[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17954-17961]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10:30 
having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2658, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2658) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and 
     for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator 
from Michigan for his thorough and thoughtful statement involving many 
of the questions that need to be asked and need to be answered. His 
recommendation to the Senate and to our country that there be a 
thorough investigation, a bipartisan investigation, where these 
questions can be answered and the information provided, in my view, is 
essential.
  We have become more and more confused over the course of the last 
several days with regard to the conflicting information provided by the 
administration on these and other key questions. We must find a way 
with which each of these questions can be clarified and for the 
administration to come forth with a clear acknowledgement of the need 
for this clarification is essential.
  The American people deserve a thorough, complete, open review of each 
and every one of these questions. The Intelligence Committee has begun 
its work, and I commend the distinguished ranking member for his 
efforts and his persistence in bringing it to this point. I think this 
has now gone beyond the matter of just intelligence, as the Senator 
from Michigan has pointed out with questions and the concerns he raised 
in his speech this morning.
  We will address these questions both legislatively and rhetorically 
over the course of the next several days. But I have very fundamental 
questions with regard to the bill itself. Others have raised them.
  Why is it that there is not one dime requested for the Iraqi 
operation in the Defense appropriations bill? Why is it that there is 
not one dime requested for the Defense Department's efforts in the war 
on terror? Not one dime. I am just baffled. It is sort of legislative 
never-never land for us to be involved in a war that we are already 
told by the Secretary of Defense--at least with regard to Iraq and 
Afghanistan--is costing this country $5 billion a month, and there is 
not $1 requested in this bill for that operation.
  How in the world can we be on the Senate floor talking about 
something as consequential as this--not only to us but to the world--
and not have a better appreciation of what the costs and implications 
and fiscal consequences are? So that, too, will be a matter that I hope 
will be the subject of great debate in the Senate Chamber.
  We admire the work done by our military. We are grateful for the 
extraordinary effort and sacrifice made by the Armed Forces. Many of 
our National Guard and Reserve personnel have been in that country now 
for over 6 months. The sacrifice and the extraordinary effort they have 
made on behalf of their country ought to be commended. But another 
question comes to mind as we consider that sacrifice: Why are we doing 
it alone? And why is it the administration continues to refuse to 
request additional resources, officially, from NATO? Why is it they are 
unwilling to ask the United Nations to urge its members to provide 
military force and civilian police? Why is that not a part of the 
administration position?
  We find ourselves in a very unusual set of circumstances. We are 
debating the single largest Defense appropriations bill in history but 
a bill that does not in any way reflect the cost of our presence and 
the effort being made at this very moment in Iraq or in Afghanistan or 
the war on terror.
  We know it is going to continue to cost this country billions of 
dollars each and every month, but we do not know why the administration 
refuses to ask others officially for help, especially NATO, and we 
certainly do not know the answers to the questions raised by the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan just moments ago.
  We must have those answers, and I hope during the course of this 
debate we can find mechanisms and subscribe to procedures that will 
ensure that the American people have all the facts.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do not mean to be disrespectful and 
interrupt the distinguished leader, but I wonder if the Democratic 
leader knows that I am responsible for not having more money for Iraq 
in this bill. We met with the President and the Secretary of Defense 
and pointed out the enormous amount of money we had provided in the 
supplemental passed earlier this year for that action in Iraq. We had 
to have money to meet some of the problems caused by my interpretation 
of the budget resolution in not having enough money for some of the 
other subcommittees.
  We worked out the arrangement whereby we took $3.1 billion out of 
this bill and allocated it to other subcommittees with the 
understanding that if additional moneys are needed in Iraq because of 
our actions there, beyond what we have already provided, that we will 
have a supplemental in the spring.
  We anticipate the moneys we provided in the massive supplemental, 
$62.6 billion, is sufficient to carry them forward. As a matter of 
fact, there are not only sufficient funds, but in this bill we actually 
rescinded about $3 billion of the supplemental to make it available to 
other areas of defense, not having it totally earmarked to Iraq.
  We are trying to manage this money. The distinguished Democratic 
leader is exactly right. The costs are running somewhere around $4 
billion to $5 billion a month. We expect that to start tapering down as 
this involvement in Iraq continues. It is certainly not the same as 
when we were building up forces and transmitting personnel and material 
to Iraq. We have tried to manage this situation and keep a firm hand on 
the expenditures in Iraq. In doing so, we made more money available to 
other subcommittees because they have problems related to homeland 
security and other matters.
  While I am honest in the fact that I do not think we have enough 
money yet for some of those subcommittees, I do think we have more 
money available for nondefense matters, for homeland security matters, 
than we would have had had we continued with the approach that was in 
the budget to start.
  I congratulate the Democratic leader for stating frankly his feelings 
about the overall involvement in terms of our being in Iraq almost 
alone. We do have support from other nations, but we do not have the 
involvement of other troops to the extent I, too, would like to see 
take place. I hope that will occur. But I hope the leader will 
understand, one of the reasons the money is not there now, in terms of 
asking for more money for Iraq, is that I pleaded with the President 
and the Secretary to give us a little running room on those other bills 
and to realize that we thought there was adequate money to carry us 
through this calendar year--that means at least the first quarter of 
this next fiscal year--for the involvement in Iraq.

[[Page 17955]]

  It is my hope that by the time we get to January and February, we 
will find the amount of money we are spending in Iraq is much less than 
it is right now, and that we can, in fact, shift gears a little bit as 
far as that involvement.
  Iraqis should have, I am told, somewhere around $7 billion of income 
from oil by the end of this year. If that cashflow starts going into 
their economy and into their own local security rather than into the 
military budgets, as it was in the past, I think we will achieve the 
constraints we need in terms of the expenditures of Federal U.S. 
dollars in Iraq. I hope the Senator understands that point.
  I just happened to be here at the time the Senator made his 
statement. I do, as a matter of fact, take pride in the fact the 
President and his people did listen to us. Chairman Young and I 
explained the problems of this budget resolution and its impact on the 
other subcommittees which, as the Democratic leader knows, the budget 
resolution was less than the President had requested in this year's 
appropriations process.
  I hope we will await the developments in Iraq and we can all see 
whether the administration will ask for more money in 2004, starting 
some time after the first of next year, if that is necessary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I may respond, as the Senator from 
Alaska knows, I am a big admirer of the distinguished Senator from 
Alaska, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. There are no two 
more able Members of this Senate than the Senator from Alaska and the 
Senator from Hawaii, his ranking member.
  I appreciate, first, the chairman's explanation, and I also 
appreciate the fact that he could foresee the budgetary and 
appropriations problems that could have been generated as a result of 
the allocation made initially by the administration. We are able to 
address some of the other concerns in other subcommittees on 
appropriations in part because he saw the problems arise and took 
action to avoid them.
  I guess I go back to a fundamental question of management, not by him 
but of the administration, a fundamental question about what it is they 
anticipate will be the costs involving fighting the war in Iraq--not 
for this year but for the next fiscal year that this particular 
appropriations bill addresses.
  It will take $60 billion to address those concerns in the next fiscal 
year. We appropriated in the supplemental $68 billion in this fiscal 
year. Obviously, that will take us into the first part of the next 
fiscal year. The question from us to the administration ought to be: 
Why have you not made a specific proposal with regard to the commitment 
that will be required in Iraq for the next fiscal year? If it is $60 
billion, request it. If it is $60 billion, defend it. If it is $60 
billion, give us some appreciation of how it will be spent and why we 
are the only ones spending it. Why is it that other countries are not 
more engaged? Why have you not asked? Those are the questions that any 
appropriations bill ought to address.
  I supported the supplemental and most likely, whenever another one is 
requested, if it comes, I will support it. But it is not good fiscal 
management to take these matters piecemeal, to expect through a 
supplemental process--which, I might add, is not offset, which simply 
adds to the deficit. We now see a deficit of some $450 billion. If we 
take Social Security out, it is $600 billion, and we are still not at 
the end of this fiscal year.
  We have serious management and budget considerations that have to be 
taken into account but are only exacerbated by these supplemental 
budgets that are offered, considered, and voted upon throughout the 
year.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 1232

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will make a statement while I am trying 
to locate the amendment I am going to offer. The 2004 budget request 
included no funding for the establishment of additional weapons of mass 
destruction civil support teams. There are currently 32 teams that are 
certified and operational. The plan is to field a total of 55 teams to 
ensure there is at least 1 team established in each State and 
territory.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee included additional manpower and 
funding to establish 12 additional teams in fiscal year 2004. We 
included additional National Guard manpower for these teams, but we did 
not provide operation and maintenance or procurement funding.
  I will send an amendment to the desk and ask that we consider it. 
This amendment conforms our bill to that of the Senate-passed national 
defense authorization bill regarding what we call CSTSs of the funds 
provided to the Department of Defense. This amendment would earmark 
$39.3 million in operation and maintenance funds, $25.9 million in 
procurement, and $1 million in research and development funds. I 
present the amendment as one that is offset and merely allocates funds 
to these teams as required by the Senate-passed authorization bill. I 
believe it has the support of my colleague Senator Inouye.
  Mr. INOUYE. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself and Mr. 
     Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 1232.

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

     (Purpose: To provide funds for 12 additional Weapons of Mass 
                    Destruction Civil Support Teams)

       On page 120, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Amounts appropriated by this Act may be used for 
     the establishment and support of 12 additional Weapons of 
     Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams, as follows:
       (1) Of the amount appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', up to 
     $23,300,000.
       (2) Of the amount appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard'', 
     up to $16,000,000.
       (3) Of the amount appropriated by title III under the 
     heading ``Other Procurement, Army'', up to $25,900,000.
       (4) Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'', up to $1,000,000.

  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the immediate consideration and adoption of 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1232) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator wish some time?
  I say to the Chair, in about 20 minutes we will have a package of 
amendments we have cleared and we are prepared to offer under unanimous 
consent.
  I ask unanimous consent that we have a period for routine morning 
business until the hour of 11:15 with Senators being permitted to speak 
therein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have Senators who want to speak on the 
bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am misinformed. I withdraw that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee for his forbearance. I thank my colleague, 
Senator Reid, for making this arrangement for me to speak out today on 
the 2004 Defense appropriations bill as a member of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee.
  As I begin my remarks today, I am cognizant that a funeral service is

[[Page 17956]]

about to begin in Minnesota. It is the funeral of the first Minnesota 
soldier to die in Iraq this year, PFC Edward J. Herrgott of Shakopee, 
MN. Private Herrgott was only 20 years old. He said he joined the Army 
so he could earn some money to go to school and become a police 
officer. He was patrolling in front of the Baghdad Museum on September 
3 when a sniper's bullet ended his life.
  Private Herrgott is an American hero. He stood guard in 115-degree 
heat, in the most dangerous city in the world, because his commanding 
officer assigned him that duty. He went to Iraq because his Commander 
in Chief, the President of the United States, assigned him that duty.
  It took extraordinary courage and patriotism for him to perform that 
duty, to stand guard in that sweltering heat in the midst of that ever-
present danger. Private Herrgott lost his life performing his duty. He 
lost his life 63 days after his Commander in Chief declared that major 
hostilities were over in Iraq. They did not end on May 1 for Private 
Herrgott, nor for the 77 other American soldiers who have died in Iraq 
since then, nor for the hundreds more who have been wounded, nor for 
the 145,000 other American soldiers who still risk their lives in Iraq 
every day and every night and wonder when will they come home.
  Congress also bears responsibility for sending Private Herrgott and 
those 145,000 other brave men and women to Iraq. Last October, Congress 
voted to give their constitutional responsibility to declare war over 
to President Bush. Congress gave the President what he wanted, what he 
insisted then he must have, a blank check, a blank check signed in 
advance, authorizing the President to use whatever means necessary, 
including the use of force in Iraq, whenever, and with whomever, for 
however long, at whatever cost, until the President decides to end that 
war. Congress gave the President all of that authority and all of that 
responsibility. I did not vote for it, but a majority did, and now we 
must pay for that war.
  Last week in the Senate Armed Services Committee, we were told by the 
Secretary of Defense that the war in Iraq is costing $3.9 billion per 
month and that the continuing military operations in Afghanistan are 
costing $900 million per month. That is a combined $4.8 billion a 
month, totaling $57.6 billion over 12 months. That is $57.6 billion 
which I thought was going to be in this 2004 Defense Appropriations 
bill, and the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, who has been engaged in these matters for far more years 
than I have been around, has clarified the circumstances why that money 
is not in there now.
  But I point out that the estimate of over $1 billion a week is 
probably way too low. According to this week's Newsweek magazine:

       That billion a week is just the beginning. It doesn't 
     include the cost of running Iraq's government and rebuilding 
     it, which could be an additional billion a month--according 
     to pre-war United Nations estimates.

  Nor does it include presumably, as this article details, the $1.2 
billion which Ambassador Bremer's budget says must be spent up front in 
capital improvements if Iraq's oil production is to get under way 
again. Nor does it include the $680 million given to the Bechtel 
Corporation for infrastructure improvements; nor, I suspect, the $3 
billion to $5 billion that it is estimated is necessary to make 
emergency repairs to Iraq's electrical power system.
  So why is it that we cannot get from the administration a clear, 
direct, and reliable accounting about the cost of this war? I am 
guessing it has something to do with today's report that the Federal 
budget for fiscal year 2003 is expected to run a $450 billion deficit, 
and the next year's deficit may be as high as $500 billion, without 
even including all of the costs of the war efforts.
  Those are staggering deficits. This year's deficit will be over 50 
percent greater than the largest annual deficit in U.S. history, and it 
results from the most colossal financial mismanagement that has ever 
been witnessed in this country's history, the worst ever.
  Just 2 years and 2 months ago, President Bush submitted his 
administration's first budget for fiscal year 2002 and the years 
beyond. It was a proud document dated April 9, 2001. The President 
stated:

       This budget offers a new vision of governing for our 
     Nation.

  His budget projected a $5.6 trillion surplus for the 10 fiscal years 
from 2002 through 2011. It promised to save the entire Social Security 
surplus of $2.6 trillion; to spend every penny, it said, of Medicare 
tax and premium collections on Medicare; to achieve historic levels of 
debt reduction, $2 trillion over 10 years; to provide $1.6 trillion in 
tax relief; and set aside a $1.4 trillion reserve for additional needs, 
debt service, and contingencies.
  As we all know, there have been big contingencies since then, but not 
enough to justify the total destruction of all of those promises, not 
enough to warrant the abandonment of a fiscally responsible Federal 
budget, which was bequeathed to this administration by the 
administration which preceded it.
  For fiscal year 2003, the fiscal year we are in presently, just 2 
years and 2 months ago President Bush predicted a $262 billion surplus 
in the combined Federal budget for that year. The on-budget operating 
fund surplus was expected to be $49 billion; the off-budget Social 
Security surplus, $193 billion.
  The Social Security surplus now is expected to be slightly less than 
was predicted then, but still $160 billion. But combined, the Federal 
budget deficit of $450 billion means the operating fund, the main 
operating account of the Federal Government, this year will run a 
deficit of over $600 billion. A $49 billion surplus was expected 2 
years and 2 months ago and a $610 billion deficit is expected today.
  The non-Social Security revenue for this year, in personal and 
corporate income taxes, capital gains tax, estate tax, and the excise 
tax was projected to exceed expenditures in fiscal year 2002, as they 
did in the year 2000 under President Bill Clinton--for the first time 
in 40 years. But now in actuality, those progressive taxes, which have 
constituted almost the entire tax base of the operating accounts of the 
Federal Government for all these years, those revenues generated will 
only amount to two-thirds of expenditures. The two tax bills of 2001 
and 2003 have decimated the progressive tax base of the Federal 
Government. And 2004 is expected to be no better. If anything, it is 
projected to get even worse. The change from expectations to now the 
projection of a $500 billion deficit means a change of over $750 
billion in projections.
  Saving the Social Security surplus--that is gone. Every year--this 
year, next year, every year in the foreseeable future--it is going to 
be wiped out to nothing.
  Reducing the national debt by $2 trillion? That is gone. In fact, 
according to the President's own Office of Management and Budget, if we 
adopt his budgets as he has proposed them, we will increase the 
national debt by $2 trillion over the next 10 years.
  Setting up a reserve fund? Forget that, too.
  Lowering the growth in discretionary spending to 4 percent a year? 
Not yet. The President's request for the last 3 years has increased 
that by 9 percent, 10 percent, and 11 percent, and that does not 
include these so-called supplemental appropriations, which is maybe one 
of the reasons that is the preferred approach--come back in, in the 
middle of the year, and ask for the increased money everybody knows is 
going to be needed to fund the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  It is very frustrating, I find, to not be able to get clear, reliable 
facts from this administration. They act as though this is their 
government, that we in Congress do not even exist, or that we are an 
unnecessary and unwanted intrusion into their affairs. So much for a 
new vision of government. So much for a new tone of bipartisanship. It 
has become worse, not better. Instead of facing up to these realities, 
the administration is trying to hide them.
  When I returned from Minnesota last night, I was given a book, by a 
colleague, Senator Bennett of Utah:

[[Page 17957]]

``Reagan, Man Of Principle,'' by John Harmer, a former State senator in 
California. I just glanced through the beginning pages of it.
  I was struck by this anecdote from the senator. He had been involved 
as the majority leader there, trying to work out the redistricting bill 
for 1971. California was going to set the lines for the legislative 
districts for the State for the next 10 years. They finally, after all 
this thrashing back and forth and cutting deals and making 
arrangements, got agreement. Governor Reagan--President-to-be--vetoed 
that bill.
  So in frustration, the State senator came to President Reagan. He 
said, reading now directly:

       ``What exactly do you want?'' I asked, in total 
     frustration.
       His response was so purely honorable that I dared not 
     repeat it to my senatorial colleagues, knowing that they 
     would hoot me out of the room. Yet, though I did not fully 
     appreciate it at the time, the response was just one of many 
     examples of Reagan's strength as a political leader. Reagan, 
     like Thomas Jefferson, had a fundamental faith in the 
     American people and their ability to make the right decisions 
     if only they had all the facts. Not just the Republicans 
     among the people, but of all the people, once they had all of 
     the facts. . . .

  I am skipping ahead here, but Governor Reagan said to State Senator 
Harmer:

       ``I am really disappointed . . . that individual 
     Republicans are so willing to sell out the best interests of 
     the people in order to save themselves. That is not what I 
     regard as worthy of my signature.''
       ``John,'' he said, ``I'm as dedicated to the Republican 
     cause as you are. Our party's core philosophy represents the 
     best assurance for the continued freedom and prosperity of 
     the nation. But I am not the governor of just the 
     Republicans. There are millions of people out there who, 
     whether they voted for me or not, expect me to represent them 
     with good judgement and integrity. The issue is not one of 
     protecting what you call the Republican base. The issue is to 
     do that which is right in principle.''

  That could apply to the Democratic majorities in other States. There 
is no monopoly, I have learned here, in truth or wisdom or virtue. But 
that principle, ``to do what is right,'' and that principle, ``to 
present all the facts forthrightly to the American people,'' are 
principles that are certainly needed even more in Washington today, and 
that stands in marked contrast to what we experience in Washington 
today.
  We are not being trusted with the facts: Not about the budget, not 
about the timetables for troop deployments and bringing the troops back 
home, and not about the circumstances that led up to this war in Iraq. 
We have a right to those facts here in the Congress. More important, 
the American people have a right to those facts. We have a right to 
know how much this war is costing and how we are going to pay for it. 
We have a right to know how long our troops are going to be over there 
in Iraq. We have a right to know how we got into that war in Iraq and 
how what we were told over the last months squares with the truth as it 
was known at the time.
  What were the facts that led President Bush to say before the Nation, 
in a televised speech last October 7, that Saddam Hussein could have a 
nuclear weapon in less than a year when we now know there was no such 
program in evidence there? Or that Iraq is exploring using unmanned 
aerial vehicles for missions, targeting the United States, when in fact 
it was known back then and certainly is known today that those 
missiles, which were not even used against our invading forces, thank 
God, had a range of only a few hundred miles and were no threat to the 
United States?
  What facts led Vice President Cheney to say last August 26 that there 
is no doubt Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction, there 
is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, our 
allies, and against us? What caused National Security Adviser 
Condoleezza Rice to say last September that Iraq had provided chemical 
weapons training to al-Qaida members? What prompted Secretary of 
Defense Rumsfeld to say last fall that the United States must act 
quickly to save potentially tens of thousands of citizens? What led the 
President to say that Saddam Hussein could strike the United States 
first and inflict massive and sudden horror?
  These are the questions I have. These are some of the facts that need 
to become known, as the distinguished ranking member of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee said just before me on the floor. We need a 
bipartisan investigation into all these circumstances, into what was 
known by the intelligence community, what was reported to members of 
the administration.
  What was reported in top secret briefings to members of the Armed 
Services Committee which I was invited to attend, 20 or more such 
briefings over the course of last fall and early into this year?
  What was being told to the administration that was at variance with 
that information? What caused the administration to speak so 
emphatically, with certainty, about acts which it seems were not so 
factual and which were not even presented as absolute facts in the 
briefings which I attended at the time? We have a right to those 
answers. Thus far it has been very difficult to get the agreement from 
colleagues on the other side to undertake these investigations or 
inquiries, whatever euphemism we use.
  The Senate Intelligence Committee evidently, and hopefully, has 
agreed to undertake such an inquiry. We have not been able to obtain 
that consent in the Senate Armed Services Committee. In fact, we are 
being told such a bipartisan investigation is not going to be 
forthcoming.
  What recourse does that leave? How do we get to the truth when those 
in possession of the facts and the information will not provide them? 
How can we get to the truth when we cannot conduct a bipartisan inquiry 
or intelligence into obtaining that truth? What does it say about those 
who would not provide that information or that opportunity to seek the 
truth? What do they have to hide? What are they afraid we might find 
out? Why is it we cannot know the circumstances that caused the 
Commander in Chief to send 150,000 U.S. troops to Iraq, including PFC 
Edward Herrott being buried in Minnesota this morning, to whom I pay my 
greatest respects.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I remember reading a book I enjoyed very 
much by James Michener called ``Caravans,'' an excellent history of 
Afghanistan. Of all the books he wrote, the only one I enjoyed more 
than that was ``Hawaii.'' When I read ``Caravans,'' I knew very little 
about Afghanistan. After I finished the book, I knew a lot more about 
Afghanistan and the constant struggles of the Afghan people.
  America first focused on Afghanistan during the Cold War. The Soviets 
came in and brutally tried to take over that country. As we know now, 
American forces supplied arms to the Afghan people, who courageously 
drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Many scholars believe that defeat 
marked the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union. After almost 80 
years, the impoverished country of Afghanistan was the reason for the 
fall of one of the greatest powers in the history of the world.
  I will return to the subject of Afghanistan in a moment, but first I 
want to comment on what some of my colleagues have said this morning 
about the situation in Iraq. I supported the resolution that authorized 
the use of force in that country, and my vote was based on more than 
the evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Still, 
the controversy that has arisen concerning these weaspons has hurt 
America in the international community. All the turmoil going on now, 
the accusations of coverups, the exaggerations and half truths, which 
persuaded some of my colleagues to vote for the resolution--it has 
damaged our country's credibility. It could take a long time to repair 
that damage.
  The ongoing fight against terrorism has challenged our military as 
never before. But I think all my colleagues would agree that our men 
and women in uniform have risen to the task and performed heroically.
  As pointed out by the distinguished senior Senator from Minnesota, 
Mr.

[[Page 17958]]

Dayton, American soldiers are still dying in Iraq. Another was killed 
just yesterday.
  I was impressed with the statement of the Senator from Minnesota 
because he mentioned not only a fallen soldier, but also the other 
casualities of war; that is, people who have lost limbs, people who are 
paralyzed, people who are disfigured as a result of incendiary devices, 
people who are scarred permanently--and I'm referring also to the 
psychological scars that will be with these men and women for the rest 
of their lives.
  All of our troops have performed heroically. It is our constitutional 
responsibility to ensure that our military gets the resources it needs 
to remain the strongest in the world. The bill we are considering today 
does that. It was not an easy task, and it is a tribute, as I have said 
already, to the two managers of the bill, the senior Senator from 
Alaska and the senior Senator from Hawaii, and of course their fine 
staffs. But, interestingly enough, as the Democratic leader mentioned 
today, this bill does not fund continuing operations in Afghanistan or 
Iraq. I have great admiration for the two managers of this bill, as I 
said on the floor yesterday. These two Senators are role models for me. 
These Senators have distinguished careers and represent their States as 
well as they can be represented. They both understand Defense issues 
from personal experience.
  They both served their country in war. The Senator from Hawaii earned 
the highest honor that our country can confer upon an American military 
hero--the Congressional Medal of Honor. We sometimes take this great 
man for granted, but I try never to do that.
  I can remember traveling with the distinguished Senator from Alaska 
to Czechoslovakia when the Iron Curtain was still down. I can remember 
in Prague, Czechoslovakia, encountering a man in a World War II flight 
jacket. It led to a conversation with the Senator from Alaska because 
that is the kind of jacket he wore.
  I have the greatest respect for these two fine men. But I think this 
bill should have money in it to fund military operations for the next 
fiscal year in Afghanistan and Iraq. I say, as one of the 
appropriators, that I think it was genius how the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee has allowed the appropriations bills to go 
forward this year. I think we are going to finish all of the 
appropriations bills in a reasonable period of time. It was genius how 
the Senator from Alaska found the money. It was enough to set what we 
call 302(b) allocations. Those are allocations for the 13 
subcommittees. But for his ability to take some money from defense and 
put it into domestic programs, we could not have gotten that done. I 
acknowledge from a legislative standpoint how important it was to do 
that.
  But I think we should fund these bills prospectively as we do with 
everything else.
  I heard an exchange between the Senator from Alaska and the 
Democratic leader about the decision being made by the President and 
the Republican leaders on enough money to take the military in 
Afghanistan and Iraq probably up to the first of the year. But we can't 
fund appropriations bills based upon one-quarter of a fiscal year. We 
have to fund them for a full year.
  The reason this is done, of course, is that we have a supplemental 
appropriations bill for emergency expenditures. They don't count 
against the budget rules we have around here. As a result of that, they 
add to the deficit. I wish that were not how we had to do things this 
year. But I accept that it has been done. Unless there is some magic 
that occurs, or something that I don't see which is untoward, I will 
support the supplemental appropriations bill. We have to support the 
military.
  But I have to say this is not the way to do things around here. I 
continue to believe that any operation that puts our young men and 
women at risk should be funded through the regular appropriations 
process which allows people an opportunity to weigh in on our 
priorities, policy judgments, and efforts.
  Last week, I came to the Senate floor and urged my colleagues to 
support our neighbor, Mexico. I acknowledge and appreciate the Members 
of the Senate having supported that amendment. Today, as we consider 
our military priorities for the coming year, I want to speak today 
about what I fear has become another forgotten commitment, the 
reconstruction of Afghanistan.
  Keep in mind, Mr. President, that we walked away from the people of 
Afghanistan once before. We supplied them with weapons. After the 
Soviets took tail and ran, the United States followed suit. We no 
longer were interested in Afghanistan after we won that battle of the 
Cold War. The chaos that ensued after we left led to the rise of the 
Taliban, one of the most brutal, repressive tyrannies in the history of 
the world. Remember. We walked away once before. We cannot allow 
history to repeat itself.
  When U.S.-led forces defeated the Taliban more than 19 months ago, 
President Bush promised a ``Marshall Plan for Afghanistan,'' and he 
assured us that our Nation would help Afghanistan become a stable, 
self-governing state free from the clutches of terrorism. I welcome 
that commitment from the President. The people of Afghanistan deserve 
that.
  In the months immediately after the war, Afghanistan appeared to be 
making progress. A council of Afghans elected Hamid Karzai, a very 
courageous man, to lead an interim government. But we haven't done much 
to help this courageous man. As hope returned to Afghanistan for the 
first time in many years, the administration redirected its focus 
toward Iraq. Afghanistan virtually fell off the radar screen. Now, the 
Afghan people are paying the price. In short, all is not well in 
Afghanistan.
  What are the current conditions? The security situation is 
particularly threatening. I was in a meeting this morning. I asked my 
Senate friends to guess how many troops are in Afghanistan today. The 
answer surprises people. I got different estimates--40,000, 20,000. We 
have 9,000 troops in Afghanistan. Where are they? They are in Kabul. 
The rest of the country is a jungle.
  Outside Kabul, there is no security unless you are on the good side 
of one of the warlords. Aid workers don't feel safe. They don't travel 
through the country anymore. Many of the organizations have pulled out. 
In some of the provinces of Afghanistan--particularly in the southeast 
region--there is anarchy. Where there isn't anarchy, warlords are in 
control. These warlords seek only to enrich and empower themselves 
instead of helping President Karzai to address the urgent needs of the 
people. They fight among themselves and hoard Afghanistan's precious 
resources. Afghanistan does enjoy the luxaries of fertile land, oil and 
riches. Afghanistan is a country that is driven by poverty. It is a 
desert.
  On rare occasions when the warlords aren't battling each other, they 
are joining together to weaken the central government. The absence of 
central authority in Afghanistan isn't anything new. That is why we had 
to cooperate with some of these warlords when we fought the Taliban. 
But when the war ended, we promised the Afghan people we would help 
them develop a stable country. That came from our President. We are 
reneging on that promise.
  We simply can't accept a warlord-dominated Afghanistan. That would 
spell certain defeat for a long-term war against terrorism.
  I came to this floor and said there is a need for the interim 
government in Afghanistan to include women. The Taliban brutalized 
women, but in some areas of Afghanistan women are not doing much better 
now than they were under the old regime. Some warlords are imposing 
Taliban-like restrictions on women and girls.
  What does that mean? This means they are treated like nonpeople. It 
means they cannot show their faces. It means they cannot go anyplace 
unless they have their husband with them. They cannot even go to 
school. Some of the schools that were opened just for girls after the 
war have closed up.

[[Page 17959]]

  Border security in Afghanistan is nonexistent. Is Osama bin Laden in 
Afghanistan? Is he near the country's border with Pakistan? It does not 
matter. He's certainly not in Kabul, where most of our forces are 
stationed. The rest of the territory is controlled by warlords or is in 
complete anarchy.
  Afghanistan's porous border with Pakistan has allowed pro-Taliban 
elements to slip in and out at will, on the rare occasions they need to 
escape U.S. forces searching remote areas. Iran continues to try to 
influence affairs in the areas around Kabul.
  The Afghan army does not have the manpower, training, or the 
resources to deal with these cross-border incursions. The hinterlands 
of Afghanistan are essentially up for grabs to the lethal, devious, and 
dangerous insurgents that were cast out of Kabul at the start of 
Operation Enduring Freedom some 20 months ago.
  Economically, the landscape is bleak, to say the least. Fifty percent 
of the population in Afghanistan lives in absolute poverty. The average 
life expectancy in Afghanistan is 46 years. It goes without saying 
there are exceptionally high rates of malnutrition and child and 
maternal mortality. Up to 7.5 million Afghans are said to be dependent 
on external food aid. It is the only food they get. Unemployment--we 
don't know how high it is but we know it is well over 50 percent. 
Illiteracy--maybe one out of four can read and write; maybe one out of 
four. Seventy percent of Afghans cannot read or write.
  But the real impetus for me to come here and say how I feel about 
this issue is the result of my reading Newsweek magazine last week. 
Newsweek had a feature story about the No. 1 product in Afghanistan: 
poppies, used in the production of heroin. Unfortunately, the 
development of illegal narcotics is the one sector of Afghanistan's 
economy that has experienced positive growth.
  Last year, Afghanistan regained the dubious title of the world's 
largest opium producer, and it is on track this year to produce even 
more. Afghanistan accounts for almost 80 percent of the world's illicit 
opium production.
  It has been a long time, but I used to do criminal law work. The 
first case I ever had--at that time Clark County, Las Vegas, did not 
have a public defender. I was appointed by Judge Zenoff, Department 1, 
the Eighth Judicial Court, Clark County, to represent a young man who 
was in jail. I can still remember his name: Humbert Gregory Torres, the 
first criminal case I ever had.
  I went to the jail. I was a new lawyer. I had my suit and tie on. I 
went to the jail and talked to a man through the bars. I thought: This 
guy's a criminal? He should be a movie star. He was so handsome. He was 
a heroin addict, and had been since he was 15 years old.
  When I met him in that jail, he was 20 years old. He was smart, 
handsome but terribly addicted to heroin. I saw the life he led after 
that. Because it was my first case, I kept in touch with him, 
represented him in many different battles with the law. He went to 
prison. I don't know where Greg is now. I am sure he is not in a good 
situation. Last I heard, he was back in prison.
  Heroin destroys people, families, neighborhoods, and societies. It is 
a horrible thing. That young man did not want to be addicted to heroin. 
He got addicted to it when he was a little boy in New York City. He 
could have done anything with his life had he not been addicted to 
heroin. Instead, he became a criminal.
  Well, almost 80 percent of the product that gets to people like Greg 
Torres comes from Afghanistan. Drug laboratories are sprouting up 
across Afghanistan, producing heroin that eventually finds its way into 
our country, our cities, and our neighborhoods.
  Most of the money from this deadly trade does not even go to the 
impoverished farmers, but instead to corrupt civil servants and drug 
lords. Look at the Newsweek article. It tells of a senior general in 
northern Afghanistan who brought in experts from Burma to help him 
operate a string of heroin labs, and of a senior police official in a 
northeastern province operating a heroin lab in the garden of his home.
  The nexus between the illegal drug trade and civil servants is very 
clear but even more troubling is the link between the opium trade and 
the remaining Taliban extremists. It is no coincidence, according to 
the United Nations, that Taliban insurgents are most prominent in the 
poppy-producing provinces of Afghanistan. This ``unholy alliance'' 
serves the interests of the drug lords, who need the protection, and 
the Taliban, who want the money.
  We have the Drug Enforcement Administration, of course. Its agents 
are very professional, and very well trained. We have really unloaded 
on Afghan drug lords with these agents. We have two in Afghanistan--two 
DEA agents in the entire country. Eighty percent of all the heroin in 
the world is produced in that country, and we have two Drug Enforcement 
Administration officers there. With that kind of manpower, I'm sure 
we'll get to the bottom of this. I am being a little facetious, but I 
don't know what two agents can expect to accomplish.
  Amid the drug, economic, and security crises plaguing Afghanistan, we 
cannot forget that the key government and private financial 
institutions were all destroyed under the Taliban. The image I see when 
I think of the Taliban is of them destroying that huge, historic, 
religious monument, which had been there for more than 1,000 years, by 
shooting rockets from airplanes. That is what the Taliban is all about.
  We can't forget that they destroyed key government and private 
financial institutions. Recovery and reconstruction in Afghanistan 
therefore is an enormous challenge, but if we fall short, the 
consequences will be enormous. We cannot afford to fail in Afghanistan, 
and yet we are not doing anything to address the problems there.
  Some are saying: So what? Does it matter? I don't think it is 
possible to exaggerate the stakes in Afghanistan. It is, of course, the 
front line in the war on terrorism. That is why we went there in the 
first place. Terrorists had built training camps there. The September 
11 attackers all had contact with terrorists in Afghanistan.
  Although a diverse and committed international force is participating 
in the reconstruction effort--there are several thousand international 
people in Kabul--we can't pass the buck and say reconstruction in 
Afghanistan is somebody else's responsibility. It is our 
responsibility. We led the war there. We need to lead the 
reconstruction.
  We have a responsibility to help Afghans create a stable, self-
governing state with the resources for long-term economic development. 
If we succeed, we will have denied the terrorists a strategically 
located base. We will have put a long-suffering people in a position to 
lift themselves to freedom and prosperity. We will have created a model 
that can help the international community in reconstruction efforts 
elsewhere. And we will have silenced skeptics around the world who 
thought the United States would not fulfill its promise to Afghanistan 
and would cut and run a second time. These are the benefits of success.
  The costs of failure are almost too troubling to imagine. Terrorists 
could again regain a foothold. The Afghan people would remain 
impoverished under a fundamentalist regime. And this confluence between 
a failed state in a strategically vital area and terrorist forces could 
result in lethal consequences, as we so painfully learned in 2001.
  What can we do? As the President stands ready to deploy troops to 
Liberia--and I have been to Liberia and acknowledge that it deserves 
our attention--we cannot forget about Afghanistan. The President also 
is weighing options on what to do about force protection in Iraq. As 
important an issue as that is, I again implore him not to forget our 
promise to the Afghan people.
  There is much more we can do. The report issued last month by 
Ambassador Frank Wisner and the Council on Foreign Relations provides 
an excellent roadmap. First, with regard to security measures, we need 
to maintain adequate military forces until Afghanistan can assume the 
responsibility itself. We should also be seeking ways

[[Page 17960]]

to bolster the international security forces there as well as 
substantially expanding the proposed size of the Afghan Army, which at 
its peak will stand at 10,000 soldiers. This hardly seems adequate for 
a country of 28 million people. Reconstruction efforts cannot be 
effective until the territory beyond Kabul is secure.
  Second, politically and diplomatically we need to support the Afghans 
as they organize presidential and parliamentary elections to be held 
next year. We need to continue to press Iran and Pakistan to secure the 
border region and end their interference in Afghan affairs, and we need 
to continue to assist the Afghans in developing a vibrant civil society 
that is inhospitable to extremism.
  Third, reconstruction measures must resume fully. Despite the urgency 
of the situation, road building and other major reconstruction projects 
have stalled. Despite receiving billions of dollars in financial 
commitments from the international community, President Karzai still 
faces a gap of $276 million in his very modest budget. Afghanistan will 
require $15 billion over the next 5 years in reconstruction funds, over 
and above humanitarian aid.
  Congress has authorized funds to cover one-third of this total. 
Authorizing it, as we have learned, doesn't mean much. We have to 
appropriate the money. It is great to issue press releases about all 
the things we are going to do with this program and that program, but 
in the Congress there is a two-step procedure: We authorize and 
appropriate. If we don't appropriate, the authorization is meaningless. 
We should fully fund the authorization so that, among other things, we 
can complete construction of the road linking Kabul and Kandahar.
  The United States obviously can't cover reconstruction costs on its 
own. I don't expect us to do so. The reconstruction effort will fail 
unless we persuade other countries to live up to their financial 
commitments. But we cannot do that until we fulfill our own 
obligations.
  President Bush has the power to place the reconstruction of 
Afghanistan back on the world agenda. But as I said earlier, the issue 
seems to have fallen off the White House radar screen. I say to 
President Bush: Fulfill the promise you made to the Afghan people and 
to the American people, and deliver on your Marshall Plan for 
Afghanistan. The Congress will support those efforts. We will do so not 
only for the Afghan people but also for the security and safety of the 
United States and its allies.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the hour 
of 2:15 p.m. the Senator from West Virginia be recognized to offer an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendments Nos. 1233 through 1236, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have amendments from our side of the 
aisle which have been cleared.
  The first is Senator Roberts' amendment to make amounts available for 
research, development, test, and evaluation defense-wide, $2 million 
for the development of integrated systems analysis capabilities for 
bioterrorism and response exercises.
  Second is Senator Lott's, to set aside Marine Corps procurement funds 
for use for the procurement of nitrile rubber collapsible storage 
units.
  Next is for Senators Graham and Hollings of South Carolina to make 
amounts available for research, development, test, and evaluation, 
Navy, $6 million for Marine Corps communications systems for the 
Critical Infrastructure Protection Center.
  Finally, another is for Senator Lott to set aside other procurement, 
Army funds, for the procurement of TSC-750 computer systems.
  I ask unanimous consent to offer the amendments en bloc and have them 
reported en bloc and considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes amendments 
     en bloc numbered 1233 through 1236.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
  Without objection, the amendments are agreed to en bloc.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                           Amendment No. 1233

   (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Research, 
  Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, $2,000,000 for the 
      development of integrated systems analysis capabilities for 
                    bioterrorism response exercises)

       Insert after section 8123 the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this 
     Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', up to $2,000,000 may be available 
     for the development of integrated systems analysis 
     capabilities for bioterrorism response exercises.


                           Amendment No. 1234

 (Purpose: To set aside Marine Corps procurement funds for use for the 
        procurement of nitrile rubber collapsible storage units)

       On page 120, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title III under 
     the heading ``Procurement, Marine Corps'', up to $1,500,000 
     may be used for the procurement of highly versatile nitrile 
     rubber collapsible storage units.


                           Amendment No. 1235

   (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Research, 
 Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, $6,000,000 for Marine Corps 
 Communications Systems (PE#0206313M) for the Critical Infrastructure 
                           Protection Center)

       Insert after section 8123 the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the appropriated by title IV of this Act 
     under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Navy'', up to $3,000,000 may be available for 
     Marine Corps Communications Systems (PE#0206313M) for 
     Critical Infrastructure Protection.


                           Amendment No. 1236

     (Purpose: To set aside Other Procurement, Army funds for the 
                procurement of TSC-750 computer systems)

       Sec. 8124. Of the total amount appropriated by title III 
     under the heading ``Other Procurement, Army'', up to 
     $1,500,000 may be used for for the procurement of TSC-750 
     computer systems.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                 Amendments Nos. 1237 and 1238, En Bloc

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may continue, on behalf of Mr. 
Miller, the Senator from Georgia, I have sent to the desk an amendment 
to make available from amounts available for research, development, 
test, and evaluation for the Navy, $1 million for the Trouble Reports 
Information Data Warehouse; and for the Senators from Florida, Mr. 
Graham and Mr. Nelson, an amendment to make available from amounts 
available for operation and maintenance, Navy, $2 million for night 
vision goggles in advanced helicopter training. I ask unanimous consent 
that these amendments be considered en bloc and passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] proposes amendments en 
     bloc numbered 1237 and 1238.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
  Without objection, the amendments are agreed to.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                           Amendment No. 1237

   (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Research, 
  Development, Test, and Evaluation for the Navy, $1,000,000 for the 
              Trouble Reports Information Data Warehouse)

       Insert after section 8123 the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title IV of this 
     Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Navy'', up to $1,000,000 may be available for 
     Combat Systems Integration (PE#0603582N) for the Trouble 
     Reports Information Data Warehouse.


                           Amendment No. 1238

 (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Operation and 
  Maintenance, Navy, $2,000,000 for night vision goggles in advanced 
                          helicopter training)

       Insert after section 8123 the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title II of this 
     Act under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', up 
     to

[[Page 17961]]

     $2,000,000 may be available for night vision goggles in 
     advanced helicopter training.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________