[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17964-17994]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Byrd is still occupied in the 
caucus. It has not terminated yet. I don't think this will in any way 
offend the two managers of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from South Dakota be recognized for 20 minutes and following 
that Senator Byrd will be recognized. The order now in effect would 
have Senator Byrd recognized at 2:15. He will be recognized at 2:35; 
Senator Johnson will speak now for 20 minutes. I ask unanimous consent 
that that be the case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I approach the current Department of 
Defense appropriations bill and our current status in Iraq and the 
Middle East from somewhat of a unique circumstance: as a Senator but 
also the father of a soldier who has served in Iraq. My oldest son 
Brooks, a staff sergeant with the 101st Airborne Infantry over the past 
roughly 5 years, has now served in four wars--in Bosnia, Kosovo, 
Afghanistan, and most recently Iraq. I appreciate profoundly how much 
our Nation owes to our military. These young men and women are 
professional. They are skilled. They are courageous. They are taking on 
a job few other Americans would want to do for any amount of 
compensation. We can take great pride in America that our military is 
the finest in the world.
  In that context, no one is more supportive of our military personnel 
and their families than I am. The deployment tempo has been enormous. 
Many families have seen the absence of their husbands and wives, 
brothers and sisters, sons and daughters for a great amount of time, 
and the tension and stress of the families has been great. We owe 
gratitude to the families of our military as well.
  I voted for a resolution authorizing force. I think the world is a 
better place without Saddam Hussein. But that resolution was based on 
two major pillars. One was that there was an imminent threat to the 
security of the region and to America because of the presence of 
weaponized weapons of mass destruction and, secondly, that the 
President was to go to the United Nations and our allies and try to 
internationalize a strategy relative to Iraq to the best degree 
possible.
  Now we find ourselves in a circumstance where there is great doubt 
about the quality, the credibility of the intelligence the President 
shared with the American public. He was quoted in the paper this 
morning saying, our intelligence is ``darn good.''
  What is at stake is not just the presence of weapons of mass 
destruction. It is possible that perhaps some will ultimately be found. 
But what is at stake is the credibility of America in the world 
community. It turns out that the statements about nuclear weapons were 
simply false. The CIA knew that. It turns out that ties between Saddam 
Hussein and al-Qaida at 9/11 were nonexistent. Yet over half of America 
to this day thinks there is some connection between Saddam Hussein and 
9/11, when there was none--zero.
  Well, this is particularly troubling at a time when this 
administration has enunciated a radically new approach to military 
affairs abroad, saying that we will from now on be willing to take on 
preemptive war--preemptive war, of course, is based on the quality of 
intelligence--and that we will do it unilaterally if need be; the rest 
of the world community doesn't count.
  Thirdly, that if we so choose, we will use nuclear weapons in a 
first-strike capacity. This new Bush doctrine is intended, apparently, 
to make the United States sound like the toughest country on the block. 
To the contrary, it should not be a surprise to anyone that this kind 
of strategy, coupled with faulty intelligence and perhaps a 
manipulation of what intelligence was there in a false, misleading way, 
has in fact lost the support of our allies around the world when, after 
9/11, the United States had the near unanimous support of the world 
community. Now that has been largely lost, and even our allies express 
contempt for the American policy abroad and our role in the world.
  It should come as no surprise to anybody that this unilateralist, 
first-strike capability, all premised on faulty and shaky intelligence 
and manipulation of intelligence, actually puts America at greater risk 
than before. It leads to--and it should come as no surprise--an arms 
race greater than before, where other countries may believe that the 
only way to defend themselves against a unilateral, preemptive nuclear 
attack from the United States is to arm themselves to the hilt, perhaps 
with their own nuclear weapons--certainly weapons of mass destruction. 
Now we find that this strategy will lead to a less secure, more 
troubled world. It is something this Congress and this Senate need to 
rethink.
  With the contempt toward the United States this spurs, like 
internationalism, greater terrorism, more people willing to join 
terrorist groups, I think it is fair to say there is a greater threat 
of terror applied to the United States and our allies today than there 
was before.
  Secondly, the lack of international concern, the lack of diplomacy, 
and the failure of American diplomacy to pull together a greater 
alliance and cohesion--certainly in the Western World, but in the world 
in general--have led to America being even more targeted than before by 
the powers of hate around the world.
  We were told at the time that there was great urgency for this 
conflict and that we would be in and we would be out and we would 
restore democracy. How foolish and naive that looks today. Now we are 
being told that this conflict and our presence in Iraq could easily 
last 4 years, perhaps 10 years, at a cost of $100 billion, conceivably, 
over the coming year, while our men and women in uniform, who are doing 
courageous work, find themselves in a near shooting gallery environment 
in Iraq, with very little contribution from our allies. Some of those 
contributions are even discouraged by the United States.
  To put some context on this--because our troops are on the ground and 
our troops are being killed daily, because our taxpayers are paying 
virtually 100 percent of the cost of this--we now find ourselves with 
an administration telling us we cannot afford full funding for VA 
health care so our veterans can get the medical services they need 
because we don't have the $2 billion extra. We are spending $4 billion 
a month in Iraq, and we are going to do that for years, perhaps for a 
decade. We are being told we don't have enough money for Amtrak because 
it costs a half billion dollars more. We are going to spend $100 
billion in the coming year in this faraway place, but we don't have the 
funding for education or health care. And the reason the prescription 
drug plan is so faulty and viewed with dissatisfaction by American 
seniors is that the funds are not there to fund a decent plan. Yet all 
of those costs are a tiny fraction of what we are committed to send 
into the far distant future in the Middle East.
  We have 200,000 troops abroad total, with some 140,000 to 150,000 in 
the Middle East; we have 1,000 in Saudi Arabia; we have 1,300 in 
Bahrain; we have 4,000 in Qatar; we have 145,000 in Iraq; we have 
11,000 in Pakistan; we have 14,000 in Turkey; we have 1,000 in Egypt; 
and we have over 1,000 in Djibouti.
  We have troops scattered all over the world. Their families want to 
know

[[Page 17965]]

when they are coming home. Employers want to know when they are coming 
home. Nobody can say. Nobody has a timeframe, other than to know that 
our military is going to be under tremendous stress for a long, 
unforeseeable time.
  At the same time, we have budding conflicts in North Korea, Liberia, 
Iran, and the existing conflict in Afghanistan. It doesn't take a 
genius to figure out that this is going to lead to enormously difficult 
problems in terms of recruiting and retaining military active-duty 
Guard and Reserve. My son confides in me, after 4 wars in 5 years, in 
talking to his colleagues in the U.S. Army, there are more and more of 
them saying: I thought this would be a career, but frankly this is 
destroying my family, my future. We cannot be deployed at this kind of 
tempo forever.
  It appears that that will be the case because the United States has 
taken such a unilateral approach--to become the policeman for the 
entire world without the participation of our allies, without the U.N., 
without the regional groups. When will this President learn that we are 
the world's major military power but we cannot be the policeman for the 
world, we cannot be doing all this ourselves? We need to bring together 
our allies, and we need the diplomacy to make that happen.
  So while we are asking our military to be deployed at an enormous 
tempo, while we are losing men and women daily in Afghanistan and 
Iraq--and we have another conflict on the near horizon in Liberia--the 
President says we cannot afford the full combat pay increase that the 
Senate requested. How many of you would go live in a hole in the wall 
in Iraq and be fired at from every angle as you walk down the street, 
and your President says we won't give you that extra $100 a month. One 
hundred dollars a month? How many in this Chamber would encourage their 
children to serve in that environment?
  We are being told by the White House we cannot afford the full 
funding for health care. Our vets are going to have to wait in line for 
another year to get the access to health care that they deserve and 
that they are owed because we don't have the funding. The President 
says he will veto any legislation we pass in the Senate to expand 
access to health care for our National Guard and our Reserve troops. He 
will veto it. There is plenty of money to go around for an enormous tax 
cut to enrich the wealthiest families in this Nation, but when it comes 
time to do modest things for our own soldiers, the President is not 
there. We need to hold him accountable for this irresponsibility.
  There is enormous damage being done to the credibility of our Nation 
by what has transpired over these past months. We can be proud of our 
military, proud of our troops. We know Saddam Hussein was a thug and 
the world is better without him. But when we see what has happened due 
to the lack of an international alliance, due to our unilateralism, due 
to faulty intelligence, or the manipulation of our intelligence, when 
we see what happened to world opinion relative to the United States, 
and now the unwillingness of the rest of the world to work with us to 
stabilize the world military situation, we find ourselves in a terrible 
hole and how a $450 billion deficit reported just today--a record 
deficit, where we are going to borrow from the Social Security trust 
fund for the remainder of the decade in order to pay for all of this--
we need to regroup.
  Our U.S. troops, our men and women in uniform, deserve better. We 
American citizens deserve better as well. I simply have to share my 
frustration and, yes, my anger, at the circumstances we find ourselves 
in today due to profound failings of this administration in the conduct 
of our military strategy in the Middle East and all that portends for 
the future of this country and our role in the world, all that means 
for the taxpayers of this country, all that means in the inability to 
fund our schools, our health care, our environment, and all the needs 
of infrastructure we need to get our economy going again. Our country 
deserves better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from South Dakota leaves 
the floor, I wish to say that many of us speak about the conflict in 
Iraq and Afghanistan from a distance. The Senator from South Dakota 
does not speak from a distance. His son has been involved in both 
conflicts, carrying a rifle for the U.S. Army and being shot at.
  I was with, as many of us were, Senator Johnson during the height of 
the military conflict in Iraq when every day he was happy the day ended 
without getting a message that his son had been injured or killed in 
Iraq. I was here when Senator Johnson received a letter from his son 
written on a K-ration wrapper from a foxhole in Iraq. So Senator 
Johnson has a right to be upset, to speak with indignation because he 
looks at it differently than all the rest of us because he was the only 
Senator with a son in combat in Iraq.
  His son has come home. He is one of the lucky ones. As we see on the 
front of the Washington Post today, large contingencies which were 
expecting to come home next month have been ordered to stay in Iraq. 
They do not know when they will be home.
  I extend my appreciation to Senator and Mrs. Johnson for being the 
parents of a stalwart American hero, someone who has fought over the 
last 5 years in four American wars.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, may I respond to my colleague and my 
friend from Nevada. There are hundreds of thousands of parents all 
across America who do daily, as my wife Barbara and I have done, and 
that is to watch the news, follow the news as closely as possible with 
both pride in our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, but dread as 
well.
  As we did, there are hundreds of thousands of parents and loved ones 
across this country who follow with great intensity the daily reports 
about deaths and injuries. There are families all across our country as 
we speak who know that at any moment there could be a catastrophic, 
life-shattering report of the loss or injury of their loved ones.
  When people talk about acceptable levels of casualties, I hope more 
and more Americans understand there are real families, real faces 
involved, and that we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to our 
military. They are the greatest in the world. They do as they are 
ordered to serve, and I hope we stand not only with these men and women 
in uniform but with their families who have no idea, in most cases, 
when they are coming back, many suffering great financial hardship but 
also emotional hardship, the loss of parenting, the loss of key 
employers as a great consequence.
  While we follow this war and the aftermath of the war with great 
concern, we also should remember this is not just numbers. This is not 
a game. This is a very real situation that is going on in the lives of 
very real American families, and all of these issues need to be 
approached with that kind of somber awareness and commitment that we do 
the best we can for our troops and their families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to join with my colleague from 
Nevada in commending the distinguished Senator from South Dakota for 
his powerful statement, for the eloquence and the passion he has 
demonstrated in expressing himself this afternoon.
  I have said on countless occasions that no one could be more proud to 
call him a colleague than I. We have heard yet another demonstration of 
the reason I am so confident in my ability to say that as we heard him 
this afternoon.
  I will never forget my colleague sharing with me a postcard his son 
sent while he was in Iraq. It was on the back of an MRE, one of these 
meals the military eats every day. He had carved it out, writing on the 
back, put the address on the front, and sent it to his father and 
mother to report that he was well, to report that he believed in what 
he was doing.
  It has to be an emotional moment to receive that from your son. He 
invoked

[[Page 17966]]

that emotion again today in speaking for all families who have members 
of the military in Iraq; that it is wrong to minimize these losses; 
that it is wrong to, in some way, depersonalize the extraordinary 
impact it has when one of these sons or daughters is lost.
  Hans Gukeisen was one of those who did lose his life. He was from 
Lead, SD. He was a helicopter pilot. He lost his life rescuing an Iraqi 
child. He is now buried in the Black Hills National Cemetery. I just 
received a message from his father a couple of days ago lamenting, 
expressing the sense of loss that only a father can.
  As we face these questions, as we struggle to ensure we have the 
information this Congress deserves, let us also be appreciative of the 
extraordinary sacrifice made by those who are there; those who are no 
longer living as a result of having been there; and those, hopefully, 
who will never have to go but are prepared to do so today.
  I was disappointed to learn just within the last week that the 
Secretary of Defense indicated that he could not support an amendment 
we adopted 82 to 10, I believe, which would have provided health 
insurance to National Guard personnel once they come home. They are 
eligible for it now. They are not when they come home. That is a 
disparity, an inequity, a problem I cannot fully appreciate, but they 
can, and it is yet another indication of the sacrifice they made to be 
there for their country.
  As others have noted, they have been there for months and months. We 
owe it to them to give them some better understanding of the length of 
time they will stay. We owe it to them to send as clear a message as we 
can that we have a plan and that they can put their lives on a similar 
plan once they know what the plan for the country will be. But it 
appears there is no plan today. We do not know how long we will stay, 
and I think it is imperative that we find out.
  These and other questions, as I said earlier today, Mr. President, 
are ones that have to be addressed during this debate and consideration 
of this bill. I am hopeful we can put in place legislatively the 
assurances that we will require before we vote on this bill later on, 
whenever that may be.
  So again, let me thank the distinguished Senator from South Dakota 
for his eloquence, for his passion, and for his partnership.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
West Virginia is to be recognized for the purposes of an amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1244

(Purpose: To prohibit excessive deployments overseas of members of the 
                          Guard and Reserves)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for his consideration and 
courtesy.
  Our National Guard and the Reserves of each of our military services 
have become more than a source of manpower during times of national 
crisis. Members of the Reserve components have become an indispensable 
tool to carry out military operations and homeland security missions.
  As of last week, there were 204,100 Guard and Reserve personnel on 
active duty. Some are stationed within the United States, performing 
homeland security missions. Many are deployed overseas, in foreign 
lands, thousands of miles from home, to places such as Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  Since September 11, 2001, we have activated more Guard and Reserve 
personnel than at any time since the Korean war but countless 
reservists, especially those who are now serving in Iraq, have not even 
been told when their deployment will end. Nobody knows when they will 
return home to their families, their friends, and their home 
communities.
  Adding to the uncertainty, some Reserve units that are now being 
activated are simply being told to prepare to deploy for 1 to 2 years. 
This is no way to treat our National Guard and Reserve forces. How 
would Senators like to be treated like that? Are we keeping our citizen 
soldiers away from their jobs and their homes for too long? Are we? 
There are a growing number of West Virginians who say yes.
  My office has received an increasing number of letters, phone calls, 
and e-mails from West Virginians asking when their loved ones who serve 
in the Reserve components will be coming home. How long? How long will 
that vacant chair be at the dinner table? How long will that husband, 
that father, be away from home, unable to carry that child to bed and 
tuck it under the cover at night? How long, Mr. Rumsfeld, I ask?
  Some of the reports in these communications are very alarming. 
Senators read their mail as I read mine. Other Senators, I am sure, are 
getting the same question from those who are living there in the face 
of danger every second of every minute of every hour of every day, in 
the hot sands, 130 degrees, 120 degrees, 110 degrees. There they are. 
All of these letters express a deep frustration with the length of 
deployment of National Guard men and women and other Reserve units.
  A number of troops and their families have expressed desperation at 
trying to get any sort of information about when their units will be 
returning to the United States, and it is about the same frustration 
that we as their elected representatives are getting when we ask 
questions of this administration to appear before our committee.
  After reviewing what some of these units have gone through, I can see 
why people are frustrated. Let us take the case of one engineering unit 
from West Virginia. After shipping out in January 2003, this unit 
advanced deep into Iraq, along with front-line fighting forces. During 
the war, they bridged a river under heavy Iraqi fire. I have several 
reports that members of this unit are able to call home only once every 
several weeks, and that now they are only helping to haul Iraqi 
ammunition. This unit has not been given a date to return to the United 
States, and rumors are now circling that they will remain in Iraq until 
January 2004, until the snow falls in West Virginia.
  Another National Guard unit has struggled through back-to-back-to-
back deployments. This unit was mobilized for State duty in response to 
flooding in West Virginia in the summer of 2001. After September 11, 
this unit spent 1 year in Federal duty performing homeland security 
missions. After 3 months' rest, the unit was again called to duty and 
this time sent to the Persian Gulf region in February 2003, where they 
remain to this day. There has been no word, none, on when this unit 
will return home. Hear me, Senators.
  One of my constituents wrote about her husband who was deployed to 
the Persian Gulf in December 2002, told he would return as soon as the 
war was over. After the President made his visit to the aircraft 
carrier Abraham Lincoln and gave his speech under the giant banner 
which read ``Mission Accomplished,'' this reservist still has not been 
sent home. In fact, he was given five different dates to return to West 
Virginia and then sent to another country in the region with the 
possibility of extending his deployment to September. To add insult to 
injury, this reservist had to pay for his own food and lodging while he 
was awaiting new orders after the war.
  Hear me. Hear me, Mr. President. These stories should not come as a 
complete surprise to my colleagues. I am confident every Senator has 
been receiving mail with similar reports of deployments with no end, 
unclear missions, shortages in supplies, and countless other problems.
  I have read similar problems in the newspaper about members of the 
Active-Duty Forces. This morning, there is an article in the Los 
Angeles Times about another delay in the homecoming of the war-weary 
3rd Infantry Division. Less than a week after Secretary Rumsfeld 
announced to the Armed Services Committee that this division would be 
home by September, 10,000 of these soldiers have now been told to 
prepare to stay in Iraq indefinitely, an equal number of that army of 
Greeks which was led by Xenophon back home after the war, after the 
Battle of Cunaxa. Ten thousand have now been told to prepare to stay in 
Iraq indefinitely. These troops ought to have the chance to come home, 
too.

[[Page 17967]]

  There are two reasons why I am particularly concerned about the long 
deployments of the Guard and Reserve. First, the National Guard has 
important responsibilities to their own States. Right now, this very 
minute, West Virginia has all of its Guard and Reserve engineer units 
deployed overseas, along with all of their earthmovers, their dump 
trucks, their equipment. If the summer storms cause more flooding and 
mudslides in the West Virginia hills, who is Governor Wise going to go 
to for help?
  We have watched those storms sweep over the mountains of West 
Virginia and come down those rugged, ragged, steep slopes into the 
valleys and cause terrible floods to come rushing down, wiping out 
lives and property. Who is Governor Wise going to go to for help? The 
engineers of the West Virginia National Guard cannot answer the call 
from the hot sands of Iraq. My State would either have to rely on 
expensive contractors to recover from the storms or wait 2 or 3 days 
for National Guard units from neighboring States to respond. West 
Virginians need our National Guard in West Virginia.
  Second, members of the Guard and Reserve are part-time soldiers. They 
are proud to serve their country but they did not sign up to serve 
full-time duty. We must exercise greater discretion when mobilizing the 
reserves just as we did decades ago.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, from 1945 to 1989, 
there were only four involuntary callups of Reserve Forces. In 1945, I 
was in Florida, welding in the shipyard to the end of World War II. 
According to the Congressional Research Service, from that date 1945 to 
1989, there were only four involuntary callups of reservists. Since 
then, there have been six involuntary deployments. It is unreasonable 
to dip into the Guard and Reserve so frequently, to pull those men and 
women away from their civilian careers and away from their families and 
expect them to serve overseas with no indication of when their mission 
will end.
  There are serious defects from protracted deployments of the National 
Guard and the Reserve. There is growing frustration, I am telling you. 
It is growing. The frustration is there and it is growing.
  Hear me, Mr. President, down at the other end of the avenue. Hear me, 
Mr. Rumsfeld. Hear me, Senators. That frustration is growing. Growing 
frustration among members of the Guard and Reserves mean that many 
troops may finally elect to take their hard-earned retirement. Many 
junior personnel are likely to decide they do not want to put their 
families through months or even years of hardship again and they will 
choose not to reenlist once their duty has been completed.
  As we speak, unit commanders are bracing for a heavy loss of 
personnel once the deployed units are rotated home. The time has come 
for Congress to say: Enough is enough. Let us put an end to open-ended 
and back-to-back deployments of the National Guard and Reserve. Our 
part-time troops need to get back to their homes. They need to get back 
to their families.
  They need to get back to their full-time jobs.
  That is why I offer an amendment to limit the involuntary deployment 
of National Guard and Reserve personnel to 6 months for any single 
overseas deployment and not more than 1 deployment in any 12-month 
period.
  When we send the National Guard to peacekeeping missions in the 
Balkans, they are overseas for 6 months. Why should we ask our 
reservists to serve longer in Iraq or Afghanistan? Why should we ask 
our reservists to put up with back-to-back deployment?
  Secretary Rumsfeld announced this week that he is seeking long-term 
changes to reduce dependence on the involuntary mobilization of 
National Guard and Reserves for not more than 1 year out of every 6 
years. This is a commendable action, and we need to take a look at the 
long-term structure of our Armed Forces. But Secretary Rumsfeld's 
proposed changes do nothing to address the problems our reservists and 
their families are facing today.
  My amendment will make an immediate impact on the problem of open-
ended deployments for the National Guard and the Reserves. My amendment 
will make the Defense Department tell our reservists when they will be 
coming home because no funds in this bill may be spent to keep a Guard 
or Reserve unit overseas for more than 6 months.
  We need to start rotating our Reserve Forces back home. Right now, 
there are 204,100 Reserve personnel who are not at their civilian jobs. 
These absences are leaving huge gaps in private businesses and 
essential government services.
  In West Virginia, 10 percent of the State police have been called to 
active duty. Countless employers across the country are working 
shorthanded, waiting for the day that one of their employees will 
return home from their service to our country. Families are struggling 
to make up the income lost by having a provider receive modest 
paychecks from the Pentagon as opposed to the good pay of civilian 
careers, such as doctors, lawyers, coal miners, teachers, or even 
plumbers.
  One can only wonder how much the endless cycle of deployments has 
affected our economy over the last 2 years. But it is clear that we 
need these part-time members of the military back in our communities.
  My amendment would allow us to tell the members of the National Guard 
and the Reserve that they will return home within 6 months of being 
sent overseas. Congress should act in order to provide a measure of 
stability to the deployment our reservists are facing. We should give 
the same measure of stability to their families and their employers.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I send it to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1244:
       Insert after section 8123 the following:
       Sec. 8124. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     funds appropriated or otherwise made available for the 
     Department of Defense, including funds appropriated for the 
     Department before the date of the enactment of this Act that 
     remain available for obligation as of that date, may be 
     available for the involuntary call or order to active duty of 
     any member of the National Guard or other Reserve component 
     for purposes of the deployment of the member overseas as 
     follows:
       (1) A single deployment overseas of 180 days or more.
       (2) More than one deployment overseas in any 360-day 
     period.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia has 
touched on a subject that many of us believe should be explored. I 
think in order to look at it, we have to look at a little bit of 
history. That history, as far as the Department of Defense is 
concerned, is not too pleasant.
  In the Clinton administration, I remember distinctly being down at 
the White House when the President showed us his plan for defense 
expenditures. He showed us a chart that showed a constant decline in 
defense expenditures. At the end of 6 or 7 years, it started to go back 
up. He was going to use that money to reorder priorities of the 
country. That was his plan, and that is what he executed.
  As a consequence, the military people of this country had to figure 
out how to defend the country. Many of us who worked in matters 
relating to defense here in the Congress worked with them. The concept 
that was developed by the Defense Department and approved by Congress 
was the total force concept. The total force is those who are regularly 
in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. And it was augmented by the 
National Guard and by the Reserve.
  When we deploy forces now overseas, almost every unit of the regular 
military has, along with it, portions of its personnel who come from 
the Guard or Reserve. They are already identified before deployments 
take place. This is the total force going out into these operations. 
This happened during the Clinton administration in Bosnia, and it 
happened in Kosovo. There were National Guard as well as Reserves 
deployed with the regular units. The concept of deployment is one that 
people in the services understand.

[[Page 17968]]

  The problem the Senator from West Virginia has correctly identified 
is the repeated deployments that have taken place. When we think about 
it, starting in Haiti, starting in Bosnia and in Kosovo, we had a 
series of deployments, and then in this administration in Afghanistan 
and Iraq.
  Those have all taken place in a continuum of a lifetime of the 
current force. It is an evolving force. People enter and others leave. 
But we are still dealing with a total force. You are not dealing with 
the kind of forces that were in place when I first came to the Senate 
or when we served in in World War II. There were massive divisions 
called up. They had a cadre of permanent people in the U.S. Army. Back 
then, we were in the Army of the United States. That was the draftee 
portion that was added to the Army. Each section of the military had 
that in days gone by. But they were temporary people. They were 
drafted. They were not involved in a citizen-soldier-citizen military 
concept.
  When we evolved into this picture that we are in right now, we 
developed recruiting techniques to recruit people.
  The Senator from West Virginia mentions the police of West Virginia. 
I am sure the same thing happens in almost every State in the Union. 
The police are encouraged to join the National Guard and the Reserve so 
they can be part of the military police forces as they are deployed. 
They may even have expertise that they got in the military services 
before they became policemen. And they agreed to come back and fulfill 
that same expertise as a member of the service when their unit was 
deployed. The Reserve and Guard units are called up because they have 
expertise in particular areas. They are part of a function that is 
included in the total force.
  The problem isn't the duration of the deployment; it is the frequency 
of the deployments, as far as I am concerned.
  The Senator from Hawaii will recall that he and I went to Prince 
Sultan several years ago and talked to the pilots who were not 
reenlisting. This was occurring during the Clinton administration. They 
were not reenlisting because they had been deployed to Italy; they had 
been deployed to Bosnia; they had been deployed to fly what we call the 
``continuous air patrol''--the cap over Iraq. Once they finished the 
cap over Iraq, they were back in Bosnia again or they were deployed to 
do some special activities in the Korean area.
  Several times when forces were built up as tensions increased, we 
deployed some forces. They were brought back later. But it wasn't the 
duration of any one of the deployments, in my judgment; it was the 
frequency of several deployments.
  I remember talking to one pilot who was not going to reenlist because 
he had been away from his family I think 10 months out of the year.
  This was something that was just not contemplated by the total force, 
whether they were Regular or Guard or Reserve. It is not just the Guard 
and Reserve. It is the total force in terms of the number of 
deployments and the length and duration of the rotations that are 
taking place. Those I think have to be studied, and they have to be 
studied very carefully to determine where we are going.
  Unfortunately, I must disagree with my friend from West Virginia. If 
we followed his suggestion, we would put down just a blanket rule 
concerning the time of the deployment period or the number of 
deployments in any 360-day period. And this would be not more than one.
  President Clinton could not have fought in Bosnia and Kosovo and 
maintained the blockade of Iraq, as he did as Commander in Chief, under 
this kind of a law. In fact, I do not think any Commander in Chief 
could command our total force with that kind of a law. But what we have 
to look at is the number of times that you are deployed in any one 
period of your service. There are people who still enlist for a period 
of time. If they enlist in the Guard or the Reserve or the regular 
forces, I think we ought to assure them, if they are in each category, 
there ought to be a different standard. In the regular services, those 
are 365-day-a-year deployments, period.
  This concept of applying this policy only to the Reserve component, I 
think--and I assume by that the Senator includes the National Guard--is 
not proper, in my judgment. We have to look at the total force and say, 
if you are a part of that force, this is what will apply to you.
  I think there should be some distinctions between the regular 
services and the Guard and the Reserve so that a person could make a 
choice based on his or her circumstance as to how often and for what 
duration deployments might take place.
  We developed, in World War II, a concept of points. Again, my friend 
from Hawaii and I probably are of the few people in the Senate who can 
remember that. But you got points for the number of months you were 
deployed overseas. You might have been deployed to France or Italy or 
England but you built up points. As you reached the zenith on points, 
you were eligible then to be rotated back home, back to the continental 
U.S.
  That system is almost implied in what the Senator is raising because 
if you have been deployed more than once in a 360-day period, you could 
not go again, I take it, until that period was exhausted. But the 
concept of when a person should be entitled to be returned to the 
continental U.S., and how many times they can be deployed overseas in 
any one--we used to call them ``hitches''--enlistment period I think 
has to be explored.
  I have just reviewed this, and I want to find a way to raise this so 
the Senate will understand the issues as we see them with regard to 
this policy. We need to establish a review by people who are decidedly 
interested in addressing the problems that Senator Byrd has outlined to 
give us some judgment, as quickly as possible, on what we should do.
  One of the basic questions, in my mind, is, should it be a law, or 
should we mandate there be regulations issued that encompass certain 
criteria that must be met by those regulations, or should we direct the 
Commander in Chief to issue an Executive order?
  There are several ways this could be changed. I take it one of the 
questions that should be addressed in this amendment, too, is the 
question of whether the rules should be the same during a period such 
as we are in now--this is a period of engagement overseas, at the 
direction of the President, approved by the Congress, by the way, but 
it is not in response to a declaration of war. I think once we get into 
a period of total war, as in terms of a declaration of war passed by 
Congress, then all bets are off. In fact, that triggers, once again, if 
that happens, as I understand the law, the draft again. We go into 
entirely different circumstances in terms of manpower and encouraging 
people to come. We will have to address that sometime.
  Just parenthetically, I remember offering the amendment, once in my 
youth, on the floor, to extend the draft to cover women. Maybe the 
Senators do not remember that but I did, and it was defeated. We 
thought it would be defeated but we then went ahead to defeat the 
draft. We eliminated the draft. Once we agreed we would not draft 
women, we eliminated the discrimination in being able to draft men. I 
think, should we ever get into total war again, God forbid, we will 
have to look into the concept of a draft and how we execute it.
  But, very clearly, what we are talking about now, being deployed for 
more than one 360-day period--I would have been able to come back from 
China very quickly if we only had 360 days. There were many people who 
served overseas for more than 2 to 3 years during World War II. By the 
way, they did not build up the points that were necessary to come home 
because those points primarily arose, as I recall, in periods of 
combat--at least you got greater credit while you were in combat.
  I never had to worry about points, Mr. President. I enjoyed what I 
was doing, and maybe I didn't want to quit flying, so I was very 
pleased to stay where I was.
  What we are trying to do is develop a policy that comprehensively 
examines the issue of overseas deployments and analyzes any resulting 
personnel readiness or operation tempo strains on the

[[Page 17969]]

Active Guard and Reserve Forces, and to apply this concept to the total 
force.
  We want to examine overseas rotation policies and practices and 
determine how those policies--for the whole force--impact military 
readiness, individual and unit training, the quality of life for 
military service members and their families, their dependents, the 
retention of career and noncareer military service members, and the 
impact on reenlistments of the policies that are pursued.
  We want to specifically get some recommendations on ways to reduce 
the burden of overseas military deployments while maintaining military 
readiness, overseas presence, and supporting the national military 
strategy and the ability to respond to the President's orders as 
Commander in Chief.
  I particularly think we ought to find some way to recognize that 
there has to be times when the Commander in Chief has the right to 
obtain the forces that he and his military advisers believe are 
necessary to maintain our national defense.
  Again, parenthetically, I am reading a novel now. I believe I told 
Senator Byrd and others about it. It is about the Revolutionary War. 
During that period, the Washington Army was a national army but there 
still was not a national government and they did not have permanent 
enlistments. They had enlistments for periods of days or weeks or 
months. Often Washington found he did not have the forces in one week 
that he had the week before, and he had to wait until he was augmented 
by further forces that came to him from the State militias.
  What are the State militias today? They are the National Guards. Our 
history of militias in the United States has given us the National 
Guards.
  This amendment offered by Senator Byrd really applies to the National 
Guard, too. The National Guard has another commander in chief, unless 
they are, in fact, mobilized by the President; and that is the Governor 
of each State. It is only when they are mobilized that they would come 
under this proposal of Senator Byrd.
  What I am saying is, we have many problems out there that have now 
been perceived because of the multiple deployments of our forces in the 
last 10 to 12 years. One of them became apparent to me as I talked to 
military people in my home State of Alaska; that is, we now have, in 
many instances, couples who are both in the military. Sometimes they 
are actually in different units, at different bases, but they are 
married and they have families. We have the problem of units being 
deployed and finding that both parents might be deployed at the same 
time, with minor children involved. That is something that ought to be 
looked at. We ought to have some limits on overseas deployment, period.
  Now, for instance, I believe about half of our marines today are in 
Okinawa. They are stationed there almost permanently. The Marines have 
fewer married people, I understand, but they do have some problems with 
regard to family deployments, and I think that concept ought to be 
looked at.
  We ought to look at the question of unaccompanied tours, the reverse 
side of that. How long should the marines or any of these individuals 
be stationed overseas when they are not accompanied by their spouse or 
their families?
  I distinctly remember the time Senator Hollings and I were asked to 
go to Europe by Senator Stennis. We went to study a problem that was 
coming because in those days, this is back in the 1970s, we had 
unaccompanied tours in terms of our basic force assigned to the 
protection of Europe and NATO. When these young people got a leave, 
they came home. They got married. And pretty soon the wives and younger 
children would follow the father, and they were living in these really 
sad circumstances.
  Senator Hollings and I went to what we called a walkup, cold-water 
flat in Germany, where a young woman and her children were living. They 
had one little burner, and they had cold water. This young woman had to 
care for those children, and the husband was not allowed any funds for 
that deployment because he was unaccompanied. They had to literally 
live off the local economy and somehow survive.
  I have to tell you, these young people, who were then draftees still 
going to Germany, weren't very well paid at all. They had a tough life. 
I still give much credit to Senator John Stennis for what he did for 
the military people because we followed through on every single issue 
he raised. And one by one we tried to solve the question of the quality 
of life of these young people. We increased the rotation with families. 
We increased the allowances for housing and various other quality-of-
life items. Senator Stennis rightly has been credited as one of those 
who brought about a great deal of that change.
  This is another change, however. This is a change of a rapid number 
of deployments on various issues where we have been involved--Somalia, 
Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. They all happened during 
our watch. And in many instances they involved the same people.
  I congratulate Senator Byrd for raising the issue, but I respectfully 
say his amendment is not the way to do it. I didn't see the Senator's 
amendment until just a few minutes ago. I am drafting an amendment 
which I will offer to the Senator's amendment.
  There is a great deal of interest in what is going on. I have just 
been notified that the Enlisted Association of the National Guard, the 
Reserve Officers Association, and the National Guard association has 
asked me to oppose the Senator's amendment. We believe Senator Byrd has 
good intentions but that the way this is done, if this would become 
law, would be too abrupt and would not really alleviate the pressures. 
We believe there should be much more consideration going into how these 
limitations on deployment will be brought about. We particularly do not 
want to take the risk that passing a very strict limitation on either 
the number of deployments or the time for the deployments would have on 
our national security.
  We are about ready to enter into another deployment. We all know the 
Commander in Chief has decided that some of our forces will go to 
Liberia. This again is going to raise the issue. But we have tried to 
deal with some of these issues by increasing compensation, by doing the 
things we think we should do to ease the burden on National Guard and 
Reserve personnel when they serve and to increase the amount they get 
towards credit for retirement and for promotion and for an increase in 
eligibility for pay.
  I do think we are dealing with something that everyone is talking 
about restructuring and everybody is talking about revamping the 
policies. Secretary Rumsfeld has told us he intends to issue a draft of 
a plan for a sweeping restructuring of the 900,000 National Guard and 
Reserve forces. He wants to deal with the question in a way that would 
bring about a reduction in the need for calling up large numbers of 
reservists in a war and do away with the concept in some instances.
  He considered it to be, according to the clipping I have just 
received, a matter of utmost urgency. I believe it is of utmost 
urgency, too. I would like the opportunity to review the plans the 
Secretary wants to put into effect. I think if they are plans that 
would be counter to the goals we currently are trying to achieve, we 
should find a way to work together.
  The Secretary issued a statement on July 9. I ask unanimous consent 
that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Secretary of Defense,

                                     Washington, DC, July 9, 2003.
     Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments, 
         Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Under 
         Secretaries of Defense.
     Subject: Rebalancing forces.

       The balance of capabilities in the Active and Reserve 
     components today is not the best for the future. We need to 
     promote judicious and prudent use of the Reserve components 
     with force rebalancing initiatives that reduce strain through 
     the efficient application of manpower and technological 
     solutions based on a disciplined force requirements process.

[[Page 17970]]

       To that end there are three principal objectives that I 
     want to achieve. They are:
       Structure active and reserve forces to reduce the need for 
     involuntary mobilization of the Guard and Reserve. Eliminate 
     the need for involuntary mobilization during the first 15 
     days of a rapid response operation (or for any alerts to 
     mobilize prior to the operation). Structure forces in order 
     to limit involuntary mobilization to not more than one year 
     every 6 years.
       Establish a more rigorous process for reviewing joint 
     requirements, which ensures that force structure is designed 
     appropriately and which validates requests for forces in time 
     to provide timely notice of mobilization.
       Make the mobilization and demobilization process more 
     efficient. When Reservists are used, ensure that they are 
     given meaningful work and work for which alternative manpower 
     is not readily available. Retain on active duty only as long 
     as absolutely necessary.
       I consider this a matter of the utmost urgency. I expect 
     each of you to tailor the actions in the attachment to your 
     specific organization and report back to USD (P&R) by memo on 
     your assessment and plan for implementation NLT July 31, 
     2003. Follow up actions may be reviewed at a future SROC as 
     necessary.
                                                  Donald Rumsfeld.

  Mr. STEVENS. It reads:

     . . . there are three principal objectives that I want to 
     achieve. They are:
       Structure active and reserve forces to reduce the need for 
     involuntary mobilization of the Guard and Reserves. Eliminate 
     the need for involuntary mobilization during the first 15 
     days of a rapid response operation (or for any alerts to 
     mobilize prior to the operation). Structure forces in order 
     to limit involuntary mobilization to not more than one every 
     6 years.
       Establish a more rigorous process for reviewing joint 
     requirements.

  I am just picking portions of this statement. It will be in the 
Record.

       Make the mobilization and demobilization process more 
     efficient.

  We agree with that. We ought to agree that there should be a review 
of that. I hope, however, the Secretary also would undertake some 
review of the impact of what he is talking about in terms of looking at 
what it will do to our enlistment rates, our retention rates and, in 
particular, into the viewpoints of the individual Governors who, after 
all, have a basic responsibility for the National Guard itself.
  I would like to introduce the amendment. I don't have it ready.
  Does Senator Inouye have any comment on this? I need to get the draft 
of the amendment. Would the Senator wish me to yield the floor?
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I just want to say I support my chairman 
on this matter. I congratulate Senator Byrd for bringing this to our 
attention because it is an important matter that concerns all 
Americans. I hope this proposal by Chairman Stevens will be acceptable 
to all Members of the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, while the Senate is awaiting Mr. Stevens' 
amendment, let me read some excerpts from some of my constituents. I 
referred to letters from my constituents during my comments on the 
amendment which I offered. Here is a constituent who writes as follows:

       I am writing to express some of my concerns with so many of 
     our West Virginia guardsmen and women deployed.
       I am under the impression that the duty of the National 
     Guard and Air National Guard is to fill in and help the 
     active duty in times of need. Many of our West Virginia Guard 
     have been deployed for quite a while now, but it seems as 
     though very few have come home yet. The combat portion of the 
     war seems to be nearing an end, and a couple of months have 
     passed for supplies and human aid to reach the people of 
     Iraq. It seems to me that our Guards men and women have 
     fulfilled their duty and should be sent home soon. A recent 
     severe flooding in our State could use the help of service 
     men and women here at home. I feel that our West Virginia 
     Guards men and women have contributed their portion of duty 
     to this war for the time being and deserve to come home now 
     and begin rotations with other units to cover the needs of 
     our active duty overseas. I do not want to see our State 
     suffer during this time of need for their services here.
       I am very proud of our service members within our State 
     because I believe they do an excellent job for us as a State 
     and for the Nation. They are always prepared to perform any 
     tasks they are called to do. I personally believe that we can 
     use their services here at home for the time being and that 
     they have accomplished their duties overseas. I wanted to 
     explain my concerns to you about the need for our Guard men 
     and women to return home soon.

  From another letter I present these excerpts:

       I am writing asking for your intervention and help in the 
     swift return to the United States for my son's unit serving 
     in Iraq. His unit has had no real mission since it was sent 
     to Iraq.

  He mentions his unit, which I will not mention here. He says:

       They have been pumping fuel which is not fit for use in 
     trucks or planes. Most of the time, they end up pumping it on 
     the ground just to settle the dust. They have been in the 
     very dangerous sections of Iraq, north and east of Baghdad. 
     At a family support meeting, we were told that the soldiers 
     are now being rationed water--one 20-ounce bottle a day. They 
     have no way of communicating with us back home. Their food is 
     limited and they are living in extremely miserable 
     conditions. We were urged to contact you for help. Mail is 
     not getting to them and we rarely receive mail from them. 
     They are not part of the rebuilding of the country. They are 
     not involved in any constructive activity--only the danger of 
     being in convoys and the sniper fire which has been 
     reportedly happening regularly.
       This war is not over, as our President continuously tells 
     the Nation. Our soldiers are not home. Please help. My son 
     chose to serve his country and for this I am very proud. But 
     this mission has gone into some bizarre and impossible 
     conditions for our sons and daughters. Please help bring them 
     home soon.

  Another letter is as follows, and I will excerpt certain paragraphs:

       As you are aware from my last letter that these men have 
     been deployed for quite a long time, they were gone for a 
     year with the last deployment, as well as State duty for 
     floods and now this deployment. For this deployment, these 
     men have been deployed since February of this year, and here 
     we are already in the middle of May. They were sent overseas 
     without any real kind of indication as to when they will 
     return home. I have gotten some form of answer [from a 
     certain office in the service] that the current policy is for 
     the men to be deployed for 6 months overseas. However, that 
     is not any guarantee either. We are still looking at 2 years 
     of deployment for these men. I just find it so hard to 
     believe that there is no one out there that can help get 
     these men home before that timeframe. I don't understand why 
     it can't be a total of 6 months.
       There are many family members, including mothers and 
     fathers, of these soldiers who would be very grateful to you 
     if you can make this happen for us.

  Another letter:

       On December 1, 2002, my husband [she writes his name, which 
     I shall not divulge] was deployed for the war in Iraq, and he 
     was told that he would return to continue in his normal 
     career when the war was over. Since then, he has been 
     scheduled to return to the United States on five occasions.

  She gives the dates.

       He is still in Germany. He is having to pay for his meals 
     and a hotel room, while awaiting a flight somewhere in 
     Africa, as directed by his commander, although there are no 
     legal or valid orders to do so. As of today, my husband has 
     been deployed, mobilized, 200 days. His orders state his 
     deployment is not to exceed 179 days. . . . My husband is a 
     West Virginia National Guard soldier who has been deployed 
     over 6 months, who by regulation should have been redeployed 
     to his home station before being assigned to a new theater, 
     as stated in his orders. . . . Morale is at an all-time low 
     for my husband, myself, and our family, and all the soldiers 
     and families I have spoken to.
       Anything you could do to make this situation right would be 
     so greatly appreciated than I could possibly let you know. 
     Please help me get my soldier home.

  It was signed by his wife.
  Mr. President, I will not go further in reading letters, but I have 
many of them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this is a very complex issue.
  I wish to remind the Senate that in this bill, we have added $2 
million for employer support for Guard and Reserve to help address 
problems with recent deployments. I was just informed there was a Rand 
study of deployments. The authors looked at the issue in the wake of 
the high rate of military deployments through the nineties, and the 
prospect that deployment will rise even more.
  The authors found, paraphrasing part of this report, that 
reenlistment was

[[Page 17971]]

higher among members who deployed compared with those who did not, and 
sizable increases in deployment all appeared unlikely to reduce 
reenlistment rates. Research suggested past deployment influences 
current reenlistment behavior because it enables members to learn about 
their preferences of deployment and about its frequency and duration, 
which may revise members' previously held, more naive expectations.
  I have had some letters similar to what Senator Byrd has just read. I 
do think there are individual problems, and that is our job as Members 
of the Congress, this body in particular, to look into those and try to 
remedy them and see they do not happen again. I again commend the 
Senator for addressing the problem.
  There are existing provisions of the United States Code, specifically 
sections 12301, 12302, and 12304, that detail the varying levels of 
mobilization, the number of forces the President can call up and the 
amount of time those forces can be activated and actions required with 
respect to Congress.
  There is no question there is already a law concerning this 
situation, and by law the President of the United States has the 
authority to deploy members of the Guard and Reserve overseas as 
appropriate and within the context of the laws I just mentioned.
  This amendment would obviously change those laws, and if nothing 
else, before we change those laws, we should give the legislative 
committees, the Armed Services Committee, the opportunity to look at 
the subject. I think their review should be based upon a review of 
people with competence who have had experience in the problem of 
assisting the Commander in Chief to deal with the Reserve components of 
our military.
  I am told the standard rotation is a deployment of 180 days. Those 
deployment days do not include preparation or recovery time, and 
typically the units may be mobilized for 230 days in order to complete 
the 180-day deployment. This would put a restriction on that past 
policy as it has been carried out.
  We should have some in-depth review of the relationships of these 
policies of rotation, deployment, and mobilization days, as well as the 
impact on families and upon their employers, as the Senator has 
mentioned.
  Without question, employers are affected and without question small 
cities and towns, such as exist in my State and I know exist in West 
Virginia, are impaired if these durations are for too long.
  Clearly, we have come through a period which now I think we ought to 
review a little bit, and I will speak later today about the reliance of 
the Department of Defense on supplemental appropriations for 
contingency and peacekeeping operations in the past two decades. That 
is something that has to be addressed, and the Senator from Nevada 
addressed it earlier today, and I will discuss those.
  For now, though, again coming back to this basic problem of this 
amendment, do you think we can say the Secretary of Defense has already 
issued a statement of intent to devise a plan to deal with a portion of 
these problems? There is no question we have a difficult future to deal 
with because we still have forces in Kosovo; we still have forces in 
Haiti; we still have forces in Bosnia; we still have forces in Korea; 
we still have forces in Okinawa; we still have forces in Diego Garcia; 
we have forces at King Sultan Airfield in Saudi Arabia.
  The Senator from Hawaii and I represent two areas that have what they 
call forward-deployed forces. I say to the Senator from West Virginia, 
often when we have forces deployed from Alaska and Hawaii to go 
overseas, we then get replacements who are really people who have been 
called up, Guard and Reserve units, to come to our forward-deployed 
areas to fill in those spots. They are not considered deployed 
overseas. If they were from West Virginia, they would be away from West 
Virginia for a substantial period of time. The Senator's amendment 
would not cover those people.
  In terms of review, I hope, if we are successful in establishing a 
commission to bring this about, that there will be a basic review of 
the overall concept of deployment, whether it is overseas or otherwise, 
when it takes members of the armed services away from their home duty 
station and their families and particularly those who have multiple 
family members of the military who could be affected by deployment at 
the same time.
  One of the difficulties I have is now looking at Africa and what is 
going to happen in Africa. We have had repeated demands for the 
President to deploy forces there, increased demand to look at more than 
one nation that is going through a period of rebellion and riotous 
conduct. I think that may be one of the worst deployment problems we 
will have in the future, is to find forces to undertake those 
objectives, fulfill the objectives of the Commander in Chief's orders 
if we are at the same time still in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Korea, Kosovo, 
and Iraq.
  It is mind-boggling, to say the least, to deal with the concept of 
deployment at the present time, the requirements overseas to maintain 
the policies of the United States.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. The distinguished Senator speaks of our forces being 
deployed in various and sundry continents, countries, and climes. Are 
these guardsmen and reservists whom the Senator is talking about?
  Mr. STEVENS. Under the total force concept, there could be National 
Guardsmen and Reserve in any of the units deployed overseas.
  Mr. BYRD. He speaks of Kosovo. Are those National Guardsmen and 
Reserve deployed there?
  Mr. STEVENS. I do not know the current component, Mr. President, but 
we did see some reservists and Guard people in Kosovo when we were 
there. We visited Fort Bonnsteel. We saw them in Bosnia, and we saw 
them in Afghanistan. I am specifically told the National Guard 
currently has a mission in Bosnia.
  Mr. BYRD. Are they limited to 6 months?
  Mr. STEVENS. Currently, I believe there is a 6-month deployment 
limit, but they do not charge against that deployment period the time 
necessary to get them ready to go over, or the time they use in 
demobilization when they get back.
  Mr. BYRD. But the time there, are they limited to 6 months?
  Mr. STEVENS. That is my understanding.
  Mr. BYRD. Then why shouldn't the people in the hot sands of Saudi 
Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq be likewise?
  Mr. STEVENS. They are. I just read that law. They are subject to the 
same law. I am told the standard rotation period is 180 days. Those 
days do not include any preparation or recovery time. The units are 
typically mobilized for 230 days or more to complete the 180-day 
requirement, but it applies to all forces. It does apply to our forces 
in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo--they are all subject to coming back after 
180 days.
  Mr. BYRD. Is the Senator aware of any complaints from his National 
Guard in Alaska or other Reserve units there that they are being held 
longer than the 180 days and being redeployed for a longer period?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator used the word ``redeployment,'' which is 
another matter. Deployment is limited to 180 days. There is currently 
no limit on the number of deployments, as I understand it. The problem 
that I and the Senator from Hawaii discussed with various members of 
the armed services Regular Guard and Reserve has been the problem of 
successive deployments. Active duty tours are limited to 180 days under 
most circumstances when they are not considered to be a home station, 
such as Korea and Okinawa.
  For the deployment into these areas, as I understand it, like the 
Balkans, Afghanistan, or Iraq, the limitation on the deployment is 180 
days, but there is no limitation on the number of rotations that one 
could take to another place overseas when they are brought back.
  Mr. BYRD. I am trying to get some predictability worked into the 
equation. That is the reason I have offered

[[Page 17972]]

this amendment. I am getting these letters from the men and women from 
West Virginia who are in Iraq. They want to come home. They think they 
have served the time that was indicated to them they would serve and 
yet they are serving longer.
  Mr. REID. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Do I have the floor, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Yes, I am glad to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding this amendment does two things. I 
wonder if the Senator from West Virginia would indicate if my 
understanding of the amendment is correct. First, that Guard and 
Reserve Forces could be deployed for no longer than 180 days. That is 6 
months, is that right?
  Mr. BYRD. Right.
  Mr. REID. And the second part of the amendment says they cannot be 
deployed twice during a 1-year period of time, is that right?
  Mr. BYRD. In essence, the Senator is precisely correct.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from West Virginia that the people of 
Nevada are like the people of West Virginia. We get inquiries all the 
time about when their sons or daughters are going to be able to come 
home. The Senator from Alaska said they not only are overseas for a 
long period of time but they have training outside the State of Nevada 
getting ready to go for long periods of time.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. REID. So I hope my colleagues will listen very closely to this 
debate and approve the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia. It 
is very simple. If someone is a guard or reservist, they will be 
deployed no more than 180 days, and if they are a guard or reservist 
they cannot be deployed overseas twice in any 1-year period of time?
  Mr. BYRD. They are entitled to know. They are employed and they are 
entitled to have their expectations met. Here we are with our men and 
women in Iraq. They are there like sitting ducks. It is like a shooting 
gallery. They are in an area I am sure we would find very difficult to 
live in. We will be talking more about reasons why they were told they 
were going and about the problems with certain intelligence that had an 
impression, I am sure, a persuasive impression on some of the Members 
of Congress who voted to give this President the power to send our men 
and women into harm's way, but we will save that for another day.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. BYRD. What I am trying to do is make it possible for these men 
and women who are in the Guard and Reserve units to return home to 
their children, their families, their wives, their mothers, their 
fathers, their jobs, their communities. Communities have been hit hard 
in this country. Communities have been hit hard in West Virginia. These 
men and women answered the call. They have served well. They have 
demonstrated great courage, bravery, and patriotism. Why should we not 
keep our word to these people? Why should we not be up front with them?
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. REID. One of the concerns I have and the reason we need some 
definition for the obligations of these men and women in the Guard and 
Reserve is that we are having trouble in Nevada recruiting new people 
for the Guard and Reserve. These weekend soldiers are becoming year-
long soldiers and we in Nevada, I think, are no different than any 
other State. I believe we need a definite period of time they can be 
obligated to go overseas and how many times they have to go overseas, 
are obligated to go overseas, or we are not going to get people to join 
the Guard and Reserve.
  Will the Senator agree with that statement?
  Mr. BYRD. I agree with that statement, and I think the administration 
ought to tell these people how long they are going to stay over there. 
They are not told they are going to be over there just 6 months. They 
are not told they will be there 9 months or a year. This administration 
has failed to tell our people, who are put in harm's way by this 
administration's policy of preemptive strikes, what this administration 
intends. Congress has not been told how long these people are going to 
be there, what are the costs.
  We hear every day--the President spoke on the Abraham Lincoln with a 
sign, a banner, fluttering overhead, ``mission accomplished.'' The 
mission has not been accomplished. What was the mission? I am not sure 
we know what the mission was.
  I appreciate the statements and the questions by the Senator from 
Nevada. I appreciate also the words of the distinguished Senator from 
Alaska. He is a very reasonable man and a reasonable legislator.
  We talk about a study, but we study things to death around here. We 
need to act, and that is what I am trying to do. I am trying to bring 
some succor, comfort, relief, and satisfaction to the families of our 
Guard and reservists who are waiting the return of those men and women.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. There may be some misunderstanding in the minds of those 
who have been called up, or the dependents of those who have been 
called up, concerning existing law. The existing law does limit the 
deployment for overseas to 180 days. They must be rotated in that 
period of time. As I have said, it takes 230 days to complete that 
because of the time to call them up. They have to give them notice. 
They report. They then are put into units and then they are sent 
overseas.
  When they come back, they come into the units where they are going to 
be really demobilized and it takes some time then, too. I do not think 
we have a disagreement with the Senator from West Virginia about the 
need to ease the pressure on these continuing forces caused by the 
concept of total force, but there seems to be one misunderstanding. It 
is the unit that is deployed for the 180 days--in some instances 
members are deployed individually to fill in units. They would be 
subject to the same limitation, but the basic concept of the law deals 
with being able to deploy members of the Guard and Reserve as 
appropriate within the context of the law I have mentioned.


                Amendment No. 1255 to Amendment No. 1244

  Mr. President, I have my amendment, which I send to the desk, and I 
will give a copy to my friend from West Virginia. I submit this 
amendment on behalf of myself and the Senator from Hawaii as a 
bipartisan approach to deal with the issues and try to bring them 
together.
  The Secretary of Defense has a group going ahead on this. We 
obviously believe the Congress should be involved in some way. I ask 
that that amendment be in order to be called up at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I apologize. I am offering this amendment in the second 
degree to the Byrd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator wants his amendment to be a 
second-degree amendment, is that correct?
  Mr. STEVENS. That is correct, as an amendment to the Byrd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will withhold while we evaluate the 
amendment and make the necessary changes.
  The amendment is being revised to be a second-degree amendment to the 
Byrd amendment. Is that the Senator's intent?
  Mr. STEVENS. That is my intention.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself and Mr. 
     Inouye, proposes an amendment numbered 1255 to amendment No. 
     1244.

  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.

[[Page 17973]]

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To establish a commission to study overseas deployments)

       Strike all after the word sec. and insert:
       8124 (a) There is established a Commission on Overseas 
     Deployments.
       (b)(1) The Commission shall be composed of 11 members of 
     whom--
       (A) three shall be appointed the President;
       (B) two shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (C) two shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense;
       (D) two shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate, in consultation with any person who served as 
     Secretary of Defense pursuant to an appointment to such 
     position by President Jimmy Carter or President Bill Clinton; 
     and
       (E) two shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (2) Members shall be appointed for the life of the 
     Commission. Any vacancy in the Commission shall not affect 
     its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as the 
     original appointment.
       (3) The Commission shall meet at the call of the Chairman. 
     The Commission shall hold its first meeting not later than 30 
     days after the date on which all members of the Commission 
     have been appointed.
       (4) A majority of the members of the Commission shall 
     constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold 
     hearings.
       (5) The Commission shall select a Chairman and Vice 
     Chairman from among its members.
       (c) The Commission shall--
       (1) conduct a comprehensive examination of overseas 
     deployments of members of the Armed Forces, and analyze the 
     resulting adverse effects on personnel, readiness, and 
     operation tempos on members of the active and reserve 
     components of the Armed Forces;
       (2) examine current overseas rotation policies and 
     practices for active and reserve component forces and how 
     those policies and practices affect military readiness, unit 
     and individual training, quality-of-life for members and 
     their dependents, and retention of career and noncareer 
     members.
       (d)(1) Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report on the results of 
     the examination and analysis under subsection (c).
       (2) The report shall include recommendations on ways to 
     reduce the burden of overseas deployments while maintaining 
     readiness, overseas presence, and support for the National 
     Military Strategy.
       (3) The report and recommendations shall also address the 
     overall size, structure, and sufficiency of the Armed Forces 
     in relation to current requirements for overseas deployments 
     and presence, the adequacy of the current balance and mix of 
     active and reserve component forces, and the adequacy of the 
     current balance and mix of critical, high-demand low-density 
     units the rotation and assignment of members of the Armed 
     Forces married to each other, limitations on the periods of 
     overseas tours, and unaccompanied tours in hardship 
     locations.
       (e) The Commission shall consult with the congressional 
     defense committees in carrying out its duties under this 
     section.
       (f) The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the 
     submission of the report under subsection (d).
       (g) Of the amount appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', up to 
     $3,000,000 may be used for carrying out this section.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. If I could explain this proposal, it would create a 
commission on overseas deployments to have 11 members: 3 appointed by 
the President, 2 appointed by the Speaker, 2 appointed by the minority 
leader of the House, 2 appointed by the majority leader of the Senate, 
and 2 by the minority leader of the Senate. They would be appointed the 
term of the commission. We ask for the commission to hold its first 
meeting not later than 30 days after they have been appointed. They 
have the duty to give us a report within 120 days after enactment of 
the act--obviously, that would be a period of 90 days for their basic 
work--and they would recommend ways to reduce the burden of overseas 
deployments while maintaining readiness, overseas presence, and support 
of the national military strategy.
  The report and recommendations shall address the overall side, 
structure, and sufficiency of the Armed Forces in relation to current 
requirements for overseas deployment and presence, and the adequacy of 
the current balance and mix of Active and Reserve component forces, and 
the adequacy of the current balance and mix of critical, high-demand 
low-density units the rotation and assignment of members of the Armed 
Forces married to each other, limitations on the periods for overseas 
tours and unaccompanied tours and hardship locations.
  I believe this commission would have a duty to give us some basic 
information to address the problem raised by the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Incidentally, I now have the numbers the Senator from West Virginia 
asked. There were Reserve and Guard organizations deployed. They were 
in Operation Noble Eagle, which was Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraqi crisis, 
Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, Kuwait, and Iraq. We have had a sizable 
deployment of Guard and Reserve personnel--the Reserve component is 
what they refer to--in all of those instances. I do have the numbers 
and the duration.
  As I indicated, the rotation schedule was that which I mentioned, 
which is 180 days for deployment overseas. I urge the Senator from West 
Virginia to consider supporting the amendment we have offered to his 
amendment to assure we have the right mix of Active-Duty and Reserve 
components and that we devise means to reduce our forces with the least 
disruption on the lives of the service members involved.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. The distinguished Senator said the reservists should be 
deployed for 180 days.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is the current law.
  Mr. BYRD. That is what my amendment says.
  Mr. STEVENS. Not quite. We do not interpret it that way. It goes 
further than existing law.
  Existing law says the units can be deployed for no more than 180 days 
but under the current law, the time and preparing for that deployment 
and the time after that deployment to be redeployed, say, another place 
such as england or somewhere, to be put together so they can be brought 
home, those times don't count against the 180 days.
  The Senator's amendment adds a dimension not included in existing 
law, not more than one deployment in any 360-day period.
  Mr. BYRD. Is there a final deadline for this commission to report?
  Mr. STEVENS. One hundred and twenty days from enactment of the basic 
appropriations bills, yes, sir.
  Mr. BYRD. I am afraid our guards men and women will have to serve a 
long time. Many of them have already been serving a long time, in their 
estimation. They will have to serve a much longer time if they wait the 
appointment of the commission and then the rendering by that 
commission. I see its first meeting will not be later than 30 days 
after the date on which all members of the commission have been 
appointed.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct in many ways. The difficulty is 
the current practice is 180 days but none of these people, to my 
knowledge, have been over there 180 days yet. This operation has not 
been ongoing for 180 days. There may, however, be people deployed 
previously in this current timeframe who were deployed to one place, 
brought home, and then deployed again in the same year. That is true. 
That is what the Secretary of Defense has said he is trying to address. 
That is what this commission is trying to address, some way to provide 
some guidelines so members of the Active-Duty and Reserve components 
can determine how long they will be deployed away from their homes in 
any period.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator gave me this amendment, a 4-page amendment but 
page 3 is missing.
  I thank the Senator. The third page which was missing is the page 
that had on it the provision:

       Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Commission shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees a report on the results of the examination and 
     analysis under subsection (c).

  So that is 120 days, so that is 4 months, not later than 4 months, by 
the time this commission is created, is established and has its first 
meeting and then reports back to the appropriate committees. I hope 
surely our young men and women will be home by then without any such 
report. This is going to be a long time.
  That is what I see with this. We need to act. We can study this to 
death. This

[[Page 17974]]

is kind of like questioning Secretary Rumsfeld. When I asked him a 
question in the Armed Services Committee the other day, my question 
was, How much has our country been spending on the average per month in 
Iraq?
  And he says to me: Well, I'm sorry, Senator, we don't have that 
information at hand. We will get it for you. We don't have that 
information at hand.
  I asked, How much have we been spending per month in Afghanistan? I 
got the same answer. Senator, we don't have that information. We will 
be glad to get it for you.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. In a moment, if I may.
  I am referring to the cavalier treatment that we peons on the Armed 
Services Committee get from this great Secretary of Defense that we 
have downtown. He says, Well, Senator, we don't have that information.
  Here we are with the top man--the man at the Pentagon, the greatest 
defense department in the world, the most expensive one, the one that 
handles more money than any other defense department in the world. As a 
matter of fact, we are spending more money each year than all of the 
other 18 NATO nations combined, plus the six remaining rogue nations, 
plus China, plus Russia. That is almost half of the total moneys that 
the world spends for defense. We are treated like children by this 
Secretary of Defense: Well, Senator we don't have that information.
  It would seem to me that would be elemental. It would seem to me that 
a Secretary of Defense would know how much money we spend on national 
defense; that he would know how much money we are spending on average 
in Iraq per month. He would know that. He should know that would be one 
of the first questions he would be asked by the Armed Services 
Committee when he comes before it. I would think so. You are the 
Secretary of Defense. How much are we spending in Iraq monthly? Then to 
have to turn and say, Well, Senator, I don't have that information. It 
would take us a while to assemble it. That is the way it is here. It is 
going to take quite a while.
  It is going to take quite a while to get this commission started, if 
we follow the recommendations of the distinguished Senator from Alaska. 
I ascribe to him a far greater degree of appreciation for what we are 
doing and a far greater degree of understanding of the need for us to 
act than I do some of the people downtown. But here we are being asked 
for a study.
  What I am saying is that way of dealing with Members of Congress and 
committees, saying, Well, we don't have that information; we will get 
it for you--by the time we get that information, the time is long past 
for the committee to ask the next question, if we need the answer to 
the first question in order to ask the second question. We are going to 
have to wait to be able to ask the second question. That is a cavalier 
way of handling people. I have been around here 50 years. I am on to 
that kind of game.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Not yet. I am not talking about the Senator. I am talking 
about our distinguished Secretary of Defense and the way he handles us 
children on the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would like to tell the Senate about the way the last 
administration treated this Senate.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator can wait a minute.
  Mr. President, I have the floor. I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Now I yield to the Senator for whatever he wishes to say.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I think the Senator from West Virginia is 
well aware of what the last administration did. They just spent money. 
They didn't even tell us where they were taking it from. Twice in 1999, 
we had to have supplementals. They didn't even tell us in the 
supplementals what funds they used. They deployed forces, and they took 
money from the accounts we had already appropriated for other purposes. 
Every time President Clinton deployed forces, that is what he did.
  This time, this President came and asked for a supplemental. He has 
money he is spending, but he cannot tell us precisely day by day what 
they are spending. They asked for money in advance. They got money in 
advance.
  He did not disturb the individual accounts of the various services. 
He did not cause the chaos in terms of defense that the last 
administration did.
  I will defend my friend, this Secretary of Defense. If the Senator 
wants to defend the last Secretary of Defense, I will let him do it. 
But I know what happened. In 1998, 1999, and 2000--we had 2 
supplementals in 1999. That represented money that was used under the 
food and farm act concept of ancient law of the United States. The 
President took money from other accounts and just spent it. He didn't 
ask us for it. He didn't tell us what he was using it for. He never 
would account for it. Even when he asked for a supplemental, he didn't 
tell us what unit he took it from. We had to look for the unit and put 
the money back where it belonged.
  This administration is doing it right. When they ask for money in 
advance, they are spending money and accounting for it as they account 
for their bills normally in their normal reports. But they did not take 
money from the individual units.
  They took money from the Air Force and Army and spent it somewhere 
else without telling anybody.
  You want to get me excited about something, I will get excited about 
the way the last administration handled the Department of Defense. They 
decreased funding and used the money in a manner totally unheard of in 
the history of the United States. It would have ruined the military had 
it not been for the concept of the consolidated force structure. The 
military saved itself by using Reserve and Guard units in the proper 
way.
  But their funding came from moneys that were for entirely different 
purposes. I believe they took money from the procurement account from 
time to time. Normally, they took the operation and maintenance money. 
That is the steaming money. That is money for flying hours. That is 
money for drilling. That is money for equipment. That is money for 
munitions. They just depleted money, and deployed forces to Bosnia and 
Kosovo without asking at all. There was no advance request. There was 
no notice given.
  If the Senator wants to get excited about the way funding is being 
used now, they are using the funds which they asked Congress for. I was 
the one who presented the bill. Congress approved it. The President 
signed the law. And the Secretary of Defense has the right to use that 
money according to laws that we pass. And he is following those laws, 
to the best of my knowledge.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I say to my distinguished friend, I 
don't worry. He can get excited as many times as he wishes. I have 
excited many people in my time around here, before the Senator from 
Alaska came here. He can get excited all he wishes. I will be glad to 
wait while he gets excited again, if he would like.
  He reminds me of the pharisee and the publican who went up into the 
tower. The publican said, ``Oh, Lord, I don't do what this man does. I 
don't do as he does. I give my tithes. I give one-tenth of all I 
earn.'' And he went on to talk about his attributes. The other poor man 
in the tower said, ``Oh, Lord. Forgive me. I am a sinner.''
  So don't point to Clinton, when the Senator talks to me--or to any 
other President. I am talking about this administration. We can't 
excuse this administration because of something some other 
administration may have done. The people on that side are good at that. 
Many of them are always pointing out what we did, what Clinton did, or 
what this one did, or what that one did. That time is past. We can't 
excuse our own sins on the basis of the sins of others.
  I am talking about this President, this administration, your 
administration, your Secretary of Defense. You can stand up and defend 
him all you wish, my friend. And I shouldn't say ``you.'' I shouldn't 
speak in the second person under the Senate rules. Maybe I got a little 
excited also.

[[Page 17975]]

  But the Senator isn't going to run that old fish along the side of 
me. He can get excited all he wants. He is noted for his temper. Temper 
is a good thing. We all have some of it.
  But I am saying here that when we ask questions of his friend, the 
Senator from Alaska's friend, Mr. Rumsfeld, we get treated cavalierly, 
and many times get a lecture. It is about time we get rid of that kind 
of treatment. Secretary Rumsfeld, with all due respect to him, wasn't 
elected by the American people to that job he has today. He was 
appointed to it. He was confirmed in it by this Senate. I was not 
appointed to anything.
  So let's don't attempt to respond to what I hope were sincere 
questions here by pointing to what a previous administration may have 
done. I did not agree with everything that happened in the previous 
administration. The supplemental requested by the Clinton 
administration is in no way appropriate to the cost of Iraq. Bosnia and 
Kosovo were minuscule in comparison to the cost of Iraq.
  Let's talk about Iraq, and let's talk about this administration. We 
have to deal with the problems that confront the Senate today. I am not 
going to ask my constituents to settle for a study. We need to act. And 
we Senators have a duty to vote on my amendment. When we talk about a 
supplemental, that is a way to--and I speak always with great reverence 
to my friend, Senator Stevens; and he is my friend, he is going to be 
my friend, and I am his, but this is a way to hide costs from the 
American people, huge costs that can be anticipated, and that are 
driven by policy decisions made in this White House.
  There is no reason for a supplemental request in this instance. 
Congress is not an ATM machine. This White House wants to be 
accountable to no one. We have a responsibility to the taxpayer to 
exercise oversight over these monies.
  I have nothing else I wish to say at this point. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do agree to a great extent with the 
Senator from West Virginia, except that I reiterate I am proud to 
defend this administration. This administration asked for the money, 
told us what it was for. As a matter of fact, in one instance, the 
President asked for $10 billion for the global war on terrorism as a 
contingency fund and, together with the Senator from West Virginia, I 
helped deny that request. The Congress asked that the administration 
define the costs and contingencies, and they did. And that money was 
included in the big supplemental we passed for defense. We asked for it 
and received the statement of what the money was to be spent for.
  We asked them to tell us what they were going to spend the money on 
in Iraq. It was detailed. It was in the fund that was given to them.
  Again, I defend this administration because, to their credit, they 
agreed we have rescinded in this bill $3.1 billion of that supplemental 
we gave to the Department and took the money back and put it for other 
functions in the Department. Now, the last administration would have 
taken that money and put it there, anyway. They agreed we should take 
it back, and now we are going through the process of reappropriating 
the same money in this bill for 2004 because it is not going to be used 
according to what they told us they were going to use it for in terms 
of the Iraq supplemental.
  But, Mr. President, a friend in the House, watching this event, has 
sent to me a statement that was made in the House Armed Services 
Committee on April 3 of this year by Sergeant First Class Steven Davis 
of the U.S. Army Reserve. I think it is significant to have this 
comment at this time, and I am pleased that my friends are listening. I 
am going to read the statement word for word.
  Sergeant First Class Steven Davis said:

       Mr. Chairman, members of this distinguished subcommittee, 
     thank you for the opportunity to be here today and for 
     allowing me to be a participant in this panel.
       My name is Sergeant First Class Steven Davis and I am a 
     Military Policeman in the Army Reserve. I have been serving 
     in the United States Army for 15 years, seven of which have 
     been in the Army Reserve. I am assigned to the Military 
     Police Port Security Detachment in Pocahontas, Iowa. I have 
     been mobilized once since I have been in the Army Reserve. I 
     was mobilized on September 23, 2001, for Operation Noble 
     Eagle, and I served one year state side in North Carolina.
       In my experience, with both the regular Army and the Army 
     Reserve, I believe that the two are very much integrated. I 
     had positive contacts with reserve soldiers when I was on 
     active duty, and I have also had positive contact with the 
     active Army since I have been a reserve soldier. Most 
     recently during our deployment to Sunny Point, North 
     Carolina, we were directly assigned to the 597th 
     Transportation Group. From the moment we arrived, I felt as 
     though we belonged there. I remember during a welcome 
     meeting, COL Heiter, the Commander of the 597th, made it very 
     clear to everyone in the room that the members of my unit 
     would be treated as any other soldier at Sunny Point. The 
     Command emphasis set the tone for our one-year star. Our 
     forces integrated flawlessly with the existing Department of 
     Defense forces, which is what we were trained to do. We were 
     able to work together as a cohesive team, and everyone's 
     moral was high.
       As for the question, did the recent deployment change or 
     affect the reservist's intention to continue to serve. I 
     believe the deployment made our unit stronger and more 
     willing. From month to month we go ask ourselves, are we 
     really needed?? Why are we doing this? Then September 11th 
     came and all our questions were answered. Yes, we were 
     needed, and yes, we were important. On September 12, 2001, we 
     had 24 soldiers, myself included, volunteer to go on a 
     security mission to an unknown place. The 24 volunteers left 
     for Beaumont, Texas, on September 13th, 2001. Ten days later, 
     on September 23rd, the remainder of our unit was mobilized 
     and sent to North Carolina, where we spent our tour of duty. 
     When our year was up, and we all got the word that we were 
     going home, we were told the New York unit was going to take 
     our place, but that they did not have enough people. Twenty-
     two soldiers from my unit volunteered to stay with them, not 
     for 3 or 6 months, but for another year. Some of the soldiers 
     were married and some were college students. Why did they 
     stay when they did not have to? I would say it was because 
     they knew they had a job to do, and they weren't going to 
     leave until it was finished.
       The one problem that we encountered during our deployment 
     was medical benefits. The Army did a great job of providing 
     the coverage, and teaching the soldiers how to use the 
     coverage. However, our family members did not have the 
     advantage of having a representative available to inform 
     them. This created many headaches for the soldiers, who would 
     try to trouble shoot the problems long distance. I believe a 
     local representative, available for family members would have 
     been very helpful and would have saved the soldiers a lot of 
     time on the telephone.

  I read that because it is indicative of the feeling of our young 
people. We talked at one of our hearings to the Guard and Reserve 
members, and we found that as the deployments increased, enlistments 
increased; and as deployments increased, reenlistments increased.
  We are having complaints from some people who believe they should 
have come home sooner, but none have been over there a year yet. None 
of them have been over there 6 months yet. Even under the current, 
existing law, the Senator's amendment will not affect them. Well, I am 
told some in Kuwait have been there 6 months by now, and they should be 
rotating home. But, as a practical matter, the existing law provides 
for the deployment limitation, the existing regulations and practice 
for rotation in deployment every 180 days.
  However, again, I come back and ask my friend from West Virginia to 
support us in this effort to have this reviewed. I hope the Senator has 
read the composition of the commission we would like to create: people 
appointed by the President, people appointed by the leaders of the two 
bodies. I do believe an 11-member commission is sufficient. I envision 
that they would call on former Secretaries of Defense and their 
assistants, former commanding officers, generals, and members of the 
Guard and Reserve from the enlisted area. So we would have a 
representative group to give us their advice.
  Respectfully, I think we need their advice on how to deal with the 
complex problems of dealing with rotation and deployment limitations in 
this day of a very complex total force that our military defense units 
face today.
  I urge my friend to reflect and let us adopt our amendment and create 
this

[[Page 17976]]

commission, and we will be back here in 5 months. That, I think, would 
be sufficient to deal with this problem. And it will give us a forward-
looking concept as far as deployment strategy, rotation strategy, and 
benefit strategy for members of our Armed Forces.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. 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. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to address the amendment 
offered by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and the second-
degree amendment offered by Chairman Stevens.
  I think we all realize the tremendous strain that the deployments, 
the call-ups have placed on our Guard and Reserve and actually the 
continuing deployments place upon the active members of the military. 
That is a well-deserved concern. We must take into account how calling 
upon our troops, whether active or reserve, puts stress on them and 
their families.
  I believe very strongly that Senator Stevens has in his amendment 
adopted the appropriate approach--appointing a commission to examine 
the overseas deployments of members of the Armed Forces, the overseas 
rotation policies and practices for Active and Reserve component 
forces, and how these policies and practices affect military readiness, 
unit and individual training, quality of life for members and their 
dependents, and retention of career and noncareer members.
  In examining this issue, as cochairman of the National Guard caucus, 
we sent out a request, an urgent request, for information from the 
Guard on their views on these policies. MG Richard Alexander, retired 
major general, president of the National Guard Association, has written 
me a letter--which I will, at the end of my remarks, ask to include in 
the Record--noting and commending the efforts of Senator Byrd to bring 
this issue to the forefront but saying that the National Guard 
Association is opposed to the amendment. Understanding the intent 
behind the amendment, it does, unfortunately, reduce the ability of the 
President to utilize the National Guard and Reserve and places a large, 
unnecessary restriction on the Department of Defense.
  He writes:

       The National Guard, as part of the Total Force, shoulders 
     the burdens of our nation. Senior level members of the Office 
     of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of Defense 
     have iterated the importance of the Guard and Reserve to be 
     able to carry out this nation's will.

  The members of the National Guard and Reserve with whom I am most 
familiar take very highly their obligation and responsibility to be 
available when the President must mobilize them in the national 
interest. They wish to be considered an active part of the military 
when we are at war. The single deployment limitation of 180 days or 
more, for example, may unnecessarily restrict the effectiveness of the 
Guard if they are called into service.
  They say you can only be there 6 months and then you are gone. That 
really ties the hands of the Secretary of Defense and makes the Guard 
less likely to be called upon. In those circumstances, the missions for 
which our Guard members in Missouri and around the Nation train so 
assiduously may be lost.
  The Reserve Officers Association of the United States says, in 
reference to the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia:

       Although we understand the amendment is well intentioned, 
     these restrictions are not needed and such determinations are 
     best left with the Military Departments and services.
       In today's security environment we must ensure that our 
     military commanders have flexibility to execute their mission 
     with all available forces.

  Finally, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard, EANGUS, the 
executive director, MSG Michael Cline, Retired, writes that there is 
clearly concern about the pressures of frequent deployment on National 
Guard and Reserve members. But much more consideration needs to go into 
how that will be accomplished. Limiting deployment of National Guard 
and Reserve members could negatively impact our national security 
during an overseas operation.
  These are the reasons that I believe the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Alaska is the preferred means of dealing with this 
question. Clearly, it is of concern to all of us because while we all 
recognize and acknowledge that the National Guard and Reserves have 
been called upon more and more over the last several years in various 
conflicts, our citizen soldiers have answered those calls to duty with 
a forbearance and spirit of service to their Nation that we all admire.
  I will reference a book authored by a good friend, former chief of 
the National Guard Bureau, General John Conoway, ``Call Out the 
Guard.'' He underscores the commitment of our citizen soldiers. He 
said:

       As we saw during Desert Storm, the readiness of the 
     individual Reservists was generally high in Operation Desert 
     Storm/Shield. An amazing 99.9 percent of Army National Guard 
     personnel who were called reported for active duty. Ninety-
     four percent were ready for deployment; the remaining 5.9 
     percent were either waiting for initial duty training, high 
     school students, members attending officer candidate, missing 
     pantographic x-rays, or were medical personnel willing to go 
     anyway, but prevented from doing so due to critical civilian 
     jobs.

  My question is, why would we want to limit or restrict those who sign 
up to serve their country and defend freedom when their country needs 
them?
  If you ask any guards man or woman, he or she would not stand down 
when his or her country needed them. Whether the defense of freedom 
merits a two-week deployment or a 180-day deployment, our guards men 
and women stand ready to contribute to the fight. The fact is, today 
our dedicated soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in the Active Duty 
rely on and recognize the tremendous value the National Guard brings to 
the fight and the seamless interoperability that exists between the 
Guard, Reserve, and Active Duty. Again, to quote from GEN Conoway, he 
quotes General Charles Horner, stating:

       The Guard and Reserve performed very well.

  He went on further to say that he ``couldn't even tell the difference 
between the active, Guard, and Reserve; and that's the way it is 
supposed to be.''
  That is what we found wherever the National Guard has been called--
Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Kosovo, et cetera. They have been 
excellent members of the team. It is a validation of the total force 
policy that ensures the National Guard and Reserves are a ready, 
relevant, and reliable fighting force, capable of responding to any 
mission they are called upon to conduct. I fear that limiting the role 
arbitrarily to a 180-day deployment would be a limitation that would 
reduce the very real direct impact and connection our Guard has with 
the citizens of this Nation and with their obligation for our national 
security.
  Just as we saw by calling up the National Guard and Reserves from 
over 6,000 communities during Desert Storm, community support was 
assured as their loved ones marched off to defend freedom. We all want 
our service men and women to return home as soon as possible. But under 
this circumstance, I feel the original amendment is too restrictive on 
our military services by limiting the amount of time our Guard and 
Reserve can be deployed. I urge my colleagues to support the 
alternative. There is a real question here, and I commend the Senator 
from West Virginia for raising these concerns. But I think they should 
be studied, as the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee 
and the full committee has suggested.
  I urge we support the Stevens amendment. I ask unanimous consent that 
the letters from the National Guard Association, Reserve Officers 
Association of the United States, and the Enlisted Association of the 
National Guard be printed in the Record.

[[Page 17977]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                       EANGUS,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 15, 2003.
     Hon. Christopher S. ``Kit'' Bond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: EANGUS understands that Senator Byrd has 
     introduced an amendment to the FY2004 Defense Appropriations 
     bill which would prohibit excessive overseas deployments of 
     members of the Guard and Reserves. EANGUS is strongly opposed 
     to this action.
       This amendment would limit overseas deployments to less 
     than 180 days and prohibit more than one deployment per year. 
     This legislation is too restrictive.
       Many believe that something must be done to alleviate the 
     pressures of frequent deployments of National Guard and 
     Reserve members, but much more consideration needs to go into 
     how that will be accomplished. Limiting deployment of 
     National Guard and Reserve members could negatively impact 
     our national security during an overseas operation.
       Thank you for your diligence and efforts on behalf of the 
     Enlisted men and women of the National Guard.
           Respectfully,
                                   MSG (Ret) Michael P. Cline AUS,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                      Reserve Officers Association


                                         of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 2003.
       Ref. S. 1382--Mr. Byrd's political amendment ``To prohibit 
     excessive deployment overseas of members of the Guard and 
     Reserve.''
       Although we understand the amendment is well intentioned, 
     these restrictions are not needed and such determinations are 
     best left with the Military Departments and Services.
       In today's security environment we must ensure that our 
     military commanders have flexibility to execute their mission 
     with all available forces.

                                           Robert A. McIntosh,

                                      Major General, USAFR (Ret.),
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                        National Guard Association


                                         of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 2003.
     Hon. Christopher ``Kit'' Bond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: It is on behalf of the men and women of 
     the National Guard Association of the United States (NGAUS), 
     I am writing to express our concern about Senator Byrd's 
     amendment limiting the involuntary call up of the National 
     Guard and Reserve component to:
       1. A single deployment overseas of 180 days or more.
       2. More than one deployment overseas in any 360-day period.
       The NGAUS is opposed to this amendment. While we understand 
     the intent behind the amendment, reducing the ability of the 
     President to utilize the National Guard and Reserves places a 
     large unnecessary restriction on the Department of Defense. 
     The National Guard, as part of the Total Force, shoulders the 
     burdens of our nation. Senior level members of the Office of 
     the Secretary of Defense and the Department of Defense have 
     iterated the importance of the Guard and Reserve to be able 
     to carry out this nation's will.
       We applaud the efforts of Senator Byrd in bringing this 
     issue to the forefront. However, while judicious utilization 
     of the Guard is prudent, the Byrd amendment is not in the 
     best interest of the National Guard.
           Respectfully,
                                             Richard C. Alexander,
                              Major General (Ret), AUS, President.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I want to congratulate my 
friend and colleague, the Senator from West Virginia, for his constancy 
in terms of ensuring to the best of his ability and the best of this 
institution's ability that we were going to meet our constitutional 
responsibilities some months ago, and understanding the Constitution, 
and that the issue of making war is something that was reserved to the 
Congress of the United States, and the extraordinary service he 
provided for our country in reminding us of our responsibilities in the 
United States to make a judgment and decision about sending and 
committing our men and women overseas in this conflict.
  I welcomed the opportunity to join with him at that time. His 
eloquence, passion, and knowledge of this institution and the history 
of the Constitution still ring in my ears from that experience. I think 
history will show that even though he did not at that time persuade the 
majority of the Members of the Senate, when history evaluates that 
effort it will be one of the important contributions he has made, and 
he has made many to this institution.
  As we all understand, he is a person who has placed the interests of 
this institution at the forefront of his agenda on many occasions, and 
it is a better institution and it is living up to its historic role as 
our Founding Fathers wanted it to be because of his contribution.
  So I thank him for what he has done and particularly in terms of the 
whole issue of policy toward Iraq. I welcomed again his comments 
earlier today. I was unable to catch all of them, but I will study them 
closely during the evening time, and I know as we are considering the 
Defense appropriations, we will hear more from him about the issue of 
American troops overseas, the National Guard and Reserve here at home--
the importance of them, and also about what we as a country are going 
to do in terms of funding this commitment that has been made in terms 
of Iraq as well as Afghanistan.
  The issue of the Guard and Reserve comes to us in a very clear way 
because of the number of troops we have over in Iraq at the present 
time. As the Senator knows full well, we have effectively half of all 
of the Army divisions tied up either in Iraq or Afghanistan. Eighteen 
out of the 35 or 36 combat divisions are in Iraq. So even when we talk 
to 148,000 troops, and 22 percent or 23 percent of our Army over there, 
when you are talking about the combat arms of the United States and the 
location of those service men and women, we are talking about in Iraq. 
And when we are talking about the Reserve and the Guard, in my State of 
Massachusetts, it is the fastest tempo that we have had, I believe, 
since the end of World War II--13 times higher today than the average 
over the previous years.
  I know he has spelled this out in great detail about what this has 
meant. What we do know is that it has meant really a stronger military 
because of the Guard and the Reserve in my own State, having known 
those individuals and visited those facilities and met those leaders. 
They are as committed as any military men and women who have served in 
our country. They provide indispensable services. But as has been 
pointed out, we are straining these individuals.
  Mr. President, last fall, many of us emphasized in the Senate that 9/
11 had not nullified the long-standing basic principle that war should 
be the last resort. We felt that America should not go to war against 
Iraq unless and until all other reasonable alternatives for a peaceful 
solution had been exhausted.
  Then--as now--I believed that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was 
not serious enough or imminent enough to justify a rush to war, and 
that we were going to war under false pretenses. Then--as now--I 
believed that war would distract from our broader war against terrorism 
and that we should not go to war with Iraq without the clear support of 
the international community. Then--as now--I believed that without a 
systematic re-examination, with dubious and even false rationalization, 
and without the informed consent of the American people, the Bush 
administration was drastically altering our long-standing foreign 
policy against preventive war, in order to justify its preconceived 
determination to invade Iraq.
  Supporters and opponents of the war alike were enormously proud of 
the way our troops performed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The speed and 
success of their mission demonstrated the outstanding strength of the 
Nation's armed forces. As a citizen of Massachusetts and a member of 
the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, it never ceases to amaze me 
how far we have come in the two centuries since the embattled farmers 
at Concord Bridge fired the shot heard around the world.
  In the past decade alone, technology has put vast changes in warfare 
on fast-forward. We redefined the nature of modern warfare in the 
Persian Gulf war, we redefined it again in Afghanistan, and yet again 
in Iraq. We have by far the world's best military on the ground, on the 
sea, and in the air. It is

[[Page 17978]]

no accident that so few paid the ultimate sacrifice during those 3 
tumultuous weeks in March and April in Iraq.
  It was a foregone conclusion that we would win the war. But pride 
goes before a fall, and the all-important question now is whether we 
can win the peace. In fact, we are at serious risk of losing it.
  Our policy toward Iraq is adrift. Each day, our troops and their 
families are paying the price. Our clear national interest in the 
emergence of a peaceful, stable, democratic Iraq is being undermined.
  Since May 1, when President Bush announced aboard the USS Abraham 
Lincoln aircraft carrier that ``major combat operations'' in Iraq had 
ended, 81 more American troops have died. For the men and women of our 
Armed Forces who are dodging bullets in the streets and alleys of 
Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, the battle is far from over. President 
Bush says of the attackers, ``Bring 'em on.'' But how do you console a 
family by telling them that their son or daughter is a casualty of the 
post-war period?
  The debate may go on for many months or even years about our 
intelligence failures before the war began. As we now know, despite the 
claim made in the State of the Union Address, Saddam was not purchasing 
uranium from Africa to build nuclear weapons.
  Despite all the intelligence we were shown in the months leading up 
to war, despite the additional intelligence they said was there but 
could not be shared, we have yet to uncover any evidence that Iraq was 
stockpiling chemical or biological weapons. There was and is no 
evidence that Saddam was conspiring with al-Qaida. What was the 
imminent threat to the United States that required us to launch a 
preventive war in Iraq with very little international support? It is a 
disgrace that the case for war seems to have been based on shoddy 
intelligence, hyped intelligence, and even false intelligence. We have 
undermined America's prestige and credibility in the world and 
undermined the trust that Americans should and must have in what their 
nation tells them. How many will doubt a future claim of danger even if 
it is real?
  The failures of intelligence were bad enough. But the real failure of 
intelligence was our failure to understand Iraq.
  There is no question that long before the war began, a serious issue 
was raised about the danger of winning the war and losing the peace. In 
fact, it was one of the principal arguments against going to war.
  Before the war began, 11 separate agencies of the United States 
Government worked with 280 Iraqi citizens in the State Department's so-
called ``Future of Iraq'' working groups.
  In numerous briefings, Pentagon officials assured us on the Senate 
Armed Services Committee that firm plans were in place to secure and 
rebuild Iraq. But the reality is that the administration had no 
realistic plan. We knew the post-war rebuilding of Iraq would be 
difficult. Based on our experience in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, and 
Afghanistan, we knew that security could be a profound problem, and 
that there would be challenges from a restless population. We knew that 
building a national police force and a credible new government would be 
complicated tasks. These are not new issues. But rather than learning 
from past experience in these previous conflicts, the administration 
was blinded by its own ideological bravado. It rushed ahead without 
planning for contingencies or raising even basic questions about likely 
events.
  The foundation of our post-war policy was built on a quicksand of 
false assumptions, and the result has been chaos for the Iraqi people, 
and continuing mortal danger for our troops. The truth, as our 
colleague Senator John Kerry starkly stated last week, is clearer with 
each passing day and each new casualty: ``The administration went to 
war without a thorough plan to win the peace.''
  The Pentagon assumed that we would be able to draw on thousands of 
Saddam's police force to protect security--but in the critical early 
weeks that followed the war, they were nowhere to be found, and too 
many of their officers turned out to be thugs and torturers.
  The Pentagon assumed that the bulk of the Iraqi Armed Forces could be 
used to supplement our forces--but those soldiers did not join us.
  The Pentagon assumed that some Iraqi exile leaders could return to 
Iraq to rally the population and lead the new government--but they were 
resented by the Iraqi people and the exiles were put on hold.
  The Pentagon assumed that after a few hundred of Saddam's top 
advisers were removed from power, large numbers of local officials 
would remain to run the government--but the government crumbled.
  The Pentagon assumed that Americans would be welcomed as liberators--
but for large numbers of Iraqis, we went from liberators to occupiers 
in a few short weeks. The dancing in the streets after the fall of the 
statue of Saddam was accompanied by an orgy of massive looting and 
chaos and was followed by growing frustration even from those who first 
saw us as liberators.
  There was egg on the face of the administration and its peace plan 
from Day 1. Plan A was so obviously the wrong plan that GEN Garner, the 
man sent to oversee it, was abruptly replaced on Day 21, and Paul 
Bremer was rushed in to make up Plan B as he went along.
  Today, Paul Bremer rules the country from Saddam's palace, while the 
Iraqi people too often sit in the dark without adequate water or 
electricity.
  Hospital equipment and medical supplies have been stolen. Power grids 
in major cities are being sabotaged.
  Cynicism and anger toward America are growing. Many Iraqis believe 
that we are unwilling--rather than unable--to restore basic services. 
They are losing faith and trust in our promise of a reconstructed, 
stable, peaceful future. They fear that Saddam may still be alive.
  Under fire from guerrillas determined to see America fail, our 
soldiers are now performing police functions for which they have little 
training. They are building schools and hospitals--a task for which 
they are ill prepared. We are straining their endurance, and they want 
to know how long they will have to stay in Iraq.
  That America would be seen as occupier should have come as no 
surprise. Former Secretary of State James Baker wrote in the New York 
Times last August, ``If we are to change the regime in Iraq, we will 
have to occupy the country militarily.''
  Retired four-star Marine Corps General and former Central Command 
Commander Anthony Zinni said last August that we would ``inherit the 
country of Iraq'' and ``put soldiers that are already stretched so thin 
all around the world into a security force there forever.''
  James Webb, an Assistant Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the 
Navy in the Reagan administration, warned last September that we could 
occupy Iraq ``for the next 30 to 50 years.''
  We knew--or should have known--that if we went into Iraq without the 
genuine support of the international community, there would be no easy 
way out. As James Webb also warned, ``Those who are pushing for a 
unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if 
we invade and stay.''
  The White House is only just beginning to face the truth. On July 3, 
President Bush finally agreed that rebuilding Iraq would be a ``massive 
and long-term undertaking.''
  But that undertaking cannot be sustained--and no foreign policy in 
this free society can succeed--unless it is supported by our people. 
With the administration's credibility frayed, and distrust rising here 
at home, it is time for President Bush to level with America. It is 
time for him to hear and heed the words of the great World War II 
general and great post-war Secretary of State George Marshall in his 
historic commencement address at Harvard in 1947:

       An essential part of any successful action on the part of 
     the United States is an understanding on the part of the 
     people of America of the character of the problem and the 
     remedies to be applied.


[[Page 17979]]


  The Marshall Plan proposed in that address became one of the great 
achievements of the 20th century. It succeeded because it involved a 
coordinated effort by the United States and many nations of Europe to 
advance the recovery of the continent after the war, and Marshall won 
the Nobel Peace Prize. Is it too much to ask that we now be guided by 
that example?
  President Bush should face the truth and level with the American 
people about the cost of stabilization and reconstruction in Iraq--both 
financial and human. We need a plan--a real plan, to which we are truly 
committed--to share the burden with the international community, 
including old allies who can be enlisted if we make a genuine effort to 
heal the divisive past.
  Our troops are now sent overseas for longer stretches than ever--
because we rely on their skill and talents to meet commitments on a 
global scale. More than 150,000 of our troops are in Iraq, and many 
have been deployed in the region for close to a year. Half of our Army 
divisions are in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of 33 Army combat brigades, 18 
are in Iraq.
  The strain is also great for citizens serving in the Guard and 
Reserves because we must depend upon them with greater frequency, ever 
since we reduced our forces after the cold war.
  More than 150,000 Guard and Reserve soldiers have been mobilized; 
13,000 have been on active duty for at least a year. Others return home 
from deployments, only to be turned around and sent overseas for 
another tour. In fact, today our Reservists are spending 13 times 
longer in active duty than they did a decade ago, forced to put their 
lives on hold, missing births of their children, dealing with family 
crises by phone and e-mail.
  Open-ended missions are a serious strain on our forces and their 
families. It is difficult to continue to put these patriotic men and 
women through the deployment grinder year after year and expect them to 
hold up indefinitely.
  It is also difficult to sustain the cost of such missions. We are now 
spending $3.9 billion a month in Iraq. With the ongoing cost of the war 
on terrorism, our operations in Afghanistan, and our potential new 
responsibilities around the globe, in places such as West Africa, let 
alone Iran and North Korea, we are creating an unsustainable financial 
burden at a time of exploding budget deficits, soaring demands for 
homeland security, and mounting needs for health care, education, and 
other domestic priorities.
  Despite the escalating cost of the military operation in Iraq, not 
one cent of its cost is included in the defense-spending legislation 
being considered this very week in the Senate. Not one penny. How will 
we pay the bill? To this question, there is only resounding silence at 
the White House, another refusal to level with the American people.
  As a Nation with honor, responsibility, and the vision of a better 
world, America cannot invade and then cut and run from Iraq. But we 
also can't afford the continuing cost--in dollars or in blood--of 
stubbornly continuing to go-it-alone. If our national security is at 
stake, we will spare no cost. But we have options here that reach 
beyond the checkbook of the American people.
  Working with the international community, we can develop and 
implement an effective strategy to change a failed course, reduce the 
burden and risk to our soldiers, stabilize Iraq, and deliver on the 
promise of a better future for the Iraqi people.
  As we all know, a number of countries supported our military action 
against Saddam Hussein. Many others did not. But if the administration 
is willing to put the national interest ahead of its own ideological 
pride, I believe that we can secure broad international support and 
participation in the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq. After 
all, so much is clearly at stake for the rest of the world.
  At issue are the stability and the future of the entire highly 
volatile region. None would be immune from the dangers that a disunited 
and disorganized Iraq could present for its neighbors and for nations 
everywhere.
  These are not just American or British concerns. They are true 
international concerns. America cannot be effective in its mission in 
Iraq if old wounds don't heal and bitterness continues to fester. We 
need to take the chip off our shoulder, mend fences with France and 
with Germany, and stop the divisiveness.
  As we seek to stabilize and democratize Iraq, we do not need to go it 
alone and should not try to. If we diversify the faces of the security 
force, it is far less likely that Iraqis will see us as the enemy, 
oppressor, and occupier. We want the 25 million citizens of Iraq to see 
the forces that are there as friends and partners in their pursuit of 
freedom.
  We need to bring regional forces into Iraq--especially Muslim ones. 
Countries like Jordan, Pakistan, and Egypt could transform this mission 
with both their diversity and their expertise. The United Arab Emirates 
have contributed to the effort in Kosovo. Morocco and Albania and 
Turkey have worked with us in Bosnia. Countries such as France, 
Germany, Italy, Argentina, and Spain could provide well-trained police.
  Reaching out to other countries and bringing them into the post-war 
process is the surest path to a stable Iraq. But most other nations are 
unlikely to send troops to serve in what is perceived as an American 
occupation. They will be more likely to do their part if an 
international mission is approved by the United Nations and organized 
by NATO.
  Secretary Rumsfeld insists that we are reaching out to the 
international community and that we are working with NATO. But the 
Secretary General of NATO, Lord Robertson, says that the alliance as an 
institution has never been asked to play the formal role in Iraq that 
it plays in Bosnia and Kosovo, and soon will play in Afghanistan. Nor 
has the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, been asked 
to seek international consent for a truly multilateral force. The 
United States insists on a coalition of the few, dominated and 
controlled by our Nation.
  Instead of asking our Armed Forces to carry out a mission for which 
they are not trained and to do so alone, we need to rely on the 
expertise and resources of the international community. The United 
Nations has assumed that responsibility in other countries in the past. 
It is one of the major reasons why the U.N. was created--to bring 
international vision and strength to the difficult issues of peace 
keeping and nationbuilding after the Second World War. Necessity is the 
mother of invention. In the case of Iraq, President Bush has at last 
been persuaded to abandon his strong opposition to nationbuilding. The 
challenge now is to persuade him to move beyond unilateral 
nationbuilding.
  The new Iraqi council announced on Sunday was a step in the right 
direction. But it would have been much more effective if the U.N. 
Special Representative--and not the U.S. Government--was seen as 
sponsoring its creation.
  If America alone sets up a new government in Baghdad, it may fail--if 
not now, later; if not while our forces are there, as soon as they are 
gone. Those who join such a government run the risk of being dismissed 
by the Iraqi people as American puppets. And for as long as America 
alone is calling the tune, Iraqi moderates may remain in the 
background, and possibly even oppose us.
  Our interests in the emergence of a true democracy in Iraq are best 
fulfilled by involving the world community and especially other Arab 
nations as partners in helping the Iraqis themselves shape a new Iraq. 
Only then will a new Iraqi government be viewed as legitimate by the 
Iraqi people.
  So it is time for the administration to stop giving lip service to 
international participation and start genuinely seeking and accepting 
it--on reasonable terms, and with a real commitment to it. President 
Bush's meeting with U.N Secretary General Kofi Annan at the White House 
yesterday should be the beginning of a renewed relationship and a shift 
in attitude at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue about the rightness and the 
practical imperative of working with others.

[[Page 17980]]

  The U.N. has a mandate for humanitarian issues. But it has only an 
advisory role in the civil administration of Iraq. That has to change. 
The U.N. should have a formal role in overseeing the establishment of a 
political process. The U.N.--rather than the United States and 
Britain--should preside over the evolution of the new Iraqi government. 
Doing so will win international legitimacy and marshal international 
support for this challenge, minimizing the danger that Iraqis will 
regard their government as a puppet of ours.
  With Arab-speaking spokesmen, the U.N. could also convey a different 
image and a different message to the people of that country, a sense of 
reassurance that an overwhelmingly American occupation never can.
  NATO, as an institution, should clearly be in Iraq as well. Military 
experts believe it will take at least 200,000 troops to stabilize Iraq. 
Our goal should be to include NATO and some of its 2-million-member 
pool of armed forces in military operations as soon as possible. 
America would provide a majority of the troops, but over time the 
overall number of forces would decrease.
  As in Kosovo and Bosnia, we should ask the United Nations Security 
Council to authorize NATO to organize an international security force 
to demilitarize and stabilize Iraq. Doing so does not mean that the 
United States should or must relinquish all military control. On the 
contrary, we would have a significant role in the NATO force, and could 
continue to have the defining role in Iraq. An American commander was 
in charge of American troops in Bosnia, and the head of NATO forces in 
Europe is--and always has been--an American.
  Secretary Rumsfeld told the Armed Services Committee last week that 
except for the area around Baghdad, most of Iraq is already secure. If 
that is so--and we have to hope this estimate is more accurate than 
others we have heard--then why not reduce the burden on our military 
and decide that this large area of Iraq, which needs police forces as 
well as combat troops, should be turned over as soon as possible to a 
United Nations-approved and NATO-led force? Why not allow American and 
coalition forces to secure the area around Baghdad, and allow other 
nations to provide security for the rest of Iraq?
  Finally, as long as Iraq continues to dominate our attention, we 
cannot give other aspects of the war against terrorism the focus they 
deserve.
  Has the American occupation of Iraq defeated Osama bin Laden and al-
Qaida? No.
  Has it increased our security against the continuing al-Qaida threats 
in Afghanistan and other terrorist sanctuaries? No.
  Has our action in Iraq led Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida to lay aside 
their sworn purpose of killing Americans and destroying our way of 
life? No.
  It is not just what happens in Iraq itself, as important as that 
issue is, but the continuing urgency of the ongoing fight against 
terrorism that should compel this administration to enlist allies in an 
international plan for a peaceful Iraq. Otherwise, we run the grave 
risk of exposing our Nation to more terrorist attacks.
  America won the war in Iraq, as we knew we would, but if our present 
policy continues, we may lose the peace. We must rise to the challenge 
of international co-operation. Saddam Hussein may no longer be in 
power, but the people of Iraq will not truly be liberated until they 
live in a secure country. And the war will not be over until the 
fighting stops on the ground, democracy takes hold, and the people of 
Iraq are able to govern themselves.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for 
his statement in support of the amendment and also for his overly 
gracious and charitable statement at the beginning of his remarks 
concerning my previous efforts in regard to the whole question of Iraq.
  I am hoping other Senators will speak on the amendment, but in the 
meantime I say that soldiers whom we are using in our National Guard 
and Reserve are entitled to fairness. They are entitled to know how 
long their tour of duty will extend. After all, we were told that our 
men and women would be welcomed not as occupiers but as liberators. We 
were told that our men and women would be welcomed with flowers and 
smiles.
  Our men and women in the Reserve components are beginning to wonder 
if they were misled. We are using our National Guard and Reserve in a 
way which is unfair to them and to their families. We cannot ask them 
to wait for some study now while they bide their time. It is not their 
fault that the White House decided to wage a war without considering 
the aftermath in Iraq. It is not their fault that a policy of 
preemption may demand many more troops than we can muster. We need to 
give our Guard and Reserve some relief from the turmoil of being 
constantly deployed. We owe them more than a study. We owe them action.
  If this amendment were accepted, it would push the administration to 
internationalize the peacekeeping in Iraq. I hope other nations will 
join in keeping the peace in Iraq so that our own guardsmen and 
reservists will be relieved and will be able to come home.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, my understanding is that there is a 
first-degree amendment by my distinguished ranking member, the former 
chairman of our Budget Committee, that I very vigorously favor with 
respect to the National Guard and the Reserve. I know that the Reserve 
officers at the C-17 unit under General Black at the field in 
Charleston, SC, were alerted on September 12, the day after 9/11, and 
they are still flying. Now, that is quite a burden. Many are straining 
to make their rent payments and their house payments.
  When we had a hearing about 2 months ago and the distinguished 
Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, came, after listening, I said: 
Mr. Secretary, what you need is not a money supplement but a manpower 
supplement.
  In that vein, I want to say as much as I can in support of my 
chairman, but I deter for the simple reason that the money is not in 
this particular Defense appropriations bill for Iraq, and there is a 
good reason for it.
  Now, there should be gratitude for little things that happen. I first 
express my gratitude to the distinguished editor and publisher of the 
Washington Post, Mr. Donald Graham. I complained in an op-ed piece some 
weeks ago that they were not covering the budget amounts and that we 
ought to have truth in budgeting, and because we have come to the 
highest budget deficit in the history of the U.S. Government, that 
ought to be covered as front-page news. Today it is. We have moved from 
page A4 to page 1. I have my copy of today's Post, and front and center 
on page one are the articles: ``The Budget Deficit May Surpass $450 
Billion'' and ``Budget Woes Trickle Down.''
  I happened to be a State Governor, and I received a AAA rating from 
Standard&Poors and Moody's, and we have maintained that in South 
Carolina. We have to have a balanced budget.
  I coauthored Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, which happened under President 
Reagan. I have been in the vineyard. But the headline here states: 
``The Budget Deficit May Surpass $450 Billion,'' and I want to thank 
Jonathan Weisman, the author of this particular story, and Fred Hiatt, 
the editorial page editor, for including this.
  I said we just move up in inches. Let's look at the Mid-Session 
Review of the Budget of the United States Government by the Office of 
Management and Budget, the Executive Office of the President, signed by 
Joshua Bolton, Director, as of yesterday, July 15.
  We find out why Mitch left town. Mitch Daniels is gone. Now we know

[[Page 17981]]

why Ari Fleischer is gone. Both Mitch and Ari skipped town. Why? Just 
look at this document. They have no tricky answers for this one. This 
is the Administration's writing, and I am reading on page 1 their 
statement:

       The deficit for 2003 is now estimated at $455 billion.

  That is on page 1. One learns, after years up here, how to read these 
things. So on page 57, you get to the actual deficit, how much we get 
in revenues and how much we spend, and if spending exceeds revenues, 
then there is a deficit. If we look at table 20 on page 57, we will 
find the total gross Federal debt for 2002 was $6,198,000,000,000 and 
it will go up to $6,896,000,000,000 this year. That is why Mitch left 
town. Compute that and the deficit will not be an estimated $455 
billion; it will be $698 billion. They estimate a $698 billion deficit 
for the year 2003.
  But, wait, we have actual numbers as of this minute. As of July 14th, 
yesterday, the Treasury says the debt to the penny is $478 billion. So 
it is already more than the $455 billion they say it will be at the end 
of the year. I guess that is why Paul O'Neill left town, too. They are 
all leaving if they have anything to do with fiscal matters, and so now 
we have John Snow as Treasury Secretary.
  What did President Bush say when he came to town? I have the exact 
quote, taken from his first address to a Joint Session of Congress in 
2001:

       To make sure the retirement savings of America's seniors 
     are not diverted in any other program, my budget protects all 
     $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social 
     Security and for Social Security alone.

  Well, he is spending the trust funds when he says on page 1, $455 
billion. He is spending $163 billion of Social Security, plus another 
$30 billion of other trust funds.
  What we have is a Social Security trust fund, the Medicare trust 
fund, the military retirees trust fund, the civil service retirees 
trust fund, the highway, the airport, the railway trust fund, the 
unemployment compensation trust fund--which will be drained, 
incidentally; we will have to fill that back up. We are spending it on 
any and everything but unemployment. This is Enron bookkeeping. We are 
spending Social Security moneys on any and everything but Social 
Security.
  But the President, when he was speaking when he was speaking right 
after he took office in February 2001, said that wasn't all he was 
going to do.
  He goes on and says:

       We should approach our Nation's budget as any prudent 
     family would, with a contingency fund for emergencies. We are 
     going to have a contingency fund for emergencies or 
     additional spending needs. My budget sets aside $1 trillion 
     over 10 years for additional needs. That is 1 trillion 
     additional reasons you can feel comfortable supporting this 
     budget.

  Now, Iraq and Afghanistan and the whole kit and kaboodle, put in 
Liberia and whatever country he wants to run to, we have 14 
peacekeeping missions, then we have Kuwait, then we have Afghanistan, 
then we have Iraq, and now he is looking for another country to send 
the military to. We don't have enough National Guard or anybody in 
uniform to get to that country, I can tell you that right now.
  But that has not cost $1 trillion. It has not cost $1 trillion. But 
he had $1 trillion set aside before September 11, so why can't he pay 
for this out of that?
  Now, let's find out what he said last year in the State of the Union:

       Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-
     term so long as Congress restrains spending and acts in a 
     fiscally responsible manner.

  Well, all the spending bills were signed by President George W. Bush. 
So I take it since that was his admonition to us, he must have had that 
in mind for himself. And he signed only fiscally responsible budgets.
  He also said:

       The way out of this recession, the way to create jobs, is 
     to grow the economy by encouraging investment in factories 
     and equipment and by speeding up tax relief so people will 
     have more money to spend.

  There were plenty of tax cuts, but he hasn't created any jobs.
  One more--let's go to January of 2003, to what he said in his State 
of the Union then:

       We will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to 
     other presidents and other generations. Tax relief will help 
     our economy immediately.

  Immediately? He got yet more tax cuts, and we still have 3.8 million 
Americans, the highest in 20 years, receiving unemployment 
compensation. There have been over 3 million Americans who have lost 
their jobs since President Bush took office.
  I think of President Clinton. He created 20 million jobs, and 
President Bush already has lost 3 million. Where is the immediacy that 
his budget is going to take care of?

       We will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, 
     other presidents and other generations.

  That is exactly what we are doing--$698 billion in bills. Mark it 
down. Poor Mitch, he got free. Mitch Daniels escaped to Indiana. He did 
not want to come before the Budget Committee and answer any questions, 
I tell you, and Ari Fleischer says: This is enough for me, I'm gone. 
Everybody is going to run--out of Washington.
  I have worked with the Senator from West Virginia and my chairman, 
Senator Inouye, who is most responsible on budget matters and we 
balanced the budget. They want to forget that. Eight years under 
William Jefferson Clinton and we came from a $403 billion deficit in 
1992 to finally getting in the black. We gradually got it down. I voted 
to increase taxes on Social Security. I voted to increase gas taxes. I 
voted for all of those tax increases and we acted responsibly.
  George W. Bush comes to town and what does he do? He says: Tomorrow, 
don't worry about it. He has some fellow hidden out in the Pacific, he 
is far enough from Washington, out in California and Boston who says, 
don't worry about deficits and all. The youngsters are keeping IRA 
savings accounts and when their IRA savings accounts trigger you will 
not have to worry about deficits. There is no conscience with this 
charade. This is the best off-Broadway show you will find going on in 
the National Government, the National Congress.
  I hope we can sober up and pull in our horns. We have so much 
manpower. We do not have the manpower of the Chinese. We have to 
maintain our security on the superiority of technology, and Iraq proved 
that. We had the superior technology. But we have been cutting back on 
that.
  I have a hearing tomorrow morning where we are going to be cutting 
back the advanced technology. We are cutting back on education 
programs. We are cutting back on all the important investments.
  I ask unanimous consent to print page 1 and page 57 of the Midsession 
Review for the fiscal year 2004 of the budget of the U.S. Government in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Summary

       The President's Budget, released in February, focuses on 
     the challenges posed by three overriding national priorities: 
     winning the war against terrorism, securing the homeland, and 
     restoring strong economic growth and job creation. 
     Significant program has been made in all three areas.
       This Mid-Session Review of the Budget revises the estimates 
     of receipts, outlays, and the deficit to reflect economic, 
     legislative, and other developments since February. The 
     deficit for 2003 is now estimated at $455 billion, up from 
     the $304 billion deficit estimated in February, for the 
     following reasons:
       Economic and Other Reestimates. The economic assumptions 
     for this review, discussed later in the chapter ``Economic 
     Assumptions,'' reflect weaker-than-anticipated economic 
     growth since February. Slower growth, lower estimates of wage 
     and salary income, and other economic factors have reduced 
     receipts from the levels estimated in the budget. In the 
     interest of cautious and prudent forecasting, the revised 
     estimates also include a downward adjustment for revenue 
     uncertainty of $15 billion in 2003, $30 billion in 2004, and 
     $15 billion in 2005. These reestimates in receipts are 
     partially offset by lower outlays due to revised economic and 
     technical assumptions. The net effect of all economic and 
     other reestimates is to raise the projected deficit by $66 
     billion in 2003 and $95 billion in 2004.
       Iraq War. Funding for Operation Iraqi Freedom in 
     supplemental appropriations enacted in April, including costs 
     for military

[[Page 17982]]

     action and reconstruction assistance, increases spending by 
     $47 billion in 2003 and $20 billion in 2004. These estimates 
     do not reflect what the Administration has previously 
     indicated are expected but undermined additional costs 
     arising from ongoing operations in Iraq, extending beyond 
     2003.
       Jobs and Growth Act. Enactment of a jobs and growth bill 
     that was larger for 2003 and 2004 than proposed in the 
     February Budget raises the projected deficit by $13 billion 
     in 2003 and $36 billion in 2004. Of this increase, $9 billion 
     in 2003 and $11 billion in 2004 is due to temporary state 
     fiscal assistance included in the final enacted bill. In 
     later years, the enacted tax relief is smaller than proposed 
     in the Budget, which reduces the deficit projected in those 
     years relative to the February estimates.
       Other Legislation and Policy Changes. Final 2003 
     appropriations action, non-war related costs in the April 
     supplemental, extension of the program to help unemployed 
     Americans by providing an additional 13 weeks of unemployment 
     benefits, and other policy changes raise spending by $26 
     billion in 2003, $17 billion in 2004, and smaller amounts in 
     subsequent years.
       The reasons for changes in receipts and spending from the 
     February Budget are discussed further in the ``Receipts'' and 
     ``Spending'' chapters of this Review.
       The deficit is projected to increase slightly from $455 
     billion in 2003 to $475 billion in 2004. As a share of the 
     economy, the projected deficit remains steady in these two 
     years, at 4.2 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). These 
     deficit levels are well below the postwar deficit peak of 6.0 
     percent of GDP in 1983, and are lower than in six of the last 
     twenty years.

                                                    TABLE 20.--FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FINANCING AND DEBT
                                                                [In billions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              Estimate
                                                               2002 actual -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2003         2004         2005         2006         2007         2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financing:
    Unified budget deficit (-)...............................         -158         -455         -475         -304         -238         -213         -226
    Financing other than the change in debt held by the
     public:
        Premiums paid (-) on buybacks of Treasury securities.           -4  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
        Net purchases (-) of non-Federal securities by the              -2          -18            1            1            1            1            1
         National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust.......
        Changes in:\1\
            Treasury operating cash balance..................          -17           16  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
            Compensating balances\2\.........................          -14          -25           52  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
            Checks outstanding, etc.\3\......................          -12           -3  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
        Seigniorage on coins.................................            1            1            1            1            1            1            1
        Less: Net financing disbursements:
            Direct loan financing accounts...................          -15          -13          -19          -15          -20          -21          -21
            Guaranteed loan financing accounts...............           -2            2            3            2            3            1            1
              Total, financing other than the change in debt           -63          -40           38          -12          -16          -17          -18
               held by the public............................
              Total, requirement to borrow from the public...         -221         -496         -437         -316         -254         -230         -244
    Change in debt held by the public........................          221          496          437          316          254          230          244
Changes in Debt Subject to Limitation:
    Change in debt held by the public........................          221          496          437          316          254          230          244
    Change in debt held by Government accounts...............          208          202          253          275          280          294          307
    Change in other factors..................................            *           16            *            *            *            *            1
      Total, change in debt subject to statutory limitation..          429          713          690          591          534          524          551
Debt Subject to Statutory Limitation, End of Year:
    Debt issued by Treasury..................................        6,171        6,869        7,560        8,151        8,685        9,209        9,760
    Adjustment for Treasury debt not subject to limitation             -15           -*           -*           -*           -*           -*           -*
     and agency debt subject to limitation\4\................
    Adjustment for discount and premium\5\...................            6            6            6            6            6            6            6
      Total, debt subject to statutory limitation\6\.........        6,161        6,875        7,565        8,156        8,690        9,215        9,766
Debt Outstanding, End of Year:
    Gross Federal debt:\7\
        Debt issued by Treasury..............................        6,171        6,869        7,560        8,151        8,685        9,209        9,760
        Debt issued by other agencies........................           27           27           27           26           26           26           25
          Total, gross Federal debt..........................        6,198        6,896        7,586        8,177        8,711        9,235        9,785
    Held by:
        Debt held by Government accounts.....................        2,658        2,860        3,113        3,388        3,668        3,962        4,269
        Debt held by the public\8\...........................        3,540        4,036        4,473        4,789        5,043        5,272        5,516
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*$500 million or less.
\1\A decrease in the Treasury operating cash balance or compensating balances (which are assets) would be a means of financing a deficit and therefore
  has a positive sign. An increase in checks outstanding (which is a liability) would also be a means of financing a deficit and therefore also has a
  positive sign.
\2\Compensating balances are non-interest bearing Treasury bank deposits that Treasury mainly uses to compensate banks for collecting tax and non-tax
  receipts under financial agency agreements. Most of the balances estimated at the end of 2003 are required to be invested in nonmarketable Depository
  Compensation Securities issued by the Treasury; the rest of the balances, and the entire amount in previous years, is invested in the way that the
  banks decide. The Administration has proposed legislation that would allow Treasury to replace compensating balances by an appropriation.
\3\Besides checks outstanding, includes accrued interest payable on Treasury debt, miscellaneous liability accounts, allocations of special drawing
  rights; and, as an offset, cash and monetary assets (other than the Treasury operating cash balance and compensating balances), miscellaneous asset
  accounts, and profit on sale of gold.
\4\Consists primarily of Federal Financing Bank debt in 2002.
\5\Consists of unamortized discount (less premium) on public issues of Treasury notes and bonds (other than zero-coupon bonds) and unrealized discount
  on Government account series securities.
\6\The statutory debt limit is $7,384 billion.
\7\Treasury securities held by the public and zero-coupon bonds held by Government accounts are almost all measured at sales price plus amortized
  discount or less amortized premium. Agency debt securities are almost all measured at face value. Treasury securities in the Government account series
  are measured at face value less unrealized discount (if any).
\8\At the end of 2002, the Federal Reserve Banks held $604.2 billion of Federal securities and the rest of the public held $2,936.2 billion. Debt held
  by the Federal Reserve Banks is not estimated for future years.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. There you go. Instead of $455 billion in deficits, we 
are running right this minute, according to the Secretary of the 
Treasury, in excess of $455 billion. We do not have to wait until the 
end of September. We are already up to $470 billion.
  The ``Public Debt to the Penny,'' I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          THE DEBT TO THE PENNY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current:
    07/14/2003...............................      $6,705,859,055,894.83
Current Month:
    07/11/2003...............................      $6,659,621,392,684.00
    07/10/2003...............................       6,659,226,260,487.87
    07/09/2003...............................       6,660,190,974,044.60
    07/08/2003...............................       6,661,139,880,068.78
    07/07/2003...............................       6,656,880,050,796.69
    07/03/2003...............................       6,656,271,436,016.11
    07/02/2003...............................       6,664,585,450,219.34
    07/01/2003...............................       6,661,149,640,189.12
Prior Months:
    06/30/2003...............................       6,670,121,155,027.26
    05/30/2003...............................       6,558,146,735,285.55
    04/30/2003...............................       6,460,380,745,789.28
    03/31/2003...............................       6,460,776,256,578.16
    02/28/2003...............................       6,445,790,102,794.08
    01/31/2003...............................       6,401,376,662,047.32
    12/31/2002...............................       6,405,707,456,847.53
    11/29/2002...............................       6,343,460,146,781.79
    10/31/2002...............................       6,282,527,974,378.50
Prior Fiscal Years:
    09/30/2002...............................       6,228,235,965,597.16
    09/28/2001...............................       5,807,463,412,200.06
    09/29/2000...............................       5,674,178,209,886.86
    09/30/1999...............................       5,656,270,901,615.43
    09/30/1998...............................       5,526,193,008,897.62
    09/30/1997...............................       5,413,146,011,397.34
    09/30/1996...............................       5,224,810,939,135.73
    09/29/1995...............................       4,973,982,900,709.39
    09/30/1994...............................       4,692,749,910,013.32
    09/30/1993...............................       4,411,488,883,139.38
    09/30/1992...............................       4,064,620,655,521.66
    09/30/1991...............................       3,665,303,351,697.03
    09/28/1990...............................       3,233,313,451,777.25
    09/29/1989...............................       2,857,430,960,187.32
    09/30/1988...............................       2,602,337,712,041.16
    09/30/1987...............................       2,350,276,890,953.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 17983]]


                                                         THE DEBT TO THE PENNY AND WHO HOLDS IT
                                                [Debt held by the public vs. intragovernmental holdings]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Debt held by the public           Intragovernmental holdings                     Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current:
    07/14/2003..............................               $3,866,723,997,104.30               $2,839,135,058,790.53                $6,705,859,055,894.4
Current Month:
    07/11/2003..............................                3,820,773,321,549.88                2,838,848,071,134.12                 6,659,621,392,684.0
    07/10/2003..............................                3,820,833,957,669.25                2,838,392,302,818.62                 6,659,226,260,487.8
    07/09/2003..............................                3,820,333,904,766.11                2,839,857,069,278.49                 6,660,190,974,044.6
    07/08/2003..............................                3,818,105,259,943.75                2,843,034,620,125.03                 6,661,139,880,068.7
    07/07/2003..............................                3,817,909,677,373.27                2,838,970,373,423.42                 6,656,880,050,796.6
    07/03/2003..............................                3,817,524,856,163.49                2,838,746,579,852.62                 6,656,271,436,016.1
    07/02/2003..............................                3,813,751,975,812.24                2,850,833,474,407.10                 6,664,585,450,219.3
    07/01/2003..............................                3,813,425,178,154.99                2,847,724,462,034.13                 6,661,149,640,189.1
Prior Months:
    06/30/2003..............................                3,816,831,315,563.84                2,853,289,839,463.42                 6,670,121,155,027.2
    05/30/2003..............................                3,776,621,896,107.35                2,781,524,839,178.20                 6,558,146,735,285.5
    04/30/2003..............................                3,702,844,997,678.07                2,757,535,748,111.21                 6,460,380,745,789.2
    03/31/2003..............................                3,711,311,962,399.17                2,749,464,294,178.99                 6,460,776,256,578.1
    02/28/2003..............................                3,683,881,032,284.53                2,761,909,070,509.55                 6,445,790,102,794.0
    01/31/2003..............................                3,636,978,106,813.83                2,764,398,555,233.49                 6,401,376,662,047.3
    12/31/2002..............................                3,647,939,770,383.73                2,757,767,686,463.80                 6,405,707,456,847.5
    11/29/2002..............................                3,649,352,539,575.36                2,694,107,607,206.43                 6,343,460,146,781.7
    10/31/2002..............................                3,586,523,556,148.57                2,696,004,418,229.93                 6,282,527,974,378.5
Prior Fiscal Years:
    09/30/2002..............................                3,553,180,247,874.74                2,675,055,717,722.42                 6,228,235,965,597.1
    09/28/2001..............................                3,339,310,176,094.74                2,468,153,236,105.32                 5,807,463,412,200.0
    09/29/2000..............................                3,405,303,490,221.20                2,268,874,719,665.66                 5,674,178,209,886.8
    09/30/1999..............................                3,636,104,594,501.81                2,020,166,307,131.62                 5,656,270,901,633.4
    09/30/1998..............................                3,733,864,472,163.53                1,792,328,536,734.09                 5,526,193,008,897.6
    09/30/1997..............................                3,789,667,546,849.60                1,623,478,464,547.74                 5,413,146,011,397.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Otherwise, you have heard the comments. It is going up 
to $698 billion, and it will probably be even more than that. They are 
trying to be as conservative as they can, I take it.
  I appreciate the distinguished author of the amendment yielding me 
time to talk on a peripheral matter. But it goes right to the heart of 
why they do not include money for Iraq in the Defense appropriations 
bills.
  Mr. BYRD. That is right. What the Senator has been quoting isn't 
included either. They don't include the cost of the war.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. No, they don't put in the cost of the war.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I would be delighted to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I think the point just made by the Senator 
from West Virginia and the Senator from South Carolina is most 
important. With this misinformation about the budget, isn't it curious 
that it comes at a time when we are discussing the Defense 
appropriations bill? There is not one penny in this bill, as pointed 
out by the Senator from West Virginia, for the war in Iraq. Just in 
Iraq, the war is costing $1 billion a week--$4 billion a month. That 
doesn't include all of the other necessary military expenditures, such 
as in Afghanistan and in Bosnia. Yet we are considering a Defense 
appropriations bill that does not have any money in here for the war in 
Iraq.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield right there?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator from South Carolina controls the 
time.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I have the floor. I would be glad to yield to the 
distinguished Senator from Alaska for a comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. The money to pay the salaries for everyone in Iraq is in 
this bill. The money to pay for operations is in this bill. The problem 
is the special money for the deployment costs were in the supplemental 
which we already passed. There was more than was necessary. We have 
already taken $3 billion out of that. They are operating on what is 
left. We appropriated $60-plus billion before.
  Let me assure the Senator that there is money in this bill for Iraq. 
There is money to pay the salaries and support for the military 
personnel. Some 60 percent of the money in this bill is support for 
them. It is there. No matter where they are in the world, they are paid 
from money in this bill.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me yield the floor so the Senator from West 
Virginia can straighten the point out.
  Mr. BYRD. The men and women are being paid their salaries, even if 
they are from West Virginia. If they were all from West Virginia, they 
would be paid their salaries. We are talking about the additional 
costs, the incremental costs, and how much it costs this country to 
wage war in Iraq per month. We are not talking about the salaries. They 
get paid no matter where they are. We are talking about the additional 
costs of Iraq. Let us be clear about that. Additional costs are almost 
$1 billion a day for Iraq.
  Mr. STEVENS. No.
  Mr. BYRD. One billion dollars a week. That was a misstatement. I know 
better than that--$1 billion a week.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator from West Virginia yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, this Senator would like for 
the Senator from West Virginia to clarify, since the Senator from South 
Carolina has pointed out that we are talking about an annual deficit 
not close to $500 billion but now it might be approaching a $700 
billion annual deficit, is that not all the more the responsibility of 
the Senate, which is part of the legislative branch? Under the 
Constitution, it is supposed to control the purse strings. Would that 
not make it all the more incumbent upon us to insist on what is going 
to be the supplemental bill to pay for the war so that we exercise our 
constitutional duty?
  Mr. BYRD. Absolutely. The American people are entitled to know that. 
They are going to pay the bill.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield so I can bring 
this into focus?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, if you took the cumulative deficits 
from President Truman, President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, 
President Johnson, President Nixon, and President Ford--if you took the 
deficits for all of the 30 some years which these six President's ran 
up--it would add up to $358 billion. The deficit this year, according 
to this President, is going to be almost at $700 billion.
  Look at page 57 from the Mid-Session Review released today. See where 
the gross debt from 2002 to September 30, 2003, is in black and white; 
that is almost $700 billion. We are doubling the 30 plus-year deficit 
of Republican and Democratic Presidents--paying for the cost of World 
War II, all the costs of Korea, all the costs of 10 years in Vietnam. 
We always paid our way.
  Abraham Lincoln, the father of the party over there on the other side 
of the aisle, put a tax on dividends and on estates in order to pay for 
the Civil War.
  Now you folks come and want to take the tax off dividends, saying 
there is no tomorrow.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, will the Senator yield?

[[Page 17984]]


  Mr. HOLLINGS. I would be delighted to yield.
  Mr. INHOFE. I know it is a difficult thing to deal with when you talk 
about the benefits of reducing taxes and giving people more choices to 
do with it what they wish. A great Democrat President, John F. Kennedy, 
back in the 1960s, said: We need to have more money to put these 
programs together, and the best way to increase revenues is to decrease 
marginal rates. He did that, and increased revenues nearly a third.
  In 1980, the total amount of money that was raised from marginal 
rates was $244 billion. In 1990, it was $466 billion. It almost doubled 
in the period of time that the greatest reduction in rates took place.
  Every time since World War I, this has happened when we did that.
  This Senator doesn't like to sit here and hear somebody talking about 
reducing rates and, therefore, that is the reason for the deficit.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. According to the Concord Coalition--let me refer first 
to them--you have diminished revenues $3.12 trillion in 3 years and 
three tax cuts.
  I know the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma doesn't want to refer 
to the loss of all those revenues. But when the market sees that, they 
say: Well, wait a minute. Yes, you can cut the interest rate a quarter 
of a point under Alan Greenspan. But that means the Government will be 
crowding the financial market with its sharp elbows crowding out 
corporate finance, and they freeze in place. And we run huge deficits 
in the balance of trade. We are running trade deficits of $500 billion, 
that is $1.5 billion a day. The foreign investors who helped cause that 
bubble are frozen in place. Then the poor worker finds as he opens his 
mouth that his job has gone overseas, so he gets lockjaw and freezes in 
place.
  This is not like Jack Kennedy who inherited almost a balanced budget. 
We started this fiscal year with $428 billion in budget deficits from 
last year. This year, it is $698 billion, according to the President of 
the United States.
  Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will yield on that point.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. INHOFE. This Senator wants to bring up the point that there is no 
reason to come in here and talk about which party was responsible. We 
all know, and the Senator from South Carolina knows, that the recession 
we are in right now began in March of 2000.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. It only lasted for 3 years.
  Mr. INHOFE. Not under a Republican administration. If the Senator 
feels strongly about believing the Concord Coalition over that great 
former President John Kennedy, it is his option to do that.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right. It is bipartisan. Kennedy wasn't 
bipartisan. He was a Democrat. This is bipartisan.
  Mr. INHOFE. I didn't say he was bipartisan. He said he advocated a 
reduction in tax rates to increase revenue, and it worked. Look at the 
Democrat Governor out in New Mexico who did the same thing. It is one 
of the very few States that is increasing revenue right now. He is the 
only Governor I know--Democrat or Republican--who is reducing marginal 
rates.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I am sure these other nine Republican 
Governors quoted in this ``Budget Woes Trickle Down''--I am sure they 
would love to be able to reduce rates. I know my Republican Governor of 
South Carolina would love to reduce rates. They are not given that 
option. This ``Budget Woes Trickle Down'' and those nine Republican 
Governors are having to raise taxes. Kentucky let the prisoners out. 
They are cutting back all the programs. Higher education is decimated. 
Every college president is increasing tuition.
  ``Budget Woes Trickle Down.'' They are not cutting taxes.
  Let's get right to where we are.
  Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will yield, I agree they are not cutting 
taxes. One of the Democrat Governors is cutting taxes and look what is 
happening to the revenues out in the State of New Mexico. They are 
going up.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Bill Richardson is the only exception I have been able 
to find.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I want to ask the Senator, when this Senator 
was assigned to the Budget Committee and the administration came forth 
with a budget, I questioned the figures because what was expressed was 
that we were not going to raid the Social Security trust fund to pay 
the normal expenditures of Government. Clearly, that is what the people 
in the country do not want. They do not want the Social Security trust 
fund raided to pay for expenses.
  Now, the Senator has come up with a new budget document that is 
saying the annual deficit could be as high as $500 billion but it could 
also be, by the words on the paper, $700 billion?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right, $698 billion--spending Social Security 
tax moneys. That is the revenues. That is how they get to the $455 
billion on page 1.
  But let me point this out because we were here in 1983, and the 
distinguished Chair remembers this, we had the Greenspan commission. 
That really started over on the House side with our good friend Wilbur 
Mills, who had been chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. He upped 
the ante along with President Nixon, decimating the trust fund.
  So by the end of the 1970s we appointed the Greenspan commission. 
After a 3-year study, they came with section 21. It says we are going 
to have an inordinate increase in payroll taxes, graduated up so as to 
take care of the baby boomers in the next generation. Section 21 says: 
And put this money in trust and don't spend it on anything but Social 
Security.
  Now my friend from Florida, what happens is, it took us from 1983 to 
1990, I think it was. It was on November 5, 1990, George Walker Herbert 
Bush, President Bush's father, he signed into law section 13301. 
Section 13301 of the Budget Act, says: You shall not report a budget, 
either the President or the Congress, spending Social Security trust 
funds on anything other than Social Security. We put that into law and 
they continued to violate it. They continued to spend it. That is 
13301.
  The vote in the Senate was 98 to 2 for that particular provision. It 
is in the law today, in the Budget Act. But that is what they are 
doing. That is when the distinguished President started off and he took 
office in 2001 and he said: I am setting aside $2.3 trillion to take 
care of the needs of Social Security.
  He was following through on a pledge that he made in the campaign. 
But we spend Social Security moneys on any and everything but Social 
Security, and run around like a dog chasing his tail saying we have to 
fix Social Security, we have to fix Social Security, we have to fix it, 
and they have all kinds of plans: invest in the stock market, get an 
IRA, take this percent, that percent, retire early, don't retire--you 
know, on and on.
  All they need do is obey section 13301 of the law, the Budget Act, 
and not spend Social Security revenues on anything and everything but 
Social Security. That is all they have to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, since we are on the Defense 
Appropriations subcommittee bill, I want to follow up on the remarks of 
the Senator from South Carolina. I thank him for his comments.
  I say this Senator is quite concerned about the legislated budgetary 
sleight of hand that has been apparent throughout this budgetary 
process. I don't like it. I don't think it is instructive to the 
country. I think it is budget fakery and that, although it has 
certainly been employed on both sides of the aisle over the years in 
the history of this Republic, particularly at a time now where the 
numbers are getting so large, where the annual deficit--that is 
spending more than we have coming in in revenue--is getting so large, 
if you believe the figures the Senator from South Carolina has just 
spoken about from a budget document that was just released--upwards of 
$500 billion on one

[[Page 17985]]

page and upwards of $700 billion on another page--that is spending that 
much more in this fiscal year than we have coming in in revenue--that 
is not a way to get our economic engine purring again. That is not a 
way of stopping the economic recession. Because if there are more 
people chasing the available dollars that we need to borrow, then there 
is more demand on the money. What is going to be the result on the cost 
of the money? The cost of the money is going to go up. That is going to 
be the interest rates that are going to go up, and that is all the more 
going to stall us trying to get out of the recession.
  It is perplexing to me, to say it in the mildest terms that I can, as 
to why we have all this budgetary sleight of hand, why we have this 
budgetary fakery. Why can't we just be up straight, aboveboard: this is 
what it is and this is the plan to get out from under it. But there 
seems to be an agenda to try to mask, to obscure what is the real 
situation.
  Since we are on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee bill, I want 
to bring up a matter of grave concern that I have. That is, as we 
continue to battle, as we continue to prosecute the war against 
terrorists--be that in Afghanistan, be that in Iraq, be that in 
America--we have to have timely and accurate intelligence. That has to 
be a given. There can't be any fudging or fakery or sleight of hand. It 
has to be the best estimate of all the intelligence agencies. So I get 
quite concerned.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. And it should not be based on unsubstantiated----
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Unsubstantiated.
  Mr. BYRD. So-called evidence that is produced by the intelligence 
agencies of another country, another state.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. That is precisely the point I want to make. I 
thank the Senator from West Virginia for underscoring that. Because I 
get a little concerned, I got a little upset when I read in Sunday's 
Washington Post:

       CIA director George J. Tenet successfully intervened with 
     White House officials to have a reference to Iraq seeking 
     uranium from Niger removed from a Presidential speech last 
     October. . . .

  Continuing:

       Tenet argued personally to White House officials, including 
     deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that the 
     allegation should not be used because it came from only a 
     single source, according to one senior official.

  That was in October. Three months later, in the President's State of 
the Union speech, the very reference that was exorcised from the speech 
in October was inserted.
  I want the Senator from West Virginia to hear this reference. I want 
the Senator from West Virginia to verify what I am saying because, 
according to the Washington Post, when the Director of the CIA removed 
that reference to Iraq seeking uranium from Niger in October, the very 
same reference was inserted 3 months later in the President's State of 
the Union speech but with a qualifier, and the qualifier was: according 
to British intelligence, even though 3 months earlier the CIA Director 
had that reference stricken because it was not true.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. What does that suggest is going on with regard 
to accurate, timely, and truthful intelligence?
  Mr. BYRD. Well, it suggests we are going down the wrong path when the 
President of the United States leads our country into war, leads our 
men and women into war, based on evidence that is supposed to have been 
developed by another country's agencies, that evidence not being 
substantiated by our own intelligence agencies.
  So it is very evident we were just grasping for a straw to hang our 
hats on. I happen to believe that this administration intended from the 
beginning to go to war in Iraq, that this administration intended from 
the beginning to invade Iraq.
  How many times has the Senator from Florida heard the President say, 
with reference to the U.N., ``If you don't do it, we will. If you don't 
do it, we will''? They were not waiting on the U.N. to come along. We 
already had our minds made up to go into Iraq.
  And anybody who heard Karl Rove or read about Karl Rove's statement 
to the National Republican Committee--in January of last year, I 
believe it was, yes--when he indicated to the National Republican 
Committee that: this homeland security horse was the one we could ride 
to victory politically on, and that the national Republican efforts 
should make, as its center strategy, the subject of homeland security--
it was evident to me they were going to ride that horse to the utmost 
until the horse dropped or got across the victory goal line in the 
election.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator for his response.
  Mr. BYRD. And I think it was a misuse. It is a misuse. It is just an 
effort now, as they look back, to cover their skirts because it is 
clear, so far as the evidence thus far is concerned, that there was no 
such uranium coming from Africa. That was virtually a fictitious thing, 
and our people knew it. They knew it in October of last year, as the 
Senator has pointed out.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I was in Iraq last week, as 
the blood of a Florida soldier was still soaking into the parched sands 
of Baghdad. I still feel that we have sufficient security interests of 
the United States for us to be in Iraq, and, clearly, we better draw 
this to a successful conclusion to politically and economically 
stabilize that country.
  But I can tell you, when I read this kind of information that 
suggests that the American people and their Representatives in the 
Congress were being fed information that was not accurate--and it was 
intentional--then I get very concerned for this country's ability to 
conduct our war against terrorists, for we are only going to be 
successful in a war against terrorists from timely and accurate and 
truthful intelligence.
  Mr. BYRD. The administration misled the American people when it tried 
to leave the impression that the war on terrorism is engaged in by--in 
other words, that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida could be linked. That has 
not been shown to be a fact. And the American people, according to the 
polls I read some time ago, seemed to be half of the belief that those 
who took the planes into the Twin Towers were Iraqis. The truth is, not 
one of those hijackers of planes flown into the Twin Towers on 9/11--
not one of those hijackers was an Iraqi, not one. Not one was from 
Iraq.
  So where is the link? Where is the link?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I will 
have more to say about this as the debate continues on Defense 
appropriations. I will speak to this issue that I have raised here. It 
is of grave concern to me.
  I want, in the course of this debate, for us to be told in this 
debate a satisfactory explanation of why we are not planning for the 
supplemental on the Defense appropriations for the war in Iraq, why we 
are not planning for that and stating that in this Defense 
appropriations bill. I think that should be a part of the debate for 
all of the Senators to engage in.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator 
Byrd to assure that the deployments of National Guard and Reservists do 
not exceed 180 days. The amendment further mandates that Guard and 
Reservists are not deployed more than once in a 60-day period.
  As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I asked many 
questions of the administration as it made its case for war. Two of the 
questions that were never answered involved the length of our 
deployment and the ability of the international community to share the 
burden of rebuilding Iraq.
  Because of the failure of the administration to answer these 
questions, some of our troops face the possibility of spending more 
time than expected in Iraq. Our Guard and Reservists have fought 
bravely. We have to see that they are rotated home and replaced with 
other troops on a timely basis.

[[Page 17986]]

  I want to read part of a letter I received from one Californian 
asking that a Marine Reserve Unit return to the United States:

       The members of the Marine Reserve unit ANGLICO are 
     important members of our society. They are hard working 
     citizens who contribute to our economy. Their families are 
     feeling the financial strain of their continued and 
     unnecessary absence. These Marines are eager to come home to 
     contribute to the continued success of our surrounding 
     communities. I am asking you to please look into this matter 
     and help facilitate the homecoming of our Marines.

  Because of security concerns, the DoD was unable to shed any light on 
when this particular unit was to return home. But it highlights the 
sacrifice our communities are making to support this action in Iraq.
  I believe the U.S. should fulfill its duty and provide for the 
reconstruction of Iraq. However, I call on the President to ask our 
allies to help share the burden and I ask him to ensure that our Guard 
and Reservists are rotated out of Iraq on a regular basis.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, this has been an interesting debate, 
but in the course of the debate we found that we have agreement that we 
have to do something about the basic subject of rotation and deployment 
as it applies to the Guard and Reserve as well as the active portions 
of our total force.
  I think, in the interest of all concerned, it would be best to put 
aside both Senator Byrd's amendment and the one that Senator Inouye and 
I have offered and see if we cannot get further information from the 
Department and try to work with the Department in terms of this new 
policy that is projected.
  So on that basis and the debate that has taken place so far, I move 
to table Senator Byrd's amendment, which would take with it my second-
degree amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 
1244.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Sununu) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 277 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

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

                                NAYS--31

     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Sununu
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


               Amendments Nos. 1257 Through 1259, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have three amendments which have been 
cleared. Senator Inouye has similar ones for his side. Right after 
that, we will have a consent agreement that we will present, and if we 
are successful in getting that consent agreement, we would not have any 
further votes tonight but we will have to wait until we present that 
agreement.
  I send to the desk three amendments en bloc, one from Senator 
Voinovich to make available from amounts available for research, 
development, test, and evaluation, defensewide, $3 million for the 
long-range biometric target identification system; an amendment on 
behalf of myself and Senator Inouye for Senator Roberts which earmarks 
$2,500,000 for the study of geospatial visualization technologies; and 
a third amendment by Senator Allen to make available from amounts 
available for research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy, $4 
million for the high speed antiradiation demonstration airframe/
propulsion section.
  I send those to the desk and ask that they be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes amendments 
     numbered 1257, 1258, and 1259.

  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 are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1257

   (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Research, 
  Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, $3,000,000 for the 
           Long Range Biometric Target Identification System)

       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 $3,000,000 may be available 
     for the Long Range Biometric Target Identification System.


                           amendment no. 1258

       On page 120, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Of the total amount appropriated by title IV under 
     the heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'', up to $2,500,000 may be used for the study of 
     geospatial visualization technologies.


                           amendment no. 1259

   (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy $4,000,000 for High Speed Anti-
          Radiation Demonstration Airframe/Propulsion Section)

       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 $4,000,000 may be available for 
     High Speed Anti-Radiation Demonstration Airframe/Propulsion 
     Section (PE#0603114N).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 1257, 1258, and 1259) were agreed to en bloc.
  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.


               Amendments Nos. 1260 Through 1263, En Bloc

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have four amendments I ask to have 
considered en bloc. The first is submitted by Senators Bingaman and 
Domenici providing for $3,500,000 for the National Consortia on MASINT 
research; the second by Senator Conrad for research, development, test, 
and evaluation for the Army, $3,500,000 for the Medical Vanguard 
Project; third, submitted by Senator Breaux to make available from 
amounts available for research, development, test, and evaluation, 
$800,000 for the Tulane Center for Missile Defense, Louisiana; and the 
final and fourth from Senator Reed of Rhode Island to make available 
from amounts available for Defense Production Act purchases $3,000,000 
for a flexible aerogel material supplier initiative.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be 
considered en bloc. The clerk will report.

[[Page 17987]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] proposes amendments 
     numbered 1260 through 1263, en bloc.

  Mr. INOUYE. 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 are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 1260

       On page 120, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the total amount appropriated by title IV 
     under the heading ``Research and Development Defense Wide'', 
     up to $3,500,000 may be used for National Consortia on Masins 
     Research For Program Element Number 0305884L.


                           Amendment No. 1261

   (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Research, 
   Development, Test, and Evaluation for the Army $3,500,000 for the 
 Medical Vanguard Project to expand the clinical trial of the Internet-
          based diabetes management system under that project)

       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, Army'', up to $3,500,000 may be available for the 
     Medical Vanguard Project to expand the clinical trial of the 
     Internet-based diabetes management system under that project.


                           amendment no. 1262

   (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Research, 
   Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, $800,000 for the 
             Tulane Center for Missile Defense, Louisiana)

       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 $800,000 may be available 
     for the Tulane Center for Missile Defense, Louisiana.


                           amendment no. 1263

    (Purpose: To make available from amounts available for Defense 
Production Act Purchases, ($3,000,000) for a Flexible Aerogel material 
   Supplier Initiative to develop affordable methods and a domestic 
             supplier of military and commercial aerogels)

       Insert after section 8123 the following:
       Sec. 8124. Of the amount appropriated by title III of this 
     Act under the heading ``Defense Production Act Purchases'', 
     up to $3,000,000 may be available for Flexible Aerogel 
     Material Supplier Initiative to develop affordable methods 
     and a domestic supplier of military and commercial aerogels.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 1260 through 1263) were agreed to en bloc.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri has a statement 
I would like to respond to, and I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to yield to him for his portion of the statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill in general, 
and second, I thank the chairman for his support of hypersonics funding 
in the bill. The bill increases funding above last year's appropriated 
level. I do have a couple of concerns and I appreciate the chairman's 
willingness to address them with me in a colloquy.
  Hypersonics are the future of aerospace. Later this year NASA will 
carry out a further test of the X43-A. This will be done as part of 
NASA's hyper-X project, a program devoted to the study and creation of 
vehicles that use air-breathing engines at hypersonic speed. If this 
test is successful, the aerospace industry will prove that the physics 
of hypersonics are correct and our engineers can begin creating the 
models that will become the future of the aerospace industry.
  This technology will yield unprecedented results, opening up new 
commercial markets for industry, furthering human and robotic 
exploration in the solar system, and significantly improving national 
security. This transformational technology holds great promise for the 
development of missiles, unmanned combat air vehicles, manned flight 
and next-generation space shuttles. I thank the chairman for his 
support, and I ask him for his comments about hypersonics.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I appreciate the advocacy of our 
colleague from Missouri on the issue of hypersonics, and I know, as a 
member of the Armed Services Committee, he has been a champion of this 
issue and raised it several times.
  I agree with the Senator on hypersonics technology. It is very 
important for the future of the aerospace industry. Over the next 10 
years or more, the U.S. will develop and test a series of ground and 
flight demonstrators that will be powered by air-breathing rocket or 
turbine-based engines or ram/scramjets. It is a very interesting 
technology. I agree with Senator Talent that this technology has the 
potential to revolutionize our commercial transport industry, space 
travel, as well as the military capabilities.
  I look forward to working with the Senator from Missouri on this 
important issue as the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee and 
generally. I think it is a very interesting subject.
  Mr. TALENT. I close by thanking the chairman again and look forward 
to continuing to work with him and the committee to advance the 
technology and research necessary to ensure a strong hypersonics 
program. I thank the chairman for the colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan be 
recognized to offer an amendment on budget costs. I further ask consent 
that when the Senate resumes consideration of the amendment on 
Wednesday, there be an additional 30 minutes equally divided in 
relation to the Dorgan amendment; provided further that at the 
expiration of that time Senator Bingaman be recognized to offer an 
amendment regarding detainees; provided further that there then be a 
40-minute period equally divided in the usual form; further, that 
following that time the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the 
Dorgan amendment to be followed by a vote in relation to the Bingaman 
amendment with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to the 
votes, and with 2 minutes for debate equally divided prior to each 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, at 10 a.m, the Secretary of 
State will be in the building for a briefing. The debate on the Burma 
amendment should not involve all Senators. I thought originally we 
would have a recess during that period of time but the majority leader 
has decided not to do that. I understand why. But that is still 
available.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have a further consent agreement. Does the 
distinguished leader wish to have that set forth before he agrees for 
the first unanimous consent?
  I reoffer the first request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous 
consent that at 10 a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of House bill 2330, the Burma sanctions bill, 
under the following conditions: One hour of debate equally divided in 
the usual form; Then upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill be 
read the third time and the Senate proceed to a vote with no amendments 
in order to the bill, at a time to be determined by the majority leader 
after consultation with the Democratic leader, with particular 
reference to the prior agreement we have already entered into.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am now authorized by the majority 
leader to say there will be no more record votes tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

[[Page 17988]]




                           Amendment No. 1264

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1264.

  Mr. DORGAN. 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 require from the President a budget amendment for the 
   budget for fiscal year 2004 on the amounts requested for military 
                operations in Iraq in fiscal year 2004)

       Insert after section 8123 the following:
       Sec. 8124. Not later than July 29, 2003, the President 
     shall submit to Congress a budget amendment to the budget of 
     the President for fiscal year 2004, as submitted to Congress 
     in 2003 under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code, setting forth in full the amounts required for fiscal 
     year 2004 for United States military operations in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan in fiscal year 2004.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will speak briefly. I will speak further 
tomorrow on this subject. This relates to something I spoke about 
yesterday. It may well be that the Congress--in this case, the Senate--
feels it is appropriate to ignore the added costs of Afghanistan and 
Iraq in next year's budget, but I happen to think that makes no sense 
at all. If we know, reasonably, that we are going to spend an 
additional $1 billion a month in Afghanistan and perhaps $4 billion a 
month in Iraq--that is perhaps a $50 or $60 billion additional 
expenditure--it seems to me we ought to address that question now; not 
only address what are the additional costs with respect to Iraq and 
Afghanistan but where we will find the money.
  What will likely happen is what happened last year. The President 
made the case he did not know what the costs might be in Iraq and 
therefore did not include anything in the budget for it, but we have 
been through now at least an initial phase of the war, with continuing 
violence in Iraq. We know from Secretary Rumsfeld's position earlier 
this week we may well see an increase of troop strength in the area. We 
know the comptroller of the Pentagon says they have a pretty good sense 
of what will be on the ground for the next fiscal year--referring both 
to Afghanistan and Iraq.
  If that is the case, and if we are now appropriating money for the 
Department of Defense, why not try to learn from the administration 
what figures they are using for additional costs in the coming year and 
what they recommend we appropriate and how they recommend we find the 
money.
  My amendment is very simple. It asks the President to submit an 
amended budget to the Congress within the next 2 weeks setting out what 
he thinks the costs will be in Iraq and Afghanistan above that which is 
already in the Department of Defense budget, and then recommending how 
we would cover that, how we would pay for it. That, after all, is a 
starting point that comes from the executive budget, and then to be 
considered by the Congress.
  This is a very incomplete picture and an incomplete process if we are 
staring anywhere from $50 to $60 billion in additional costs right 
square in the face and pretending it does not exist.
  My amendment is very simple. I deeply appreciate the work that 
Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye have done on this bill. I happen to 
be on that subcommittee. These two are some remarkable men in this 
Senate and have distinguished war records and have a distinguished 
record of service to our entire country. I appreciate very much their 
work on this bill. But I do think it is important for the Congress to 
answer this question: Is this the way we should continue to handle 
these extra costs?
  Now these extra costs are becoming very large, $5 billion a month. It 
is quite clear from statements this week that the Pentagon knows or has 
some notion of what these extra costs will be. It makes no sense to 
pass an appropriations bill and pretend they do not exist.
  I will speak at greater length tomorrow morning on this subject, but 
I really believe we need to address this as a Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, unless there is a unanimous consent 
request to proceed to another matter, I would like to speak for a few 
moments in support of Senator Dorgan's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. DURBIN. I know the Senator from North Dakota has to leave and 
will be back tomorrow to discuss his amendment, but doesn't it strike 
those following this debate as strange that we are considering the 
appropriation for the Department of Defense for the next year and it 
includes everything except Iraq and Afghanistan?
  If this is truly an appropriations bill, if the Senate is meeting its 
responsibility in reviewing the requests of the administration to make 
certain they are reasonable, how can we, in good conscience, pass a 
bill without any reference to the costs of the war? That, of course, is 
a good turn of events for the administration because they do not have 
to explain how they will pay for it.
  This morning's newspapers across America disclosed we are facing a 
record-breaking budget deficit. We have gone, over the span of 3 years, 
from over $200 billion in surplus each year to over $450 billion in 
deficit. That does not count the Social Security portion which is about 
another $160 billion. We are facing record-breaking budget deficits. 
And now as we debate appropriations bills, these bills are not speaking 
to the reality of official spending under the Bush administration.
  To think we would consider this Department of Defense bill and not 
include the money necessary for the war in Iraq is to suggest that this 
bill does not tell the whole story.
  Just last week in the Armed Services Committee, Secretary Rumsfeld, 
our Secretary of Defense, appeared before the committee and was asked 
by Senator Byrd of West Virginia, what is the cost of the war in Iraq? 
Secretary Rumsfeld, in charge of the largest military operation on the 
face of the Earth, said, I don't know. Senator Byrd said, you better 
find out. These are questions asked by Congress of Secretaries of 
Defense through history. So there was a break in the action and 
Senators came over for a vote and when we returned, Secretary Rumsfeld 
said, I have been told it will be about $3.9 billion per month, roughly 
$1 billion a week for Iraq. When asked about Afghanistan, he suggested 
it would be somewhere in the range of $1 billion a month.
  That means we are going to spend roughly $5 billion a month that is 
not accounted for in this bill. So we know we are going to spend the 
money. We are never going to shortchange our men and women in uniform. 
Why isn't this Bush administration, in all candor and honesty, coming 
to us with a bill that includes the costs of the war?
  Senator Dorgan, my colleague from North Dakota, asked that obvious 
question and asked the Senate to vote on it. It will be interesting 
tomorrow to see if those who believe the Senate has a responsibility 
for oversight and also believe this administration has a responsibility 
to be honest about the costs of the war, will, in fact, support the 
Dorgan amendment. I certainly will. I hope my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle will, as well.
  This is a tough amendment because it puts the administration on the 
spot. They have to explain where they are going to come up with a 
substantial amount of money, but I think that is the burden they asked 
for when they assumed office. We need to face it squarely, as do they.
  I also say, despite the obvious monetary costs of the war, what I 
find in traveling back to Illinois is the people are less concerned 
about the monetary costs than the human costs of this war. It is tough 
to calculate how many of our great men and women have died since 
President Bush declared military victory in the first part of May. But 
we know almost on a daily basis that we

[[Page 17989]]

are losing some of our finest soldiers, men and women, well trained for 
military combat, who are now in the position of maintaining peace in 
Iraq, trying to establish a civil society. It is not an easy task. 
These men and women, trained with the highest technology, so successful 
on the battlefield, now find themselves on patrol, guarding college 
campuses, guarding museums, enforcing curfews, dealing with scuffles 
and fights in public marketplaces. As they go in to try to quell this 
violence and bring peace to the situation, sadly, many of them are 
being attacked by Iraqis. Some are being killed.
  To those who follow this debate, I say we can try in this bill to 
ignore the dollar costs of this war but, trust me, families across 
America, the people of this country, know the human costs on a daily 
basis. They are asking us the hard questions.
  Senator Lugar of Indiana, whom I respect very much, visited Iraq. He 
came back and said, in all candor, he believed we would be in that 
country for 5 years. He said he felt that was a minimum. I hope he is 
wrong. But I respect his judgment and his insight. If we are to be 
there for 5 years, if 150,000 troops or any portion of those troops 
will remain for that period of time, it is a massive investment by the 
United States in Iraq. It calls into question our basic strategy in 
trying to establish civil order.
  I cannot for the life of me understand why this administration has 
not gone to the United Nations and asked them to assume responsibility 
with us for the future of Iraq. Why hasn't this government come to the 
Senate and asked the same thing? If we could replace American troops in 
the field, guardsmen and reserves who have been there for long periods 
of time away from their family, if we could replace them and bring them 
home by bringing in troops from other countries, that would certainly 
be very positive.
  In this morning's newspapers Prime Minister Vajpayee of India said 
the United States requested 17,000 Indian troops and he declined the 
invitation. He said he might join an effort sponsored by the United 
Nations. Those are his conditions. I don't know the conditions of other 
countries.
  What is clear to me now is that though the coalition of the willing 
was enough to win the military end of the war, the coalition of the 
willing is incapable of meeting the responsibility today of 
establishing and maintaining order in Iraq. That coalition has really 
come down to two major countries, Great Britain and the United States. 
We are shouldering this burden, not just on the monetary side but on 
the side of human cost.
  I think this administration should be conscious of the fact that many 
Americans, supportive of the invasion of Iraq, supportive of 
eliminating Saddam Hussein, are now raising serious questions about the 
duration and cost of our occupation of Iraq.
  The same thing can be said, obviously, of Afghanistan. I am a big 
supporter of Hamid Karzai. I think he has done a remarkable job as the 
leader in Afghanistan, bringing some order to a country which has known 
chaos for too many years. But we know he needs help. Too many tribal 
warlords control portions of the country that should be controlled by 
some central authority coming out of Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan. 
That is not the case.
  The President of Pakistan recently visited the United States. 
President Musharraf said to President Bush: If you want one piece of 
advice, send more troops to Afghanistan. We don't have enough people 
there to maintain order. Our troop strength is estimated to be between 
8,500 and 10,000. That points to the need for this bill to be more 
inclusive on the real cost of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We need 
to face this head on.
  For the Department of Defense appropriations bill to speak to 
national security and ignore 150,000 men and women in uniform in Iraq 
and the cost to our country, as well as another 8,500 or so in 
Afghanistan, really misses the point. We need a bill that is complete. 
The Dorgan amendment will move us in that direction. I will support it 
tomorrow, and I hope my colleagues will join me.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, no one regrets the deaths that are 
occurring in Iraq any more than I, or anyone else here, particularly 
those of us who served in the uniform of our country. We know the 
seriousness of being involved in Iraq.
  The offensive operations in Iraq started in March. I believe it was 
March 19. This budget was presented to us long before that. It did not 
have money for Iraq. As a matter of fact, we have handled this concept 
of the war in Iraq on the same basis as Bosnia, Kosovo, et cetera--with 
one exception. The President came to us and asked for a supplemental 
for Iraq, and we passed it. The money is there. He asked for the money; 
we gave it to him. I don't understand this demand, now, for another 
supplemental. We do not need any more money right now. We are 
continuing to spend the money Congress provided, over $60 billion.
  I have a little sense of politics in this. I don't quite understand. 
Politics are never raised on the floor of the Senate, obviously. But 
clearly the political implication is, somehow or other, the deaths are 
related to the fact that the President has not asked for any money. We 
have plenty of money right now to run this war. The costs of the war 
are coming down. As I pointed out previously here this afternoon, all 
of the costs of the manpower for fighting in Iraq are in this bill. The 
costs that are not in this bill, that are being paid from the 
supplemental, are the incremental costs of moving forces to Iraq, 
moving materiel to Iraq, moving people back from Iraq, taking care of 
our global expenses, and conducting the war in Iraq.
  The President came in and asked for a $10 billion contingency fund. I 
joined in saying no, you can't have a contingency fund. We gave him the 
money he requested, the money whose use they detailed. But we didn't 
put up $10 billion as a contingency fund because we didn't think it was 
necessary, and I still don't think it is necessary. But we do 
understand if the cost of the war in Iraq will somehow exceed what we 
have already provided, the President will come for a supplemental in 
time. He has done that.
  We are funding the war in Iraq on an incremental basis from a 
supplemental fund we gave the President. Again, we gave him so much 
money, we rescinded $3 billion in this bill. Three billion dollars of 
the previous supplemental have been rescinded and spread around in 
other areas of the Department of Defense.
  I think we ought to get back into some historical context here. We 
have had a series of peacekeeping operations, so-called peacekeeping 
operations. There were people killed in Bosnia. There was a war in 
Bosnia. There is a war in Kosovo. There is a war in Afghanistan. This 
administration has asked for the money, and we have given it to them. 
The money we gave them, by the way, the $60 billion-plus, was for the 
whole area that was commanded by General Franks. It was the war zone. 
That included Afghanistan as well as Iraq.
  We have had, unfortunately, in the past--and I also mentioned this 
today--we had in connection with Bosnia and Kosovo a policy of the 
administration, the previous administration, to not ask for money at 
all. They took the money from the O&M accounts of the Departments, the 
various forces--Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines--and spent it. They 
never told us where they were spending it. When they came up and asked 
for a supplemental to replace it, they asked us for the money to 
replace the accounts. We never really got detailed descriptions of how 
much money was spent per day in Bosnia or Kosovo. I don't know where 
this is coming from.
  As a matter of fact, Senator Inouye and I have been involved in 
managing this bill, now, since 1981. We can tell the Senate the way we 
are handling the bill now is the way we should handle a bill for 
defense. We pay the money for the regular costs, and the Department 
asks us for the extraordinary costs. The last administration had the 
money

[[Page 17990]]

for the personnel and regular costs in the bill, but they took some of 
that money and fought the war in Bosnia and fought the war in Kosovo 
and then came up for a supplemental. This administration came for the 
supplemental first.
  They have the money. It is in the bank. They are spending it. And 
somehow they are being criticized for not asking for a supplemental.
  I oppose this amendment. I intend to oppose it. I intend, as a matter 
of fact, to make a motion to table it in the future.
  There is an agreement for debate. We are in a situation where, as far 
as I am concerned, we should not ask the Department to come and ask for 
moneys on a contingency basis. That is really what the Senator is 
suggesting--ask for money, what you might spend in the future, beyond 
what we have already given you. There is a bank over there. They have 
the money.
  To ask for a budget amendment for the fiscal year 2004, to be 
submitted this year, I don't understand at all. It wasn't required by 
the congressional budget resolution, by the way. If this was so 
important, why didn't someone raise it in connection with the 
congressional budget resolution that passed after we went to war? And 
we are at war.
  I really believe it is time we understand what is going on. I do not 
want to see us get another supplemental request this year. We have 13 
appropriations bills to pass. They have plenty of money. Why tie us up 
in another supplemental? Everyone knows a supplemental this time of 
year would become a Christmas tree. Everyone is going to offer 
amendments to do things they didn't get in the other bills, and every 
one would be a demand for an emergency.
  As long as I am chairman, we are going to try to have some discipline 
with regard to dealing with money. The discipline is, we follow the 
budget. I have committed to follow the budget. We are following the 
congressional budget. In order to do so, we had to ask the President's 
permission. Chairman Young, chairman of the House Appropriations 
Committee, and I asked for permission to take $3 billion off the 
President's request that is in this bill for defense. We admit we took 
$3.1 billion from what the President asked for in his budget request 
and put it in other subcommittees. Because of the fact the 
congressional budget resolution was $2.6 billion below the President's 
budget, we needed to find money to fund operations of those other 
departments that would not fit within that bill.
  We are proceeding on a basis that I think makes sense. I hope we will 
have bipartisan support for it. But one thing we don't need is another 
supplemental at this time dealing with Defense when Defense has money 
to continue to operate in Iraq. When they run out of money or come 
close to it, I assume they will come and ask for more. I presume the 
cost per week is going to go down. It has been fairly high. The 
incremental cost was over $34 billion last month, as I understand it. 
Under the circumstances, if it continues to wind down, I believe the 
monthly cost will decline and the Department will be able to get 
through this fiscal year with the money they have. If they need more 
money in the calendar year 2004, they can come in and ask for it. But I 
predict--I hope I am right--they are not going to need any more money 
in calendar year 2003 for either fiscal year 2003 or the first quarter 
of 2004. If they do, and that could happen--God forbid this thing could 
blow up over there and we would have to send more forces back in. I 
don't know. No one can predict what happens in a situation like we have 
now. We want to as rapidly as possible cease being an occupation force.
  This reminds me of some of harassment that took place during World 
War II when we had operating forces in areas where part of the enemy 
was not subdued and there were sniper attacks. There were bombing 
attacks. It was a disaster for people in uniform, who suffered even 
after the war was over. There were some deaths in World War II. I think 
this is a sad thing.
  I hear a call to bring the troops home. One of the reasons the troops 
are there is to protect one another and protect the people we just 
freed. I thought the price of freedom was in fact doing what our people 
are doing; that is, following the commands of the Commander in Chief.
  It is a very tough thing to say, but once we undertake action such as 
this, our national image would be absolutely tarred if we brought these 
people home before there was security for the people who have been 
liberated from that regime, the Baath party of Saddam Hussein. We can't 
leave them exposed, nor can we leave exposed our people who are trying 
to bring about reconstruction. I think we have to use common sense.
  To say the President shall submit a budget amendment--by the way, I 
don't know of any requirement anywhere in the law that the President 
has to submit a budget resolution before. I don't know that Congress 
has ever said the President shall present a budget amendment for a 
specific amendment of money or a specific item. I have been here 35 
years. I can't remember such a requirement before in my life. For no 
other reason, I would oppose that because he is the President. The 
Constitution gives him some powers. It gives us powers. One of the 
powers is to exercise the power of the purse. But we are not the ones 
who can command the President to ask for the money. He is the 
President. If he wants the money, he should ask for it. If he doesn't 
need it, we should not compel him to ask for it. I am sure if he needs 
it, he will be the first one to ask for it.
  As a matter of fact, I have heard comments about our President on 
this floor lately that are sort of derogatory. I think he is a fine 
man. He is a great President. He is doing a good job. He is honest. He 
is forthcoming. He admits if he makes mistakes, and then he gets highly 
criticized for having made the mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes from 
time to time. It takes a real man to say he has made one.
  That is why I came to the floor yesterday and congratulated George 
Tenet for having taken the step of admitting he bore the responsibility 
for the error in handling the reference in the President's State of the 
Union message.
  But this President is doing a good job. This Secretary of Defense is 
doing a good job. I think the American people should be proud of them. 
In my home State, they are certainly proud of them. And they are proud 
of the young men and women in uniform representing our country over 
there.
  I think the very thought that somehow something is going wrong here 
and because something is going wrong here people are dying in Iraq is 
just a terrible thing. People are dying in Iraq, unfortunately, because 
there are snipers. There are terrorists loose in Iraq. I thought we 
were conducting a global war against terrorism. What is going on in 
Iraq is terrorism. There has been a regime change. There are people 
opposed to that change, and they are trying to kill our people over 
there. They are trying to protect their own brothers and sisters in 
their own country.
  I hope the Senate settles down a little bit. In the past, we have 
handled this bill very expeditiously because of our respect for men and 
women in uniform. This is the money to pay those people who represent 
our country throughout the world. They are deployed in many countries. 
They read about what goes on here. They listen to it. They have it on 
C-SPAN.
  By the way, it is a very interesting thing for this generation to go 
overseas compared to my time overseas. I never got a phone call after I 
left my home until I got back. These young people have phone calls 
every day. They have e-mail. They use the Web. They conduct their 
classes when they are deployed overseas and continue their studies. It 
is a different world. They know what is going on here.
  I hope they understand what we are trying to do is get this bill 
passed and make sure they get their pay raise; make sure everything is 
in place in time so when September 30 comes, this bill will have passed 
and become law and be there for the protection of our men and women in 
uniform.
  I regret deeply that we have to handle an amendment like this. We 
know

[[Page 17991]]

the amounts required for the fiscal year 2004 military operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. We already put the money up. They are reporting 
monthly on what they spend.
  Now we want to predict how much they are going to spend. I really do 
not see the relevancy of this amendment. Tomorrow, I hope to end the 
debate by moving to table. I hope the Senate will support that motion.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


             Joint Air to Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM)

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am reminded that both the distinguished 
chairman and the ranking member have been strong proponents of the 
JASSM program in the past.
  The JASSM program is less than 30 days from completing operational 
test and is scheduled for a full rate production decision in November 
of this year. Both DOD and the Air Force have sufficient confidence in 
JASSM that they have proposed to use fiscal year 2003 Iraqi freedom 
funds to procure additional missiles. In addition, I would note that 
the Navy is scheduled to join the Air Force in future JASSM 
procurements and this production ramp is critical to meeting both the 
Navy and Air Force inventory requirements.
  I hope that we can work in conference to find a path that will 
protect the existing contract while at the same time provide the Air 
Force these vitally needed ``go-to-war'' assets.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator for bringing this matter to my 
attention. He has my assurance that we will consider this matter in 
conference.
  Mr. INOUYE. I agree with the chairman and will join him in reviewing 
this matter for conference.


             digitization of department of defense manuals

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, beginning in fiscal year 2003 and 
continuing this year, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has 
included funds for the digitization of Department of Defense, DoD, 
manuals and has directed that the work be performed by information 
technology firms owned and operated by Native Americans located in 
impoverished Native communities. These Native firms came together and 
formed a corporation, the Intertribal Information Technology 
Corporation, that could serve as the prime contractor in an effort to 
facilitate the contracting relationship with the Department of Defense.
  This consortium of firms has been working with mentoring information 
technology companies who already have existing contracts with the 
Department of Defense. I have had two briefings on the progress that is 
being made by the Native firms and their mentoring companies on 
existing DoD contract work, and have been advised that the performance 
of the Native firms is both exemplary and highly efficient. A few 
months ago, I had the opportunity to attend the dedication of the 
Native Hawaiian information technology firm that is part of this 
consortium, and was further impressed with the capacity of these Native 
firms to carry out the digitization work.
  Mr. STEVENS. I agree. The war in Iraq demonstrated the important of 
having the highly-mobile maintenance capability that the digitization 
of DoD manuals enabled our forces to employ. For many years, the 
Senator and I have shared a concern about the high unemployment rates 
in Native communities. This program serves as one effective means of 
addressing those high unemployment rates while also providing the 
Defense Department with new sources of supply for digitization 
services.
  Mr. INOUYE. As the Senator knows, the ten Native-owned firms that 
came together to establish a new Small Business Act 8(a) firm is 
composed of American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian 
information technology companies. To my knowledge, this is the first 
business enterprise to be jointly owned by the three indigenous 
populations of the United States.
  This new jointly-owned firm was established so that DoD would only 
have to award a single contract rather than having to award ten 
separate contracts to each of the ten participating firms. In 
establishing the jointly-owned firm, it was well understood that the 
jointly-owned firm would subcontract the digitization work to the ten 
participating Native-owned firms, and that the jointly-owned firm would 
assume administrative responsibilities and provide technical support to 
the ten Native Firms to ensure the highest quality production.
  This innovative approach reflects the intent of the Congress that the 
digitization work be performed by Native firms that can not only 
produce quality products for the Government, but that in the process of 
doing so, can also generate jobs in the economically-disadvantaged 
communities that they serve.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding that the contract with the 
jointly-owned firm was to have been awarded on June 2 of this year, but 
that DoD officials are now expressing some reluctance to allow the 
jointly-owned firm to pass the digitization work through to the Native 
firms because the customary practice is to have the prime contractor 
perform the majority of the work. I am also told, however, that there 
is an exception to this practice provided for in regulation, 
particularly when the Government had directed or identified a specific 
source for the provision of services, as we did in the fiscal year 2003 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act.
  Mr. INOUYE. Yes, that is my understanding as well. I am advised that 
the exception can be applied while still assuring full compliance with 
all procurement requirements. So I would ask, is it the intent and 
directive of the Appropriations Committee that the Department of 
Defense employ all legal measures available under the law to accomplish 
the intent of the Congress in having the digitization work performed by 
the ten participating Native-owned firms through a single DoD contract 
with the jointly-owned firms?
  Mr. STEVENS. This is the intent. This new program is already proving 
to be a highly-efficient means of addressing the Department's needs for 
the digitization of DoD manuals, and we would expect the Defense 
Department to employ every legal authority at its disposal to implement 
the program as Congress intended it to be implemented


             air force advanced power transformation office

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
the mission of the U.S. Air Force, USAF, Advanced Power Transformation 
Office, APTO, at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia. This transformation 
office was established to advise and assist military installations all 
over the world in their development of alternative fueled vehicles.
  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator from Georgia would yield for a question, 
I have learned that the Energy Policy Act authorizes the APTO to enter 
into public-private collaborative agreements to encourage the 
development and deployment of alternative fuel vehicles and alternative 
hydrogen fueling infrastructures. Does the Senator know whether the 
transformation office in Georgia has taken advantage of this 
opportunity?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. As my colleague from Alaska has suggested, the APTO 
has entered a public-private collaborative project with the Southern 
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Research Partnership, which has then entered into a 
further agreement with the Georgia Tech Research Institute. This 
Georgia-based collaborative advances the national interest in the study 
of hydrogen-powered vehicles and fueling system designs. The APTO also 
hopes to accelerate the development of hydrogen power technology to 
determine whether it is feasible for both military and commercial use. 
Because of the importance of this project, I urge the Air Force to 
continue to support this important initiative.
  Mr. STEVENS. The committee also notes the importance and value of the

[[Page 17992]]

efforts of the Advanced Power Transformation Office and encourages the 
Air Force to continue funding and support for this important 
initiative.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska, and I 
yield the floor.


                 SAC Position on Objective Force Cannon

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1382, the 
Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004, as 
reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. I take a moment to 
talk about the urgent need for the non-line of sight cannon and to 
commend the actions the Senate Appropriations Committee has taken to 
meet this key need.
  We have heard testimony from the most senior members of the Army 
uniformed and civilian leadership that organic Army indirect fire is 
one of the most urgent needs in today's military environment.
  When Congress agreed to allow the Department of Defense to terminate 
the Crusader program last year, it did so with the explicit 
understanding the Crusader technology would be used to form the basis 
of a new lighter, more easily deployable non-line of sight cannon, 
which would be ready no later than 2008.
  Indeed, during the last session we enacted law to that effect, and 
also stipulated that development of the non-line of sight cannon would 
be undertaken as part of the Army's Artillery Systems Demonstration and 
Validation program element, which is the only place within the budget 
that cannon artillery research and development is funded.
  The designation of the non-line of sight cannon as a congressional 
special interest by the Senate Appropriations Committee goes even 
further than last year's legislation to ensure that this need is met. I 
ask the chairman to comment on the need for this further step.
  Mr. STEVENS. In an effort to ensure full compliance with Congress's 
intent to fully fund the non-line of sight cannon program, the Senate 
Appropriations Committee has designated the program as a congressional 
special interest and appropriated funding in a separate program element 
devoted to the advanced development of artillery systems.
  Mr. INHOFE. With limited resources available for the competing needs 
of modernization and force sustainment, it is imperative that crucial 
programs like non-line of sight cannon receive the requisite 
congressional oversight to ensure their timely development and fielding 
in accordance with the priority they enjoy.
  I thank the Senator, and my other colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee for their efforts to ensure that this vital program receives 
the funding it needs.


                     supplies of meals ready to eat

  Mr. BAYH. Would the chairman yield for an inquiry on the subject of 
MRE supplies?
  Mr. STEVENS. I would yield to the Senator from Indiana for a 
question.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, our military 
relied upon MREs to an extent never before seen in the history of 
modern combat. Due to concerns about the safety of the local food 
supply, Operation Iraqi Freedom and the subsequent mission has relief 
almost entirely on MREs to feed our soldiers. It is my understanding at 
the height of the operation, the Department of Defense was consuming 
roughly 300,000 cases of MREs per week. Is the chairman aware of this 
unprecedented use of MREs?
  Mr. STEVENS. I was aware of the reliance on MREs, yes.
  Mr. BAYH. I would further point out at the height of the operation, 
some estimate that DOD was down to a worldwide reserve of some 400,000 
cases. To summarize, DOD was within a week of running out of food for 
our soldiers in the field. Thanks to a surge in production by MRE 
producers on very little notice, DOD managed to stave off a logistical 
and potential military disaster. Is the chairman aware of how close we 
came to literally running out of food?
  Mr. STEVENS. I was not. But I certainly believe the committee should 
look into it.
  Mr. BAYH. Surprisingly, the Defense Logistics Agency, DLA, has still 
not chosen to replenish an adequate reserve of MREs. In addition, DLA 
has cut MRE production despite the fact that our troops in Iraq are 
still consuming MREs at an unprecedented rate. Would the chairman 
consider this matter in conference and have the managers address it if 
the committee finds the problem to be as grave as it would appear?
  Mr. STEVENS. We would be willing to look at that possibility.
  Mr. LOTT. Would the chairman yield for me to add further to the 
discussion at hand?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield to the Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Part of any military exercise or experience is an 
afteraction review to learn what went right and wrong and how to 
improve on things in future situations. It would seem that the MRE 
supply issue is just such an issue. Obviously DLA did not have reserve 
stocks of food on hand going into this operation. Obviously no one 
anticipated the consumption rate we have experienced in the past few 
months. But it seems apparent that the reliance upon MREs isn't going 
to change in the foreseeable future.
  I can think of a number of things that could go wrong during a 
military operation, but running out of food has to be one of the worst. 
So I can't imagine why DLA is cutting production when we haven't even 
started to replenish our reserves. It would seem simple enough that if 
anything DLA should be increasing production and increasing reserves so 
that we never face this potential disaster again.
  I am informed that an adequate reserve based upon the new realities 
we have discovered in the past few months would ultimately be 10.5 
million cases. Well, we are about 10 million cases away from that goal 
so we better get started on meeting that target. I too would certainly 
welcome anything the chairman could do to address this problem in 
conference and compel DLA to up the reserve stocks of MREs to an 
adequate level. I yield back of the chairman.
  Mr. STEVENS. We are going to take a close look at this problem and 
see what is or isn't being done to address it and take corrective 
action if necessary.


                cost-sharing of defense medical research

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to take this chance to thank 
Chairman Stevens for his leadership in funding the Army Peer-Reviewed 
Breast Cancer Research Program at $150 million in this bill. I would 
also like to take a moment to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee about the report 
language in the committee report on cost-sharing in such medical 
research. Mr. Chairman, when I read this report language, it seems 
clear that the intent of the language is to determine if there is some 
way to contain medical research costs within the defense budget.
  We all know that the Army Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research 
Program, BCRP, has proven to be efficient and highly effective, and the 
committee has supported its efforts strongly. The flexibility of this 
program allows the Army to administer it in such a way as to maximize 
its limited resources. The BCRP is able to quickly respond to current 
scientific advances, and is able to fill gaps by focusing on research 
that is traditionally underfunded. It is also responsive, not just to 
the scientific community, but also to the public.
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, the Senator from Vermont is correct. The committee 
is seeking to determine alternative ways to fund increases in these 
kinds of projects, but not undermine the effectiveness of ongoing 
programs. The committee has received numerous requests to start up new 
medical research programs. In many cases these requests cannot be met 
when trying to meet other valid military requirements with limited 
resources. The language is certainly not specifically designed to 
undermine the integrity of the existing DOD BCRP, and the committee 
recognizes it as innovative, extremely accountable and transparent in 
its approach to medical research.

[[Page 17993]]


  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the chairman. I would also like to clarify the 
language in this provision about the agencies to perform the study. Am 
I right in reading the word ``consultation,'' in reference to the 
offices, institutes, and bureaus performing the study, to mean a 
continual process of discussion and collaboration? Consultation almost 
always involves more than simple briefings, but a consistent, mutual 
back-and-forth designed to ensure the objectivity, soundness, and 
fairness of a research process.
  I personally hope that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health 
Affairs will go even beyond that notion and rely heavily on the 
expertise of the Institute of Medicine, which has reviewed programs 
like the Army Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Programs on several 
occasions.
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, that is right. The language clearly foresees that 
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs will work closely 
with the service Surgeons General and the Institute of Medicine to 
develop and conduct a sensible, objective, and fair analysis of cost-
sharing options for future medical research programs.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank my good friend from Alaska for his support of 
programs like the Army Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program. 
Recently one of the staunch advocates of this program in my home State 
of Vermont, Patt Barr, passed away. One of my lasting memories of Pat 
is seeing her standing in the hallway here in the Capitol, well past 
midnight, patiently explaining to individual Senators why the 
Department of Defense should include funds for breast cancer research 
in its medical budget. Mr. Chairman, your support and spirit has keep 
her legacy living on.


                             laser peening

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an important 
matter with my friend, the distinguished committee chairman.
  I have been a long-time supporter of laser peening technology. Laser 
peening is a revolutionary materials processing technology that has 
proven very effective in solving many of the fatigue problems currently 
plaguing military engines, such as the F101 engine in the B-1 bomber. 
Laser peening has been scientifically and battlefield proven to extend 
fatigue life and fatigue strength of metal parts.
  In recognition of the benefits of laser peening, the Army has 
initiated an effort to establish a technology insertion program that 
would employ laser peening in support of major Army helicopter 
programs. Congress provided $1 million to begin this effort in fiscal 
year 2002.
  Laser peening technology is being evaluated to extend the life of 
flight critical components on Army helicopters--including the CH-47 
Chinook, AH-64 Apache, and UH-60 Black Hawk. These components are 
subject to fretting fatigue, wear that results when two metal 
components rub against each other. Without laser peening, fretting 
produces cracks that penetrate deep into the component surface, causing 
fracture, failure, and ultimately requiring part replacement. Laser 
peening will be applied to families of components such as integrally 
bladed rotors, gears, and bearing raceways to significantly increase 
service life and reliability. These components are used in all of the 
Army's helicopters and ground vehicles with turbine engines, including 
the Comanche, Black Hawk, and Apache helicopters and the M2 Abrams 
tank.
  Stated simply, laser peening will improve the performance, extend the 
service life and reduce the cost of these critical systems. Without 
continued support for laser peening technology, this program will halt 
and these savings and improvements will never be realized.
  In recognition of the tremendous potential for laser peening for the 
Army, I would ask the chairman's assistance in allowing the funds 
available for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation for the Army 
to be used for laser peening for Army aircraft and ground equipment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator for his interest in this issue. I 
recognize the importance of laser peening technology, and I promise the 
Senator that I will be certain to give his request careful 
consideration as we proceed with action on the Department of Defense 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President I rise today to discuss the defense 
appropriations bill before us this week and the excellent work the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and the 
ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee, Senator Inouye, have done 
to bring a very good bill before the Senate under a tight budget. 
Additionally, we are engaged in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, 
which make it critical that we approve a bill that gives the men and 
women in the field the tools they need. Senator Stevens and Senator 
Inouye have crafted a bill to benefit our armed forces in a time of 
war. Additionally, the bill is forward looking and meets our 
transformational goals to modernize the U.S. military.
  On Saturday, LPD-17, USS San Antonio, will be christened at Avondale 
Shipyard in Louisiana. The San Antonio will move from dry-dock into the 
Mississippi River, where she will undergo final preparations before she 
can be delivered to the United States Navy and the Marines. It will be 
a day to celebrate. There can be no doubt about America's need for the 
LPD class of ships. The LPD is designed to bring the fight to our 
enemy.
  But the LPD program has suffered bumps and bruises along the way. She 
has experienced delays and cost-overruns. Some tough love was needed to 
bring efficiency to the program. Today, however, the LPD program is 
back on track. It is on time and on budget. It is a fitting coincidence 
that we will christen the San Antonio at a time when the LPD program is 
healthy.
  The LPD program could not have been brought back to even keel without 
the guidance and support of Senators Stevens and Inouye. They have been 
long-time advocates of the LPD program. I cannot thank them enough for 
keeping faith in a program that is absolutely vital to our Marines.
  In this bill, Senators Stevens and Inouye helped the LPD overcome yet 
another hurdle. When the President's budget for shipbuilding came out 
in February, the President recommended the construction of LPD-23 to 
begin in fiscal year 2006, not fiscal year 2005 as originally planned. 
The Department of Defense sought to push back the production rate of 
the LPD program, which, if enacted, will only cause the LPD program to 
experience price increases, once again. Moreover, if the recommendation 
holds, over 2,000 lay-offs of highly skilled workers could occur at 
Avondale and Ingalls in Mississippi. Fortunately, the chair and ranking 
member support keeping LPD-23 on schedule for fiscal year 2005. I am 
appreciative, and I know the Marine Corps and people of Louisiana are 
appreciative.
  During the debate on the budget resolution, I offered a resolution to 
increase spending for the National Guard and Reserve forces by $1.1 
billion to meet unfunded equipment requirements. Our Guard and Reserve 
forces make up over 40 percent of our armed forces personnel, yet for 
years they barely received 8 percent of the funds in the defense 
budgets. Our Armed Forces could not have performed as brilliantly as 
they did in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom 
without our reliance on our National Guard and Reserve. Over 320,000 
guardsmen and reservists have been activated since September 11, 2001. 
Many have been called up two and three times, which places tremendous 
stresses on the lives of our troops and their loved ones. Our citizen 
soldiers are being asked to perform the same tasks as our active 
forces, and they are doing so with expertise. But, they often have 
hand-me-down equipment. There are people near and dear to me stationed 
right now in Iraq in the Reserves. When their lives are on the line, I 
do not want them wondering if their Vietnam era equipment will work.
  Again, I am pleased Senators Stevens and Inouye have made a strong 
commitment to bolstering our National Guard and Reserve. They funded 
the National Guard and Reserve equipment account at $750 million. This 
will

[[Page 17994]]

allow our Guard and Reserve forces to purchase key equipment for 
modernization, such as laser targeting pods. The Senate also commits 
key funds to the modernization and long-term sustainment of the 
National Guard: $175 million for upgrades to National Guard Bradley 
fighting vehicles; $50 million and pledge for full funding for a 
Stryker Brigade for the National Guard, $70 million for Black Hawk 
helicopters, and $17 million to stand up 12 additional weapons of mass 
destruction civil support teams. This money will be well invested, and 
I know the men in women in our National Guard and Reserve will put this 
equipment to good use.
  I also wish to thank Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for their 
continued support of the National D-Day Museum in New Orleans, LA. Last 
year, we were saddened by the death of one of America's greatest 
historians, Dr. Stephen Ambrose. His works have chronicled, for 
perpetuity, the lives of Lewis and Clark, Dwight Eisenhower, and the 
millions of brave Americans who took up a call to arms in World War II 
in order to protect the United States and liberate the world.
  In 1991, Dr. Ambrose embarked on a mission to create a museum to 
honor America's war heroes. He wanted to place the Museum in New 
Orleans because Andrew Jackson Higgins was a New Orleanian. Most people 
in the U.S. do not know who Andrew Jackson Higgins is, but we owe a 
great debt to Mr. Higgins. He created the landing crafts, or Higgins 
boats, used to carry U.S. G.I.s to the shores of northern France for 
the D-day invasion of 1944. In Dr. Ambrose's interviews with President 
Eisenhower, President Eisenhower stated that Andrew Jackson Higgins' 
boats were the reason America won World War II.
  In June of 2000, on the 56th anniversary of D-day, the National D-Day 
Museum opened its doors and fulfilled the realization of Dr. Ambrose's 
dream. The museum has been a run-away success. When you walk through 
its exhibits, you cannot keep from being immersed in the history. To 
see a veteran explaining to his grand-children what life was like in 
World War II is truly remarkable.
  Just last week, on July 7, the 1 millionth visitor walked through the 
doors of the D-Day Museum. It is an extraordinary accomplishment for a 
museum to welcome 1 million visitors in 37 months. Visitors to the 
Museum are saying they traveled to New Orleans just to tour the 
National D-Day Museum. Usually, people say they visit New Orleans for 
the food or the music. It is a true testament to the D-Day Museum that 
people are now thinking of the D-Day Museum before they think of creole 
food and jazz as reasons to vacation in New Orleans. Again, we might 
not be celebrating the millionth visitor if it were not for the 
commitments of Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye to help Dr. Ambrose 
make his dream a reality. The people of Louisiana and all one million 
visitors are grateful.
  In closing, I look forward to approving the Defense appropriations 
bill and hope we can move to conference quickly so that we can best 
provide for our troops. I would be remiss if I did not commend the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee staff members their diligence, too. 
Senators Stevens and Inouye navigated difficult waters and came up with 
a good bill, and for that I am appreciative.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased we were able to maintain 
continued strong funding for the Army Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer 
Research Program, BCRP, and for a number of other medical research 
programs in this bill. The BCRP has made a real difference in 
supporting innovative, effective research to help the many women and 
men who get breast cancer in this country. Because of its success, 
other medical research programs have been added, and there is always 
interest in adding more. The chairman has expressed concern about the 
potential effect of these new requests on the Defense budget, and the 
committee report includes language requesting the Department to look at 
possible additional sources of funding. I look forward to working with 
the Department, the Institute of Medicine, and others to ensure that 
this review strengthens the medical research programs and does not 
undermine or bias them, and I look forward to working with the chairman 
to ensure continued strong funding for these important programs.

                          ____________________