[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 18452-18482]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2658, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Iowa, Mr. Harkin, is recognized for not to exceed 25 minutes.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, some of this week's news headlines and 
lead stories on the evening news, when looked at together, raise 
important questions about our direction as a country and about key 
Federal Government policy--both economic policy and foreign policy. The 
economic issues raised affect the quality of life of every American 
family and the future of our children. The foreign policy issues touch 
on the reasons that thousands of Americans are deployed today in 
perilous circumstances in Iraq. As we all know, our soldiers are 
risking their lives daily in Iraq, and daily American troops are being 
killed.
  On the economic front, the front page of the Washington Post reported 
earlier this week that the White House now projects that the Federal 
budget deficit will top $450 billion this year: ``Budget Deficit May 
Surpass $450 billion.'' That is 50 percent higher than the 
administration predicted just 6 months ago. In 6 months it has 
increased by 50 percent. The administration's Office of Management and 
Budget also predicts a $475 billion deficit for next year.
  Now, a couple times in my remarks this morning I will be talking 
about low-balling. I think the $450 billion budget deficit figure is a 
low-ball figure. I think the $475 billion budget deficit estimate for 
next year is also a low-ball figure. I think they are both going to be 
in the neighborhood of $\1/2\ trillion or more.
  Why could I possibly say that? One reason is that the projected $475 
billion deficit for next year does not include any accounting for the 
cost of the war in Iraq, or for our continued operations in 
Afghanistan. It is simply not there, as though it costs us nothing.
  We now know, thanks to the recent hearing held by the Senate Armed 
Services Committee and the continued questioning of Secretary Rumsfeld, 
who at first did not have the figures for how much it was costing us on 
a monthly basis in Iraq, but was pressured by the Senators on the Armed 
Services Committee to get the figures during a break when the Senators 
came to vote--well, he came back, and what did we learn? We learned 
from Secretary Rumsfeld that the cost of our operations in Iraq are now 
running at about $4 billion a month. That is $1 billion a week.
  Again, to those of us who have been around here for some time, and 
have seen how these figures have been skewed in the past, I also think 
that is a low-ball figure. I think the figures of our operations in 
Iraq, when all is said and done, is going to be much closer to $5 to $6 
billion per month. But we will take their figure, the administration's 
figure of $4 billion a month.
  Again, that number has been escalating. At the beginning of the war, 
the Defense Department said that the occupation costs would only be 
about $2 billion a month. In June, it rose to $3

[[Page 18453]]

billion a month. Now it is $4 billion a month. That is just in Iraq. In 
Afghanistan, we are spending another $1 billion each month. When you 
add up those two, that is about $60 billion a year. That is not even in 
our budget.
  We are on the Defense appropriations bill right now--a record $369 
billion for defense and not one penny in there for Afghanistan or Iraq. 
So when you see the figure of a $450 billion deficit, hold your breath 
because it is going to go up. It is going to be bigger than that 
because of these costs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  But there is another reason why these deficits are going up. The 
basis for the $450 billion deficit is certainly not the war in Iraq, 
and it is not what we are doing in Afghanistan; it is because of the 
President's massive tax cuts enacted in 2001 and this year--tax cuts 
that benefited the wealthiest in our society.
  Over one-half of the benefits of the tax break bill in 2001 went to 
those people making over $1 million a year. This year, we just added on 
to that. Based on the tax cuts enacted this year, a person making $1 
million a year in America now will get over $93,000 a year in a tax 
cut. You wonder why we are having a $450 billion deficit.
  So those are the two paths our country is going down that I believe 
is putting us in dire jeopardy: The economic path of more and more 
massive tax breaks for those at the top--not investing in education, 
not investing in basic medical research, not investing in rebuilding 
our schools and our highways and bridges and roads, not investing in 
our infrastructure in our country, not investing in Early Start and 
Head Start, not investing in Well Start programs, not investing in 
higher education so our kids can get a chance to go to college, not 
investing in that--but taking the great wealth of this country and 
giving it, in tax breaks, to the wealthiest few.
  That is the basis for why our economy is in a shambles. Then you add 
on to it the foreign policy debacle of the last 2 years. The foreign 
policy debacle is now leading us to spend $60 billion a year on 
Afghanistan and Iraq, the foreign policy debacle that is leading to 
U.S. troops being killed every day in Iraq.
  The headline in this morning's Washington Post: ```Guerilla' War 
Acknowledged.''

       The U.S. military's new commander in Iraq acknowledged for 
     the first time yesterday that American troops are engaged in 
     a ``classical guerilla-type'' war against remnants of former 
     Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's Baath Party and said 
     Baathist attacks are growing in organization and 
     sophistication.

  I guess we didn't learn anything from Vietnam, did we? I guess we 
just didn't learn a thing. No, we were so anxious to rush headlong into 
this war without getting the support of our allies, making this a 
United Nations effort, at least at a minimum a NATO effort, rather than 
a solo effort by the United States. Now when we look around and we need 
help in paying the bills, it is only the U.S. taxpayers who are being 
asked to pay. Make no mistake, the bills will be paid. We will pay 
those bills. And I will vote for this bill, too, because we can't pull 
the rug out from underneath our military. No one is talking about 
pulling our troops suddenly out of Iraq now that they are there. 
Certainly no one here in the Senate would suggest that we don't provide 
all that we can for their security and their success.
  But we have to ask the tough questions of what got us here, what led 
us here, what policy decisions put us in this terrible situation. As we 
consider defense spending, it is appropriate to examine the cause of 
why we are committing $1 billion a week in Iraq in addition to the cost 
of human lives.
  Again, we can look at a second story from Tuesday's Washington Post. 
President Bush on Monday defended his State of the Union remarks on 
Iraq by saying:

       I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence. 
     And the speeches I have given were backed by good 
     intelligence.

  ``President Defends Allegation on Iraq.'' Well, the President 
essentially, with these remarks, seems to be sticking with the story he 
told in his State of the Union Address. His spokesman days before had 
acknowledged that the President should not have claimed that Iraq was 
trying to buy uranium from Africa; that this claim was based on bad 
intelligence, forged documents. But the President did not renounce this 
claim. In fact, he seemed to stand by it.
  President Bush also said the CIA doubts about the intelligence 
regarding Iraqi efforts to buy uranium in Africa were ``subsequent'' to 
the State of the Union Address. That is what the President said. 
However, we know this is not true. The CIA insisted last October that 
similar claims be removed from a speech the President delivered at that 
time.
  And wonder of wonders, on July 14, the President said we went to war 
with Saddam Hussein ``after we gave him a chance to allow the 
inspectors in, and he wouldn't allow them in.'' Just driving in this 
morning from home into the Senate, I was listening to the radio, and 
this was brought up on the radio. And you could hear the President's 
own words:

       We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he 
     wouldn't allow them in.

  That has got to be one of the most bizarre statements I have ever 
heard not only any President but any public official ever make.
  The fact is, last November, the inspectors were let in, led by Hans 
Blix. They went into Iraq on November 18 last fall. And they were there 
doing their job. But continually President Bush said they couldn't do 
it, that they couldn't find anything. We kept trying to support the 
inspectors, some of us, but the President kept saying, no, they 
couldn't operate. The inspectors only left Iraq just before the bombs 
started falling.
  And now for this President to say that Saddam Hussein wouldn't let 
them in has got to be something really bizarre. What could the 
President possibly be thinking? How could the President even utter such 
words?
  The administration's claims about Iraq's nuclear program have always 
been at the center of their justification for the war in Iraq. In a 
speech in Cincinnati last October laying out the case for the 
resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, President Bush used 
the word ``nuclear'' 20 times in one speech. Perhaps his most dramatic 
statement raised the specter of a nuclear attack on the United States. 
President Bush warned in that speech:

       Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the 
     final proof--the smoking gun--that would come in the form of 
     a mushroom cloud.

  In March, shortly before the war began, Vice President Cheney went 
further. He said: Hussein ``has been absolutely devoted to trying to 
acquire nuclear weapons.'' And here is what the Vice President said in 
all seriousness:

       And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear 
     weapons.

  That is what Vice President Cheney said last March.
  We ask, where are the facts? We have yet to see any facts, only 
speculation based upon forged documents. That is a claim with 
absolutely no evidence behind it. And this is the Vice President of the 
United States.
  So we have to ask, does President Bush stand by his claim that Iraq 
was trying to purchase uranium, or was that statement a mistake? It is 
not enough to blame an aide who stopped that claim once but allowed 
it--attributed to another source--the second time. It is not enough to 
claim, as another aide did, that the statement was technically true 
because it said that ``the British Government has learned'' about the 
alleged purchase attempt even though our own Government believed the 
allegations wrong.
  It is time for President Bush to come clean. Does he believe his own 
claim? Did Iraq even have an active nuclear weapons program when we 
invaded? If so, then why have we not found any evidence for it in the 
months since the war ended? And if not, then why did we invade in the 
first place?
  This is not just about one statement. It is about a war justified by 
claims that Iraq was actively pursuing nuclear weapons, by dire 
warnings about mushroom clouds. Yet the U.N. could not

[[Page 18454]]

find any evidence of a continuing nuclear weapons program, and now 
apparently we can't either.
  The administration can't hide that fact behind conflicting statements 
and wrong information. They can't continue to mislead and misdirect the 
American public and the Congress. The cost in money and in lives and in 
reputation is too great.
  Is this really the culmination of a misguided policy started by a few 
individuals in the early 1990s, expounded and developed in the later 
1990s, and now encompassed by some in this administration, a new 
doctrine called ``preemption''; preemption, that we can somehow go in 
and militarily invade a country based not upon evidence, based not upon 
hard facts but based upon a kind of feeling, a supposition, maybe a 
belief, just a belief that they may, in fact, some day come to harm us?
  George Will had a column in the newspaper on June 22 talking about 
the doctrine of preemption. He said something I thought was very 
interesting. He said:

       To govern is to choose, almost always on the basis of very 
     imperfect information. But preemption presupposes the ability 
     to know things--to know about threats with a degree of 
     certainty not requisite for decisions less momentous than 
     those for waging war.

  If I can interpret Mr. Will, I think he was saying that sometimes you 
can take certain actions, the consequences of which, if you are wrong, 
are not momentous. But to base military action under a doctrine of 
preemption on potential threats about which you do not have adequate 
facts, and based only upon a belief or a feeling, the results of that 
can be terribly momentous.
  Mr. Will goes on to say:

       Some say the war was justified--

  That is what we are hearing now.

       --even if [weapons of mass destruction] are not found nor 
     their destruction explained, because the world is ``better 
     off'' without Saddam. Of course it is better off. But unless 
     one is prepared to postulate a U.S. right, perhaps even a 
     duty, to militarily dismantle any tyranny--on to Burma?--it 
     is unacceptable to argue that Saddam's mass graves and 
     torture chambers suffice as retrospective justifications for 
     preemptive war.

  I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Will's entire column of June 22 be 
printed at this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           [From the Times Union (Albany, NY), June 22, 2003]

                     The Missing Weapons Do Matter

                            (By George Will)

       Washington.--An antidote for grand imperial ambitions is a 
     taste of imperial success. Swift victory in Iraq may have 
     whetted the appetite of some Americans for further military 
     exercises in regime change, but more than seven weeks after 
     the President said, ``Major combat operations in Iraq have 
     ended,'' combat operations, minor but lethal, continue.
       And overshadowing the military achievement is the failure--
     so far--to find, or explain the absence of, weapons of mass 
     destruction that were the necessary and sufficient 
     justification for pre-emptive war. The doctrine of pre-
     emption--the core of the President's foreign policy--is in 
     jeopardy.
       To govern is to choose, almost always on the basis of very 
     imperfect information. But pre-emption presupposes the 
     ability to know things--to know about threats with a degree 
     of certainty not requisite for decisions less momentous than 
     those for waging war.
       Some say the way was justified even if WMDs are not found 
     nor their destruction explained, because the world is 
     ``better off'' without Saddam. Of course it is better off. 
     But unless one is prepared to postulate a U.S. right, perhaps 
     even a duty, to militarily dismantle any tyranny--on to 
     Burma?--it is unacceptable to argue that Saddam's mass graves 
     and torture chambers suffice as retrospective justifications 
     for pre-emptive war. Americans seem sanguine about the 
     failure--so far--to validate the war's premise about the 
     threat posed by Saddam's WMDs, but a long-term failure would 
     unravel much of this President's policy and rhetoric.
       Saddam, forced by the defection of his son-in-law, 
     acknowledged in the mid-1990s his possession of chemical and 
     biological WMDs. President Clinton, British, French and 
     German intelligence agencies and even Hans Blix (who tells 
     the British newspaper The Guardian, ``We know for sure that 
     they did exist'') have expressed certainty about Iraq having 
     WMDs at some point.
       A vast multinational conspiracy of bad faith, using 
     fictitious WMDs as a pretext for war, is a wildly implausible 
     explanation of the failure to find WMDs. What is plausible? 
     James Woolsey, President Clinton's first CIA director, 
     suggests the following:
       As war approached, Saddam, a killer but not a fighter, was 
     a parochial figure who had not left Iraq since 1979. He was 
     surrounded by terrified sycophants and several Russian 
     advisers who assured him that if Russia could not subdue 
     Grozny in Chechnya, casualty-averse Americans would not 
     conquer Baghdad.
       Based on his experience in the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam 
     assumed there would be a ground offensive only after 
     prolonged bombing. U.S. forces would conquer the desert, then 
     stop. He could manufacture civilian casualties--perhaps by 
     blowing up some of his own hospitals--to inflame world 
     opinion, and count on his European friends to force a halt in 
     the war, based on his promise to open Iraq to inspections, 
     having destroyed his WMDs on the eve of war.
       Or shortly after the war began. Saddam, suggests Woolsey, 
     was stunned when Gen. Tommy Franks began the air and ground 
     offenses simultaneously and then ``pulled a Patton,'' saying, 
     in effect, never mind my flanks, I'll move so fast they can't 
     find my flanks. Saddam, Woolsey suggests, may have moved fast 
     to destroy the material that was the justification for a war 
     he intended to survive, and may have survived.
       Such destruction need not have been a huge task. In 
     Britain, where political discourse is far fiercer than in 
     America, Tony Blair is being roasted about the missing WMDs 
     by, among many others, Robin Cook, formerly his foreign 
     secretary. Cook says: ``Such weapons require substantial 
     industrial plant and a large work force. It is inconceivable 
     that both could have been kept concealed for the two months 
     we have been in occupation of Iraq.''
       Rubbish, says Woolsey: Chemical or biological weapons could 
     have been manufactured with minor modifications of a 
     fertilizer plant, or in a plant as small as a microbrewery 
     attached to a restaurant. The 8,500 liters of anthrax that 
     Saddam once admitted to having would weigh about 8.5 tons and 
     would fill about half of a tractor-trailer truck. The 25,000 
     liters that Colin Powell cited in his U.N. speech could be 
     concealed in two trucks--or in much less space if the anthrax 
     were powdered.
       For the President, the missing WMDs are not a political 
     problem. Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, says Americans 
     are happily focused on Iraqis liberated rather than WMDs not 
     found, so we ``feel good about ourselves.''
       But unless America's foreign policy is New Age therapy to 
     make the public feel mellow, feeling good about the 
     consequences of an action does not obviate the need to assess 
     the original rationale for the action. Until WMDs are found, 
     or their absence accounted for, there is urgent explaining to 
     be done.

  Mr. HARKIN. Well, again, there is one statement after another. Here 
is a speech that the Vice President gave on August 26, 2002, to the VFW 
national convention.
  ``Simply stated,'' said the Vice President, ``there is no doubt that 
Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt 
he is amassing them. I think that is important. He is amassing them to 
use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.''
  Well, if he was amassing them, where are they? What information did 
Vice President Cheney rely upon last August 26 when he uttered those 
words? Words have import. Words have consequences, especially when 
those words are uttered by the President of the United States or the 
Vice President--even more so than words uttered by us on the Senate 
floor.
  I believe the consequences of those words led us into a war in Iraq 
that, quite possibly, either could not have happened because we could 
have had inspectors and we could have weakened Saddam more and more 
over the months and years; or it could have been a war in which we were 
there with the world community. But, no, the President wanted to rush 
into this. The words he used and the words that were used by the Vice 
President were used to frighten the American people, to stampede the 
Congress into passing a resolution.
  Mr. President, I think, as we look at our duties here--and, of 
course, we have to support our troops and we have to pass this bill--
the hard questions need to be answered. What did the President know? 
When did he know it? What did the Vice President know and when did he 
know it? Why did they use the words they used when, in fact, the 
intelligence showed just otherwise? And why underneath it all do we 
continue a policy of getting further and further in debt in this 
country--to the point that it jeopardizes our children's future? These 
are the hard questions this President has to answer.

[[Page 18455]]

  With that, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. What is the 
pending business?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Defense appropriations bill.


                           Amendment No. 1276

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1276.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require a review and report regarding the effects of use 
 of contractual offset arrangements and memoranda of understanding and 
 related agreements on the effectiveness of buy American requirements)

       On page 120, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       Sec. 8124. (a) The Secretary of Defense--
       (1) shall review--
       (A) all contractual offset arrangements to which the policy 
     established under section 2532 of title 10, United States 
     Code, applies that are in effect on the date of the enactment 
     of this Act;
       (B) any memoranda of understanding and related agreements 
     to which the limitation in section 2531(c) of such title 
     applies that have been entered into with a country with 
     respect to which such contractual offset arrangements have 
     been entered into and are in effect on such date; and
       (C) any waivers granted with respect to a foreign country 
     under section 2534(d)(3) of title 10, United States Code, 
     that are in effect on such date; and
       (2) shall determine the effects of the use of such 
     arrangements, memoranda of understanding, and agreements on 
     the effectiveness of buy American requirements provided in 
     law.
       (b) The Secretary shall submit a report on the results of 
     the review under subsection (a) to Congress not later than 
     March 1, 2005. The report shall include a discussion of each 
     of the following:
       (1) The effects of the contractual offset arrangements on 
     specific subsectors of the industrial base of the United 
     States and what actions have been taken to prevent or 
     ameliorate any serious adverse effects on such subsectors.
       (2) The extent, if any, to which the contractual offset 
     arrangements and memoranda of understanding and related 
     agreements have provided for technology transfer that would 
     significantly and adversely affect the defense industrial 
     base of the United States and would result in substantial 
     financial loss to a United States firm.
       (3) The extent to which the use of such contractual offset 
     arrangements is consistent with--
       (A) the limitation in section 2531(c) of title 10, United 
     States Code, that prohibits implementation of a memorandum of 
     understanding and related agreements if the President, taking 
     into consideration the results of the interagency review, 
     determines that such memorandum of understanding or related 
     agreement has or is likely to have a significant adverse 
     effect on United States industry that outweighs the benefits 
     of entering into or implementing such memorandum or 
     agreement; and
       (B) the requirements under section 2534(d) of such title 
     that--
       (i) a waiver granted under such section not impede 
     cooperative programs entered into between the Department of 
     Defense and a foreign country and not impede the reciprocal 
     procurement of defense items that is entered into in 
     accordance with section 2531 of such title; and
       (ii) the country with respect to which the waiver is 
     granted not discriminate against defense items produced in 
     the United States to a greater degree than the United States 
     discriminates against defense items produced in that country.
       (c) The Secretary--
       (1) shall submit to the President any recommendations 
     regarding the use or administration of contractual offset 
     arrangements and memoranda of understanding and related 
     agreements referred to in subsection (a) that the Secretary 
     considers appropriate to strengthen the administration buy 
     American requirements in law; and
       (2) may modify memoranda of understanding or related 
     agreements entered into under section 2531 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or take other action with regard to such 
     memoranda or related agreements, as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate to strengthen the administration buy American 
     requirements in law in the case of procurements covered by 
     such memoranda or related agreements.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me, first of all, thank the 
distinguished chairman of the committee, the President pro tempore, and 
the ranking member, Senator Inouye, for their cooperation on this 
amendment. As I understand it, this amendment has been accepted by both 
sides.
  I will briefly describe the amendment. My intention is not to ask for 
a recorded vote so we will move the process along. I will enter into a 
brief colloquy perhaps with the ranking member about the prospects of 
this being held on in conference.
  Briefly, as all of my colleagues, I am deeply troubled by the state 
of our economy. I spent last week--part of it--in my State, as I am 
sure many colleagues did over the July 4th break, talking to 
manufacturers, labor unions, and others.
  As most of my colleagues know, my State is heavily dependent on 
defense contract work--if not the most dependent on a per capita basis, 
certainly one of the top States on a per capita base. We have been very 
proud of this tradition over the years. It dates back to the 
Revolutionary War when Connecticut was known as the Provision State. In 
addition to its nomenclature of being the Constitution State, it is the 
Provision State as well.
  As a result of the cooperation of the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee over the years, Connecticut's contribution has continued 
to grow in a variety of areas. Like everything else, there are areas 
for improvement in how we can help sustain this quality of work that is 
being done by some of the finest technicians, some of the finest 
workers the world has ever seen, producing the most sophisticated 
equipment and hardware that has ever been produced by any nation.
  Yet we are also seeing, as a result of the realities of the world, 
more and more people are losing their jobs in the technology area. The 
industrial base is eroding. In fact, we are told in one article, which 
I placed on this chart, that roughly 27,000 technology jobs moved 
overseas in the year 2000, and this research organization predicts the 
number will mushroom to 472,000 by the year 2015 if companies continue 
to farm out as much of our technology work at today's frenzied pace.
  The jobless issue is important. More than 9 million Americans are out 
of work, and nearly 400,000 jobs have been lost just since January of 
this year. Job losses continue to mount in the manufacturing sector, 
even in the defense industry, I might add.
  Manufacturing is the engine that drives our economy, sustaining the 
industrial base. I note to all of my colleagues that this is critically 
important. This is what made America a leader over the years. It is 
what made us the great industrial and military power we are today.
  Manufacturers produce $1 out of every $6 of our economy's gross 
domestic product. During the last decade, U.S. manufacturing has been 
responsible for 21 percent of the total economic growth and one-third 
of productivity growth in the United States.
  In my State, Connecticut, manufacturers are also a critical part of 
our local economy. More than 5,600 individual manufacturing companies 
in the State of Connecticut employ more than 240,000 people who are 
paid over $10 billion a year in salaries and income. These 
manufacturers create more than $27 billion in added value and generate 
$45 billion in annual sales.
  Yet despite the importance of this manufacturing sector, 
manufacturers across the country are struggling today to survive. In an 
economy where 9.4 million Americans are out of work, it is particularly 
upsetting to learn that the U.S. defense contractors are continuing at 
a rapid pace to outsource a considerable number of manufacturing 
positions overseas.
  This is being done under the so-called offset contracts. Under these 
arrangements, foreign governments buy major

[[Page 18456]]

weapons programs from American companies only if the manufacturer 
contracts out a significant portion of that work in that country.
  For example, when Poland agreed to buy several Lockheed Martin F-16 
aircraft, United States contractors agreed to outsource over 40 
components of this work to Polish companies, amounting to hundreds of 
United States job losses to foreign workers.
  No one disputes there is an important role for these offset 
agreements, and this amendment does not eliminate them at all. Quite 
the contrary. The jobs that may be lost may be offset by other gains 
from better commercial and defense relations in foreign countries.
  The issue is whether or not the trend that these arrangements are 
following is headed in the wrong direction. U.S. companies are 
outsourcing more and more, and I am worried this could result in a loss 
of sensitive technology overseas, a loss of segments of the national 
industrial base, and a loss of jobs during this economic downturn.
  As I mentioned, there were 40 different contracts in 1 particular job 
and 1 particular country. When American companies enter into future 
contracts with the U.S. Government, it means that our taxpayer dollars 
will now go to work in another country rather than to support our own 
economic needs.
  With certain components being built in other countries, offset 
arrangements may actually undermine existing ``buy American'' laws that 
require specific military machinery--everything from naval circuit 
breakers to machine tools and ball bearings--to be manufactured by 
workers in the United States.
  For these reasons, I am offering this amendment this morning that 
will add a measure of accountability to these offset contracts. The 
amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to review these 
arrangements and report to the Congress on, among other things, the 
effect on the industry's industrial base and what actions have been 
taken to minimize damage to American defense industries, what financial 
impact these arrangements might have on U.S. manufacturing, the 
implications of technology transfer arising from these arrangements, 
and, lastly, how consistent some of the business arrangements, 
resulting from these offset arrangements, are with existing ``buy 
American'' laws that pertain specifically to defense policy.
  Armed with this information, we will be better able to ensure that 
when American companies enter into foreign contracts, the U.S. 
industrial base will be preserved and the general interests of the 
American people will be protected.
  This amendment also allows the Secretary discretion to modify 
existing memoranda of understanding with other countries affecting 
offset agreements if he or she finds it necessary upon reviewing this 
information. He may also submit to the President any recommendations he 
thinks might be necessary to strengthen ``buy American'' laws.
  This added protection is particularly important to all of us at a 
time when people all over the Nation are experiencing the highest 
unemployment rate in 9 years, most recently measuring 6.4 percent.
  I appreciate the consideration of this amendment by the chairman and 
the ranking member of the committee. This is not a radical approach. As 
I said, it does not in any way eliminate these offset arrangements but 
merely requires a greater accountability so we can watch carefully what 
is happening, so we do not end up with more jobs being lost, 
particularly in these critical technologies that are so vital not only 
to our economic success and well-being but also to preserving the 
industrial base for our national security needs in the 21st century.
  I ask that the amendment be agreed to. If I may say to my colleague 
from Hawaii, I am not going to ask for a recorded vote. I appreciate 
their review of the amendment and their acceptance of it. I hope steps 
will be taken to try to preserve this amendment in conference if that 
is possible.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I can assure my distinguished colleague 
from Connecticut that we will do our utmost in convincing the House 
conferees to accept this.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Hawaii very much 
for his continued support.
  I have no further need for additional time. I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate? If there is no 
further debate, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1276) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 
10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. McConnell pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1428 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. May I inquire of the Chair the pending business before 
the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Defense 
appropriations bill.


                           Amendment No. 1277

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

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1277.

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

   (Purpose: To limit the availability of funds for the Intelligence 
 Community Management Account pending a report on the development and 
   use of intelligence relating to Iraq and Operation Iraqi Freedom)

       Insert after section 8123 the following:
       Sec. 8124. (a) Limitation on Availability of Certain 
     Funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the 
     amount appropriated by title VII of the Act under the heading 
     ``Intelligence Community Management Account'', $50,000,000 
     may only be obligated after the President submits to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report on the role of 
     Executive branch policymakers in the development and use of 
     intelligence relating to Iraq and Operation Iraqi Freedom, 
     including intelligence on--
       (1) the possession by Iraq of chemical, biological, and 
     nuclear weapons, and the locations of such weapons;
       (2) the links of the former Iraq regime to Al Qaeda;
       (3) the attempts of Iraq to acquire uranium from Africa;
       (4) the attempts of Iraq to procure aluminum tubes for the 
     development of nuclear weapons;
       (5) the possession by Iraq of mobile laboratories for the 
     production of weapons of mass destruction;
       (6) the possession by Iraq of delivery systems for weapons 
     of mass destruction; and
       (7) any other matters that bear on the imminence of the 
     threat from Iraq to the national security of the United 
     States.
       (b) Additional Matters on Uranium Claim.--The report on the 
     matters specified in subsection (a)(3) shall also include 
     information on which personnel of the Executive Office of the 
     President, including the staff of the National Security 
     Council, were involved in preparing, vetting, and approving, 
     in consultation with the intelligence community, the 
     statement contained in the 2003 State of the Union address of 
     the President on the efforts of Iraq to obtain uranium from 
     Africa, including the roles such personnel played in the 
     drafting and ultimate approval of the statement, the full 
     range of responses such personnel received from the 
     intelligence community, and which personnel ultimately 
     approved the statement.
       (c) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and 
     Foreign Relations and the Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the Senate; and
       (2) the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and 
     International Relations and the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the House of Representatives.


[[Page 18457]]

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, yesterday as a member of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee, I sat through a 5-hour hearing with the 
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Mr. George Tenet. It was 
one of the longest hearings I have ever been a party to in that 
committee. Virtually every member of the committee was present for the 
entire hearing. I think we can accurately draw the conclusion from that 
that it was a hearing of great importance because it addressed an issue 
which is central to our foreign policy and our national security, and 
that is the intelligence agencies of our Government.
  We are asking now some very difficult but important questions along 
two lines. First, was the intelligence gathered before the United 
States invasion of Iraq accurate and complete? Secondly, was that 
information relayed and communicated to the American people in an 
honest and accurate fashion? Those are two separate questions that are 
related.
  Yesterday, Director Tenet reiterated publicly what he has said before 
on July 11, that he accepted responsibility for the fact that in the 
President's State of the Union Address last January a sentence was 
included which was at best misleading. The sentence, of course, related 
to whether or not Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium from the African 
nation of Niger. What I am about to say is not from the hearing 
yesterday but rather from public disclosures and press reports relative 
to that issue.
  What we know is this: The allegations and rumors about Iraq obtaining 
uranium and other fissile materials from the country of Niger had been 
discussed at some length for a long period of time. In fact, documents 
had been produced at one point that some believed implicated the Iraqis 
and the Niger nation in this particular transaction. It is also true, 
though, that the people who are expert in this area had looked 
carefully and closely at that documentation and many had come to the 
opposite conclusion. Some had concluded this information, whether it 
was from British intelligence sources or American intelligence sources, 
was dubious, was not credible. Then it was disclosed that the 
documentation was actually a forgery.
  Many of those documents have been made public. Yesterday a leading 
newspaper in Italy published the documentation and it was reported on 
the news channels last night in the United States that when those 
documents were carefully reviewed, it was found that, in fact, they 
contained things which on their face were ridiculous, names of 
ministers in Iraq and Niger who had not been in that position for 
years, supposedly official seals on documentation which, when examined 
closely, turned out to be patently false and phony.
  So it was with that backdrop that the President, in his State of the 
Union Address, considered a statement concerning whether or not Niger 
had sold these fissile materials to Iraq.
  It has been disclosed publicly and can be discussed openly on the 
Senate floor that there was communication between the Central 
Intelligence Agency and the White House on this issue. It is apparent 
now to those who have followed this story that there was a discussion 
and an agreement as to what would be included in the speech. The 16 
famous words relative to this transaction have now become central in 
our discussion about the gathering and use of intelligence.
  What I heard yesterday during the course of 5 hours with Director 
Tenet is that we have been asking the wrong question. The question we 
have been asking for some period of time now since this came to light 
was, Why didn't Director Tenet at the CIA stop those who were trying to 
put misleading information in the President's State of the Union 
Address? That is an important question. Director Tenet has accepted 
responsibility for not stopping the insertion of those words. But after 
yesterday's hearing and some reflection, a more important question is 
before the Senate. That question is this: Who are the people in the 
White House who are so determined to include this misleading 
information in the State of the Union Address and why are they still 
there?
  That goes to the heart of the question, not just on the gathering of 
intelligence but the use of the intelligence by the Executive Office of 
the President. That is an important question. It is a question we 
should face head on.
  An attempt was made last night by my colleague from New Jersey, 
Senator Corzine, to call for a bipartisan commission, a balanced 
commission, to look into this question about intelligence gathering and 
the use of the intelligence leading up to the war on Iraq. His 
amendment was defeated by a vote of 51 to 45 on a party-line vote--all 
Republicans voting against it; all Democrats supporting it. Senator 
Corzine's effort for a bipartisan, balanced, evenhanded commission was 
rejected by this Senate.
  The amendment which I bring today offers to the Senate an 
alternative. If the Senate does not believe there should be a 
bipartisan commission to investigate this question, this use of 
intelligence, then what I have said in this amendment is that we are 
calling on the President to report to Congress, the appropriate 
committees in the classified and unclassified fashion, whether or not 
there was a misuse of intelligence leading up to the war on Iraq. Those 
are the only two options before the Senate.
  In this situation, we have the Intelligence Committee in the House 
and the Senate looking at the classified aspect of this issue. We have 
said in the Senate that we do not accept the idea--at least, the 
Republican side does not accept the idea--of a bipartisan commission 
looking at this issue. So, clearly, the responsibility falls on the 
shoulders of the President.
  This amendment says that the President will report to the appropriate 
committees of Congress on this use of the intelligence information.
  Why is this an important discussion? It is particularly important 
from several angles. First, if we are engaged successfully in a war on 
terrorism, one of the greatest weapons in our arsenal will be 
intelligence. We will have to depend on our intelligence agencies to 
anticipate problems and threats to the United States. We will have to 
gather credible information, process that information, determine its 
credibility, determine its authenticity, and use it in defense of the 
United States. Now, more than ever, intelligence gathering is 
absolutely essential for America's national security.
  Second, the President has said we are now following a policy of 
preemption; we will no longer wait until a country poses an imminent 
threat to the United States or our security. If the President and his 
administration believe a country may pose such a threat in the future, 
the President has said we are going to protect our right to attack that 
country to forestall any invasion or attack on the United States.
  How do you reach the conclusion that another country is preparing to 
attack? Clearly, again, by intelligence gathering. Now, more than ever, 
in the war on terrorism and the use of a policy of preemption, we 
depend on intelligence. Those are the two central points.
  Equally, if not more important, is what happened in the lead-up to 
the invasion of Iraq. For months, the President, the Vice President, 
and his Cabinet all sought to convince the American people this 
invasion of Iraq was not only inevitable but was, frankly, in the best 
interests of America's national security. The administration, the 
President, gathering the intelligence data, presented it to the 
American people in a variety of different fashions. We can all recall 
how this started. It was almost a year ago that in Crawford, TX, we 
first heard the President while he was in summer retreat suggest that 
something had to be done about Iraq and used the words ``regime 
change.''
  Then, over the months that followed, a variety of different 
rationales came forward for the need to invade Iraq and remove Saddam 
Hussein. First and foremost--and nobody argued this point on either 
side of the aisle--Saddam Hussein was a very bad leader, not just for 
the people of Iraq but for the region and a threat to the world. His

[[Page 18458]]

removal from power from the beginning was certainly something that 
everyone understood would be in the best interest of the people of 
Iraq.
  But the obvious question was, if you are going to set out just to 
remove bad leaders of the world, where would you draw the line and what 
would those leaders do in response? So the administration said there 
are more arguments, even more compelling rationales.
  First and foremost, in Iraq they were developing nuclear weapons. We 
recall that conversation. As evidence of that, administration officials 
talked about the fact that Iraq had obtained certain aluminum tubes 
that could likely be used for the development of new nuclear weapons.
  Now, in fact, we know on reflection that there was even a debate 
within the administration whether these aluminum tubes could be used 
for nuclear weapons. Despite that, the administration said 
categorically, we believe they will be used for nuclear weapons and we 
believe that is a rationale for the invasion.
  Second, on other weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological 
weapons, the administration went so far in its presentation to suggest 
that there were 550 sites where there was at least some possibility of 
weapons of mass destruction. They went into detail about how these 
weapons could threaten Israel, could threaten other countries in the 
region, might even threaten the United States. That information was 
given repeatedly.
  The fact is, we are 10 weeks after the successful completion of our 
military invasion of Iraq. More than 1,000 inspections have been made 
in Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. There has been 
some small evidence related to the discovery of something buried in a 
rose garden that could have been a plan for the use of a nuclear 
device. There has been the discovery of these mobile units in trailers 
which might have been used for the development of biological weapons. 
Those things have been discovered but of the so-called 550 sites, the 
fact is we have not discovered or uncovered one as I stand here today.
  I am confident before this is over that we will find some evidence of 
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It could happen as soon as 
tomorrow. I think that will happen. I believe that will happen. But we 
were told we were dealing with 550 sites. Statements were made by the 
President, the Vice President, Ms. Condoleezza Rice and others, that 
Saddam Hussein had arsenals of chemical and biological weapons. They 
have not been apparent.
  To think in that lightning-fast conquest of Baghdad, somehow Saddam 
Hussein had the time to literally wipe away or destroy any evidence of 
weapons of mass destruction strains credulity.
  What we have now is a serious question as to whether the intelligence 
was valid and accurate or whether it was portrayed to the American 
people in a valid and accurate way.
  We also had allegations that Saddam Hussein was linked with al-Qaida. 
Of course, this is something of great concern to the American people. 
We know that the al-Qaida terrorists are responsible for September 11, 
the loss of at least 3,000 innocent American lives on that tragic day. 
We would and should do what we can in any way, shape, or form to 
eliminate al-Qaida's threat to terrorism. I joined the overwhelming 
majority of the Senate, giving the President the authority and power to 
move forward on this question as to whether or not we should eliminate 
al-Qaida and its terrorist threat. The fact is, now, as we reflect on 
that information provided by the administration prior to the invasion 
of Iraq, there is scant information and scant evidence to link Saddam 
Hussein and al-Qaida.
  The list goes on. It has raised serious questions about the 
intelligence gathering leading up to the invasion of Iraq and the 
portrayal of that information to the American people. There is nothing 
more sacred or important in this country than that we have trust in our 
leaders when it comes to the critical questions of national security. 
When a President of the United States, with all of his power and all of 
his authority, stands before the American people and says: I am asking 
you to provide me your sons, your daughters, your husbands, your wives, 
your loved ones, to stand in defense of America--that, I think, is the 
most solemn moment of a Presidency. That is what is being questioned 
now. Was the information, for example, in the State of the Union 
Address, accurate in terms of America's intelligence? Two weeks ago the 
President conceded at least that sentence was not.
  What I have asked for in this amendment is that the Bush White House 
come forward with information on the gathering and use of this 
intelligence. With this information, they will be able to tell us with 
more detail exactly how the intelligence was used, intelligence related 
to the possession by Iraq of chemical and biological and nuclear 
weapons and locations, the links of the former Iraqi regime to al-
Qaida, the attempts of Iraq to acquire uranium from Africa, the 
attempts of Iraq to procure aluminum tubes for the development of 
nuclear weapons, the possession by Iraq of mobile laboratories for the 
production of weapons of mass destruction, and the possession by Iraq 
of delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction, and any other 
matters that bear on the imminence of the threat from Iraq to the 
national security of the United States.
  I go into particular detail in paragraph B of this amendment where it 
relates to the acquisition of uranium from Africa because I think this 
has become abundantly clear. Some person or persons in the White House 
were bound and determined to include language in the President's State 
of the Union Address which was misleading, language which the President 
has disavowed, language which in fact Director Tenet said should never 
have been included.
  When you look at the uranium claims that were made in the President's 
State of the Union Address, and then read the statements made 
afterwards by members of the Bush White House, we can see on their face 
that we need to know more. Bush Communications Director Dan Bartlett, 
discussing the State of the Union Address, said last week that:

       There was no debate or questions with regard to that line 
     when it was signed off on.

  I will tell you point blank that is not factual, based on statements 
made by Director Tenet.
  On Friday, July 11 of this year, National Security Adviser 
Condoleezza Rice said there was ``discussion on that specific sentence 
so that it reflected better what the CIA thought.''
  Miss Rice said, ``Some specifics about amount and place were taken 
out.''
  Director Tenet said Friday that CIA officials objected and ``the 
language was changed.''
  White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Monday, July 14, that 
Miss Rice was not referring to the State of the Union speech, but she 
was, instead, referring to President Bush's October speech given in 
Cincinnati--even though Miss Rice was not asked about that speech.
  We have a situation here where the President and his advisers and 
speech writers were forewarned in October not to include in a speech in 
Cincinnati any reference to the acquisition of uranium by Iraq from the 
nation of Niger or from Africa. That admonition was given to a member 
of the White House staff and that element was deleted from the 
President's speech.
  Now we have statements from the President's National Security Adviser 
suggesting that there was still some discussion that needed to take 
place when it came to the State of the Union Address. I will tell you 
that is not a fact. This amendment which I am offering is asking that 
we have final clarity on exactly what happened in the White House on 
this critical piece of information that was part of the President's 
most important speech of the year, his State of the Union Address.
  White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer also said on Monday, July 
14, that while the line cut from the October speech in Cincinnati was 
based on Niger allegations, the State of the Union claim was based on 
``additional reporting from the CIA, separate and

[[Page 18459]]

apart from Niger, naming other countries where they believed it was 
possible that Saddam was seeking uranium.''
  But Fleischer's words yesterday contradicted his assertion a week 
earlier that the State of the Union charge was ``based and predicated 
on the yellowcake from Niger.''
  Consider the confusion and distortions which we have already received 
from this administration about that line in the speech, and what it was 
referring to. That is a clear indication that more information is 
needed, more clarity is needed. We need from the President leadership 
in clearing this up and, frankly, clearing out those individuals who 
attempted to mislead him in his State of the Union Address.
  Miss Rice was asked a month ago about the President's State of the 
Union uranium claim on ABC's ``This Week,'' and here is what she 
replied:

       The intelligence community did not know at the time or at 
     levels that got to us that there was serious questions about 
     this report.

  But senior administration officials acknowledged over the weekend 
that Director Tenet argued personally to White House officials, 
including Deputy National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, who is in 
the office of Condoleezza Rice, that the allegations should not be used 
in the October Cincinnati speech, 4 months before the State of the 
Union Address.
  CIA officials raised doubts about the Niger claims, as Director Tenet 
outlined on July 11, last Friday. The last time was when ``CIA 
officials reviewing the draft remarks'' of the State of the Union 
``raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the 
intelligence with National Security Council colleagues.''
  Here is what it comes down to. We now have a battle ongoing within 
the administration over the issue of gathering and use of intelligence. 
The American people deserve more. They deserve clarity. They deserve 
the President's disclosure. They deserve the dismissal of those 
responsible for putting this misleading language in the President's 
State of the Union Address. I think what is at stake is more than a 
little political embarrassment which this administration has faced over 
the last several days. What is at stake is the gathering and use of 
intelligence for the security of the United States of America.
  This issue demonstrates the administration's intelligence-derived 
assertions about Iraq's levels of weapons of mass destruction-related 
activities raised increased concern about the integrity and use of 
intelligence and literally the credibility of our Government.
  We now know that when Secretary Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, 
was to make his address to the United Nations several days after the 
President's State of the Union Address, he sat down and, it has been 
reported in U.S. News and World Report, for a lengthy gathering with 
Director Tenet at CIA headquarters and went through point by point by 
point to make certain that he would not say anything in New York at the 
United Nations which could be easily rebutted by the Iraqis. Secretary 
Powell wanted to be careful that every word that he used in New York 
was defensible. And one of the first things he tossed out was that 
element of the President's State of the Union Address which related to 
acquiring uranium from Africa.
  Secretary Powell took the time and, with the right advisers, reached 
the right conclusion that certain things being said about Iraq that 
were being hyped and spun and exaggerated could not be defended. And he 
was not about to go before the United Nations Security Council and to 
use that information. He was careful in what he did because he knew 
what was at stake was not only his personal credibility but the 
credibility of the United States. That is why this incident involving 
the State of the Union Address is so important for us to look into.
  On the question of weapons of mass destruction, on August 26 of last 
year, Vice President Cheney said:

       Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now 
     has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is 
     amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, 
     and against us.

  On September 26, 2002, the President said:

       The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons.

  On March 17, 2003, President Bush told the Nation:

       Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves 
     no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and 
     conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

  On March 30, 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, said:

       We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit 
     and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.

  Not only did the administration tell us that there were over 500 
suspected sites Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was even specific as to their 
location.
  Here we are 10 weeks later and 1,000 inspections later with no 
evidence of those weapons of mass destruction.
  On the al-Qaida connection, last year Secretary of Defense Donald 
Rumsfeld described evidence about a connection between Iraq and al-
Qaida as ``bulletproof.'' But he did not disclose that the intelligence 
community was, in fact, uncertain about the nature and extent of these 
ties.
  In his speech before the United Nations Security Council on February 
5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell said, in addition to the al-
Qaida-affiliated camp run by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in areas not 
controlled by the Iraqi regime, two dozen extremists from al-Qaida-
affiliated organizations were operating freely in Baghdad.
  The claim of a close connection between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaida 
was key to the fears that Iraq could team up with terrorists to 
perpetrate another devastating attack on the United States. It is 
critical that the truth of these assertions be examined in light of 
what the United States has found during and after the war.
  On the issue of reconstituting its nuclear weapons program in 
addition to the dispute about whether Iraq was trying to acquire 
uranium from Africa, the intelligence community was divided about these 
aluminum tubes that Iraq purchased and whether they were, in fact, 
intended to develop nuclear devices or only conventional munitions. 
Administration officials made numerous statements, nevertheless, 
expressing certainty that these tubes were for a nuclear weapons 
program.
  In a speech before the United Nations General Assembly on December 
12, 2003, the President said,

       Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength 
     aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.

  On September 8, 2000, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said 
on CNN's ``Late Edition'' that the tubes ``are only really suited for 
nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.''
  On August 26, Vice President Dick Cheney told the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars that ``many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear 
weapons fairly soon. Just how soon we cannot gauge.''
  On March 16, the Vice President said:

       We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.

  Consider these assertions and these statements leading up to our 
decision to invade. The hard question which has to be asked is whether 
the intelligence supported the statements. If the intelligence did not, 
then in fact we have exaggerated misleading statements which have to be 
made part of our record.
  On the question of mobile biological warfare laboratories, Secretary 
of State Powell said in his speech to the United Nations Security 
Council that ``we know that Iraq has at least seven of these mobile, 
biological agent factories.''
  On May 28, 2003, the CIA posted on its Web site a document it 
prepared with the Defense Intelligence Agency entitled ``Iraqi Mobile 
Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants.'' This report concluded 
that the two trailers found in Iraq were for biological warfare agent 
production, even though other experts and members of the intelligence 
community disagreed with that conclusion, or believe there is not

[[Page 18460]]

enough evidence to back it up. None of these alternative views were 
posted on the CIA's Web page.
  Did this Nation go to war based on flawed, incomplete, exaggerated, 
or misused intelligence?
  I am a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which 
is conducting this review. I support that review because there is a lot 
we need to get into. We have oversight responsibilities over the 
intelligence agencies.
  I commend our Chairman, Senator Roberts, and our ranking member, 
Senator Rockefeller, on that committee. They have requested that the 
Inspectors General of the Department of State and the Central 
Intelligence Committee work jointly to investigate the handling and 
characterization of the underlying documentation behind the President's 
statement in the State of the Union Address. I certainly support that 
investigation.
  But the question of how intelligence related to Iraq was used by 
policymakers is a different question that simply must be determined.
  What we are saying now is if the Senate, as it did last night, 
rejects the idea of a bipartisan commission to look into the question, 
at the very least we should say in this Department of Defense 
appropriations bill that the President has a responsibility to report 
to Congress on this use of intelligence and information. It really goes 
to the heart of the President's responsibility as the head of our 
country and as Commander in Chief. He needs to have people near and 
around him giving him the very best advice based on the best 
intelligence. It is not only good for his administration, but it is 
essential for the protection of this Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, before the Senator leaves, I wish to 
say categorically that had I been the Vice President of the United 
States, based upon the intelligence briefings that I have participated 
in now for over 20 years, I would have made exactly the same statements 
the Vice President made.
  I believe sincerely that the record of history shows clearly that 
Iraq has tried to acquire and did acquire nuclear capability in the 
past. The Israelis destroyed it once. We know he was trying again to 
reestablish them.
  There is no question that he had weapons of mass destruction. He used 
them on the Iranians. He used them on the Kurds. Gas is a weapon of 
mass destruction.
  There is also no question at all that he had the vehicles to 
transport weapons of mass destruction. Why did he build the vehicles if 
he didn't have them?
  This nit-picking at the language that was used--it was used, we now 
know, in error in terms of veracity as far as the reliance upon the 
concept of what the British had because it was later disclosed that one 
of the things they had was a forged document. Why did the United 
Nations, 17 times, ask to examine that country to find the weapons of 
mass destruction if the world did not believe he was after weapons of 
mass destruction, after he used them on the Iranians more than 15 years 
ago? They bombed the plant that absolutely had the reactor in it. And 
we knew he had weapons then.
  I have to say that when we look at what has happened, when our troops 
went into those barracks after the war commenced, they found that the 
Iraqis had special masks to protect them against weapons of mass 
destruction. We don't have those kinds of weapons.
  The Senator is a member of the Intelligence Committee. I am reliably 
informed that at a classified session yesterday he asked CIA Director 
George Tenet the very questions which he has asked on the floor, and he 
received the answers. Some of the Members don't like the answers, but 
they received them. Had Director Tenet took responsibility for a 
mistake in his agency--clearly he had problems about the way that 
document was handled and in terms of the speech.
  This is the third time this has come up now on this bill. This 
amendment would fence the Community Management Agency of the CIA, one 
of the most important and vital works of the agency. It would take $50 
million from them.
  I am not going to do it now, but sometime in the future I am going to 
ask the Senator whether he believes that he never had weapons of mass 
destruction. Does he believe Iraq never had weapons of mass 
destruction? Does he believe there was no reason to go in there and do 
what we did?
  The problem is this amendment standing alone would deny the following 
programs funding:
  Assistant Director of the CIA to allocate their collection efforts 
against terrorists and other high-priority target activities. This is 
their central community program.
  Talking about the intelligence community, one of them is the National 
Drug Intelligence Center's Analysis of Information for 
Narcotraffickers--a vital concept that deals with counterterrorism 
activities.
  The second is the National Counterintelligence Oversight Analysis 
Assessment of Vulnerabilities to Foreign Intelligence Services.
  The next is efforts to improve the intelligence community's expertise 
in foreign languages.
  This was identified as the key unmet need by the joint inquiry that 
investigated the 9/11 activities.
  Each of those programs is essential to our national security.
  In order to make his point on this concept, the Senator again seeks 
to fence off $50 million for those vital activities. I hope the Senate 
listens to us about what he is willing to do in order to make this 
statement again.
  I shall move to table this amendment. But, again, I have been asked 
this question many times personally at home by the press and by family 
friends. Some of us are exposed to intelligence at a very high level of 
Government. We can't come out and talk about it.
  I noticed in the paper yesterday that some of our people because of 
this issue are starting to ``lip off'' about intelligence matters that 
should be classified. The Senate and the Congress should come back to 
order on that. We are allowed access to classified information--and to 
have us, because of some question about one phrase in the President's 
speech, suddenly decide that classification means nothing, is wrong, 
and it is not in the best interest of the United States.
  Now, Senator Inouye and I have been involved in extremely classified 
information for years. As a matter of fact, at our request, there was 
what we call a ``tank'' built in our building so we could have those 
people come visit us and we would not have to go out and visit the CIA 
or the other intelligence agencies. And we do listen to them.
  Based on everything I have heard--everything I have heard; and the 
two of us have shared the chairmanship of the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee, which is defense intelligence related, since 1981--
everything I have heard convinces me, without question, that Iraq tried 
to develop a program of weapons of mass destruction, and did, in fact, 
have weapons of mass destruction. And we were justified--just as the 
Israelis were over 15 years ago when they went in and bombed one 
plant--we were justified to go in and just absolutely disestablish that 
administration because it had rebuked the U.N. 17 times in terms of the 
attempt to locate those weapons of mass destruction and to do what 
Saddam Hussein agreed he would do after the Persian Gulf war. He agreed 
to destroy them. He admitted he had them. He agreed to destroy them. 
And we tried to prove he destroyed them. Now, what is all this question 
about whether he had them? Because he admitted he had them.
  It is time we settle down and get back to the business of providing 
the money for the men and women in uniform around the world, and to 
ensure that the people who conduct our intelligence activities have the 
money to do what they have to do.
  The extended debate on this floor about intelligence activities 
because of that one 17- or 16-word--I don't remember--the small phrase 
in the President's State of the Union message is starting to really 
have an impact on the intelligence-collecting activities of

[[Page 18461]]

this country. We do not want to besmirch that. We have the finest 
intelligence service in the world. If someone made a mistake--and now 
it has been admitted there was a mistake; not in whether or not he was 
trying to put together his nuclear weapons program--the mistake was in 
reference to what the British did have; and it was later found that the 
foundation for what the British thought they had was a forged document.
  Intelligence is absolutely essential to a nation that bases its 
capability to maintain peace on force projection, and we have to rely 
on many people to provide us information. Human beings make mistakes. 
God forbid that anyone would ever say because of one mistake we should 
harness the core efforts of our intelligence efforts and deny them the 
money this bill has for them to proceed until this commission, which 
the Senator wants to create, reports. I cannot believe we would delay 
the release of these funds for those reasons.
  The ongoing efforts of the Intelligence Committee are known. The 
Senator is a member of the Intelligence Committee. We who are members 
of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations have access to everything 
they have access to, because we manage the money that finances the 
agencies they investigate. So there is a whole series of us here who 
have access to extremely classified information.
  We classify it primarily because there are so many people involved 
that many lives might be in jeopardy if we disclose the sources of that 
information or we disclose the impact of that information in terms of 
the relationship to some of the programs we are funding today.
  I urge the Senate to settle down. I urge the Senate to settle down. 
We do not need this continued debate about the words in that State of 
the Union message. That is history, and it is going to be examined in 
terms of politics in the future.
  Now we had arranged the schedule this morning so we could conduct our 
business and still start the markup of four separate appropriations 
bills. I must be absent now as chairman of the committee for a period 
of time.
  I move to table the Senator's amendment, and I ask unanimous consent 
that the vote on that occur at a time to be determined by the majority 
leader after consultation with the minority leader. At the time of the 
stacking of votes on this and other amendments, I shall seek approval 
for a recorded vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I ask 
what the Senator's intention is regarding the schedule right now after 
the Senator concludes his remarks?
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I have a motion to table. Has the 
motion to table been accepted by the Chair?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
for that vote be determined by the majority leader after consultation 
with the minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I reserve the right to object. The Senator 
from Illinois is also a member of the Appropriations Committee, but he 
wants to have an opportunity to respond.
  Mr. DURBIN. I do.
  Mr. REID. He can do it any way he chooses. We are not going to have a 
vote right away, so he can attempt to have the floor. I wonder if the 
Senator from Alaska would--we have no right to object in any way to the 
motion to table, but the Senator from Illinois has more to say.
  Mr. STEVENS. I have no objection if the Senator wishes to respond. I 
wish to get my motion to table on the record, and I am happy for the 
Senator to speak after that motion in relationship to the amendment. I 
have no problem with that. I just want to get my part of this business 
done so I can go chair that committee markup.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table is pending.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is there an objection to my request that the motion to 
table vote be postponed until a time certain to be determined by the 
majority leader after consultation with the minority leader?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. I am prepared to yield the floor, and you can talk as 
much as you want.
  Mr. REID. Has the unanimous consent request been agreed to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, it has not.
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The request is agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, before the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee leaves the floor, the Senator from Minnesota 
asked a question: What are we going to do now? We have a number of 
amendments lined up. We are not going to do those because the two 
managers of this bill are members, of course, of the Appropriations 
Committee, as are Senator Durbin and myself.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  I would be prepared to make a request that after Senator Durbin makes 
his remarks there be a period for morning business during which the 
Senator from North Dakota may be able to speak for up to 30 minutes on 
a matter not related to this bill.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from Wyoming 
wishes to speak for 10 minutes, I am told, on the bill itself.
  Is that right?
  Mr. THOMAS. Yes. I was going to follow up on what has been said.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from North Dakota has no objection to him going 
first, he being the Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is fine.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
Wyoming have 10 minutes to speak on the bill, and following that time, 
the Senator from North Dakota have 30 minutes as in morning business, 
and following that the Senator from----
  Mr. DAYTON. Minnesota.
  Mr. STEVENS. Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. I would like to speak on Senator Durbin's amendment. I 
would agree to 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Could it be that we agree to 30 minutes of debate 
pertaining to matters relating to this amendment, notwithstanding the 
motion to table has been made? Is that agreeable? That will give us 
enough time to get back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Also, Mr. President, if I could, Senator Kennedy is going 
to be here at around 11 o'clock. Of course, that has slipped.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is roughly 11 o'clock.
  Mr. REID. He will offer the next amendment. Perhaps then Senator Byrd 
will. Really, we are narrowing the number of amendments that are going 
to be offered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I don't know what the Senate would do 
without the assistance of the distinguished Democratic whip. We have in 
history Light Horse Harry, and this is our ``Heavy Horse'' Harry. He 
does the heavy work around here, and we all appreciate him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, pursuant to the unanimous consent 
agreement, I can assure my colleagues I will not take 30 minutes. I 
will be extremely brief because I already stated my case in support of 
this amendment. But I would like to respond to the Senator from Alaska.
  He and I have had some titanic struggles on this floor over a variety 
of issues, but I have the highest regard and respect for him 
personally. I am certain he did not mean to suggest nor did he say I 
have disclosed any classified information in my statement this morning. 
I would not do that, not knowingly. What I have disclosed to the 
Senate, in preparation for a vote on this amendment, has all been a 
matter of public record and published information.
  There are many other things I have learned as a member of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee to which I can't

[[Page 18462]]

make reference, because it is classified and very important, that 
remain classified. But I don't know which bill you would go to if you 
didn't go to the Defense Department bill to deal with questions of 
intelligence. It is one of the few, if only, bills coming before the 
Senate relating to intelligence gathering. We don't have a full blown 
discussion here about appropriations for the Central Intelligence 
Agency and all the intelligence aspects of the Federal Government. It 
is a carefully guarded secret of our Government as to how much is being 
spent and how it is spent. Many people have objected to that over the 
years. I understand their objections. I also understand the wisdom that 
we try to keep in confidence exactly what we are doing to gather 
information to protect America. About the only place where we openly 
discuss the funding of intelligence is in this bill. If you don't come 
to this floor on this bill to suggest that we can do a better job in 
gathering intelligence to protect America, then, frankly, there is no 
other appropriations bill to which you can turn.
  I assume you might argue that the Department of Homeland Security, 
our new Department, has some aspects of intelligence. Maybe that 
argument can be made. But the most compelling argument is on this bill, 
the Department of Defense bill. That is why this amendment is not 
superfluous or out of line. This is where the amendment needs to be 
offered because what we are saying is, America is only as safe as the 
men and women who are protecting it, men and women who are in uniform, 
literally putting their lives on the line, and men and women working 
for our Government gathering information so that we can anticipate 
threats and make certain we protect the people.
  What I have said in this amendment is we, clearly, know now that in 
the President's State of the Union Address statements were made which 
the President has disavowed as not being accurate and which the 
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency has said should not have 
been included because they were misleading. That is a critical element.
  We gather across this Rotunda in the House of Representatives once a 
year, the combined membership of the House and the Senate, the Cabinet, 
the Supreme Court, the diplomatic corps, to hear the President deliver 
the State of the Union Address. It is his most important speech of the 
year. He outlines to the people the accomplishments of our Nation and 
the challenges we face.
  This President came before us last January in an atmosphere leading 
up to an invasion of Iraq, a war. I don't think there is any more 
serious undertaking by a government than to say we are going to war. We 
are asking our citizens to put their lives on the line for the security 
of America. The President came to the people with that message.
  We now know that at least one major part of that message--they say it 
is only 16 words but it was a major part of his message--was not 
accurate.
  Do I think the President intentionally misled the American people? 
There is no evidence of that whatsoever. I have not heard a single 
person say he intentionally misled the American people in making that 
statement. But I will tell you this, there were people in that White 
House who should have known better. They had been warned 4 months 
before not to use the same reference in a speech the President was 
giving in Cincinnati. They had been told by the CIA that the 
information was not credible, could not be believed, should not be 
stated by the President of the United States, and that section was 
removed from the President's speech in October.
  Those same people in the White House, bound and determined to put 
that language in the President's State of the Union Address, put in 
misleading language which attributed this information not to our 
intelligence, because our intelligence had disavowed it, discredited 
it, said we can't believe it.
  No, they attributed it to British intelligence. Our people believed 
the British intelligence had been wrong from the start and yet we 
allowed that to be included in the speech.
  Across America and around the world, people heard our President say 
that Iraq was acquiring uranium--or attempting to--from Niger in Africa 
to develop nuclear weapons. That is a serious charge. It is as serious 
as any charge that has been made against Saddam Hussein's regime. 
Someone in the White House decided they would cut a corner and allow 
the President to say this by putting in that phrase ``based on British 
intelligence.''
  I would think the President would be angered over the disservice done 
to him by members of his staff. I would think the President would 
acknowledge the fact that even if Director Tenet could not discourage 
that member of the White House staff and stop them from putting in that 
language, the President has within his ranks on his staff some person 
who was willing to spin and hype and exaggerate and cut corners on the 
most important speech the President delivers in any given year.
  That is inexcusable. This amendment says that this President will 
report to Congress on exactly what happened in reference to that State 
of the Union Address, that finally we will know the names of the people 
involved, that they will be held accountable for this misconduct which 
has caused such embarrassment, not just to the President, not just to 
his party, but to our Nation.
  We need to be credible in the eyes of the world. When statements such 
as the one made by the President are clearly disavowed by the 
President, it affects our credibility.
  Last night we tried to create an independent bipartisan commission to 
look into this question in an honest fashion. It was rejected on a 
party-line vote with every Republican voting against it.
  Now I have taken the second option. Now we call on the President 
himself. Harry Truman from Independence, MO, used to say ``the buck 
stops here,'' when it comes to the President. The buck has stopped on 
the President's desk. The question is, What will he do to establish his 
credibility, to make certain that the next State of the Union Address 
is one that is credible in the United States and around the world and 
to make sure those people who misused the power of their office to lead 
him to make those misleading statements are removed once and for all?
  It is a painful chapter in American history but it is one we cannot 
avoid. So long as it is unresolved, there will be a shadow over the 
intelligence gathering and use of this administration. That is not in 
the best interest of national security. It is not in the best interest 
of the people.
  We in Congress have our responsibility, as a coequal branch of 
Government, to enforce oversight and to make certain that the American 
people are well served.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Following the custom of alternating back and forth, I am 
prepared to defer to my colleague from Wyoming. I would like to inquire 
as to his intentions to speak.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, my understanding was that I was going to 
have 10 minutes, then we would go to Senator Conrad, and then the 
Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is correct that the Senator from Wyoming 
has 10 minutes, to be followed by the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. REID. I am sorry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Is the consent agreement, as interpreted by the Chair, that 
the two morning business matters will be completed prior to debate on 
the motion to table? That seems a little unusual.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is speaking on the 
amendment for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. REID. I apologize.
  Mr. DAYTON. I have asked unanimous consent that following the 
conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Wyoming, I might speak on 
the amendment for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 18463]]

  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I rise to discuss similarly what our 
floor leader said a few moments ago in terms of this bill before us. We 
are here to talk about the Defense appropriations. We have gone on now 
for a couple of days focusing on this matter of uranium from Africa. It 
seems to me that we need to focus on the issue that is before us and 
that is supporting our troops where they are, the Defense 
appropriations that we have, and probably the most important, certainly 
the largest appropriation that is before us.
  I have been listening now for some days and listening to the media, 
the charge that the 16 words President Bush uttered during his January 
State of the Union have been false. This is what he said:

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

  That is what was said. So we say this may be false because in fact 
the British Government continues to stand by the assertion even if the 
CIA does not. So what Mr. Bush said about what the British believed was 
true in January, and it is still true today. That is what the British 
believed.
  Now do we need to take a look at our intelligence system? Of course, 
that is very important to us. But anyone who thinks every piece of 
intelligence is going to have certified truthfulness behind it, of 
course, is being naive. Because that is not the way things work.
  It is so clear this is so political that it really is kind of hard to 
accept. In fact, there are ads out now, political ads, assailing the 
President's credibility, and they go ahead and quote what the President 
said. But interestingly enough, they leave off the words ``the British 
government has learned.''
  They leave those off. Doesn't this give you some feeling that we are 
taking this a little more politically than we are anything else? It 
seems to me that is the case. We are here now and this whole matter of 
weapons of mass destruction is an issue we are all concerned about. But 
this matter of uranium is not the reason we are in Iraq. Saddam Hussein 
used chemical weapons on his own people, his neighbors. Clearly, the 
production facilities were making chemical and biological weapons. 
There is no question about that.
  In September 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, and Iraq used chemical weapons. 
In 1988, chemical weapons were used against Iraqi Kurdish, killing 
5,000 Kurds. After Operation Desert Storm, February 18, 1991, in the 
terms of the cease-fire, Iraq accepted the conditions of the U.N. 
Security Council resolution. That resolution required Iraq to fully 
disclose and permit the dismantling of the weapons of mass destruction. 
That did not happen. That is why we are there.
  This idea of leading us off the track because of the uranium is not 
really the issue. Should we look at our intelligence system? Of course. 
We do that constantly. But we don't need to take away the dollars that 
are in this bill for those agencies while we take a look at it. There 
is nothing more important in the world today than to have intelligence.
  I just think we need to cut through some of the things that have been 
going on here and we need to get down to what issues there are that 
affect our defense and the American people and deal with those. 
Politics is fine, but this is not the place to continuously use items 
that are obviously just political and try to take away the credibility 
of the President, which is one of his greatest assets, and I understand 
that. I understand that we are in an election cycle and so on. I really 
think it is time to deal with the important issues. We are having 
hearings. I think we need to move on and deal with the issues before 
us--to continue to clean up the situation in Iraq, look for peaceful 
solutions. That is really what it is all about.
  I will not take any more time. For a couple of days, I have been 
listening to this constant recital of the same sort of thing. It seems 
to me it is pretty clear where we are. We are in Iraq for a number of 
reasons, this being a very slight impact on the decisionmaking. What we 
are really intent on doing is getting on with these appropriations 
bills, supporting our military, providing a strong military so we can 
continue to do the things we have to do. But this idea of continuing to 
try to contain an issue and make it something more than it really is 
seems to me to be worn out.
  I hope we can move forward. We have a lot to do. We need to deal with 
the issues that are before us. I don't think this particular amendment 
is useful. We already have a system for looking at this. Withholding 
money pending a third-party operation simply doesn't make sense. I hope 
we will table this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. DAYTON. I fully concur with my colleague that we need to conclude 
our work on this bill. This is the third day we have been on this 
matter. There are several hundred billion dollars involved; it is one 
of the most costly measures we consider every year. The majority leader 
said we will complete work on the bill tonight. I expect we will do so 
with that instruction. I am prepared to stay late, as others of my 
colleagues are, to talk about these issues. I cannot think of anything 
that is more profoundly important to this country today and to the 
future of this Nation and to the world today and to the future of the 
world than what we are addressing, which is the circumstances that 
caused the President of the United States to make, as my colleague from 
Illinois said, an onerous and fateful decision to start a war, doing 
something that was unprecedented in our Nation's history--to initiate a 
war against another country, invade another country.
  Now, there may be other reasons cited for doing so, but under 
international law, under the U.N. Charter, of all the reasons cited by 
the administration for this action, the one that has no credence is the 
threat of an immediate and urgent attack against the United States by 
weapons of mass destruction with the missile capability to deliver 
them. That is what was stated and implied on a frequent basis by 
members of the administration last fall.
  This is not about one 16-word inclusion in the President's State of 
the Union speech, as important as that is. This is about questions, as 
the Senator from Illinois said, that dictated the actions or influenced 
the actions of Congress last October in voting to give the President 
the authority to initiate military action, which the President followed 
through on 6 months later, for which we have 145,000 sweltering 
Americans in Iraq today. I was there 2 weeks ago in 115-degree 
temperatures. If anything, they are even hotter than that at this point 
in time. Some of those incredibly brave young men and women won't come 
home to their families and friends alive. They will give the ultimate 
sacrifice on behalf of their country.
  So these are profound matters. I commend my colleague from Illinois 
for his careful choice of words and his reasoned approach to these 
matters, in recognition of his position on the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, his restraint in sharing only unclassified information to 
support his amendment, which I am proud to support myself.
  We have tried on this side of the aisle in the last days to strike 
some bipartisan agreements about how to address matters of disclosure 
of financial expenditures for this military undertaking. We talked with 
the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee about 
where the money is in this bill for the purposes of the ongoing 
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  The chairman informed us that 2 days ago, in the 2003 supplemental 
appropriations, those funds were provided that are being drawn down for 
the purpose of conducting these military operations in those two 
countries and we should expect another supplemental appropriations 
request to be forthcoming early in the next calendar year. That same 
day, however, the comptroller for the Department of Defense was quoted 
as saying there remains only $4 billion in that account. Given the 
statement of the Secretary of Defense to our Senate Armed Services

[[Page 18464]]

Committee the week before that we are spending, on a monthly basis, 
$4.8 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, it is quite obvious that 
that $4 billion is going to last them less than another month.
  So we have tried and we have not been as successful as we should be 
because it ought to be transparent to this body exactly what is being 
spent, where it is being spent, and we ought to be appropriating, as 
others have pointed out--Senator Byrd first and foremost among them--
that we ought to be doing this through proper channels.
  Yesterday, as the Senator from Illinois said, we tried to get an 
agreement for a bipartisan independent commission that would be 
established and that would bring, it is my conception, the 
distinguished senior Americans, those whose credibility and integrity 
and experience and wisdom are unquestioned and would bring forth for 
the benefit of this body, but most importantly for the benefit of all 
the American people, what are the facts in these questions that have 
been raised and how do they instruct us in terms of the veracity of our 
intelligence information and the veracity of our political leaders.
  Yesterday there was an editorial in the Washington Post which stated 
just that. It said: ``Wait for the facts.'' It cited the President's 
remarks in his State of the Union Address, the 16-word sentence that 
has received so much attention. It went on to say:

       If so, that would represent one of several instances in 
     which administration statements on Iraq were stretched to 
     reflect the most aggressive interpretation of the 
     intelligence.

  That, I believe, is a carefully phrased way of saying what I said 
earlier in my remarks. There were several times last fall when the 
implication was made or the assertion was stated that these weapons of 
mass destruction were not only developed but were poised to be used 
against the United States and that they constituted an immediate and 
urgent threat to our national security which, as I said before, both 
under U.N. charter and international law, is the single legal basis for 
the United States to invade another country: The threat of imminent 
attack or the actual attack itself.
  As the most powerful nation in the world, the one that has led the 
way for over the last half century in not starting wars--finishing wars 
successfully, but not starting them--for us to engage in now the first 
of what the President has articulated as the doctrine of preemption, 
where we will initiate those wars, we will attack first, in the 
judgment of this Senator is a very unwise course which will dangerously 
destabilize the world if it becomes the normal practice of nations, 
other than the United States--and we have to expect it will--to launch 
those kinds of attacks.
  Last August, before the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Nashville, Vice 
President Cheney said:

       There's no doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass 
     destruction.

  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in September in Atlanta said 
that American intelligence had ``bulletproof'' evidence of links 
between al-Qaida and the government of President Saddam Hussein of 
Iraq.
  In each case, officials have offered no details to back up those 
assertions. Mr. Rumsfeld said today doing so would jeopardize the lives 
of spies and dry up sources of information.
  As was stated by a couple of my colleagues, we have to rely on this 
hidden information which can be alluded to, to prove just about any 
point anybody wants to make, but we cannot know the facts.
  In October, the President himself made his argument, quoting an 
article in the Chicago Tribune, for invasion, emphasizing the notion 
Hussein could strike the United States first and inflict ``massive and 
sudden horror.''
  Finally, Secretary Rumsfeld, again testifying before the Armed 
Services Committee, said:

       The United States must act quickly to save tens of 
     thousands of citizens.

  I could go on with illustrations. My point is, we should let the 
facts speak for themselves. We deserve to know the facts. We deserve 
and must know, for the sake of our national security, whether the 
information we received from intelligence agencies was accurate, and we 
need to know for the sake of our democracy whether the representation 
of those facts by our leaders was accurate.
  That is the intent of the Durbin amendment. It is the reason it 
should be approved by this body. It is the reason this body should do 
what is right, which is to seek together to know the facts.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for raising these 
important issues. I am going to take the first few minutes of my 30 
minutes to talk on what has been discussed this morning because I think 
it is so important to the country, and then I will turn to another 
subject.
  I have not previously spoken on these issues on the floor because my 
primary responsibility in the Senate is representing the State of North 
Dakota, and I have special responsibility for budget issues in my 
position as ranking member on the Budget Committee and as a senior 
member of the Finance Committee for matters that relate to Social 
Security and Medicare and the financing of the U.S. Government, and, of 
course, in my role on the Agriculture Committee dealing with questions 
of agricultural policy. I am not on the committees that deal with 
foreign policy and defense policy.
  All of us have a responsibility to speak out when we believe the 
country is headed in a wrong direction. I believe the President is 
taking us down a road that is fraught with real danger for the country.
  The President asked this Congress--the Senate and the House--for 
authority to launch a preemptive attack on another nation, an attack 
before that country had attacked us or attacked any of our allies. In 
fact, Iraq had not engaged in an attack on anyone for more than a 
decade. The President told us and told the world that they, Iraq, 
represented an immediate and imminent threat to America.
  I personally believe there may be a place for preemptive attack in 
protecting the American people. I believe if we have clear and 
convincing evidence that a country represents an imminent threat to our 
people, we have a right to act first, especially in a world where 
weapons of mass destruction do exist, to prevent catastrophic loss to 
our Nation.
  When we launch a preemptive attack on another country, we had better 
have it right. We had better make certain that what we are saying and 
telling the world is correct. This President and this administration 
told the world and told this Congress that Iraq had weapons of mass 
destruction. There were many reasons to believe that statement, but now 
the harsh reality is, those weapons of mass destruction have not been 
found. This administration and this President told the Congress and 
told the world that Iraq was trying to develop a nuclear capability, 
and they gave as their best evidence that Iraq was seeking to buy 
uranium from Niger. That has proved to be wrong.
  The President told the world and told this Congress that there was a 
clear connection to al-Qaida, and repeatedly we were told the best 
evidence was there was a terrorist camp in Iraq training al-Qaida 
operatives. Now we learn that camp was in a part of Iraq not controlled 
by Saddam Hussein but controlled by the Kurds.
  The day before yesterday, the President made the most astonishing 
statement of all. In the Washington Post, the President is quoted as 
saying that he attacked Iraq because Saddam Hussein would not permit 
the U.N. weapons inspectors into the country.
  I do not know if the President was misquoted. I have seen no attempt 
to correct the record. I said nothing about this yesterday because I 
hoped that the White House would say the President was misquoted. There 
has been no attempt to correct the record.
  We all know the weapons inspectors of the U.N. were in the country. 
They were in Iraq. They were going site to

[[Page 18465]]

site trying to determine if there were weapons of mass destruction, 
trying to determine if there was a nuclear program underway in that 
country. For the President to now say he attacked Iraq because they 
would not permit inspectors absolutely stands the facts on their head. 
The inspectors were there. The reason the inspectors left is because we 
were threatening to attack Iraq. So saying that Saddam Hussein did not 
permit inspectors in as a rationale for war is mighty thin.
  We have a fundamental problem of the credibility of the Nation. Our 
country told the world a set of assertions, one after another, that 
have proven to be wrong or have proven not to be demonstrably the case. 
That puts our country's credibility at risk. When we are talking about 
attacking other nations preemptively, as I said in the beginning, we 
better make certain we have it right because if we start going around 
the world attacking countries and cannot prove our assertions that they 
represented an imminent threat to us, then I think America is in very 
serious risk of alienating the world community. That is not in our 
interest.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Senator Durbin had to go to an appropriations meeting, but 
he asked that I relate to the Senate, and I will do it through the 
Senator from North Dakota--is the Senator from North Dakota aware there 
is a Web site the President has--I am sure the Senator is aware of 
that; is that right?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Well, I am aware of the fact that there was a part of that 
Web site that one can no longer get into. ``Behind the Scenes'' is what 
it was entitled. I hold up in front of the Senator now something that 
was on the Web site that one could go to, but one cannot anymore, 
talking about how the President prepares the State of the Union 
Message.
  It says: Behind the Scenes, State of the Union preparation.
  And it shows the President with his hands out there. It shows the 
President going over his speech word by word.
  Under this, it says: While working at his desk in the Oval Office, 
President Bush reviews the State of the Union address line-by-line, 
word-by-word.
  I want the Senator from North Dakota to know that Senator Durbin--
this is on his behalf but certainly I underline and underscore what he 
wanted to be printed in the Record--we are to a point that the Senator 
from North Dakota said we are. It is the credibility of not necessarily 
going to war in Iraq, which is certainly part of it, but the 
credibility of this country in the world. Can the United States of 
America, the great country that it is--can people depend on the word of 
the President of the United States? And certainly in that they have 
taken this off the Web site, it indicates that there is certainly a 
problem with the President going over his speech word-by-word, line-by-
line.
  Mr. CONRAD. I say to the Senator, I have not said anything for weeks 
on this issue, but with each passing day I become more concerned about 
the credibility of our Nation. When a policy is announced of preemptive 
strike, something we have never done before in our country's history--I 
remember going to grade school and being taught that America never 
attacked first, but if somebody attacked us, we countered and we always 
won. That was what we were taught growing up. I was proud of it. I was 
proud that America never attacked first.
  Now the world has changed. I would be the first to acknowledge the 
world has changed. I can see a role for preemptive strike in a world 
where weapons of mass destruction do exist in order to prevent 
catastrophic loss to this country. But we better be very certain before 
we launch an attack on another nation that that attack is justified and 
that, in fact, that nation represents an imminent threat because, if we 
start attacking nations and we cannot prove our assertions, very 
quickly the rest of the world is going to doubt our word, our 
credibility, and our basic goodness as a nation. Now, that is serious 
business.
  The fact is, this administration told the world Iraq had weapons of 
mass destruction; that they were trying to develop nuclear capability; 
that there was a connection to al-Qaida. Each and every one of those 
claims now is in question. It is not just 16 words in the State of the 
Union. It is far more serious than that.
  For the President, the day before yesterday, to compound it by saying 
he attacked Saddam Hussein because he did not permit U.N. weapons 
inspectors in that country is false on its face. We all know the 
weapons inspectors were there. We all know they were going site to site 
trying to find weapons of mass destruction. The question of whether or 
not they were effective or not is another question but to assert to the 
world that we attacked Iraq because there were not inspectors there, I 
am afraid it makes us look as though we are not very careful with our 
claims.
  (The further remarks of Mr. Conrad are printed in today's Record 
under ``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, what is the business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Durbin amendment is before us.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that it be temporarily laid 
aside so that my amendment will be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1280

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I send an amendment for myself, Mr. 
Akaka, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Mikulski, 
Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Lieberman to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself, 
     Mr. Akaka, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Lautenberg, 
     Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Lieberman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1280.

  Mr. KENNEDY. 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 limit the use of funds for converting to contractor 
     performance of Department of Defense activities and functions)

       Beginning on page 46, strike line 24 and all that follows 
     through ``: Provided further, That the'' on page 47, line 23, 
     and insert the following:
       Sec. 8014. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be used for converting to contractor performance an 
     activity or function of the Department of Defense that, on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, is performed by 
     Department of Defense employees unless the conversion is 
     based on the results of a public-private competition process 
     that--
       (1) applies the most efficient organization process except 
     to the performance of an activity or function involving 10 or 
     fewer employees (but prohibits any modification, 
     reorganization, division, or other change that is done for 
     the purpose of qualifying the activity or function for such 
     exception);
       (2) requires a determination regarding whether the offers 
     submitted meet the needs of the Department of Defense with 
     respect to items other than costs, including quality and 
     reliability;
       (3) provides no advantage to an offeror for a proposal to 
     save costs for the Department of Defense by offering 
     employer-sponsored health insurance benefits to workers to be 
     employed under contract for the performance of such activity 
     or function that are in any respect less beneficial to the 
     workers than the benefits provided for Federal employees 
     under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code; and
       (4) requires a determination regarding whether, over all 
     performance periods stated in the solicitation of offers for 
     performance of the activity or function, the cost of 
     performance of the activity or function by a contractor would 
     be less costly to the Department of Defense by an amount that 
     equals or exceeds the lesser of (A) 10 percent of the most 
     efficient organization's personnel-related costs for 
     performance of that activity or function by Federal 
     employees, or (B) $10,000,000.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense may, in the Secretary's 
     discretion, apply the tradeoff source selection public-
     private competition process under Office of Management and 
     Budget Circular A-76 to the performance of services related 
     to the design, installation, operation, or maintenance of 
     information

[[Page 18466]]

     technology (as defined in section 11101 of title 40, United 
     States Code).
       (c)(1) This section does not apply to a conversion of an 
     activity or function of the Department of Defense to 
     contractor performance if the Secretary of Defense (A) 
     determines in writing that compliance would have a 
     substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Department 
     of Defense to perform its national security missions, and (B) 
     publishes such determination in the Federal Register.
       (2) This section and subsections (a), (b), and (c) of 
     section 2461 of title 10, United States Code, do not apply 
     with respect to the performance of a commercial or industrial 
     type activity or function that--
       (A) is on the procurement list established under section 2 
     of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 47); or
       (B) is planned to be converted to performance by--
       (i) a qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or a 
     qualified nonprofit agency for other severely handicapped (as 
     such terms are defined in section 5 of such Act (41 U.S.C. 
     48b); or
       (ii) a commercial business at least 51 percent of which is 
     owned by an Indian tribe (as defined in section 4(e) of the 
     Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 
     U.S.C. 450b(e))) or a Native Hawaiian Organization (as 
     defined in section 8(a)(15) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 637(a)(15))).

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, this is an issue which we have 
considered a number of different times. I know the manager of the bill 
is familiar with the amendment. I know he is necessarily absent at this 
time, but he does know the substance of the amendment, and he is 
involved in the activities of the Appropriations Committee.
  I will make a presentation and then engage with him when he returns 
to elaborate and summarize again the reasons and the rationale for this 
amendment.
  I also understand it is both the desire of leadership and the floor 
managers to move the process along. I will be glad to work out with the 
managers of the bill a time for the Members to consider this amendment 
in a timely way.
  Basically, this is the issue. I will go through it in more careful 
detail in just a few moments.
  In 1993, we had approximately 1 million Federal employees. It has 
been the desire and the plan of this administration in the last 2\1/2\ 
years to see that the number of Federal employees is reduced 
dramatically and that there be outsourcing.
  The amendment which we are proposing today follows and embraces the 
Commercial Activities Panel recommendations on outsourcing so that it 
will be fair to employees and fair to the taxpayers. This is an 
excellent report that was made up of contractors and other 
distinguished panel members. It was recommended in the Defense 
Authorization Act of 2001. The panel adopted as its mission to improve 
the current sourcing framework and process so that they reflect the 
balance among taxpayers' interests, Government needs, employee rights, 
and contractor concerns.
  That is what this panel recommended.
  The administration has been selective in part of the recommendations 
this panel has taken.
  This amendment would include the two principal recommendations which 
the current administration has refused to include. They are included on 
page 50 of the Commercial Activities Panel. I will describe them in 
greater detail. But the sum and substance of this amendment is 
effectively to follow the recommendations that were made in a 
nonpartisan way which is going to ensure we are going to get the best 
for the taxpayer dollar and treat the Federal employees fairly.
  The current administration has carefully eliminated two very 
important protections the panel recommended. This amendment 
incorporates those two recommendations in the administration's 
consideration for the outsourcing which will, if accepted, ensure that 
as the administration is considering the most efficient way to get the 
most efficient result as a result of contract competition we will carry 
forward the mission, in this case, of the Federal employees and the 
taxpayers.
  That is what I think we ought to try to do. We ought to do what is 
fair to the taxpayer and to the employees. The current system does not. 
This amendment will.
  Of the Federal employees that we are talking about, 40 percent are 
veterans. At the current time, 9,000 of these workers have been 
activated. A great many of them are over in Iraq. This is a wonderful 
set of circumstances.
  While on the floor of the Senate, we say we care about our service 
men and women in Iraq, and we have several thousand of them over in 
Iraq who happen to be Federal employees. Forty percent of the Federal 
employees are veterans, and we are about to do them short shrift, if we 
do not accept the amendment which I offer. I think that is something 
which would be unworthy of this body at any time and would be unworthy 
of this body at this particular time.
  The Office of Management and Budget put in place this year the most 
sweeping changes in rules on outsourcing of Government work in half a 
century. These rules contain no requirement for fair competition that 
would enable the Government employees an opportunity to demonstrate 
that they can do the work more effectively and for lower cost than 
private contractors.
  Now the administration wants to use these new rules to privatize at 
least 225,000 Department of Defense civilian jobs in the years ahead. 
That is too much work, too many jobs, and too much of our national 
security to contract out without fair competition.
  As I mentioned, nearly 40 percent of the civilian employees in the 
Department of Defense are veterans who served this Nation proudly. More 
than 8,000 are activated reservists serving in Iraq and other parts of 
the world defending our Nation. We owe it to these patriotic Americans 
not to privatize their jobs without fair competition.
  At a time when we are spending $4 billion a month in ongoing 
operations in Iraq, we should ensure the taxpayers are getting the best 
value for their money. Yet one of the most significant parts of the 
administration's proposal for the Department allows so-called 
``streamlined'' competition for activities involving 65 or fewer 
employees. The streamlined rules emphasize speed in privatizing Federal 
jobs at the expense of quality and cost. The process must be finished 
in 90 days. The rules eliminate important fair competition 
requirements.
  Federal employees are at a competitive disadvantage because the rules 
do not allow them to submit their best bids known as the ``most 
efficient organization'' plans. That is in contrast to the 
recommendation. They effectively prohibit Federal employees from being 
able to submit their best bid.
  The rules also eliminate the guarantee of cost savings because they 
fail to require contractors to show appreciable savings by privatizing 
the work.
  That is why I offer this amendment today, to ensure that no funds are 
spent on contracting out Defense Department jobs without fair 
competition. This amendment is about fair competition.
  Federal employees must be allowed to offer their best bids. 
Competition must take into account both the cost savings and the 
quality. And the health care costs for employees cannot be a deciding 
factor because Federal employees would obviously be at a disadvantage, 
and contractors would have an incentive to deny health benefits at all.
  There are companies that do not provide the health care benefits. If 
they are in competition with the Federal employers who do provide it, 
it obviously skews it in favor of the private companies. We do not want 
to use the competition, in terms of Government contracts, to encourage 
employers to drop their health insurance for their employees. That 
certainly would be counterproductive in terms of all of the challenges 
we are facing in the health care area. Under this amendment they are 
not disadvantaged, therefore, by providing the health benefits to the 
Federal employees.
  This amendment in no way prevents public-private competition. It is a 
moderate approach to ensure that competition is fair and leads to cost 
savings.
  The Commercial Activities Panel, the group charged with reviewing 
outsourcing policies, has recommended that any replacement for the 
current competition process should include

[[Page 18467]]

``the right of employees to base their proposal on a more efficient 
organization, rather than the status quo.'' This is their second 
recommendation under section 4, on page 50:

       [T]he right of employees to base their proposal on a more 
     efficient organization, rather than the status quo.

  That particular recommendation is eliminated, which obviously 
disadvantages the Federal employees in terms of the competition.
  The panel, comprised largely of contractor and administration 
representatives, made no exception for functions involving 65 or fewer 
employees. This is just a figure that was drawn by the administration.
  The Commercial Activities Panel also recommended that any replacement 
in the current competition process should include a minimum cost 
differential, which requires the private contractor to be at least 10 
percent or $10 million more efficient than the Federal Government.
  Without the minimum cost differential, a private contractor could be 
judged just a few dollars more efficient and take the work away from 
the Federal employees. Taxpayers would actually lose money on such a 
contract because of the significant costs of conducting the 
competition, shifting the work to the private sector, and administering 
the Government's role in the contract. Unless the private sector can 
show a significant reduction in the cost, it makes no sense to 
privatize the work.
  That has been thoroughly reviewed in this panel, and yet their 
recommendations on the 10 percent or $10 million requirements are 
effectively eliminated. This panel reviewed the various minimum 
standards that ought to be included and made their recommendations, but 
the administration has effectively eliminated those. This amendment, 
again, embraces their overall recommendations.
  On the issue of health care costs, the amendment would reduce the 
perverse incentive for contractors to provide inferior health care 
benefits to the employees. The amendment would require the Defense 
Department to determine the average cost of health insurance for a 
Federal employee, which remains the same each calendar year for each 
employee.
  If the health care costs for Federal employees and private 
contractors are the same or the contractor's contribution is in excess 
of the standard established by Congress for the Federal workforce, then 
the provision will have no effect. But if the contractor's contribution 
is less than the Federal standard, the contractor cannot receive an 
unfair advantage in the cost comparison process.
  This provision addresses a bipartisan concern about inferior or 
nonexistent health insurance coverage for employees, particularly for 
those who perform the Federal Government's work.
  At a time when we are more concerned than ever about homeland 
defense, these OMB rules give an unfair advantage to private 
contractors who have little accountability. Yet critical aspects of our 
national security could be privatized.
  The repair of planes, ships, and tanks, and the storage and 
distribution of vital weapons and supplies can be contracted out under 
these rules. We all know what a disaster it was when the private 
companies screened bags at our airports. Now Federal workers are doing 
the job better and Americans are feeling safer.
  Today, there is far too little real competition for contracts to 
provide goods and services to Federal agencies. We should be getting 
the most out of every taxpayer dollar. But less--listen to this--less 
than 1 percent of Department of Defense service contracts today are 
subject to full public-private competition.
  Adoption of this amendment will lead to a better and more efficient 
procurement policy for the Department of Defense. No jobs would be 
outsourced without an analysis showing cost savings. Government 
procurement should be based on what is best for taxpayers and national 
defense and national security. The amendment will produce real savings 
for the taxpayers and more reliable equipment for our courageous men 
and women in uniform.
  We face great challenges to the Nation's security in these difficult 
times. More than ever, we rely on the Department of Defense, its 
dedicated members of our Armed Forces, and its dedicated civilian 
employees. We owe it to all of them to see that any competition process 
treats them fairly.
  Let's not spend money on outsourcing that results from unfair 
competition and produces inefficient results. Public-private 
competition should be fair to Federal employees. I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). The Senator 
from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kennedy 
amendment. A-76 is a program that was implemented by the Government 
several years ago to try to make sure that contracts let in the public 
and the private sector are actually saving money. Are the taxpayers 
getting the best bang for the buck that was intended at the time the 
contracts were let?
  Folks in the public sector have never minded competing with the 
private sector for any type of public contract. The problem with A-76 
is, when they go back and review those contracts that have been let, it 
seems they always go review the contracts that were awarded to the 
public sector and they never go to the contracts that were awarded to 
the private sector.
  If A-76 is going to be fairly applied to the public sector, it ought 
to be applied to the private sector. That is simply not the way A-76 
has worked over the years.
  I complained about the previous administration on this issue, I 
complain to the current administration on this issue, and we have 
simply seen no change in the policy with respect to A-76.
  Competition is what makes our country go round and round in the 
business community. Nobody minds competing if they are in business for 
the right reason. And when it comes, in my case, to the instances where 
I have the most experience--in the public depots--we have never minded 
competing with the private sector for a contract when it comes to 
repair or improvement of our military weapons systems. But every time 
we get awarded a public contract, it seems that 1 year, 2 years, or 3 
years out, all of a sudden we are seeing an A-76 that is submitted and 
the folks come in and review the contract that has been awarded to the 
public depot, while, on the other side of that coin, the dozens and 
dozens and dozens and billions of dollars in contracts that are awarded 
to the private sector are never subject to the A-76 review.
  Senator Kennedy's amendment goes a long way toward righting that 
wrong. I support that amendment. I support making competition open, 
making competition fair between the public sector and the private 
sector. And if the administration is not going to take the initiative 
to do that, and make sure that is the fact of the matter in contracts 
that are awarded to the public sector, then this is the type of action 
we have to take.
  I support the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, can 
offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. What is the pending business at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Kennedy amendment has been set aside in 
order for the Senator from Wisconsin to present an amendment.


                           Amendment No. 1279

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

[[Page 18468]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1279.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. 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 state the sense of the Senate on a report on the detention 
 and April 11, 2003, escape in Yemen of the suspects in the attack on 
                            the U.S.S. Cole)

       Insert after section 8123 the following:
       Sec. 8124. It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the President should, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Director of 
     Central Intelligence and taking into account limitations 
     connected with ongoing legal proceedings, submit to Congress 
     a report on the circumstances surrounding the detention and 
     April 11, 2003, escape in Yemen of the suspects in the attack 
     on the U.S.S. Cole; and
       (2) the report should--
       (A) describe the efforts undertaken by the United States 
     Government to investigate security at the Yemen detention 
     facility holding individuals suspected of being involved in 
     the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, including information on when 
     such efforts were undertaken;
       (B) describe the efforts undertaken by the United States 
     Government to monitor the status of such individuals 
     throughout their detention and to question such individuals 
     about their relationship to al Qaeda and their involvement in 
     the attack on the U.S.S. Cole; and
       (C) describe the efforts undertaken by the United States to 
     determine how the escape occurred and to determine who was 
     involved in aiding and abetting the escape.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. I rise today to offer an amendment directly relevant to 
the most important national security priority before this country 
today. That, of course, is the fight against international terrorist 
networks that have murdered Americans.
  We have heard a good deal recently about some questionable assertions 
made by the administration in the lead-up to the military action in 
Iraq. We still have not satisfactorily resolved concerns that I and 
some of my colleagues raised in the lead-up to the war in Iraq that I 
referred to and have referred to for almost a year as the ``ever 
shifting justifications for United States action in Iraq.''
  Congress is right to keep asking questions. The American people are 
right to demand answers. They deserve a complete and public accounting 
of how a piece of intelligence that was removed from a Presidential 
speech last fall because of doubts of its veracity then found its way 
into this year's State of the Union Address.
  I rise to point out the administration's shifting justifications and 
flawed intelligence are not the only problems. There is another 
problem, and I argue it is as alarming or even more alarming. The 
problem is while all of this was underway--that is, the Iraq 
activities--while we were hearing less-than-accurate information as 
part of the administration's hard sell, we may well have been dropping 
the ball when it comes to addressing the most urgent threat to our 
national security; that is, combating the al-Qaida terrorist network 
and other international terrorist networks of global reach.
  Of course, the horror of September 11, 2001 is seared into the memory 
of all Americans, but there have been other horrors: The African 
embassy bombings of 1998 and, yes, there was the attack on the USS Cole 
in Yemen. On October 12, 2002, the USS Navy destroyer Cole was attacked 
by a small boat laden with explosive during a brief refueling stop in 
the harbor of Aden, Yemen. The attack killed 17 members of the ship's 
crew, including a sailor from my home State of Wisconsin, and wounded 
39 others. The evidence clearly indicates al-Qaida was responsible for 
the attack on USS Cole.
  However, how many people know on April 11, 2003, just a few months 
ago, 10 men suspected of involvement in the Cole bombing escaped from a 
prison building in Aden, Yemen? How many people have heard about that? 
It is not only the basic information that has been in short supply; 
explanations for this escape of these al-Qaida suspects is also hard to 
come by.
  In early May, the Yemeni foreign minister suggests in remarks made to 
the BBC that ``part of the problem is the long period of time during 
which they [the suspects] were held.'' The Yemeni government called for 
sending them to court, but Washington also asked for postponement until 
the conclusion of its investigations into the Cole explosion or the 
file of terrorism in general.
  The comments continue: ``Incidents like this happen, especially when 
prisoners spend a long time in one place and guards become reassured 
that the prisoners have become used to prison and will not escape.''
  This Yemeni statement suggests the U.S. Government was certainly 
aware of the detainees and involved in the issue. That is, of course, 
something we would expect in this case, about people who were in prison 
in Yemen whom we knew to be the likely people involved in the bombing 
of our USS Cole.
  On May 15, the Justice Department unveiled a 51-count indictment 
against two of the escapees, Jamal al-Badawi and Fahd al-Qusaa. The two 
were indicted on various terror offenses, including murder of United 
States nationals and murder of United States military personnel. The 
indictment said Badawi was recruited by senior members of Osama bin 
Laden's inner circle and he bought the attack boat in Saudi Arabia and 
obtained the trailer and truck used to tow the boat to Aden harbor. The 
press conference at which the indictments were announced underscored 
the seriousness of this matter. Obviously, given the press conference 
held by the administration official, this is not a small or a marginal 
issue.
  We are talking here about the escape of operatives of Osama bin 
Laden. We are talking about people here who murdered 17 Americans. 
Fighting those forces, the forces of al-Qaida, must be our first 
priority.
  When I wrote to the State Department and the Justice Department to 
gain some answers about just what happened here, I have to tell my 
colleagues, the answers were not satisfying in the least. In fact, a 
number of questions remain.
  What were the circumstances surrounding the detention of the 
suspects? Where were they held? Were they moved? Where were they moved? 
What steps did the administration take to ensure the United States was 
familiar with the status of people suspected of involvement in a 
terrorist attack on our sailors? Did anyone representing the United 
States Government ever question these suspects? Did anyone ever visit 
the facility where they were being held? Did anyone even bother to 
visit the facility after the escape to try to understand how they 
escaped? Was the U.S. Government involved in any way in monitoring 
these detainees prior to their escape?
  Again, I am talking about al-Qaida operatives. The indictment of 
Jamal al-Badawi indicates he was recruited by members of Osama bin 
Laden's inner circle. If he was a known al-Qaida operative, why didn't 
the United States take steps to monitor the detention facility where he 
was held? What do we know about the circumstances surrounding their 
escape? What kind of help did they have? Do the facts tell us anything 
about whether the decisions to facilitate the escape were taken only at 
a low level or were they taken at a higher level? If these escapees had 
help, what happened to the people who helped them? What does the U.S. 
Government know about these people and about what they are doing now? 
What steps have we taken to urge that those people be held accountable 
for their actions? What steps are currently being taken to find and 
detain the escapees? What steps are being taken to ensure they do not 
reach United States soil?
  It is not unreasonable to expect answers to these questions. My very 
modest amendment simply expresses the sense of the Senate that the 
administration should provide them in the form of a report on this 
incident. If such a report needs to come in a classified format, I 
understand that, of course, and that is fine. What is not fine, though, 
is the prospect of letting this issue go unexamined. This escape

[[Page 18469]]

occurred just as our brave troops were entering Baghdad, at least in 
part, in the name of stopping the threat of terrorism.
  We cannot afford to be easily distracted, incapable of focusing on a 
global effort to stop terrorists because of our intense focus on other 
issues with only a nebulous connection to this most important priority 
of stopping international terrorist networks. I fear we have wondered 
far afield from the urgent task at hand. I am troubled that the same 
administration that was recklessly threading together any and all 
justifications for a war with Iraq a few months ago may have at the 
same time been complacent about the status of the USS Cole attackers.
  This past Sunday on Meet the Press, Secretary Rumsfeld suggested that 
finding Saddam Hussein was more important in terms of providing, in his 
words, ``closure'' than finding Osama bin Laden. I know the al-Qaida 
network consists of far more than one man, but I fear the Secretary's 
remarks are emblematic of the problem. First and foremost, I believe 
the American people want to defeat the forces that attacked us. But 
this administration is leading us in some unrelated directions. We 
should be focused on stopping al-Qaida, stopping other terrorist 
networks, and denying terrorists access to resources, opportunities, 
and safe havens.
  We all deserve to know what happened with this escape. All of us 
should join together in determining what lessons we can learn from this 
incident and what it tells us about where we have been placing our 
national security focus and priorities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I intend to withdraw the amendment at this time, but we will 
certainly be revisiting this issue. I hope the administration will hear 
those words and respond to the need for the answers to these questions. 
The legislative option certainly remains available on other, perhaps 
more appropriate, vehicles. But given my inability to get answers to 
these questions thus far, I believe it is necessary to begin the 
process of raising this matter in the legislative process itself.


                      Amendment No. 1279 Withdrawn

  Mr. President, I ask at this time to withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. JOHNSON. 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. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. JOHNSON. I yield to my colleague from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was speaking on the floor the other day 
about a statement on President Bush's Web site. I read from that one 
site. I had been told earlier that part of the Web site was no longer 
available to the public. Since that time, I have been advised that is 
not true. If that were the case, I would want that stricken from the 
Record. I would, however, say that doesn't take away from the fact part 
of the President's Web site indicates that he reads every word of his 
speeches, especially his State of the Union speeches, and works on it 
on a word-by-word basis.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, we are currently debating the Defense 
appropriations bill.
  I wanted to call to the attention of my colleagues reports in the 
media this morning that the new U.S. military commander in Iraq has 
acknowledged now for the very first time that American troops are 
engaged in what he calls a ``classical guerrilla-style war'' against 
the remnants of the former Iraq President Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. 
He acknowledges that the attacks are growing in organization and 
sophistication.
  These statements by Army GEN John Abizaid in his first Pentagon 
briefing since taking charge of the U.S. Central Command last week are 
in stunning and sharp contrast with earlier statements from Defense 
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It was only 2\1/2\ weeks ago that Secretary 
Rumsfeld insisted that the U.S. military was not involved in a 
guerrilla war. As Secretary Rumsfeld said as recently as Sunday on ABC 
News, the fighting in Iraq did not fit the definition of a guerrilla 
war.
  I think it is important that the American public and we in the Senate 
acknowledge the circumstances that our troops now find themselves in a 
near unilateral circumstance because of the unwillingness or the 
inability of this administration to attract an international coalition 
for the aftermath of the Iraqi war.
  Now it was also reported yesterday yet another American was killed in 
a rocket-propelled grenade attack, making him the 33rd U.S. soldier 
killed since President Bush declared major combat over, and the seventh 
soldier killed since President Bush, 2 weeks ago, said ``bring 'em on'' 
to the Iraqi militants. In addition, the pro-American mayor of an Iraqi 
city was also assassinated.
  Minnesota Public Radio this week quoted Mary Kewatt, the aunt of a 
soldier killed in Iraq, saying:

       President Bush made a comment a week ago, and he said 
     ``bring it on.'' Well, they brought it on, and now my nephew 
     is dead.

  Our Nation would be better served, and the security of our troops 
would be better served, if our President would spend less time trying 
to look and sound like a grade-B movie cowboy and a little more time 
providing some leadership to internationalize this situation in Iraq, 
and to give our troops some notion of when they are coming home.
  I have to believe if President Bush had his two daughters in service 
to the military in Iraq, and his family's blood was on the line--as are 
thousands of American families', including thousands of America's 
daughters whose lives are also at risk--he may have thought twice 
before goading the Iraqi guerrilla war fighters to take another shot at 
America's military's finest in that country.
  So we find ourselves now in a circumstance where we have morale 
problems reported because our troops have no idea when they are coming 
home. We now have an indication that there are few troops readily 
available to sustain a force of the 148,000 we have in Iraq.
  The Army has 33 Active Duty combat brigades. There are now 16 in 
Iraq, two in Afghanistan, two in South Korea, and most of the rest are 
either committed to other missions or reconstituting, leaving just 
three brigades to send to Iraq as replacement forces.
  The recruitment of multinational forces has been largely a failure 
because of the administration's insistence that everything be run 
through the United States rather than through the United Nations or 
NATO.
  The Army indicates they are likely to activate two or more enhanced 
National Guard brigades by the beginning of next year for rotation to 
Iraq by March or April. And I quote: ``Every possible unit worldwide is 
being considered for the possible rotations.''
  It is troubling that we continue not to see a long-term strategy that 
is international in nature. We continue to see the blood being the 
blood, almost exclusively, of American troops. We see the financial 
cost as being almost exclusively the burden of American taxpayers, as 
we are being told now the expenditures will run easily $4 billion per 
month for as far as the eye can see.
  To put that in some perspective, we are not able to fully fund the VA 
health care program for the entire year for all of the veterans of our 
Nation who have served our country because we cannot find the $2 
billion for the entire year, but we are spending $4 billion in a month 
in Iraq. We cannot fund our schools; we cannot fund our prescription 
drug program at a decent level.
  So I think people have to wonder, How long will this go on? We cannot 
cut and run. The decision has been made. We are there. The world is a 
better place without Saddam Hussein, there is no question about that. 
But we

[[Page 18470]]

do have to wonder why it is the United States should have to serve as a 
unilateral police force for the world, why the administration has not 
found ways to internationalize this issue, given the good will that was 
extended to us from allies all around the world post 9/11. That seems 
now to have been badly eroded.
  So I hope our President will spend a little more time on 
international diplomacy, a little more time rethinking his budget 
priorities, a little less time posing for photo opportunities and 
trying to sound like a tough guy, when, at the time, it is our young 
men and women whose lives are at great risk, and will be at great risk 
on and on and on into the future if things do not change soon.
  We can take great pride in the courage, the professionalism, the 
skill of our American military. They are second to none. They are the 
finest military in the world. But these unending deployments are going 
to cause great morale problems, are going to cause problems with 
recruitment and retention of our military. It is making a shambles of 
too many of their families' lives and their businesses.
  We need to find a way so that it is not the United States that has to 
carry single-handedly this kind of burden on into a limitless future. I 
think the circumstances we find ourselves in now are testimony to, 
frankly, inadequate planning, unrealistic planning about what was, in 
fact, going to occur after the major military portion of the attacks in 
Iraq. Somehow there were these naive notions that the expatriates from 
Iraq would step in, we would decapitate the leadership, and all would 
go on well and easily. That is not the case. Now we find ourselves in a 
full-blown guerrilla war. The United States is in up to its neck now.
  We owe tremendous gratitude to our soldiers who are fighting in these 
circumstances. We need to find a way, this administration needs to find 
a way so we do not find this lasting forever, that our taxpayers wind 
up being drained, that families all across this country wind up going 
through such tremendous emotional and other hardships, as we find 
ourselves virtually exclusively out on our own on the front lines in 
this very difficult part of the world.
  So as Prime Minister Blair comes to visit with us later on this 
afternoon, I am hopeful perhaps this will be the beginning of a more 
realistic assessment on the part of the Bush administration about what, 
in fact, will have to come next. And what will have to come next will 
have to be an international alliance, not the exclusive energy and 
budget and blood of Americans.
  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 want to make everyone aware of the fact that Senator 
Johnson and his wife Barbara have a son, as we speak, in the United 
States Army. In 5 years, this young man has been to war four times. So 
a lot of people could come to the floor and speak as Senator Johnson 
has spoken and not have the credibility or the foundation or the 
understanding he has. But he and his dear wife have spent many a 
worried hour wondering if their son was going to come home.
  So I applaud my friend, the distinguished junior Senator from South 
Dakota, who is such a fine Member of the Senate, for yesterday and 
today coming in and giving the Senate the benefit of his thoughts, 
thoughts no one can render but for having had a son in harm's way as a 
result of being in the United States military.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, to follow up on the comments of the 
Senator from South Dakota, he alluded to the presence of over 100,000 
United States troops in Iraq. As it turns out, if you look across the 
globe today, we have United States forces stretched around the world in 
places and numbers we have not seen for a long time--not only Iraq but 
Afghanistan, Bosnia, Korea, Japan, Germany, and many other places.
  We support the deployment of those military personnel through a 
combination of sealift and airlift. When I served on active duty during 
the Vietnam war, we were fortunate in having so many more overseas 
bases from which we could forward deploy or resupply. Many of those 
bases are closed today, and we rely instead on a mixture of different 
kinds of aircraft, military and civilian, and on sealift, a variety of 
ships to serve as a bridge, a sea bridge or an air bridge, to connect 
this country to our troops deployed around the world.
  The air bridge is changing. In this country we are seeing the 
retirement of an older aircraft built in the 1960s. The C-141 is being 
retired. It is being replaced by a newer aircraft, a very good aircraft 
called the C-17. To date, we have received about 100 of those new cargo 
aircraft and about another 80 have been placed on order and will be 
coming into the fleet in the coming years. We have as part of that air 
bridge C-5s, perhaps the largest cargo aircraft in the world, 74 C-5As 
built in the 1970s, about 50 C-5Bs built in the 1980s. A third part of 
this air bridge is the C-130. We have them in the Delaware Air National 
Guard, and they are in air guards throughout the United States. But it 
is really those three aircraft--the C-5, C-17, the C-130s--that enable 
us to resupply our troops and to move our men, women, materiel, and 
weaponry around the globe.
  The C-5 carries enormous amounts of cargo, roughly twice the amount 
of a C-17, at distances roughly twice the distance of a C-17, even more 
cargo than a C-130 and greater distances than the C-130. The C-5s have 
been used in the Iraqi war and Afghanistan to move men, women, and 
materiel, equipment, from the United States into theaters. And the 
movement of those personnel and that equipment within theater has 
fallen largely to C-17s and to C-130s.
  I wish I could stand here today and say the combination of ships we 
have in our sealift capability and aircraft as part of our air bridge 
is sufficient to meet our needs. Our sealift capability is inadequate. 
Our airlift capability is in even worse shape.
  I have an article--this is a June 2 edition of Air Force magazine--
where they talk a good deal about the squeeze on air mobility--not just 
my words but the words of the top people in military airlift in the Air 
Force who cite examples of how our inability to move as much personnel, 
as much equipment as we sought made it difficult in some cases for us 
to implement our game plan in that part of the world. If the current 
assets, especially the current air assets we have within the Air Force, 
are insufficient to provide sufficient airlift, what might be 
sufficient?
  Every so often, the Air Force is asked or directed to do another 
update to look at their assets and what we expect to be the need for 
airlift in the years to come and to tell us and the administration what 
their needs are. We need a new analysis and we need an update.
  My hope is the language in the Defense bill, the authorization bill 
which is now in conference--that out of that conference will come clear 
direction for the Air Force, authorization for the Air Force to update 
that last study which is called MRS-05, out of that update will flow a 
good deal of the information we need.
  We don't need another study or another analysis to tell us that the 
resources we have on the airlift side are woefully inadequate. The 
answer is more, not less. A critical question for us in this body, 
especially as we face a budget deficit this year of $450 billion, is 
how do we go about meeting our woefully inadequate airlift capability, 
how do we do that in a way that is cost-effective and in a way that 
recognizes that we have these huge deficits and that as far as the eye 
can see they continue. I want to talk about that.
  I would like to talk for the next several minutes about a cost-
effective airlift, and then later today Senator Biden and I, along with 
Senator Chambliss and others, will offer an amendment that we believe 
addresses in good faith how we might make some progress on that front 
today.
  There are some who would like to take our C-5s, the fleet--there are 
74 C-5As and 50 C-5Bs--some would like to get rid of all the C-5As, 
send them to

[[Page 18471]]

the boneyard and let that be that. They have some interest in upgrading 
or modernizing the C-5Bs but less interest in doing anything for the C-
5As.
  As it turns out, we are going to be flying C-5As and C-5Bs for a good 
long while, probably for the remainder of this decade on both As and Bs 
and, for Bs, well beyond that; even programs for As well beyond this 
decade. There has been a lot of debate in this Chamber in the last 
couple years on how we might upgrade the capability of the C-5 to make 
it more mission capable.
  The Air Force pays a lot of attention to a number called the mission 
capable rate for aircraft. The mission capable rate for the new C-17 is 
in the mid 80s--it does a really fine job--the mission capable rate 
over the last 12 months for the C-5As, about 60 percent; the mission 
capable rate for the C-5Bs over the last 12 months, 72 percent. Two 
upgrades have been proposed to both aircraft. One of those upgrades is 
fairly inexpensive, the second expensive.
  The less expensive upgrade is the Avionics Modernization Program. The 
Avionics Modernization Program would enable us to take a 1970s cockpit 
of a C-5A or a 1980s cockpit of a C-5B and turn it into a 21st century 
cockpit. Not only would it look different, the plane would fly 
differently, would be controlled differently. The communication gear 
would become 21st century communications equipment. Its reliability and 
effectiveness would be enhanced as would that of the crew--new 
training, avoidance equipment, the ability to actually fly at very 
accurate levels of altitude to enable us to get the maximum advantage 
out of the airspace in the skies in which we fly.
  The avionics modernization package costs about $3 million per 
aircraft. Between fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the Congress authorized 
and appropriated money to install the avionics modernization package in 
a total of 10 C-5 aircraft. This year, in the fiscal year 2004 
authorization bill, there was an authorization for 30 additional kits, 
for the cockpits, communications systems, and all. In this bill, there 
is money appropriated for 18.
  Let's go back. I talked about the number of C-5s we have: 74 C-5As, 
50 C-5Bs. The Air Force is in the process of retiring 14 of the least 
dependable C-5As, the ones that are least mission capable, that create 
the most maintenance headaches. So we will end up with 60 C-5As and 50 
C-5Bs later this year or next. The Air Force would like to see their C-
5s AMPed, or fully equipped with this new upgrade, the avionics 
modernization package, by fiscal 2007. In order for us to meet that 
schedule, we need to appropriate not AMP kits for 18 C-5As in 2004 but 
for 30 to get us back on schedule. That 30, plus the original 10, will 
take us to 40 AMP kits for C-5s. That would leave about 70 more we 
would need to fund in 2005, 2006, and 2007.
  What do we get out of AMPing the aircraft? Among the things that we 
get is better mission capable numbers. Last week I was privileged to 
meet with the four star general who is the commanding officer of our 
airlift mobility command, and I asked him: In terms of mission capable 
improvement, what can we look for? For each avionics modernization 
program that we put in a C-5, how much improvement would we get?
  He said it would be anywhere from 3 to 5 points of improvement of 
mission capability in each aircraft. That could mean taking the C-5 
numbers, the A numbers, for the last year where the mission capable 
rate was 60 and bring it up to 63, or even as high as 65. It would take 
the 72 percent mission capable rate from the C-5Bs from the last 12 
months and raise it to 75 percent, or maybe as high as 77 percent.
  If you think about it, if we were to actually install the AMP kits in 
all C-5As and Bs, at roughly $3 million apiece, the cost to the 
Treasury is about $350 million. If you multiply 3 percentage points or 
5 percentage points--let's take somewhere in between, say a 4-percent 
increase in the mission capability rate for AMPing C-5s. If you 
multiply that 4 percent across the whole 110 C-5As and Bs we have in 
our inventory at the end of this year, we end up with the equivalent of 
about--because of improvements in mission capability rates--4.4 
additional C-5 aircraft.
  The cost of getting those four additional C-5 aircraft is about $350 
million. The cost of a new C-5 or a new C-17 is a whole lot more than 
that. We can get four equivalent C-5s simply out of being more mission 
ready and mission capable by AMPing, installing the avionics 
modernization package in all the C-5s.
  I want to talk a moment, if I could, about those who are interested 
in doing something about the As, not the Bs. I have talked about this 
first improvement, this first retrograde, the avionics modernization 
package.
  The second piece is reengining, referred to as RERP. Reengining the 
C-5s would be a next step and a far more expensive step. We would not 
only change up the engines and install the same kind of engines that 
are on Air Force One, we would make major changes in the hydraulics and 
landing gear. Those are the major areas that cause downtime on the C-
5s.
  If you put together the improvements in mission readiness for AMPing 
the aircraft and another 3 to 5 percentage points, and from 10 to 15 
percentage points by reengining the aircraft, you are talking about 
improvement in mission capability rates for the C-5As from roughly 60 
percent to somewhere in the mid-70s, and improving the mission capable 
rate of the Bs from the low 70s to somewhere in the mid-80s.
  There was a big debate a year or two ago on whether or not we ought 
to go forward and install both the first inexpensive fix, the avionics 
modernization package, and the reengining, just appropriate money to do 
both. The agreement that was struck was to do both fixes on a total of 
three aircraft. We are going to install the avionics modernization 
package on one C-5A and two C-5Bs. We are going to install the 
reengining package, new engines, hydraulics and landing gear and other 
changes, on one C-5A--the same A--and two C-5Bs. We are going to fly 
them for a while and see how they work. If they work as advertised, or 
if they continue to have a high failure rate--and I have a hunch they 
are going to work--we are not talking about developing a new engine, we 
are talking about taking the same engine as on Air Force One, a modern 
aircraft engine, and it will give us 10,000 hours between changes of 
engines instead of 1,000, and it will make a huge difference in our 
mission capable rate.
  Somewhere down the line we will have the opportunity to have those 
test aircraft--three of them--in the air, flying for a year or so; we 
will see how they are performing and we will then make the decision as 
to whether we want to invest more money in either of those retrofits.
  I think that is smart. When we are talking about spending that kind 
of money, we ought to upgrade the planes and fly them for a while and 
see if they work as advertised.
  The avionics modernization package has already been installed in at 
least one aircraft, and more are coming. The aircraft that it has been 
installed in was actually installed ahead of schedule and within 
budget. The early test is going well.
  The Air Force has chosen a site on the east coast and one on the west 
coast to continue the work that has begun on the avionics modernization 
package installation for the C-5s.
  We should go forward and put the C-5 avionics modernization package 
in as many C-5s as quickly as we can. Those are not my words. Those are 
the words of the four star general who actually heads up military 
airlift command. Those were his words as recently as last week. He 
said: Provide for us as many AMPed C-5s as you can, as quickly as you 
can.
  The reason is that it is a fairly cheap fix to get aircraft readiness 
up and to give him the aircraft tails, if you will, that he needs in 
order to support our troops in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, and other 
places around the world--probably Liberia next. Who knows.
  Let me close with this thought. Sometimes we are asked to appropriate 
money on this floor and we are asked to appropriate money for defense 
projects and others that have not been authorized by the authorizing 
committee. These 12 additional AMP kits,

[[Page 18472]]

avionics modernization packages, for the C-5s have been authorized in 
both the House authorization bill, the Defense bill, and the Senate 
authorization bill. The authorizing committees are on board.
  Sometimes we are asked to appropriate money when a branch of our 
Armed Forces has not expressed interest in a particular kind of weapons 
system or project or gizmo. In this case, these 12 kits, on top of the 
original 18 in the bill, are in the Air Force's list of unfunded 
priorities.
  Sometimes we are asked to appropriate money when neither the aircrews 
who fly these planes nor the maintenance folks who maintain them nor 
the four-star generals in charge of the whole show really think it 
makes a lot of sense. In this case, the aircrews who fly them, the 
maintenance crews who maintain them, and the four-star general who is 
in charge of the whole show say we need as many C-5s AMPed as quickly 
as we can.
  Sometimes we are asked to appropriate dollars to buy a capability 
that is not needed. In this case, we need airlift. We need it. We need 
it today; we needed it last month; we needed it last year; and we are 
going to need more of it next year. We cannot meet the current demands 
for airlift.
  If we actually put on all of our C-5s between now and 2007 the 
avionics modernization package, it is the equivalent of giving the Air 
Force three, four, or as many as five additional C-5 aircraft with 
which to meet their missions.
  Sometimes we are asked to appropriate dollars for items that are not 
cost-effective. I am going to tell my colleagues, to get the effect of 
three or four or five additional C-5 aircraft for $350 million by 
simply raising mission capability by anywhere from 3 to 5 points per 
aircraft for $3 million apiece is a bargain in this world, and it is 
one we should not pass by.
  If we end up with a mix of C-5As and C-5Bs--let's say in C-5Bs you 
have a cockpit that is 21st century--modern communications equipment, 
modern terrain avoidance, altitude separation equipment--and you end up 
with C-5As that have not been modernized or a 1970 cockpit with the old 
altitude separation equipment, the old terrain avoidance, the old 
communications gear--we put our crews in a difficult or maybe dangerous 
situation.
  Today, C-5 aircrews move from C-5As to C-5Bs and fly them 
interchangeably. It does not matter because one aircraft is very 
similar to the other. The people who maintain the aircraft maintain the 
C-5As as easily as they can maintain a C-5B. Most of the spare parts 
fit interchangeably with the C-5Bs. I would not want to say to a crew 
today: You are going to fly the C-5B with the new avionics 
modernization, you are going to get in a 21st century cockpit and fly 
this aircraft, and then say to the same crew: Tomorrow you are going to 
fly the old aircraft with the old cockpit, with the old equipment.
  I would not want to say to the maintenance crews: We expect you to 
maintain this old aircraft, and a lot of them are located at the same 
bases. Do we expect them to maintain the same aircraft--it is a 
differently configured aircraft in the cockpit--and expect them to have 
the expertise and training to do maintenance on an entirely different 
cockpit?
  Finally, in terms of keeping spare parts, we do not put the spare 
parts at Air Force bases that have C-5As. There are Air Force bases 
around the world and in places where we support troops and have 
airlift.
  I would not be making a big deal about this if the wings on the C-5As 
or C-5Bs were about to deteriorate and fall off. They are not. The 
wings and fuselages of the C-5As and C-5Bs, according to the experts, 
have another 30 or 40 useful years of life on them.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CARPER. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from Delaware is a pilot and 
I am a pilot, and we are quite interested in this subject. We have had 
fairly long discussions about C-5As and C-5Bs. As I have told my friend 
from Delaware, I have conferred at length with the Air Force, and the 
Air Force just does not want to have money earmarked solely for C-5As. 
They will agree, if we want to do so, to specifically state that this 
money we have in the bill can be used for C-5As or C-5Bs for the kits. 
Some of the C-5As may, in fact, be eligible for such new kits, making 
them, as the Senator would say, 21st century capable.
  The Air Force, however, objects to this amendment because this 
amendment--the Senator from Delaware has not offered it yet, but the 
Senator from Delaware is considering it, and I have reviewed it--would 
take money from the overall account. It would, in fact, diminish the 
moneys that are available for C-17s and other procurement of aircraft.
  We are more than willing to allow the Air Force to make the 
determination which C-5As should be modified by these kits, but, again, 
I have to state to my friend, we must oppose the concept of having this 
money taken from the procurement account for the purpose of modernizing 
the C-5s against the wishes of the Air Force.
  There is a study underway, as I understand it, which may identify C-
5As that would be kept. I would even be willing to specify the money 
could be used for any of those planes that were designated in that 
mobility study to be eligible for the kits. But the Senator's amendment 
is still not acceptable.
  I hope he will work with us and work with our staff in the remainder 
of the afternoon and see if we can work out something that is 
agreeable.
  We have deterred from the regular order to which we agreed last 
night, and that was that Senator Byrd would offer the next amendment. 
So I hope my friend from Delaware will allow a distinguished senior 
Member of the Senate to proceed with his amendment, and we will try to 
work out some kind of accommodation with regard to the amendment of the 
Senator from Delaware.
  I know Senator Biden is also very much involved. Perhaps between now 
and the time we return from the address to be given to us by the 
distinguished leader of the British Parliament, we can come to some 
satisfactory agreement with the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, Senator Biden indicated he is interested 
in offering the amendment after Prime Minister Blair addresses our 
joint meeting. So I will not do it at this time. If I can accept the 
kind offer of the chairman to find some common ground, I would very 
much like to discuss that with him and Senator Inouye and their staffs.
  Let me close, if I may. I see Senator Byrd is on his feet. I want to 
close.
  Sometimes we are asked to appropriate money in ways that will not 
have much effect in a positive respect for those who fly our aircraft 
or for those who maintain our aircraft. As sure as we are gathered here 
today, a decision to put an avionics modernization package on our C-5As 
and C-5Bs will make those aircraft safer for the crews who fly them, it 
will make them easier to maintain for the folks in this country and 
around the world who are trying to maintain the aircraft as they meet 
their missions throughout the world, and it is a bargain for the 
taxpayers of this country.
  Finally, it is a cost-effective--a highly cost-effective--way to 
maintain and to strengthen the air groups that connect us in this 
country to our disparate forces around the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 1281

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 216 years ago yesterday, in a sweltering 
room in Philadelphia, 55 men of extraordinary talents reached a most 
critical decision on the design of a new government for the United 
States. Days and weeks of acrimonious debate had failed to resolve 
disputes on the representation of each of the original 13 colonies. Men 
like Washington, Madison, Franklin, and Hamilton struggled over the 
issue of how the people of our Nation would be represented in their 
Government.
  But then, on July 16, 1787, the Framers of what came to be our 
Constitution reached a breakthrough.

[[Page 18473]]

  On that date, yesterday, 216 years ago, they struck a bargain that 
has come to be known as the Great Compromise. States with large 
populations would have the benefit of more numerous representation in 
the House of Representatives and States with small populations would be 
protected by equal representation in the Senate. Without that landmark 
agreement, work on a new constitution to replace the failed Articles of 
Confederation might have foundered.
  Without the Great Compromise, we in this Chamber might never have met 
to debate the issues of the day. But as we debate the bill before us, 
one cannot help but recognize the perilous situation in which the 
United States finds itself with respect to our foreign commitments. We 
take up the fiscal year 2004 Defense appropriations bill at a time when 
nearly 150,000 of our troops are facing guerrilla attacks as they 
patrol Iraq.
  While the administration had once predicted that our liberating 
forces would be greeted with smiles and covered with flowers, the 
Secretary of Defense is now warning that attacks on our troops may 
increase during the rest of July. In light of all of these facts, some 
may argue that we need to pass this bill soon in order to show support 
for our troops who remain under fire, nearly 17 weeks after the war in 
Iraq began and nearly 11 weeks after the President delivered his 
victory speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln where there was a banner over 
his head which proclaimed, ``Mission accomplished.'' There it was, that 
banner streaming above his head proclaiming, ``Mission accomplished.''
  If we rush to pass this bill to show support for our troops in Iraq, 
we will be rushing for naught because not one thin dime, not one copper 
penny, contained in this Defense bill is for the additional cost of war 
in Afghanistan or Iraq.
  There is not one red cent in this bill for the additional costs to 
support 150,000 troops in Iraq or the nearly 10,000 troops who remain 
in Afghanistan. Linking speedy action on this bill to support for our 
troops who are now standing in harm's way is what is known as a bait 
and switch routine. This is a bill that only funds our military as if 
we were in a time of peace, but we all know we are going to be hit with 
a massive bill for wartime costs in a couple of months.
  Let there be no doubt, the amount of money we are spending in Iraq 
and Afghanistan is massive. Since September 11, 2001, Congress has 
appropriated $104.3 billion to the Defense Department for homeland 
security missions in pursuit of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and elsewhere, 
and the war in Iraq.
  The total bill in Iraq so far, according to the Pentagon's 
comptroller, has reached $48 billion. The Secretary of Defense reported 
last week, I believe it was, to the Armed Services Committee that we 
are spending $3,921,000,000 each month for our occupation of Iraq, a 
figure nearly double that of its prewar estimates. Secretary Rumsfeld 
also reported that we are spending nearly $943 million each month for 
military operations in Afghanistan.
  I opposed the war in the beginning. I opposed the war in Iraq. 
Contrary to White House charges of revisionist history--which I 
maintain, as far as the revisionist part is concerned, is on the side 
of the White House--I never believed that Iraq posed a clear and 
imminent threat to the United States, and I stood right on this floor 
and said that. I never believed, and so stated at the time, that Iraq 
posed a clear and imminent threat to the security of our country. But 
when the war in Iraq began, I stated I would do everything in my power 
to provide our troops with the funds needed to ensure their safety, 
even though I disagree with the policy that took them into Iraq.
  GEN Tommy Franks said to the House Armed Services Committee on July 
11 that our troops could be patrolling Iraq for the next 4 years, and 
the new commander in Iraq, GEN John Abizaid, acknowledged that our 
troops are facing guerrilla attacks. In today's papers he so stated.
  We know our troops need money for food, fuel, ammunition and pay. 
There is no reason we must wait to provide for these needs until the 
administration requests its next stopgap spending measure. Congress 
should insist that these costs be included in the President's regular 
budget request.
  I am sure it will come as a surprise to many Americans to know that 
the administration has not presented Congress with any request nor any 
explanatory detail regarding the costs that are racking up right now, 
this very minute, during our occupation of Iraq. The President has not 
requested any funding for the additional costs of the 150,000 troops 
who are expected to remain in Iraq for an extended period of time, nor 
has the President requested any additional funds for the cost of 
rooting out al-Qaida from Afghanistan.
  The American people would be stunned to learn that the Senate is 
taking up a $368 billion appropriations bill for the Department of 
Defense that does not include one thin dime for the additional costs, 
the incremental costs, of the war in Iraq or the mission in 
Afghanistan.
  When we start talking about appropriations, budget resolutions, and 
supplemental spending bills, the eyes of many Americans start to glaze 
over. While John Q. Public may not know the intricacies of Federal 
budgeting, he fully expects that somebody in Washington is watching 
over his taxpayer money and that somebody is making sure of its 
effective use, that somebody is asking questions about the expenditures 
of his monies. But when it comes to financing military missions 
overseas, the White House continues to try to turn the Constitution on 
its head. The White House wants to spend the money first and have 
Congress approve the funding later. When it comes to this war in Iraq 
and the aftermath of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 
administration views Congress like an automatic teller machine: Just 
put the request into the machine, into the ATM, and the money slides 
out in seconds, no questions asked.
  Last October, Congress approved a resolution authorizing military 
action in Iraq. I voted against that. I am proud I voted against it. As 
long as I stay in the Senate, I shall keep the tally sheet right in 
front of me, as I sit at my desk in my office, showing the votes on 
that matter.
  At the time, the White House and the Department of Defense asserted 
that the cost of the mission was not knowable. That is what the 
administration witnesses said before our committee--that the costs were 
not knowable.
  The message from the White House was basically, trust me, trust me. 
It is your money.
  We have heard that. We have heard that old saying right here. But in 
this instance, it is your money, trust me. They said they would send 
the bill, the costs to Congress when they knew more about the details 
of the mission.
  Well, when the President submitted his FY 2004 budget to the Congress 
in February, he continued to keep Congress in the dark. He requested no 
funding for the war in Iraq. Why? The House and the Senate needed to 
pass budget resolutions that the President hoped would include $1.5 
trillion of additional tax cuts. Perhaps the White House feared that a 
$60 billion bill for Iraq, just for FY 2003, might worry some Members 
who are concerned about deficit spending when it came to voting on the 
bill to cut taxes. On March 13, 2003, the Senate Budget Committee 
approved the budget resolution with $1.3 trillion of additional tax 
cuts and assumed no additional costs for the war in Iraq. On March 21, 
2003, the House passed their budget resolution, including $1.3 trillion 
of tax cuts and assumed nothing about the cost of the war in Iraq. On 
March 26, the Senate passed a budget resolution that assumed over $800 
billion in tax cuts. What was curiously missing from the conference 
report was an amendment that had been offered by Senator Feingold and 
approved by the Senate to set aside $100 billion for the war in Iraq.
  When did the White House finally send up their request for a 
supplemental for the costs of the war in Iraq? The White House waited 
until March 25, 2003, to submit a massive $62.6 billion request for the 
Department of Defense--6 months after the Congress

[[Page 18474]]

considered the resolution to authorize military action in Iraq, 2 
months after the President submitted his FY 2004 budget to Congress, 
and 1 week after the war in Iraq began.
  Once the request was made to the Congress, the White House put its 
foot on the gas pedal and insisted that Congress move rapidly to pass 
the request in order to support the troops that were already deployed 
in the field. One hearing was held on March 27. As I recall, the 
hearing was so compressed for time that Members were not even allowed 
to make opening remarks. On April 1, the Senate Appropriations 
Committee approved the President's total funding request for DoD. On 
April 3, the Senate approved the request. Thirteen days later, the Iraq 
supplemental for FY 2003 was public law.
  So the administration strategy worked. The strategy goes like this. 
Force the Congress to make difficult choices with either inadequate 
information or bad information. Deploy the forces. Get the funding hook 
in the nose of Congress by putting the troops in the field. Go to war. 
Spend the money. And insist that Congress move promptly to approve the 
funding again, after it is spent and more is needed to replenish 
accounts.
  Now the Senate has before it the FY 2004 Defense Appropriations bill. 
Once again, the White House is hiding the ball when it comes to facing 
up to the true costs of the mission in Iraq. Apparently, there will be 
no request for the additional costs of this mission until next 
February--after the fact. In other words, it will be a replay of last 
year. Meanwhile, there are 150,000 troops in the field in Iraq and 
10,000 in Afghanistan, but no dollars to support them; no submission to 
Congress for how the money will be used; no oversight to ensure 
accountability; no plan for when the troops might come home; no plan 
for how to manage troop strength so that we do not have to keep our 
reserves deployed overseas for years at a time; no plan for attracting 
troops from other countries; no plan for seeking contributions from 
other countries to help cover the costs of the war and the peace in 
Iraq.
  No, this White House wants to simply dictate the decisions and have 
the congressional ATM machine spit out the money.
  The administration's only proposal so far is to slap down the 
national credit card and stick Congress and the taxpayer with a huge 
bill for supplemental appropriations somewhere down the road.
  This is not an acceptable way to pay for our overseas missions. This 
is a blatant attempt to mislead the American people about 
administration policies that are leading to fiscal disaster. That is 
why I offer an amendment that states the sense of the Senate that the 
President should include in the budgets that he submits to Congress a 
specific request for funds to pay for our incremental costs in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  We should put an end to this financial shell game of allowing the 
administration to hide the cost of occupation by using supplemental 
appropriations bills. My amendment would stop allowing this 
administration to hide the costs of these foreign adventures from the 
public. My amendment calls on the President to be up front with the 
American people about how much money we will really need to support our 
ongoing military operations overseas.
  Congress needs to start holding the administration accountable for 
the funds that it spends for our military. We need to scrutinize the 
President's budget to make sure that we are getting the best value for 
our taxpayer money. If the administration keeps secret how it is 
spending the money appropriated to it for Iraq and Afghanistan, there 
is no check on its activities.
  In the weeks before the war, the chief U.N. weapons inspector 
lambasted Saddam Hussein for playing a game of ``catch as catch can.'' 
The chief U.N. weapons inspector excoriated the Iraqi regime for 
submitting misleading documents that did nothing to reveal what that 
secretive regime was up to.
  Why in the world is the U.S. Congress settling for a game of ``catch 
as catch can'' when it comes to having this administration be honest 
about how we are going to pay for the huge costs of occupying Iraq?
  Why would the Congress, which holds the power of the purse--the 
Constitution has not been amended but 27 times, but not once in this 
matter. Congress still holds the power of the purse. It rests here in 
the people's branch.
  Why would the Congress, which holds the power of the purse, settle 
for misleading budgets from the President that are intended to disguise 
the enormous budget deficit by excluding the costs of occupation of 
Iraq and Afghanistan?
  We have to plan for these huge costs. There ought to be some tough 
questions asked about some of these expenditures. For example, we are 
paying $3.9 billion per month to support 150,000 troops in Iraq, and 
$950 million per month to support nearly 10,000 troops in Afghanistan. 
Many Americans must wonder, why does it cost $26,000 a month to support 
one soldier in Iraq but $95,000 a month to support one soldier in 
Afghanistan?
  By using supplemental appropriations bills to fund the costs of 
extensive military deployments, the administration has found a tactic 
to avoid elementary questions such as that one.
  The folks at the Pentagon and the Office of Management and Budget 
only need to wait until the right moment to send a supplemental funding 
request to Congress, and use the old cattle prod that we must pass the 
bill immediately, no matter what its cost, or our troops will run short 
of supplies.
  It works. It works like a charm. Yes, like a charm. In the end, it is 
a budget tactic that is deceitful, allows for abuse and misuse of the 
public treasure, and cynically uses the very real emotional attachment 
that all Americans have for our troops.
  The American people are coming to grips with the dangers of postwar 
Iraq. They read about them every day. They have read the headlines of 
daily attacks on American soldiers and they understand that the stakes 
are very high. The American people want a plan for postwar Iraq, so 
that they can be assured their loved ones will stay in harm's way only 
as long as absolutely necessary.
  Congress must come to grips with the costs of postwar Iraq, as well 
as those associated with our continuing mission in Afghanistan. Yet a 
look at this defense budget leaves one wondering how these costs are 
being covered. There is no additional money for Iraq or Afghanistan.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question on that point?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. Yes, I do.
  (Mr. Alexander assumed the chair.)
  Mr. SARBANES. Am I correct in understanding this Defense 
Appropriations Committee bill has no money in it for Iraq, either the 
military costs or the reconstruction costs? Is that correct?
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct, with reference to incremental 
costs, additional costs. Of course, we will be paying salaries there 
that we would pay whether the personnel were there or whether they were 
back in West Virginia or in Maryland or wherever. The incremental costs 
for Iraq and Afghanistan, there is not one thin dime in this budget, 
not one.
  Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield for a further question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. SARBANES. How is the Congress expected to play its role with 
respect to appropriations, and overseeing the expenditure of the public 
moneys, if we are not furnished this information?
  Mr. BYRD. The Congress, apparently, is expected to just go along and 
hear all this talk about the ``Commander in Chief,'' and not dare to 
raise a head to ask a question. You are not supposed to ask questions. 
You are supposed to put the money down. And that is the way we did it 
last year. The troops are there and by the time we got around to 
considering the supplemental appropriation bill, they had already spent 
several billion dollars, between $30 and $40 billion or some such--
already spent. So we have to pay the bills. That is already spent. We 
have to do that.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield to me for a question?

[[Page 18475]]


  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield to me for a further question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Of course, last year we were just getting into this 
situation. I understand in the past there have been instances in which, 
prior to actually going into operation, we weren't given figures 
because it is so hard to estimate them. Then they come to you for a 
supplemental. Of course, when they come for a supplemental, what can 
you do but give the supplemental? At that point you have no choice.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. SARBANES. But now we are a year later and it seems to me it ought 
to be possible to make some estimates that would be contained in the 
budget.
  It is my understanding that in the past, although we may not have 
gotten estimates before operations began, once they commenced and 
continued for a period of time, then estimates were contained in the 
budget requests because it was a continuing matter and you were in a 
period where you could make such calculations. Of course, that is not 
being done in this instance.
  Mr. BYRD. No.
  Mr. SARBANES. We are now well into it. It ought to be possible to 
make some estimates and contain those in the budget so we have an 
opportunity to review them. Would the Senator agree with that?
  Mr. BYRD. Oh, absolutely, I agree with that. That is what my 
amendment is about. Here we were, over in the Armed Services Committee. 
I asked the Secretary of Defense how much is our country spending per 
month in Iraq, on the war in Iraq, on the occupation of Iraq, and how 
much in Afghanistan? In both instances the Secretary said he didn't 
know. He would have to wait a while and get back to me.
  Well, that is an old game.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield to me for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. If I may finish, and then I will be glad to.
  That is an old game. You put it off. You don't want to answer on the 
record. You don't want to answer in public. And you don't want to 
answer that question lest there be a followup question. So you just put 
it off. Say, ``Senator, I am sorry, I don't have that figure. I will 
have to take a while. It may take me a while, take us a while to give 
you that figure.''
  I said, Well, no, we want the figure now.
  That is the way we are being handled. That is the way Congress is 
being handled, and I think it is wrong.
  Then the answer came back, after a short recess of 20 or 30 minutes. 
The answer came back from the Secretary of Defense that the war in Iraq 
is costing about $3.9 billion per month, and almost $1 billion, $943 
million, I believe, per month, in Afghanistan.
  Those answers we needed, and with that kind of information. I am sure 
the Defense Department had this estimate long before I asked them the 
question in the committee. They had these estimates. They should have 
incorporated them into a request in the budget bill. That could have 
been done. They could have foreseen--well, we are spending on the 
average of $1 billion a week in Iraq. Let's put it in the budget. Let's 
put $52 billion in the budget. That would be the way they ought to deal 
with Congress. That is the way they ought to deal with the people's 
representatives in Congress. But they are not doing it. They didn't do 
it then.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the distinguished Senator. I think his answers 
have only underscored the importance of his amendment, which I very 
strongly support.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator. I now yield to my friend 
from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, with regard to the question of the 
Senator from Maryland, does the Senator from West Virginia know that 
yesterday I pointed out the report we have from the Congressional 
Research Service is that no President has ever asked for funds for war 
in advance? No Senate has ever appropriated moneys based upon 
contingencies, predictions of how much would be spent for war.
  In the Balkan situation, President Clinton did send money for the 
peacekeeping operations following the conflict in the Balkans. But I am 
really informed--does the Senator realize no President has ever 
conducted war financing the way the amendment of the Senator would 
require the President to do it, if it were a legislative mandate?
  Parenthetically, as part of that question, though, I wonder if the 
Senator understands, we are prepared to accept the Senator's amendment 
because it is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which would indicate a 
request from the Congress that the President consider, in effect, to 
change that policy and submit a budget request in this instance which 
we are perfectly willing to support, to send to the President. But does 
the Senator realize, the statement of the Senator from Maryland 
indicates he thinks we should have before us now to include in the 2004 
budget an amount that someone predicts will be necessary to fight a war 
when we don't know what the contingencies are, we don't know what the 
requirements are?
  I wonder if the Senator heard the distinguished Senator from Hawaii 
yesterday when he explained his position as a platoon leader, and as a 
platoon leader if he had been asked how many grenades he was going to 
use in the next engagement, or how many rifle bullets he would need in 
the next engagement, or whether he could tell how much he would need 
for the next engagement so it could be passed on up to the President of 
the United States as to how much money we would need to conduct the war 
in Italy, it couldn't have been done. It can't be done now.
  Does the Senator understand why we are opposing this? It is contrary 
to the tradition of the United States. And it is contrary to common 
sense to ask for a contingency budget request in the budget itself for 
operations considering what is going on in Iraq today. This could 
expand tomorrow or cease the next day. The contingency concept for a 
war like this cannot be predicted for a Presidential budget to be 
presented to the Congress. And it is presented 9 months before it goes 
into effect.
  We are saying the President, in his submission in January, should 
give us a budget to tell us how much we will spend in a war and that 
the spending would commence at the start of the following October.
  With due respect, does the Senator not agree that the problem we have 
here is to understand the President submitted this 2004 budget before 
the war began? How in the world can we expect the President to include 
in this 2004 budget request a request for expenses that may occur after 
October 1 of this year in terms of Iraq? Every President has financed 
those in the same way. Every single war has been financed the way this 
President is trying to finance this war.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. I am asking that question of my friend from West 
Virginia. He has the floor. I would like to get into this debate some 
kind of a balance with regard to how we are doing it. The Senator has 
the right to send a request to the President saying it ``should'' be 
done in a different way. But to say it ``must'' be done a different 
way, we oppose.
  Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding--and I phrase the question 
carefully in this regard--that while it is accurate to say we have not 
had these figures requested prior to entering into hostilities, that 
once we have gone into hostilities which have continued over a period 
of time, that has not prevailed.
  Second, President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier out in the 
Pacific and said it was all over--``mission accomplished.''
  We are now into--presumably by his own statement--a postwar period in 
which we are trying to do a lot of reconstruction and peacekeeping. It 
seems to me under that premise put forward by the President himself 
that we ought to be receiving budget estimates. They can put an 
asterisk on it that says this is our best estimate. It may prove out to 
be different as circumstances develop. But we are not

[[Page 18476]]

being given any figures on which to pass judgment.
  Then after the fact, we receive a supplemental. Of course, a 
supplemental is going to be approved. There is no meaningful review at 
that point because it has already been done.
  Then we are told this money has already been expended. You have to 
replenish the coffers without having a chance to subject the figures to 
the requirement that they pass muster.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Does the distinguished Senator from Alaska have any further questions 
at the moment?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator is very kind. I have a whole 
lot of questions to ask. But I prefer to get on with the debate.
  Mr. BYRD. Questions of me?
  Mr. STEVENS. The only question to the Senator is that I would 
respectfully ask if he understands that we are willing to take the 
amendment as the Senator has drafted it because it seeks a change in 
policy and it is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. We are seeking that 
change in policy.
  Again, parenthetically, I believe the time may come when we have wars 
or postwar engagements of such magnitude that we should find a new way 
to budget contrary to past procedures.
  But, again, I urge the Senator from Maryland to understand that 
history goes against the policy he has suggested.
  I hope the Senator from West Virginia understands my feeling in terms 
of the way we are handling things now. Does the Senator realize there 
is $32 billion left from what we provided in the supplemental for the 
war in Iraq? It is no-year money. It is not money that would cease to 
be available after September 30. We gave the President $62.6 billion, 
and it was no-year money. It did not have to be spent by the end of 
September.
  We have, in fact, appropriated money which, if this afterwar 
resistance--whatever it is--diminishes, should be enough money. We 
should not have to have another request.
  That is the position this Senator takes. Does the Senator understand 
my position on that?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, since before this war began, I have asked 
repeatedly of this administration what their estimate of the cost of 
this war is. Do you have any estimate? We get a blank stare.
  I cannot believe that an administration is going to lead a country 
into war without having some inside estimates by the very capable 
people who surround the President about what this war would cost. Of 
course, nobody--least of all me--would ever expect the administration 
to be able to say it is going to cost $2.785 trillion. But I, others, 
and the American people were seeking some kind of a realistic range--
and now more so than then.
  Now we know that it has been testified to in the Armed Services 
Committee that the war in Afghanistan is costing $3.9 billion a month. 
We know that. That wasn't known just at the beginning of that day. I am 
sure the Defense Department had already run the estimate and had come 
out with the figures. Why couldn't the administration use those figures 
and say to the Congress, well, we estimate that it is costing in Iraq 
$3 billion, $3.5 billion, between $3.5 billion and $4.1 billion, or 
something like that?
  We just get stonewalled when we ask questions of that kind. I think 
Congress is entitled to better than that.
  Mr. STEVENS. This will be my last interruption. Will the Senator 
yield to me for one other question?
  Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator recall that in the 2003 budget request 
President Bush asked for $10 billion for contingency operations for 
defense emergency response funds for Afghanistan, the war on terrorism, 
and the activities that were going on at that time, and that he and I 
joined together in denying that request? We denied the request because 
we did not believe we should appropriate moneys based upon a 
contingency request.
  Mr. BYRD. We approved it in the omnibus bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. No. We turned it down in the omnibus, also.
  Mr. BYRD. We approved it in the omnibus bill. That is the information 
I have.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator was talking about the money we put in in 
January. That was money that already had been spent in Afghanistan and 
the war on terrorism. And we included those funds at that time in the 
omnibus bill. But we turned down the $10 billion for the contingency 
operation. I didn't like the defense emergency response fund. The 
Senator from West Virginia didn't like the defense emergency respond 
fund that just sits out there--a big pot of money which they can take 
money out of without telling us what they are going to spend it for.
  We face two different problems: One is that we have a request in the 
budget for a big pot of money that they are going to spend any way they 
want when we have always requested that we get money based on how much 
expenses had actually been incurred in fighting an engagement.
  Does the Senator disagree with that?
  Mr. BYRD. What we are advocating is that funds would be provided in 
the Appropriations Act to specific accounts set forth in such act.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is why we support the Senator's request. That is 
why the Senator's request for the sense-of-the-Senate resolution is 
imminently sensible. And I would like to follow that procedure. That is 
not the procedure we followed in the past. This President is following 
precedence in connection with the way he has, in fact, presented the 
budget for 2004 and the supplemental request for the war in Iraq.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. I yield for a question.
  Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Senator.
  The Senator from Alaska has been in conversation with the 
administration, evidently, regarding funds already available. I was 
here 2 days ago when the same statement was made about the need for 
funds and when that would occur next year. Then I read yesterday 
morning in the paper that same day--the day before, on Tuesday--the 
comptroller for the Department of Defense said in a supplemental 
appropriation that was made earlier this fiscal year there is $4 
billion remaining for the purpose of war activities which, as the 
Senator pointed out, at the rate of $3.9 billion a month in Iraq, plus 
in Afghanistan $.9 billion a month--that would be $4.8 billion a 
month--there would not even be enough remaining amongst the funds to be 
expended to cover that.
  So I ask the Senator from West Virginia, doesn't that underscore what 
the Senator said about the difficulty in getting the same numbers from 
the same principals?
  Mr. BYRD. It does.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield just for a clarification?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. My staff informs me that the Senator has the numbers 
turned around. There were $15 billion, of which $4 billion have been 
used. We are certifying there are $11 billion left now.
  Mr. DAYTON. I read the figures differently. If I am incorrect, I will 
stand corrected. If the Senator's staff is correct, then that would be 
enough money for about 2\1/2\ months of the next fiscal year--I 
shouldn't say the next fiscal year because my understanding is they are 
drawing down that money now.
  Mr. STEVENS. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia still has 
the floor. If he will let me respond, parenthetically, again, the 
Senator is correct, if the expenses continued at the rate of the 
expenditures for the months of June and July--the two 4 weeks just 
previously--the Senator is correct, the account was $3.9 billion a 
month for those operations. We do not consider that even today the 
activities are continuing at the same rate they were in the average per 
day for the last 4 weeks.
  Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. In addition to that, there is $45 billion in specific 
service accounts that are in fact going to be

[[Page 18477]]

used in Iraq. So we are not dealing with something where there is no 
money provided. There is $45 billion in specific unit accounts where 
that money will be spent in Iraq. And it is an augmentation because of 
the Iraqi conditions.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my amendment reads as follows:

       It is the sense of the Senate that--any request for funds 
     for a fiscal year for an ongoing overseas military 
     operation--

  The word is ``ongoing''--

     for an ongoing overseas military operation, including 
     operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, should be included in the 
     annual budget of the President for such fiscal year as 
     submitted to Congress under section 1105(a) of title 31 
     United States Code. . . .

  These are ongoing--ongoing operations.
  What is to keep this administration from sending up an amended budget 
request right today? The administration has already said we are 
spending $3.9 billion a month in Iraq and almost $1 billion a month in 
Afghanistan. Why doesn't the administration send up an amended budget 
request right now and let us include that money in this appropriations 
bill?
  Now, the administration knows that is what it is spending. Why 
couldn't we at least include it in this bill that is before the Senate, 
rather than wait until next February when the administration will send 
up a request for that amount plus a great deal more? And why not 
anticipate the remaining months the administration expects to be in 
Iraq and Afghanistan and anticipate for the same amount on into the 
future?
  It is this thing that I feel very strongly about: the Congress of the 
United States being held at bay when it comes to getting information 
from this administration. When it comes to appropriations, the Congress 
has control of the purse strings. And when we asked the administration 
witnesses, at least one of them said these figures are not knowable, 
this information is not knowable. Well, they have these estimates. They 
had them then, and they could have been included. So the Congress can 
exercise its constitutional oversight over these moneys that are being 
appropriated and spent.
  I am glad the distinguished Senator from Alaska has indicated he 
intends to accept this amendment. But while we are on this subject, I 
have a chart here.
  Now, the distinguished Senator from Alaska--and he is a distinguished 
Senator, a very distinguished Senator, my friend--time and time again 
he has said something about the moneys during the Clinton 
administration.
  The supplementals for Kosovo and Bosnia were in the range of $2 
billion to $3 billion for each mission. The Iraq supplemental that was 
passed this April was $62.6 billion. If we are to believe the cost 
estimates of Secretary Rumsfeld, that he testified to at a recent Armed 
Services hearing, the current cost of supporting 150,000 troops in Iraq 
and 10,000 troops in Afghanistan is $4.8 billion per month, or $58 
billion if our troops are to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan for all of 
fiscal year 2004. The fiscal situation is completely different today 
than it was in 1998 and 2000 when supplementals were approved for 
Bosnia and Kosovo.
  As one can see on this chart, in those years, we were running large 
surpluses: $69 billion in fiscal year 1998 and $236 billion in fiscal 
year 2000. The issue of how to finance a $2 billion supplemental was 
not and did not need to be a critical element of the debate.
  Just this week, the White House released their Mid-Session Review. 
And the White House projections are on this chart.
  The White House projects deficits of $455 billion for fiscal year 
2003 and $475 billion for fiscal year 2004. The estimate of $475 
billion for fiscal year 2004, the year of the Defense appropriations 
bill that is now pending before the Senate, does not include any cost, 
not one dime, for the incremental cost of the war in Iraq or the 
mission in Afghanistan. Therefore, if the President had requested a 
budget amendment or a supplemental for these missions, the deficit for 
fiscal year 2004 would likely be over $500 billion. And if you exclude 
the Social Security surplus, the deficit for fiscal year 2004 could 
exceed $650 billion.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. BYRD. Let me just finish briefly.
  The cost of the war in Iraq and the mission in Afghanistan is over $1 
billion per week. General Franks has said that it is likely we will 
need to retain significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come. 
We know that now. We should not hide the ball from the American people 
until next year.
  If we want to talk about then, we were running huge surpluses back in 
those days. Yet the cost was small, talking about $2 billion, $3 
billion, when surpluses were running $69 billion, $125 billion, $236 
billion, $127 billion. Now we are talking in a deficit situation. We 
are running huge deficits, astronomical deficits, never to be heard of 
before deficits. The costs we are talking about hiding here and waiting 
until the supplemental comes before Congress are many, many times 
higher than they were during the Clinton administration. So it is a 
little like trying to equate apples and oranges.
  Yes, I yield.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West 
Virginia for the point he has made. I would like to underscore it. By 
the administration's own figures, they are projecting the budget 
deficit--that is, the amount of money that we have to go out and borrow 
to pay our existing debts--in this fiscal year as $455 billion as 
illustrated by the chart the Senator has just shown. They are 
projecting next year $475 billion of deficit spending. Yet they will 
not come forth with a supplemental request when finally the Senator 
from West Virginia got the Secretary of Defense to admit in the Senate 
Armed Services Committee that the monthly cost for carrying on the war 
is $3.9 billion a month, just in Iraq, plus about $750 million a month 
in the war being prosecuted in Afghanistan.
  Mr. BYRD. Nine hundred and forty-three million.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. And thus, as the Senator has pointed out, it 
brings it to well over some $60 billion additional.
  Isn't it curious that if they are projecting $475 billion by their 
own figures in deficit financing for next year, that they do not add 
the additional $60 billion of anticipated war expenses, and that 
doesn't even count for the additional interest that will have to be 
paid on that newly incurred debt. Therefore, the deficit gets larger 
and larger and larger. To the average person what that means is, it is 
going to stall the recovery. It is going to cause the cost of money to 
go up in the interest rates.
  But if we, as dictated by the Constitution, are to fulfill our 
appropriations duty, is it not logical that this Senate and the House 
of Representatives should have the information as to what the projected 
costs are of carrying on the function of the Government of the United 
States, including the defense of the United States? That is the 
question.
  Mr. BYRD. They should have. The President, I say, should send up a 
supplemental budget request today for $58 billion.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Would not the Senator wonder, then, since they 
refused to do that, and here we are in the middle of a war and a 
soldier is getting killed every day, would the Senator not wonder why 
they don't? I think that it might be that it just shows that annual 
deficit spending exploding higher and higher, which is ultimately going 
to have an effect on the financial markets of this country and make it 
all the more difficult for the economic recovery to occur.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. Well, I thank the distinguished Senator from Florida 
for his thoughtful observations. I would hope that the administration 
would send up a supplemental request. Otherwise, I think we ought to 
try to add to it this bill. Why not? Why not? That is the anticipated 
cost. In any event, let me finish my statement. I am almost at the end.
  The administration has reported to Congress that we are spending $4.8 
billion each month in Iraq and Afghanistan. These costs can be 
anticipated,

[[Page 18478]]

can be budgeted, and can be controlled. They are costs driven by policy 
emanating from the White House. There is absolutely no reason why they 
should not be included in the Defense appropriations bill that is now 
before the Senate.
  If we truly want to support our troops, we should have truth in 
budgeting. My amendment calls on the President to be up front about the 
costs of our deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would stop the 
practice of gimmicks and secrecy which hide the true cost of these 
foreign entanglements from the American people, the American taxpayer.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           amendment no. 1281

(Purpose: To state the sense of Congress on funding of ongoing overseas 
    military operations, including overseas contingency operations)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send the amendment 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 1281:
       Insert after section 8123 the following:
       Sec. 8124. It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) any request for funds for a fiscal year for an ongoing 
     overseas military operation, including operations in 
     Afghanistan and Iraq, should be included in the annual budget 
     of the President for such fiscal year as submitted to 
     Congress under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States 
     Code; and
       (2) any funds provided for such fiscal year for such a 
     military operation should be provided in appropriations Acts 
     for such fiscal year through appropriations to specific 
     accounts set forth in such Acts.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the reliance of the Department of Defense 
on supplemental appropriations for contingency and peacekeeping 
operations began with the end of the last Persian Gulf War, and the 
introduction of United States military forces into the Balkans.
  Excluding the costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the incremental costs 
of U.S. peacekeeping and contingency operations from fiscal year 1991 
to 2003 total $36.8 billion.
  Congress has debated and passed a supplemental appropriations bill 
for the Department of Defense every year from fiscal 1991 to the 
current fiscal year. The Congress has debated funding these operations 
from offsets within other discretionary programs, or from within the 
defense topline.
  Beginning with the supplemental request of the Clinton Administration 
for fiscal year 1998 Congress has provided defense spending as an 
emergency or provided funding without offsets.
  The Appropriations Committee attempted to mitigate the need for 
emergency supplementals by creating the Overseas Contingency Operations 
Transfer Fund in the defense bill, and the Clinton Administration still 
found it necessary to request emergency supplementals.
  In March of fiscal year 1998, the Clinton Administration sought $1.9 
billion for ongoing operations in Bosnia and Southwest Asia. In fact, 
the Senate considered an amendment to strip the emergency designation 
from those funds. That amendment was defeated 92 to 8.
  Since the 105th Congress, supplemental defense appropriations have 
been provided as emergencies or without offsets. The Congress passed 
two supplemental defense bills in fiscal year 1999 totaling $19.1 
billion.
  The Senate will recall that the President requested a $10 billion 
contingency fund for the global war on terrorism as part of the fiscal 
year 2003 budget request.
  The Congress rejected that request until the Administration could 
better define the costs of contingencies. Those funds were appropriated 
as part of the Omnibus Bill passed earlier this year.
  The Clinton Administration was aware that operations in Southwest 
Asia and the Balkans were ongoing, yet chose not to fund fully those 
operations in the budget request. As I stated earlier, the Congress 
passed emergency supplementals for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 
and 2002.
  The Congress has passed nine consecutive supplemental emergency 
defense appropriations without offsets.
  Funding from the fiscal year 2003 supplemental was used to offset the 
difference between the President's budget request for fiscal year 2004 
and the discretionary total in the budget resolution.
  As operations progress in Iraq the Administration will better define 
contingency costs. That is the position taken by the Congress last 
year--and the approach to funding used by the Clinton Administration to 
fund peacekeeping in the Balkans.
  The Appropriations Committee will examine the costs of operations in 
Iraq as they are identified. The Senate will have the opportunity to 
consider those costs in any necessary supplemental. That has been the 
approach to funding contingencies taken by this body for 6 years.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the amendment 
offered by my distinguished colleague, Senator Byrd. I was not able to 
speak in support of this amendment when it was being debated because I 
was in a meeting with the distinguished Prime Minister of the United 
Kingdom, Tony Blair. This was an important amendment, and I am pleased 
that it was adopted earlier today.
  This amendment calls upon the Bush administration to tell the 
Congress and the American people ``up front'' in its annual budget 
submissions, what it plans to spend on foreign military operations, 
particularly those in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also asks the 
administration to identify the specific Department of Defense accounts 
that will be tapped to pay for those activities.
  Greater fiscal accountability is clearly needed, especially in light 
of an explosion in the size of the Federal deficit that has occurred 
since the Bush administration took office. Increased defense spending 
has undoubtedly played a role in that growing deficit.
  This year's fiscal deficit will reach $455 billion--the largest 
Federal deficit in the history of this Nation. Just five short months 
ago, the Bush administration estimated that the fiscal year 2003 
deficit would be $305 billion--no small amount. But more than $150 
billion short of what it now estimates will be the fiscal gap. 
Obviously, this is more than simply a question of a rounding-off error 
on the part of the administration's budget experts.
  I for one am skeptical that the administration really believed that 
its original estimates were on target.
  What is not debatable is that our Nation's fiscal house is in 
disarray. We urgently need to get a handle on Federal spending. A first 
step in getting that handle is for the administration to come clean 
with the Congress and with the American people about what our 
commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan will mean in monetary terms.
  Up until now, the administration has consistently ``low balled'' the 
cost of our military operations in these countries. They have skirted 
cost questions by being intentionally vague about their plans.
  We now know that the military phase of the Iraq operation--the period 
from January thru April--cost approximately $4.1 billion per month.
  Beginning in May, we were told that the cost of the pacification 
phase of the operations would be much lower--closer to $2 billion per 
month. That turned out to be untrue.
  This past Sunday, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld admitted what has become 
evident--that these costs were running closer to $4 billion per month. 
The costs of operations in Afghanistan add an additional $1 billion per 
month to Department of Defense military expenditures. At current rates 
of spending we will have spent more than $70 billion dollars for 
military operations in Iraq by the end of the year.
  On the non-military side in Iraq, $7 billion--$2.4 billion in U.S. 
appropriated funds--will have been spent by

[[Page 18479]]

 the end of the year on humanitarian and reconstruction efforts. And 
that is just the beginning. The total bill for nation building in Iraq 
could go as high as $100 billion when all is said and done.
  The Byrd amendment attempts to address a larger concern that simply 
the dollars and cents of our commitment in Iraq; it really goes to the 
overall conduct of our policy there.
  Let me say very clearly that I am in no way critical of what our 
brave men and women serving in our armed forces have been doing in 
Iraq, or elsewhere. We are all very proud of our U.S. Service members--
those who have served or are now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. We 
pray for the speedy recovery of those injured in the service of their 
country, and our hearts go out to the families who have lost loved 
ones.
  Nor do I mourn the removal of Saddam Hussein--the world is far better 
place now that he is no longer the dictator of his people.
  The bottom line is the U.S. military has done and is doing a 
tremendous job--under very difficult conditions.
  Having said that, it is increasingly apparent that the Bush 
administration was ill prepared for what is now confronting on the 
ground in Iraq--both in terms of the extent of hostilities and the 
costs of the operations.
  Last year when the Congress debated the resolution authorizing the 
President to use force in Iraq, many of us were concerned that the 
administration had not done sufficient thinking or planning for what we 
could expect in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.
  Such concerns were dismissed by administration officials.
  I do not like to say the following, but I must.
  There has been a level of arrogance on the part of some in the 
administration when it comes to foreign policy generally and most 
especially Iraq. That arrogance has caused senior policymakers in the 
administration to be closed to advice from career government military 
and foreign policy experts and dismissive of congressional concerns 
about the challenges that we might confront in post-Saddam Iraq.
  I supported the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force 
last year. And, I would do so again today. But I firmly believe that 
the concerns I expressed during consideration of that resolution--about 
the importance of getting broad international support for whatever we 
wanted to do in Iraq--take on even more significance today.
  We will never know whether more patience would have gained us the 
U.N. Security Council endorsement for our efforts to rid Iraq of Saddam 
Hussein. I for one believed that it would have been worthwhile to give 
that U.N. process a little more time to get that endorsement.
  I did not believe at the time that Saddam Hussein was an imminent 
threat to the United States, although I never doubted that he 
possessed, or at the very least sought to possess some quantity of 
weapons of mass destruction. Clearly, nothing found in Iraq thus far 
has caused me to change my assessment about the level of threat Iraq 
posed to the United States.
  There is no doubt that had we gotten a U.N. endorsement for our 
campaign, we would be in a far stronger position today to convince 
other governments to participate in ongoing peacekeeping efforts and to 
share the costs of Iraq relief and reconstruction.
  It is also very clear that the administration got it wrong with 
respect to the mix of combat forces and military police that would be 
required for the post war phase of the operations. If there had been 
more of a police presence at the outset, it might have served as a 
deterrent against the vigilantism that is now occurring.
  The Bush administration has consistently asserted that we are not 
along in Iraq--that there is a ``coalition'' of governments helping us 
restore security and build a democratic Iraq.
  That really isn't the case.
  There are currently 148,000 American troops in Iraq. The non-American 
component of the military coalition is only 13,000 strong. The 
administration states that there will be an additional 17,000 foreign 
military deployed to Iraq later this summer. Should that come to pass, 
U.S. troops will still represent roughly 75 percent of the forces on 
the ground in Iraq.
  Moreover, if current levels of violence continue, more troops are 
going to be needed to stem the American casualties that are now being 
sustained--some experts estimate that double the current number of 
troops there may be needed.
  Where are those additional troops going to come from? I strongly urge 
the administration to turn to the U.N. and to NATO for that assistance. 
It is in our national security and foreign policy interests for the 
U.N. and NATO to become partners in rebuilding Iraq.
  However, if we are unable to persuade our friends and allies to help 
in this effort, the deployment of additional U.S. troops may be needed 
to protect those already deployed. This could include American 
Reservists and members of the National Guard. And, while I agreed in 
principle with what my colleague, Senator Byrd, was seeking to do on 
Tuesday with an earlier amendment, namely to prevent unlimited 
deployments of reservists and members of the Guard to Iraq and 
Afghanistan, I was also concerned about the safety of our troops.
  Unfortunately, the fluidity of the situation in Iraq may require the 
deployment of these forces for an unspecified time. That is why I 
reluctantly opposed that amendment.
  Why is there such uncertainty surrounding Iraq? Because I believe 
that U.S. policy is adrift. The administration has not been able to get 
its arms around what is going on there.
  One day the administration says it wants to put Iraqis in charge of 
their own country as quickly as possible. Another day it announces that 
the Coalition Provisional Authority, headed by retired U.S. Ambassador 
Paul Bremer, is the Government of Iraq. One day the administration 
tells us that Iraq's oil revenues will be sufficient to rebuild Iraq's 
economy. Another day it calls for the convening of an international 
donors conference to raise billions of additional dollars it says are 
needed to restore Iraq's economy.
  As this policy drifts, increasingly the Iraqi people blame America 
for the ongoing chaos in their country. And who is the face of America 
on the streets of Iraq? Americans in uniform. They have become the 
targets.
  Growing hostility has already cost 82 American lives since May. Every 
day we pick up the newspaper and read about another two or three 
American service members being attacked or killed by unknown 
assailants. Yet the administration continues to tell us that all is 
going as planned.
  And the need for administration officials to be up front with the 
American people about Iraq goes beyond simply telling them how much it 
is going to cost or how many troops will be necessary.
  It also goes to the matter of the administration's credibility--its 
credibility about what it has told the American people concerning 
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. There are mounting questions as to 
whether some in the administration manipulated or distorted 
intelligence in order to justify what they wanted to do for other 
reasons.
  President Bush has hurt U.S. credibility by overstating the case 
about the dangers of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction--particularly 
with respect to its nuclear weapons capacity.
  Attempts to construct a ``coalition of the willing'' within our own 
intelligence community, in order to tilt intelligence was also 
dangerous, divisive, and unnecessary. We all accepted that Saddam had a 
clear track record with respect to WMD--they didn't have to ``gild the 
lily'' with information which we now know was false. And more 
seriously, which some administration officials knew at the time to be 
false. Even more serious is the willingness of these officials to 
pressure career intelligence analysts to sign up to conclusions about 
Iraq's WMD program that they didn't believe to be accurate. This calls 
into question the integrity of our entire intelligence community.
  This issue does not seem to be going away. The administration has yet 
to give an acceptable explanation for what really happened or to 
identify who was responsible. We need to get to

[[Page 18480]]

the bottom of this and put in place safeguards to prevent future 
manipulation of intelligence. It is extremely unlikely at this juncture 
that closed congressional hearings dominated by one party are going to 
allay the American people's concerns.
  I recognize that the Byrd amendment does not attempt to address the 
intelligence issue I have just mentioned. I raise it in the context of 
the debate on this amendment because it is part of an administration 
pattern with respect to all matters related to Iraq--a pattern of 
secrecy, stonewalling, and obfuscation.
  With the adoption of this amendment, the Congress has sent a modest 
signal to the administration that, at least on the spending side of our 
engagement with Iraq, we expect more transparency from our government.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 1281 
offered by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia to H.R. 2658.
  I am disappointed that the amendment offered by the Senator from 
North Dakota was tabled yesterday. I have been a consistent advocate of 
transparency in our budgeting practices, and this amendment would have 
gone a long way to promoting such good practices. I am happy that we 
have a second chance to address this issue with the amendment offered 
by the Senator from West Virginia.
  The Office of Management and Budget recently announced that they 
expect this year's budget deficit to reach $455 billion and predict a 
$475 billion deficit for fiscal year 2004. The estimates for fiscal 
year 2004 do not even include the cost of operations in Iraq. Such a 
dire fiscal picture makes it even more important that we get a better 
sense of the costs of future operations and make our decisions 
accordingly.
  When we are conducting military operations or know that such 
operations are imminent, the budget must reflect it. We should not 
blithely go along as if it were a time for business as usual. We should 
budget responsibly for what is happening.
  I would like to remind my colleagues about how much trouble we have 
had trying to get realistic figures from the administration about the 
cost of the Iraqi operations. We should not be operating in the dark. 
We must be presented with all of the facts so that our judgments on 
these tough issues are sound. Honest budgeting demands it.
  As my distinguished colleagues have noted, we are no longer in the 
situation where the costs of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are 
unknown. The Secretary of Defense recently told us that we can expect 
to be spending almost $4 billion a month in Iraq and almost $1 billion 
a month in Afghanistan. The Pentagon comptroller has publicly stated 
that the administration has a good idea of what our overseas military 
operations will cost over the next year. Why are we pretending 
otherwise?
  It is interesting to note that before the operations in Iraq, the 
Congressional Budget Office estimated that occupation costs would be 
between $1 billion and $4 billion a month, showing that we can get 
reasonable estimates. We can use those estimates to better the 
budgeting process.
  We should continue to try to improve the process to ensure that we in 
the Senate and the American people can clearly see the facts and set 
priorities accordingly.
  This amendment is not limited to this year or to the operations in 
Iraq or Afghanistan. Some may say that budgeting for potential future 
operations is not possible. I agree that predicting an exact cost is 
difficult, but that does not mean we cannot prepare a rough estimate. 
In fact, doing so will help us better analyze our options and make 
better decisions about any future engagements. The Senate wisely chose 
this path with the recent budget resolution when it adopted the 
amendment offered by myself and the senior Senator from New Jersey 
setting aside $100 billion of the tax cut for operations in Iraq.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. When we ask 
the American people to support future operations they should know what 
we expect the operations to cost. We owe the American people this 
honesty. I commend the distinguished ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee for offering this amendment and for repeatedly 
raising important questions about the administration's policy on Iraq. 
He has performed a valuable service, and I thank him for it.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to try out a unanimous 
consent request. There is pending my motion to table the Durbin 
amendment and there is pending the Byrd amendment. The Senator from 
West Virginia wishes to have a rollcall vote. Senator McConnell would 
like to have 5 minutes to speak before these votes commence.
  I ask unanimous consent that we vote on the Durbin amendment 
following Senator McConnell's statement of not to exceed 5 minutes, and 
that is on or in relation to the amendment. I have made a motion to 
table that. After that, I ask that we have a vote on Senator Byrd's 
amendment, which I shall support. That will have everyone here in time 
to go and listen to the Honorable Tony Blair, if we can get started in 
a few minutes.
  I support Senator Byrd's amendment because it is a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution saying that any request for funds for the fiscal year 
for the ongoing operations in Afghan and Iraq should be included in the 
annual budget and that any such funds provided should be provided in 
the Appropriations Act for such fiscal year to appropriate specific 
accounts for such acts.
  I support that concept. I do say what it really says to me is that 
the President's budget would contain an estimate of the costs for an 
ongoing operation and we would allocate the funding to the specific 
accounts subject to our approval of the estimates based upon specific 
hearings before our committee and listening to the representatives of 
the various services of the military. I think that makes eminent sense. 
It is a change of policy, in my judgment, and therefore it is a sense-
of-the-Senate resolution seeking the President's concurrence in that 
policy.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kentucky be recognized 
for 5 minutes and, following that, we vote on the amendment of Senator 
Durbin; and I ask that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays on 
my motion to table the Durbin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, and I do not object, I 
wonder if the Senator would mind having the vote on my amendment as the 
first vote. It would occur 5 minutes after the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am willing to reverse that order. I modify the request 
and ask that the Senator from Kentucky speak for 5 minutes, and 
following that the vote on Senator Byrd's amendment, and following that 
there be a vote that would occur, with a limitation of 10 minutes, on 
my motion to table the Durbin amendment. Following the Durbin 
amendment, we will be walking down the hall to go over to a joint 
session of Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object. There would be no second-
degree amendments in order, right?
  Mr. STEVENS. Right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Without objection, the yeas and nays are ordered on the motion to 
table the Durbin amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Have the yeas and nays on Senator Byrd's amendment been 
ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Byrd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we have witnessed a parade of Democrats 
coming to the floor to lob accusations against the President about the 
war in Iraq. Ostensibly, they are concerned about a potentially 
mistaken piece of intelligence regarding Iraq's efforts to

[[Page 18481]]

procure uranium from abroad. In their zeal to score political points, 
they have sacrificed the national interest on the altar of partisan 
politics and are making accusations that are grossly offensive against 
the President and those of us who believe--and continue to believe--
that our liberation of Iraq was the right thing to do.
  Senator Conrad, only hours ago, said:

       This administration told the world Iraq had weapons of mass 
     destruction, that they are trying to develop nuclear 
     capability, there is a connection to al-Qaida, and each and 
     every one of those claims is now in question, every one of 
     them. It is not just 16 words in the State of the Union. It 
     is far more serious than that.

  Mr. President, that charge is stunning. It is an accusation that all 
of us who voted for the war, who viewed classified intelligence about 
Iraq and who believe this war was just, should repudiate. Perhaps the 
Senator should tell the family of the Kurdish woman and her child that 
Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction and that we were 
wrong to have liberated his oppressed people. They will not be so 
sanguine as these Senators, because she and hundreds of fellow 
villagers were murdered in a gas attack ordered by Saddam Hussein. This 
attack occurred in 1987. She won't be able to defend this because she 
is deceased as a result of an attack using weapons of mass destruction.
  There were two victims of the town of Halabja, where some 5,000 died 
from a chemical attack in 1987. And 3,000 died that year from a similar 
chemical attack in Sumar. Another 5,000 died from mustard gas in Al 
Basrah also in that year. In fact, there are documented 10 different 
occasions upon which Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his 
own people.
  So it is not in doubt that Iraq was using weapons of mass 
destruction. No one has doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass 
destruction. I don't doubt we will find further evidence of weapons of 
mass destruction in Iraq. The French didn't doubt it; the Germans 
didn't doubt it; the Russians don't doubt it; the U.N. weapons 
inspectors never claimed Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. 
There may have been a dispute over the best way to uncover and dispose 
of these weapons, but no responsible expert--I repeat, no responsible 
expert--said Iraq doesn't have a weapons-of-mass-destruction program. 
No one said that, Mr. President.
  No responsible country confirmed that Iraq didn't have a weapons-of-
mass-destruction program, because it was glaringly apparent that Saddam 
was vigorously committed to obtaining and maintaining an arsenal of 
chemical, biological and, yes, nuclear weapons.
  That is why the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 
1441, which declared Iraq in material breach of its obligations under 
numerous previous resolutions, which declared that Iraq failed to 
account for weapons of mass destruction that it previously admitted 
having stockpiled. That is why Saddam Hussein never let inspectors have 
unfettered and free access to the suspect sites. Why would he have done 
all of that had he not had weapons of mass destruction? That is why he 
led inspectors on a wild goose chase through the Iraqi desert for 12 
long years. That is why he buried research facilities, why he 
intimidated scientists, why he removed the tongues of those who 
questioned his regime. That is why he built the mobile biological 
weapons labs we uncovered in the Iraqi desert. He did all of those 
things because he had weapons of mass destruction.
  It is amazing that the very individuals who were willing to give U.N. 
inspectors up to 12 years to conduct these ``Keystone Cops'' 
inspections are now unwilling to give the United States military 10 
weeks--not 12 years, but 10 weeks--to search for weapons of mass 
destruction while simultaneously hunting Baath party loyalists and 
restoring order to a nation wrecked by decades of misrule.
  There are thousands of suspect sites capable of producing weapons of 
mass destruction and weapons-of-mass-destruction components. There are 
millions of places in which weapons of mass destruction could be 
hidden.
  I am confident, the President is confident, the Secretary of State is 
confident, and the Secretary of Defense is confident that evidence of 
Hussein's WMD programs will be found. But keep in mind that Iraq is a 
country the size of California, and that for more than a decade Hussein 
and his cronies perfected the art of concealment. Still we have already 
found mobile biological weapons--already found--mobile biological 
weapons, various centrifuges to process uranium, and shells 
specifically designated to hold chemical weapons. The programs are 
there and we will find them.
  I thank the chairman.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate resumes consideration of the Defense appropriations bill 
following the statement of the right honorable Mr. Blair, the Senator 
from West Virginia be recognized to offer another amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I make an inquiry of the distinguished 
Senator from Alaska? The Senator is prepared to accept my amendment, 
and the Senate will vote on it. Does he think that amendment will have 
any impact on the procedures? Does he think that will result in any 
change in the procedures which we have been experiencing heretofore? It 
is a sense-of-the-senate resolution but, in his opinion, may we expect 
to see it carried out?
  Mr. STEVENS. Respectfully, that is sort of asking me the same thing 
as the contingency question. I am prepared to argue with the Office of 
Management and Budget and the White House that the procedures should be 
changed. After the initiation of war Congress should have estimates, as 
indicated by the Senator's amendment. Therefore, I support it. Whether 
we will be successful, God knows.
  This is a 15-minute rollcall vote and will be followed by a 10-minute 
rollcall vote on the Durbin amendment. I urge Members to vote promptly 
so we may leave the body at 3:40 p.m. to listen to Mr. Blair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will take 1 minute.
  I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for his 
courtesies and for the cooperation he has given. He has sought to get 
action by the Senate on various and sundry amendments. He has tried to 
move the bill forward, and he has lived up to what I think is the 
reputation of not only fairness but also of integrity. I am thankful to 
him for accepting this amendment.
  I was interested in his response to my question a moment ago. I 
believe he means what he says, and I hope he will join me in urging the 
Office of Management and Budget and the White House to live up to the 
intent, the spirit of this amendment whether it is the current 
administration or a following administration, which may be Democratic 
or Republican.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1281 offered by the Senator from West Virginia. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 15, as follows:

[[Page 18482]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 286 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

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

                                NAYS--15

     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Enzi
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Sununu
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Miller
  The amendment (No. 1281) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the next 
vote, which we are going to go ahead and do now, and we want to 
encourage everybody to come and vote as soon as possible, that after 
the next vote is completed, the Senate will stand in recess subject to 
the call of the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 1277

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Durbin amendment No. 1277. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 287 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

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

                                NAYS--34

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

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

                          ____________________