[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 145 (Thursday, October 16, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12671-S12673]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S12671]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Senate

            EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS--Continued


                           Amendment No. 1868

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 4 
minutes equally divided on the motion to table the Lautenberg 
amendment.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I offer this amendment to correct the situation that 
came about as a result of Vice President Cheney's statement on ``Meet 
the Press'' a couple of weeks ago. I wish to quickly respond to some 
things that were said about my amendment and the Vice President's links 
to Halliburton.
  First, Halliburton absolutely had a no-bid contract with the Army 
Corps for oil-related services in Iraq, and it has billed American 
taxpayers $1.4 billion so far. No other company was given the 
opportunity to bid. That contract occasioned a unanimous vote, led by 
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, that we would not allow 
that kind of contract to appear again. It is stated on the record by 
Senator Warner from Virginia.
  Halliburton has other contracts that were bid, but the massive oil 
services contract was not.
  Second, I appreciated the reading of the Vice President's comments on 
``Meet the Press'' because even CRS agreed that deferred compensation 
and stock options held by the Vice President are, in fact, financial 
interests in Halliburton.
  Third, the other member of the President's Cabinet who came into 
service after serving as CEO, John Snow, took his deferred compensation 
in a lump sum and got rid of his stock options immediately. That is the 
right thing to do when you are at the top of the executive branch with 
the direct ability to affect billions of dollars in contracts.
  I urge my colleagues to attach some ethical guidelines to the Iraq 
reconstruction funds. I urge my colleagues to think it through and send 
a picture out to the American public that says: No, no one is on the 
inside enough that they can influence what happened and profit from a 
position that takes us through the reconstruction of Iraq after the 
war.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who speaks in 
opposition?
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, in 2 minutes it is hard 
to respond the way the Vice President deserves to be defended. I tell 
every Member this: I am preparing a memo on the statement on ``Meet the 
Press'' with the Vice President, his relationship with Halliburton, his 
financial disclosure form, what he did in 1998, what he did in 2000, 
and what he did in 2002.
  Vote however you like. I am going to join sides with most of my 
Democratic friends in a minute and oppose the Vice President and the 
President on something very important to them. This amendment is 
political slander. This amendment has as its basis untruth and is 
factually incorrect. In 1998, the Vice President chose a deferred 
compensation package that was irrevocable. He couldn't change his mind. 
He insured that package with a private insurance policy because the 
Office of Government Ethics told him that is what everybody does, and 
he was exempt from going to the Office of Government Ethics.
  I will ask unanimous consent to introduce the Vice President's 
financial disclosure form. He went above and beyond the call of duty. 
He has no financial interest in Halliburton. You are trying to accuse 
him of being a liar. Your facts are wrong. This is manipulation. This 
is politics at its worse. Please, look at what you are doing before you 
vote here. The Vice President doesn't deserve this, and I am going to 
send you a memo with what I believe to be the true facts, and we are 
going to get to the bottom of this.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Ethics 
Committee, I take seriously any action which raises questions about the 
integrity of the Federal Government. I believe firmly that the Federal 
contracting process in Iraq and elsewhere should be transparent and 
accountable to ensure Federal tax dollars are spent appropriately. Like 
many of my constituents, I question the circumstances under which 
Halliburton was awarded a contract in Iraq in a process that did not 
include soliciting competitive bids from other companies. I believe all 
aspects of that transaction should be carefully examined and open to 
public inspection.
  While I sympathize with the proponents of the Lautenberg amendment, I 
do not believe a punitive, absolute statutory prohibition is the 
correct approach under the circumstances. Instead, I support efforts to 
ensure Federal contracts in Iraq are awarded through a process that is 
subject to rigorous Congressional oversight and that applies strict 
penalties for any unethical or illegal conduct that is uncovered. 
Additionally, I believe contracts should be awarded through full and 
fair competition.
  As a U.S. Senator, I am ethically bound to conduct my official duties 
in a manner that avoids even the appearance of impropriety. I fully 
intend to honor that commitment to my country and my constituents. I 
also intend to hold the Bush administration to the same standard.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this is a very curious amendment. It tries 
to take a stealth approach to the matter, but in fact, its real purpose 
is pretty obvious. I don't think anyone will be fooled by it because we 
all know who it is directed against.
  Back in my home State of Wyoming, a lot of people who know Dick 
Cheney will be surprised to see the Senate using its valuable time in 
what some might see as a witch hunt against the

[[Page S12672]]

President and Vice President. It's a curious time for such an 
activity--even if Halloween is rapidly approaching.
  Now, I'm not standing here to defend the Vice President because he is 
from Wyoming. I'm not even defending him because he's a fisherman 
either--though to accept this amendment at face value you have to 
swallow hook, line and sinker some pretty misleading information.
  In fact, I can tell you, because I've fished with him, that although 
fishermen sometimes have an unjust and unfair reputation for telling 
stories, the only thing fishy about this whole affair is the text of 
this amendment.
  First of all, the amendment should be withdrawn because the vice 
President has gone out of his way to explain his ties to his old 
company and what they mean to him financially. No matter what happens 
in the months to come, nothing will benefit him personally. Still, we 
have some Members who aren't quite satisfied.
  Right now a couple of us Senators have blind trusts. It's an 
interesting thing that this amendment takes such a strong stand against 
a Vice President who took the same ethical approach to this issue that 
I did.
  This whole situation points out the need for a national energy 
policy. Halliburton has come under attack because there were 
fluctuations in oil and gas prices that forced some mega mergers to 
occur to keep the energy companies competitive. As a result, there were 
only a few companies that could provide the service that was needed on 
such short notice. Still, that isn't a good enough explanation for 
some.
  Even if we ignore that piece of the puzzle, however, the important 
thing to note is the Vice President's decision to donate to charity the 
after-tax proceeds he would receive from the exercise of his 
Hallliburton stock options. In other words, even if his options were to 
increase in value as a result of anything that happened during this 
time, he still wouldn't receive anything from it.
  Who would? you might ask.
  According to the Vice President's signed agreement from January 28, 
2001, there are three charities named. They are the Capital Partners 
for Education, the George Washington University Medical Facility 
Associates and the University of Wyoming.
  I believe it is clear that there is no basis for the allegations or 
concerns that led to the production of this amendment and it clearly 
should be withdrawn. It goes against the grain of fairness, it can only 
be defended by misrepresenting the facts on the Vice President's 
financial interests, and it can't be seen as anything but an unfair 
commentary on the Vice President's and the President's commitment to 
ethics.
  No serious-minded individual who belongs to any political party, 
really believes this amendment is necessary or needed. It must be 
withdrawn and an apology extended to both the Vice President and the 
President for its promotion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, has all time expired on this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic time has expired. There are 30 
seconds remaining to the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. REID. I advise everyone, this next vote is a 10-minute vote. The 
prior vote was a 15-minute vote and went about 27, 28 minutes. I hope 
we can have the 10-minute vote in maybe 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's point is well taken.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, do I have 30 seconds?
  If you wonder what he did with the stock options, he assigned them 
all to charities. Look at the facts before you vote because the facts 
do not sustain these allegations. The allegations are off base. I 
promise you, I will send you a memo. Please look before you vote. I 
move to table.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table has already been made. The 
yeas and nays have already been ordered. This is a 10-minute vote, 
under the previous order.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
1868. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 386 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

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

                                NAYS--34

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Lieberman
      
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been carefully listening to this 
debate for weeks, and I have tried to keep an open mind to the 
opposition's arguments--insofar as those arguments have been 
substantive.
  I have been dismayed by the deliberate manipulation of statements and 
arguments that have been made by members of the other party, such as:
  Denunciations of the President over the fact that weapons of mass 
destruction have not been discovered to date, despite the fact that 
reports issued as late as last week indicate the fact that reports 
issued as late as last week indicate that Saddam had clandestine plans 
and activities for systems proscribed by the international community 
under international law. False assertions that the President claimed an 
imminent threat on the eve of this decision to remove Saddam Hussein 
from power, when in fact the President stated in his State of the 
Union:

       Some have said we must not act until the threat is 
     imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced 
     their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they 
     strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly 
     emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would 
     come to late.

  Some of this rhetoric, we must, regrettably, accept as the level of 
debate that now occurs. But nothing offends me more than suggestions 
that members of this administration, particularly my dear friend, the 
Vice President, have venal motivations attached to the policy decisions 
they support.
  Dick Cheney is an older friend of mine. He has sacrificed for his 
country most of his life. He does so today. When the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee responds to the amendment by the Senator from 
New Jersey by calling it a slur, I have to agree. Dick Cheney has not 
benefitted from this war, and I find it a profound calumniation that 
anyone would imply that.
  I ask my colleagues that we return to a dignified level of debate, 
where we try to advance, improve on the grave issues of war and peace 
before us.
  I beg my colleagues that we desist from the politics of imputing 
venality on those who are serving the public trust.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will send up an amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield without losing his 
right to the floor? For the information of Senators, Senator Inouye is 
here. He is waiting. He has to make a statement. And Senator McConnell 
has the floor now for his amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the 
McConnell amendment, the Senator from Hawaii have 20 minutes.

[[Page S12673]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from 
Connecticut and I wanted to enter into a very short colloquy about an 
unrelated matter. Therefore, if it would be all right with the 
chairman, I ask to amend the consent to allow for a brief colloquy 
between Senator Dodd and myself on an entirely different matter.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection. Just, when Senator McConnell yields 
the floor, that Senator Inouye get the floor. I did commit we would set 
aside some time for him to make a statement. He has not made a 
statement on the bill yet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1874

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments will 
be set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1874.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SHORT TITLE.

       SEC.   . (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) That on October 7, 2001, the Armed Forces of the United 
     States and its coalition allies launched military operations 
     in Afghanistan, designated as Operation Enduring Freedom, 
     that quickly caused the collapse of the Taliban regime, the 
     elimination of Afghanistan's terrorist infrastructure and the 
     capture of significant and numerous members of Al Qaeda;
       (2) That on March 19, 2003, the Armed Forces of the United 
     States and its coalition allies launched military operations, 
     designated as Operation Iraqi Freedom, that quickly caused 
     the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, the elimination of 
     Iraq's terrorist infrastructure, the end of Iraq's illicit 
     and illegal programs to acquire weapons of mass destruction, 
     and the capture of significant international terrorists.
       (3) That success in those two campaigns in the Global War 
     on Terrorism would not have been possible without the 
     dedication, courage, and service of the members of the United 
     States Armed Forces and their coalition partners;
       (4) That throughout the proud military history of our 
     nation, we have recognized our brave men and women of the 
     Armed Forces by awarding them service medals for personal 
     bravery and other leadership actions and for their service in 
     military operations abroad and for support operations at home 
     and abroad;
       (5) That historically the President has relied on senior 
     military officers to recommend the personal and theater 
     campaign medals and that, in keeping with these longstanding 
     traditions, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant 
     commanders, including General Tommy Franks, U.S. Army, former 
     Commander of the United States Central Command, recommended 
     the awards described below in recognition of the worldwide 
     nature of the current conflict;
       (6) That following the advice of his senior military and 
     civilian defense leaders, President Bush, by Executive Order 
     13289 on March 12, 2003, established the Global War on 
     Terrorism Expeditionary Medal to be awarded to service 
     members who serve in military operations to combat terrorism 
     on or after September 11, 2001, including, but not limited to 
     actions in Operations Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom, in such locations as Afghanistan, Iraq, the Republic 
     of the Philippines, and elsewhere in Southwest Asia, in 
     recognition of the sacrifice and contributions military 
     members make in the global war on terrorism;
       (7) That eligibility for the Global War on Terrorism 
     Expeditionary Medal is predicated on deployment abroad for 30 
     days or more in support of Global War on Terrorism operations 
     on or after September 11, 2001;
       (8) That by the same Executive Order, the President 
     established the Global War on Terrorism Service Medical 
     recognizing duty in Operation Noble Eagle and the homeland 
     defense mission against further terrorist attacks, and which 
     recognizes duty in support of military operations performed 
     in areas that do not qualify for the Global War on Terrorism 
     Expeditionary Medal; and
       (9) That implementing regulations for eligibility have not 
     been issued by the Secretary of Defense.
       (b) Sense of the Senate on the Award of Campaign Medal.--It 
     is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense 
     should, on an expedited basis, issue the necessary 
     regulations to implement these awards and ensure that any 
     person who renders qualifying service with the Armed Forces 
     in those phases of the Global War on Terrorism including 
     Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and 
     Operation Noble Eagle should promptly receive these awards.

                          ____________________