[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24015-24052]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1689, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       McConnell modified amendment No. 1795, to commend the Armed 
     Forces of the United States in the War on Terrorism.
       Biden amendment No. 1796, to provide funds for the security 
     and stabilization of Iraq by suspending a portion of the 
     reductions in the highest income tax rate for individual 
     taxpayers.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 40 minutes divided in the usual form on the McConnell amendment 
No. 1795.
  The Senator from Kentucky.


                           Amendment No. 1795

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, before proceeding to my remarks about 
the pending amendment, I point out to Members of the Senate that we are 
all familiar with the National Endowment for Democracy and the fact 
that it provides funds to the International Republican Institute and 
the National Democratic Institute, which operate overseas to help 
promote democracy, human rights, and all of the things that Americans 
believe are important.
  The National Democratic Institute recently issued a report on Iraq 
that I think is noteworthy, and I am going to point out some excerpts 
from that.
  I ask unanimous consent that excerpts from this report be printed in 
the Record.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. McCONNELL. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright currently 
chairs the National Democratic Institute and she points out:

       The past half-century provides ample proof that democracy 
     is more than just another form of government; it is also a 
     powerful generator of international security, prosperity and 
     peace.

  According to the NDI, inside Iraq there is an explosion of democratic 
politics.

       . . . NDI will find fertile ground for democracy promotion 
     initiatives on a scale not seen since the heady days of the 
     fall of the Berlin wall.

  That bears repeating, that the National Democratic Institute finds 
within Iraq today an explosion of democracy, and fertile ground for 
democracy promotion initiatives on a scale not seen since the fall of 
the Berlin wall.
  Another finding of the NDI that I think is noteworthy is that the 
Iraqis are grateful for their liberation. There has been some notion 
promoted, I think by many in the press, that somehow the Iraqis are 
sorry that Saddam is gone. The NDI, headed by Madeleine Albright, finds 
that the Iraqis are grateful for their liberation.
  In addition, the NDI finds significant evidence of support for the 
United States. For example, they say:

       In Kirkuk, there was a large painted sign reading ``Thank 
     you USA'' in English and in Kurdish.

  Additionally, the NDI found overwhelming support for liberation, but 
lack of stability or economic opportunity obviously does erode, to some 
extent, support for the U.S.

[[Page 24016]]

  They found that security and jobs are a precondition to democracy. We 
know that, and that is what this supplemental is all about. They found 
Iraqi frustrations are due to fear and uncertainty, not hostility 
toward the United States. This is the National Democratic Institute, 
headed by Madeleine Albright, which said that Iraqi frustrations are 
due to fear and uncertainty, not to hostility toward the United States.
  The NDI also found that the Iraqis need our help now, and that is 
what this supplemental is all about. They also found that chaos and 
slow progress would feed the forces of radicalism, which seems an 
obvious statement to this Senator, and I believe their findings 
highlight the fact that time to act on the supplemental is now. That is 
why this bill is before the Senate and why we are moving forward with 
this important supplemental to finish the job in Iraq and give the 
Iraqis a chance to realize their aspirations.
  As we all have recognized, the world changed dramatically on 
September 11, 2001. It changed in that the unprovoked attack on America 
required that America defend itself from the shadowy network of 
international terrorism.
  To protect American lives and buildings, the President announced his 
intention to go after international terrorists wherever they were and 
after the regimes that supported those efforts, whoever they were. He 
warned that the costs would be high, that patience would be required, 
but that America would win the struggle.
  Today we are here to pay the price of freedom by moving this 
supplemental forward. Many have already paid the ultimate price for 
freedom, whether it was soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, civilians in 
the World Trade Towers, passengers in airlines wrestling control from 
terrorist hijackers, or the passengers themselves giving their own 
lives. Yes, many have paid the ultimate price of freedom. The question 
is, Will Congress pay?
  Some say the price of freedom is too high and we have already paid 
too much. So while we have won the war in Iraq, the struggle today is 
whether America will pay the price to win the peace, just as we did 
after World War II. This is a question, of course, we have struggled 
with before.
  In the past, we have sometimes won wars but actually lost the peace. 
But not always. At the end of the Civil War, President Lincoln 
foreswore revenge, retribution, and reparation payments against the 
South. His spirit marched on as America paid for the reconstruction of 
the South, ravaged by the effects of 5 years of a new, more devastating 
type of warfare. Clearly, if we look at America today, we won that 
peace.
  At the end of World War II, America again won the peace. We did not 
want the emergence of another Weimar Republic of Germany, which, racked 
by debt and desolation, would spawn yet another new greater threat. Of 
course, that was the result after World War I, costing us a second 
payment of even more lives and paying the price for freedom in World 
War II. Instead of a failed peace, such as we had after World War I, in 
1948 the Marshall plan of aid and trade inaugurated a restoration of 
Europe, a halt to Communism and an unprecedented expansion of freedom 
and peace.
  This is a picture of President Truman signing the Marshall plan in 
1948. Interestingly enough, that was in the middle of a tough 
Presidential election. It would have been easy for the Republican-
controlled Congress to have politicized that effort, to have criticized 
President Truman for advocating that kind of spending on the 
reconstruction of Europe, but instead they came together on a 
bipartisan basis.
  Arthur Vandenberg, Joseph Barton, and the other Republicans who were 
in the majority in the Congress that year joined hands with President 
Truman and said: Let's make this bipartisan, let's finish the job in 
Europe, let's do it right and give the Europeans a chance to develop 
democracy and freedom, something that was lost after World War I.
  Today we face the very same challenges. Historians may very well 
record that now is when the American Millennium began anew, and an 
unprecedented expansion phase, not of America herself, but of the idea 
that America represents and shares with all freedom-loving countries.
  Through one of history's great ironies, the very ideas that were 
attacked on September 11, 2001, American ideas like democracy, 
individual freedom, limited government, and free markets--these ideas 
when attacked did not retreat but were revitalized, not just here but 
in countries where history records little evidence of even the most 
basic human rights.
  But now, here, today, the scribes of history can say this is when 
civilization, freedom, and peace began a new march forward, rather than 
a stagnant period of isolationism of war, oppression, and decline.
  I agree this will be the defining debate of this Congress. As history 
hangs in the balance, as the world wonders whether America will promote 
the freedom and democracy we brought to Western Europe and Japan after 
World War II, and to Eastern Europe and Russia after the cold war 
victory, America should look on this debate with hope and fear. America 
should hope we in Congress will come together to give peace and freedom 
a birth in a region not known for it, but we fear that politics may 
prevent that.
  The challenge we face today to which I alluded earlier is to come 
together behind the President's request, like the Congress did on a 
bipartisan basis for President Truman and the Marshall plan: to give 
Iraq a true opportunity to become a bastion of democracy and freedom in 
the Middle East.
  This bill signing I referred to earlier was the first of a total of 
$10.9 billion appropriated for the Marshall plan during 1949 to 1951, 
to rebuild Europe and Japan. When you adjust that for inflation, that 
is equivalent to about $83 billion in today's dollars, over 4 times 
what the President is calling for in the rebuilding of Iraq. The 
Marshall plan was four times larger than what the President is asking 
us to do today in rebuilding Iraq. Polling data back in that era, 1948, 
showed only 68 percent of Americans had heard of the Marshall plan, and 
only half of those who had heard of it approved of it. Back in 1948, 
clearly, spending money to rebuild Europe was not popular, but 
Republicans and Democrats put aside their differences, rallied behind 
President Truman and, as I indicated earlier, people like Arthur 
Vandenberg of Michigan, Charles Eaton of New Jersey, and Joseph Martin 
of Massachusetts, along with others in a Republican-controlled 
Congress, joined hands with President Truman to get the job done.
  We need leaders like the Vandenbergs and Martins, leaders like those 
who crossed the aisle to enact President Truman's Marshall plan to 
rebuild Europe and Japan. We need those leaders today. The election is 
13 months away. Let's not start it this soon. Let's do the right thing 
here in the Senate to give Iraq a real opportunity to achieve its 
dreams. Let's do what is right for America. The politics will take care 
of itself in the next year.
  What I had hoped for was a high level of bipartisanship. 
Unfortunately, we have gotten a high level of politics out of all of 
this. This is the first great military challenge to America in the new 
millennium. We hear calls out on the Presidential campaign trail for 
the President's impeachment. One Member of the Senate said that. Or 
regime change, said another Member of the Senate running for the 
Presidency. We heard the war for Iraq was a fraud and that the removal 
of an unbelievably brutal dictator was described by one candidate as 
``supposedly'' a good thing. We hear there is no chance for military 
success, like that of World War I, World War II, Korea, the cold war, 
or Desert Storm, that gave freedom to Western Europe, Japan, North 
Africa, South Korea, Russia, Eastern Europe, or Kuwait. We are told our 
military efforts can only end in a Vietnam-style quagmire and failure. 
We hear that paying the price to win the peace and bring our soldiers 
home is too much.
  And last, and most destructively, we hear every benefit of the doubt 
given to

[[Page 24017]]

a brutal dictator, while every conceivable doubt is hurled upon this 
administration, our intelligence networks, and our allies.
  It should not be that way and it doesn't have to be that way. We can 
come together. The President's plan says yes, let's make aid and trade 
work together, not just to rebuild Iraq and end the terrorism, but to 
build a working democratic state based on individual freedom and free 
markets. That is how to win the peace. But, frankly, in its details, 
democracy and peace is pretty routine stuff. It doesn't get a lot of 
press. Winning the war, that gets a lot of press. So do efforts that 
threaten the peace. But winning the peace itself involves terribly 
mundane stuff.
  For example, taking out a terrorist training camp is news. But 
building police training academies is not. The former wins the war, the 
latter wins the peace.
  Using bulldozers to cover the populations of whole Iraqi towns in 
mass graves is part of the horrific terror that gets press coverage. 
But using garbage trucks to keep towns clean and safe from pestilence 
and disease is the boredom of peacetime. When humans are treated as 
refuse, that is a sign of war. When human refuse is treated, that is a 
mark of peacetime.
  Garbage trucks and police academies are the mundane, boring signposts 
that peace and democracy are progressing. We see all sorts of routine 
signs of progress that get no press. Fifty-eight of the largest cities 
of Iraq have hired police forces. Some 70,000 Iraqis are patrolling the 
streets of their country. No one reports this--no one. Medical supplies 
are flowing to hospitals, with regular paychecks going to doctors and 
nurses. No one is reporting that. Vaccinations are available across the 
country and antimalaria sprays are proceeding. No one is reporting 
that. Again, more mundane stuff that makes for peace and progress. 
Airports are reopening and so are ports. Provisional representative 
councils are formed in major cities, especially in Baghdad, and 150 
newspapers are publishing, with foreign publications, radio and 
television broadcasts also available. That is a radical change over 
there, but show me the press clippings covering the progress. I haven't 
seen any--none.
  We see other signs of progress we would call a normal life--120,000 
Baghdad students returning to classrooms last May; 1.2 million school 
kits are being prepared for the coming school year which started this 
week; 5 million math and science books will be distributed. Banks are 
opening, crops are being harvested, the Baghdad symphony is performing, 
bookstores are reopening, and artists are displaying their works. None 
of this is reported because it is not newsworthy here in the United 
States. But it is news there, and proof of peace and democracy 
sprouting up all over Iraq.
  Peace and democracy are sprouting in Iraq, but you would be hard 
pressed to find news reports here because mainly failure and setbacks 
count as news. And, of course, certain papers and broadcasters focus on 
the Presidential candidates, calling the President's efforts a failure. 
We should not be too surprised. Presidential politics is the most 
powerful political force in America. But I urge people to ask 
themselves, why didn't Presidential politics destroy the Marshall plan 
back in 1948, closer to a Presidential election year than we are now? 
Presidential politics did not destroy the Marshall plan because Members 
of the Senate on a bipartisan basis rose above that and did what was 
right for America and right for Europe.
  I believe it was due to the fact that Republicans and Democrats alike 
wanted to ensure history did not repeat itself. They knew of their 
friends and comrades who died in World War II because they failed to 
win the peace after World War I. The threat of poverty and despair in 
Europe was real, and so was the effort by communists to take advantage 
of that. But mostly, they didn't want the sacrifice of their sons, 
brothers, fathers and husbands in World War II to be in vain. to them 
and us, lives and freedom should be more important than power and 
politics.
  So I ask, can we set aside politics and ask what happens if we fail 
in Iraq? Perhaps we are not motivated by the good that can come from a 
democratic Iraq. But surely we should consider the disaster that can 
befall the world if in this war against terrorism, we fail to bring 
peace and democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. Our children and their 
children will have lost their chance for peace, freedom and prosperity.
  This is a defining moment, but if we look after the interest of the 
next generation rather than the next election--like President Truman 
and the Republican Congress did back in 1948 with the Marhsall plan--we 
can do something great for Iraq, for the world and for our children.
  So, I ask us to think of the future generations like those who formed 
the Marshall plan considered in their deliberations. I ask us to come 
together to do what is right for future generations. I ask for unity, 
and to promote that end, I will offer an amendment that should unify 
this body. Let us set aside the rancor and agree that the Armed Forces 
of the United States have performed brilliantly in Operation Enduring 
Freedom in Afghanistan and in Operation Iraq Freedom in Iraq.
  Since October 7, 2001, when the Armed Forces of the United States and 
its coalition allies launched military operations in Afghanistan, 
designed as Operation Enduring Freedom, our soldiers and allies have 
removed the Taliban regime, eliminated Afghanistan's terrorist 
infrastructure, and captured significant and numerous members of Al 
Qaeda.
  Since March 19, 2003, when the Armed Forces of the United States and 
its coalition allies launched military operations, designated as 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, our soldiers have removed Saddam Hussein's 
regime, eliminated Iraq's terrorist infrastructure, ended Iraq's 
illicit and illegal programs to acquire weapons of mass destruction, 
and captured significant international terrorists.
  During all this time, during the heat of battle, our soldiers have 
acted with all the efficiency that war time commands, but all the 
compassion and understanding that an emerging peace requires. They have 
acted in the finest tradition of U.S. soldiers and are to be commended 
by this body.
  That is what this situation requires of us today. I hope as we move 
forward with this debate on the supplemental, Members will remember the 
importance of pulling together to finish the job in Iraq.
  I yield.

                               Exhibit 1

   Excerpts From A Recent National Democratic Institute Report on Iraq

       ``The past half-century provides ample proof that democracy 
     is more than just another form of government; it is also a 
     powerful generator of international security, prosperity and 
     peace.''--Madeleine K. Albright, NDI Chairman
       An Explosion of democratic politics: ``After three days in 
     Baghdad it is already clear that NDI will find fertile ground 
     for democracy promotion initiatives on a scale not seen since 
     the heady days of the fall of the Berlin wall. There has been 
     a virtual explosion of politics in Iraq's capital city with 
     as many as 200 parties and movements having made themselves 
     known to the Coalition Provisional Authority.''
       The Iraqis are grateful for their liberation. ``NDI's 
     overwhelming finding--in the north, south, Baghdad, and among 
     secular, religious, Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish groups in both 
     urban and rural areas--is a grateful welcoming of the demise 
     of Saddam's regime and a sense that this is a pivotal moment 
     in Iraq's history. A leading member of a newly formed 
     umbrella movement, the Iraq Coalition for Democracy, put it 
     this way, ``We already see the positive results the Americans 
     have brought--we are free to talk to you, to organize a 
     movement and party, free to meet and demonstrate and all of 
     this was made possible by the Americans.''
        Significant evidence of support for the United States: 
     ``In Kirkuk, there was a large painted sign reading, ``Thank 
     you USA!'' in English and in Kurdish. In Erbil and 
     Suleimaniya, there were many ``Thank you to the USA'', 
     ``Thank you to President George Bush'' banners as well as 
     ``peace and prosperity come with democracy.''
        Overwhelming support for liberation, but lack of stability 
     or economic opportunity erode support for the U.S.: ``Across 
     the board, the people of NDI met with in southern Iraq 
     supported the forceful ouster of Saddam--a person many 
     described as ``Nero'' and a ``criminal towards his people''. 
     Although southerners were clearly conscious of the 
     discrimination they had suffered under Saddam's Baathist 
     rule, many were quick to

[[Page 24018]]

     add that poor security conditions and a lack of basic 
     necessities are having a negative impact on attitudes toward 
     the U.S.''
        ``The main findings of the research reveal that, in every 
     community, the Iraqis are grateful for the ouster of Saddam 
     Hussein but have a strong desire for order and governance. 
     They feel a mix of excitement and fear about the prospect of 
     freedom and democracy, and have differing views about the 
     role of Islam in the country's new political order.''
       Security and jobs are a precondition to Democracy. ``One 
     former general, previously part of the Free Officers 
     Movement, summed up the state of Iraqi ``anxious 
     ambivalence'' this way, ``People need a rest. They need 
     security and jobs and, maybe after a year they can be 
     educated about political parties and democracy and then they 
     can choose heir future properly.''
       Iraqi frustrations are due to fear and uncertainty, not 
     hostility to the United States. ``Faced with rising crime, 
     uncertain economic prospects, and chaotic daily conditions, 
     complaining--to anyone who will listen--has become a national 
     pastime. Part of the problem is a perceived lack of access to 
     those in authority, but mostly the complaints are a symptom 
     of uncertainty, not an expression of hostility to the United 
     States or its aims in for Iraq.''
       The Iraqis need our help now. ``Time is not on the side of 
     the coalition or Iraqi democrats. Current conditions play 
     into the hands of extremists--religious and nationalist--who 
     point to lack of progress as proof of the need for a strong 
     hand.''
       Chaos and slow progress feed the forces of radicalism. ``In 
     fact, many Iraqi political forces are benefiting from the 
     societal chaos. Islamic forces, including the Shia dominated 
     Da'awa party and Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution 
     in Iraq, with their inherent legitimacy, established 
     networks, and communications facilities through the Mosque, 
     are flourishing and establishing positions of dominance in 
     Shiite slums, small cities and the underdeveloped 
     countryside.''
       Time to act on the supplemental is now. ``In conclusion, 
     this is not a time for despair or second-guessing but for 
     action. There is an urgent need for democratic education, 
     party strengthening, for coalition building and for material 
     assistance to democratic movements and organizations. The 
     political vacuum is being filled by those with an interest in 
     destroying and separating rather than uniting and building--
     only concerted efforts to strengthen the democratic middle 
     can help stem that tide.''

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, has the distinguished majority whip yielded 
his time?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky controls 
an additional 1 minute. The minority side has 20 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to support the amendment 
introduced by Senator McConnell for one reason and one reason only: I 
support our troops, and I share the sentiment all Americans have in 
holding our men and women in uniform in the highest regard.
  It is a fact that there are differences in this country about United 
States policy toward Iraq. But there is no disagreement that our 
military personnel have been brave and courageous. They have made 
sacrifices for our country and more than 300 have made the ultimate 
sacrifice. I grieve for their loss and my heart goes out to their 
families and loved ones.
  Families throughout America are proud of their sons, daughters, 
fathers and mothers who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are 
anxious about reports of daily attacks on United States soldiers in 
central Iraq and are hopeful that already lengthy deployments are not 
further extended. I share both their pride and their anxiety. I, too, 
think about our troops every day. I think about their families. I thing 
about their sacrifices.
  The McConnell amendment makes note of these sacrifices. It also 
commends organizations such as the USO and Operation Dear Abby that 
help support our troops. The amendment also states that there should be 
appropriate ceremonies to honor and welcome them home. I hope these 
ceremonies occur sooner rather than later.
  California has a rich military tradition. Military personnel from 
across the State and from all branches have been serving bravely in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. I am especially proud of these military men and 
women and wish them a safe return home.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on March 20 of this year, the Senate passed 
S. Res. 95, a resolution commending the President and the men and women 
of the United States Armed Forces, and the civilian personnel 
supporting them, for their efforts in the war in Iraq. I cosponsored 
that resolution. While there was some language in that resolution I 
would have changed or deleted, I felt it was appropriate and drafted in 
a relatively non-political, balanced way such that even those of us who 
had opposed the resolution authorizing the use of unilateral, pre-
emptive force could support.
  Today, the Republican leadership has put forward another resolution, 
which again commends the President and the men and women of the Armed 
Forces, as well as the civilian personnel who have supported them. I 
will also vote for this resolution. Of course we commend the troops, 
their families, and the Defense Department's civilian personnel, for 
their courage and sacrifice for their country. I have commended the 
extraordinary efforts of our troops in virtually every statement I have 
made about Iraq.
  But this resolution goes further than S. Res. 95, in ways that I 
disagree with. It commends the contribution of defense contractors, for 
example. I have nothing against defense contractors. Many deserve 
recognition for their indispensable, innovative contributions to the 
success of our Armed Forces, including defense contractors in my own 
State of Vermont. It is, for example, these companies that developed 
the precision-guided weapons that helped to reduce the number of 
civilian casualties in Iraq. But other contractors have engaged in 
practices that have bilked American taxpayers out of many millions of 
dollars, overcharging for their services or manipulating the bidding 
process. I do not commend those contractors.
  I also disagree with some of the wording of this resolution, because 
it may leave the wrong impression. For example, at one point it states 
``Whereas the United States pursued sustained diplomatic, political, 
and economic efforts to remove those threats peacefully.'' It is true 
that the administration went to the United Nations, belatedly, under 
pressure from Congress and the rest of the world, to seek support for 
the use of force against Saddam Hussein. But it went to the United 
Nations with an attitude of ``you're either with us or against us,'' 
and when they did not get everything they wanted as quickly as they 
wanted it, they prematurely abandoned the diplomatic process and 
launched a unilateral military attack for the purported purpose of 
upholding U.N. resolutions without the support of the U.N. Security 
Council. The administration's diplomatic and political efforts were 
grudging, half hearted, and ineffective.
  In addition, I am concerned, and disappointed, that this resolution 
makes no mention whatsoever of our diplomats and aid workers who are 
working tirelessly in Iraq under extremely dangerous and difficult 
conditions. Their bravery and sacrifice should also be recognized.
  Mr. President, we want Iraq to become a democratic, prosperous 
nation. But let's be honest. We know why the Republican leadership 
hastily drafted this resolution last night. It is increasingly obvious 
to the American people that the war in Iraq, where United States 
soldiers are being killed and wounded every day 4 months after the 
President declared the ``mission accomplished,'' is going to drag on 
for years and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. The $87 billion 
supplemental appropriations bill we are considering is fraught with 
problems, and even Republicans are realizing that it is unpopular with 
a majority of their constituents. Compounding that, the White House is 
facing an internal probe of the leak of the identity of a covert CIA 
employee. So what do they do, they trot out another ``feel good'' 
resolution praising the President, in an effort to divert attention 
from the real issues. We have seen this too many times before.
  Again, I will vote for this resolution because I am concerned about 
our troops and want them to know that each and every one of us supports 
them as they risk their lives to bring peace and security to Iraq. But 
I would hope that in the future we do better than these simplistic, 
politically motivated resolutions.

[[Page 24019]]


  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I share the reservations of many of my 
colleagues about the McConnell amendment. Each and every Senator 
supports our troops in Iraq, but many of us do not support the decision 
by the Bush administration to go to war.
  This amendment states the pride and admiration we all feel for our 
troops, their families, and all of those who aided in the effort. But 
it also contains several provisions many of us disagree with.
  The President has stated, there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein 
was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center, yet this 
amendment leaves the impression that he was. This amendment also states 
that our military action brought an end to Iraq's illegal programs to 
acquire weapons of mass destruction, but no evidence whatever has been 
found that Saddam had even begun to reactivate these programs of the 
past.
  In addition, the amendment commends the President and Secretary 
Rumsfeld for planning and carrying out Operation Iraqi Freedom. No one 
doubted we would win the war. but we had no plan to win the peace, and 
Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz misled the President 
and the country about the need to go to war.
  As the evidence now makes clear, Iraq was not an imminent threat to 
our national security. Iraq did not have longstanding ties to terrorist 
groups. Iraq was not developing nuclear weapons. No weapons of mass 
destruction have been found in Iraq.
  It is wrong to put American lives on the line for a dubious cause. 
Many of us continue to believe that this was the wrong war at the wrong 
time. There were alternatives short of a premature rush to a unilateral 
war that could have accomplished our goals in Iraq with fare fewer 
casualties and far less damage to our goals in the war against 
terrorism.
  This resolution commemorates Operation Iraqi Freedom as if the war 
were over and our men and women are coming home. We know this is not 
the case, despite the President's declaration of ``mission 
accomplished'' aboard the aircraft carrier 5 long months ago.
  Our service men and women still face constant danger in Iraq. 
American lives are lost almost daily in Iraq. They were told they would 
be welcomed as liberators. Instead, they are increasingly resented as 
occupiers and are under siege every day. They face surprise attacks and 
deadly ambushes from unknown enemies. It is increasingly difficult to 
tell friend from foe. The average number of attacks against American 
soldiers recently increased from 13 to 22 each day.
  Three hundred and sixteen Americans have been killed in Iraq since 
the war began. In the 5 months since President Bush declared ``mission 
accomplished,'' 178 American soldiers have died. Ten soldiers from 
Massachusetts have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq. Each day 
another eight soldiers or Marines are wounded in Iraq.
  These are not just statistics. Each fallen soldier has someone who 
mourns their loss. That loss--whether it's a husband or wife, a son or 
daughter, a brother or sister, or a father or mother--weighs heavily on 
us as well, and we must do our best to see that their sacrifice is not 
in vain.
  The administration still has no credible plan to end this war. Our 
troops deserve a plan that will bring in adequate foreign forces to 
share the burden, restore stability and build democracy in Iraq, and 
bring us closer to the day when our troops will come home with honor.
  Our soldiers' lives are at stake. Patriotism is not the issue. 
Support for our troops is not the issue. The safety of the 140,000 
American servicemen and women serving in Iraq today is the issue, and, 
it is our solemn responsibility to question--and question vigorously--
the administration's current request for funds. So far, the 
administration has failed--and failed utterly--to provide a plausible 
plan for the future of Iraq and to ensure the safety of our troops.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, West Virginians know sacrifice. Families 
from the Mountain State have lost loved ones in both Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Members of the West Virginia National Guard and the 
members of the Reserves have been deployed around the world, their 
lives on the line each day in the most dangerous of circumstances. Our 
troops deserve to be commended, as do all Americans who have supported 
them: their husbands and wives; their sons and daughters; and all the 
members of their communities.
  I have grave concerns for the situations that our troops now find 
themselves in. In Iraq, constant attacks have caused the toll in 
American lives to more than double after May 1. In Afghanistan, which 
is in danger of becoming the forgotten war, Taliban and al-Qaida 
terrorists are hiding in the mountains, regaining their strength, and 
plotting against us.
  I will vote for the resolution that is before the Senate, but only 
because we must not offend those who have sacrificed in the wars in 
which the United States is now engaged. It should be a moral obligation 
to support those who have lost loved ones in battle, and those who wear 
our Nation's uniform.
  But I do not agree with many of the where-as clauses to the 
resolution that are before the Senate. It is wrong to commingle the 
images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. I do not agree that our 
attack on Iraq is part of the ``Global War on Terrorism.'' It is 
misleading to imply that the United States had run out of diplomatic 
options before attacking Iraq. It is dangerous to think that we have 
eliminated Afghanistan's terrorist infrastructure. The first three 
pages of this resolution lay out a distorted history of how we came to 
be involved in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We need to stop the 
spin and distortions. They do a disservice to the public.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted in favor of the McConnell 
amendment today, because I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments in 
its resolve clauses expressing the Senate's tremendous admiration and 
appreciation for our men and women in uniform who have served in 
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Their 
contributions and their service deserve our unified and enduring 
support.
  However, the findings contained in the amendment seem to link Saddam 
Hussein's regime to the terrorist attacks on the United States that 
occurred on September 11, 2001. No evidence supports such a link, and 
those who continue to confuse these issues do the American people a 
great disservice, as they encourage an unfocused and unwise approach to 
our first national security priority, the fight against terrorism.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to have voted for Senator 
McConnell's resolution commending America's Armed Forces. It is right 
for us to thank our troops for their service. It is right to thank 
military families for their sacrifice. It is right to thank great 
organizations like the USO for their support to our men and women in 
uniform.
  However, I am puzzled by some of the findings in the McConnell 
amendment.
  We were all told last year that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction 
and was ready to use them. Well, the jury is still out on that. But 
press reports suggest that Dr. Kay's team has not yet found any actual 
weapons. So I am not sure it is accurate to say the war ended Iraq's 
WMD programs.
  The Bush administration now acknowledges that there is no evidence of 
ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaida and the September 11 
attacks. Yet the amendment seems to combine Operation Enduring Freedom 
in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom as ``two campaigns in the 
Global War on Terrorism.'' I am not sure what ``terrorist 
infrastructure'' was destroyed in Iraq. Some reports indicate the 
terrorist presence in Iraq has actually increased since the collapse of 
Saddam Hussein's brutal regime.
  I just don't want anyone to think my vote means I agree with every 
word of this amendment. I voted for the McConnell amendment because I 
absolutely stand behind our troops and their families.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of Senator 
McConnell's

[[Page 24020]]

sense of the Senate amendment because it expressed strong support for 
our Nation's armed services and their success in accomplishing the 
important mission to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. I am 
especially proud of the men and women in uniform from Arkansas who 
represent the best and brightest our country has to offer. It is vital 
that we continue to support our troops in every way we can, as they 
continue to come under attack in Iraq.
  As Congress continues debate on this legislation and related bills in 
the future, I believe we in Congress have a responsibility to exercise 
careful oversight of the administration's plan to rebuild Iraq and to 
ask tough questions about specific plans, objectives, and results to 
ensure our mission is accomplished. To that end, we must realistically 
assess the United States efforts in the war on terror. While the 
dedication and efficiency of the men and women who comprise our 
military is unparalleled, recent difficulties in Iraq demonstrate that 
there is much work left to be done.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, there is no question that I, along with 
every Member of this body, support the troops. But with respect to the 
amendment proposed by the Senator from Kentucky, the majority ought to 
be ashamed for wasting the Senate's time with this political booby 
trap.
  The amendment states that Saddam was a threat to our national 
security. He was not. We had him contained in the north and the south 
with overflights, and had the weapons inspectors back in doing their 
work in Iraq. The amendment states that the United States pursued 
sustained diplomatic, political, and economic efforts to remove the so-
called threat peacefully. That is wrong. We said to the United Nations, 
``Get out of the way. You're irrelevant.'' We said to the international 
community, ``You're either with us or against us.'' Before we removed 
Saddam, we removed Hans Blix. The amendment says we eliminated 
terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just read the morning 
paper and you will know that is not true. They have plenty of terrorist 
infrastructure, and they are killing our soldiers every day.
  As I have said many times before, the majority is only interested in 
the needs of the campaign, not the needs of the country. We have 
serious work to do, and they are playing political games. If we really 
supported our troops, we would pay for this war. Instead, we are 
telling our troops that they not only have to fight the war, they have 
to come home and pay for it, too.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Kentucky, if the Senator yields 
back his time, we will yield back our time and go to a vote on this 
matter.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. REID. We yield the time on our side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has been yielded back.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There 
is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment (No. 1795), as modified. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham) is 
necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 372 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

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

                                NAYS--1

       
     Hollings
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Graham (FL)
       
  The amendment (No. 1795), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1796, As Modified

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment, No. 
1796, to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title III, add the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Provision of Funds for Security and 
     Stabilization of Iraq Through Partial Suspension of 
     Reductions in Highest Income Tax Rate for Individual 
     Taxpayers.--The table contained in paragraph (2) of section 
     1(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     (relating to reductions in rates after June 30, 2001) is 
     amended to read as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     The corresponding percentages shall
                                      be substituted for  the following
  ``In the case of taxable years                percentages:
  beginning during calendar year:  -------------------------------------
                                      28%      31%      36%      39.6%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001..............................    27.5%    30.5%    35.5%      39.1%
2002..............................    27.0%    30.0%    35.0%      38.6%
2003 and 2004.....................    25.0%    28.0%    33.0%      35.0%
2005 and thereafter...............    25.0%    28.0%    33.0%   38.2%''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2004.
       (c) Application of EGTRRA Sunset to This Section.--The 
     amendment made by this section shall be subject to title IX 
     of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 
     2001 to the same extent and in the same manner as the 
     provision of such Act to which such amendment relates.

  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. We have spoken to the chief sponsors of this amendment, 
Senators Biden and Kerry. There is a tentative agreement on our side as 
to how much time will be used. The floor staffs are working now to see 
if we can enter into an agreement in the next little bit. In the 
meantime, rather than waste valuable floor time, Senator Biden is going 
to begin his debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am prepared to enter into a time 
agreement. In the meantime, rather than waste time, let me begin to 
discuss my amendment.
  We had a debate yesterday, an opening debate about whether we should 
be moving forward with this legislation for $87 billion to fund the 
war. Again, for those who may be listening, I want to state where I, as 
they say in the vernacular, come from on this score.
  I have been one among many, from Senator Reed, former West Point 
graduate, an Army officer, a U.S. Senator, to John McCain, to Chuck 
Hagel, on both sides of the aisle, among those who have said that our 
biggest problem is we have not, quite frankly, devoted sufficient 
resources in a timely way to winning the peace in Iraq. So I began from 
the premise that there is no doubt we have to spend billions of more 
dollars. There is no doubt we have to keep in Iraq tens of thousands of 
American troops for some time. As a matter of fact, I said that as long 
ago as July of 2002.
  I approach this thing from the perspective of one who thinks we must 
do more. I have several basic problems

[[Page 24021]]

with the approach we are taking. I know the Presiding Officer and I had 
a very brief conversation about this. He made reference yesterday to 
me, that I was somewhat exercised in my presentation yesterday. I was. 
I am, because I think there is such a gigantic opportunity here to 
enhance the security interests of the United States.
  So, again, the reason I bother to say this is, I think there are two 
serious problems with the approach the President is taking now relative 
to this $87 billion. One is, I think that after examination--and I will 
have several more amendments before this debate is over--I think there 
is some padding in this reconstruction money.
  I am one who believes you cannot bring security to Iraq without 
bringing basic services to Iraq. I think there is a direct and 
immediate correlation. Those who say you can separate support for the 
military and reconstruction money either have not been to Iraq or don't 
think we should be in Iraq or, with all due respect, don't understand 
the dynamics.
  The degree to which clean water doesn't flow, the degree to which 
young women are being raped in the streets, the degree to which police 
officers are afraid to go to their stations and do their job, the 
degree to which the electric lights do not go on, the degree to which 
the oil pipelines are blown up, there is a direct correlation between 
that and the danger posed to our troops, the danger posed to our being 
able to preserve the peace or bring about or win the peace. So I don't 
make that dichotomy between reconstruction moneys and moneys relating 
to ``supporting our troops.''
  Reconstruction money will support our troops. It supports our troops. 
My disagreement with the President is that--I am not talking about past 
disagreements and mistakes made or not made, in my view, just from this 
moment on--I think if you look at the reconstruction funds, some of it 
is--maybe not intentionally--inflated.
  For example, there is a provision in there for x number of pickup 
trucks. We were not talking about Humvees or military vehicles. They 
need pickup trucks. The government needs them for basic, mundane 
purposes. Well, in the authorization here, we are going to pay $32,000 
for a pickup truck. I can take them to a nice Chrysler plant in my 
State and get them for $18,000.
  We are also talking about building prison cells. I spent some time, 
along with my friend, Senator Lugar, and my friend, Senator Hagel, out 
at the police training academy in Baghdad, and we talked to--I might 
add, we have a first-class team there. These are serious guys. These 
guys know their way around. They have been in Bosnia, Kosovo, and 
Afghanistan, and they understand this. There is money in here that 
comes to $50,000 per prison cell. We need to build prisons. There are 
no functioning prisons in Iraq. We have to build them.
  By the way, the guy running our prison operation there, when asked 
how long it would take if he had all the resources he needed, he said 
it would take a couple years to get a prison system up and running.
  But that is not the point. We are going to pay $55,000 per bed in an 
Iraqi prison. We pay half that here in the United States of America. We 
are in a country, I might add, where the building specs and 
requirements are less than they are here. So I think we have to be 
responsible and take a look at the details of this.
  So my first concern is about whether or not the money is being 
efficaciously allocated. That is a responsibility of oversight that we 
have. That is our job. We can do it in a timely way and we will get 
this finished within a week or so and get it done. That is the first 
concern I have, in a practical sense, on what we are going to do on the 
floor.
  The second concern is my monumental concern. My friend from Utah--and 
we say that lightly, but he really is my friend--a conservative 
Republican--and for those of you who think none of us get along around 
here, we have very different views, but we are close friends. I can say 
to him that my biggest problem is how we pay for this. That is what I 
want to talk about right now because that is the second significant 
element of my concern on the immediate question before us: Do we 
appropriate or authorize to be appropriated $87 billion or do we 
appropriate $87 billion for this effort? I want to speak to that. That 
is what my amendment is about. That is what is before the Senate now.
  At the outset, the first fellow with whom I spoke about this, the guy 
whose brainchild it was, along with me, is my friend from 
Massachusetts, John Kerry. As a matter of fact, immediately after my 
floating this idea on one of the national shows--``Meet The Press,'' or 
whatever it was--I immediately got a call from Senator Kerry saying he 
had been thinking along the same lines and could we work together to do 
this. This is a joint effort, and we are joined by Senator Feinstein, 
who feels strongly about it, and a number of others.
  I wish to acknowledge at the front end here how we got to this point. 
I wish to explain the modification I sent to the desk and go into the 
details of why I think this is an important and necessary and 
responsible amendment. Again, remember, this is not coming from a guy 
who didn't support the war, who won't support the funding; it is coming 
from a guy who thinks we are going to have to come up with this $87 
billion, but we are going to have to come up with billions more. I wish 
the President would be as straightforward. This is a downpayment; this 
isn't the end of the road.
  Now, initially, I had an amendment because I didn't have the detailed 
numbers from the Joint Tax Committee, the Finance Committee, and from 
outside experts, such as Brookings and Citizens For Fair Taxation and 
the like, because it takes a while to run these numbers. So, initially, 
we had put in an amendment that said we would authorize--which is 
constitutional--or direct the head of the IRS to find this $87 billion 
from a specific category of taxpayers. We now have hard numbers. The 
hard numbers are very straightforward.
  In order to pay now for the $87 billion we are about to appropriate, 
we are proposing that the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans, which 
has dropped this year from above 39 percent down to 35 percent--and I 
am not arguing about that--and in order to find $87 billion to pay for 
this, we would have to go back under our formula to that roughly 1 
percent of the taxpayers--actually, the top bracket is less than 1 
percent of the taxpayers--and say to them your tax rate is going to go 
back up in the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 to 38.2 
percent. So that is what I sent up to the desk. It was a detail that 
wasn't in my original amendment because we didn't have it from Joint 
Tax. We didn't have it laid out. So that is a brief explanation of the 
modification.
  Now, let's go back and review the bidding here if we can. First, we 
can pay for this supplemental several ways. One, we can pay for it, as 
the President has suggested, by increasing the deficit. If this is 
added to the projected deficit for 2004, the deficit for 2004 will rise 
to $567 billion for that one year--next year. If we do not add it to 
the deficit, the projected deficit at this moment would be down, 
obviously, around $480 billion--still a gigantic amount but $87 billion 
less. The reason I am so opposed to doing that is on equitable grounds 
and grounds of economic recovery. On equitable grounds--and I know this 
sounds a little political the way I am going to say this, but it is 
factually accurate--on equitable grounds, we, the grownups in this 
Chamber--and the average age here is probably roughly 50, I would say--
we are going to be asking these young pages walking down the aisle to 
pay this bill. Literally, we are going to ask them to pay. We are not 
going to pay. If we can't do it my way, they pay. The President--I 
quoted him yesterday--in his last State of the Union Address said we 
are not going to pass on these debts and problems--at the end, I will 
actually give an exact quote--basically he said we are not going to 
pass these responsibilities to fight terror and to pay for it on to 
other generations. That is exactly what we are doing here.

[[Page 24022]]

  For those of you who think that may not be a very compelling argument 
and those of you who voted for the tax cut because you wanted to spur 
economic recovery--a legitimate argument; I disagree with the way it is 
formulated and voted against it but a legitimate argument--look at what 
is happening now: As the deficit has been projected to be 480, or 
thereabouts--and the Presiding Officer and my friend from Utah and my 
two colleagues from California and Massachusetts know more about this 
than I do--what has happened? Long-term rates have already begun to 
rise. What does the market say? Why are long-term interest rates 
rising? Because of the projected deficits. That is a fact. They are 
already rising.
  I respectfully suggest that taking $87 billion out of a 10-year tax 
cut of $1.8 trillion has no impact--none--on economic recovery, 
particularly since it is taken out over a 6-year period in small 
increments beginning in 2005. But if you are worried about the impact 
on the economy and the ability to sustain a recovery, you better be 
looking at the debt.
  I would argue that from a principle of equity, as well as sound 
economic principles related to the recovery, adding this $87 billion to 
the already gargantuan projected deficit--and it will be higher, by the 
way, because that does not even count prescription drugs, that does not 
count the other initiatives the President says we are going to do and 
Democrats say they want to do, it does not even count those programs 
yet, so we know it is going to be a heck of a lot higher--but to add 
$87 billion on top of that can do nothing but jeopardize a long-term 
recovery.
  The second way we can pay for this, which is very popular--and I am 
sort of the skunk at the family picnic on this on my side of the 
aisle--is to let the Iraqis pay for it. Some are saying the Iraqis have 
the second largest oil reserves in the world. Some of my Republican 
friends are proposing this as well.
  For example, we have a flooded home. We have a very competent county 
executive dealing with this, and he says if we can pay for Iraq, the 
Federal Government can pay for this. That is really compelling. I tell 
you what, I am kind of glad I am not running this year because I am 
going to oppose it. To the average person and the above average person, 
this just seems fair.
  We hear people saying on the floor: If they had gold reserves of X 
amount, we would indemnify ourselves; they have gold in the ground, 
black gold. That is a very compelling case, except, as my mother would 
say--God love her, and she is probably listening, so, mom, forgive me 
if I get it wrong--she always used to say when I was young: Joey, don't 
bite your nose off to spite your face. If we do that, we will be, 
figuratively speaking, biting our nose off to spite our face.
  Why? There are other countries around the world--in the Arab world, 
the European world, Russia, other countries--that are owed almost $200 
billion by Iraq, some say as high as $300 billion. Some of that is 
direct loan payments; some is indemnification for the damage done by 
Saddam when he invaded Kuwait, and so on.
  What are we doing? We can either choose the World War I model or the 
World War II model for a defeated nation. After World War I, we said: 
Germany, this is all your fault. We want you to have a democracy, but, 
by the way, in the meantime, pay off all these reparations, making it 
virtually impossible--how many of us in grade school and college saw 
that one cartoon that was in every single history book: A German lady 
in a babushka carrying a wheelbarrow of deutsche marks to the butcher 
shop.
  I bet every one of you can remember that. It was in every textbook in 
America. Why? It produced a little guy named Hitler to prey upon all of 
the anger, all of the prejudice, all the furor of the German people.
  Who thinks we can possibly establish a democracy in a country which, 
I might add, has no history of any democratic institutions and was 
never a country until 1919--who thinks we can establish a democracy 
there saying, by the way, start off, folks, but before you do anything, 
before you spend that $35 billion to redo your oil fields, before you 
spend the money to do this or that, pay off the $200 billion, $300 
billion in debt?
  The President has been dead right. The President has been saying and 
the Secretary of State has been saying we have to convince these other 
nations to forgive that debt and write it off, as we did. Write it off.
  On top of that, what did the President say at the United Nations? Not 
well enough, in my view, with all due respect, but what did he say? He 
said: United Nations, this is the world's problem. This is your 
problem. Send money and send troops. Every one of us here are hoping 
that Powell is very successful with a thing called the donors 
conference that is coming up this month. We are going to be sitting 
down with other nations of the world and saying: By the way, can you 
guys ante in? We have roughly in the whole region close to 200,000 
troops, and we have already spent $78 billion, and we are going to 
spend another $87 billion. Can you kick in some money to rebuild this 
country? Oh, and by the way, we want you to forgive the debt you are 
owed. We want you to kick in money. We are not going to indemnify any 
of your money, but, by the way, the $20 billion we put in for 
reconstruction, we have a claim against Iraqi oil.
  We are all intelligent people in this Chamber. We may be able to 
indemnify this money, but we will have no Iraq to collect it from. 
There will be nobody to collect it from because if this debt is not 
forgiven and if more people do not get in the game, there is not going 
to be peace in Iraq. It is not going to happen, and that is what I 
meant when I said, as unpopular as it is, my dear old mom--mom, if you 
are listening, you are right--we are about to bite our nose off to 
spite our face. That is the second way we can do it, and I think it is 
a disaster to do it that way.
  There is a third way we can pay for this $87 billion. We can say a 
very uncharacteristic thing around here: We are going to pay for it, 
and we are going to pay for it now. We are not going to use our credit 
card; we are going to do it now.
  As Don Rumsfeld said, yes, this is a lot of money, but, yes, we have 
the ability to pay for it, and he is dead right. Old Don, I want to 
take a little bit of your money to pay for it. You are a 1 percenter, 
and God bless you, let's pay for it.
  OK, how do we pay for it? We can cut more programs.
  As some have suggested, we can make college loans more expensive. 
That saves the Government money. We can do as some have suggested and 
cut across the board the income tax break we gave everybody. But guess 
what. Poor folks and middle-class folks are already paying for Iraq. It 
is their kids who are in Iraq. It is their kids in the National Guard. 
It is their kids in the Regular Army. It is their kids who are already 
there.
  Guess who is getting hurt most by this unemployed recovery. Middle-
class and poor folks. I think the middle-class folks need a tax break, 
and so I think it would be unequitable and unfair to go back now and 
say, by the way, you middle-class folks, you pay; you poor folks, you 
pay. We have already decided the poor folks cannot get an earned income 
tax credit for their kids, a child tax credit, which is a travesty. But 
now we are going to raise their taxes slightly or reduce the tax cut?
  So it seems to me there is a group of people who are as patriotic as 
the poorest among us, the wealthy people. The thing I do not like about 
politics is we all have a tendency to slip into--and I can honestly say 
I have never done this in 33 years of holding office--class warfare. 
The idea that because someone is a multimillionaire they are not as 
patriotic as somebody who is making 25,000 bucks a year is a lie. The 
wealthiest among us are as patriotic as any other group of people in 
America.
  I come from Delaware, a relatively wealthy State. I tried in two fora 
in my State, and this is literally true, among some of the wealthiest 
people in my State--in my State we can get them all together pretty 
quickly. I am not being facetious about that. I mean that sincerely. I 
asked the question at one gathering--both were social gatherings. The 
first was a group of about

[[Page 24023]]

35 or 40 people, and I do not know this for a fact, but I think all of 
them were clearly in the top 1 percent tax bracket. The way the 
conversation started was they said to me: You know, Joe, what is going 
on in Iraq? What about this? What about that? It was a cocktail party 
at the home of a partner in a major law firm. It was on a Sunday 
evening.
  I said: Let me ask you all a question. My friend from California 
knows when two people ask a question and you start to answer it, it 
ends up with four people there and then 10 people there, and all of a 
sudden you have a mini-press conference and there are 20 people. That 
is what happened at this cocktail party on someone's patio.
  I said: Let me ask you this question: would anybody here object if 
the President, when he addressed the Nation about the $87 billion, had 
said--and I want to ask the wealthiest among you, the top 1 percent of 
the taxpayers in America--give up 1 year of the 10 years of your tax 
cut in order to help prosecute this war against terror and sustain the 
peace in Iraq, would any one of you object to that?
  Obviously, that is a little peer pressure I put on them, but not a 
single person said they would object. Beyond that, it started a 
discussion. I just sat there and listened. They said, of course, that 
is the right thing to do. Of course, we should do this. Of course, of 
course, of course.
  Then I tried it again at one of the most upscale country clubs in my 
State. I was playing in a charitable golf tournament, and there was the 
same thing.
  I think the President and many of my colleagues underestimate the 
American character. I truly believe they underestimate Americans. I do 
not know of any wealthy American who, given the realistic options we 
have to pay for this, would say, hey, look, if I am going to give up 1 
year of the $690 billion the 1 percent is going to get, I want that guy 
making 25 percent of what I make, I want that guy making 10 percent of 
what I make to give up one year, too.
  Do any of my colleagues believe that is what they would say? I do not 
believe it. And this is not politics. This is not my playing a game. I 
do not believe it. This is something that not only is the right thing 
to do, the people whom you are asking to do it believe it is the right 
thing to do.
  I stated on the floor before and I said at home, I would ask any 
wealthy Delawarean in my State, which we will get to the numbers, who 
makes $400,000 in gross income, to call me at my office and tell me 
they are not willing to give up $2,100 a year for 6 years of their tax 
cut, because that is what it comes to. I am inviting them to call me. I 
promise I will report to my colleagues all those who call me.
  The point is, these are patriotic Americans. They know we have our 
hands full. They know the deal. So that is the third way we can do 
this.
  How does it practically work, and then I am going to yield to my 
friend from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BIDEN. I will be delighted to.
  Mr. BENNETT. I am listening with great interest. I agree with much of 
what the Senator said, but before the Senator from Massachusetts gives 
a major speech I would like the opportunity to engage in a colloquy.
  Mr. BIDEN. Sure, but first let me make one last point so we have the 
facts out.
  Mr. BENNETT. I would ask the Senator to make his point and then I 
would appreciate it if we could do that.
  Mr. BIDEN. I would be happy to.
  Let me be straight about exactly what this amendment would do. People 
whose tax bracket up until this year was 39.6 percent, having had it 
drop down to 35 percent--so there is no false advertising here, the 
Biden-Kerry-Feinstein-Chafee, et cetera, amendment would raise, 
beginning in 2005, their tax bracket back up to 38.2 percent, still a 
percentage point and a half less than it was a year ago but 2 point 
something percent higher than it is today. That is what it would do.
  By the way, I will tell my colleagues who these folks are. People who 
pay at the top rate have an average income--well, it is unfair to 
average. As Samuel Clemens, or rather Mark Twain, said, all 
generalizations are false, including this one. So I want to be 
completely straight about this. The average income in that top 1 
percent is $1 million a year. At a minimum, people who would be 
affected by this have to have an income, before standard deductions and 
exemptions, of over $400,000 in gross income. Others will fall into 
this category if their taxable income after deductions is over 
$312,000. But that is after; that is net. That is taxable income. OK.
  So we have the picture where people--the way I am told by the Joint 
Tax Committee, by Brookings and others, we may find an exception to 
this, but there is nobody making $400,000 a year gross who does not 
have standard deductions and exemptions. By the way, this does not 
impact on their capital gains, which is taxed at a different rate. This 
does not impact on the dividend exemptions or change the rate at all. 
That is still theirs. We do not touch that at all. This is just a 
straight tax of those who now fall within the 35 percent bracket.
  So I am told by all the experts--and this is not my expertise. To the 
extent I have one, I think it is more on the Constitution and foreign 
policy, and I am not suggesting I have one, but it is surely not here. 
I have tried to get the best information from as many sources. So we 
are talking about the incomes of people in the top bracket who are--by 
the way, if one is in the top bracket now they are in the less than 1 
percent bracket, they are about .7 of 1 percent of the income earners 
in America. One percent is slightly bigger than those who fall within 
the 35-percent tax bracket right now. But if you overlap, as Dr. Green 
tells it, if you overlap the two circles, they are almost exactly the 
same. There is some variation, but I can only go by the numbers 
provided by the IRS, and the models provided by them, and by our Joint 
Tax Committee.
  So the bottom line is this: The people in the top 1 percent--slightly 
more, by the way, than the people in the 35-percent tax bracket now--
those people, over the period of this entire tax cut, will receive 
$688.9 billion in tax reduction from what they were paying before the 
tax cut. What this does is it takes $87 billion of that amount, leaving 
them with a present and future tax cut of $600 billion, as opposed to 
$688.9 billion.
  This is to put it in perspective. Fully 80 percent of their fellow 
Americans, in the first four quintiles--you know how they divide this 
up. They divide it up into the first, second, third, fourth, and the 
fifth is the 1 percent. In other words, all other Americans, the 99 
percent of the other Americans who pay taxes get a cumulative tax cut, 
in the first--they will get cumulative tax cuts of $599 billion. All 
right? So you have the top 1 percent who will still get $600 billion, 
which will be $1 billion more than every other American combined will 
get in a tax cut.
  Let me be precise. I may have misspoken. That is not true. The first 
four--than 80 percent of the American people will get.
  Now, again, this is not an attack on the tax cut. I didn't like the 
tax cut, and I won't talk about that. But what Senator Kerry and I are 
trying to do takes away less than 5 percent of the $1.8 trillion in tax 
cuts that this tax cut bill provides. Again, it is not an attack on 
those at the highest income. It still leaves them $600 billion in tax 
cuts.
  There is a lot more for me to say, but I will yield now to my friend 
from Utah for that colloquy.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Delaware not only for his 
courtesy and friendship, which is reciprocated and, as he has said on 
the Senate floor, is genuine and real, but I thank him for the clear 
manner in which he has described this whole situation. I agree 
absolutely with the overall conclusion that he has come to with respect 
to loans versus grants. I am running this year, and I am going to have 
to defend the grant situation, but I am perfectly willing to do so for 
all the reasons which the Senator from Delaware has outlined.

[[Page 24024]]

  But there are a few comments I would like to make in the spirit of 
our friendship and the seriousness with which the Senator from Delaware 
has approached this issue--at random. The Senator from Delaware is 
often at random so he can understand.
  The references to the Marshall plan and the difference between World 
War I and World War II are accurate, but I would like to just add one 
factoid.
  Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, I want to make it clear I did 
not reference the Marshall plan. I referenced the philosophy. I think 
we have overworked the Marshall plan analogy.
  Mr. BENNETT. I agree with the Senator we have overworked it and I 
want to back away from it with this fact. The country that received the 
most money in the Marshall plan was Great Britain. It was not 
rebuilding destroyed countries, destroyed by virtue of our actions in 
the war. It was rebuilding Europe that was exhausted by the struggle 
that really began in the First World War and never ended. I think that 
is the appropriate analogy here.
  I do not view Iraq as a defeated nation. I view Iraq as a victorious 
nation that has won a struggle of almost four decades in length with 
our help.
  Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, I agree with that premise. I am 
not making the case they are a defeated nation.
  Mr. BENNETT. The Senator used the phrase ``defeated nation.'' I think 
it is, in fact, a victorious nation but an exhausted one by virtue of 
the 40-year struggle. The grant we are talking about here is essential 
to come back from that 40-year experience.
  The second random point: I listened to the Senator's comments about 
the deficit. All I know, both before I came here and in the relatively 
brief period of time I have been here, is that no matter what figure we 
use with respect to the deficit in the future, it is wrong. I don't 
know whether it is too high, and I don't know whether it is too low, 
but I do know one thing for sure, it is wrong.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield on that point? The Senator will 
agree, though, that whatever it is will be $87 billion higher if we 
don't pay for it.
  Mr. BENNETT. No. No. I will not because the deficit is a function of 
the vitality of the economy. If the economy is stronger than the 
computers at CBO are currently saying it is, the deficit could 
disappear and we could have the whole $87 billion.
  I am not saying that we will because I don't know.
  Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield on that point, if the Senator 
thinks there is any possibility of the entire deficit disappearing 
through economic growth in the next several years, then I think he and 
I should have a talk now because the Senate physician is down the hall 
here and we ought to go have a little visit with him. I know he doesn't 
seriously mean that.
  Mr. BENNETT. I think the possibility is extremely, extremely small.
  Mr. BIDEN. I believe in miracles, too. I am a Catholic. I believe in 
miracles.
  Mr. BENNETT. I do, however, know that over 50 percent of the 
shortfall in the projected surplus that we were talking about at the 
time we started, in 2001, is due not to the tax cut and not to 
increased spending but to the downturn in the economy. If the economy 
should come back to be as strong as it was before--and there are signs 
that it is recovering nicely now--that 50 percent could be recovered.
  So, no, I agree that we will not remove the deficit, but I think it 
is an inaccurate statement to say it will be exactly the $87 billion.
  We do that around here and it frustrates me as a former businessman. 
It frustrates me as a legislator. We are constantly taking the latest 
numbers from CBO and assuming that they are cast in stone. Then 3 
months later, when we get the next set of numbers that completely 
contradict the earlier ones, we say: Oh, these are the true numbers, 
and we go on and on. I am not arguing with the Senator's general 
direction, but I wanted to be a little careful in the specificity with 
which he outlines this.
  Let me get to the heart of the issue that I have with the proposal 
the Senator is making. I hope I can do this without being too arcane, 
and I hope I can do it quickly because I recognize I am on the 
Senator's time and I again thank him for his courtesy.
  Mr. BIDEN. May I ask, there is no time agreement right now; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). That is correct.
  Mr. BIDEN. So the Senator is entitled to have it on his time.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator. I think his experience at his 
cocktail party is one that would be repeated by every one of us if we 
were to gather people of that kind of income in any one of our States. 
So why don't we all join with the Senator from Delaware? Why am I not 
saying I agree with him?
  If I may illustrate the reasons with a personal example, not all of 
the tax returns that are filed and that are in the statistical sample 
the Senator described represent income to individuals. I do not know 
the current number. I would have looked it up if I had known I was 
going to get in this exchange. But other numbers have said 75 percent, 
80 percent, or some very high figure of percentage of those tax returns 
that show $400,000 in gross income are, in fact, not income to the 
individual. Let me give you my personal example to illustrate this.
  Before I came to the Senate, I was CEO of a company that was an S 
corporation. S corporations as opposed to C corporations are exactly 
the same thing except for the way they are taxed. The ``S'' refers to 
that section of the Tax Code that is appropriate and ``C'' refers to 
that section of the Tax Code that is appropriate. In an S corporation, 
the earnings of the company flow through to the shareholders and are 
reported on the shareholders' personal tax returns. Therefore, they 
show up as income to the individual.
  I will again use myself as the example. I was the CEO of this 
company. I was earning $140,000 a year as the CEO of the company. The 
company started to do really very well. It was growing very rapidly. 
Sales were more than doubling every year. We were bringing on new 
people. We were building new buildings. We needed every dime of capital 
we could put our hands on. Fortunately for us, we were doing this 
during what the New York Times called ``The Decade of Greed;'' that is, 
when the top marginal tax rate was 28 percent.
  By putting the income of the company on my personal tax return and 
those of the other shareholders, the company was paying an effective 
rate of 28 percent which meant we got to keep 72 cents out of every 
dollar we earned to finance the growth of that company. We created that 
company with internally generated funds. We didn't do it by going to 
the stock market. We didn't do it by going to the banks. Of course, we 
had a line of credit at the bank. But it was not part of our capital. 
That meant one of the last years before I left the company and decided 
to run for the Senate, my compensation from the company was $140,000.
  Let us go through these numbers.
  My compensation from the company was $140,000. My share of the 
company's profits which was reported on my 1040 was $1 million. As far 
as the IRS was concerned, I was a very rich man who was earning $1.14 
million a year. All I got was $140,000. The rest of it, while reported 
on my tax return, was kept in the company to pay for the growth of the 
company.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. KERRY. Isn't it accurate that because it was a subchapter S 
corporation all of the deductions also flowed through to you? Isn't it 
accurate? All the deductions flowed through you?
  Mr. BENNETT. Of course. The net amount I reported after the 
deductions was $1 million. So as far as the IRS was concerned, my 
income was $1.14 million. Under the Tax Code, the deductions to which 
the Senator from Delaware referred that go to people in these 
categories were all wiped out by the $1 million. All of my credits, all 
of my deductions--everything was wiped out.

[[Page 24025]]

  If we were to take the numbers the Senator from Delaware was talking 
about, and say, OK, you have someone with a $400,000 gross income, and 
that means his after-tax income is $312,000 because of the standard 
deduction, if he has a chunk of 401-K income on this from either an S 
corporation or an LLC corporation, or a partnership, all of those 
standard deductions go away very quickly as the number goes up.
  The point of this is not to argue one way or the other about how the 
tax structure is; it is to say the Senator is inadvertently targeting a 
large number of small businesses where profits and growth money are 
being reported on individual returns rather than through corporate 
returns. The S corporations were made substantially worse after the 
Reagan years because of the summit at Andrews Air Force Base, and then 
what was done with the Clinton tax increases.
  There are not as many people using the S corporations as there used 
to be because the advantage is not as great. But there is a still a 
very substantial amount of small business income that will be hit by 
the Senator's amendment. We are not just talking about Donald Trump and 
Jennifer Lopez. We are not talking about Michael Jordan. We are talking 
about people who are building businesses for whom $400,000 a year for 
the income of the business is a demonstration of a struggle. It is not 
a demonstration of the kind of opulence you find at the Delaware 
country club. It is survival. We didn't get to the point with the 
business I have described where we felt comfortable in cash flow until 
our earnings were well into the $10 million, $12 million, or $15 
million area because of the demand for capital.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BENNETT. I would be happy to.
  Mr. BIDEN. We are trying to get this agreement. As a practical 
matter, this will come out of my time. I think the Senator has made his 
point.
  Let me make a macroeconomic point and let some of my other colleagues 
respond as well. With regard to the small businesses, small business 
owners can still happen to be among the top 1 percent income earners. 
Only 2 percent of the small business owners fall into that bracket, a 
number which includes a lot of people who have passive participation 
with investment income in small business. These are not hands-on, mom-
and-pop businesses. If you look at the sole proprietorships, those of 
hands-on owners, less than 2 percent are paying the 35 percent bracket. 
Therefore, 98 percent of the small business owners will not be affected 
by this proposal, as I understand from staff.
  I will get back to this in our discussion. But I want to yield to my 
friend from Massachusetts because we are about to enter into a time 
agreement. I didn't realize we were running the time before the 
agreement is made. At any rate, I will reserve the remainder of the 
time while we are trying to work this out.
  To respond to my friend, I understand his point. The bottom line is 
no matter how you cut it, this is affecting an incredibly small number 
of people for an incredibly important undertaking and the alternatives 
are worse by a long shot, in my view, that any negative impact in any 
sector in any way would come from this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, we are moments away from offering a 
unanimous consent request. I don't know who is going to get the floor 
next, but whoever gets the floor, I ask if Senators will allow an 
interruption for the unanimous consent request. It should be coming in 
a matter of a couple of minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, thank you very much. I will proceed until 
such time as the unanimous consent request is put into effect.
  I listened carefully to the comments of the Senator from Delaware, 
and obviously the Senator from Utah. I think the comments of the 
Senator from Utah do not really change the equation at all because the 
real question here is, Why is America being asked to pay this $87 
billion? What is the context within which the average citizen of 
America, the average taxpayer is now being told, Whoops, we have a 
whole different situation here. We have to pay $87 billion in addition 
to the $79 billion Americans have already invested in the war to date.
  Most Americans think this is sort of the bill for the war. It is not. 
We are well over $160 billion or $170 billion already once you add the 
$87 billion, and most people believe it is going to go beyond that.
  The question is, What is the fair distribution of this burden in the 
overall context of our economy to the average taxpayer of America? Is 
it right for President Bush and for the Republicans to be asking 
America to give an enormous tax cut to the wealthiest of Americans and 
spend the $87 billion, which also adds to the deficit for this year?
  No one will come to the Senate and say the $500 billion deficit we 
are facing next year is going to be wiped out by growth in the economy 
when we are not even adding jobs in the growth to the economy today.
  I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote in 
relation to the pending Biden amendment occur at 3:15 p.m. today with 
no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote, provided the 
debate before the vote be 30 minutes under the control of the 
Republican side and the remaining time under the Democratic leader or 
his designee.
  Mr. REID. I ask that the Senator allow the consent to be modified, as 
follows: Senator Biden be recognized for 30 minutes, within the time 
allocated to us; Senator Kennedy for 15 minutes; Senator Kerry for 20 
minutes; Senator Kohl for 5 minutes; Senator Clinton for 10 minutes; 
Senator Conrad for 15 minutes; Senator Jack Reed for 5 minutes; Senator 
Durbin for 5 minutes; Senator Feinstein for 10 minutes; Senator Johnson 
for 5 minutes, Senator Carper for 5 minutes; and if there is any time 
remaining, it would be under the control of the Senator from Delaware.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object, I ask that this be 
amended, since I have been waiting, so that I follow Senator Kerry for 
my time.
  Mr. REID. I think that is appropriate. And Senator Bunning will 
follow Senator Feinstein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. The question we ought to be asking is, What is the right 
thing to do that is in keeping with the values of America? We have the 
worst economy we have had, the worst jobs economy since Herbert Hoover 
was President of the United States; 3.1 million Americans have lost 
their jobs, 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. All across 
America, people are watching outsourcing taking place as jobs are going 
to China, India, and other countries. They are not being replaced. We 
just picked up the newspapers a couple of days ago and saw that 2 
million Americans have lost their health insurance retirement, it has 
been blown away for countless numbers of Americans. Health care has 
been lost for 2 million Americans. Governors across the country are 
raising taxes and cutting services. Infrastructure investments are 
being deferred.
  What the Republicans and the President are asking is that we take 
another $87 billion and still keep a tax cut for the wealthiest people 
in our country who are doing the best, who are already the most 
comfortable, who are perfectly prepared to do their part to sacrifice, 
to contribute, not to grow the deficit--indeed, to relieve some of the 
financial pressure of this country, literally, to make things more fair 
in America.
  What this is about is called fundamental fairness. Fairness. It is 
not about class warfare. This is not about redistribution. Is it fair 
in America to suggest that you can add to the deficit--which it will 
this year--to suggest all of the figures of this administration, which 
have been wrong, can be wiped away on the backs of the average American 
so that the wealthiest people

[[Page 24026]]

in the country can keep their tax cut? That is the question. It is a 
pretty simple fundamental question.
  If others want to come to the Senate and defend the notion, it is 
absolutely OK to be misled, to have major players in the administration 
tell us, it is only going to cost $50 billion; it will come out of the 
Iraqi oil; don't worry about it. And every one of those promises have 
been wiped away and left in tatters across this country.
  Americans are angry about this. What is the Senate going to do? Stand 
here and defend the proposition that America in its current fiscal 
condition can support a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans at the 
expense of common sense and fairness? That is what this vote is about. 
That is what this choice is about.
  It also is about the fundamental realities of how we got here. Last 
spring, our fighting men and women swept across the battlefields of 
Iraq. There is not anyone in the Senate who is not proud of what they 
accomplished in military terms. Thanks to their courage and their 
skills, Saddam Hussein and his henchmen are scattered and that brutal 
regime is no more.
  But in the aftermath of that military victory, just as many Members 
predicted, in the absence of building a coalition, in the absence of 
doing the diplomacy, in the absence of showing patience and maturity, 
in the absence of living up to our highest values and standards about 
how we take a nation to war, we are now in danger of losing the peace.
  The clearest symbol of that danger is the target on the backs of 
young American men and women in Iraq. Today, soldiers in Baghdad fear 
getting shot simply going out and getting a drink of water. A squad at 
a checkpoint has to worry whether a station wagon coming at them is a 
mobile bomb. And troops moving in convoy take RPGs and improvised 
explosive devices, and we pick up the papers each day and hear the news 
about three, two, one more young American life lost because we failed 
to plan to win the peace adequately, we failed to put in place the 
greatest protection possible for these troops, which is what they are 
owed.
  Now we know Iraq's infrastructure needs to be rebuilt and we face the 
challenge of forging a new government and giving it legitimacy under 
circumstances that were entirely predictable and entirely ignored by 
this administration. We were told by this administration, in their 
confidence--and, may I add, in their arrogance--that the Iraqis would 
see us as liberators.
  They see us as occupiers--again, something many predicted absent the 
effort to try to globalize our effort. They see us as a foreign power 
ruling over their country, preventing self-determination, not providing 
it. We were told to expect elections and quick transition to self-
governance. But now we know those elections may be many months away at 
best.
  None of this was planned or predicted by the President or his war 
counsel. Eager to rush to war, the administration played down or, 
worse, ignored the likelihood of resistance. It lowballed the number of 
forces that would be needed to seize the alleged WMD sites, for which 
the war was fought, to protect the infrastructure, and underestimated 
the magnitude of the reconstruction task and the ease with which oil 
would flow for rebuilding. It refused to tell the American people 
upfront the long-term costs of winning the peace.
  I remember the distinguished former President pro tempore and leader 
of the Democrats, the Senator from West Virginia, asking that question 
penetratingly, repeatedly. Yet those figures given have proven to be 
false or completely underballed. It refused to tell the American people 
those long-term costs, and it refused to do the work, to ask the 
international community to join us in this effort.
  It was bad enough to go it alone in the war, but it is inexcusable 
and incomprehensible that we choose to go it alone in the peace. One of 
the reasons we are facing $87 billion is that the administration has 
stiff-armed the United Nations and has not been willing to bring other 
nations to this cause through the deftness of their diplomacy, the 
skill of their diplomacy.
  Last year, President Bush had three decisive opportunities to reduce 
this $87 billion bill. That first opportunity came when we authorized 
force. That authorization sent a strong signal about the intentions of 
the Congress to be united in holding Saddam Hussein accountable. I 
thought, and still believe, that was the right thing to do. It was 
appropriate for the United States to help stand up at the United 
Nations and hold those resolutions accountable. It set the stage for 
the U.N. resolution that finally led Saddam Hussein to let the weapons 
inspectors back into Iraq. That was correct.
  When I voted to give that authority, I said the arms inspections are 
``absolutely critical in building international support for our case. 
That's how you make clear to the world we are contemplating war not for 
war's sake, but because it may be the ultimate weapons inspections 
enforcement mechanism.''
  The Bush administration, impatient to go into battle, stopped the 
clock on the inspections, against the wishes of key members of the 
Security Council, and despite the call of many in Congress who had 
voted to authorize the use of force as the last resort the President 
said it would be.
  Despite his September promise to the United Nations to ``work with 
the UN Security Council to meet our common challenge,'' President Bush 
rushed ahead on the basis of what we now know to be dubious, 
inaccurate, and perhaps even manipulated intelligence.
  So the first chance for a true international response that would have 
reduced this bill, that would have brought other countries to 
contribute was lost.
  Then there was a second opportunity. After the Iraqi people pulled 
down the statue of Saddam Hussein in the square in Baghdad, there was a 
moment when British and American forces had proven our military might 
and the world was prepared to come in and try to assume the 
responsibility for helping to rebuild Iraq.
  Once again, Kofi Annan and the United Nations offered their help. 
Once again, this administration gave them the stiff arm. They said: No, 
thank you; we do not need your help. And we proceeded forward without 
building the kind of coalition that would reduce the risk to our troops 
and without reducing the cost to the American people.
  Then the third occasion was just the other day, when the President 
went to the U.N. General Assembly. Other nations again stood ready to 
help to provide troops and, hopefully, funds. All President Bush had to 
do was show a little humility and ask appropriately. Instead of asking, 
he lectured. Instead of focusing on reconstruction, his speech was a 
coldly received exercise in the rhetoric of redemption.
  Kofi Annan offered to help. Again, we did not take them up on that 
offer in a way that was realistic. The President exhibited an attitude 
that was both self-satisfied and tone deaf simultaneously, once again 
raising the risk for American soldiers by leaving them alone, and once 
again raising the cost to the American people by leaving America alone.
  I believe the President could have owned up to some of the 
difficulties. The President could have signaled or stated a willingness 
to abandon unilateral control over reconstruction and governance. 
Instead, he made America less safe--less safe--in a speech and in 
conduct that pushed other nations away rather than brought them to our 
cause and what should be rightfully the world's cause.
  So what of this cost of the Iraqi operation?
  In the fall of 2002, OMB Chief Mitch Daniels told us the costs of 
Iraq would be between $50 and $60 billion. It is now already more than 
$100 billion more than that.
  In January of this year, Secretary Rumsfeld said the same, and he 
added that ``How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much 
would be other countries', is an open question.''
  Well, today it is not an open question; it is a closed question. We 
know the answer: The majority is being paid by the American taxpayers.
  In March of this year, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz testified in the 
Senate that Iraq is a ``country that can

[[Page 24027]]

really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.''
  Did the Secretary mislead us or was the Secretary ignorant?
  Again, in March, Secretary Powell testified in the Senate that ``Iraq 
will not require the sorts of foreign assistance Afghanistan will 
continue to require.''
  When Larry Lindsey predicted the war may cost $100 billion to $200 
billion, he was deemed so far off base by the White House that he was 
fired.
  Now, a year later, Congress is set to appropriate over $160 billion, 
and the costs are estimated to rise to $350 billion to $400 billion 
over 5 years. Even Larry Lindsey's estimates are now low.
  With so much so wrong, Americans are looking to the White House for 
direction and leadership. They want, and they deserve, straight answers 
to straight questions.
  How long will we be there? How much will it really cost? How many 
American troops will it take? And how long will it be before we do what 
common sense dictates and get the world invested in this effort by not 
treating Iraq as though it is an American prize, a loot of war but, 
rather, treating it as a nation that belongs in the community of 
nations, dealt with properly by the United Nations, as we did in Bosnia 
and Kosovo and Namibia and East Timor and in other parts of the world?
  So far, the White House, with all of its evasion and explanation, has 
been a house of mirrors where nothing is what it seems and almost 
everything is other than what the President promised. But Americans are 
also looking to us in the Congress for leadership.
  The President has talked a lot about sacrifice in recent weeks. In an 
address from the White House, he said of Iraq, ``This will take time 
and require sacrifice.'' In his weekly radio talk, he warned that 
``This campaign requires sacrifice.'' Even in his State of the Union 
Address, the President issued a call for sacrifice saying: ``We will 
not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to 
other Congresses, other presidents, and other generations.'' But that 
is exactly what we are doing if we leave this $87 billion in its 
current form.
  Also, there can be no doubt that the President has demanded that most 
of this sacrifice will come from the men and women in uniform. More 
than 300 troops have now already given their lives in Iraq. The Army is 
stretched too thin for its duties in Iraq. And troops who were promised 
that they would be home long ago remain in Iraq.
  The President has called on the National Guard and Reserve at 
historic rates and put more than 200,000 guardsmen and reservists on 
active duty. The Pentagon has changed the rules so that a Guard unit's 
activation date does not start until the troops arrive in Iraq. That is 
a bookkeeping sleight of hand that keeps thousands of forces deployed 
even longer than they expected or were promised. And, incredibly, the 
President's call for sacrifice even included billing wounded troops for 
the cost of hospital meals. Fortunately, the Congress rectified that 
problem in this supplemental. But it is not yet law.
  Despite all we are asking of the men and women in uniform, the bill 
we now debate appropriates $87 billion simply by increasing the Federal 
deficit. It asks no sacrifice of anybody in the United States today who 
can afford it. This is an off-budget, deficit-spending free ride.
  The amendment Senator Biden and I and others are offering changes 
that. It will pay the cost of this bill. It will pay the cost of the 
entire $87 billion by simply repealing--not all, which I think we ought 
to do--a portion of the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.
  The Biden-Kerry amendment will ask those who can afford to pay this 
burden to do so, and make their contribution, make their sacrifice to 
the effort to win the peace. It protects the middle class. It meets our 
obligations in Iraq. And it will help ensure that we have the resources 
necessary to accomplish our goals here at home, goals such as making 
health care more affordable, paying for homeland security, and keeping 
the President's promise to leave no child behind.
  We should not abandon our mission in Iraq, and we understand the 
downsides of doing so. But we ought to demand that whatever we spend in 
Iraq be paid for with shared sacrifice, not deficit dollars.
  We are already shortchanging critical domestic programs to pay for 
unwise tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. In addition, the Bush 
fiscal record and its trillions in debt demand that we follow the 
commonsense approach of our amendment.
  Since President Bush took office, the cumulative 10-year budget 
surplus has declined by almost $10 trillion. We have gone from the 
largest budget surplus in American history to the largest deficit in 
American history this year. We have added nearly $1 trillion to the 
debt inside of a single Presidential term. On top of that, we have 
passed a huge tax cut during wartime for the first time in American 
history. And that is the height of irresponsible, reckless budgeting.
  The Bush administration blames the budget crisis on the Nation's 
response to September 11 and on funding for domestic programs, but that 
is a stunning misstatement of fact.
  The simple facts are that the fiscal policies supported by this 
administration--tax cuts already passed, tax cuts that have been 
proposed, significant increases in defense spending and money for Iraq, 
and additional interest on the debt--have caused more than half of this 
turnaround. As the debt piles up, the President claims that he bears no 
responsibility when he, in fact, and his policies are the primary 
cause.
  Senator Biden and I are making a commonsense proposal. Rather than 
borrowing an additional $87 billion, we want to scale back a small 
portion of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, for those making 
over $300,000 a year. The average income of those in that top tax 
bracket is $1 million a year. These Americans are not exactly hurting. 
Their real average after-tax income rose a remarkable 200 percent in 
the 1980s and 1990s, and their overall share of pretax income has 
nearly doubled over 20 years. That cannot be said of any other income 
group in the United States.
  In the year 2000, the 2.8 million people who made up the top 1 
percent of the population received more total after-tax income than did 
110 million Americans who make up the bottom 40 percent. Think about 
that: The top 1 percent of Americans earned more income than the bottom 
40 percent, and that is after taxes.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, under the time allocated, we have some 
extra time. So on behalf of Senator Biden, I yield 2 minutes to the 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. It is simply not unfair to ask those earning the most, 
those who are the most fortunate, those who are the most talented, the 
hard-working Americans who are earning more than $300,000, not as a 
matter of any kind of targeting except for the fact they are the best 
off and have the greatest ability, to make this sacrifice without a 
negative impact on their lifestyle, on their choices, on their quality 
of life. This is a time for sacrifice. I believe it is appropriate for 
us to ask that in order to promote a free Iraq, in order to reduce the 
burden being placed on future generations of Americans, in order to 
reduce the burden placed on the middle class today, in order to have 
the least negative impact on our economy, the least negative impact on 
long-term interest rates, the least crowding out of borrowing by adding 
to the debt and crowding out private borrowing in the marketplace by 
public borrowing, the least negative impact on perceptions, the best 
way for America to deal with this problem of misinformation, this 
problem of promises broken is to turn to those the President seeks most 
to give the biggest breaks to most frequently and ask them to share the 
burden.
  I hope my colleagues will do that, recognizing the sacrifice being 
made on a daily basis by 130,000 of our troops who live and die by what 
we do in the Senate and the House, in the Congress in Washington.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Delaware.

[[Page 24028]]


  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. I meant to state earlier--and I know my colleague from 
California is about to speak--that the Senator from California was way 
ahead of me and way ahead of my friend from Massachusetts in one very 
important respect. She and Senator Chafee, long before I made this 
proposal, suggested that, quite frankly, the entire top 1 percent of 
the tax break be rolled back, not just $87 billion, to pay for this and 
for other things to reduce the deficit. It was my intention to speak to 
that. Then I entered into what was an exchange with my friend from 
Utah, and I did not. I want to make clear what a central role she and 
Senator Chafee have played in making the fundamental point that all 
Americans should participate in making sure we win the peace and not 
saddle the next generation. That is unconscionable.
  I yield the floor and thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware. I 
appreciate those words. Both Senator Chafee and I felt very strongly 
that this rate rollback that affects the top 1 percent is really the 
right thing to do at this time.
  I particularly compliment the Senator from Delaware on the way he 
worked out this bill, because essentially this is a rollback of the 
accelerated rate cut that the top 1 percent received in May 2003. It 
rolls back the acceleration just enough to pay the $87 billion cost of 
this supplemental. So it becomes a very reasonable way to pay for a 
part of this war which, to date, including this supplemental, will cost 
the American people more than $150 billion.
  This is a big day in the Senate. As many of us have pointed out this 
week at the Appropriations Committee hearing on the supplemental, there 
are questions in the $21 billion reconstruction portion of the 
supplemental request. Senator Byrd has twice tried to divide the 
package--once in the Appropriations Committee, once here on the floor. 
We have not been successful in being able to do that.
  At the same time, we also recognize the seriousness of the need that 
the Iraqi people and their transportation and water infrastructure face 
after decades of neglect. We certainly recognize the needs that our men 
and women have in Iraq.
  The fact is, we don't have the money to pay for improvements in our 
own infrastructure. Owing to a lack of money, just a few hours ago I 
decided against offering an amendment to this supplemental that would 
have invested substantial moneys in our domestic infrastructure, a plan 
that would have enhanced the safety, security, and efficiency of our 
highway, transit, aviation, rail, port, environmental, and public 
buildings infrastructure.
  The reality is that there is no money to fund necessary improvements 
here at home. The reality is, those of us on this side of the aisle 
have become deficit hawks, whereas a few years ago it was the other 
side of the aisle. So today we have greatly enhanced spending for 
preparedness, for homeland security, and for the military.
  How is it we can be expected to approve this supplemental without 
asking the most obvious question: How are we going to pay for it?
  I have joined with Senators Biden, Kerry, Corzine, and others in 
supporting this legislation because it will provide the necessary 
financial footing to appropriately execute our obligations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan as contained in this supplemental. In 1998, following 
nearly 30 years of deficits and a seventeenfold increase in the Federal 
debt, from $365.8 billion to $6.4 trillion, bipartisan cooperation 
brought the budget back into balance again. In 1998, we had the first 
surplus in a long time. Some of the funds which would have gone to pay 
interest on the debt were instead spent actually paying down the debt, 
and we were all delighted.
  Now deficits and interest costs are growing once again. Net interest 
payments on Federal debt will increase sharply, from approximately $170 
billion in 2003 to more than $300 billion by 2012. And we face a host 
of new challenges: the war on terror, the war in Iraq, the threat of 
North Korea. This has necessarily led to a shift in Government spending 
toward improving our defense and homeland security capabilities. Yet 
many of the challenges predating September 11 are still with us: 
improving education, updating infrastructure, preparing for the 
retirement of the baby boom generation, which will all severely strain 
the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
  The CBO predicts that the Federal deficit for fiscal year 2004 will 
top $500 billion.
  We might dispute the actual amount, but let there be no doubt, it is 
going to happen. We are going to have the largest deficit in our 
history this year. A portion of every dollar we spend, from this day 
forward until the end of September 2004, will be borrowed money--money 
our children and grandchildren will have to repay.
  It is no secret that if citizens wish to receive services or 
undertake activities as a Nation, they have the right to levy a tax 
upon themselves to achieve these ends. We have somehow lost this sense 
of obligation and we have concluded that providing for our national 
defense, or for the education of our children, requires no more than 
charging the costs to a Government credit card. This must stop.
  In fact, as this supplemental request is currently structured, our 
children and our grandchildren will pay $3.60 for every dollar we 
borrow. This supplemental is not a request for $87 billion. It actually 
totals $313 billion if you include the interest--$313 billion. It is 
penny wise and pound foolish to do this the way we are doing it, by not 
paying for it.
  The President of the United States, in January of this year at his 
State of the Union, said the following words, and we from both sides of 
the aisle rose in acclaim to these words:

       This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will 
     not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other 
     Congresses, to other Presidents, and to other generations. We 
     will confront them with focus and clarity and courage.

  Well, this is one challenge we are passing on to other Congresses and 
to other generations. We need not do it. This is a well thought out 
proposal to temporarily rollback a small portion of the accelerated tax 
cut for the top 1 percent--the wealthiest of all Americans.
  As has been well stated, everyone who falls within this 1 percent 
makes more than $310,000 a year in taxable income, which typically 
means that they are making more than $420,000 a year in gross income.
  We have more income taxpayers in California than any other State. 
Thirteen million out of 34 million people are income taxpayers. In 
California, this amendment will affect less than 250,000 families 
paying these taxes. These families are all in the top 1 percent they 
are the wealthiest Californians. Not one of them, at any time, has ever 
come up to me and said: Senator, we want a tax cut. But I have had 
several come up to me and say: I didn't realize how much money I would 
receive from the 2001 tax cut. And they have added that it was not 
really necessary to do it.
  We now have an opportunity, by scaling back a small portion of the 
accelerated cut associated with the May 2003 tax package, to pay for 
this $87 billion supplemental. It makes good sense. Think of what it 
saves for the future in terms of interest costs.
  So what we are proposing generates $87 billion. It is a first step 
toward putting our fiscal house in order. It pays for the President's 
supplemental spending request. It doesn't revoke the 2001 reduction in 
the top income tax rate, nor would it affect any other element of the 
2001 tax package. It would merely temporarily raise the marginal income 
tax rate of the richest in our society. These people could take pride 
in knowing that this supplemental would not create debt that would be 
passed on to their grandchildren, to your grandchildren, or to my 
grandchildren.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). The Senator 
from Kentucky is recognized.

[[Page 24029]]


  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to raise a few points on the war 
on terror and offer my support for the President's supplemental 
request.
  First, I am compelled to address the latest round of attacks against 
the President's request to fund our Armed Forces and rebuilding efforts 
in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
  We are at war. We may not have tens of thousands of soldiers storming 
the beaches of Normandy. There are no forces with tanks positioned 
against a potential Soviet advance into Europe.
  But let there be no misunderstanding. The war against terror is every 
bit as important as our fight against fascism in World War II. Or our 
struggle against the spread of communism during the cold war.
  I have full confidence that Kentuckians and the American people 
realize this. But sometimes I wonder if some of my colleagues do, 
because appeasement in this war is not an option.
  Over the past decade, we have seen the bombing of the World Trade 
Center in 1993, 19 American soldiers dead in the bombing of the Kohbar 
Towers, and two U.S. Embassies in Africa blown up in 1996, and the 
bombing of the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen in 2000.
  And then, instead of facing the threat of Islamic radicalism, we 
virtually looked the other way, and sent American forces as 
peacekeepers elsewhere into places like Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo.
  We still have thousands of American peacekeepers in Bosnia and 
Kosovo. And these roles should be played by European forces who refuse 
to get serious about cleaning up their own backyard.
  During the 1990s, the Western world was riding high as the cold war 
ended. Millions of people around the world found their first taste of 
freedom. Anti-American rhetoric was a mere fraction of what it is 
today. The global economy was humming along quite nicely.
  However, some in the world digressed as we progressed. The Taliban 
came to power in Afghanistan with its brutal regime over the Afghan 
people. Afghan girls were kept out of school.
  The regime executed political and religious dissidents. And al-Qaida 
established training camps freely under the Taliban government.
  Saddam Hussein never accounted for his weapons of mass destruction 
programs. He kicked out the UN weapons inspectors. He defied UN 
resolutions. He made payments to families of suicide bombers. Mass 
graves were filled with bodies. He was a destabilizing threat.
  And we let our guard down.
  We all know what happened next--
9/11. And that day changed everything. President Bush and Members of 
Congress from both parties vowed never again to let our guard down. We 
vowed to protect the American people at all costs. And the war on 
terror began.
  Difficult times require difficult decisions, but supporting this bill 
shouldn't be a difficult decision.
  Let's show our resolve with our commitment to finish this war on 
terror. Passing this supplemental will help get us closer.
  We cannot pull back out of Iraq now, and should a vote come up in the 
Senate to pull our support out of Iraq, it would fail overwhelmingly.
  Contrary to what opponents say, the war in Iraq is neither a 
``fraud,'' a ``quagmire,'' nor a ``miserable failure.''
  This would suggest that our troops sent to liberate Iraq and fight 
terrorism have died in vain. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  From watching the news, one would think the Iraqis want us out of 
their country. But an overwhelming majority of Iraqis support our 
involvement there. Our freedom is contagious and we helped liberate 
them.
  Much progress has been made in relatively little time. American 
troops stayed in Germany for 4 years and Japan for 7. We are still in 
Bosnia and Kosovo. We can't expect democracy overnight.
  Saddam invested in palaces and terror and not his economic 
infrastructure. Many Iraqis had to wait until Saddam was gone to find 
their loved ones in one of his mass graves.
  It is now time to ensure that the days of mass graves in Iraq ends.
  Our military forces deserve quick Congressional action on this bill.
  I have been following the 101st Airborne in Iraq. They are based at 
Fort Campbell, KY. Just this week, the commanding general of the 101st, 
General Petraeus, told me that over in Iraq ``money is ammunition. It's 
the key to all we are doing.''
  The 101st is doing some great work in northern Iraq. Besides killing 
Saddam's two sons and accepting the surrender of Saddam's Defense 
Minister, the 101st has worked on over 3,200 projects in the rebuilding 
of Iraq. These range from repairing schools to repairing oil 
refineries. They are doing truly remarkable work along with all our 
forces.
  Some in Congress believe we should make the rebuilding funds a loan 
and not a grant. I oppose this approach.
  While Iraq certainly has the resources to become a wealthy country, 
its revenue from oil should be used to invest in its own future, not to 
pay off old debts incurred under Saddam or be burdened with the debts 
of a loan as it tries to transition to a free economy.
  And besides, there is no established Iraq government to transfer a 
loan to.
  I find great irony in the arguments of some who oppose the war. Many 
argued this war was all about the President's desire for oil.
  Now many of these same people say we should use Iraqi oil to repay 
our Government. And President Bush is leading the charge on allowing 
Iraqis to keep their oil revenues for themselves.
  Planning for an Iraqi oil fund is now in the works. It will give 
Iraqis a stake in the future of their country for the first time. Funds 
would go to public goods, such as national defense, education, and 
infrastructure.
  This is the type of approach Iraq needs. We need to give the Iraqi 
people a hand up and not keep their heads down with debt.
  If we don't act swiftly on this bill and terrorism prevails in this 
war, then we risk having to fight this war on America's turf. And that 
is why it is so vital to defeat the enemy on its turf as opposed to 
allowing them to regroup and hit us at home as they did on 9/11.
  I don't like getting casualty notifications on soldiers, especially 
soldiers in my State, and I don't like it for anybody's state. No 
Senator likes seeing them. It is difficult.
  We all feel for the families and friends of the brave soldiers who 
have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know what it is like for those 
with loved ones still there. My wife and I felt the same way when our 
son Bill served in Operation Desert Storm and later in Afghanistan.
  But we must remember that our cause is just and that we are on the 
right side of history.
  We must remember that the war on terror may continue for some time. I 
am going to repeat that because I want the American people to 
understand that the war on terror may continue for some time. I 
acknowledge that this is a difficult point for many Americans to grasp. 
Indeed, it is difficult for many of us.
  This is why it is time for us to move swiftly on this bill to protect 
our troops and help rebuild both countries. This bill is an investment 
in not just Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is an investment in our 
security, freedom, and future.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments to speak in 
favor of the Biden amendment that is before the Senate, which offsets 
the extraordinary expenses--$87 billion--we are being asked to consider 
in this supplemental appropriations act.
  Before I get into that discussion, however, it is probably useful for 
all of us to, once again, realize what $87 billion really is. It is 
very difficult to get our hands around such a sizable number. It is 
only when we look at it in comparison to other important federal 
programs, to other key economic indicators, that we can really develop 
a better understanding of how much money this really is.
  Mr. President, $87 billion is more than the combined budget deficits 
of

[[Page 24030]]

all the 50 States in 2004. Even in the greatest fiscal crisis since the 
Great Depression, the deficits of all 50 states were less than this 
sum.
  Eighty-seven billion is 87 times what the Federal Government usually 
spends annually on afterschool programs. That is right, what we usually 
spend, because this year the Administration proposes cutting that by 
nearly $400 billion.
  We have fought to try and get it back to just $1 billion for the 
afterschool programs that are so essential to assisting children 
develop the academic tools, personal confidence, and social skills 
necessary for personal success and accomplishment in this country. Yet 
still this Administration wants to slash this funding.
  Again, this $87 billion is 87 times what we spend nationwide on 
afterschool programs.
  It is 2 years' worth of unemployment benefits for the millions of 
people who have lost their jobs on this Administration's watch. Every 
couple of months, we have to fight tooth and nail to extend these 
temporary benefits for Americans who cannot find work. And its always a 
fight.
  These are not unmotivated citizens looking for a check they are 
hardworking Americans who can't find a job in this slack economy. If we 
help get them through this extraordinarily difficult time, they'll be 
back contributing to the unemployment insurance system in a very short 
time period.
  This $87 billion is enough to pay each of the 3.3 million people who 
have lost their jobs in the past 3 years more than $26,000.
  It is seven times what the President proposed to spend on education 
for low-income schools. Make no mistake about it: This $87 billion is 
seven times the amount that this institution, the House of 
Representatives, and the President are allocating for the low-income 
schools in this country. It is seven times the amount we are spending 
for the education of low-income children in this country.
  It is nine times what this Federal Government spends each year on 
special education for those several million children, close to about 4 
million, who used to be kept in closets or kept away from the public 
school system. We don't do that anymore, we don't relegate Americans to 
lives of depravation, neglect, and isolation. For more than 25 years, 
we have made steady progress, with section 504 of the Education Act and 
then eventually the special education programs, the IDEA, some 25 years 
ago. We have made remarkable progress.
  What we are now looking now is that so many of these children 
graduate from high school, go on to college, and enter the workforce. 
They have a sense of value of their own self worth, a sense of dignity, 
and they now contribute to the productivity of this nation. And what a 
difference it makes to their parents, and their communities, and their 
country. Yet in one stroke of the pen, we are about to send nine as 
much money to Iraq as we invest in special education each year.
  This $87 billion is also eight times what the Government spends each 
year on the Pell grants to provide middle- and low-income students the 
opportunity to go to college. The average income of families needing 
this assistance is $15,200. And there are more than 4,800,000 young 
people nationwide relying on this badly needed grant help.
  We began the Pell Grant program at a time when we as a nation to our 
young people that if they have ability and they can gain entrance into 
the colleges where they are applying, we will help devise a package of 
grants, loans, and work study programs in conjunction with their own 
summer employment and contributions from their family, so that they can 
achieve their highest aspirations.
  That was an incredibly important choice for the economic and social 
well-being of this country. It is important in terms of ensuring that 
we are going to have well-qualified people in the military. It is 
important in terms of our institutions and democracy.
  Yet this $87 billion is eight times what we are allocating for 
middle-income and low-income families to send their children to school. 
Do my colleagues understand that? It is eight times that amount, and we 
had to battle this year, a fight which we lost, to bring the Pell 
grants up to respond to the increase in tuitions that are taking place 
across this country. We wanted $2.2 billion, but we lost that $2.2 
billion in the Senate. This Senate didn't have the money to help more 
families send their kids to college this year, and now we know why.
  This $87 billion is eight times the total Pell grants. That is what 
we are talking about. It is larger than the total economy of 166 
nations. So this is a major allocation of resources that is going to 
bind our hands for years to come.
  What does the Biden amendment do? The Biden amendment says we are 
going to pay for this. We are not just going to allocate these 
resources and add it to the debt of this country, which means our 
children and our grandchildren are going to have to pay this some time 
in the future.
  We passed a very generous tax reduction program for the top 1 percent 
of the taxpayers in this country. Now listen to this: Between 2003 and 
2010, the top 1 percent of the taxpayers, which have an average income 
in excess of $1 million, are going to get $690 billion in tax relief. 
Do we understand that?
  With the tax reductions that this Congress has passed over the period 
of the last 2 years, the top 1 percent is going to get $690 billion. 
Those are individuals who are making $1 million or more. That is going 
to be their savings over the next 7 years, $690 billion. All the Biden 
amendment says is rather than $690, let's make it $600 billion, in 
order to make a down payment on paying for the war.
  Shared sacrifice, now that is a pretty good American idea. Abraham 
Lincoln believed in it when he call for an increase in the tax for the 
wealthiest individuals at the time of the Civil War. We did exactly the 
same thing at the time of the Spanish-American War. Shared sacrifices 
across the board, by those who had the highest income. We did it in 
World War I. We did it in World War II. Why are we not doing it with 
this?
  That is all this amendment is really about, shared sacrifice. To the 
wealthiest 1 percent of individuals, we are saying when we have 
American servicemen who are risking their lives every day families 
being disrupted in terms of the National Guard and the Reserves--you 
can give up some portion of your $690 billion tax cut. I met with many 
from Massachusetts' servicemen who have come back from Iraq and 
Afghanistan to find their jobs in jeopardy gone because of the state of 
the economy. Families are separated for a much longer time than they 
ever expected.
  In our State, there are 11 families who have lost a loved one and 
scores of families with grievously wounded relatives and friends. Why 
can we not say that we are going to have some shared sacrifice? Instead 
of the $690 billion, we will make it just under $600 billion. That is 
what this amendment is about.
  Finally, it seems to me a powerful enough argument, but listen, when 
we enacted this tax cut, the administration officials, like Secretary 
Rumsfeld, were saying, ``I do not believe the United States has the 
responsibility for reconstruction.'' That was at the time we were 
passing the tax cut.
  We enacted this tax cut when the USAID Administrator Natsios was 
telling the American people the total U.S. portion of construction 
costs would be $1.7 billion and there are no plans for further on 
funding after this.
  This is $87 billion on top of the $78 billion that we have already 
put up to fund this effort in Iraq. What happened to $1.7 billion? We 
enacted this tax cut when Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz 
was informing the Congress, that we are ``dealing with a country that 
can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.'' Do not 
worry about it the cost was what we heard.
  As a result of the administration's failure to plan for the true 
costs of the Iraq operation and its failure to obtain substantial 
international support, we are now faced with a staggering 
reconstruction of $20 billion for Iraq which may be the only first 
installment. This is only the first installment.

[[Page 24031]]

  Before the Armed Services Committee, Ambassador Bremer said he 
expects to be back again. When is it going to end? Ambassador Bremer is 
now suggesting the total reconstruction costs may ultimately reach $60 
billion. Those are the World Bank estimates. Because of the 
administration's go-it-alone on Iraq, the costs of that mistake have 
climbed to over $120 billion.
  Clearly, the circumstances have changed. The administration has 
grossly underestimated the costs now coming due.
  President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz 
wanted to go to war in the worst way, and they did.
  Now the bill is coming due. The Biden amendment is the right way for 
Congress and the country to pay the bill, and I urge my colleagues to 
approve this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to address the Biden amendment 
and make comments regarding it. I rise in opposition to that amendment 
and I wanted to indicate why.
  First, I want to indicate how we got to the point we are today. There 
were a number of people who came forward to say this is a huge bill--
and it is. This is too much. I think we should examine that issue. I 
hope nobody says we should not be paying, because we have started down 
this road sometime back and it was the Congress that started down this 
road, not the administration. It was the Congress that started down 
this road. I think we now need to see this on through or we could leave 
the situation that we in the Congress started in a worse position than 
it was when we got into this in the first place.
  This is what I want to point out. Congress passed the Iraq Liberation 
Act in 1998. This was the vote in the House of Representatives: 360 to 
38. The Senate, by unanimous consent, passed this bill, the Iraq 
Liberation Act.
  What did it call for? It called for regime change in Iraq. This was 
signed into law by President Clinton. We allocated, authorized, and 
appropriated $100 million to spend on this effort of regime change in 
Iraq. That was to get Saddam Hussein out of Iraq.
  He was supporting terrorists, he had used weapons of mass 
destruction, he wreaked terrorism upon his own people, and he was 
costing us billions of dollars a year in containment because we had 
soldiers and airmen stationed in Saudi Arabia, and we were doing 
regular bombings into Iraq. We were conducting no-fly zones in the 
north and in the south. We built airbases in Saudi Arabia to be able to 
move this on forward.
  This was an untenable situation. It was bad for the Iraqi people, bad 
for us, and bad for the region. All the countries in the region had 
some difficulty or problem, either being attacked, as Kuwait was, 
launched into, as Saudi Arabia was, threatened, as Jordan had been, at 
war as Iran. These are the countries, other than Turkey and Syria, that 
surround Iraq. Most of the countries in the region were saying 
something needed to be done, but they weren't willing to step forward 
unless the United States was serious. This was part of our statement 
that we were serious.
  President Bush took this forward after 9/11 when the whole world 
changed for the United States. We decided after 9/11 that we would no 
longer wait for the terrorists to gather up steam and build up forces 
against us and then launch. We were going to go to the terrorists and 
disrupt them first, rather than wait until they came to our soil so 
tragically. Thus ensued the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  In Iraq, we had a country that had in the past used chemical weapons 
against its own people and against the Iranians. That is the fact and 
that is what we knew and this is where it started, and it started with 
the Congress.
  Now to the issue today of the supplemental and how do we pay for it. 
I think it would be a terrible mistake for us at this time to raise 
taxes on the American people, just at the time when we are starting to 
get the economy recovered and moving again.
  Finally, this last quarter we had our best quarter in 2 years, with 
3-percent GDP growth. The Gross Domestic Product grew by 3 percent this 
last quarter. We are finally getting some growth and that growth has to 
occur and has to build up for us to create jobs. There is a lag between 
that growth and creating jobs. If we go right now and say to the 
American people that we are going to raise taxes on you at this point 
in time, you are going to threaten the very early stages of growth and 
the creation of jobs which is starting to take place. That is the wrong 
message to send.
  The thing we need to do is keep the growth occurring in this country. 
You do that by low interest rates and by lowering taxes. Those are the 
two tools that are being displayed and used now, and they are working 
to start the economic recovery. If you grow taxes at this point in 
time, you send the wrong message.
  We do have a growing Federal deficit. What should we be doing to 
address that? I think we should address that issue of the Federal 
deficit. It is important. It is an issue. It is something that needs to 
be addressed.
  I want to put forward an idea that we have 28 cosponsors on now. I 
want to put it forward in the context of how we balanced the budget in 
the past. We were able to balance the budget for several years in a 
row. It is the Congress that appropriates the money and allocates the 
spending. It is the Congress that gets the budget either in surplus or 
deficit, and it was the Congress that balanced the budget previously.
  How did we do it? There were two things. There was a strong growth in 
the overall economy producing receipts coming into the Federal 
Government and there was a slowing of the growth in Federal spending. 
We restrained the growth of Federal spending so the growth in the 
economy and the receipts it produced were more than the growth in the 
spending of the Federal Government, and we were able to get our way to 
a position where we had a balanced budget for several years in a row, 
indeed pushing forward strong surpluses.
  That is the way we will balance the budget again. Getting the economy 
growing and restraining the growth in Federal spending.
  How do we restrain the growth in Federal spending? The Commission on 
Accounting and Review of Federal Agencies--CARFA, for short. The model 
for it is the BRAC procedure. With the BRAC procedure, we looked at the 
totality of the military bases we had. We said we had too many military 
bases; we should cut back those military bases, consolidate them, and 
use whatever we can save if we can save among the bases we keep. It is 
called the BRAC process.
  How does that work? We had a commission. The commission met, they 
discussed it, and said we should eliminate these 50 bases. Then a bill 
was introduced in the Congress with no amendments, and you gave each 
House one vote up or down, whether they agree or disagree. By that 
means we were able to eliminate and consolidate bases.
  I say let's do the same thing with domestic discretionary programs. 
By that I am saying not for the military; we already have a procedure 
there. Not for entitlement programs. Let's move forward that way, and 
that is a way we can address this issue. That is how we will actually 
get back to a balanced budget, not by raising taxes.
  As to Iraqi spending, I want to discuss that. I think we should 
review and reduce some of the spending in this area that has been 
proposed. I have gone through in some detail, not the full proposal yet 
but most of it. I think there are areas we should not be paying for. 
Memorials to human rights abuses--clearly those are things that would 
be good to do. But should we, the American people, the American 
taxpayer, be paying for that? Is that central to redeveloping Iraq? I 
don't think it is, particularly at this time.
  Should we be paying $50,000 per garbage truck? I don't think so, not 
in a part of the world that maybe it would

[[Page 24032]]

be good to have, but there is probably garbage being collected in old 
pickup trucks. That is the way we used to do it in my hometown many 
years ago. There is nothing wrong with that, maybe, at the current 
stage of development. Maybe later you would use something better. But I 
think we should take some of these areas and say, let's pull those down 
and pull those out and let's reallocate some into more policing, which 
is critically important in Iraq, for us to get our troops garrisoned 
and less subject to exposure. Put it in the Iraq development bank, 
where we can see the Iraqi people growing their own money and we will 
be saving some of the money for our deficit purposes here, working to 
reduce that. I will be working with a group of people to put such a 
proposal together and put it in front of my colleagues.
  I think that is an important part the job of this body, to review 
what the President has put forward and see where we agree and let's 
pass that and other areas where we would change it.
  I do not think it is an option for us not to pass the supplemental. 
We need the supplemental for the troops. We need the supplemental to 
develop Iraq. It is not an option for us to fail in Iraq. We must 
succeed. Indeed, Iraq and its success is central to us bringing forward 
a reduction in the swamp area where terrorism has bred and where it has 
stewed and where it has grown, in an area we have seen terrorism coming 
forth and attacking us. This is an area we have to go out and change. 
We change it by bringing forth our ideas and our models of democracy, 
of an open society, and of a free economy. This Iraq is going to be an 
area where we will have to concentrate and focus, deliver that, and 
hopefully that will affect much of the rest of the region. There is 
some indication that is already happening.
  So you drain the swamp away, and drain it away with our set of ideas.
  Failure in Iraq is not an option. We must succeed in Iraq by moving 
forward with our model on the war on terrorism, which is we take the 
war there rather than letting them gather steam and come at us and kill 
our people here.
  I think there are legitimate ways to address this issue. I think we 
ought to look at the issues of loans versus total grants. This is a 
large-scale, oil-based country that wants those production wells going 
again. I think there is going to be oil produced and a substantial 
amount of income.
  I think we ought to look at the overall proposal. There are places 
where we should adjust. But overall, we are going to need to pass this 
supplemental. For us to raise taxes at a time when we are just getting 
the economy going would be the wrong way for us to go as a government, 
as a society, and for this country.
  We have to allow this growth to continue taking place. The key here 
would be instead of reducing our overall spending to look for places we 
can save within this overall spending bill.
  We are going to have a spirited debate. As we go out for a week and 
do townhall meetings across the country--and I will be doing that in my 
State--I look forward to gathering a lot of input from individuals. I 
think that will be helpful for us as we move forward.
  But I don't want us to send an improper signal. Failure in Iraq is 
not an option. We cannot fail. We need to do this supplemental, but I 
think we can make some changes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chair.
  I rise today to voice my support for the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Delaware. His amendment allows us to fully offset the $87 
billion cost of the supplemental before us by increasing slightly the 
top tax rate in the years 2005 to 2010. This top tax rate--which is 
paid only by the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers--was cut 
dramatically in the two tax cut bills passed since President Bush took 
office.
  There is broad consensus for the $67 billion in this request for 
military and defense spending. And even those of us who voted yesterday 
to cut $15 billion in reconstruction funding did so to make the point 
that we have lingering questions about the nature of this funding and 
who will pay for it. However, our support for funding our obligations 
in Iraq doesn't mean that we support adding to the exploding deficits 
our Nation is now facing. The Biden amendment does not question whether 
we should fund the war--it addresses how we finance our necessary 
obligations.
  The President has proposed paying for the entire $87 billion with 
debt. In a time when our deficit is projected to top half a trillion 
dollars a year, this choice is unsupportable.
  Our ballooning government debt sucks capital from a private sector 
struggling to recover lost manufacturing jobs. The debt places upward 
pressure on interest rates, wreaking havoc on the family budgets of 
those carrying home loans or consumer debt. The billions we pay in debt 
service each year is billions that does not go to our schools, our 
roads, or our growing homeland security needs. And a crippling debt is 
a terrible legacy for future generations--generations that had no say 
in our current policies in Iraq.
  Financing this war with debt is a costly and unwise choice. The Biden 
amendment offers another way to pay for what we have an obligation to 
do.
  On September 7, the President said in a speech to the Nation that the 
war and reconstruction of Iraq would require ``time and sacrifice.'' 
For months, we have asked the young men and women of the Armed Forces 
to make the ultimate sacrifice: to fight--and perhaps die--for this 
country. Senator Biden's amendment asks another group--the wealthiest 1 
percent of all Americans to also sacrifice--to accept a small increase 
in a tax rate that was greatly decreased by the Bush tax cuts.
  The Senator's amendment offsets the cost of the President's request 
by asking the top 1 percent of taxpayers, those in the 35 percent 
bracket, to forego approximately $90 billion of the $690 billion in tax 
cuts they were granted in the two tax bills we have passed since 
President Bush took office. A taxpayer in the top 1 percent has an 
average income of $1 million a year. Asking for some financial 
sacrifice from these taxpayers seems the least onerous of the options 
for financing this war.
  Whatever we decide to do with this spending request, we must pay for 
it now. Offsetting the cost of this supplemental is the right thing to 
do. It asks those who have benefited the most from our thriving economy 
to help keep that economy healthy by reducing our growing debt burden. 
It relieves future generations of the staggering bill for a policy they 
had no part in setting. And it sends a signal to our Armed Forces that, 
when the President calls for sacrifice, he is not only calling on them.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Biden amendment, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I commend my friend and colleague from 
Wisconsin for a very straightforward and profoundly important summary 
of the reasons why we should in a bipartisan manner support the Biden 
amendment. The Senator from Wisconsin is an expert on the economy, on 
creating jobs, and on building businesses as well as public policy. He 
has the understanding that we have to look beyond the horizon if we are 
to be leaders to build a better America and a safer world for our 
children. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.
  I, too, urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support the Biden amendment. This is an issue of great importance we 
are debating. It is not only essential that we support our troops--
which we all do and feel strongly about--in a fiscally responsible 
manner so these young men and women who are fighting and dying in Iraq 
will be able to return to a country with a growing economy which is 
creating jobs and a responsible government.
  At the end of the day, as the Senator from Wisconsin just said, we 
are funding this war from our children's inheritance. It is wrong. I 
don't care what else you could say about it. That is

[[Page 24033]]

fundamentally wrong. We have a chance to act responsibly. 
Unfortunately, the words ``fiscal responsibility'' and ``fiscal 
discipline'' apparently are not found in the current administration's 
dictionary. There is nothing responsible or fair about the decisions we 
are being asked to make.
  This administration hasn't really asked for sacrifice from anybody. 
But there are people who are sacrificing. First and foremost, our men 
and women in uniform, our active duty, our Reserve, our Guard, people 
who have now been deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan in our war against 
terror, people who have left their families and have been uprooted from 
their jobs, they are all sacrificing. And I am grateful and proud of 
the work and services they provide.
  But this President's budget also asks other Americans to sacrifice. 
It asks children and afterschool programs to sacrifice. It asks people 
who need job training and additional skills to be employable in this 
jobless economy to sacrifice. It asks people who need help with their 
heating and cooling bills to sacrifice. It asks those who need child 
care services to sacrifice. It asks so many Americans to sacrifice. Yet 
it does nothing to remove the burden from those people or our children.
  Amazingly enough, those of us who can afford to sacrifice for our 
national and international goals are not asked to sacrifice at all. In 
fact, it is just the opposite. We are given more and more and more tax 
cuts.
  What is the administration's policy except to further burden hard-
working, middle-class Americans and future generations and not do 
anything to try to in a fiscally responsible way address our needs?
  Think about it. Just a few years ago we were in the midst of the 
longest string of budget surpluses since the 1920s. We were paying down 
our debt, we had historically low numbers of unemployed people, and we 
lifted millions of people out of poverty. President Bush said just 2 
years ago the country would be virtually debt free by 2008. He said 
there would only be $36 billion of remaining debt.
  As we have seen in so many instances, the rhetoric does not match the 
reality. Today it is projected that our publicly held debt--and some 
may not want to hear, but the fact is by 2008 it will reach $6.2 
trillion. We have done a tremendous reversal. Who will pay for it? The 
young people in this gallery who watch the proceedings in the Senate. 
They are the ones who will get the due bill for our profligacy, our 
refusal to act responsibly. The administration is denying the absolute 
reality that we are not paying as we go for a commitment on which we 
have to follow through.
  Here we are with a request for $87 billion. I was pleased to hear my 
colleague from Kansas on the other side of the aisle say they join in 
looking at some of the specifics because some of the specifics are 
outrageous. We now know from people coming back from Iraq that a lot of 
what the administration says they want to spend money on we can buy 
more cheaply than the no-bid contracts the administration favors with 
their friends. I was delighted to hear the Senator from Kansas say 
let's look at the specifics. But that still does not get us where we 
need to go in paying for this.
  There will be a big debate about how to pay for this. We can start by 
passing the Biden amendment, by being responsible. I also add, this is 
good for the economy. All this talk about the increase in the GDP on a 
monthly basis--look at the numbers carefully. A lot of it is driven by 
deficit spending and spending in Iraq.
  Nobody is arguing that is not a good thing that we are having to do 
what we said we would do and following on, but be honest and look at 
the numbers below the surface. As the Senator from Wisconsin said 
correctly, we are going to stall this economy dead in its tracks if it 
ever gets off the dime, if it ever begins to create jobs, because we 
cannot sustain private capital when we have so many demands growing 
from the Government. Furthermore, we are becoming even more dependent 
on foreign currencies, on foreign investors. I don't think that is good 
for our long-time security either.
  Instead of just pushing our country deeper in debt, let's think about 
our children, think about those young men and women serving this very 
moment in Iraq, and make sure we pay by asking those in the upper 1 
percent of the income level in this country to do our fair share to 
make a sacrifice. It is a pittance when you think about it. What are we 
sacrificing? Instead of $690 billion in tax cuts, we give $600 billion 
in tax cuts. Do the right thing. It is good for our commitment in Iraq, 
good for our economy, and the very fairest thing we can do for our 
children.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a 
cosponsor to the Biden amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I follow up on the comments of the Senator 
from New York with respect to sacrifice. Our State is a small State. We 
only have about 800,000 people. We have reservists who serve in all the 
branches of our military. We have the Delaware National Guard unit. 
When I was Governor, I was privileged to be their commander in chief. I 
know many of them personally, as well as their families.
  When guard and reservists are called to be deployed to active duty, 
usually our Governor is there to send them off and tries to be there to 
receive them when they come home. Similarly, when it is a unit of 
another branch of the service--Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines--we like 
to be there to welcome them home, too.
  I will mention two units, one Marine Reserve unit, the second a unit 
of the Delaware National Guard, folks who fly and maintain the C-130 
cargo aircraft, part of the air bridge between this country and other 
parts around the world.
  About 2 weeks ago, I was invited to be part of a welcome home 
ceremony for a number of Marine reservists. They had been called to 
active duty. They served in Iraq. They were able to come home to their 
families. They came home largely to their spouses--mostly to wives--
they came home to their children, came home to brothers and sisters, 
moms and dads in many cases, they came home to their neighbors, and 
they came home to their jobs. I don't think it is overstating it to say 
they are thrilled to be home--proud of their service, thrilled to be 
home.
  I had another unit in the Delaware National Air Guard 166. The people 
who fly and maintain the C-130 cargo aircraft were activated earlier 
this year and spent 4 months on active duty and then were released to 
come home to a great homecoming ceremony, a lot of joy. Then they were 
reactivated roughly a month ago and headed back on the other side of 
the world. I am not sure when they are coming home.
  They missed the return of their children to school, will probably not 
be around to take the kids out to trick or treat this year. When their 
families sit around and eat at the Thanksgiving table and carve up the 
turkey, they probably won't be there. When presents are opened around 
Christmastime, God only knows where they will be. Those families know 
what it means to sacrifice, not just the ones who are overseas--whether 
they are Delaware National Guard, any National Guard, any Reserve unit, 
or anyone on active duty.
  It is one thing to ask the sacrifice of those who serve. As one who 
once served, that is your job description. You are expected to be 
prepared to go and serve when needed. It is always toughest on those 
who stay behind because they give up their loved one, they give up 
someone who is helping to hold the family together in many cases; in 
some cases they give up a breadwinner who has gone off to earn a far 
lower salary. They know what sacrifice is.
  What the Biden amendment says is, for those who are blessed with 
great financial well-being, whose income exceeds $300,000 per year 
adjusted gross income, maybe we can do something, too. We may not have 
a child, a son or a daughter; we may not have a brother or sister. And 
I know Senator Johnson has a son who I believe still serves over

[[Page 24034]]

there, but for the most part we do not. For the most part, people with 
those incomes do not. But we have the ability to do something to help 
out in this case. I don't think it is asking too much for those who 
happen to make that kind of income to be willing to defer maybe $2,000 
a year to help make sure that our children and our grandchildren do not 
inherit an even greater mountain of debt.
  Let me close with one comment. Sometimes you talk to people about the 
amount of debt and the numbers are almost numbing. Let me leave you 
with this number: Today, on this day of October 2, we will make an 
interest payment on our national debt--imagine a credit card--an 
interest payment on our national debt. The interest payment is $882 
million.
  We can bemoan that fact and say that is terrible, why don't we do 
something about it, or we can, with our vote today, do something about 
it and make sure we do not add further to that debt.
  A fellow who used to be the British Chancellor of the Exchequer had a 
theory of holes. That theory was as follows: When you find yourself in 
a hole, stop digging.
  We are in a hole, and it is time to stop digging.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Biden amendment. 
There is no question we will support our troops. My colleague from 
Delaware mentioned my own son Brooks, who has recently returned from 
fighting in Iraq, in Baghdad; outside of Kandahar, Afghanistan prior to 
that; and Kosovo and Bosnia prior to that. So I have a full 
appreciation, as do my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in this 
Chamber, that our fighting men and women deserve all the resources they 
need, and we will do all it takes to make sure they have those 
resources.
  But there is the larger question of the $87 billion, particularly I 
think the $20.3 billion component for so-called rebuilding in Iraq, 
although when we say ``rebuilding,'' keep in mind that the President is 
not talking about rebuilding things that were damaged in the war; the 
President is talking about creating schools, whole new cities, whole 
new water and telecommunications systems that have never existed in all 
of Iraq's history.
  But the fundamental question we have here at this moment is, How will 
this be paid for?
  There have been essentially--until the Biden amendment--two 
strategies. One is that Iraq borrow the money and build it themselves. 
They sit atop the world's largest supply of oil, literally a mountain 
of gold. Granted, they do not have the technology to pump that oil 
quickly at this point in their history, but it is there and could be 
collateralized.
  Second is the President's recommendation, where, rather than Iraq 
borrowing to pay for the $87 billion, we borrow it to pay for the $87 
billion, because we do not have $87 billion either. We do not have $87 
billion in cash lying around. In fact, we have gone from record budget 
surpluses only 2 years ago to, under the guidance of this President, an 
annual deficit now approaching $500 billion a year. It is a 
breathtaking record deficit that we face. So we do not have any surplus 
money to be used anywhere, including in Iraq.
  The President says: Well, we do not want Iraqis to have to borrow 
because that might raise their debt service cost, despite the fact they 
have the world's largest pool of oil. Instead, let's borrow it out of 
our Social Security trust fund. That is the President's strategy. I 
think it is a terrible strategy. We have been doing too much of that as 
it is. To borrow still more, and drive our deficit still deeper, to put 
Social Security in still greater jeopardy in the outyears is, to me, 
not an acceptable strategy.
  Senator Biden has suggested there is a third way. If the President 
simply will not accept the fact that Iraq ought to borrow this money 
themselves, then at least let's not borrow it out of the Social 
Security trust fund from the United States; let's allow those who have 
benefited the greatest by the growth of the United States economy--
those 1 percent of Americans who earn over $300,000 a year--to have a 
temporary freeze in the tax reductions over the course of 5 years that 
would pay the $87 billion.
  It troubles me that this President and some of our colleagues--who 
are constantly lecturing us about how there is not enough money for our 
own schools, for our own highways, for our own health care, for our own 
veterans, for our own job creation--are the very first ones to come to 
this body and tell us how badly we need to spend that same amount of 
money in Iraq, and borrow it out of the Social Security trust fund 
while we are at it. It is not acceptable to me.
  I have to wonder about those kinds of priorities when we have such 
great unmet needs here and when, Heaven knows, we are also facing 
stupendous budget deficits. So it does seem to me that Senator Biden is 
correct in saying, let's not go down the borrowing route ourselves, 
let's pay for this, if it needs to be paid for. And, frankly, there are 
many components of that $20 billion piece which I am dubious about, but 
if we are going to pay for any of this, let's pay for it by making sure 
that ordinary Americans are not hit once again.
  As was noted earlier, our troops and their families are making 
immense sacrifices, for many the ultimate sacrifice. But there are 
other people who are making sacrifices as well--in terms of crowded 
classrooms, in terms of schools that are not being repaired, in terms 
of technology that we cannot afford in our schools, in terms of those 
who have no access to health care, in terms of rural hospitals that are 
closing, in terms of veterans who have no access to the VA, and in 
terms of those who have lost their jobs and see no jobs in the near 
future. All of those people are sacrificing as well.
  If there is going to be sacrifice, let it be by the 1 percent rather 
than borrowing this money.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time is 
available to the Senator from Delaware?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute, if I may--I know it is 
out of order. Our friend from Maryland has asked for 1 minute. I would 
be delighted to yield that to him, and then I would ask, after that, to 
yield 1 minute to my friend from Florida. And then I think, in the 
order, Senator Reed is in the queue for 5 minutes, and then the Senator 
from Illinois, and then the Senator from North Dakota. I ask unanimous 
consent that be the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to pick up on a point that the 
Senator from South Dakota just made, and that is the question of 
sacrifice. The people in this country who are making sacrifices in this 
war in Iraq are the working people and the men and women in our armed 
services.
  The men and women who are losing their lives and suffering casualties 
come overwhelmingly from working families in America. Overwhelmingly 
they are the ones who are unable to meet their families' needs, and 
their own needs, because our national priorities have disastrously 
changed and the impact has fallen on particularly crucial programs: 
education, health care, job training--you can go right down the list.
  The deficits we are running, the huge national debt that is being run 
up will come down on the shoulders of working families in this country.
  If you want to talk about sacrifice, pass the Biden amendment.
  It is time for the privileged in this country to make sacrifices, 
too. It is not their men and women who are in Iraq. It is not their 
programs that are being hit. They are not shouldering the debt.

[[Page 24035]]

  They, too, should be making a sacrifice on behalf of this national 
effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this Nation's fiscal policy is 
careening off the road into bankruptcy. And that means, if we are 
having to go out and borrow money--by the way, borrowing it from places 
such as Saudi Arabia and the Chinese--in order to pay our bills, that 
means we are not able to spend money going into education and health 
care and Social Security.
  You have to get some relief somewhere. This is a good place. Stop the 
tax cuts that are supposed to be going into effect for the wealthiest, 
and let that $87 billion pay for these expenses that are incurred in 
Iraq.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Biden amendment is very straightforward. 
It says we will pay for the $87 billion by repealing the tax advantages 
for those who have the upper 1 percent in income in the United States.
  In my view, this is not an issue of taxes or payments; this is a 
simple issue of responsibility. It is irresponsible for us to borrow 
money from Social Security, borrow money from Medicare, borrow money 
from education spending, borrow money from the Veterans' Administration 
to give to the Iraqi people. We can, in fact, pay for it. We can pay 
for it by supporting the Biden amendment.
  My colleague from Maryland spoke about the sacrifice of these 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, airwomen, and marines who are over in Iraq. 
Just ask yourself: What happens 5 years from now when those young 
Americans go to the Veterans' Administration and they are told they 
cannot be accommodated because we do not have enough money, that we 
borrowed so much money that our economy is in disarray, and that our 
programs that support American people have been devastated?
  We have a situation in which our deficits are growing out of 
proportion, the national debt is rising. In January of 2001, the CBO 
estimated that the national debt in 2008 would be $36 billion. In fact, 
the President at that time was talking about paying off all of our 
debt, and now, in August of 2003, CBO projects a debt of $6.2 trillion 
in 2008. Deficits are expanding dramatically. Again and again they go 
up and up and up. Now we are talking about a $535 billion deficit.
  This has an effect. It is not free money. The effect is in many 
dimensions. One dimension is that ultimately it will drive up interest 
rates. That is not my view. That is the view of Alan Greenspan, in his 
words:

       There is no question that as deficits go up, contrary to 
     what some have said, it does affect long-term interest rates. 
     It does have a negative impact on the economy, unless 
     attended.

  This is one way we can attend to the deficit. Or the words of the CBO 
Director:

       To the extent that going forward we run large sustained 
     deficits in the face of full employment, it will in fact 
     crowd out capital accumulation and otherwise slow economic 
     growth.

  We are today, by spending and not raising the revenues to support 
that spending, contributing to this out-of-control deficit spiral that 
will affect our economy.
  There is another consequence that goes to responsibility. How can we 
be a world leader, how can we sustain our efforts in Iraq, in 
Afghanistan, across the globe, if our economy becomes unraveled, as it 
is becoming?
  Of course, there is an immediate issue. We are losing employment left 
and right, particularly manufacturing employment. How do we sustain 
manufacturing in the United States? What happens when their interest 
rates go up, when they have to pay more money to borrow? That is 
another invitation to take their work and send it overseas. What 
happens when their health care costs go up? And they will, unless we do 
more to support the Medicare system, the Medicaid system, and general 
health insurance throughout the United States, another pressure.
  This is all irresponsible. We have huge problems. We have much to do 
to deal with those problems. But we can begin today and simply say, 
rather than giving the Iraqi people $87 billion from Social Security, 
from health care, from education, we can ask the top 1 percent of 
Americans, who have done extraordinarily well, to forgo a tax break so 
that we can pay for this.
  It is responsible. This vote today is not about taxes. It is not 
about our approach to Iraq. It is not about supporting the troops. It 
is about whether we will be responsible today and in the future. I urge 
that we go forth and be responsible.
  My colleague from Maryland also pointed out the sacrifice. We all 
know our forces are doing a magnificent job. They are truly 
sacrificing, and we are going to support them. But their sacrifice must 
be met not only with our sacrifice but with some wisdom, the ability to 
look ahead, the ability to see what is coming. What is coming is an 
economic deterioration of this country unless we can get our hands on 
this deficit.
  This is the first step. It is a modest step, but it is a first step. 
What better rationale, to ask the people of America to contribute their 
hard-earned dollars and support our troops, support our foreign policy, 
support an effort to root out dangers to this country? In fact, in 
times of war, the American people have always responded, and other 
Congresses and other administrations have responded when we have asked 
them for increased sacrifices and increased taxes.
  None of the Biden proposal will affect the middle class, the working 
class. It is responsible. To vote against this amendment would be 
irresponsible. I urge its passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if you study the sweep of history in the 
United States and the history of the Presidency, you understand that at 
times of crisis the President has an opportunity to rally the American 
people, to summon them to a higher calling and a greater commitment 
than they might otherwise reach. Time and again, each President faced 
with a national challenge has tried his best to do just that.
  In this situation, after 9/11, President Bush came to us and summoned 
the American people to be unified. It was demonstrated in the Senate 
with a bipartisan resolution supporting our effort in the war on 
terrorism, an overwhelming vote supporting the President. He summoned 
us to humility. Many of us joined with the President at the National 
Cathedral in a day of prayer to recall just what had happened to so 
many innocent people and to once again remind ourselves of our 
dependence on our values and our principles and on God Himself.
  He also summoned us to courage and the courage that America has to 
display every day in confronting the war on terrorism.
  President Bush also has summoned us to sacrifice. But he has not 
summoned all of us to sacrifice. He has summoned the men and women in 
uniform to sacrifice because they literally put their lives on the line 
every single day in this war on terrorism, in the invasion of Iraq and 
in peacekeeping afterwards. He has asked these men and women to 
understand the oath they took to our country and to step forward 
proudly and defend our flag and our values. That call to sacrifice has 
been answered affirmatively over and over again while hundreds have 
been killed in Iraq and literally hundreds and perhaps thousands have 
been seriously injured.
  When it comes to sacrifice otherwise, the President asks little or 
nothing of the rest of America. I believe if President Bush had come to 
America and said, I need a spirit of sacrifice from everyone--rich and 
poor alike, not just those in uniform but every single person--there 
would have been an overwhelmingly positive response. But no, instead of 
asking for sacrifice, the President said to the wealthiest in America, 
to those who are well off and have little discomfort in their lives: We 
ask nothing. In fact, we will give you something. We will give you a 
tax cut.

[[Page 24036]]

We will give you money--not a sacrifice asked of the wealthy and well 
off but, frankly, to give them more comfort and luxury in their life. 
That is hardly what the President should have done in rallying America 
to face this crisis.
  Here we stand today, facing the amendment of the Senator from 
Delaware, Mr. Biden, which asks us to look in honest terms at the $87 
billion the President has asked for, for Iraq: $68 billion for the 
troops, another $20 billion for the reconstruction.
  We know President Bush and his administration have had no plan when 
it comes to revitalizing the American economy. This President has lost 
more American jobs on his watch than any President in 70 years. He has 
lost more jobs than any President since Herbert Hoover in the Great 
Depression. Frankly, that is a stain on his performance as President 
and reflects the fact that all of the tax cuts he has proposed have not 
revitalized this economy, have not moved us forward and, in fact, have 
cost us jobs.
  It is clear, as well, this administration had no plan when it came to 
rebuilding Iraq. A few months ago, some of the leaders in this 
administration were coming forward and telling us we would not even 
need to be here today to ask for $87 billion. Secretary Rumsfeld said: 
I don't expect that we are going to need to ask the taxpayers for 
money; look at all the oil revenue in Iraq. The same thing was said by 
Vice President Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. All of the men behind the 
strategy to attack Iraq told us over and over again it was painless, it 
wouldn't cost us.
  We are here today knowing it will cost us. The President told us in 
his speech to the American people just a few weeks ago: $87 billion is 
the cost. This administration had no plan to deal with it and no plan 
to pay for it.
  How will we face this? We will face this as we faced the Vietnam war, 
a war which was financed by deficits. Instead of cutting spending or 
raising taxes to pay for the cost of Iraq, we are going to see the 
national debt increased. We are going to see the funds available for 
our schools, for health care, for Social Security cut because we have 
decided we are not going to ask anyone to sacrifice to pay this $87 
billion.
  I believe we have a responsibility to stand up and do the right 
thing, to ask the wealthiest in America to pay their fair share, to say 
to them: We are not going to give you a tax break that has been 
promised so the money will be there to pay for this war. It is the 
responsible thing to do. Instead of pushing this burden on the men and 
women in uniform fighting today and on our children tomorrow with an 
increased national debt, we are going to stand for the premise that we 
should pay for the defense of America; we should pay for the cost of 
reconstruction in Iraq.
  I support the Biden amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I, too, rise to stand in support of the 
Biden amendment. The concept of shared sacrifice is fundamental to the 
American life--something all of our predecessors on this floor and the 
people of America through history have understood. In times of war, we 
have understood we all have to participate.
  It should be no different this time. It is clearly a time when we 
have not asked for our society to stand up and accept the 
responsibility--financial responsibility--of standing with those men 
and women who are sacrificing their lives for us. Instead of actually 
husbanding our resources so we can carry on that struggle and stand 
with our men and women in uniform, we are actually undermining that by 
putting our financial condition into real jeopardy, both now and for a 
long time into the future.
  In guns-and-butter policy, one that is totally discredited throughout 
any kind of analysis, whether in the private sector or academia--and it 
should be here on the floor--we are now facing $535 billion budget 
deficits in the coming fiscal year, with budget deficits of that 
dimension long into the future, borrowing against the retirement 
security of our seniors and our Social Security trust fund, using the 
payroll taxes people are reportedly putting into Social Security to 
protect their retirement to fund tax cuts, at the same time we are 
actually at war to protect the American people.
  It is time for us to husband our resources and make sure we don't 
sacrifice everything on the homefront, whether it is economic security, 
retirement security, homeland security; all of these issues are short 
of funding. We hear about it and we cut it back. We make sure we are 
very precise there, and then we are not willing, for those who are 
benefiting most in society, who have actually enjoyed the American 
prosperity the most, to sacrifice marginal amounts to be able to fund 
an initiative that is proper to protect our troops and take the 
responsibility for a broken economy, a broken society that, in many 
ways, is a responsibility we have had because we entered into this.
  I think it is absolutely essential, and I think many of the people 
who benefit from the reduced tax rates we are talking about not going 
ahead and executing will benefit more because we will have a sounder 
economy, and we will create greater wealth in the economy, and they 
will welcome the idea that they are actually able to share in some of 
these burdens as we go forward. As a matter of fact, I know that at a 
personal level, from conversations I have had across this country, 
there is a desire to be asked to help.
  It is really a major mistake, a major shortfall, on our sense of 
responsibility to the Nation if we don't call for making sure we 
provide funding for this initiative--this $87 billion the President has 
asked for. I stand strongly in favor of the Biden amendment. I 
encourage colleagues to as well. This Nation believes in shared 
sacrifice. We should show it by supporting this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to start by putting in perspective 
where we are in the fiscal condition of the country as we consider this 
request from the President for $87 billion for Iraq.
  I think it is important for us first to recognize we already face 
next year a record budget deficit of $535 billion. But that really 
understates the seriousness of the problem because, on top of that, 
under the President's proposal, we will also be taking $160 billion of 
Social Security trust fund money to pay for other things. That gives a 
total operating deficit for next year approaching $700 billion.
  Some have said, well, it is really relatively small as a share of our 
gross domestic product. That is not correct. Fairly measured, the 
operating deficit next year is the biggest we have had since World War 
II. If we look at the Social Security trust fund, if we back that out 
and we treat it the same way in 1983, what we see is the deficit as a 
percentage of GDP is the biggest it has been since World War II. This 
is a huge deficit, however measured.
  The President has told us these deficits will be small and short 
term. Wrong again. They are not small; they are huge by any terms, 
dollar terms or GDP terms. Beyond that, they are long lasting. In fact, 
according to the President's own analysis, they go on and on and on, 
and they get worse as the baby boom generation begins to retire. Just 
over the next decade, we see an ocean of red ink. According to 
Congressional Budget Office numbers, if we just add in proposals to 
extend the tax cuts, to add a prescription drug benefit, and to provide 
AMT reform, there will be deficits of $600 billion, $700 billion, as 
far as the eye can see.
  We have a problem of spending and of revenue. The revenue as a 
percentage of gross domestic product next year will be the lowest since 
1950. That is a revenue crisis, as well as a spending problem. If we 
look at the spending side of the equation, we can see the increases in 
discretionary spending over the baseline have occurred overwhelmingly 
in just three areas: defense, homeland security, and rebuilding New 
York and providing airline relief. In 2003, ninety-two percent of the 
increased spending is in those areas. I might add those are areas that 
all of us, on a bipartisan basis, supported.

[[Page 24037]]

  The President of the United States told us 2 years ago he would 
virtually pay off the debt. He said by 2008 there would be virtually no 
publicly held debt left. Now what we see is, instead of the debt being 
virtually eliminated, we see it skyrocketing. The gross debt of the 
United States, we estimate, will be $6.8 trillion by the end of this 
year. In 10 years, we estimate it will be approaching $15 trillion--all 
at the worst possible time. It is the worst possible time because the 
baby boom generation is going to begin retiring in 2008.
  On this chart, the green bar is the Social Security trust fund, the 
blue bar is the Medicare trust fund, and the red bar is the cost of the 
tax cuts--those that have already passed and those that are proposed by 
the President. What this shows is, at the very time the Social Security 
and Medicare trust funds go cash negative--at that very time, the costs 
of the President's tax cuts explode, driving us deeper and deeper into 
deficit and debt.
  You don't have to take my word for it, or the Congressional Budget 
Office's word for it. You can take the President's word for it. Here is 
the calculation from his budget of what would happen if we followed his 
proposals, his tax cuts, his spending. What it shows is we never get 
out of deficit and that the deficits explode. This is as a percentage 
of gross domestic product--which he prefers to refer to now to try to 
understate the magnitude of the problem.
  Look at what his own analysis shows. It shows these are the good 
times, even though there are record deficits--the biggest we have ever 
had in dollar terms, and as a percentage of GDP since World War II. But 
it is going to get much worse.
  The Congressional Budget Office warned us, as the New York Times 
reported it on September 14:

       This course prompted the Congressional Budget Office to 
     issue an unusual warning in its forecast last month: If 
     Congressional Republicans and the administration get their 
     wish and extend all the tax cuts now scheduled to expire, and 
     if they pass a limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare 
     and keep spending at its current level, the deficit by 2013 
     will have built up to $6.2 trillion. Once the baby boomers 
     begin retiring at the end of this decade, the office said, 
     that course will lead either to drastically higher taxes, 
     severe spending cuts or ``unsustainable levels of debt.''

  Just this week, the Committee for Economic Development, major 
business leaders in the country, the Concord Coalition, and the Center 
on Budget and Policy Priorities warned of the dangers of the current 
fiscal course. They said:

       To get a sense of the magnitude of the deficits the nation 
     is likely to face without a change in policies, consider that 
     even with the full economic recovery that CBO forecasts and a 
     decade of economic growth, balancing the budget by the end of 
     the coming decade (i.e., in 2013) would entail such radical 
     steps as: raising individual and corporate income taxes by 27 
     percent; or eliminating Medicare entirely; or cutting Social 
     Security benefits by 60 percent; or shutting down three-
     fourths of the Defense Department; or cutting all 
     expenditures, other than Social Security, Medicare, defense, 
     homeland security, and interest payments on the debt--
     including expenditures for education, transportation, 
     housing, the environment, law enforcement, national parks, 
     research on diseases, and the rest--by 40 percent. Beyond the 
     next decade, the tradeoffs become even more difficult.

  When we look now to what the President is proposing in this $87 
billion, and we look back at what we were told--remember when Larry 
Lindsey, the President's chief economic adviser, said it would cost 
$100 billion to $200 billion for our involvement in Iraq, and he was 
chastised by this administration? The head of the Office of Management 
and Budget said he was way off. He wasn't way off. He was right on. We 
are already at $140 billion for this Iraqi undertaking.
  The administration has been wrong, wrong, wrong. They have been wrong 
repeatedly. They are wrong about the deficits. They said there wouldn't 
be any. Then they said they were going to be small. Then they said they 
were small as a percentage of gross domestic product. They were wrong 
on each count.
  Then they told us: Iraq won't cost much. Here is what Ari Fleischer, 
the President's chief spokesman, said on February 18 of this year:

       And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. 
     Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi 
     people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to 
     be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own 
     reconstruction.

  What happened? The administration told us Iraq was going to be able 
to pay, they were going to be able to cover much of the cost of their 
own reconstruction. Now that proves to be wrong as well.
  This administration repeatedly told us the cost of Iraqi 
reconstruction could be largely borne by Iraq. Here is what the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense said before the House Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Defense in March of this year:

       The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 
     billion over the course of the next 2 or 3 years . . . We're 
     dealing with a country that can really finance its own 
     reconstruction, and relatively soon.

  Wrong again. And just months later they are asking for $20 billion, 
and that is just a downpayment. Make no mistake, they are going to be 
here asking for more, and they are going to be here asking for more 
soon because they have already acknowledged they need another $40 
billion or $50 billion for Iraqi reconstruction. They say they are 
going to get it from somewhere else. Where else? When we ask them, they 
say they have a big donors conference coming up. Do you know how much 
has been pledged? $1.5 billion. Where is the other $40 billion or $50 
billion going to come from? They are going to be right back here asking 
for more.
  They misled this Congress. They misled the American people. They did 
it repeatedly on issue after issue.
  Here is what their USAID Administrator, Mr. Natsios, said on April 23 
of this year:

       That's correct. $1.7 billion is the limit of reconstruction 
     for Iraq. . . . In terms of the American taxpayer 
     contribution, that is it for the U.S. The rest of the 
     rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries and Iraqi 
     oil revenues.

  Wrong again. Wrong, wrong, wrong, and not just by a little bit; these 
folks have been wrong by a lot. Whether it was talking about the 
deficit or talking about the war with Iraq or the reconstruction of 
Iraq, this is a record of being wrong; wrong on major point after major 
point, over and over.
  They say to us now:

       What we're focused on in the $20 billion is the urgent and 
     essential things.

  The $20 billion is the urgent and essential things. Really? Let's 
look. In this plan, there is $6,000 per radio/telephone. It costs for a 
satellite phone in this country $495. It costs for a walkie-talkie $55. 
Why when we go to Iraq all of a sudden phones cost $6,000? A satellite 
phone, where one can call anywhere in the world, costs less than $500, 
and this administration is coming before this body and saying they need 
$6,000 per phone.
  They want $33,000 per pickup truck. We have a lot of pickup trucks in 
our State. We have more pickup trucks being sold than any other kind of 
automobiles. The average cost of an award winning American truck is 
$15,400, and they want us to spend $33,000 per truck in Iraq.
  They want us to pay $50,000 per prison bed. In this country, it costs 
$14,000 to build a prison bed. I don't know who did these calculations, 
but they seem an awful lot more eager to spend money in Iraq than they 
are to spend money in this country. It goes on and on.
  They want $10,000 a month for business school in Iraq. In our 
country, it costs $4,000 a month for the best business schools, and we 
are going to be telling the American taxpayers they should spend 
$10,000 per month for business school? Who put these numbers together? 
Who came up with this plan?
  The one that maybe is most incredible of all is the witness 
protection program. They want $200,000 per family member. For a family 
of five, that is $1 million, and $100 million to protect 100 families. 
In our country, the witness protection program costs $10,000 per 
witness. In Iraq, this is going to cost $1 million for a family of 
five. We don't have a witness protection program like that in this 
country. We have nothing like it. This is 20 times as much in Iraq.

[[Page 24038]]

  They want $333 for 30 half-days of computer training. It costs $200 
in this country.
  This doesn't stand much scrutiny. This whole plan doesn't stand much 
scrutiny, and it is time for us to ask the tough questions. Clearly, 
this administration has not asked the tough questions.
  I just found out they have $3 billion for water projects in Iraq, 
when they proposed in our country cutting water projects by 40 percent. 
They cut the water projects in America 40 percent and put in $3 billion 
for water projects in Iraq. I don't think the American people had any 
idea they were signing up to pay for a ZIP Code in Iraq or to have a 
witness protection program that costs $1 million a family or that they 
were going to be building $3 billion worth of water projects in Iraq. 
That wasn't the deal they signed onto. That is the deal this 
administration wants us to take, and all of this in the midst of the 
biggest deficits in our history, when we are having to borrow every 
dime. It does not make any sense. The very least we should do is pay 
for these costs and not put it on the charge card one more time. That 
is why the Biden amendment should be supported. He is asking the 
wealthiest among us to pay it.
  This is not a matter of what some people claim of going after the 
rich. Look, my wife and I are in this category. We pay additional taxes 
under this amendment. I am voting it because it is the right thing to 
do. We should not be increasing the deficit of the United States.
  We should not be putting it on the charge card when we already have 
record deficits. We ought to pony up and pay for the decisions we have 
made. Paying for this would just be a beginning. We would still have 
record deficits, by far the biggest in our history. We ought to support 
this amendment as a sign that we are getting serious about facing up to 
our fiscal challenges in this country. We also ought to adopt a series 
of amendments to cut the waste out of this proposal by the 
administration.
  If this measure is not adopted, we ought to support other amendments 
to pay for these initiatives and other amendments to scrub this whole 
proposal for the fat and the waste that is so clearly included. It is 
intolerable to say to the American taxpayer, pay these costs, all of it 
with borrowed money, all of it to be paid by future generations of 
Americans. That is not the way we have conducted ourselves in the past, 
and it ought not to be the way we conduct ourselves now and in the 
future.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Biden amendment.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. It is my understanding that we have 6 minutes 20 
seconds remaining on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes twenty seconds, correct.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself such time as I might consume of that 
amount.
  There are three big problems with Senator Biden's amendment. One is 
substantive and two are procedural. Before I go into the problems with 
Senator Biden's amendment, I will say that I agree with everybody's 
concern, including his, about the size of the package and the concern 
that we should have about the Federal deficit. Hopefully, as the 
economy grows--and the last figures indicate it is growing now at 3.4 
percent--Federal revenues will return then to their average levels of 
18 to 19 percent of the gross domestic product, which is an average of 
over the last 60 years, and we will close the gap.
  I also point to the fact that there are really two sides to the 
Federal ledger. One is the revenue side; that is, what comes in from 
the taxes paid by our factory workers, office workers, and farmers from 
across the America. The other side of the ledger is the spending side 
of the ledger, the appropriations bills by the Congress of the United 
States.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle, as Senator Biden's 
amendment shows, are zeroing in exclusively on the tax side. They look 
only to the taxpayers to put our fiscal house in order. I agree with 
the goal of reducing the deficit. I disagree that it is appropriate to 
look at only one side as if what is wrong with America and what is the 
cause of the deficit is that American taxpayers are undertaxed and that 
in no way Congress overspends. Indeed, the Finance Committee approved a 
bill yesterday that included $55 billion in revenue offsets. So 
Republicans have been willing to exercise fiscal discipline, especially 
when it comes to closing corporate loopholes and curtailing tax 
shelters.
  I ask the full Senate, who was the last Democrat to propose any 
savings on the spending side of the ledger? I do not recall a single 
spending cut being proposed by those on the other side of the aisle. 
Maybe back in the mid-1990s, but we would have to go back many years.
  All I see, and Senator Santorum makes this clear with his spendometer 
chart, is spending increases. So if those on the other side want to 
claim to be fiscal disciplinarians, let us see entries on the spending 
side of the ledger in order for there to be credibility. We cannot just 
go to the American people and ask for more tax money.
  Let me also say that I am concerned about the degree to which 
taxpayers are financing reconstruction in Iraq on a blank check basis. 
I first raised this concern almost a year ago. We ought to be very 
careful about the structure of this aid package. Maybe it should be a 
loan or have some equity interest for the taxpayers.
  Now I would like to turn to Senator Biden's amendment. Let us go to 
the substantive problems first. Senator Biden is seeking to offset the 
President's $87 billion request with a tax increase. For 2001, the top 
rate was reduced to 38.6. For 2003, the top rate was reduced to 35 
percent. Senator Biden's amendment would raise the top rate to 38.2 
percent. The premise of Senator Biden's position seems to be that 
taxpayers in the top bracket are solely Park Avenue millionaires, 
clipping coupons and enjoying life. Well, the facts show quite 
differently.
  According to the Treasury Department, about 80 percent of the 
benefits of the top rate go to small businessowners, people who create 
80 percent of the new jobs in America. For the first time in many 
years, because of our tax bills, we have that top rate down to 35 
percent, which is the very same as Fortune 500 companies. Senator 
Biden's amendment would restore a 10-percent penalty against small 
business, 38.2 percent, as opposed to 35 percent now for small 
business, the same as corporations.
  I do not quarrel with the notion that taxpayers in the top bracket 
make incomes starting in the range of around $350,000 to $400,000. A 
lot of these successful small businessowners make those figures. But 
keep in mind that figure represents the total net income of those small 
businesses. Successful small businesses are those that purchase the 
equipment and hire those new workers that I referred to as 80 percent 
of the new jobs.
  I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle who are eager to 
raise taxes--they are reluctant to cut spending and eager to increase 
spending--to focus on the negative effects of their policy on small 
business. Small business creates many jobs. Why at this time, with high 
unemployment, would we want to raise taxes on the folks who create 80 
percent of the new jobs?
  Just yesterday, the Finance Committee, on a 19-2 vote, reported a 
bill designed to cut the top marginal rate for small business 
manufacturers to 32 percent. Senator Biden's amendment would go the 
other way and hammer our small business manufacturers.
  Now, let's discuss the two procedural problems.
  The first procedural problem is also constitutional. Under the 
Constitution, revenue measures must originate in the House. Senator 
Biden's amendment is a tax increase. It is a clear case of a revenue 
measure. The Ways and Means Committee has indicated the House will 
exercise its Constitutional prerogative and ``blue slip'' this bill if 
it contains Senator Biden's amendment. A

[[Page 24039]]

blue slip kills this bill. We go back to square one. A vote for the 
Biden amendment is a vote to stop aid to our troops. It is a vote to 
stop aid to the Iraqi people at a critical time.
  Let me repeat that point. A vote for the Biden amendment is a vote 
against aid to our troops. A vote for the Biden amendment is a vote 
against assistance to the Iraqi people.
  From my own perspective, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I have 
to warn members of our committee that the Biden amendment raises a 
fundamental tax issue on an unrelated bill. The Biden amendment treads 
on Finance Committee's jurisdiction. Every Finance Committee member 
should oppose Senator Biden's amendment on that basis alone. But, most 
importantly, this amendment is a reckless attack on our economic 
recovery and I strongly urge its defeat.
  I ask Senators to defeat the Biden amendment and not increase taxes 
on small business.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this amendment is not about whether 
or not we ought to appropriate the funds that President Bush has 
requested for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather, this 
amendment addresses the question of whether this Congress is willing to 
pay the bill or whether we will pass it on to future generations. I am 
unwilling to tell the children in West Virginia that I believe they 
should pay this bill when they grow up when there is a reasonable 
alternative.
  If we do not offset the $87 billion cost of this emergency 
supplemental request, then it will be added to our Nation's deficit. 
Already, without this spending, the Federal deficit for fiscal year 
2004 is projected to be $480 billion. That number is staggering. Prior 
to this administration, the largest deficit this government ever had in 
a single year was $290 billion. So already, we know that our deficit 
will be higher than ever before, by a lot. Without this amendment, we 
would add another $87 billion to this deficit. Our deficit would hit 
$567 billion--almost twice the size of the previous record deficit.
  These are not just numbers. Such enormous deficits have consequences. 
Our children will have to pay these bills. Instead of investing in 
education or roads or military preparedness for their own generation, 
they will still be paying the bills for our generation. Already we have 
saddled future generations with almost $7 trillion in debt. We 
absolutely must not add to that debt when this amendment offers an 
alternative.
  We also know that such large deficits will have an impact for our own 
generation. As Federal debt increases, it will put pressure on long 
term interest rates, which will hurt every middle class family trying 
to pay their mortgage. And I am certain that in the coming weeks my 
colleagues will say that we have to cut spending on education, health 
care, infrastructure, unemployment compensation, and other critical 
domestic priorities in order to reduce the deficit. Make no mistake: 
adding to the deficit today, will increase pressure to squeeze out 
spending that benefits low and middle income Americans at a time when 
they are already struggling.
  Increasing the burden on low and middle income Americans would be 
spectacularly unfair. As I travel around West Virginia, I talk to many 
families who have children serving in the armed forces in Iraq or 
Afghanistan. Thousands of West Virginians have been called up to serve 
in the National Guard or Reserves. They are not millionaires. They are 
patriotic West Virginians with modest incomes, and they are already 
sacrificing things more valuable than money to make our military 
efforts a success.
  So let me discuss for a moment what sacrifice this amendment asks 
for. This amendment says that those with incomes greater than $311,950 
should pay a top income tax rate of 38.2 percent in the years 2005 
through 2010. Even with this change, the top income tax rate will be 
lower than it was when President Bush took office. In fact, of the $690 
billion in tax cuts that this President has signed into law that are 
targeted at the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, $600 billion in tax 
cuts would still be in place. Under this amendment, a person making $1 
million per year would still get a tax cut of more than $20,000 
compared to what he or she would have paid in 2000, prior to this 
President's tax cuts taking effect. It is not asking for an undue 
sacrifice to ask a millionaire to settle for a $20,000 tax cut. I wish 
there were more people in West Virginia that would see this $20,000 tax 
cut, but of course, only the wealthiest fraction of taxpayers, less 
than 1 percent, would be affected by this amendment.
  I will be supporting this amendment because I cannot explain to 
children in West Virginia that giving a millionaire a tax cut greater 
than $20,000 was more important to me than their future. I hope that my 
colleagues will think carefully about this stark choice, and join me in 
supporting Senator Biden's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the majority has 
expired.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I think I have some time. If the majority 
wants more time, that is fine by me. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I want to take a minute or so to respond to my friend, the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, while he is in the Chamber.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield briefly?
  Mr. BIDEN. Sure, without losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the author of this amendment has 
approximately 25 minutes remaining. We have been informed that there is 
going to be an effort by the majority to have a vote at 3:45 rather 
than 3:15, which is fine with us. I have also been told that the 
chairman of the Budget Committee wants to speak for up to 5 minutes. So 
if there is no objection to that, could we have 5 minutes additional on 
each side?
  Mr. NICKLES. If I might modify the request of the Senator, I ask 
unanimous consent that the vote occur at 3:45 with 15 minutes allotted 
to each side.
  Now, I was not aware that originally Senator Biden, in his eloquent 
negotiations, already had a 2-hour advantage over this side. There 
might be a few additional remarks this Senator wants to make which will 
take a little more than 5 minutes.
  Mr. REID. I ask if we could further modify the request of the Senator 
from Oklahoma by having Senator Biden have the last 10 minutes prior to 
the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. Ten? I will further modify that. I will certainly accede 
to that. If he has only spoken for 2 hours, we look forward to an 
additional 10 minutes for the Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modified request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume. Senator Grassley is leaving. I wanted to grab him.
  I do enjoy the sarcasm of my friend from Oklahoma, who speaks on this 
floor about 40 times as much as I do, if he goes and checks the Record. 
Always elucidating, if I might add, always elucidating.
  I say to my friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee, I 
understand the points he is making. But he is aware, in terms of small 
businesses, that a small business owner would still have to be in the 
top 1-percent income bracket, the 35-percent bracket, to be affected? 
And, of all the small businesses in America, only 2 percent fall in 
that bracket? Only 2 percent of the 100 percent of the small businesses 
in America fall in the bracket.
  To further make a point, I understand his point that this is the 
engine of our economy, small businesses. There is no question about 
that. There is no question, though, as well--let's say a small business 
owner is making $400,000 in gross income. The effect of the additional 
tax he would pay from the tax reduction he has gotten down to now would 
be $2,140 a year. Is my friend suggesting we are going to constrain and 
strangle business in America when 2 percent of the small businesses, 
roughly 5,000, who make $400,000

[[Page 24040]]

gross income and above, are going to have to pay $2,100 a year more, 
that that is going to constrain the growth of small business? Is that 
what he is saying? Is that going to prevent them from being able to 
invest or to be able to grow?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I am saying it is unfair to tax small business that is 
not incorporated at a higher rate than the tax on Fortune 500s, No. 1.
  Number 2, this may only be 2 percent of the employers, but they are 
the people who create the jobs.
  Mr. BIDEN. I couldn't agree more.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I have worked at packing plants; I worked at the 
Waterloo Register Company. I never had one poor person provide the job 
for me. I always had somebody who makes a lot more money than I do 
provide the jobs for me. We don't want to choke that off in America.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank my colleague for his response. He is always 
courteous. I just respectfully suggest that taking 2 percent of the 
small businesses in America, having them have to pay slightly more than 
they would have paid with this tax cut that is in place now--which, 
again, if they are making $400,000 in gross income, that means about 
$2,100 more they will pay--is a heck of a lot more preferable than 
asking middle-class taxpayers and asking small businessmen who make 
$50,000 a year, and mechanics who make $35,000 a year, and 
schoolteachers who make $40,000 a year, to have to pay more.
  I find it fascinating that for those who do not like my proposal to 
deal with the top 1 percent, I have not heard any alternative offered. 
Are they suggesting we should repeal part of the tax cut or delay part 
of the tax cut for everybody? No, they make no alternative offer. The 
alternative offer they make is we are going to add it to the deficit, 
so the pages can pay. I am going to start calling this the page-pay 
bill. The pages will pay.
  I see my friend from Oklahoma, whom I always enjoy hearing, and he 
was seeking the floor earlier, so I reserve the remainder of my time 
and await the eloquent words of my friend from Oklahoma as to why this 
is not a good idea. I am sure he has very many ideas as to why this is 
not a good idea.
  I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. NICKLES. 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. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. I have just caught a portion of this debate, but I want 
to make a couple of comments. My very good friend from Delaware said, 
Why is this amendment a bad idea? This amendment is a bad idea because 
it is unconstitutional.
  We all take an oath at the beginning of the year to uphold the 
Constitution. I know all of our colleagues are aware of article I, 
section 7 of the Constitution that says all bills raising revenue shall 
originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose 
or concur with amendments as on other bills.
  The House originates tax bills. The amendment of our colleague from 
Delaware tries to turn an appropriations bill into a tax bill, a tax 
bill that did not go through the Ways and Means Committee. It certainly 
didn't go through the Finance Committee. I am on the Finance Committee. 
So it is unconstitutional.
  If this amendment passes, the House will blue-slip it. For people who 
do not know what a blue slip is, they kill the bill. They will not even 
consider it. They will not even look at it. It is a great tradition in 
the House because we have tried it on occasion. Every time it happens, 
every time somebody tries to slip in a little revenue provision in the 
bill, no matter how insignificant in comparison to the overall bill, 
the House loves to blue-slip it and remind the Senate that the 
Constitution gives them and them only the right to originate revenue 
bills.
  Our forefathers put it in the Constitution. We are sworn to uphold 
the Constitution. This is a killer amendment. It does not belong in 
this bill.
  If our colleague wants to raise income taxes by 10 percent on the 
upper income brackets, he can do so. He can introduce a bill. He may or 
may not get a hearing before the Finance Committee. I hope not, but he 
might. He may or may not get a markup in the Finance Committee. I hope 
not, but he might. He might take a bill that is going through the 
Finance Committee and offer it as an amendment and be successful. I 
hope not, but he might. Those are all legal, constitutional avenues of 
raising taxes.
  This is not. You don't raise taxes on a spending bill that is going 
through the Senate unless the House has a revenue provision. If the 
House has a revenue provision, then it certainly can be done. So that 
is one reason. Let's not kill this bill.
  I have heard a lot of people say they support the bill. They want to 
pass the money, they want to assist the troops, they even want to 
assist the Iraqi people--it is hard to say the Iraqi government; they 
don't have a government yet, but we are trying to establish a 
government and I compliment Ambassador Bremer and the President. This 
is an enormous effort the United States is undertaking. It is 
challenging; it is expensive. It is expensive in dollars and it is also 
expensive in blood. We have lost American lives. We have thousands of 
Americans who are spending their time right now in Iraq, in Baghdad, 
away from their families, making a significant sacrifice. Now we are 
trying to say are we going to help them or are we not.
  This amendment which purports to say we want to pay for it, but we 
are only going to have the upper 1 percent pay for it, I don't think is 
good tax policy. I don't think you can say we just want to sock it to 
the upper income people.
  I heard earlier statements by speakers saying if we do not do this, 
the deficit is just getting really bad. I happen to be concerned about 
the deficit, too. But I might note we just passed a couple of 
appropriations bills and I tallied up the number of amendments to 
increase spending on those appropriations bills and I didn't hear very 
much on the other side about concern for deficit. One of the last 
appropriations bills we passed was the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, 
and there were amendments, primarily supported by colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, that we defeated using budget points of order, 
that would have increased spending over a 1-year period, next year, 
$26.4 billion, and over a 10-year period $386.8 billion. That was just 
on the Labor-HHS bill alone. No one was saying the deficit concerns us.
  Then on another bill, just to give another example on the Homeland 
Security bill, Senator Cochran's bill, Senator Cochran made points of 
order against amendments to increase spending by $17.4 billion in 2004 
alone, and a total of $254.1 billion over a 10-year period of time.
  I did not hear people say then, we are concerned about the deficit. 
In other words, they are quite willing to spend more money and bust the 
budget over the President's request and over what was agreed upon by 
both the House and the Senate. There was no concern about deficits when 
we were trying to increase spending in those areas.
  Now we have a spending bill before us. This bill is outside the 
budget. It is requested as an emergency by the President of the United 
States. It passed the Appropriations Committee as an emergency. I am 
not saying it is perfect. I will tell you that I doubt it is perfect. I 
expect it might be improved. It probably will be improved as we 
consider it on the floor. But to say we are now going to basically 
violate the Constitution and have a tax amendment that would really, in 
effect, kill the bill, I don't want to do that. Nor do I want to 
increase income tax rates on the upper 1 or 2 percent of American 
taxpayers. That is a 10-percent increase.
  I heard people say that is just delaying it. It is a 10-percent 
increase. It would take the maximum rate from 35 percent to 38.2 
percent. I might mention 35 percent. When Bill Clinton was

[[Page 24041]]

President, the maximum rate was 31. When he was elected, it was 31 
percent. After he passed some tax increases, it went up to 39.6. All 
these great tax cuts that we have done moved the tax rate down to 35 
percent.
  President Clinton and Congress at that time reduced the rate of his 
increase on the upper income by about half. If my math is correct, 35 
percent is more than a third. That doesn't include what States charge. 
If you add State taxes on top of it, you realize some people are paying 
more than 40-some-odd percent of their income to government. In other 
words, government is coming closer to taking half of what they make. I 
disagree with that because I think that suffocates people's initiative 
and their willingness to build, grow, and expand.
  As mentioned by the chairman of the Finance Committee, 80 percent of 
the benefits on the top income tax rates are really held by small 
business and sole proprietorships, S corporations, and farms. We would 
be hitting the very people who are creating the jobs. If we want to 
have economic growth in this country, the last thing we need to do is 
say, if you are only a small business, we will sock it to you with a 
10-percent increase. I think that makes no sense whatsoever.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment primarily on 
constitutional grounds. If this amendment is agreed to, this amendment 
will be blue-slipped. It would kill the bill, and there would be no 
assistance coming out of the Senate.
  I urge my colleagues not to make that mistake--not to pass a tax 
policy without consideration certainly of those on the Ways and Means 
Committee and on the Finance Committee as is the normal order, the way 
we are supposed to legislate on appropriations matters.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that 
the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand the vote is to take place at 
3:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask between now and the time the vote is called, if we 
are in a quorum call, the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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. BIDEN. 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. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: How much time 
remains under the control of the Senator from Delaware?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventeen minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair. Second inquiry: And how much time does 
the majority have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority's time has expired.
  Mr. BIDEN. And last inquiry: And the vote is set for?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is set for 3:45.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair very much.
  Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I 
expect to consume the remainder of my time now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I expected to--and I did hear--a vigorous 
defense of the tax cuts today. And I expected to hear that anyone who 
supports my proposal to pay for this $87 billion supplemental is 
someone who is hostile to wealth and success. I did not hear much of 
that. I heard a little bit of that. And I expected to hear that I am 
really putting regular folks into the category with Park Avenue wealthy 
people. I expected to hear that.
  Well, think of it this way: If someone today came to the floor and 
proposed a $600 billion tax cut for the top 1 percent of the American 
taxpayers--assume the tax cut had not passed. Just picture this: 
Someone walked on the floor today, as we are about to vote on an $87 
billion supplemental, and said: I propose a $600 billion tax cut 
between now and the year 2010 for the top 1 percent of the American 
taxpayers--and did it, again, at this moment, when we will have a $500-
plus billion deficit for next year, and expanding national security 
demands, not decreasing national security demands, well beyond Iraq, 
and expanding homeland security needs, not diminishing homeland 
security needs, and while the House of Representatives and the Senate 
are in conference about to report back, I assume, a multibillion-dollar 
relief bill as we need for prescription drugs.
  If someone came forward today and said, I have an idea; let's 
diminish the tax burden of the top 1 percent of the U.S. taxpayers--
that is, people making an average of $1 million a year--let's reduce 
their taxes by $600 billion, what do you think would happen? Would 
anyone seriously on this floor say, that is a good idea now, that is a 
great idea, let's go ahead and do that?
  How about if they came to the floor and said, Let's not make it $600 
billion, let's cut their taxes $689.1 billion, roughly. Would anybody 
here vote for that today? Would anybody honestly vote for that today?
  Today we hear that $600 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy is not 
enough. Why do I say that? My proposal only says, instead of giving the 
wealthiest Americans, that is people making a gross income of about 
$400,000 a year, a net income after all the deductions and everything 
of about $312,000 a year, you don't even get into this game unless you 
fall in that category, and people who are making $1 million a year on 
average, all I am saying is, give them $600 billion, not $690 billion, 
and don't even touch them until 2005. Have them pay this out in 
additional taxes, instead of getting 690 get 6 over a 6-year period, 
beginning in 2005 basically. That is all I am saying.
  Today we are told by those who oppose this that, no, we can't afford 
to do anything except give them a $688.9 billion limit or the sky will 
fall, small business will shutter their windows, and the recovery of 
capitalism, as we know it, will grind to a halt.
  Give me a break. I have yet to hear a single economist--this has been 
floating around now out there, this idea of mine, for the past couple 
weeks--say this is going to have any impact on the recovery. In fact, 
the opposite is going to happen. If we add another $87 billion to the 
deficit, interest rates will go higher. That is going to short circuit 
a recovery, not paying out over a 6-year period an additional $87 
billion that is not going into their pockets.
  Again, I keep coming back to this point. Even wealthy Americans don't 
oppose this. A Wall Street Journal poll asked the question, If Congress 
approves President Bush's request for $87 billion in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, how would you prefer that Congress pay for it? Scrap the 
Medicare drug benefits bill?
  Seven percent of Americans, obviously those with Medicare benefits 
and drug coverage, said, yes, that is a good idea; pay for it by not 
passing the prescription drug proposal. Twelve percent said to borrow 
the money. Add to the deficit; go out and borrow it. Make the pages 
pay. Borrow for it. Twelve percent said that. Twenty-five percent said 
some other way or they were not sure. A full 56 percent said, cancel, 
not 13 percent of the tax cut for the wealthiest--I think that is the 
number--but cancel all of the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. 
They want to take it all away.
  I am not doing that. I am saying, keep $600 billion. Just don't take 
$688.9 billion.
  Look, I have been here a long while. It is fascinating to me. I keep 
getting

[[Page 24042]]

the same lesson taught to me. The American people are always way ahead 
of us. The $87 billion in additional revenue we are seeking with this 
amendment is less than eight-tenths of 1 percent of our $11 trillion 
economy.
  I challenge any of my colleagues to tell me they honestly believe 
this is going to slow up this jobless recovery. It won't even have any 
affect until the recovery is a year and a half underway. Fewer than 1 
percent of the wealthiest Americans will even be affected by this 
change. Keep in mind, this is like my saying to my grandchildren--I 
have three granddaughters--we are going to go to the ice cream store 
and, look, pop only has 12 bucks with him. I can only afford three 
double-dip ice cream cones. I can't afford three triple-dip ice cream 
cones. So you are only going to get two dips instead of three. It is 
not like saying: Look, kids, I was going to feed you tonight but you 
are not going to get to eat. We were going to have hamburgers and 
french fries and a salad, but all I am going to give you is a salad. Or 
you can't eat at all. We are not taking away anything. We are just not 
giving as much.
  Again, small business, fewer than 2 percent of small businesses, that 
is, sole proprietors, the real mom-and-pop small businesses, will even 
be affected by this. Ninety-eight percent will not be affected.
  This is a small, tiny nick in a huge tax cut. It asks for a 
contribution from those who have the clearest ability to contribute--
not because we want to punish them. This isn't about being punitive. It 
is because they have the clearest capability.
  Again, take my granddaughters out. Assume my son was not doing better 
than I am--he is but assume he isn't--and the kids want an ice cream 
cone. Why shouldn't pop pay? I have the money to pay for it. It is not 
going to affect me at all. But if all he had in his whole pocket was 10 
bucks for the week, why should he pay when I have 300 bucks in my 
pocket? This just isn't fair.
  Again, I repeat, I don't know any wealthy Americans making $1 million 
a year who say, look, I don't want to do this. It is going to hurt me. 
I am not going to be able to make it. This is going to put a crimp in 
my style.
  Again, let me give you a number. If you have an income of $400,000 a 
year--remember, the average income of the people in this bracket is 
almost a million dollars, 980-some-thousand dollars a year. Let's just 
put that in perspective. If, in fact, you are making $400,000 a year 
and your tax rate is going to go, from 2005 to 2010, back up from 35 to 
38.2, what is the effect on your pocket? You pay the difference between 
312, which gets you into the category, and 400, at a higher rate. That 
is $68,000, roughly. You have to get to 380-something. How much more 
taxes does it mean that you pay? Roughly, $2,100 more a year.
  Are you telling me the people making $400,000 a year are not willing 
to kick in $2,100 a year for 5 years beginning in the year 2005--or for 
6 years beginning in 2005 to win the peace in Iraq? Boy, do we 
underestimate these folks. These are loyal, patriotic Americans. They 
would be ready to do a lot more if we needed them to do it. But $2,100, 
if you make a million dollars? I asked my staff to do a back-of-the-
envelope calculation. Let's say the poor guy who has no deductions--
``poor'' guy--the rookie who signs a contract for $1.150 million. Guess 
what. After standard deductions because of the loopholes and the other 
things the wealthiest among us in this country have, he has a real 
taxable income of a million dollars. How much more is he going to have 
to pay? Roughly $22,000. That is going to kill him, right? Does that 
mean you don't have a gold-plated toilet seat? What does it mean?
  Again, I am not hearing any of these wealthy folks complain. I am 
hearing everybody complain in their name, but I don't hear any of them 
complain. Let me tell you, I have been doing this a long time. Few 
times have I ever stood on the floor, with CNN watching, saying if 
there is anybody who is making over $400,000 a year who is not willing 
to pay $2,100 more to win the war, call me. No one is calling me. I 
don't get this.
  I don't think these folks who will be affected by this tax change 
will begrudge one nickel of this $87 billion. So I say to my 
colleagues, if we don't do this now, pay for this installment in the 
war now, taking a small part of the tax cut, when we have a national 
security emergency supplemental request from the President, when the 
deficit is skyrocketing to over half a trillion dollars a year, are 
there no circumstances ever when it will be right to reconsider less 
than 5 percent of the biggest tax cut in history?
  My time is almost up. It seems to me we are at a place where 
responsibility dictates that we be rational and not ideological, we pay 
now instead of just putting this on the tab for the pages on the Senate 
floor, that we don't ask our children to pay for our security, and we 
pay for our security and our children's security.
  This, to me, is the most inexplicable opposition to anything I have 
ever been involved with on the floor of the Senate.
  I believe my time has expired. I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
Biden-Kerry amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for the reasons previously stated on this 
side, I move to table Senator Biden's amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 373 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

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

                                NAYS--42

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Graham (FL)
       
  The motion was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1802

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Coleman], for himself, Mr. 
     Byrd, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Corzine, Ms. Collins, Mr. Graham of 
     South Carolina, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Sununu, and Mr. Allen 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1802.

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

 (Purpose: To fund travel within the United States for members of the 
Armed Forces on rest and recuperation leave from a deployment overseas 
  in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom)

       On page 22, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

[[Page 24043]]

       Sec. 316. (a) In addition to other purposes for which funds 
     in the Iraq Freedom Fund are available, such funds shall also 
     be available for reimbursing a member of the Armed Forces for 
     the cost of air fare incurred by the member for any travel by 
     the member within the United States that is commenced during 
     fiscal year 2003 or fiscal year 2004 and is completed during 
     either such fiscal year while the member is on rest and 
     recuperation leave from deployment overseas in support of 
     Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, but 
     only for one round trip by air between two locations within 
     the United States.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that the commercial airline 
     industry should, to the maximum extent practicable, charge 
     members of the Armed Forces on rest and recuperation leave as 
     described in subsection (a) and their families specially 
     discounted, lowest available fares for air travel in 
     connection with such leave and that any restrictions and 
     limitations imposed by the airlines in connection with the 
     air fares charged for such travel should be minimal.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold for a minute?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Leahy be 
recognized following the disposition of the Coleman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be 
added as a cosponsor to Senator Coleman's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, the Pentagon has rolled out a program to 
bring home troops who have served in Iraq for over a year. It is a good 
program. Under the Rest and Recuperation Leave Program, these service 
men and women will get a much deserved 2 weeks of R&R with their 
families. Unfortunately, the program only provides for transportation 
to places such as Baltimore, Atlanta, Dallas, or Los Angeles. From 
these cities, our service men and women are expected to pay their own 
way home at same-day rates.
  Chad Krandall and Dave Schmaltz, cousins and Minnesota National Guard 
members from Gwinner, MN were told the price of a same-day ticket from 
Baltimore to Minneapolis-St. Paul would be $1,200 each. Steven Bazaard, 
another Guard member from Minnesota, was faced with a similarly high 
bill if he was to make it all the way home to see his wife Sherry 
Billups in Blackduck, MN. Isaac Girling, a member of the 142nd 
Battalion in Iraq, will have to pay the same exorbitant fee when he 
comes home next week to Stillwater, MN to see his newborn son for the 
first time.
  I don't have anything against Baltimore, Atlanta, Dallas, or Los 
Angeles. But to be perfectly frank, these cities can't really hold a 
candle to Blackduck or Gwinner, and they are a long way away and 
expensive to travel to.
  This R&R program is a good start, but it doesn't go far enough to 
support our troops. These are families which have already made do for a 
year without their loved ones, and the toll has been both emotional and 
financial. To ask them to pay same-day airfare to see their loved ones 
is simply unfair.
  If we acknowledge that troops who have been in Iraq for a year 
deserve a 2-week vacation like anyone else, we ought to make sure they 
get all the way home. That is what we are talking about here--making 
sure our service men and women who have performed so admirably, have 
sacrificed so much in defense of their country and in defense of 
freedom, get all the way home.
  I have introduced, along with the distinguished chairman, Senator 
Stevens, and my friend and fellow Senator from Minnesota, Senator 
Dayton, an amendment to fix this unintended consequence of the R&R 
program. We have broad bipartisan support, including Senators Byrd, 
Dayton, Alexander, Chambliss, Collins, Conrad, Corzine, Craig, DeWine, 
Domenici, Dorgan, Ensign, Enzi, Graham of South Carolina, Gregg, 
Johnson, Kennedy, Murkowski, Santorum, Sununu, Stevens, and Allen.
  The chairman and his staff on the Appropriations Committee have been 
very gracious in working with me to craft a good amendment to make sure 
our troops and their families do not have to pay these high rates.
  This amendment will not have any budgetary consequence. It will 
simply make sure existing funds are used for this essential program to 
boost troop morale and to reunite families separated by this 
engagement. This amendment is the right thing to do.
  I notice my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Minnesota, 
Senator Dayton is here. I yield the floor at this time to Senator 
Dayton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, 
Senator Coleman, who joined with great minds which think in the same 
direction. We introduced this legislation on the same day. I am proud 
to be joining with Senator Coleman in the Coleman-Dayton amendment to 
provide for transportation to homes and places of origin for our 
troops, many of whom, in the case of Minnesota, have just had their 
tours of duty in the Iraqi theater extended by 6 months. In the case of 
the 142nd Battalion, it covers northwestern Minnesota and North Dakota. 
As a result of this extension and this deployment and administrative 
matters, many of them will not see their families for up to 18 months. 
To drop them off at the Baltimore airport and tell them they are going 
to be on their own at that point and at their own expense to try to get 
back and see their families for their one opportunity in nearly 18 
months I think would be shameful. I think the American people are more 
generous than this. I think under these circumstances it is the least 
we can do.
  I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his leadership on this matter, 
and I am glad to sponsor it with him.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I say to my friend and colleague, Senator 
Dayton, that the two folks from Minnesota understand it is really good 
to get home--and also the folks from Alaska and Idaho. This amendment 
does that.
  I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to commend both Senators from 
Minnesota for sponsoring this amendment. If they have no objection, I 
ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I express my support for this amendment--
which is very similar to an amendment I had filed earlier--to pay for 
the travel home of U.S. troops currently serving in the Iraqi theater 
of operations. I am pleased to join in cosponsoring the amendment.
  The Department of Defense recently announced that it would grant 
soldiers on 12-month deployments as a part of Operation Iraqi Freedom 
15 days of rest and recuperation leave. About 270 soldiers a day are 
now arriving in the United States to begin their leave period. At the 
present time, these troops are required to pay their own way home from 
their port of debarkation--right now, Baltimore-Washington 
International Airport. It says something about the priorities of the 
Department of Defense that while they are asking Congress for another 
$87 billion for war and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, they 
are also making soldiers on leave pay for their transportation home and 
back.
  Many of these soldiers are members of the Reserves and National 
Guard. Many of those citizen soldiers have recently learned that, 
because the administration has been unable to mobilize sufficient 
international support to ease the burden on American troops, they will 
be required to spend a full 12 months in Iraq. This is in addition to 
the 2 to 3 months they spent away from home training for their mission. 
Despite the shifting dates for their return home, our American service 
men and women have served with courage and distinction in terrible 
conditions.
  Soldiers from the 142d Combat Engineering Battalion, a North Dakota 
National Guard unit, have already begun coming home on leave. The first 
soldiers chosen for leave were very concerned that they might have to 
pay

[[Page 24044]]

well over $1,000 to buy a ticket home from Baltimore. I was very 
pleased that Northwest Airlines, the main provider of air travel to 
North Dakota, was able to respond to my request to offer reasonable 
priced tickets to these brave soldiers.
  But this should be only a temporary measure. I urge the Senate to now 
clear the way for full government funding of the travel expenses for 
our troops on leave, including those that will take leave before we are 
able to complete our legislation, by adopting this amendment. In 
working on this amendment, I wanted to be sure we avoided creating an 
unfair disparity between soldiers. We will not likely conclude action 
on this supplemental until the tail end of October, and by that time 
several thousand soldiers will have already paid for their own travel 
home. It seemed unfair to me that these soldiers should be forced to 
pay their own way while those who traveled later would go at government 
expense.
  Our troops in Iraq have been serving under difficult conditions, and 
they deserve our full support. I greatly appreciate Chairman Stevens' 
willingness to include this important issue in the supplemental 
appropriations bill. I am happy that we were able to work together to 
provide for the travel expenses of our brave soldiers serving in Iraq.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1802) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Vermont is recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank my friend, the distinguished Presiding Officer.


                           Amendment No. 1803

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

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] for himself, Mr. 
     Daschle, and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 1803.

 (Purpose: To place the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq under 
 the direct authority and foreign policy guidance of the Secretary of 
                                 State)

       On page 25, line 21, before the colon, insert the 
     following:
       : Provided further, That beginning not later than 60 days 
     after enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     Coalition Provisional Authority shall report to and be under 
     the direct authority and foreign policy guidance of the 
     Secretary of State.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. That is 
why I didn't follow the usual procedure where amendments are simply 
deemed read. This was a short enough one that I wanted it read.
  It does what many of us feel we should have done 5 months ago when we 
appropriated the first $2.5 billion in foreign aid for Iraq. At the 
time we gave that very substantial amount of foreign aid to Iraq, many 
of us urged the Secretary of State--not the Secretary of Defense--
should have authority over the reconstruction program.
  No matter who is Secretary of State, no matter who is Secretary of 
Defense, when you are going to give enormous amounts of foreign aid for 
reconstruction, the aid should be under the Department of State. After 
all, foreign aid is the responsibility of the State Department. Also, 
it is the responsibility of USAID. That is what they know how to do. 
That is what their people are trained to do.
  It is not what the Pentagon does, nor, for that matter, is it what 
the Pentagon should be doing. The Pentagon is trained in military 
combat. In fact, our forces, the men and women in the Army, Navy, Air 
Force, and Marine Corps, are the best trained, the best equipped, best 
motivated of any military in the world. Obviously, they showed they can 
easily defeat other military forces as they did in Iraq.
  While they are trained for war, the State Department is trained to 
work to rebuild. In this case, as superb as the military role was, 
their leadership disregarded the preparatory work the State Department 
and USAID had done in planning for after the war. The problems they now 
face reflect that.
  I am concerned we are putting our men and women in the military in an 
impossible situation. They are being asked not only to provide 
security, but to also oversee the reconstruction.
  I have a lot of respect for Ambassador Bremer. I have known him and 
worked with him on terrorism and other matters over the years. He did a 
good job last week when he testified before the Appropriations 
Committee. Like a lawyer arguing the brief for his client, he argued 
well. But Ambassador Bremer's office, which is located in the Pentagon, 
until very recently was not capable of responding to our questions. The 
questions we were asking were not how many divisions might move here or 
how many tanks, airplanes, helicopters, men and women under arms can 
move, but, rather, how can we do a better job of getting water, and 
electricity, and other aid to the Iraqi people?
  We saw the reconstruction plan, apparently a Pentagon plan, an 8-page 
document. When it came out a couple months ago, none of us on this side 
of aisle received it.
  Now that we have seen it, I understand why they didn't want everyone 
to have it. It is embarrassingly illustrative of the administration's 
postwar strategy. There was no postwar strategy. All the strategy led 
up to winning in Iraq. Everyone knew how that would come out. Of course 
we would defeat the broken Iraqi army. Everyone knew we were going to 
win. This was not World War II. But, amazingly enough, there was no 
strategy for what happened after we won.
  I am not among those who believe everything we have done in Iraq has 
been a failure. There has been progress. For one thing, I am glad 
Saddam Hussein is not here. He was a murderous tyrant. Members of the 
administration now talk about the murderous conduct of Saddam Hussein 
when he used chemical weapons against the Kurds--something many Members 
were outraged about at the time--and they seem to forget the 
administration they served at that time turned a blind eye to that and 
continued to give aid to Saddam Hussein.
  Having said that, now I think everyone, whether those in the Congress 
or the administration who supported Saddam Hussein over the years, we 
all agree--all Republicans, all Democrats agree--he was a tyrant and it 
is good he is gone. That is progress.
  We have begun to train a new army and police force and so on. That is 
progress. But we were told this spring that the amount of money for the 
aid program would be very small. Now we are asked to increase our aid 
program ten fold, with virtually no controls on how the money will be 
spent.
  So, we got into the war, we had no plan for what we would do 
afterwards, we have real problems now, and now they want a blank check 
to take care of it. We will pay $33,000 each for pickup trucks that 
sell for $14,000 here, and we will pay $6,000 for telephones you can 
buy in the neighboring country of Jordan for $500 or $600. We will pay 
$50,000 a bed for a prison although that is far more than we would in 
the United States. We will repair their power infrastructure although 
we do not have money to do the same in the United States. We will build 
a whole lot of new schoolhouses although we do not have the money to 
fix our dilapidated schools. We will build state-of-the-art hospitals 
even though we do not have the money for new health clinics in parts of 
the United States. And we are told: Just give us the money and trust 
us; we know what to do.
  In my State, we do not sign blank checks. I am sure we will give 
money for foreign aid even though we do not have the money to do the 
same things in the United States.
  Simply spending more money does not get us back on track. We need a 
real plan, and we need the right agency in charge. That is why this 
amendment is so short. It is one sentence. It simply

[[Page 24045]]

puts the Coalition Provisional Authority--and I assume that will be 
Ambassador Bremer although I am not doing this on an ad hominem basis--
simply put the coalition provisional authority, Ambassador Bremer, who 
has been working around the clock to carry out our interests there, 
under the foreign policy guidance and direction of the Secretary of 
State. It would provide 60 days after enactment to give the State 
Department time to put in place the people it needs.
  Does that mean the Department of Defense no longer has any role in 
reconstruction? Of course not. They obviously will be consulted on a 
continuous basis. Everyone knows nothing can be built unless there is 
security to prevent attacks on contractors and aid workers and to 
prevent sabotage to the projects themselves. We are fortunate to have a 
superb military there to provide that kind of security. But that is 
what the Defense Department should be doing, providing the security but 
not trying to oversee foreign aid projects. That is not what they are 
trained to do.
  It is unfair to our men and women in the military to ask them to do 
that. It was a mistake in the first place when we asked them to do it. 
We should not repeat that. Let us not ask the Department of Defense to 
suddenly become the State Department, AID, and the general dispenser of 
foreign aid. They are so well trained to do the things they do. Let 
those who are trained to handle foreign aid and the projects of 
reconstruction be there.
  It is also worth noting, when you look at the civil affairs units in 
the Defense Department, almost all of them are composed of National 
Guard and Reserve units. Ironically, to the extent you are going to use 
the military for the nation building we are doing in Iraq--we are doing 
nation building in Afghanistan, and Lord knows where else--these are 
the men and women in uniform who are best equipped for the nation 
building we are doing in Iraq.
  So we either have to keep these National Guard and Reserve forces in 
Iraq indefinitely--and I think the majority of the Members of both 
parties here do not want to see that happen--or we have to get the 
State Department and USAID more involved in doing nation building. I 
favor the latter approach. That is what my amendment would do.
  I do not think we should continue to rely on these National Guard and 
Reserve units to do the long-term development work that should be done 
by others. Let that be done by the Department of State and AID, and let 
the Department of Defense provide the security for those who are doing 
the reconstruction in Iraq.
  Some might ask if the Secretary of State wants that authority, given 
what a thankless job it is becoming in Iraq. I do not know. If he gets 
the authority, I will offer him not congratulations but condolences.
  I see my dear friend.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I answer my colleague's very 
insightful question as to what the Secretary of State has in mind.
  I have just been in consultation with his office, upon learning of my 
distinguished colleague's amendment. Very shortly there will be a 
written communication coming to the leadership of the Senate 
expressing, without any equivocation, that he feels strongly that the 
Department of State, at this time, should not be given the 
responsibility. But there will come a time, I say to my distinguished 
colleague--an appropriate time, and perhaps without further 
interruption to your opening remarks--I could engage the Senator in a 
colloquy to discuss perhaps an alternative measure at some future time.
  Basically, it would be after the Iraqi Government is in place and the 
United States would, at that time, indicate an individual to become the 
U.S. Ambassador, at which time there could be an orderly transition 
from the Department of Defense to the Department of State.
  My concern, I say to my friend, is that it has taken Ambassador 
Bremer some 3 months now to gain the momentum he has. We have a 
critical issue before this body at the very moment of whether or not 
the additional funds will hopefully immediately be forthcoming. That 
decision will be finally made next week. I strongly support it, to 
continue that momentum. A shift at this time would result in loss of 
momentum.
  I conclude my few remarks at this moment by saying, throughout the 
testimony and private discussions with Ambassador Bremer, which I am 
sure my colleague from Vermont has had, he has constantly said that the 
danger to the coalition forces--that danger being indelibly impressed 
on us every day with the announcement of a loss or an injury to members 
of the uniformed services, and indeed others--David Kay is, at this 
moment, before committees of the Congress. In conversations with me, he 
has expressed the danger to his operation daily by their transit down 
these motorways and otherwise.
  The direct correlation of reducing the danger to our troops, to the 
Iraqi special survey group headed by David Kay, and to others 
performing NGO operations--this whole panoply of people--there is a 
direct correlation between the speed and the momentum that the Bremer 
operation has brought up to replace the infrastructure and the 
lessening of the personal risks to individuals.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Virginia is not 
only one of the best friends I have in this place, and has been for the 
years that we have served together, but I also know he is one of the 
hardest working Members of the Senate.
  As I mentioned earlier in my opening statement, I am not suggesting 
for a minute that Ambassador Bremer, for whom I have high regard, be 
replaced. I am simply saying that it is not a question of whether the 
Secretary of State should take this now or later; the fact is, this is 
his job. He should have been doing it from the beginning. We are not 
changing horses in midstream.
  Incidentally, speaking of Mr. Kay and others, I also stated, prior to 
the Senator from Virginia coming to the floor, that, of course, the 
military would have to stay and provide the security so these people 
can continue to work. I am just saying, insofar as we are doing nation 
building, let it be done by the State Department, as we always have, 
and not think that somehow we can go solely as a military authority and 
then have this country suddenly, one day, become a democratic nation, 
and only then will we bring in the State Department to give aid.
  I have looked at the plan. The plan said it was to give the Iraqi 
people the opportunity to realize President Bush's vision. We may want 
to ask them if that is exactly the vision they want. But be that as it 
may, this is not changing horses in midstream. We are getting on the 
right horse, in fact, the horse that has taken us across the stream for 
the last 50 years.
  Every major postwar reconstruction effort since the Marshall plan has 
been under the auspices of the Secretary of State, not the Secretary of 
Defense: Afghanistan, Kosovo, East Timor, Bosnia, Cambodia. Even during 
the middle of the Vietnam war, economic aid was handled by AID.
  I am thinking of an article on July 24, referring to an assessment by 
outside experts, commissioned by the Pentagon, who warned that the 
window of opportunity for postwar success is closing. The Philadelphia 
Inquirer reported that: After initial deals for reconstruction stalled, 
it was time for plan B but there was no plan B.
  I would hope the plan B that was written on July 23 is not it. I have 
a plan B. It is called the Secretary of State. Put the Department of 
State in charge of the reconstruction. Not the military part, of 
course. The military is going to be there for some substantial period 
of time--we know this--but allow them to do the things they are good 
at. They are not trained, nor should they be, to become a governing 
power, to become nation builders.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could probe my colleague, as I read 
this, it states very clearly:

       Provided further, That beginning not later than 60 days 
     after enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     Coalition Provisional Authority shall report to and be under 
     the direct authority and foreign policy guidance of the 
     Secretary of State.


[[Page 24046]]


  As I indicated, the Secretary is very much opposed to this amendment. 
We will very shortly have that evidence before the Senate. But it is 
clear from the reading of this that the $21 billion which is before 
this body right now as a part of the 87--and it remains a part; that 
issue has been addressed--would now be transferred to the Department of 
State for, frankly, writing all the checks, working on the allocation 
of priorities, the coordination with the military structure under the 
Secretary of Defense and General Abizaid, the CENTCOM commander. The 
whole thing is lifted and put under the State Department in 60 days 
after this, should it be enacted. Am I not correct?
  Mr. LEAHY. No, the Senator is not correct. The implication is that 
somehow my amendment would put everything under the State Department. 
We are being asked to provide over $80 billion. Roughly three-quarters 
of that goes to the Department of Defense. Nobody is asking anybody but 
the Department of Defense to handle it. We are saying the $20 million 
of foreign aid--one of the largest foreign aid packages I have ever 
seen--the $20 billion of foreign aid that is brand new would be 
overseen by the State Department. We want to make sure that the Iraqis 
do not feel this is a long-term military operation.
  People should know, my amendment doesn't stop the President from 
allocating and reallocating reconstruction funds to any agency, 
including Defense, but State would have oversight of that. It doesn't 
shut down the Coalition Provisional Authority. It doesn't require big 
changes there.
  Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator be more explicit?
  Mr. LEAHY. As I have said before, I am glad Ambassador Bremer is 
there. It doesn't micromanage the reconstruction effort. It doesn't 
create a disruption of any of the programs that are there. But it does 
say when we want to ask how these aid programs and reconstruction 
programs are going, we ask the questions of our State Department, the 
Department that has had this responsibility and expertise, and the 
Department that has always done this from the days of the Marshall plan 
on.
  My friends keep saying, this is just like the Marshall plan. Well, 
there are some big differences. One, the Marshall plan didn't ask us to 
pick up the whole tab as this does. That was a dollar-for-dollar match. 
Some of it was in loans. It wasn't done immediately after the war. It 
took many hearings, hundreds of witnesses. And then working with the 
President, there was a congressional oversight committee that actually 
had input from both parties, both Republicans and Democrats, unlike the 
situation here with the 8 page plan that we were given two months late.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator would enable me to bring to 
the attention of the Senate a communication at this point in time from 
the Department of State, it might be helpful. As I read the amendment, 
it is clear to me that Bremer would now report to the Secretary of 
State.
  Mr. LEAHY. That is true.
  Mr. WARNER. There is no provision that he continues a direct chain to 
the Secretary of Defense. That structure, from Bremer right on down 
through his organization, would now be reporting to the Secretary of 
State. Am I correct in that?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes, but it does not shut down or require changes in the 
central command. It doesn't require any military to report to the 
Secretary of State.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator has made that eminently clear. I think right 
now we are looking at the coalition operation under Bremer now being 
transferred in its entirety and reporting to the Secretary of State. 
That organization, under Bremer at the present time, composes, indeed, 
contributions of a number of personnel from the Departments of State 
and Defense. It is sort of a coalition within itself of our Federal 
departments and agencies. Our coalition partners, primarily Great 
Britain, are integral participants.
  How would they feel if suddenly they awakened and determined that no 
longer does their deputy to Bremer from Great Britain report to the 
Secretary of State? This is a very significant and major change that 
our distinguished colleague is proposing.
  In response, the Department of State, through its Assistant Secretary 
of Legislative Affairs, addressed our colleagues in the Senate by 
saying the following:

       Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Senator Leahy's 
     proposed amendment to the FY 2004 Supplemental that would 
     transfer control of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) 
     from the Department of Defense to the Department of State. 
     While we appreciate Senator Leahy's confidence in the State 
     Department, we are opposed to the amendment.

  That is very clear and unequivocal.

       The decision to establish control of Iraq's reconstruction 
     through the Department of Defense was made because military 
     operations were and are ongoing in Iraq. The immediate 
     objective was to establish a secure and safe environment in 
     Iraq. Restoring basic services and creating conditions for 
     economic growth could not take place until this environment 
     was established.

  For unity of effort and command, it was judged--and this judgment was 
from the President on down--

     the Department of Defense would be the most appropriate 
     department in which to place CPA. The State Department fully 
     expects to resume control of traditional development efforts 
     in Iraq once the security situation is fully stabilized and 
     an elected government is in place.
       Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on Senator 
     Leahy's amendment. We will be pleased to provide any 
     additional information you might require.

  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    U. S. Department of State,

                                                   Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McConnell: Thank you for the opportunity to 
     comment on Senator Leahy's proposed amendment to the FY 2004 
     Supplemental that would transfer control of the Coalition 
     Provisional Authority (CPA) from the Department of Defense to 
     the Department of State. While we appreciate Senator Leahy's 
     confidence in the State Department, we are opposed to the 
     amendment.
       The decision to establish control of Iraq's reconstruction 
     through the Department of Defense was made because military 
     operations were and are ongoing in Iraq. The immediate 
     objective was to establish a secure and safe environment in 
     Iraq. Restoring basic services and creating conditions for 
     economic growth could not take place until this environment 
     was established.
       For unity of effort and command, it was judged the 
     Department of Defense would be the most appropriate 
     department in which to place the CPA. The State Department 
     fully expects to resume control of traditional development 
     efforts in Iraq once the security situation is fully 
     stabilized and an elected government is in place.
       Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on Senator 
     Leahy's amendment. We will be pleased to provide any 
     additional information you might require.
           Sincerely,

                                                Paul V. Kelly,

                                              Assistant Secretary,
                                              Legislative Affairs.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I also see what the National Security 
Adviser said, and I quote:

       The President must remember that the military is a special 
     instrument. It is lethal, and it is meant to be. It is not a 
     civilian police force. It is not a political referee. And it 
     is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society.

  Dr. Rice said that.
  The Washington Post reports that the diplomats on Ambassador Bremer's 
staff in Baghdad report directly to him, not to Washington, which is 
true. The Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has told the press he has 
to rely on newspapers and the diplomatic reports of other nations to 
keep abreast of developments in Iraq. Maybe they don't like the job, 
but that is what the State Department is designed to do. I have had 
times when somebody said I had to sit in this hearing for 4 hours 
because I was either chairman or ranking member of the committee, and I 
said, I don't want to, I would rather go to Vermont, or I would rather 
go hunting on my farm, or do other things. But you know what? It is my 
job, it is a job I was elected to do, and I have done it.
  I am sorry if the State Department feels they don't need to do their 
job. Maybe they have too many people. Maybe we are spending money we 
don't need to there. I mean, this is what they do in Afghanistan. This 
is the role they have played in every post-war situation since the 
Marshall plan.

[[Page 24047]]

  I ask, what is so different about Iraq? Suddenly, we are breaking 50 
years of precedent and they don't want to do what they are supposed to 
do. I am worried, why don't they want to do their job? Are they 
concerned that they could not do it better than it is being done now? I 
would hope they could, or else we are spending an awful lot of money at 
the State Department that we don't need to spend.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in response to my colleague, the Marshall 
plan is, in clear terms, a precedent for what the policy decisions of 
our country are, as embraced in the request for this $21 billion and in 
the future. But there is a clear distinction. The Marshall plan came in 
years after the fighting had stopped. As you and I are now in this 
colloquy on the floor of the Senate, that fighting is going on right 
now--hundreds of thousands of coalition forces--over a hundred 
thousand--and many civilians are subjected to the constant threat by 
this polyglot of former Baathists, former associates of Saddam Hussein, 
terrorists are moving in.
  This is a tough situation and there is daily communication between 
Ambassador Bremer and the military. They have worked side by side. In 
fact, you visited there, as I have. Their offices are just across the 
hall from one another.
  (Mr. Cornyn assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. LEAHY. If I may respond on that, as I have stated over and over 
again--and I will state it again for my good friend, who I refer to as 
``my Senator'' when I am away from Vermont because I live part of the 
time in his beautiful Commonwealth. We are not asking the military to 
not do the job they do, and do well; we are not asking that they stop 
providing security or to not continue to hunt for Saddam Hussein or 
those connected with him. What I am saying is that they ought to be 
freed up to do that job. But they should not be doing the nation 
building the administration wants, which is our President's vision for 
Iraq. Let's give that job back to the people who are trained to do it.
  I know the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee 
does not want to see our military there forever as an occupying force. 
He and I totally agree on that. He and I totally agree that our 
military is the finest in the world, and they have done extraordinarily 
well there. I think we have them stretched pretty thin in a lot of 
areas.
  I am saying, let the military do the military work; let the State 
Department do the foreign aid work; and if the State Department is 
unwilling to do the kinds of things they are trained for, which they 
tell us year after year they need hundreds of millions of dollars more 
to do, then maybe we don't need them.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might address the comment about 
letting the State Department do its traditional responsibilities, I am 
referring to testimony before the House of Representatives on September 
30, when the Deputy Secretary of State, Secretary Armitage, appeared. 
He made the following observations. He said that Ambassador Bremer and 
Secretary Powell speak to each other on the phone occasionally but they 
e-mail each other if not every day, pretty close to that.
  He was asked what the role is in postwar Iraq. He said: We have 42 
officers there now--42 State Department officers. I don't want to make 
light of it. Both Ambassador Bremer and his second, Clay McManaway, are 
both State officers. The guy who is running the show with the railroad 
is Pat Kennedy, one of the administration officers. So the State 
Department is heavily involved at the current time. The other officers 
from the Department of State are spread out not only in I&L but we have 
Mike Felia down in the southeastern region working with the Shia. We 
have others with the Kurds.
  Ambassador Bremer has asked us to come forward with another 
approximately 60 officers and that we will be able to fill many more of 
these provinces with State Department officers, the high majority of 
which will be there with three or four language-speaking capabilities.
  I say to my colleague, there is the closest of relationships with the 
Secretaries of State and Defense and directly between the Secretary of 
State and Ambassador Bremer. As he points out very clearly here, Deputy 
Secretary of State Armitage and the principal deputy to Ambassador 
Bremer are now officers on loan from the Secretary of State to the CPA. 
I urge my colleagues who are following this debate to think for 
themselves about the consequences of the loss of reconstruction that 
this would entail. You cannot make the shift in that point of time, 
and, to me, it would bring a greater threat personally and endangerment 
to the life and limb of not only the coalition forces in uniform but 
thousands of civilians who are working in various capacities to bring 
about the goals of peace and turning over this nation to the Iraqi 
people.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am getting the impression that my 
distinguished friend, the senior Senator from Virginia, is not in 
agreement with my amendment and would like to keep the status quo, at 
least for now.
  I respond that the current structure has not worked well. Between the 
two of us, we have a half century of listening to people testify. The 
Pentagon has said over and over again--certainly in a lot of the 
hearings I have had and I am sure that the Senator from Virginia has 
had--that they are not a foreign aid agency. The Pentagon is not a 
foreign aid agency.
  I think the experience of the past 5 months in Iraq confirms that. 
They came in there without a plan, a postwar plan. I believe they 
miscalculated terribly and they put our soldiers in a vulnerable 
position.
  I yield to nobody in this body in my admiration of the men and women 
who are in Iraq, the members of our military, but the administration 
put them in an untenable position. They have to maintain order, fight 
terrorists, build schools and sewer systems, and do all that 
simultaneously. Let the military and the Secretary of Defense focus on 
fighting the war and leave foreign aid to the agencies with the 
expertise.
  Just this week, one of our national news magazines said:

       On the ground, the Coalition Provisional Authority, charged 
     with actually running Iraq until the Iraqis can take over, is 
     the source of increasing ridicule . . . So there they are, 
     sitting in their palace: 800 people, 17 of whom speak Arabic, 
     one is an expert on Iraq. Living in this cocoon. Writing 
     papers. ``It's absurd,'' says one dissident Pentagon 
     official. He exaggerates, but not by much. Most of the senior 
     civilian staff are not technical experts. . . .

  Time magazine says Joe Fillmore, a contract translator with the 4th 
Infantry Division in Tikrit, agrees that resentment is deep. ``Things 
may look better on the surface,'' he says, ``but there is growing 
frustration with the occupation. The town is dividing into two parts: 
those who hate us, and those who don't mind us, but want us to go.''
  Whether one was for or against war, we are now there. But when we are 
asked to buy enormously expensive items, to spend more money to build a 
hospital in Iraq than we would spend on a hospital in Vermont, when we 
are asked to spend more money on telecommunications in Iraq than we are 
willing to spend in many states in the United States, when we are asked 
to spend more money on the electrical infrastructure in Iraq than we 
are willing to spend here, when we are asked to spend more money to put 
people back to work in Iraq than we are willing to spend in the United 
States, when we are asked to spend more money for police and security 
and prisons in Iraq than we are willing to spend where it is needed in 
the United States, when we are asked to spend more money for vehicles 
in Iraq than we spend for vehicles in the United States, I think it is 
fair we ask is this right? Is this necessary? Maybe it is time to put 
the right people in charge.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might again bring to my colleague's 
attention the momentum that is presently in the CPA and its 
achievements. CPA is providing funds through military commanders--I 
want to point that out--military commanders in the field, coalition 
military commanders to fund projects at the village and municipal 
level. Approximately $24 million has been spent on over 6,200 projects 
to date.

[[Page 24048]]

  Health projects: Saddam Hussein budgeted $13 million for health care 
in 2002, approximately 50 cents per person. For the second half of 
2003, CPA allocated $211 million--I repeat, $211 million--a 3,200 
percent increase in health care.
  On April 9, only 30 percent of Iraqi hospitals were functioning. CPA 
is bringing the health care system back to life. Now all 240 hospitals 
in Iraq are up and running. The CPA has wiped away the old corrupt 
system for distributing medical supplies and pharmaceuticals. In the 
past 90 days, 9,000 tons of medical supplies have been delivered, an 
increase of 700 percent. Because of the CPA, Iraqi children have 
received 22 million doses of vaccine to cover over 4 million children 
and nearly a million pregnant women.
  Education: Saddam starved the country's schools of cash for more than 
20 years. Children were taught pro-regime slogans in classrooms little 
better than livestock sheds. Enrollment in some areas had dropped to 50 
percent of eligible children.
  CPA is refurbishing more than 1,000 schools. The schools will have 
new plumbing instead of raw sewage in the playgrounds, fresh paint, 
blackboards, pencils, and teaching equipment.
  Justice system: Nationwide, 90 percent of the courts are up and 
running. Criminal courts in Baghdad reopened in May. A central criminal 
court made up of specially vetted judges and prosecutors has been 
established to try cases in public. The first trial was held August 25.
  I could go on and on. I ask unanimous consent to print these success 
stories in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Coalition Provisional Authority]

                          Iraq Success Stories

     Reconstruction Projects
       CPA is providing funds through military commanders in the 
     field to fund projects at the village and municipal level. 
     Approximately $24 million has been spent on over 6,200 
     projects to date.
     Health Projects
       Saddam Hussein budgeted $13 million for healthcare in 2002, 
     approximately 50 cents per person. For the second half of 
     2003, CPA allocated $211 million, a 3200% increase.
       On April 9th only 30% of Iraqi hospitals were functioning. 
     CPA is bringing the healthcare system back to life. Now, all 
     240 hospitals in Iraq are up and running.
       The CPA has wiped away the old corrupt system for 
     distributing medical supplies and pharmaceuticals. In the 
     past 90 days 9000 tons of medical supplies have been 
     delivered; an increase of 700%.
       Because of the CPA, Iraqi children have received 22.3 
     million doses of vaccine to cover over 4 million children and 
     nearly a million pregnant women.
     Education
       Saddam starved the country's schools of cash for more than 
     20 years. Children were taught pro-regime slogans in 
     classrooms little better than livestock sheds. Enrollment in 
     some areas had dropped to 50% of eligible children.
       The CPA is refurbishing more than 1000 schools. The schools 
     will have new plumbing instead of raw sewage in the 
     playgrounds, fresh paint, blackboards, pencils, and teaching 
     equipment.
     Justice System
       Nationwide, 90% of courts are up and running. Criminal 
     courts in Baghdad re-opened in May.
       A Central Criminal Court made up of specially vetted judges 
     and prosecutors, has been established to try cases in public. 
     The first trial was held on August 25th.
       Odious legal provisions inconsistent with fundamental human 
     rights have been suspended. Criminal defendants now have the 
     right to defense counsel at all stages of proceedings, the 
     right against self-incrimination, the right to be informed of 
     these rights, and the exclusion of evidence obtained by 
     torture.
       Eight Supreme Court Justices wrongfully removed by Saddam 
     Hussein have been reinstated.
       Judge Dara Noor al-Din, who was imprisoned for holding one 
     of Saddam's decrees unconstitutional, is now a member of the 
     Governing Council, in addition to his judicial duties. He was 
     never a Ba'athist.
       Judge Medhat Mahmood, was never a Ba'athist, has been named 
     Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

  Mr. WARNER. There is enormous momentum.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when I hear this glowing description, I 
wonder why the administration is asking for another $20 billion. I wish 
most of the States in the United States were doing as well as what the 
Senator from Virginia has described.
  If they are doing that well, maybe we should give the $20 billion to 
States in the United States that are not doing nearly as well and could 
probably use the money.
  I am glad to hear the hospitals are all operating again. Obviously, 
from a humanitarian point of view that is important progress. I hope 
the Iraqis realize they can go to any hospital they want now and they 
will receive the help they need. If that is true, why do we need to 
spend another $150 million for another hospital? Rural hospitals 
throughout the 50 States of the United States cannot say that. I know a 
lot of places in the 50 States in the United States about which we 
cannot give the kind of glowing report the Senator from Virginia has 
given about Iraq.
  Keep in mind, I am not asking for somebody to walk in there tomorrow 
and take over. But I would hope that within the next two months, with 
the 800 people in the palace over there, we might find more than 17 who 
can speak Arabic. That, I think, would be the kind of expertise the 
State Department could bring.
  I hope we will have more than one expert on Iraq, and I hope we will 
tell the Iraqi people that we are as interested in them building their 
country following their vision and not, in almost a condescending way, 
saying we want them to have the opportunity to build a country that 
fits the vision our President has for them. After all, we are talking 
about a civilization that goes back long before this country was even 
discovered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I recognize that important bit of history. 
As I say to my friend of a quarter of century, we have had the 
privilege of serving here--and I see the distinguished acting minority 
leader on the floor--it would be the intention of the Senator from 
Virginia to move to table, but I first would like to hear an expression 
perhaps from others who might like to address the amendment.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator from Virginia will yield.
  Mr. LEAHY. I have the floor.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator from Vermont will yield, I don't know how 
much more time the Senator from Vermont has. We have a couple other 
Senators who wish to speak. Certainly Senator Leahy has no desire to 
ride this out. We have a number of amendments lined up and ready to go 
as soon as this is finished. The Senator from Vermont is the best 
person to answer that question.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I respond to the distinguished Senator from 
Nevada, we have had a good colloquy with the distinguished senior 
Senator from Virginia, which is not unexpected because the 
distinguished Senator from Virginia is one of the most knowledgeable 
Members of the Senate, as well as being a dear and close friend. I 
think we have probably proved, for those who are watching, the 
edification of having both sides here.
  The Senator from Virginia, though I control the floor--I have yielded 
to him whenever he wanted.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, every courtesy has been extended, and I 
might add that I am in consultation with the distinguished chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee on this matter, who likewise is presently 
on the Senate floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. I have had time to say what I am going to say. I am also 
apparently having incipient laryngitis, which is probably as crippling 
an illness as any Member of the Senate could have.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do not detect it. I think the Senator is 
standing there with full vigor. I believe we have pretty well covered 
the major issues.
  Mr. LEAHY. Full vigor everywhere except for my tonsils, I would say 
to my friend from Virginia.
  The Senator from Virginia has the right to move to table, but this is 
an important issue, and I would hope that he would show his usual 
courtesy and withhold until people have had a chance to speak.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page 24049]]


  Mr. STEVENS. Before the Senator leaves, Mr. President, could we 
explore a time agreement on the amendment?
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask the Senator from Alaska, could I yield to the 
Senator from Nevada for that purpose? Whatever is agreeable, I am 
perfectly willing to do.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we have a Senator's agreement that we are 
going from side to side. We have another amendment ready to go. We 
would be happy to proceed. The Senator from Colorado wants to speak for 
10 minutes on the bill itself, but I should think we could get a time 
agreement.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, after having consultation with the 
interested Senators, I make the following unanimous consent request: I 
ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, have 
15 minutes; the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, have 2 minutes; 
Senator Leahy have 5 minutes; the distinguished minority leader have 10 
minutes; Senator Biden have 10 minutes; and there be 25 minutes under 
my control to be allocated to interested Senators on this side, if any, 
and that there be a vote in relation to the Leahy amendment, with no 
amendments being in order prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand our side is going to move to 
table the Leahy amendment, and I do support tabling the Leahy 
amendment. From what I have been able to observe, I think things are 
going well in Iraq. Certainly, I have no qualms with the way the State 
Department and the Defense Department are working together. I do not 
think we ought to upset the apple cart when things are moving in the 
right direction.
  I want to take a few moments to talk about the President's 
supplemental request in total. I ask my colleagues for quick action on 
the underlying bill. The reasons for quick action are simple. If we 
want to see a reduction in the number of soldiers in Iraq, we need to 
fully fund this request. If we want to improve the security in Iraq, we 
must approve this request. If we want a Democratic Iraq, governed by 
Iraqis, we must approve this request.
  No one in this body on either side of the aisle would deny we need 
additional operational and procurement funds for our military. We all 
know that. Yet there is a great controversy over the reconstruction 
funds which in the long-term could be just as important to the safety 
of the troops as the additional operation and procurement funds.
  Our troops will benefit from the additional operational funds that 
are requested in the $87 billion. My view is that if we want to see our 
forces out of Iraq quickly, we need to have those operational funds 
because they are essential to moving ahead with Iraq becoming self-
sufficient, with Iraq being able to defend itself and being able to 
assume the responsibilities the U.S. military right now is assuming.
  My point is that not only are the Iraqis beneficiaries, but our 
soldiers over in Iraq are beneficiaries, and they are beneficiaries for 
the reason it is going to be an opportunity for them to move out 
quicker and get home quicker. That is what we all want to see. Our 
ability to protect the men and women of the U.S. military is at stake.
  Since the beginning of hostilities last February, there have been 19 
soldiers from Colorado's Fort Carson and five other Coloradans who have 
died in Iraq. These men and women have paid the ultimate sacrifice in 
pursuit of the freedoms we often take for granted. I would be 
dishonoring the sacrifice these brave Americans have made and failing 
to protect those who continue to serve in Iraq if I did not support 
both the military funding portion of the supplemental and the 
reconstruction funding.
  While the $20 billion in reconstruction funds will not end the 
guerilla attacks on our troops, it will make a difference. Iraq is a 
dangerous country, and as long as American troops are on the ground 
there, they will be at risk, as any American who may be in that 
country. However, the fact remains that the more we repair the old 
wounds of the Hussein regime, the safer our troops will be in Iraq. 
Specifically, the money we spend on upgrading the water of Iraq and 
sanitation services, the oil infrastructure rehabilitation, and the 
healthcare and education of the Iraqi people will have a direct impact 
on the safety of our troops.
  Improving the social conditions of the Iraqi people will reduce 
hostility and ease the sense of desperation many Iraqis have felt since 
the fall of Saddam Hussein. Moreover, this funding will give Iraqis 
hope and demonstrate our commitment to not only rid Iraq of terrorists, 
but also improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis.
  Freedom cannot be bought on the cheap. And, as Paul Bremer testified 
last week, the Coalition Provisional Authority's seven-step program 
towards Iraqi self-governance hinges on the basic needs of the Iraqis 
being fulfilled. Without it, democracy will fail. This cannot be 
allowed to happen.
  Think back about what has been mentioned before about reconstruction 
after World War II and how we all realized after World War I that we 
had troops who were waiting to go home, everybody was excited to go 
home, but nobody stayed around to help stabilize the countries we 
defeated during World War I. Consequently, events evolved and we were 
into World War II. I think we learned our lesson, and that is that 
there needs to be a reconstruction period. So we had the Marshall plan 
put into effect. I think we need to not forget that lesson today if we 
want to see Iraq be a permanent democracy in the Middle East.
  Perhaps of most importance to our troops in Iraq is the efforts to 
reconstitute the Iraqi Army and expand the civil police force. The 
money in the supplemental would help establish 27 battalions for the 
Iraqi Army and a police force of about 80,000 in the next 12 to 18 
months.
  Let me stress how important these efforts are. To have Iraqi patrols 
policing their own people will allow a safer environment for our 
soldiers and show the Iraqi people that we are not occupiers, and that 
Iraq is their country and their responsibility. In fact, the commander 
of Central Command, General Abizaid, testified before the Senate Armed 
Services Committee that the most important part of the supplemental is 
these security funds. I quote General Abizaid:

       . . . we can speed up the training of the Iraqi Army--
     instead of taking 2 years, take 1, and we can't do that 
     without more money.

  The general goes on to state:

       . . . every month that goes by where we don't start those 
     security projects is a month longer before those guys go out 
     and potentially can relieve our troops of some of their 
     duties.

  If the combatant commander with responsibility for Iraq believes 
reconstruction efforts and the security of American soldiers is linked, 
we should certainly heed his advice.
  I think the additional point has been made in many hours of testimony 
before the Armed Services Committee that our intelligence will improve 
dramatically the more we are able to incorporate the Iraqi police force 
and their assistance in maintaining domestic stability in Iraq.
  The issue has been also broached about making the reconstruction 
funds a loan to the already impoverished nation. I object to this idea 
for two important reasons. First, there are those in the United States, 
and many more abroad, who protested the idea of going to war with Iraq. 
A large majority of these critics believed this was a war for oil. They 
believed our insatiable need for fuel was driving us toward an 
occupation of Iraq so we could control its oil fields. I am not going 
to outline why this assumption was flawed in the first place, because 
you only have to

[[Page 24050]]

look at the U.N. mandates the Hussein regime ignored and the mass 
graves of his murdered people. This is an absurd notion but not one we 
can afford to ignore.
  However, if we ask for a loan, where will Iraq come up with the 
money? Nineteen billion is what has been estimated in their oil fields 
when they get up in production, and when they have a $20 billion loan, 
that doesn't even service the interest on that loan. How will it look 
for the United States when we ask the Iraqis to pump their crude to pay 
us back for the money we loaned them? Perception is important for us in 
the Middle East and we cannot afford to have an ``oil motive'' attached 
to our efforts to bring democracy to the region.
  Another concern would be the example set for the other countries of 
the world that might contribute to the reconstruction effort. Iraq 
already owes $200 billion to Russia and France and Germany and others. 
Are we to ask them to forgive their debt and then demand payment for 
our generosity?
  Our negotiators need leverage when they ask for reconstruction funds 
from the rest of the world. Our leverage would be nullified if the 
proposed grant to Iraq changes to a loan. Again, perception of asking 
for help for a burgeoning democracy in the Middle East would be muddied 
if we have an IOU in our back pocket.
  A few weeks ago the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Myers, 
testified before the Armed Services Committee and remarked that our 
battle in Afghanistan and Iraq is a battle of wills. He stated:

       We are going to win as long as we have the continuing will 
     of the American people, and for that matter, freedom loving 
     people everywhere.

  This supplemental request is a measure of our will, a measure of our 
commitment to the Iraqi people. Terrorist organizations such as al-
Qaida and state sponsors of terrorism like the former Hussein regime 
have doubted America's commitment in the past. Are we prepared to risk 
additional attacks against our troops if we fail to assist in the 
reconstruction of Iraq? Are we prepared to say to the people of Iraq 
they are on their own? Are we prepared to stay the course?
  We must act quickly, we must act decisively, and we must pass this 
funding as requested by the President. The United States must continue 
to show leadership in the world as we have since our inception. We must 
not allow our support of democracy and freedom to be compromised.
  Last year, more than three-quarters of this body voted to support 
going to war with Iraq with the understanding we would not stop until 
we were victorious. We are not finished yet. More needs to be done. I 
ask my colleagues for quick approval of the supplemental funds for the 
sake of the security of the Iraqi people and the safety of our troops 
on the ground.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1802

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. This afternoon the Senate is taking action to solve a 
problem for our soldiers serving in Iraq. Senator Coleman, myself, 
Senator Stevens, and others have offered an amendment that deals with 
the cost of travel soldiers experience when they are going on a 15-day 
leave from the country of Iraq.
  The life of a soldier is a heavy burden--in harm's way, away from 
home for long periods of time. It is also a heavy burden for their 
families. The decision by the Pentagon to provide a 15-day leave for 
those soldiers who are serving in Iraq to be able to come home to visit 
their families is a wonderful decision. It is the right thing to do.
  But there has been a bureaucratic snag in this with respect to some 
rules that have said the soldiers on this leave will be dropped off at 
some central points in the U.S.--Baltimore, BWI Airport, Los Angeles--
and then they must buy their own airplane ticket back to their home 
base. That is not right nor is it fair.
  The amendment today says to those soldiers your travel will be 
covered, leaving Iraq to this country, all the way back to your home 
base. That is the right thing to do.
  This amendment will be welcome news to the soldiers and welcome news 
to their families. This amendment is one small way for this country to 
continue to say thank you to those who serve our country.
  Once again, I don't think it was ever intended that a soldier, asked 
to serve in the country of Iraq and then given a 15-day leave, should 
have to pay for part of the travel to get back home. Many of these 
soldiers can't afford it. They are living on soldier pay. They and 
their families very much look forward to these 15 days that will 
reunite them once again, and they ought not have to be burdened by 
having to buy an airplane ticket from Baltimore or Los Angeles. After 
all, that wasn't their point of departure. They left home to serve this 
country in Iraq and this country ought to say to them, for this 
furlough, for this opportunity to go back to your family, we will pay 
for the ticket back to your home.
  That is the obligation of this country. This Congress on a bipartisan 
basis this afternoon said to those soldiers, Thank you. We are pleased 
to fix this problem--a solution that I believe is going to be very 
welcome news to the U.S. soldiers and their families.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the time running on the quorum call be counted 
equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Leahy 
amendment.
  The amendment is very straightforward. It puts the State Department 
in charge of reconstruction of Iraq. It says that we ought to relieve 
our military of the burden of running this nationbuilding program, and 
we ought to put it in the hands of the U.S. Government agency that has 
successfully run such programs for decades.
  The President recognized the wisdom of such a decision last fall when 
he directed the State Department to conduct its year-long study called 
``The Future of Iraq.'' The study apparently cost $5 million. It 
convened countless meetings with independent experts on Iraq and on 
post-conflict reconstruction. And, unfortunately, the study's findings 
were completely ignored.
  According to a remarkable story in this week's Newsweek, when it came 
time to send the reconstruction team into Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld 
ordered the State Department expert who had spent the previous year 
preparing the United States Government for post-Saddam Iraq to stay 
home. Apparently, his absence meant something. Another member of the 
reconstruction team who did go to Iraq came home about a month later 
and wrote a remarkable article for the Washington Post. He offered a 
series of stories about his time in Iraq to demonstrate ``how flawed 
policy and incompetent administration have marred the follow-up to the 
brilliant military campaign to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime.''
  Unfortunately, the civilian leadership continues to rely on overly 
rosey scenarios and unrealistic plans while the risk to our troops 
grows.
  Last week, we were presented a plan by Ambassador Bremer that was 
supposed to set everything right in the reconstruction effort. His plan 
lays out five security goals--which are to be completed by October. Let 
me walk through just three of them.
  The Bremer plan will ``locate, secure, and eliminate WMD 
capability.'' Yet, today the lead man on the search for weapons of mass 
destruction was to brief Congress on his efforts to date. According to 
press reports, he will report that he has not found any unconventional 
weapons.
  The Bremer plan will also ``eliminate munitions caches, unexploded 
ordinance and excess military equipment.'' Yet the New York Times 
reported last

[[Page 24051]]

weekend that 650,000 tons of ammunition remains at thousands of sites 
used by the former Iraqi security forces, and that much of it has not 
been secured and will take years to destroy.
  The Bremer plan will also ``defeat internal armed threats'' by 
October. Just today in Iraq, our commanding general on the ground in 
Iraq, said that our troops are facing increasingly sophisticated 
attacks and it would take years before Iraq could maintain internal 
security without backup.
  The Leahy amendment simply says that we have had enough of 
unrealistic plans and inexperienced planners. It says we are not 
comfortable that our troops--overstretched and at risk--are being 
forced to lead the nationbuilding effort in Iraq. It says what every 
independent assessment of our Iraq effort has urged us to do: put the 
experienced reconstruction experts at the State Department--not our 
military--in charge of nationbuilding.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Leahy amendment, and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am informed it will now be possible to 
yield back all the time on the Leahy amendment. The distinguished 
Senator from Vermont is here in the Chamber.
  I yield any remaining time on our side on the Leahy amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield our time.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table the Leahy amendment and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to note the absence of a 
quorum so that we can just finalize some comments before we make an 
announcement about the remainder of the evening.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it would be my purpose to try to see if 
we could have a specific time on this vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Six o'clock.
  Mr. STEVENS. Six o'clock?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this vote that has just 
been ordered occur at 6 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in just a minute we will start the vote 
on the Leahy amendment, but I want the Senate to be on notice following 
this amendment there will be a vote on a Federal judge. That will be 
announced during the period right after this vote.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent following the 
scheduled vote, the Senate immediately proceed to executive session and 
to consecutive votes on the following nominations on today's Executive 
Calendar: Calendar Nos. 382, 383, 385, and 386.
  I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally 
divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to each vote; 
further, that following the votes, the motions to reconsider be laid 
upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's 
action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, I take just a moment to 
thank the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I 
know how strongly he feels--and I understand the reasons he feels this 
way because I share them--that these are very important matters that 
should not be relegated necessarily to voice votes. But he has, once 
again, demonstrated a real appreciation of Senators' schedules and his 
understanding of the need for other Senators to offer amendments on 
this very critical bill we are dealing with. And in order to 
accommodate Senators who have amendments to offer, once again, he has 
agreed with my request that we do a rollcall on the first vote and then 
voice votes on the other ones.
  So I just want to publicly acknowledge his cooperation and his 
assistance on this matter and thank him since he is currently in the 
Chamber. But I appreciate that.
  I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, with the indulgence of the two leaders, I 
appreciate very much what the Democratic leader has said. He and I, and 
the distinguished majority leader, and Senator Hatch, and others, want 
to move judges whenever we have consensus. And I think we have shown we 
have.
  In the 17 months we were in charge of the Senate, when we were the 
majority, we confirmed 100 of President Bush's nominees to the Federal 
judiciary. In the 16 months the Republicans have been in control, this 
will make another 64 we have confirmed. So it is around 164 between the 
2 parties. It is a record that has not been matched for years and years 
and years.
  But I am happy to accommodate the two leaders. I know the problems 
the two leaders have. I would not wish them on anybody else. The two 
leaders have been trying to schedule things, so I am happy to try to 
accommodate them and all Members.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, just for clarification, we will have the 
vote on the Leahy amendment now, followed by a rollcall vote on one of 
the judicial nominees, followed by a voice vote on the next three 
judicial nominees.
  In the meantime, we will be discussing the schedule for later this 
evening. Amendments will be in order tonight. They will be laid down. 
We will talk about the voting schedule here shortly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, before we go to the vote, I know our 
colleagues will be coming to the floor to vote on these two matters.
  The distinguished majority leader and I have been talking about the 
schedule tomorrow. And without in any way preempting him and the 
decisions he will make about the schedule, there is a possibility that 
we will not be in session tomorrow but that we will have a window for 
Senators to offer amendments.
  The only reason I say that now is if Senators would contemplate the 
offering of an amendment tomorrow, I would like them, at least on the 
Democratic side, to consult with Senator Reid and myself during these 
votes so that we have an understanding of how many of those amendments 
might be offered. We would only have about a 2-hour window. But if 
Senators are interested, during these votes I hope they will come to 
either Senator Reid or myself to discuss the queuing of those 
amendments and whether or not we will have an opportunity to consider 
them all.
  So I hope we will use the time available to us for discussion of 
that. And we will have more to say about that sequencing once those 
votes have been completed.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1803

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 1803. 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) and 
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 374 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici

[[Page 24052]]


     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--42

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Graham (FL)
     Lieberman
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________