists. We worry about a conflict of interest that, too, 
still exists.
  By the way, because the Attorney General is a close political friend 
and associate of the President's, all the more reason that a special 
counsel was then and still is needed.
  There are two models for appointing Attorneys General in this sense 
anyway. One is to appoint a close friend, confidante, even relative. 
President Kennedy appointed his brother. That is reasonable to do, but 
you lose independence. The other is to appoint someone more 
independent, the Janet Reno model. But in this case, the President 
chose to appoint someone politically tied to him, someone with a close 
relationship, so no one even believes there is much independence there. 
We ask for this special counsel to avoid both apparent conflict and the 
real conflicts that exist.
  Those pleas, done certainly by me earnestly--I am just outraged by 
what happened, and I think we have to get to the bottom of it no matter 
where it leads. I called for this investigation on July 22, long before 
any names such as Rove or some of the others were bandied about because 
I felt so strongly that whoever did this should be punished. It is a 
despicable act. But as the investigation began to unfold, we saw there 
was an additional problem, and that is that the investigation was not 
being run very well; that by textbook prosecutorial rules and ways of 
operating, this investigation had a number of failures. In fact, our 
leader, Senator Daschle, and my colleagues Senators Biden and Levin, 
and I sent a letter to the President on October 9 that outlined some of 
these missteps. I thought I would read the parts of the letter that are 
relevant.
  I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                  Washington, DC, October 9, 2003.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We write to express our continuing 
     concerns regarding the manner in which your Administration is 
     conducting the investigation into the apparently criminal 
     leaking of a covert CIA operative's identity. You have 
     personally pledged the White House's full cooperation in this 
     investigation and you have stated your desire to see any 
     culprits identified and prosecuted, but the Administration's 
     actions are inconsistent with your words.
       Already, just fourteen days into this investigation, there 
     have been at least five serious missteps.
       First, although the Department of Justice commenced its 
     investigation on Friday, September 26, the Justice Department 
     did not ask the White House to order employees to preserve 
     all relevant evidence until Monday, September 29. Every 
     former prosecutor with whom we have spoken, has said the 
     first step in such an investigation would be to ensure all 
     potentially relevant evidence is preserved, yet the Justice 
     Department waited four days before making a formal request 
     for such documents.
       Second, when the Justice Department finally asked the White 
     House to order employees to preserve documents, White House 
     Counsel Alberto Gonzales asked for permission to delay 
     transmitting the order to preserve evidence until morning. 
     That request for delay was granted. Again, every former 
     prosecutor with whom we have spoken has said that such a 
     delay is a significant departure from standard practice.
       Third, instead of immediately seeking the preservation of 
     evidence at the two other Executive Branch departments from 
     which the leak might have originated, i.e., State and 
     Defense, such a request was not made until Thursday, October 
     1. Perhaps even more troubling, the request to State and 
     Defense Department employees to preserve evidence was 
     telegraphed in advance not only by the request to White House 
     employees earlier in the week, but also by the October 1st 
     Wall State Journal report that such a request was 
     ``forthcoming'' from the Justice Department. It is, of 
     course, extremely unusual to tip off potential witnesses in 
     this manner that a preservation request is forthcoming.
       Fourth, on October 7, White House spokesperson Scott 
     McClellan stated that he had personally determined three 
     White House officials, Karl Rove, Lewis Libby and Elliot 
     Abrams, had not disclosed classified information. According 
     to press reports, Mr. McClellan said, ``I've spoken with each 
     of them individually. They were not involved in leaking 
     classified information, nor did they condone it.'' Clearly, a 
     media spokesperson does not have the legal expertise to be 
     questioning possible suspects or evaluating or reaching 
     conclusions about the legality of their conduct. In addition, 
     by making the statement, the White House has now put the 
     Justice Department in the position of having to determine not 
     only what happened, but also whether to contradict the 
     publicly stated position of the White House.
       Fifth, and perhaps more importantly, the investigation 
     continues to be directly overseen by Attorney General 
     Ashcroft who has well-documented conflicts of interest in any 
     investigation of the White House. Mr. Ashcroft's personal 
     relationship and political alliance with you, his close 
     professional relationships with Karl Rove, and Mr. Gonzales, 
     and his seat on the National Security Council all tie him so 
     tightly to this White House that the results may not be 
     trusted by the American people. Even if the

[[Page S12663]]

     case is being handled in the first instance by professional 
     career prosecutors, the integrity of the inquiry may be 
     called into question if individuals with a vested interest in 
     protecting the White House are still involved in any matter 
     related to the investigation.
       We are at risk of seeing this investigation so compromised 
     that those responsible for this national security breach will 
     never be identified and prosecuted. Public confidence in the 
     integrity of this investigation would be substantially 
     bolstered by the appointment of a special counsel. The 
     criteria in the Justice Department regulations that created 
     the authority to appoint a Special Counsel have been met in 
     the current case. Namely, there is a criminal investigation 
     that presents a conflict of interest for the Justice 
     Department, and it would be in the public interest to appoint 
     an outside special counsel to assume responsibility for the 
     matter. In the meantime, we urge you to ask Attorney General 
     Ashcroft to recuse himself from this investigation and do 
     everything within your power to ensure the remainder of this 
     investigation is conducted in a way that engenders public 
     confidence.
           Sincerely,
     Tom Daschle.
     Joseph R. Biden.
     Carl Levin.
     Charles E. Schumer.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair. I am going to read these five steps 
that, again, fly in the face of good prosecutorial practice:

       First, although the Department of Justice commenced its 
     investigation on Friday, September 26, the Justice Department 
     did not ask the White House to order employees to preserve 
     all relevant evidence until Monday, September 29. . . .
       Second, when the Justice Department finally asked the White 
     House to order employees to preserve documents, White House 
     Counsel Alberto Gonzales asked for permission to delay 
     transmitting the order to preserve evidence until morning and 
     the request for delay was granted.

  In both these instances, every seasoned prosecutor knows that is not 
standard practice. You don't give those who might--underline 
``might''--want to destroy evidence an opportunity to do so. The first 
thing a good prosecutor does is gather as much evidence quickly and as 
broadly as possible.

       Third, instead of immediately seeking the preservation of 
     evidence at the two other Executive Branch departments from 
     which the leak might have originated, i.e., State and 
     Defense, such a request was not made until Thursday, October 
     1. Perhaps even more troubling, the request to the State and 
     Defense Department employees to preserve evidence was 
     telegraphed in advance not only by the request to White House 
     employees earlier in the week, but also by the October 1st 
     Wall Street Journal report that such a request was 
     ``forthcoming'' from the Justice Department.

  I have talked to prosecutors who flipped their lid at that one. You 
put in the newspaper that you are going to request evidence of 
potential suspects? Wow. Something is wrong. Is it done nefariously? I 
do not know. Perhaps not. But it does not matter. Certainly, the 
leaker, whoever he or she is, is under a cloud and worried about 
potential criminal prosecution. Whether this was done by accident or by 
design, it does not make a darn bit of difference. It fouls up the 
investigation to a fare-thee-well.
  Fourth, on October 7, going back from the letter, White House 
spokesman Scott McClellan stated that he had personally determined that 
three White House officials: Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, and Elliott 
Abrams, had not disclosed classified information. According to press 
reports, Mr. McClellan said he had spoken to each of them individually.
  What is going on? We have the White House press spokesperson on his 
own--or maybe with authorization. Did he get it from Justice? I doubt 
it, but I sure would like to know--goes and interviews the witnesses, 
or potential witnesses?
  He then came to a conclusion and told it to the Nation: They were not 
involved in leaking classified information, nor did they condone it.
  Again, this comes from prosecution 101. A media spokesperson does not 
have the legal expertise to be questioning possible suspects or 
evaluating or reaching conclusions about the legality of their conduct.
  In addition, by making this statement, the White House has now put 
the Justice Department in the position of having to determine not only 
what happened but whether to publicly contradict the White House 
spokesperson.
  Fifth, and maybe most importantly, the letter goes on to say that the 
investigation continues to be directly overseen by Attorney General 
Ashcroft, who has well documented conflicts of interest in any 
investigation of the White House.
  So we renewed our plea. Now, let me make two additional points that 
have not come out since we last spoke about this on the Senate floor. 
First, we do not know who is in charge. Who is running this 
investigation? Is it, as some newspaper reports have said, the head of 
the Counterterrorism Division within the FBI, a gentlemen named Mr. 
Dion? Is it the head of the FBI, Mr. Mueller? Is it the Attorney 
General? Is it the Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division 
or somebody else? Who is making the decisions? How the heck can there 
be a prosecution when we do not know who is in charge?
  Then, of course, we do not know if that person is reporting to 
Attorney General Ashcroft day to day. Is this person available? If the 
White House press spokesperson will do his own little investigation and 
tell everyone what happened, how about letting the public at least get 
an idea from who is doing the investigation not to talk publicly about 
the details but to let them know what is going on because, when one 
looks at the press reports, it is either Judge Gonzales or a Justice 
Department spokesperson or a member of the Justice Department who gets 
up and says this is what is happening. It is unheard of. This 
investigation already is so tainted.
  So many of us ask, if they are not going to go for a special counsel, 
which is what should happen, at least Attorney General Ashcroft 
should publicly recuse himself. He has not even done that. What kind of 
assurance does the public have that we are going to get to the bottom 
of this?

  Then the President says we may never get to the bottom of it. Well, 
maybe he is just stating what he thinks, maybe he is just stating what 
he hopes, or maybe he is sending a signal. I do not know which is 
which, but he should not have said that. One day he said he wants to 
get to the bottom of it, and we should, and that was great. The next 
day he says, well, we may never know.
  So this investigation is fraught with mistakes and errors, whether by 
design or by accident, that imperil its results, whatever they come to 
be.
  I have never quite seen anything like it. I was on the Judiciary 
Committee in the House of Representatives for 16 years and have now 
been in the Senate for 5 years. I am somewhat familiar with how our 
Federal justice agencies work. In all of my years, I have never seen 
what happened. We can be sure that if this had happened during the 
Clinton years, and these mistakes were being made, what we are saying 
and asking to be done would be mild, would be pablum, compared to what 
some of my colleagues on the other side would be asking for.
  One other point before I get to the substance: This morning's New 
York Times reported the following, and the headline is, ``Senior 
Federal Prosecutors and FBI Officials Fault Ashcroft Over Leaked 
Inquiry.'' I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Oct. 16, 2003]

  Senior Federal Prosecutors and F.B.I. Officials Fault Ashcroft Over 
                              Leak Inquiry

                 (By David Johnston and Eric Lichtblau)

       Washington, Oct. 15.--Several senior criminal prosecutors 
     at the Justice Department and top F.B.I. officials have 
     privately criticized Attorney General John Ashcroft for 
     failing to recuse himself or appoint a special prosecutor to 
     investigate the leak of a C.I.A. operative's identity.
       The criticism reflects the first sign of dissension in the 
     department and the F.B.I. as the inquiry nears a critical 
     phase. The attorney general must decide whether to convene a 
     grand jury, which could compel White House officials to 
     testify.
       The criminal justice officials, who spoke on the condition 
     that they not be identified, represent a cross section of 
     experienced criminal prosecutors and include political 
     supporters of Mr. Ashcroft at the department's headquarters 
     here and at United States attorneys' offices around the 
     country.
       The officials said they feared Mr. Ashcroft could be 
     damaged by continuing accusations that as an attorney general 
     with a long career in Republican partisan politics, he could 
     not credibly lead a criminal investigation that centered on 
     the aides to a Republican president.
       Democrats have criticized each step of the inquiry as 
     tainted by Mr. Ashcroft's relationship with the White House.

[[Page S12664]]

       The investigation is trying to determine who told the 
     syndicated columnist Robert Novak, as he wrote in July, that 
     Valerie Plame, the wife of a former ambassador, Joseph C. 
     Wilson IV, was a C.I.A. employee. Mr. Wilson was a critic of 
     the administration's Iraq policies.
       A senior Justice Department official acknowledged on 
     Tuesday that the question of whether Mr. Ashcroft should step 
     aside had stirred discussion in the department, but said that 
     the dissent was limited and did not reflect the overall 
     thinking of the career lawyers who are in daily control of 
     the leak case. The official said that the option of recusal 
     or referral to a special prosecutor remained ``wide open.''
       The official said that the question of whether Mr. Ashcroft 
     should step aside had been discussed among Mr. Ashcroft's 
     senior advisers, but that so far none of the career lawyers 
     on the case had recommended that the attorney general remove 
     himself.
       The official said Mr. Ashcroft had twice gathered his 
     investigative team to urge them to find out who had leaked 
     the identity of the C.I.A. operative and to prosecute that 
     person if possible. ``He's angry about this,'' the official 
     said.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       But Mr. Ashcroft and the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller 
     III, operate as major members of Mr. Bush's antiterror team, 
     a closeness that complicates a criminal inquiry at the White 
     House managed by Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Mueller.
       Several alternative approaches have been suggested both 
     inside and outside the Justice Department, the officials 
     said. In one approach, Mr. Ashcroft would recuse himself from 
     the case once James B. Comey, the federal prosecutor in 
     Manhattan, took over as deputy attorney general in either an 
     acting or permanent basis.
       Mr. Bush said earlier this month that he intended to 
     appoint Mr. Comey as deputy attorney general. Mr. Comey 
     brings established prosecutorial credentials to the job.
       If Mr. Comey took charge, it would avoid the time-consuming 
     prospect of appointing a special counsel who would then have 
     semi-independence to investigate the case, but would still be 
     answerable to the attorney general.
       Mr. Ashcroft is aware of the political sensitivity of the 
     case, and aides said he had worked hard to ensure an 
     aggressive investigation.
       After a news report indicated that the F.B.I. would move 
     cautiously because of the intense scrutiny, an angry Mr. 
     Ashcroft had an aide call the F.B.I. immediately to let 
     officials there know that that would not be the case, a 
     Justice Department adviser said. ``He wants to make certain 
     we're moving with all appropriate dispatch.''
       Mr. Ashcroft and Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House 
     counsel, have also been under fire for their initial handling 
     of the case. The Justice Department allowed the White House 
     to wait overnight on Sept. 28 before sending an electronic 
     message ordering White House employees not to destroy records 
     related to the leak.
       Ashley Snee, a spokesman for Mr. Gonzales, said he believed 
     the delay was acceptable because no one in the White House 
     had any idea there was an investigation. But The New York 
     Times and The Washington Post had reported the day before 
     that the C.I.A. had forwarded the matter to the Justice 
     Department for possible investigation.

  Mr. SCHUMER. So now we are finding that even people within the 
Justice Department mention in the article that political supporters of 
Mr. Ashcroft at the Department's headquarters and at the U.S. 
Attorney's Offices around the country object, take issue with the way 
this investigation has been conducted.
  Again, this was a serious crime.
  This is what former President George H. W. Bush says about the 
leaking of names of undercover CIA agents: I have nothing but contempt 
and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing our sources. They 
are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.
  Serious stuff, traitors, not in the words of some partisan Democrat 
but of our present President's father, our former President.
  Here we are running an investigation that makes one scratch one's 
head and wonder how serious, how competent, and how careful this 
investigation is.
  I quote a former CIA agent, Mr. Marcinkowski, from an October 7 
appearance on CNN, where he said:

       As an operations officer on scene in a country, the effects 
     of this--

  The leak--

     are that anyone who knows you or did know you will now look 
     at your mosaic. They will look at the people you've come in 
     contact with. They will suspect those people, be they 
     official contacts or innocent contacts. They will suspect 
     those persons of being intelligence agents. They could be 
     subject to interrogation, imprisonment and even death, 
     depending on the regime that you may be operating under.

  He goes on to say:

       There's also ramifications for CIA morale. I'm not naive 
     enough to say this is having a huge impact, but certainly, it 
     contributes to a decline in morale when you know that your 
     own government can identify you as a clandestine operator. 
     Certainly, there's going to be a reluctance on the part of 
     foreign nationals that may want to help the United States in 
     these trying times. They're going to be reluctant to serve 
     and help us with information, based on the fact that their 
     identification may be revealed by the government.

  So it is more obvious now than when we tried to ask for it several 
weeks ago that at the very minimum we need a special counsel and that 
Attorney General Ashcroft should recuse himself immediately. Yet we get 
continued mistakes and continued handling of this case as if someone 
does not know how to do it or someone does not care or someone is 
afraid to do it in a full-fledged sense.
  I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this is not 
going to go away. The best thing we could do, not only to serve our 
country, which is in a time of war and I have had sympathy for that, 
but to serve this administration, is to put this out of any question, 
appoint a special counsel of high repute and integrity, and let the 
investigation go forward on its own and see wherever it leads.
  That is why the amendment I will be introducing shortly is so 
important to all of us. I am not going to introduce it as of yet 
because I know several of my colleagues wish to speak.
  Mr. HARKIN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from Iowa for a 
question.
  Mr. HARKIN. First, I thank the Senator from New York for his very 
early and very eloquent statements on this issue, going clear back to 
July. It was the Senator from New York who first started alerting this 
body and the American people as to this disclosure by the Bush 
administration of an undercover CIA agent's name and the ramifications 
it had. So we owe the Senator from New York a great deal of gratitude 
for his leadership on this issue because it is a matter of very grave 
national security importance.
  I have been listening to the Senator from New York talk about the 
need for a special counsel and why it is so important for the Attorney 
General to recuse himself from this. But I ask this of the Senator from 
New York. It seems to me one of the ways we might really get to the 
bottom of this in a hurry would be if those who leaked the information 
to the journalists were to release the journalists from any obligation 
to hide the sources.
  I ask the Senator, would it not be possible for the President of the 
United States to call in all of his senior staff, have them sit down at 
a desk and sign a piece of paper releasing Mr. Novak and any other 
journalists from protection of his or her name as a possible source of 
the leak? Couldn't the President just have all of the senior White 
House people, senior administration people sign such a thing? Then 
wouldn't that release the duty or obligation of the journalists to 
protect their sources? And wouldn't that get to the bottom of it in a 
hurry? I ask the Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague from Iowa for his question, which 
is an interesting question, as well as his dogged pursuit in regard to 
the truth in this matter. I know this is one of many times he has come 
to the floor.
  The bottom line is this gets us into the realm of journalists' rights 
and the shield law and other things. I think if the President would ask 
all of those in his office to release journalists from any strictures, 
any compunction about letting it be known--if they believed it 
appropriate--who leaked to them, that would be a very good idea.
  I hasten to add that the journalists themselves might not do it. They 
have not done it in previous times. We probably would still need this 
investigation. But it certainly--and my colleague from Iowa is right 
and I wouldn't want to compel them and I know he wouldn't either, but 
it certainly would, again, call into good light the desire, professed 
desire, of those in the White House, including the President himself, 
to get to the bottom of this because obviously it could, and it could 
quickly, provided the journalists who were so released would be willing 
to come forward.
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator from New York, it seems to me if the

[[Page S12665]]

President really wants to get to the bottom of this--and I don't really 
know that he does want to get to the bottom of this--I say to the 
Senator from New York, it seems odd the President has been so 
nonchalant about it, actually joking about it with foreign reporters.
  Let's say, if I were a senior administration official working for the 
President, and the President called me in and said: ``Tom, I want you 
to sign this thing; it just says, `I, Tom Harkin, hereby release any 
and all journalists from any obligation they may have to me to protect 
my name as any possible source of a leak of this information regarding 
Valerie Plame,''' and he'd ask me to sign it, it seems to me if I had 
nothing to hide, I would sign it. If I had something to hide, I might 
not want to sign it. Then the President would know.

  You are obviously right, you don't want to force anyone, but 
obviously they work for the President.
  I ask the Senator from New York, doesn't it strike you as odd that 
the President, who has spoken so forcefully about leaks and national 
security, has been so nonchalant about this? Doesn't it strike the 
Senator as odd?
  Mr. SCHUMER. It does. I thank my colleague. It does strike me as 
strange. I agree with you. The times there has been joking or bantering 
about this, it bothered me very much.
  Another thing that bothers me, along the same line as to what he has 
asked: This President, in my judgment, to his credit, has made it a 
point that we have to do everything we can to defend our soldiers on 
the front lines. Whatever one's opinion of the war in Iraq, whatever 
one's opinion of our actions in Afghanistan and Kosovo and everywhere 
else--Korea, where we have soldiers--this President has made it a 
hallmark of defending those troops and doing everything to defend those 
troops. In fact, we are here in the Chamber defending, of the $87 
billion, the vast majority, I guess--over $60 billion--to help defend 
them in Iraq, something that most of us, myself included, support.
  Yet when it comes to defending an agent who was on the front lines 
and has been betrayed by, in the words of President George H. W. Bush, 
a traitor, we get nonchalance, a joke here and there, ``What's the 
bother? What's the fuss?'' Excuses--``This wasn't an agent, it was an 
analyst.'' Or, ``This wasn't done by malice''--the effect still being 
the same. That is serious.
  I would say one other thing to my colleague. The President could also 
demand that the culprit turn himself or herself in. I haven't heard 
that yet. Would you think that would be the case if someone had 
betrayed some of our soldiers in the field in Iraq?
  There is sort of a strange dichotomy that my colleague from Iowa is 
absolutely right to point out. That is, for this betrayal of a soldier, 
if you will, who has been on our front lines, there is a nonchalance, 
an attitude: Well, who cares too much about this?
  Do you know what it makes the average American think? It makes them 
think maybe there is something there, because if the President were 
certain that it might not go to one of his close associates, or the 
President were certain in his belief we had to get to the bottom of 
this, I don't think we would see the kinds of actions we have seen from 
the White House and even from the prosecution, because the prosecution 
itself, as I said, is not being handled well. Again, maybe not by 
design, but just by the structure that the President--the buck stops at 
his office--has allowed to persist, the structure being investigation.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for his response.
  I have one last inquiry I would like to make and have the Senator 
address. A lot has been focused on the individual, Valerie Plame--whom 
I never met, of course. But a lot has been focused on her as sort of an 
isolated incident, just one person, and that is it.
  It has occurred to this Senator, as the Senator from New York has so 
plainly stated, there are more than just the uniformed soldiers in Iraq 
fighting the war on terrorism. It is all of our undercover agents, our 
CIA, our information-gathering apparatus around the world to give us 
forewarning of what is going to happen, to get access to that vital 
information that we need in this fight against global terrorism.
  Can the Senator address himself to the kind of chilling effect such a 
disclosure might have on operatives of ours in the CIA, around the 
globe today, who may be out there? They are getting their sources of 
information. But what if they think at some point in the future they 
could be outed, their name could be spread out there? What about, not 
only them personally, but what about all their contacts? Now their 
contacts are thinking: My gosh, if they are outed, I am outed and my 
life is at risk.
  Could the Senator address himself to the broader kind of effects this 
might have on our fight on global terrorism?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague from Iowa for his good question.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have been very patient. It is not a 
question. It is a request to make a statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is correct. The 
Senator may only yield time for the purpose of a question.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would be happy to yield for a rephrased question.
  Mr. HARKIN. Does the Senator believe that such a disclosure could 
have a chilling effect on operatives of ours in the field today and who 
in the future may be out there risking their very lives gathering 
information that we need on the war on terrorism? Does the Senator 
believe this could have a chilling effect?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would like to answer my colleague. I do indeed. Don't 
take my word for it. A few minutes before my colleague came to the 
Chamber, I quoted former agent Mr. Marcinkowski who said that on CNN. 
It has been reported by the media all over the place that those who 
have served in intelligence say exactly that--that perhaps the greatest 
danger that has occurred here may not have been to the individual 
agent, may not have even been to the group of contacts that agent had 
when undercover but, rather, to the morale of the intelligence agency 
and, as importantly, to the effectiveness because agents know they can 
be ``outed'' because they or someone they are close to says someone 
high up may not like it and it could well have a chilling effect.
  My reports are that the CIA from top to bottom is just furious that 
this happened for the very reason of my friend's question, and the 
answer to that which I was just giving.
  The only way to alleviate it--the only way to restore that 
credibility--is to get to the bottom of this in a full and thorough 
investigation.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for one last question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. HARKIN. The question is, Has the investigation been tainted so 
far? One instance which comes to this Senator's mind is when the 
Department of Justice announced an official investigation but they 
waited for days to notify the White House. I ask the Senator: Is this 
not an indication that the investigation has already been tainted by 
the Justice Department?
  Mr. SCHUMER. In answer to my colleague's question, I believe this 
certainly calls into question the effectiveness of this investigation, 
perhaps the desire to get to the bottom of it, how strong that is and 
how full that is. In a letter, which I, along with Senator Daschle, 
Senator Levin, and Senator Biden, sent to the President, we raised that 
very question. We have not yet received an answer.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague.
  I know my friend from Alaska is eager to draw this to something of a 
close and still allow us to have a vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will yield to answer my question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. For the purpose of a question.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator's amendment, if offered, is subject to a 
point of order. Haven't we been working on something now for 45 minutes 
which is not germane to this bill?
  Mr. SCHUMER. In answer to my colleague--and let me say I thought 
there was a gentlemen's agreement between leaders Frist, Daschle, the 
bill managers, yourself, and our colleague from West Virginia that if 
the minority agreed to help complete work on this important bill by 
Friday the majority would not raise points of order against our 
amendments. In fact, as I understand it, a number of amendments have

[[Page S12666]]

been allowed to be voted on where points of order might stand.
  Also, if I might just continue the point----
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. In 1 minute. I want to finish the answer to the 
question. It was indeed a question and not an invitation for a 
statement. I understand that.
  But if this agreement was designed to address the fact that the House 
hasn't completed its work yet on the supplemental, it makes it 
impossible for Senators to defend the germaneness of our amendments 
without the text of a House bill to which to refer. We don't know what 
is in the House bill, nor if the House bill has a provision in there 
which might make this germane. That is why we came to that agreement.
  Again, I wish to underscore the fact that my colleague from Alaska 
has honored the agreement and allowed votes on a number of amendments 
which clearly would be not germane. I think our side has honored the 
agreement as well, and we have tried to proceed without undue delay 
with our own amendments. Yet now we are arguing that this amendment 
might not be germane.
  First, I disagree. It is utterly germane to the debate we are now 
involved in about supporting our troops overseas. As I mentioned, 
Valerie Plame was just as much a soldier in the war on terrorism. She 
was an expert on weapons of mass destruction, which is the casus belli 
of where we are. It is vital we get to the bottom of it.
  I think this amendment is quite germane--more germane, in fact, than 
others. The supplemental includes $600 million to fund further weapons 
inspections. If we are going to spend $600 million, we have to know 
there is an honest assessment of whatever they may find or not find 
without fear of retaliation.
  I understand that my colleague from Alaska has the right to object to 
this under germaneness. But I also understand--and I ask the question 
of him: Hasn't there been an agreement to allow nongermane amendments, 
and hasn't my colleague, in keeping that agreement, allowed nongermane 
amendments to be called up for a vote on the floor?
  I yield to him for an answer.
  Mr. STEVENS. I wonder if the Senator realizes he has just yielded the 
floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Just for a question.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator asked me a question. But I will not argue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from New York 
will be allowed to yield to the Senator from Alaska for the purpose of 
asking a question.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. STEVENS. A gentlemen's agreement was entered into that we would 
not raise a point of order under rule XVI for germane amendments. But 
for those that are not germane, we made no such agreement. This is not 
germane to this bill. Therefore, I hope the Senator will not offer it. 
As a matter of fact, I hope he will take into account another answer 
which I will give to him about the question of germaneness. This matter 
is now in the counterintelligence section of the Department of Justice. 
That section has decades of experience and has really enormous 
experience in working on matters of this type.

  It is my judgment, and I ask the Senator this question: Does he 
realize that this sense-of-the-Senate resolution has a connotation of 
lack of confidence--no confidence--in the work of the 
counterintelligence section, a group that has very distinguished career 
people, and that the legislative liaison for the CIA has indicated to 
me through my staff that they are following the standard procedures of 
a series of administrations in handling this matter, and both the CIA 
and the counterintelligence section believe there is no need for a 
special counsel at this time? Does the Senator realize that this is not 
something which is sought by those professionals experienced in the 
area?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for his question. He underscores my 
point. I understand what he is saying. But we have no knowledge if the 
Counterintelligence Division is solely in charge of this investigation. 
They have to report to the Attorney General, or to the head of the FBI, 
or to somebody else at every move they make. Have they been 
countermanded in where they want to go? We know none of that. In fact, 
the very statement my friend from Alaska related about his staff 
inquiry is the most information that has been publicly given about how 
this investigation is being conducted.
  The problem we are trying to get at here and the reason a special 
counsel is so needed is very simple; that is, we don't know who is in 
charge. My colleague from Alaska said, staff to staff, they say it is 
counterintelligence.
  May I yield to him for the purpose of a question only and then 
reclaim the floor? I ask my colleague for that permission.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator from New 
York yielding to the Senator from Alaska for the purpose of answering a 
question?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the President. I thank my colleague from Alaska.
  Does my good colleague know if Mr. Dion, head of the 
Counterintelligence Division--I have nothing bad to say about him--is 
required to report to anybody about whom he subpoenas, whom he 
questions, what kind of facts he is allowed to pursue, or can he do 
this completely on his own?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, from my experience with this section--and 
I do not get involved with this section too often--it is a 
counterintelligence section of the Department of Justice. They have 
their own system of investigation. It has a very broad agenda in terms 
of portfolio. They have the scope of the whole intelligence network to 
work with.

  I share the Senator's umbrage about the leak. The question is, how to 
handle that leak. It is in the hands of the people who are trained and 
who have in the past discovered such leaks. Who will it be reported to? 
I am sure the criminal division of the Department of Justice, if and 
when they find who is responsible for the leak, because it is a 
violation of the criminal statute.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for his answer. I simply say that 
in an area such as this, which is so unusual, this is not just the 
typical leak. The counterintelligence division handles scores of leak 
cases every year. My good colleague from Alaska is correct. However, 
none, as far as I am aware, have involved the revealing of the name of 
an agent. It is a much more serious situation. It is a crime in itself.
  The bottom line is very simple: This is so important that we cannot 
leave to conjecture that the counterintelligence division generally 
does a good job so we will assume they are doing a good job here. I 
appreciate my colleague being on the floor when I spoke, but there have 
been a number of missteps along the way not caused by the 
counterintelligence division but by others. This is too important to 
leave to supposition. That is why we are seeking a special counsel. We 
cannot just say they generally do a good job, we assume they will do a 
good job on this. This is a crime, a matter of great importance. I 
would like to go further than that. That is the purpose of this 
amendment which I hope my colleague will allow us to offer and vote on, 
given the agreement.
  I am happy to yield for another question.
  Mr. STEVENS. On what basis does the Senator say this is a unique 
case? In my experience, I have known several leaks and several 
individuals who were apprehended for leaks, some prosecuted, some not. 
Is it the Senator's impression this is a case of first impression?
  Mr. SCHUMER. It is my impression, in answer to my colleague's 
question, this is a question of rare impression. The number of times 
the name of an agent has been publicly published in the newspaper and 
leaked by somebody not on the other side but rather by somebody who is 
``a high administration official,'' I cannot think of a one. I know 
some spies leak names. Aldridge Ames leaked names and was punished for 
it, but I don't know of a single instance where someone within the 
administration leaked the name of an agent.
  If it is not a first impression, it is a very rare impression, quite 
different than most of the leaks we have had. That is my answer to my 
colleague's

[[Page S12667]]

question. I don't think this is usual or typical. I pray to God it is 
not.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending 
amendments and consider the amendment which I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself, Mr. 
     Daschle, Mr. Reid, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Leahy, 
     Mr. Levin, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Durbin, 
     Mr. Baucus, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Biden, 
     Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
     Wyden, Mr. Graham of Florida, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. 
     Feinstein, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Edwards, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1872.

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

 (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress concerning the appointment 
   of a special counsel to conduct a fair, thorough, and independent 
             investigation into a national security breach)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. XX. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF A 
                   SPECIAL COUNSEL TO CONDUCT A FAIR, THOROUGH, 
                   AND INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO A NATIONAL 
                   SECURITY BREACH.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the national security of the United States is dependent 
     on our intelligence operatives being able to operate 
     undercover and without fear of having their identities 
     disclosed;
       (2) recent reports have indicated that administration or 
     White House officials may have deliberately leaked the 
     identity of a covert CIA agent to the media;
       (3) the unauthorized disclosure of a covert intelligence 
     agent's identity is a Federal felony; and
       (4) the Attorney General has the power to appoint a special 
     counsel of integrity and stature who may conduct an 
     investigation into the leak without the appearance of any 
     conflict of interest.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Attorney General of the United States should appoint a 
     special counsel of the highest integrity and stature to 
     conduct a fair, independent, and thorough investigation of 
     the leak and ensure that all individuals found to be 
     responsible for this heinous deed are punished to the fullest 
     extent permitted by law.

  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator for yielding the floor. Now, I am 
sorry to say, I make a point of order under rule XVI that this 
legislation on an appropriations bill is not germane.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield for a minute?
  Mr. STEVENS. I don't know if that is debatable or not. I do not want 
to lose the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is not debatable. The 
Senator has raised a point of order under rule XVI. The amendment does 
not appear to be germane and the point of order is sustained. The 
amendment falls.
  Mr. STEVENS. If I still have the floor, I say to the Senator from New 
York, I have background being a U.S. attorney and being deeply involved 
in intelligence matters now for 35 years. I share his umbrage at the 
whole process. I will do everything I can to get to the bottom of this 
matter, but I do not think this is the time for a special counsel. 
There may come a time it will be required.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. REID. You talk legal background, but you did not go to a very 
good law school, did you?
  Mr. STEVENS. No.


                           Amendment No. 1873

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I have an amendment which is on the list which has been 
announced, and I would like to send this amendment to the desk. I ask 
unanimous consent it be put in the appropriate place of the queue of 
amendments to be considered later on this day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be sent to the 
desk, be set aside, and be scheduled at an appropriate time as agreed 
to on both sides. I would like the remaining 5 minutes before the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. My parliamentary inquiry is, may I raise rule XVI at 
this point?
  HIV/AIDS is not germane to this bill, either.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has not yet been reported.
  Mr. STEVENS. I do not object to receiving the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself and Mr. 
     Leahy, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1873.

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

 (Purpose: To provide funds for the prevention, treatment, and control 
                     of, and research on HIV/AIDS)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. XX. (a) Global HIV/AIDS Funding.--For necessary 
     expenses to carry out the provisions of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 for the prevention, treatment, and 
     control of, and research on HIV/AIDS, in addition to funds 
     appropriated under the heading ''Global AIDS Initiative'' in 
     the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Act, 2004, $879,700,000 to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the funds appropriated by this 
     section shall be made available in accordance with the amount 
     authorized in accordance with sections 202(d)(1) and 202 
     (d)(4)of Public Law 108-25.
       (b) Offset.--The total amount appropriated under title II 
     under the heading ``OTHER BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE--
     FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT--Iraq Relief and 
     Reconstruction Fund'' (other than the amount appropriated for 
     Iraqi border enforcement and enhanced security communications 
     and the amount appropriated for the establishment of an Iraqi 
     national security force and Iraqi Defense Corps) shall be 
     reduced by $879,700,000.
       (c) Notification.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall consult with, and 
     provide a written report to, the appropriate committees of 
     Congress, concerning the amount by which each sector, 
     program, and activity is reduced pursuant to subsection (b).
       (2) Committee procedures.--The report submitted under 
     paragraph (1) shall be subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President it is my understanding this is an 
amendment pertaining to HIV/AIDS, and I support all activities 
concerning that, but it is not germane to this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska raises a point of 
order under rule XVI.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, may I address the point of order?
  Mr. STEVENS. A point of order is not debatable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will entertain debate on the motion.
  Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding this $87 billion emergency 
appropriations requested by the administration includes foreign aid 
that is going to the nation of Iraq as well as Afghanistan. What I am 
suggesting is this item, some $800 million, in the nature of foreign 
aid be sent to fight the global AIDS epidemic. It would seem it is 
germane to the same issue before the Senate in the pending supplemental 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. That would be earmarking this money for a matter that is 
not germane for this bill. It is true that money could be used for that 
purpose, but I do not believe amendments are in order to start 
earmarking this money for items that are not germane to the bill.
  I am raising that it is legislation on the appropriations bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Could the Chair address the question of the defense of 
germaneness if we are not entertaining a bill first passed by the 
House.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Restate the question.
  Mr. DURBIN. Could the Chair inform me as to the defense of 
germaneness and whether it applies in this situation

[[Page S12668]]

where we are not dealing with a bill already passed by the House and a 
question as to whether our amendment is germane to that House-passed 
bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The defense of germaneness does not apply when 
the Senate is considering a Senate bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. Is the Chair prepared to rule on the germaneness question 
raised by the Senator from Alaska?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair's understanding is the Senator from 
Alaska has challenged the amendment on the grounds that it is 
legislating on appropriations.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am sorry, I thought--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  Mr. DURBIN. Is that debatable?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, the ruling is not debatable.
  The point of order is sustained. The Chair rules the amendment 
constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill. The amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 1818

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 4 
minutes of debate equally divided on each side on the Byrd amendment.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senators 
Byrd, Kennedy, Leahy, Boxer, Harkin, Jeffords, and Kerry.
  The administration needs to change its course in Iraq. If the United 
States is ever to work successfully with the international community to 
obtain the contributions of troops and money that are needed to share 
the heavy burden of postwar Iraq, the White House must take real steps 
to share power with the United Nations.
  The Byrd-Kennedy-Leahy amendment would push the administration to do 
more to share power in Iraq. It would also require the President to 
submit reports to Congress about the participation of other countries 
in Iraq, as well as a plan for supporting American troops by bringing 
them home.
  The amendment gives the President $10.1 billion in reconstruction 
funds immediately but requires another vote by Congress before the 
other $10.2 billion in reconstruction funds can be spent.
  It is imperative that Congress review the situation in 6 months to 
determine whether the President's efforts at the U.N. have paid off in 
more foreign contributions to the future of Iraq. Congress should also 
evaluate the President's plan for how to get the U.N. in, and the U.S. 
out of, Iraq. A vote in 6 months' time on whether to release the 
additional $10.2 billion in reconstruction funding would give Congress 
the opportunity to make a midcourse correction if our occupation of 
Iraq is still going poorly.
  The Byrd-Kennedy-Leahy amendment is a simple amendment to help 
Congress watch the people's money and to support our troops by getting 
the international help they need.
  Mr. President, I urge the Senators to support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, 6 months ago, President Bush took the 
country to war with Iraq, without the support of key allies other than 
Britain, without the support of the international community at large. 
We didn't need international support to win the war. We all knew that 
our brave fighting men and women would defeat Saddam Hussein's forces 
easily. But we did--and we do--need the international community to help 
us win the peace--a painfully obvious truth that this administration 
has steadfastly refused to accept.
  As long as Iraqis see us as occupiers rather than liberators, our 
troops will remain at increased risk and our efforts to rebuild Iraq's 
economy and political system will be suspect. The process of 
reconstructing Iraq and creating a new Iraqi government must be an 
international process--not an American process. Only then will it gain 
full legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people and the world.
  The Bush administration's brazen go-it-alone policy has placed the 
burden and the bill for rebuilding Iraq almost solely on the shoulders 
of the American people. They don't deserve it, and they don't want it. 
We need an immediate change of course.
  For months I have been urging the administration to bring the United 
Nations and the international community into the process of rebuilding 
Iraq's economy and political system. The United Nations must be given a 
clearly defined, central role in the reconstruction of Iraq and in the 
process of establishing a new Iraqi government. U.N. Secretary General 
Kofi Annan has been very clear: he will not send U.N. personnel back to 
Iraq--and risk their lives--without improvements in the security 
situation and an unambiguous U.N. role with clear lines of authority. 
In my view, the best way to achieve this is to transfer the authority 
over reconstruction and governance to the United Nations. The United 
Nations is not perfect but it has far more experience and capacity in 
these areas than the Pentagon and the Coalition Provisional Authority. 
Finally, the Iraqi people must be assured that political power and 
responsibility for reconstruction will be transferred to them quickly.
  The administration's resolution, which the Security Council passed 
today, is long overdue. It will provide a modicum of international 
legitimacy which is essential to our success in Iraq. And it does 
require that the Iraqi Governing Council lay out by December 15 of this 
year a timetable and program for the drafting of a constitution and 
national elections. But this resolution does not fundamentally change 
the lines of authority and responsibility for the reconstruction and 
governance of Iraq. It is really more show than substance. The 
resolution will not gain meaningful international support for our 
efforts in Iraq. After months of dismissing and ridiculing the 
international community, the Bush administration will not gain tangible 
support for our efforts in Iraq--that is, boots on the ground and money 
in the coffers at this month's donor conference--as a result of this 
resolution.

  In simply terms, the Security Council resolution adopted today is not 
the triumph of diplomacy, but rather the beginning of a much-needed 
process to bring real international support to our effort.
  We in the Congress have a responsibility to push the administration 
to advance the diplomatic effort and not rest content with a fig leaf 
resolution that hides what remains an American occupation in Iraq. The 
amendment that Senator Byrd is offering, which I am pleased to 
cosponsor, seeks to do just that. It requires the President to certify 
that the U.N. resolution provides tangible international contributions, 
including substantial troop and financial contributions from other 
countries. In addition, it requires the administration to certify that 
reconstruction activities are being implemented in accordance with a 
new detailed plan to be submitted to the Congress no later than March 1 
of next year.
  This is a good amendment. It sends a clear message to the 
administration: You need a real, detailed plan for reconstruction Iraq 
and you need to do the hard work of diplomacy to internationalize the 
military and civilian sides of the operation to reduce the risks to our 
soldiers on the ground and take some of the financial burden off the 
American taxpayer.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the amendment is an amendment that will 
require Congress to enact another appropriations for the balance of the 
reconstruction money. It will cap the reconstruction funds at $5 
billion. It puts another road block in the way of the reconstruction 
efforts.
  I referred earlier to yesterday's editorial in the Washington Post, 
which said:

       Paying to improve life for Iraqis will help create a safer 
     environment for U.S. troops and will hasten the day they can 
     leave. Rebuilding the electricity grid, fixing the water 
     supply, getting the oil flowing, maintaining public safety--
     all this is central to hopes for stability and representative 
     government.

  I think the loss of momentum that will come from requiring another 
bill to be enacted before we get more money for reconstruction will 
destroy the whole concept of the plan that Ambassador Bremer is working 
on.
  I call to the attention of the Senate, I also put in a letter I 
received by fax from Ambassador Bremer just today reaffirming his plea 
to us to pass this bill as soon as possible.

[[Page S12669]]

  I do not think it is in the best interests of our troops. I do not 
think it is in the best interests of the Iraqi people. It certainly is 
not in the best interests of the person in charge of the whole effort, 
Ambassador Bremer, for the Byrd amendment to be approved.
  For that reason, I move to table the Byrd amendment and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
1818. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 385 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

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

                                NAYS--42

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Lieberman
      
  The motion was agreed to.
  